The cunning and skill displayed by the crews and captains of the Auxiliary Cruiser captains was absolutely mind boggling. They were more feared than the German surface fleet at the time.
Well German surface would be better if hitler didn’t command it. Kriegsmarine have amazing plan for the surface fleet that they don’t want to use merchant and submarine only in war. They want to go back to ww1 Germany naval doctrine like superior firepower and aircraft but hitler stopped them and made them focus on submarine and merchant only. It’s funny that they look down on hitler because he is a corporal and never experience command.
Farhan Tbs I wouldn't rule it out but I have other projects going on, and some of the mods that the ships depended on (kerbpaint, especially) don't work in the newer versions.
Our revered English teacher, an Afrika Korps tank commander, had been taken pow after his tank was knocked out by Australian troops. He would find himself sharing a pow camp in Australia with survivors of the Kormoran. Recounting their tales never failed to capture our imagination; how they managed to keep the Sydney from opening fire by hoisting confusing flag signals while they were getting into a more favourable, closer position. Also of the dehydrated survivors of Kormoran beginning to hallucinate they were in a lush, green meadow with grazing cows.
I cant shake the bad feeling there is a horrible reason there were, oddily, no Australian survivors out of what 680 crewmen? I think Kormoran crew was ordered to kill every Australian, to leave noone alive. Wasnt that done if deemed crucial by these “commerce raiders?”. Captain Detmers i think assumed was 20,000 km from a reliably safe port, right? Japan not yet in the war.Britain ruled the waves. US would not be kind to Kormoran. Kormoran had barnacles&engine problems, hits from the Sydney, with repairscould sustain 15knots~24kmh, 580km/day… Detmers is looking at 30 days til home, and if RAN survivors were being hunted by the RN and the RAN, if word got out, they’d be hounded desperately. The Kormoran id bet decided to leave no survivors alive. there was no drifting away. that smells like total cra. . Id say The Kapitan told the crew they had no choice, with safety only if they quietly made it back all the way to France or Germany. The Germans lit the floating Australian survivors up with the 20mm’s and small arms til all were dead. i’d be highly skeptical of any other answer, that explains how no not a single Australian survived.
@@foxlies0106 complete speculation. Because of the surprising attack most of the crew on deck died very fast. Then a big fire on the whole ship killed the rest of the crew on deck, the lifeboats burned also. The crew under deck had lttle chance to survive, if somebody came out the sharks did the rest.
@@foxlies0106you try hitting a life raft at 6,000+ meters while there’s hot flaming oil dripping around you. And purely in the interest of self preservation. You wouldn’t attempt to commit a war crime at sea when you know the chances of you being captured by the nation whoms sailors you just massacred is high and probably your best chance at survival.
Peace to them all. I'm a navy veteran. I'm sure more than one got off the ship. Being in open water, no food or drinkable water, exposed to the elements, and of course sharks, they succumbed one by one until none remained. So terribly sad. Bear in mind too, the majority of a ship's crew is under 25 years of age. They died before they ever had a chance to live. That is Very Sad Indeed!
Complacent and inexperienced at sea. He underestimated what looked like a merchant not realizing till too late that she had armament nearly equal to Sydney's. That and being so close the Sydney's armour was worthless.
@@Deevo037 Complacent YES but Not experienced? He has been in the Navy since WWI. And while this was his first actual command he had served as the XO on HMAS Canberra for at least 5 years. His complacency cost him his ship and the lives of his crew. Frankly had he lived he should have been relieved of command.
@Darren Walsh Mate, there was protocol he should have followed but didn't. He had vastly superior rangefinders and guns there was no need to close to the ranges he did. It absolutely was complacency and inexperience of the Captain that caused those sailors to lose thier lives that day.
A lesson in combat. Never get too close to an unidentified ship. If I was in Sydney’s situation I would more than likely have fired some warning shots at the Komoran. If they fired back then they’re the enemy. The captain was being very careless in this encounter.
I am Aussie and proud of our military present and past but you got to hand it to the Jerries in this instance in that it took some guts to take on a warship knowing full well they were out gunned and outclassed.They could have went to "all stop" and struck a flag of surrender whilst at the same time opening the seacocks to scuttle the Kormoran and spent the rest of the war kicking back in one of our POW camps where they would have been well looked after.Full marks to the Aussies as well for despite the Sydney being mortally wounded they attempted to ram the Kormoran. So I say an Iron Cross to each German and a Victoria Cross to each Australian.
Quite right. Kudos too to the crew of X turret who independently fought back despite the chaos around them and managed single-handedly to inflict enough damage on Kormoran to eventually sink her.
Too many comments by people that have not read up on the facts. 1. The captains of the ships of the commonwealth navies were under orders to try and capture axis merchant ship. This included both commerece raiders and blockade runners(I will get back to the blockade runners). It was not believed that lightly armed commerce raider would dare to engage in battle with a warship and that it would try and scuttle itself if it could not escape. The reason for this order was the merchant lossed during the Battle of the Atlantic. The captured ships were needed to replace allied shipping. Any allied captain stationed so far away from the action in the Atlantic would have taken these orders very seriously. These order were rescinded just some days after the admiralty received news of the sinking. 2. The Kormoran was not obviously suspicious. There were inconsistencies regarding the information the she gave regarding her cover the "Straat Malakka" as they did not concur with the information in the HMAS Sydney's ship registry. However clerical errors happened all the times regarding these things. Also the Kormoran did act confusing and weird when approached by the HMAS Sydney. But we should not forget that Kormoran was disguised a civilian ship. That meant that the enemy also was meant to believe it had a civilian crew. A civilian crew could not be expected to be as disciplined and well trained as a navy crew. Also the Kormoran even tried to create the impression that she was suspicious of the HMAS Australia, eventually sending out distress signals. Confusion and identification incidents happened all the time when naval ships and non-convoy merchants met(the merchants that were sailing convoy's during the Battle of Atlantic would have had a lot better crews, yes), and this was in relatively peaceful waters. To shoot warning shots everytime such things happened would have been way excessive. 3. We should not forget about blockade runners. These would have been unarmed fast axis merchants that tried to evade the allied blockade in order to bring home important materials eg rubber from neutral and friendly nations. 4. The Kormoran had an excellent crew and an excellent captain. The crew of the Kormoran was disciplined Kriegsmarine personell, its captain was obviously excellent who managed to keep his head cool and make intelligent and duty bound decisions. Given previous points the Captain of the HMAS Sydney was at least one step behind already from the beginning and the crew of Kormoran was not going to let him catch up. 5. The Captain of the Kormoran did act almost suicidally. The Kormoran did sink eventually, and if the HMAS Sydney would have had a little more luck with its shots the crew and the Captain of the Kormoran would have followed the ship to the bottom like the crew of HMAS Sydney did. Neither the Admiralty not the Captain of the HMAS Sydney would have expected such a risky move.
Why the big effort to defend Sydney's captain? All that was necessary to identify Kormoran could have been done at a much greater distance. Sydney's aircraft could have been launched to assist. Sydney should have been at a much greater state of readiness. There's enough negligence for disciplinary proceedings at least.
@@FairladyS130 I would not say the effort is great. It took me a very short while write. I have no idea how well disguised the guns on Kormoran was, nor I do not know the routines and procedure for launching planes. So maybe you are right, however I do not adress it in my comment, nor do I find that any comments have adressed it before. My guess is that commerce raiders as the Kormoran did have a high readiness for dealing with recon aircraft, would have been able to disguise its weapons and that the captain of HMAS Sydney was afraid of scaring the Kormoran away. As I said, the main problem was that the commonwealth navies had orders to capture the commerce raiders and that these orders in turn made the captains take unforeseen risks.
It was broad daylight, five minutes till four in the afternoon. I hate to say it but the Captain of HMAS Sydney made a huge mistake, closing to only 1,300 meters (point blank range) of a suspiciously acting vessel. He was very lucky that the initial broadside from the Kormoran missed. His own initial salvo in response should have decimated the Kormoran's armament.....but he missed!!! That tells me that his crew was poorly trained in gunnery. At just 1,300 meters, all his gunners had to do was point and shoot, the target would have been as big as a barn door. Well, in the end, he did sink the raider, but at the cost of his entire crew. 645 brave souls lost their lives because their Captain was incompetent. R.I.P.
@@academyofnaturaljustice8939 it had a handful of 6 inch guns, it was not designed to sink battlecruisers lol. Basically a destroyers armament on a non military hull.
The crew were veterans that had sunk at least 2 italian ships in the mediterranean. Burnett was likely I fine commander that during his service with the HMAS Sydney in the peaceful waters around Australia and the east indies had more reason to suspect some kind of mess up with ship registries or amongst the crew of the "suspicious ship". These things were pretty common. Also there were orders given out to the naval captains to try and capture blockade runners in order to replace merchant losses in the battle of atlantic. Blockade runners was fast and unarmed Axis civilian merchant ships that was tasked with trying to trade special and rare materials with neutral or friendly countries. These orders were rescinded just some days after the news of the sinking of HMAS Sydney. Burnett made a mistake, but it was not huge. There was a lot of bad luck involved.
What a waste of a fine warship and so many young men. The Captain of the Sydney was probably lucky that he died or else he probably would have been court-martialed.
i was reading about this- wasn't it protocol at the time to close with unidentified merchants and try to capture them in case of them being armed raiders? that can result in the reasoning why Capt. Burnett got so close to the Kormoran before it identified itself
@@basilpunton5702 She was - Sydney actually fired a full broadside before Kormoran got off a shot. It just missed the bridge but took out some lifeboats - exactly the targets you'd be pre-aimed at if you thought you'd found a raider supply ship and were trying to capture it by boarding. Trying to board, is literally the only reason Sydney would have gotten so close beam on, instead of staying fine off the stern like she had been the whole time. One of the German crew mentions they were fully closed up with all armament, but when they went beam on the 4inch guns and boats crews were running around that part of the ship, but the main armament was still trained. That sounds a lot like a boarding party at the same time the 'what's your secret signal' was sent. Shutting down the Walrus also suggests they probably thought it was a supply ship as ALL of the previous raiders had opened fire at long range at warships and tried to run. Kormoran was the first to play dumb and it worked perfectly. Missing the first salvo might have been trigger happy gunners if it was a new ship, but Sydney was battle hardened so I doubt it. More likely they saw all the activity on deck after the signal, and thought it was a scuttling attempt, so went with their original targets, and were then probably very surprised to have 5.9 inch salvos suddenly taking out everything vital. Half the crew were probably dead/wounded/trapped within 10 minutes. Approx 70 x 5.9 inch hits were recorded on the wreck, plus a torpedo and 37mm anti tank shells raking everything for an hour. If any of the Sydney's crew were capable of abandoning ship and surviving a few hours they'd have had some small consolation knowing Kormoran just blew up
I find it interesting that so many people forget that procedures and such are often not followed due to the variability of human behavior. The Australian Captain might have been fatigued or ill and it might have affected his judgment...or he may have not been a great Captain, he might have been lazy and ineffiicent, a know it all or perhaps he was distracted, or possibly he was arrogant and cocksure and thought he knew more than his superiors. Anything could have come into play, and whatever prompted him to be careless, just came at the wrong time at the wrong place. Of such how tragedies are made. It sometimes isn't what we don't know, but what we think we know but actually don't that gets us in the most trouble.
Captain Burnett was really at fault for the loss of his ship, his unbelievable stupidity is approaching so closely to a unknown ship not responding to calls was a unbelievable reckless thing to do especially when not a full battle stations. Captain Detmers tactics were flawless and were it not for a very unlucky hit his ship could have survived. Trading a cargo ship and only a few losses for a light cruiser with its entire crew was a good trade for the Germans.
Don't forget prior actions- the Germans traded a cargo ship and light losses for a light cruiser, 10 other Allied ships sunk, and an 11th Allied ship captured. Makes it an excellent exchange for the Germans.
Captain of HMAS Sydney was either a 100% Bozo to get so close to a unknown ship, or Kormoran had the secret code of Straat Malakka which confirmed it was a friendly.
Sorry for the late reply-the crew of the Kormoran didn't know the secret code, so they opened fire. Here's an analysis the Australian Government did on why the HMAS Sydney approached so closely. www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/FinalReport/Report/Chapter%2019.pdf
Saturnian Blue Thanks for that document. My Bozo comment was to illustrate an unlikely extreme. A question better put is what information did the Captain receive that put Sydney in that position. Was it a combination of procedures as per document. Council from his officers and/or the Captains own experiences? We can confirm from the German engagement accounts that they are mostly accurate against the Sydney's wreck condition, and little reason to lie too much as at the time not knowing there would be no Sydney survivors confirmed by wreck locations. if one was looking at the top 5 reasons the Sydney came as close as they did. I still feel a code confirmation is a possibility, as the Sydney still had her guns trained on them, so mindset was not completely friendlies, but Germans did report seeing sailors casually smoking on Sydney just before they attacked. Doesn't sound like 100% battle stations. No one will never know 100% until the afterlife. Thanks for posting.
Captain Joseph Burnett took over from John Collins after Collins was transferred to Singapore (months before the Pacific campaign against Japan had started) as Assistant Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief. HMAS Sydney was the only ship Burnett had taken command (he had spent most of his career on bases) so mostly had 'book smarts' rather than experience. Burnett was following well-used tactics which many had used in the past. If Collins had been on the Sydney, things may be very different (far more experienced on ships).
Sydney’s captain was a fool, although it could be said, he was acting under political orders to capture “enemy” merchant ships intact. But by closing the range as he did was very stupid and cost the lives of not only himself, but those of his crew also, and not the lease a very valuable warship.
Since the loss of Sydney, there has been a proliferation of theories that Kormoran did not act alone. Among the suggestions put forward in this inquiry are that a Japanese submarine was involved in or responsible for the sinking
Im pretty sure only the two ships named were involved but when and if the german Captain hoisted the german flag is debatable. Still, the Australian captain was grossly incompetent to put his ship in such a vulnerable position. No doubt he should of been court martialed if he had survived.
I dont see how closing the range cost the Sydney its 'advantage in fire power', as they both were armed w/ 5.9 in. guns. It certainly brought them into effective range of the Kormoran's topedo's.
The Germans did not have a centralized fire control system which made accurate long-range shots difficult. Also Sydney was armored which gave her the advantage at long range, this was nullified because the engagement happened at a range that allowed the German guns to penetrate.
It's absurd that no one survived the encounter from the Sydney..considering that only 20 plus Germans died. I will never believe all hands were lost only by the German raider, nothing more to say really
i agree. I think the Germans shot the bejesus out every single Australian survivor, before and after the Sydney sank, to buy time. The Jerries knew, if they could repair the ship, they’d have to sail 20,000 km (1month?) back home to France or Germany, through Waters patrolled or controlled by the British Empire. There wasn’t really any other safe port for them, especially since Japan was not yet in the war. If word got out of the battle and how he’s gone, they knew they would be hunted unceasingly, at 16knots max?, all the way back to Europe. The Kormoran captain needed every Australian dead and as much secrecy as they could get if they could repair their ship, and sneak quietly back home even though Britain ruled the waves. TheJerries would’ve told themselves they had to kill every Australian. Apparently this “Commerce raider“ technique is lawful in war? if you raise the flag just b4 you shoot? but it smells to me like murder, slaughter, cruel and treacherous, and I find it disgusting.
The thing I don’t understand is that the Australian navy KNEW about the kormoran being in the area and the captain still approached a suspicious vessel so closely. Sheer incompetence on the captains part.
KSP refers to Kerbal Space Program. It's basically a video game that enables you to construct you own space programme, like building spaceships, space stations, and so on. But various modifications to the game have been built and released over the years (like the one used in this video), so now there's more to the game than just space-related gameplays.
Yhe most successful bunch of Pirates vs a naval flagship. Came down to the use of trickery and element of surprise. I give credit to the Komoran and yes if the Sydney had known it was a mistake to get too close.
As a lifelong resident of Canada, I've been a civilian all my life. I've never been a member of any branch of the Canadian Forces and this is strictly my personal opinion. If Captain Burnett had survived this encounter with Kormoran, would he have been threatened with a court martial from Canberra? I was under the impression (from reading about this firefight between HMAS Sydney and Kormoran) that Sydney had NO guns aimed at Kormoran AND that Burnett had NOT ordered (100o/o) general quarters. Ultimately no crew from HMAS Sydney survived and I guess nobody will ever know what really happened. Understanding the perspective of orders to capture Enigma machines (IF any might be on board), I still have a difficult time understanding how Captain Burnett basically threw his advantage away by getting so close to Kormoran.🤔🤔🤔
No. Kormoran was a merchant vessel with hidden weapons, all warships have some degree of protection, ie:armour, her only protection lay in not being recognised by any enemy warships.
The only thing I find unrealistic is the fact that you don't need to elevate the guns much. Yes I know it's short range but even at long range the guns barely elevate so in real life if it was like that ship guns would have horrible range and yes, it's not your fault. Just wanted to let people know
As a 'real' Soldier, I find the concept of an illegal 'ruse' to explain why the German Captain could sink the Sydney laughable. In Total War there is no real illegal ruses, as anything goes to win. Yes, people might say it is not sporting, but this is usually said by those who lose. War is Hell, & the only thing that matters is winning... at all costs. Thoughts?
One serious omission. The chinese kitchen staff from Kormoran all testified that Kormoran fired an electric wakeless torpedo before unmasking. This struck the bow of sydney blowing the roof off A turret and jamming B turret. In All likelihood, this was a war crime and explains how an armed merchant cruiser could overwhelm a modern cruiser with a battle hardened crew.
I have not heard of this. The consensus (including by the Australian Department of Defense) is that two torpedoes were fired by the Kormoran upon unmasking, one of which struck the bow.
@@saturnianblue4376 In addition to regular above water torpedo tubes, why do you think that Kormoran carried a pair of submerged tubes equipped with wakeless electric torpedoes? These submerged tubes were ambush weapons and the starboard one was almost certainly fired 84 seconds before the ship unmasked. These were also relatively slow 30 kn weapons. At 1300 meters range, these would have taken 84 seconds to hit the Sydney. In 84 seconds of action, Sydney should have fired 11 full salvos (66 shells). At point blank range (1300 meters) None of these would have missed and Kormoran would have been shattered. So one must ask the obvious question. Why was Kormoran not struck by 66 shells before A and B turrets were out out of action? The only answer is, Sydney was not firing her guns. Note that the torpedo hit the bow and disabled both forward turrets. Only X turret was able to hit Kormoran 3 times with one lucky hit causing an engine room fire that could not be controlled. Sydney had a well trained and battle hardened crew. Quite clearly, Kormoran must have fired that torpedo before running up the German flag. That makes it a war crime.
@@Will_CH1 For being a significant detail, there is no evidence that I know of that this is the case. The submerged torpedoes had static mounts aimed 135 degrees from the bow - Kormoran did not make an obviously suspicious turn away from the Sydney to launch underwater torpedoes, which could only be launched if the ship was travelling under 3 knots. The first salvoes from the Kormoran quickly destroyed the bridge, the gun direction tower and the front turrets (instead of a torpedo), disabling them. Such damage represents a severe impairment in firepower capability, and can be seen in the wreckage to have been caused by shell fire from Kormoran. The only salvo the Sydney fired before this passed over Kormoran. In the time the Sydney's aft turrets regained the ability to fire, Kormoran was able to land devastating hits on the ship, and Sydney's aft turrets ultimately jammed, preventing them from firing more.
@@saturnianblue4376 That is the line of the official findings but there are glaring deficiencies in the findings. For instance, the torpedoes were guided by gyroscope and move onto the collision course after launching. They were capable of being fired on an opposite heading to a target and then turning around onto the course dialled into the gyroscope. Hence the angle of the tube is irrelevant. The rapid firing was the defence used by the Germans to explain how they disabled sydney however the turret captains in Sydney were trained to switch to local control if communications with the director tower were lost. At one stage during the Battle of Sunda straight, Sydney's sister ship Perth was firing her main guns in local control because they were overwhelmed with the number of targets . Sydney's crew would have done the same if they could. I think this is a case where the Germans were lucky that the navy office did not want to admit that they were practicing "Anti Scuttling" procedures which was the code name for attempting to board blockade runners and seize the enigma machine and rotor settings (The rotor settings for the pacific theatre were never recovered and pacific codes never broken by ultra)
@@Will_CH1 To switch from director control to either group or local control took several minutes by personnel onboard, which explains the delay. It is also important to keep in mind that the HMAS Sydney had not used either mode aside from practicing (Sunda Strait was months later).
bro please make more videos bro please bro ill do anything bro please bro ill be your gf bro come on dude jus make more man dude i need that hit bro just one more video man
so..what happened to crew members of the Kormoran claiming their ship couldn't fire torpedoes while moving? if you are going by their account this video is debunked
There's definite proof the torpedoes were launched and did hit the target, as evidenced by the wreckage. I think the sailors are referring to the two underwater torpedo mounts on the aft of the ship - the mounts that fired the torpedoes in the battle were on the deck, I think.
there is yet so much un-truth regarding the real circumstances and since we only have the German account of the scenario it concerns me that perhaps they are holding secrets that they may feel like they have no impetus to divulge..and soon..most of them will be gone from this world..with that in mind though 645 people on the Sydney died and thei families will never get closure..they will never have an answer to what happened to a beloved family member..circumstances are circumstances but I find the faith in false integrity and dishonesty sad when it comes at the expense of people who have no interest in discrediting and simply want answers
I agree entirety. The evidence in regards to what happened after shots were fired is objective, however how the Germans managed to gain the initial advantage before shots were fired and without speculation the account is first hand evidence of the Germans, we have no secondary account from the Australians and even if we assume that a raiding vessel and its crew had no reason to be dishonest, and lets be honest is counter intuitive of the nature of a raiding vessel we have no right to give their account any level of credibility that serves as evidence.
@@gperrin9050 That's war, man. The families know what they have to: their SO's were killed in action, while fighting for their country. If you want to say kormoran didnt put up the war ensign before firing, I can say Sidney's skipper acted dumb coming so close to an unidentified vessel.
Generic Name I did build the HMS Hood, from a project that would have recreated the Battle of the Denmark Strait (sadly unfinished due to a ton of problems). gfycat.com/WarpedConfusedErmine
Probably just logistics. There were millions of Allied troops to be returned home and a huge number of Axis troops as well. A troop carrier might carry 15,000 men but the trip from Australia to Europe was a good month, 2 for a return trip. 6 trips a year is only 90,000 men transported per year per ship.
@@saturnianblue4376 1. Early 1947 (say) is only 18mo. after the end of war in the Pacific. 2. I am probably giving the RAN more credit for intelligence than due but it is possible they were hoping to find paperwork in Germany or even Japan on tactics to be employed . Should something turn up post the release of the sailors, the long arm of Australia could never collar them - specifically the captain and snr officers.
@@JohnJ469 You are correct, returing German and Italian POW were low priority. Moving Allied troops and Allied POW were the priority, either to a new location or home.
The captain of the HMAS Sydney was way too complacent. They got too close and were hit by torpedoes at point blank range. Even though she was a converted merchantman she had large caliber guns trained on the bridge and fire control directors of the Sydney.
Her armament was almost on par with HMAS Sydney, which from such a small range had lost it's armor advantage. The Kormoran also had the element of surprise.
Because during WW2 Germans are masters of commerce raiding using disguised vessels with light-cruiser firepower. Another legend is the Commerce Raider Atlantis.
With the knowledge at the time of the effectiveness of German Q ships/commerce raiders, I am surprised that the Sydney did not keep her distance and relied on wireless rather than reading flags as well.
The “Pinguin” almost sunk HMS Cornwall, which was a heavy cruiser with 8” guns. Holed her with a surprise shot, knocking out her electrical system. Another round hit her seaplane causing a fire. Cornwall had to steam away to perform emergency repairs before returning and bombarding Pinguin at range.
I saw a completely different version of event on another video last night. Some members of the German crew said they had fired an electric torpedo from an underwater torpedo tube that knocked out the forward turrets on the Sydney before the Germans dropped the disguise and raised their true colours. It was described as a sucker punch. And it was said to have taken four hours for the Sydney to go down. Why no survivers?
There are few points to add from different point of view. Apparently one German sailor recalling that their 20mm cannons were raking the Sydney's at the beginning of the battle, resulting in massive causalities aboard the Sydney. And lastly, it apparently taken up to 7 days before someone realized that something was up with the Sydney not making it back to port. Apparently the ship has a history of being late and someone just assumed the Sydney was running late
@@greenfingernaildirt356 not sure how that is blatant propaganda. Here is where I got my information. It was not possible to identify the damage to Sydney from the smaller calibre shell impacts from the photographs. However, Kormoran’s survivors’ accounts state thatboththe20 mm and 3.7 cm guns peppered the upper decks and the bridge structure of Sydney. Kormoran could bring to bear three of her five 20 mm guns at a time, each with a conservative firing rate of 100 rounds per minute (its design firing rate is stated as 240 rounds per minute). It would be reasonable to suggest that they would have sprayed Sydney with between 500 to 1000 rounds per gun during the encounter. These rounds would have been directed towards the exposed personnel and equipment on the upper decks. Kormoran’s survivors have also stated they fired their 3.7 cm guns towards the bridge and superstructure regions. This gun had a more effective range than the 20 mm gun and had a rate of fire of 80 rounds per minute for the 0.7 kg AP shell. It is reasonable to suggest that Kormoran may have hit Sydney at least 400 times during the encounter, which would have added another 300 kg of steel fragments distributed around the upper decks and further added to the number of personnel critically wounded. Source: HMAS Sydney II Commission of Inquiry Report on Technical Aspects of the Sinking of HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran Defence Science and Technology Organisation Maritime Platforms Division #Royal Institution of Naval Architects Australian Division Link: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/DSTO/DSTO.003.0001_LR.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjUrp3ZwoHjAhVmHDQIHcG1CswQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw29EdS-GTMwms3SKc4o-3qM
The disguise did work until the secret signal was requested. If the captain of the Sydney had seen the Kriegsmarine flag rise he would have had amble time to aim, lock on and fire. At the distance of 1300m (basically point blank and with the use of binoculars) history would have had a different outcome. Despite this the Sydney did get the last hoorah out of the fight. Yes all on board perished they did manage to take one more enemy ship down with them.
No actually, it was fucked because of a few things. 1. It closed to a short range-- This negated its long range accuracy and armor advantage. 2. The Kormoran had the element of surprise 3. The Kormoran was almost as well armed as the Sydney 4. The Kormoran was able to deny the Sydney of most deck-based weaponry by use of its 37/20mm cannons. If the Sydney hadn't closed to such a short range? It probably would've won the fight, easily. After the loss of the Sydney there was a new 'rule' put in place where they weren't allowed to close on suspicious ships.
The raider “Pinguin” did great damage to HMS Cornwall, a heavy cruiser, in a similar encounter, even when the cruiser did not approach as close as Sydney. Cornwall had to withdraw to repair battle damage before returning to sink the raider.
Well. that's the difference between theory and reality. Often, the first guns fired are the ones that win. KORMORAN inflicted heavy--and immediate--damage on SYDNEY.
SMS short for "His Majesty's Ship" in German. Perhaps interestingly, SMS Emden captured the Ryazan on August 4, 1914, and converted this first WWI prize taken from the Russian Empire into the armed merchant raider SMS Comoran -- the namesake of the auxilliary cruiser described in this animation.
The guns were 150mm(5.9in.) which were close enough to be called 6in. for the American public because we are too stupid to convert mm to inches, and then they just rounded up. So you are wrong and probably too dumb to know you are stupid. Please get your head out your ass and maybe your sh!t for brains will go away.
@@kevinkliegl9315 ; That was the size of German guns. Dutch too. 150mm is 5.9". Both American & British ships were built with 152mm. Full 6" diameter bore. Read Jane's Fighting Ships of World War Two. It's in there.
The truth about the sinking of the HMAS Sydney, all the crew, except 3 were lost, is that the Sydney was sabotaged. An explosive charge was placed near the magazine and detonated. This caused a massive explosion, breaking the Sydney in 2. The kormoran, couldn't have sunk the HMAS Sydney, the german raider was more than 2000 miles to the north, not off Carnarvon, near Indonesia. The Sydney was well out of range of the Kormoran's guns. There were 3 survivors who managed to clamber about a survival raft. The raft drifted with the currents to the north west, finally beaching on Christmas Island. When it beached at Christmas Island only 2 of the survivors remained, one had died from injuries and he was pushed off the raft. One was IRA/irish, a stow away who had helped set the explosive charge near the Sydney's magazine. The other survivor as an Able Seaman who provided vital information about the IRA/irishmans involvement, the bomber, and the fate and sudden sinking of the HMAS Sydney, with a loss of nearly 1280 lives. To the Navy WW II survivors, the question is why the secrecy and lies about the Sydney's sinking? Why indeed?
No! Kormoran an Sydney had a Go! And It was essentially a draw! Both ships went under, but since Sidneys chain if command was destroyed at first wolley, they suffered the most. Kormoran still had a grip of events ,.all the way to the end! There are really no winners here! Only a sad story of brave men on both sides, trying there best at war. R.I.P all sailors.....
I think the British need to learn how to aim. at 1300 meters how could the Miss so much? I guess that means that losing their gun directors wasn't much of a loss!
The cunning and skill displayed by the crews and captains of the Auxiliary Cruiser captains was absolutely mind boggling. They were more feared than the German surface fleet at the time.
Well German surface would be better if hitler didn’t command it. Kriegsmarine have amazing plan for the surface fleet that they don’t want to use merchant and submarine only in war. They want to go back to ww1 Germany naval doctrine like superior firepower and aircraft but hitler stopped them and made them focus on submarine and merchant only. It’s funny that they look down on hitler because he is a corporal and never experience command.
This is an impressive recreation using ksp, with the only bad thing about it being the frame rate.
Farhan Tbs Thank you. I only have a laptop amd sadly even fast forwarded the frame rate isn't very good.
Saturnian Blue are you thinking about finishing the recreation of the battle of the Denmark strait?
Farhan Tbs I wouldn't rule it out but I have other projects going on, and some of the mods that the ships depended on (kerbpaint, especially) don't work in the newer versions.
Wow, I was under the impression that people from my country, the USA, were the only ones who bought into that lie
@@redram5150 What lie?
Our revered English teacher, an Afrika Korps tank commander, had been taken pow after his tank was knocked out by Australian troops. He would find himself sharing a pow camp in Australia with survivors of the Kormoran. Recounting their tales never failed to capture our imagination; how they managed to keep the Sydney from opening fire by hoisting confusing flag signals while they were getting into a more favourable, closer position. Also of the dehydrated survivors of Kormoran beginning to hallucinate they were in a lush, green meadow with grazing cows.
I cant shake the bad feeling there is a horrible reason there were, oddily, no Australian survivors out of what 680 crewmen? I think Kormoran crew was ordered to kill every Australian, to leave noone alive. Wasnt that done if deemed crucial by these “commerce raiders?”. Captain Detmers i think assumed was 20,000 km from a reliably safe port, right? Japan not yet in the war.Britain ruled the waves. US would not be kind to Kormoran. Kormoran had barnacles&engine problems, hits from the Sydney, with repairscould sustain 15knots~24kmh, 580km/day… Detmers is looking at 30 days til home, and if RAN survivors were being hunted by the RN and the RAN, if word got out, they’d be hounded desperately.
The Kormoran id bet decided to leave no survivors alive. there was no drifting away. that smells like total cra. . Id say The Kapitan told the crew they had no choice, with safety only if they quietly made it back all the way to France or Germany. The Germans lit the floating Australian survivors up with the 20mm’s and small arms til all were dead. i’d be highly skeptical of any other answer, that explains how no not a single Australian survived.
@@foxlies0106
complete speculation. Because of the surprising attack most of the crew on deck died very fast. Then a big fire on the whole ship killed the rest of the crew on deck, the lifeboats burned also. The crew under deck had lttle chance to survive, if somebody came out the sharks did the rest.
@@foxlies0106you try hitting a life raft at 6,000+ meters while there’s hot flaming oil dripping around you.
And purely in the interest of self preservation. You wouldn’t attempt to commit a war crime at sea when you know the chances of you being captured by the nation whoms sailors you just massacred is high and probably your best chance at survival.
RIP to the sailor that made it onto the Carley float and then died at sea
Peace to them all.
I'm a navy veteran.
I'm sure more than one got off the ship.
Being in open water, no food or drinkable water, exposed to the elements, and of course sharks, they succumbed one by one until none remained.
So terribly sad.
Bear in mind too, the majority of a ship's crew is under 25 years of age. They died before they ever had a chance to live.
That is Very Sad Indeed!
This sailor was idenitified as Able Seaman Thomas Welsby Clark who was just 21 years old.
i didn't even realize this was KSP until I heard the explosions. Excellent video!
Sydney's Captain was complacent. Got too close to an unknown vessel......
Complacent and inexperienced at sea. He underestimated what looked like a merchant not realizing till too late that she had armament nearly equal to Sydney's. That and being so close the Sydney's armour was worthless.
Say, didn't that happen to Captain James T Kirk as well?
@@Deevo037 Complacent YES but Not experienced? He has been in the Navy since WWI. And while this was his first actual command he had served as the XO on HMAS Canberra for at least 5 years.
His complacency cost him his ship and the lives of his crew. Frankly had he lived he should have been relieved of command.
@Darren Walsh Mate, there was protocol he should have followed but didn't. He had vastly superior rangefinders and guns there was no need to close to the ranges he did. It absolutely was complacency and inexperience of the Captain that caused those sailors to lose thier lives that day.
Cant say he wasnt familiar with Kormoran's disguise
A lesson in combat. Never get too close to an unidentified ship. If I was in Sydney’s situation I would more than likely have fired some warning shots at the Komoran. If they fired back then they’re the enemy. The captain was being very careless in this encounter.
He was a rookie
I am Aussie and proud of our military present and past but you got to hand it to the Jerries in this instance in that it took some guts to take on a warship knowing full well they were out gunned and outclassed.They could have went to "all stop" and struck a flag of surrender whilst at the same time opening the seacocks to scuttle the Kormoran and spent the rest of the war kicking back in one of our POW camps where they would have been well looked after.Full marks to the Aussies as well for despite the Sydney being mortally wounded they attempted to ram the Kormoran. So I say an Iron Cross to each German and a Victoria Cross to each Australian.
Quite right. Kudos too to the crew of X turret who independently fought back despite the chaos around them and managed single-handedly to inflict enough damage on Kormoran to eventually sink her.
Shows how important it is to have the right man at the top.
Heart breaking...
Too many comments by people that have not read up on the facts.
1. The captains of the ships of the commonwealth navies were under orders to try and capture axis merchant ship. This included both commerece raiders and blockade runners(I will get back to the blockade runners). It was not believed that lightly armed commerce raider would dare to engage in battle with a warship and that it would try and scuttle itself if it could not escape.
The reason for this order was the merchant lossed during the Battle of the Atlantic. The captured ships were needed to replace allied shipping. Any allied captain stationed so far away from the action in the Atlantic would have taken these orders very seriously.
These order were rescinded just some days after the admiralty received news of the sinking.
2. The Kormoran was not obviously suspicious. There were inconsistencies regarding the information the she gave regarding her cover the "Straat Malakka" as they did not concur with the information in the HMAS Sydney's ship registry. However clerical errors happened all the times regarding these things.
Also the Kormoran did act confusing and weird when approached by the HMAS Sydney. But we should not forget that Kormoran was disguised a civilian ship. That meant that the enemy also was meant to believe it had a civilian crew. A civilian crew could not be expected to be as disciplined and well trained as a navy crew. Also the Kormoran even tried to create the impression that she was suspicious of the HMAS Australia, eventually sending out distress signals.
Confusion and identification incidents happened all the time when naval ships and non-convoy merchants met(the merchants that were sailing convoy's during the Battle of Atlantic would have had a lot better crews, yes), and this was in relatively peaceful waters. To shoot warning shots everytime such things happened would have been way excessive.
3. We should not forget about blockade runners. These would have been unarmed fast axis merchants that tried to evade the allied blockade in order to bring home important materials eg rubber from neutral and friendly nations.
4. The Kormoran had an excellent crew and an excellent captain. The crew of the Kormoran was disciplined Kriegsmarine personell, its captain was obviously excellent who managed to keep his head cool and make intelligent and duty bound decisions. Given previous points the Captain of the HMAS Sydney was at least one step behind already from the beginning and the crew of Kormoran was not going to let him catch up.
5. The Captain of the Kormoran did act almost suicidally. The Kormoran did sink eventually, and if the HMAS Sydney would have had a little more luck with its shots the crew and the Captain of the Kormoran would have followed the ship to the bottom like the crew of HMAS Sydney did. Neither the Admiralty not the Captain of the HMAS Sydney would have expected such a risky move.
Why the big effort to defend Sydney's captain? All that was necessary to identify Kormoran could have been done at a much greater distance. Sydney's aircraft could have been launched to assist. Sydney should have been at a much greater state of readiness. There's enough negligence for disciplinary proceedings at least.
@@FairladyS130 I would not say the effort is great. It took me a very short while write. I have no idea how well disguised the guns on Kormoran was, nor I do not know the routines and procedure for launching planes. So maybe you are right, however I do not adress it in my comment, nor do I find that any comments have adressed it before.
My guess is that commerce raiders as the Kormoran did have a high readiness for dealing with recon aircraft, would have been able to disguise its weapons and that the captain of HMAS Sydney was afraid of scaring the Kormoran away.
As I said, the main problem was that the commonwealth navies had orders to capture the commerce raiders and that these orders in turn made the captains take unforeseen risks.
@@henrik3291 "unforseen risks" What was unforeseen about a known type of risk in wartime?
all you unknown sailors of these two ships - rest in peace now . . .
@@Zelta12 some men (20?) of the kormoran crew died in action
yes, captn hindsight here, had they taken the anchor chains off the achor hoist, then drop them out of the hold, they mightve made it back to port.
It was broad daylight, five minutes till four in the afternoon. I hate to say it but the Captain of HMAS Sydney made a huge mistake, closing to only 1,300 meters (point blank range) of a suspiciously acting vessel. He was very lucky that the initial broadside from the Kormoran missed. His own initial salvo in response should have decimated the Kormoran's armament.....but he missed!!! That tells me that his crew was poorly trained in gunnery. At just 1,300 meters, all his gunners had to do was point and shoot, the target would have been as big as a barn door. Well, in the end, he did sink the raider, but at the cost of his entire crew. 645 brave souls lost their lives because their Captain was incompetent. R.I.P.
Who practices shooting at 1300 metres?
@@academyofnaturaljustice8939 it had a handful of 6 inch guns, it was not designed to sink battlecruisers lol. Basically a destroyers armament on a non military hull.
They were veterans who fought in the mediterain see
The crew were veterans that had sunk at least 2 italian ships in the mediterranean. Burnett was likely I fine commander that during his service with the HMAS Sydney in the peaceful waters around Australia and the east indies had more reason to suspect some kind of mess up with ship registries or amongst the crew of the "suspicious ship". These things were pretty common.
Also there were orders given out to the naval captains to try and capture blockade runners in order to replace merchant losses in the battle of atlantic. Blockade runners was fast and unarmed Axis civilian merchant ships that was tasked with trying to trade special and rare materials with neutral or friendly countries.
These orders were rescinded just some days after the news of the sinking of HMAS Sydney.
Burnett made a mistake, but it was not huge. There was a lot of bad luck involved.
@@pickleman40 same size guns as the main armament on the Sydney. Sydney had 8 X 6 inch guns and the Kormoran had 6 X 6 inch guns.
Very well done!
R.I.P., those who lost their lives in this battle...
What a waste of a fine warship and so many young men. The Captain of the Sydney was probably lucky that he died or else he probably would have been court-martialed.
Thanks for uploading. RIP HMAS Sydney sailors, they fought for freedom
cobardes alemanes solo recurriendo al engaño pudieron hundir al sidney, gracias por su valentía y corage descansa en paz HMAS sidney
Kormoran fought for freedom too
@@kubaw7297cormoran fought for nazis
lachie o'mara they fought for their country, Germany. Again, not all Germans are nazis, ever heard of the Wehrmacht?
@@rwrwrrrwr you a nazi mate?
Jesus! Detmers knew what he was about!
trojanthedog He was much more experienced and had the element of surprise on his side.
Did you think the Germans would choose just anyone to command their commerce raiders?
Sad story ....but the name of hmas Sydney is a glorious name in the entire history of the Australian navy
For anyone interested , there"s a great book by David Woodward - "The Secret Raiders"
A man by the name of Edward mchaffie died on the HMAS Sydney. I’m still trying to find him for he wrote a song called ‘dream of Australia’
1:56 song link?
i was reading about this- wasn't it protocol at the time to close with unidentified merchants and try to capture them in case of them being armed raiders? that can result in the reasoning why Capt. Burnett got so close to the Kormoran before it identified itself
Still does not explain why the Sydney was not at full action stations with guns pointing at the suspect ship.
@@basilpunton5702 She was - Sydney actually fired a full broadside before Kormoran got off a shot. It just missed the bridge but took out some lifeboats - exactly the targets you'd be pre-aimed at if you thought you'd found a raider supply ship and were trying to capture it by boarding. Trying to board, is literally the only reason Sydney would have gotten so close beam on, instead of staying fine off the stern like she had been the whole time. One of the German crew mentions they were fully closed up with all armament, but when they went beam on the 4inch guns and boats crews were running around that part of the ship, but the main armament was still trained. That sounds a lot like a boarding party at the same time the 'what's your secret signal' was sent.
Shutting down the Walrus also suggests they probably thought it was a supply ship as ALL of the previous raiders had opened fire at long range at warships and tried to run. Kormoran was the first to play dumb and it worked perfectly.
Missing the first salvo might have been trigger happy gunners if it was a new ship, but Sydney was battle hardened so I doubt it. More likely they saw all the activity on deck after the signal, and thought it was a scuttling attempt, so went with their original targets, and were then probably very surprised to have 5.9 inch salvos suddenly taking out everything vital.
Half the crew were probably dead/wounded/trapped within 10 minutes. Approx 70 x 5.9 inch hits were recorded on the wreck, plus a torpedo and 37mm anti tank shells raking everything for an hour.
If any of the Sydney's crew were capable of abandoning ship and surviving a few hours they'd have had some small consolation knowing Kormoran just blew up
You need to have 7.4 billion subs
As an australian who heard this before this is sad all 600+ died :(
Love this story
Kormonan was badass. No disrespect to all the lost seamen.
I find it interesting that so many people forget that procedures and such are often not followed due to the variability of human behavior. The Australian Captain might have been fatigued or ill and it might have affected his judgment...or he may have not been a great Captain, he might have been lazy and ineffiicent, a know it all or perhaps he was distracted, or possibly he was arrogant and cocksure and thought he knew more than his superiors. Anything could have come into play, and whatever prompted him to be careless, just came at the wrong time at the wrong place. Of such how tragedies are made. It sometimes isn't what we don't know, but what we think we know but actually don't that gets us in the most trouble.
this is so underrated btw !
Captain Burnett was really at fault for the loss of his ship, his unbelievable stupidity is approaching so closely to a unknown ship not responding to calls was a unbelievable reckless thing to do especially when not a full battle stations.
Captain Detmers tactics were flawless and were it not for a very unlucky hit his ship could have survived. Trading a cargo ship and only a few losses for a light cruiser with its entire crew was a good trade for the Germans.
Don't forget prior actions- the Germans traded a cargo ship and light losses for a light cruiser, 10 other Allied ships sunk, and an 11th Allied ship captured. Makes it an excellent exchange for the Germans.
Pity you were not the Captain,
Captain of HMAS Sydney was either a 100% Bozo to get so close to a unknown ship, or Kormoran had the secret code of Straat Malakka which confirmed it was a friendly.
Sorry for the late reply-the crew of the Kormoran didn't know the secret code, so they opened fire.
Here's an analysis the Australian Government did on why the HMAS Sydney approached so closely. www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/FinalReport/Report/Chapter%2019.pdf
Saturnian Blue Thanks for that document. My Bozo comment was to illustrate an unlikely extreme.
A question better put is what information did the Captain receive that put Sydney in that position. Was it a combination of procedures as per document. Council from his officers and/or the Captains own experiences? We can confirm from the German engagement accounts that they are mostly accurate against the Sydney's wreck condition, and little reason to lie too much as at the time not knowing there would be no Sydney survivors confirmed by wreck locations. if one was looking at the top 5 reasons the Sydney came as close as they did. I still feel a code confirmation is a possibility, as the Sydney still had her guns trained on them, so mindset was not completely friendlies, but Germans did report seeing sailors casually smoking on Sydney just before they attacked. Doesn't sound like 100% battle stations.
No one will never know 100% until the afterlife. Thanks for posting.
Captain Joseph Burnett took over from John Collins after Collins was transferred to Singapore (months before the Pacific campaign against Japan had started) as Assistant Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief.
HMAS Sydney was the only ship Burnett had taken command (he had spent most of his career on bases) so mostly had 'book smarts' rather than experience. Burnett was following well-used tactics which many had used in the past. If Collins had been on the Sydney, things may be very different (far more experienced on ships).
grl8862 i think komoran has a secret code
Yep thats his plan to fool the australians or the british by using the secret code of straat malakka and it actualy worked
Sydney’s captain was a fool, although it could be said, he was acting under political orders to capture “enemy” merchant ships intact. But by closing the range as he did was very stupid and cost the lives of not only himself, but those of his crew also, and not the lease a very valuable warship.
Since the loss of Sydney, there has been a proliferation of theories that Kormoran
did not act alone. Among the suggestions put forward in this inquiry are that a Japanese
submarine was involved in or responsible for the sinking
Quatsch
@@DieterBinroth that is a sign that it is true
Im pretty sure only the two ships named were involved but when and if the german Captain hoisted the german flag is debatable. Still, the Australian captain was grossly incompetent to put his ship in such a vulnerable position. No doubt he should of been court martialed if he had survived.
I dont see how closing the range cost the Sydney its 'advantage in fire power', as they both were armed w/ 5.9 in. guns. It certainly brought them into effective range of the Kormoran's topedo's.
The Germans did not have a centralized fire control system which made accurate long-range shots difficult. Also Sydney was armored which gave her the advantage at long range, this was nullified because the engagement happened at a range that allowed the German guns to penetrate.
The Koromoran is not a military ship. No armor and much more vulnerable.
There is NO Definite Article before HM(A)S. It just doesn't make sense!
You're right!
Mein Vater war Maschinist auf der Kormoran
Ich war in der australischen Marine. Ich bin froh zu sagen, dass dein Vater ein Held war. Alle Männer, die mit Schiffen zur See fahren, sind Helden.
Could you so Cap Trafalgar vs Carmania? Two Armed Merchants duking it out
BlitzTaifun / DragonScales I would like to but I don't really have the time to do it these days.
It's absurd that no one survived the encounter from the Sydney..considering that only 20 plus Germans died. I will never believe all hands were lost only by the German raider, nothing more to say really
i agree. I think the Germans shot the bejesus out every single Australian survivor, before and after the Sydney sank, to buy time. The Jerries knew, if they could repair the ship, they’d have to sail 20,000 km (1month?) back home to France or Germany, through Waters patrolled or controlled by the British Empire.
There wasn’t really any other safe port for them, especially since Japan was not yet in the war. If word got out of the battle and how he’s gone, they knew they would be hunted unceasingly, at 16knots max?, all the way back to Europe. The Kormoran captain needed every Australian dead and as much secrecy as they could get if they could repair their ship, and sneak quietly back home even though Britain ruled the waves.
TheJerries would’ve told themselves they had to kill every Australian.
Apparently this “Commerce raider“ technique is lawful in war? if you raise the flag just b4 you shoot? but it smells to me like murder, slaughter, cruel and treacherous, and I find it disgusting.
It's very easy to see why the different results of this battle the other side of this battle were better than the Sydney.
The thing I don’t understand is that the Australian navy KNEW about the kormoran being in the area and the captain still approached a suspicious vessel so closely. Sheer incompetence on the captains part.
Germans are the best warriors ever
More like cunning foxes 🦊
best? more like it's another men just doing his own nothing, not related the best or the worst.
Uhh why is hmas Sydney sinking backwards
One like one pray for both battleships
Some say you used KSP, btw, what's a KSP?
KSP refers to Kerbal Space Program. It's basically a video game that enables you to construct you own space programme, like building spaceships, space stations, and so on.
But various modifications to the game have been built and released over the years (like the one used in this video), so now there's more to the game than just space-related gameplays.
Yhe most successful bunch of Pirates vs a naval flagship. Came down to the use of trickery and element of surprise. I give credit to the Komoran and yes if the Sydney had known it was a mistake to get too close.
what app is that
kerbal space program with mods
Noice
As a lifelong resident of Canada, I've been a civilian all my life. I've never been a member of any branch of the Canadian Forces and this is strictly my personal opinion. If Captain Burnett had survived this encounter with Kormoran, would he have been threatened with a court martial from Canberra? I was under the impression (from reading about this firefight between HMAS Sydney and Kormoran) that Sydney had NO guns aimed at Kormoran AND that Burnett had NOT ordered (100o/o) general quarters.
Ultimately no crew from HMAS Sydney survived and I guess nobody will ever know what really happened. Understanding the perspective of orders to capture Enigma machines (IF any might be on board), I still have a difficult time understanding how Captain Burnett basically threw his advantage away by getting so close to Kormoran.🤔🤔🤔
Kormoran was basically a destroyer in disguise
No. Kormoran was a merchant vessel with hidden weapons, all warships have some degree of protection, ie:armour, her only protection lay in not being recognised by any enemy warships.
@@gsands1796 And how thick is the steel on a destroyer?
The only thing I find unrealistic is the fact that you don't need to elevate the guns much. Yes I know it's short range but even at long range the guns barely elevate so in real life if it was like that ship guns would have horrible range and yes, it's not your fault. Just wanted to let people know
United Federation Of Planers _ Thanks! Those guns are quite elevated.
Saturnian Blue ok when I look the shots fly low which gives me that feeling of guns not elevating much
R.I.P BRAVE SOUL'S
As a 'real' Soldier, I find the concept of an illegal 'ruse' to explain why the German Captain could sink the Sydney laughable. In Total War there is no real illegal ruses, as anything goes to win. Yes, people might say it is not sporting, but this is usually said by those who lose. War is Hell, & the only thing that matters is winning... at all costs. Thoughts?
Simply perfect.
just need to somehow not be caught
One serious omission. The chinese kitchen staff from Kormoran all testified that Kormoran fired an electric wakeless torpedo before unmasking. This struck the bow of sydney blowing the roof off A turret and jamming B turret. In All likelihood, this was a war crime and explains how an armed merchant cruiser could overwhelm a modern cruiser with a battle hardened crew.
I have not heard of this. The consensus (including by the Australian Department of Defense) is that two torpedoes were fired by the Kormoran upon unmasking, one of which struck the bow.
@@saturnianblue4376 In addition to regular above water torpedo tubes, why do you think that Kormoran carried a pair of submerged tubes equipped with wakeless electric torpedoes? These submerged tubes were ambush weapons and the starboard one was almost certainly fired 84 seconds before the ship unmasked. These were also relatively slow 30 kn weapons. At 1300 meters range, these would have taken 84 seconds to hit the Sydney. In 84 seconds of action, Sydney should have fired 11 full salvos (66 shells). At point blank range (1300 meters) None of these would have missed and Kormoran would have been shattered. So one must ask the obvious question. Why was Kormoran not struck by 66 shells before A and B turrets were out out of action? The only answer is, Sydney was not firing her guns. Note that the torpedo hit the bow and disabled both forward turrets. Only X turret was able to hit Kormoran 3 times with one lucky hit causing an engine room fire that could not be controlled. Sydney had a well trained and battle hardened crew. Quite clearly, Kormoran must have fired that torpedo before running up the German flag. That makes it a war crime.
@@Will_CH1 For being a significant detail, there is no evidence that I know of that this is the case. The submerged torpedoes had static mounts aimed 135 degrees from the bow - Kormoran did not make an obviously suspicious turn away from the Sydney to launch underwater torpedoes, which could only be launched if the ship was travelling under 3 knots. The first salvoes from the Kormoran quickly destroyed the bridge, the gun direction tower and the front turrets (instead of a torpedo), disabling them. Such damage represents a severe impairment in firepower capability, and can be seen in the wreckage to have been caused by shell fire from Kormoran. The only salvo the Sydney fired before this passed over Kormoran.
In the time the Sydney's aft turrets regained the ability to fire, Kormoran was able to land devastating hits on the ship, and Sydney's aft turrets ultimately jammed, preventing them from firing more.
@@saturnianblue4376 That is the line of the official findings but there are glaring deficiencies in the findings. For instance, the torpedoes were guided by gyroscope and move onto the collision course after launching. They were capable of being fired on an opposite heading to a target and then turning around onto the course dialled into the gyroscope. Hence the angle of the tube is irrelevant. The rapid firing was the defence used by the Germans to explain how they disabled sydney however the turret captains in Sydney were trained to switch to local control if communications with the director tower were lost. At one stage during the Battle of Sunda straight, Sydney's sister ship Perth was firing her main guns in local control because they were overwhelmed with the number of targets . Sydney's crew would have done the same if they could. I think this is a case where the Germans were lucky that the navy office did not want to admit that they were practicing "Anti Scuttling" procedures which was the code name for attempting to board blockade runners and seize the enigma machine and rotor settings (The rotor settings for the pacific theatre were never recovered and pacific codes never broken by ultra)
@@Will_CH1 To switch from director control to either group or local control took several minutes by personnel onboard, which explains the delay. It is also important to keep in mind that the HMAS Sydney had not used either mode aside from practicing (Sunda Strait was months later).
bro please make more videos bro please bro ill do anything bro please bro ill be your gf bro come on dude jus make more man dude i need that hit bro just one more video man
so..what happened to crew members of the Kormoran claiming their ship couldn't fire torpedoes while moving? if you are going by their account this video is debunked
There's definite proof the torpedoes were launched and did hit the target, as evidenced by the wreckage. I think the sailors are referring to the two underwater torpedo mounts on the aft of the ship - the mounts that fired the torpedoes in the battle were on the deck, I think.
there is yet so much un-truth regarding the real circumstances and since we only have the German account of the scenario it concerns me that perhaps they are holding secrets that they may feel like they have no impetus to divulge..and soon..most of them will be gone from this world..with that in mind though 645 people on the Sydney died and thei families will never get closure..they will never have an answer to what happened to a beloved family member..circumstances are circumstances but I find the faith in false integrity and dishonesty sad when it comes at the expense of people who have no interest in discrediting and simply want answers
G Perrin We do, however, also have the wreckage of the two ships, a rather objective piece of evidence.
I agree entirety. The evidence in regards to what happened after shots were fired is objective, however how the Germans managed to gain the initial advantage before shots were fired and without speculation the account is first hand evidence of the Germans, we have no secondary account from the Australians and even if we assume that a raiding vessel and its crew had no reason to be dishonest, and lets be honest is counter intuitive of the nature of a raiding vessel we have no right to give their account any level of credibility that serves as evidence.
@@gperrin9050 That's war, man. The families know what they have to: their SO's were killed in action, while fighting for their country. If you want to say kormoran didnt put up the war ensign before firing, I can say Sidney's skipper acted dumb coming so close to an unidentified vessel.
It looked like Atlantic Fleet episode
Sink some larger ships!
Generic Name I did build the HMS Hood, from a project that would have recreated the Battle of the Denmark Strait (sadly unfinished due to a ton of problems). gfycat.com/WarpedConfusedErmine
Think about what u say one of my great uncles was on the sydney. He died. Think about people who lost relies in the wars
what game is this? please comment
Heros sailors Kormoran vs bigest batle ship win Germans
definetively should filme mor videos like this
Why not released till 1947?
hugh smith Not exactly sure, to be honest.
Probably just logistics. There were millions of Allied troops to be returned home and a huge number of Axis troops as well. A troop carrier might carry 15,000 men but the trip from Australia to Europe was a good month, 2 for a return trip. 6 trips a year is only 90,000 men transported per year per ship.
Hmmm, Soviets kept German and Japanese POWs in labour slavery till 1955.
@@saturnianblue4376 1. Early 1947 (say) is only 18mo. after the end of war in the Pacific. 2. I am probably giving the RAN more credit for intelligence than due but it is possible they were hoping to find paperwork in Germany or even Japan on tactics to be employed . Should something turn up post the release of the sailors, the long arm of Australia could never collar them - specifically the captain and snr officers.
@@JohnJ469 You are correct, returing German and Italian POW were low priority. Moving Allied troops and Allied POW were the priority, either to a new location or home.
How the hell a converted merchant ship litteraly sank an cruiser
The captain of the HMAS Sydney was way too complacent. They got too close and were hit by torpedoes at point blank range. Even though she was a converted merchantman she had large caliber guns trained on the bridge and fire control directors of the Sydney.
Her armament was almost on par with HMAS Sydney, which from such a small range had lost it's armor advantage. The Kormoran also had the element of surprise.
Because during WW2 Germans are masters of commerce raiding using disguised vessels with light-cruiser firepower. Another legend is the Commerce Raider Atlantis.
With the knowledge at the time of the effectiveness of German Q ships/commerce raiders, I am surprised that the Sydney did not keep her distance and relied on wireless rather than reading flags as well.
The “Pinguin” almost sunk HMS Cornwall, which was a heavy cruiser with 8” guns. Holed her with a surprise shot, knocking out her electrical system. Another round hit her seaplane causing a fire. Cornwall had to steam away to perform emergency repairs before returning and bombarding Pinguin at range.
I saw a completely different version of event on another video last night.
Some members of the German crew said they had fired an electric torpedo from an underwater torpedo tube that knocked out the forward turrets on the Sydney before the Germans dropped the disguise and raised their true colours.
It was described as a sucker punch.
And it was said to have taken four hours for the Sydney to go down.
Why no survivers?
There are few points to add from different point of view. Apparently one German sailor recalling that their 20mm cannons were raking the Sydney's at the beginning of the battle, resulting in massive causalities aboard the Sydney. And lastly, it apparently taken up to 7 days before someone realized that something was up with the Sydney not making it back to port. Apparently the ship has a history of being late and someone just assumed the Sydney was running late
None of kormorans survivors said that. That is blatant propaganda 🙄
@@greenfingernaildirt356 not sure how that is blatant propaganda. Here is where I got my information.
It was not possible to identify the damage to Sydney from the smaller calibre shell impacts from the photographs. However, Kormoran’s survivors’ accounts state thatboththe20 mm and 3.7 cm guns peppered the upper decks and the bridge structure of Sydney.
Kormoran could bring to bear three of her five 20 mm guns at a time, each with a conservative firing rate of 100 rounds per minute (its design firing rate is stated as 240 rounds per minute). It would be reasonable to suggest that they would have sprayed Sydney with between 500 to 1000 rounds per gun during the encounter. These rounds would have been directed towards the exposed personnel and equipment on the upper decks.
Kormoran’s survivors have also stated they fired their 3.7 cm guns towards the bridge and superstructure regions. This gun had a more effective range than the 20 mm gun and had a rate of fire of 80 rounds per minute for the 0.7 kg AP shell. It is reasonable to suggest that Kormoran may have hit Sydney at least 400 times during the encounter, which would have added another 300 kg of steel fragments distributed around the upper decks and further added to the number of personnel critically wounded.
Source:
HMAS Sydney II Commission of Inquiry
Report on Technical Aspects of the Sinking of HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran
Defence Science and Technology Organisation Maritime Platforms Division
#Royal Institution of Naval Architects Australian Division
Link: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/DSTO/DSTO.003.0001_LR.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjUrp3ZwoHjAhVmHDQIHcG1CswQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw29EdS-GTMwms3SKc4o-3qM
Sydney apparently sank very rapidly after the battle. She was making for land but suddenly went down by the bow
@@flakstruk-8481 And she was a flaming floating wreck as she drifted away into the distance according to Detmers.
The disguise did work until the secret signal was requested. If the captain of the Sydney had seen the Kriegsmarine flag rise he would have had amble time to aim, lock on and fire. At the distance of 1300m (basically point blank and with the use of binoculars) history would have had a different outcome.
Despite this the Sydney did get the last hoorah out of the fight. Yes all on board perished they did manage to take one more enemy ship down with them.
what game is it
Sam Spring Kerbal Space program with quite a few mods
RIP
hmas sydney theorecticly should have won that battle
No actually, it was fucked because of a few things.
1. It closed to a short range-- This negated its long range accuracy and armor advantage.
2. The Kormoran had the element of surprise
3. The Kormoran was almost as well armed as the Sydney
4. The Kormoran was able to deny the Sydney of most deck-based weaponry by use of its 37/20mm cannons.
If the Sydney hadn't closed to such a short range? It probably would've won the fight, easily. After the loss of the Sydney there was a new 'rule' put in place where they weren't allowed to close on suspicious ships.
The raider “Pinguin” did great damage to HMS Cornwall, a heavy cruiser, in a similar encounter, even when the cruiser did not approach as close as Sydney. Cornwall had to withdraw to repair battle damage before returning to sink the raider.
@@SvenTviking Interesting.
Well. that's the difference between theory and reality.
Often, the first guns fired are the ones that win. KORMORAN inflicted heavy--and immediate--damage on SYDNEY.
Revenge for the SS Emden?
SMS short for "His Majesty's Ship" in German.
Perhaps interestingly, SMS Emden captured the Ryazan on August 4, 1914, and converted this first WWI prize taken from the Russian Empire into the armed merchant raider SMS Comoran -- the namesake of the auxilliary cruiser described in this animation.
If memory serves she was sunk in WW1 by the first Sydney up near the Cocos Islands.
Very poor captaincy on the Sydney. Poor shooting too.
The gunners were good shots, they had sunk an Italian cruiser and damaged another in a previous engagement so were very capable and experienced.
Australian not british!
Where did the information that the Sydney had 150mm guns come from. Simple details ruin your facade of truth. The guns were 6 inch.
The guns were 150mm(5.9in.) which were close enough to be called 6in. for the American public because we are too stupid to convert mm to inches, and then they just rounded up. So you are wrong and probably too dumb to know you are stupid. Please get your head out your ass and maybe your sh!t for brains will go away.
@@kevinkliegl9315 ;
That was the size of German guns. Dutch too. 150mm is 5.9".
Both American & British ships were built with 152mm. Full 6" diameter bore.
Read Jane's Fighting Ships of World War Two. It's in there.
VIVA AUSTRALIA
Davis Sharon Walker Angela Young Shirley
Excelent 645 pirates daef
What the hell were krauts doing near Australia??
WW2 never heard?
The the Germans used disguised, armed merchant ships as commerce raiders, roaming the world in both of the World Wars. Learn some history.
Selling kraut.
Sending some kangaroo to the bottom... They laid a lot of mines.
annoyance
Young Frank Harris Michelle Thompson Maria
The truth about the sinking of the HMAS Sydney, all the crew, except 3 were lost, is that the Sydney was sabotaged. An explosive charge was placed near the magazine and detonated. This caused a massive explosion, breaking the Sydney in 2. The kormoran, couldn't have sunk the HMAS Sydney, the german raider was more than 2000 miles to the north, not off Carnarvon, near Indonesia. The Sydney was well out of range of the Kormoran's guns. There were 3 survivors who managed to clamber about a survival raft. The raft drifted with the currents to the north west, finally beaching on Christmas Island. When it beached at Christmas Island only 2 of the survivors remained, one had died from injuries and he was pushed off the raft. One was IRA/irish, a stow away who had helped set the explosive charge near the Sydney's magazine. The other survivor as an Able Seaman who provided vital information about the IRA/irishmans involvement, the bomber, and the fate and sudden sinking of the HMAS Sydney, with a loss of nearly 1280 lives. To the Navy WW II survivors, the question is why the secrecy and lies about the Sydney's sinking? Why indeed?
No!
Kormoran an Sydney had a Go!
And It was essentially a draw!
Both ships went under, but since Sidneys chain if command was destroyed at first wolley, they suffered the most.
Kormoran still had a grip of events ,.all the way to the end!
There are really no winners here!
Only a sad story of brave men on both sides, trying there best at war.
R.I.P all sailors.....
Where are your evidences to support this so-called "truth" then?
@@UXB1000 pretty sure that its essentially saying hitler escaped aswell. and we all know that hes dead already
See minnesotom Nazi WW2 Raider
The German easier fired with the Dutch flag up before raising the German flag. This a criminal war act. War is such a waste
I think the British need to learn how to aim. at 1300 meters how could the Miss so much?
I guess that means that losing their gun directors wasn't much of a loss!
Australian not british.
Their aim wasn't too bad when they sunk two Italian cruisers earlier that year.