Detmers' account in his book includes the interesting detail that he helped delay matters and tempt the Sydney closer by ordering the signallers to use flags slowly and apparently incompetently, to further lull the Sydney into a false sense of security. There is no evidence that Detmers opened fire before changing flags - all the German WW2 raiders were well trained to drop the metal covers in front of their guns and change flags in a few seconds. Atlantis and Pinguin also fought British cruisers, but could not lure them closer while they investigated. At long range the cruisers could then destroy the lightly armoured raiders safely.
_Kormoran_ was built with strong points for her heavy guns and had been identified as a possible raider conversion before the war. She wasn't hurriedly converted however, having spent over three months in dockyard hands being refitted for service as a raider and the crew underwent training. Detmers did not open fire before striking his neutral flag. He drove his crew hard, training on how to disable a warship if they ran into one, and that training paid off when they encountered _Sydney_ . As you say, she was also a battle hardened vessel, but Captain Burnett was on his first sea command after spending his career in administrative work. His last assignment was keeping track of all shipping around Australia, and he knew that lists of ships supposed to be in a certain area were often out of date. It's not surprising that he thought the _Straat Malakka_ was one of them, especially as Burnett was familiar with the ship, and the Kormoran's disguise made here appear to be a close sister ship. It was only when he ordered the _Sydney_ to go in closer to have a look that Detmers realized the crew wasn't at battle stations, this was his only chance to disable the warship and escape. The crew used their machine guns and 20 mm cannon to cut down any crew members trying to get to the mostly unprotected secondary armament while his 5.9" guns disabled the 6" turrets on _Sydney_ his torpedoes holed the hull and disabled the machinery. At the same time, some of _Sydney's_ turrets were able to get into action, wrecking the upper works of _Kormoran_ and starting fires all over the ship. Both ships knew they were fatally damaged and tried to separate, but both ships had disabled steering and at most one working engine. _Sydney_ drifted off while _Kormoran's_ crew abandoned ship shortly before the fires got to the mines and she exploded. There was probably no one left alive who wasn't fatally wounded on _Sydney_ as she drifted off. More men survived on _Kormoran_ because her crew wasn't raked by the same murderous machine gun and cannon fire unleashed on Sydney, so the crew was able to get off before the explosion and sinking. The sinking of _Sydney_ has been subject to numerous conspiracy theories, mainly because some couldn't believe a merchant ship could sink a cruiser. It was a combination of Captain Burnett ignoring his own rules on approaching a supposed merchant ship, Detmers's training of his crew, and a large dose of luck, both good and bad for both ships, that allowed this to happen. There are still Australian who refuse to believe that this wasn't some kind of conspiracy and lack of fair play, even though all the evidence up to today confirms the stories told by the German crew. Part of the conspiracy theories was the Germans had been lying, some telling the same story for 50 or 60 years before their death. Even after finding both ships on the ocean floor has confirmed the truthfulness of the Germans, the theories continue. The Australian Navy has conducted two through investigations and hasn't been able to confirm any of the theories as being true but, like most conspiracy theories, they have their true believers, and this will likely go on for generations yet.
British Admiralty manuals of the time clearly stated that German raiders could open fire at up to 16,000 yards and all unidentified ships should be treated as a raider until positively identified. The admiralty enquiry concluded the Sydney was too close and had disregarded standard cautions. X turret on the Sydney hit the Kormoran multiple times fast and accurate as described by Detmer, examination of the wreck showed open doors on X it is believed to turret crew aimed by sighting from outside. The Kormoran's crew fired at Sydney when it was no longer a threat in a sadistic driven attempt to prove they could sink a cruiser,. The moral here - Trust no one until you know absolutely who they are. This was as Stupid as the loss of the Glorious in the beginning of the war and should not have happened. The loss represented close to a quarter of the Australian Navy at the time. There is a very good book on the Sydney I haven't got it on hand currently but it provides a full history including photos of the wreck and location diagrams.
@@woodliceworm4565 Indeed, and some of those rules were written by Capt. Burnett himself. I suspect he overestimated his ship identification skills and got too close thinking he was in no danger from a Dutch merchantman. I must take issue with your assertion that the secondary gunfire from the _Kormoran_ was some kind of sadistic attack to prove anything. The ship was in a desperate fight to sink its opponent or be sunk. Capt Detmers was always correct in his treatment of captured seamen and didn't show any sign of a sadistic streak. He was just using the guns he had to try to stop _Sydney_ from sinking or capturing him. I've never heard any Australian officer criticize Detmers's behavior that day
@@sarjim4381 If I had the book I would provide a reference although the word sadistic was not mentioned they Detmers considered it to be a major honour to sink a cruiser and primary fire was directed at the water line as the Sydney drifted away, this was simply enthusiasm not strategic.. Still none of it should have happened as you say Luck and lack of caution was on Detmers side that day, I hope we have learned something from that. There was evidence that there were survivors on the Sydney after the battle, a similar British ship had made it back to port after a torpedo hit to the bow but in different circumstances they were able to release anchors and drop all weight forward and had some power - On the Sydney life boats rafts were damaged and with many wounded on board they may have not wished to leave crewmates behind - who knows, studies of the wreck have offered some clues as to the final hours but the story is forever lost.
@@woodliceworm4565 I don't think it's any different that the battle of the HMS _Jervis Bay_ in her battle against _Admiral Sheer_ and the medals given posthumously for the bravery shown in that battle. One of the rules of naval warfare is you keep shooting until you opponent shows the white flag or sinks. _Sydney_ did neither, and she was still capable of resistance, as shown by here final torpedo salvo. What would you have done if you were Detmers? In the end, _Sydney_ would never have been sunk if Burnett had just used his range advantage of his better guns and fire control system.
Captain Burnett was an very experienced Naval Officer who severed for periods of time on many vessels, including HMAS Australia, HMAS Canberra and latterly just prior to WW2 on HMS Royal Oak and HMS Resolution.
Having read Detmers book, I have no doubt that the version given is true and accurate, they lured in an incautious Burnett, revealed their colours and took advantage of the element of surprise. Of course there are those who don’t want to believe a raider could do that to a warship, or want to believe some ridiculous (evidence less) conspiracy, but I can find no reason to disbelieve Detmers version. At close range there is no doubt that the Sydney would throw away its main benefits (better fire control and some level of armour protection and also what it’s extra speed could do for it) as at short range the armour would be useless and the Sydney easily hit with the WW1 level of technology on the Kormoran. I can’t prove it did happen as Detmers said, but there is no proof it didn’t either and reading his book gave me a feel for the man behind the rank and for me there is little doubt it was a true and accurate account, NONE of the Kormoran’s crew ever spoke out in contradiction either.
I also read that book. I thought that the "incompetent signaller" ruse was clever. That may have been one reason Burnett got so close. Upside down signal flags, flags in the wrong order, who'd have thought? Detmers, I think, knew that he had no chance against the Sydney, but couldn't just surrender his ship. he sounds like one of the "old school" naval officers. I doubt that he would have ever considered murdering men in the water.
That is what the Australian navy thought. The only people who have thought otherwise are completely bizarre. No one has given a complete rationale for why the Sydney acted as it did.
Heh, and as Detmers noted, one of the cannon on Kormoran had been salvaged from the Seydlitz after the Battle of Jutland. :D He had old and relatively small cannon, but still cannon suitable for a proper warship.
There are several errors with this account and it apparently does not take into consideration the findings of the Royal Commission. Kormoran had been identified as a possible surface raider at time of building and had reinforced decks. She had 5.9-inch guns, almost exactly the same size as Sydney's and heavier lighter weapons well hidden. She also had torpedoes in angled tubes and it was one of these that took Sydney's bow off. Sydney did have her secondary armament of 4-inch dual purpose quick firing guns but they were not in turrets and exposed to deck fire. Nor was she heavily armoured or armed, she was a light cruiser and in fact was not patrolling when she came across Kormoran but returning to Fremantle from an escort passage. Burnett knew the Malakka and had he launched his aircraft he would have found that the two ships looked completely different. It should be noted that this was his first at least major sea command and he was aware there was a merchant raider in the vicinity having told his crew he intended to find it - he got that right. Dettmers' tactics in steaming directly up-sun making his signal flags hard to read and signalling he was being approached by a raider were fist class. Claims are made here (or suggestions) that a Japanese submarine was present and machine gunned Sydney survivors (the same as the one that the embarked fast motor boat in Kormoran ditto) is a nonsense, proved by the Commission; Japan was not at war and her focus was Pearl Harbour/ the Far East and the relations with the US. So, too, the claim Dettmers opened fire flying the Dutch flag; disproved by the Commission. Kormoran's high rates of fire and superb shooting were in part because Dettmers had trained his crew hard, they had had months of active gunnery and they were terrified. Finally (for there), the claim the only item from Sydney found was an inflatable RAN lifejacket is incorrect. Inflatable jackets did not exist in 1941. What was found was a Carley float riddled with bullets and containing a single still unidentified body washed ashore at Christmas Island. For the RAN it was and remains its single greatest tragedy, and the loss was at a time when every cruiser the Navy had was needed instead in short order of losing Sydney, Perth and Canberra. The simple fact remains Burnett was beaten by the better man along with 645 seamen; that is the ultimate tragedy of the obscenity of war.
Thank you for this fascinating story. History is full of these "forgotten battles" that never receive the "glory" they deserve for the dedication and sacrifice of their crews.
Very well presented Ruairidh. We have a Memorial to her here in Geraldton and each year conduct a Commemoration Service on 19th November. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Sydney's sinking. As it's a 'special' anniversary I'll likely put up a display of pin boards at the Geraldton RSL the week of the anniversary and be there for a couple of days in a replica WWII RAN uniform. With your permission I would also like to screen your presentation on the TV in the RSL hall. Warm Regards Karl Ex LSRP/LSCSO and Living History Reenactor
Or a bit rusty, despite his length of service his previous assignment was a shore bound office job. Had the Sydney's prior captain had remained he may well have been more cautious.
Aye. Given that the Sydney mortally wounded the raider with her 2nd and 3rd salvoes, the encounter could have only gone one way had the Cruiser kept her distance.
Always good to see you branching out into other topics :D . (though the Car & Railway vid's remain a particular favourite) One detail was off though; Sydney was a Cruiser; thus not a "ship of the line" as stated in-video. After all the noun *Battleship* comes from "[Battle] Ship of the Line", or "Line of Battle [Ship]", whilst Cruisers were doctrinally not part of the Line of Battle, just like Destroyers & Sloops.
Great presentation on a subject where video makers are sometimes prone to work on fiction and not fact! But you're view is the way it should be done. They confused the Kormoran for the raiders tender ship hence why they allowed the only advantage that mattered to be lost range. One captains poor judgement lost it all but the crew fought to the last.
It depends where they were interred in Australia. Italian POWs in the states of Tasmania and Victoria were deployed to farm work in wet mountain valleys surrounded by snow clad mountains. Escaping from there would have been even more difficult than crossing a desert.
It was the duty of an officer to attempt an escape. My grandfather was a member of the crew of the Komorran. He told about the battle in his later life. Unfortunately we will never know the complete truth as the version I was told was slightly different. My grandparents returned to Australia after the war to raise their family. For this I am grateful.
I have not read of this inflatable RAN Lifebelt before, where did that information come from? There was a Carley Life Float recovered by HMAS Heros. The Float did contain two Australian Naval Life Belts when found. The location of these are unknown.
Kormoran was not hastily converted. Her construction was partially funded by the German Government under the condition her design have strengthened points to mount her weapons.
Maybe controversial, but nevertheless a riveting story. Thanks for posting. Could there be any more terrible death than alone in the ocean, hanging on to the end because only then do you realize how precious life is?
SMS Kormoran's exploits are very much similar to SMS Wolf during WW1, only SMS Wolf completed her mission and voyage through the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans and returned safely to Germany after 444 days.
Excellent video and about a battle I knew nothing about. The German, for all their failings, were brave men, life in the Kreigsmarine was cheap and brutal!
There's the story of the captain of HMS Glowworm who received a posthumous VC after being sunk by the Admiral Hipper, on the recommendation of the Hipper's captain in recognition of Lt-Cmdr Roope's bravery in trying to sink Hipper and dying while helping his men climb onto ropes and nets let down by Hipper. Hipper's commander, Captain Hellmuth Heye, put the recommendation through the Red Cross.
It is an excellent video. However it should be mentioned that Commonwealth navy captains where under orders to try and capture axis blockade runners and commerce raiders before they scuttle. This was ordered because of the tremendous losses of merhcant shipping during the Battle of the Atlantic, the captured ships was needed as replacements. For a dutyfull captain at service so far away from action the in the Atlantic this order would have surely been taken even more serious. This order was also rescinded by the Admiralty just some days after it was clear what had happened to the HMAS Sydney. By issuing this order I think it was clear how much the Admiralty underestimated Kriegsmarine personell, only a fourth of the Uboat crews survived the war, and when a German capital ship went down it usually did it with its guns still firing. The KM was full of Horatio Hornblowers and Jack Aubreys ready to go to the bottom of the sea to fullfill their duty..
Germany did not use 5.9 inch guns. They had 150mm (15cm). Sydney was very badly commanded. Not at action stations, guns not manned and trained at the possible target. A complete lack of common-sense.
I think Sydney thought she had found a German supply ship and drew close to attempt to capture the ship. The guns were aimed high in preparation for a warning Salvo. Reports of Sydney crew on deck would be boarding parties standing near the boats. Sydney pretended to not suspect anything to get close. Darkness was approaching and she needed to close the range before night. All makes sense with this scenario.
The only conclusion is that Burnett was outrageously incompetent. Everything Kormoran did, from the time she was first sighted by Sydney through to opening fire, was the exact behaviour one would have expected of a raider.
@@MrJob91 If youtube has an issue with your comment the text turns the color RED. Usually some keywords you are using maybe look like a threat? That is usually what youtube is trying to block, threats of violence etc.
Also, there are some bugs in RUclips's software. I've noticed that sometimes I enter a comment and when I click "Reply" or "Comment" the comment just disappears. (With nothing in any way controversial in it.) Sometimes the second try works, sometimes not.
Basically it had been so battered and raked by Kormoran's close-range fire that very few would have survived initially and the lifeboats would all have been wrecked. As the ship probably blew up later, there would have been little wreckage to cling to. And no search could be instituted until the Kormoran's boats were captured and the officers interrogated, several days later.
@@davidjones332 Incorrect: Fregattenkapitan is a higher rank than Commander (three thick stripes and one thin): the rank has no equivalent in either the Royal or US navies.
@@davidjones332 Don't forget, the ranks we're considering are those extant before NATO. Kapitänleutnant (two thick stripes one thin) equates to Lieutenant Commander. There is no equivalent rank (three thick stripes one thin) to Fregattenkapitän in either the Royal or US navies. A similar example would be the Lieutenant Junior Grade rank (one thick stripe, one thin) which neither existed in the Royal or pre NATO German Navies. Don't automatically accept Wikipedia as a font of military fact. Having written that, even Military Wikia shows the Korvettenkäpitan (as the three thick stripes rank) and they omit the Fregattenkäpitan rank (three thick one thin) altogether because it doesn't exist in either the Royal or US navies. It's the stripes that denote the rank, not the title.
Detmers' account in his book includes the interesting detail that he helped delay matters and tempt the Sydney closer by ordering the signallers to use flags slowly and apparently incompetently, to further lull the Sydney into a false sense of security. There is no evidence that Detmers opened fire before changing flags - all the German WW2 raiders were well trained to drop the metal covers in front of their guns and change flags in a few seconds. Atlantis and Pinguin also fought British cruisers, but could not lure them closer while they investigated. At long range the cruisers could then destroy the lightly armoured raiders safely.
_Kormoran_ was built with strong points for her heavy guns and had been identified as a possible raider conversion before the war. She wasn't hurriedly converted however, having spent over three months in dockyard hands being refitted for service as a raider and the crew underwent training. Detmers did not open fire before striking his neutral flag. He drove his crew hard, training on how to disable a warship if they ran into one, and that training paid off when they encountered _Sydney_ .
As you say, she was also a battle hardened vessel, but Captain Burnett was on his first sea command after spending his career in administrative work. His last assignment was keeping track of all shipping around Australia, and he knew that lists of ships supposed to be in a certain area were often out of date. It's not surprising that he thought the _Straat Malakka_ was one of them, especially as Burnett was familiar with the ship, and the Kormoran's disguise made here appear to be a close sister ship. It was only when he ordered the _Sydney_ to go in closer to have a look that Detmers realized the crew wasn't at battle stations, this was his only chance to disable the warship and escape. The crew used their machine guns and 20 mm cannon to cut down any crew members trying to get to the mostly unprotected secondary armament while his 5.9" guns disabled the 6" turrets on _Sydney_ his torpedoes holed the hull and disabled the machinery. At the same time, some of _Sydney's_ turrets were able to get into action, wrecking the upper works of _Kormoran_ and starting fires all over the ship. Both ships knew they were fatally damaged and tried to separate, but both ships had disabled steering and at most one working engine. _Sydney_ drifted off while _Kormoran's_ crew abandoned ship shortly before the fires got to the mines and she exploded.
There was probably no one left alive who wasn't fatally wounded on _Sydney_ as she drifted off. More men survived on _Kormoran_ because her crew wasn't raked by the same murderous machine gun and cannon fire unleashed on Sydney, so the crew was able to get off before the explosion and sinking. The sinking of _Sydney_ has been subject to numerous conspiracy theories, mainly because some couldn't believe a merchant ship could sink a cruiser. It was a combination of Captain Burnett ignoring his own rules on approaching a supposed merchant ship, Detmers's training of his crew, and a large dose of luck, both good and bad for both ships, that allowed this to happen. There are still Australian who refuse to believe that this wasn't some kind of conspiracy and lack of fair play, even though all the evidence up to today confirms the stories told by the German crew. Part of the conspiracy theories was the Germans had been lying, some telling the same story for 50 or 60 years before their death. Even after finding both ships on the ocean floor has confirmed the truthfulness of the Germans, the theories continue. The Australian Navy has conducted two through investigations and hasn't been able to confirm any of the theories as being true but, like most conspiracy theories, they have their true believers, and this will likely go on for generations yet.
British Admiralty manuals of the time clearly stated that German raiders could open fire at up to 16,000 yards and all unidentified ships should be treated as a raider until positively identified. The admiralty enquiry concluded the Sydney was too close and had disregarded standard cautions. X turret on the Sydney hit the Kormoran multiple times fast and accurate as described by Detmer, examination of the wreck showed open doors on X it is believed to turret crew aimed by sighting from outside. The Kormoran's crew fired at Sydney when it was no longer a threat in a sadistic driven attempt to prove they could sink a cruiser,. The moral here - Trust no one until you know absolutely who they are. This was as Stupid as the loss of the Glorious in the beginning of the war and should not have happened. The loss represented close to a quarter of the Australian Navy at the time.
There is a very good book on the Sydney I haven't got it on hand currently but it provides a full history including photos of the wreck and location diagrams.
@@woodliceworm4565 Indeed, and some of those rules were written by Capt. Burnett himself. I suspect he overestimated his ship identification skills and got too close thinking he was in no danger from a Dutch merchantman.
I must take issue with your assertion that the secondary gunfire from the _Kormoran_ was some kind of sadistic attack to prove anything. The ship was in a desperate fight to sink its opponent or be sunk. Capt Detmers was always correct in his treatment of captured seamen and didn't show any sign of a sadistic streak. He was just using the guns he had to try to stop _Sydney_ from sinking or capturing him. I've never heard any Australian officer criticize Detmers's behavior that day
@@sarjim4381 If I had the book I would provide a reference although the word sadistic was not mentioned they Detmers considered it to be a major honour to sink a cruiser and primary fire was directed at the water line as the Sydney drifted away, this was simply enthusiasm not strategic..
Still none of it should have happened as you say Luck and lack of caution was on Detmers side that day, I hope we have learned something from that. There was evidence that there were survivors on the Sydney after the battle, a similar British ship had made it back to port after a torpedo hit to the bow but in different circumstances they were able to release anchors and drop all weight forward and had some power - On the Sydney life boats rafts were damaged and with many wounded on board they may have not wished to leave crewmates behind - who knows, studies of the wreck have offered some clues as to the final hours but the story is forever lost.
@@woodliceworm4565 I don't think it's any different that the battle of the HMS _Jervis Bay_ in her battle against _Admiral Sheer_ and the medals given posthumously for the bravery shown in that battle. One of the rules of naval warfare is you keep shooting until you opponent shows the white flag or sinks. _Sydney_ did neither, and she was still capable of resistance, as shown by here final torpedo salvo. What would you have done if you were Detmers? In the end, _Sydney_ would never have been sunk if Burnett had just used his range advantage of his better guns and fire control system.
Captain Burnett was an very experienced Naval Officer who severed for periods of time on many vessels, including HMAS Australia, HMAS Canberra and latterly just prior to WW2 on HMS Royal Oak and HMS Resolution.
Having read Detmers book, I have no doubt that the version given is true and accurate, they lured in an incautious Burnett, revealed their colours and took advantage of the element of surprise.
Of course there are those who don’t want to believe a raider could do that to a warship, or want to believe some ridiculous (evidence less) conspiracy, but I can find no reason to disbelieve Detmers version.
At close range there is no doubt that the Sydney would throw away its main benefits (better fire control and some level of armour protection and also what it’s extra speed could do for it) as at short range the armour would be useless and the Sydney easily hit with the WW1 level of technology on the Kormoran.
I can’t prove it did happen as Detmers said, but there is no proof it didn’t either and reading his book gave me a feel for the man behind the rank and for me there is little doubt it was a true and accurate account, NONE of the Kormoran’s crew ever spoke out in contradiction either.
I also read that book. I thought that the "incompetent signaller" ruse was clever. That may have been one reason Burnett got so close. Upside down signal flags, flags in the wrong order, who'd have thought? Detmers, I think, knew that he had no chance against the Sydney, but couldn't just surrender his ship. he sounds like one of the "old school" naval officers. I doubt that he would have ever considered murdering men in the water.
That is what the Australian navy thought. The only people who have thought otherwise are completely bizarre.
No one has given a complete rationale for why the Sydney acted as it did.
Heh, and as Detmers noted, one of the cannon on Kormoran had been salvaged from the Seydlitz after the Battle of Jutland. :D He had old and relatively small cannon, but still cannon suitable for a proper warship.
There are several errors with this account and it apparently does not take into consideration the findings of the Royal Commission. Kormoran had been identified as a possible surface raider at time of building and had reinforced decks. She had 5.9-inch guns, almost exactly the same size as Sydney's and heavier lighter weapons well hidden. She also had torpedoes in angled tubes and it was one of these that took Sydney's bow off. Sydney did have her secondary armament of 4-inch dual purpose quick firing guns but they were not in turrets and exposed to deck fire. Nor was she heavily armoured or armed, she was a light cruiser and in fact was not patrolling when she came across Kormoran but returning to Fremantle from an escort passage. Burnett knew the Malakka and had he launched his aircraft he would have found that the two ships looked completely different. It should be noted that this was his first at least major sea command and he was aware there was a merchant raider in the vicinity having told his crew he intended to find it - he got that right. Dettmers' tactics in steaming directly up-sun making his signal flags hard to read and signalling he was being approached by a raider were fist class. Claims are made here (or suggestions) that a Japanese submarine was present and machine gunned Sydney survivors (the same as the one that the embarked fast motor boat in Kormoran ditto) is a nonsense, proved by the Commission; Japan was not at war and her focus was Pearl Harbour/ the Far East and the relations with the US. So, too, the claim Dettmers opened fire flying the Dutch flag; disproved by the Commission. Kormoran's high rates of fire and superb shooting were in part because Dettmers had trained his crew hard, they had had months of active gunnery and they were terrified. Finally (for there), the claim the only item from Sydney found was an inflatable RAN lifejacket is incorrect. Inflatable jackets did not exist in 1941. What was found was a Carley float riddled with bullets and containing a single still unidentified body washed ashore at Christmas Island. For the RAN it was and remains its single greatest tragedy, and the loss was at a time when every cruiser the Navy had was needed instead in short order of losing Sydney, Perth and Canberra. The simple fact remains Burnett was beaten by the better man along with 645 seamen; that is the ultimate tragedy of the obscenity of war.
Thank you for this fascinating story. History is full of these "forgotten battles" that never receive the "glory" they deserve for the dedication and sacrifice of their crews.
My great uncle served on the Sydney but was ashore when this happened.
I'd rather not think what this must have been like for him.
Thanks, Ruairidh. There is an excellent and poignant memorial to the HMAS Sydney at Geraldton, Western Australia, on the hill overlooking the sea.
Very well presented Ruairidh.
We have a Memorial to her here in Geraldton and each year conduct a Commemoration Service on 19th November. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Sydney's sinking. As it's a 'special' anniversary I'll likely put up a display of pin boards at the Geraldton RSL the week of the anniversary and be there for a couple of days in a replica WWII RAN uniform. With your permission I would also like to screen your presentation on the TV in the RSL hall.
Warm Regards
Karl
Ex LSRP/LSCSO and Living History Reenactor
Excellent. The Sydney command was naive to not treat Cormoran as a threat.
Or a bit rusty, despite his length of service his previous assignment was a shore bound office job. Had the Sydney's prior captain had remained he may well have been more cautious.
Aye. Given that the Sydney mortally wounded the raider with her 2nd and 3rd salvoes, the encounter could have only gone one way had the Cruiser kept her distance.
Not too bright! Captain should have known about his gun range!
Always good to see you branching out into other topics :D .
(though the Car & Railway vid's remain a particular favourite)
One detail was off though; Sydney was a Cruiser; thus not a "ship of the line" as stated in-video.
After all the noun *Battleship* comes from "[Battle] Ship of the Line", or "Line of Battle [Ship]", whilst Cruisers were doctrinally not part of the Line of Battle, just like Destroyers & Sloops.
Another brilliant video. May I suggest the Westland Wessex Helicopter for a future vid?
Keep up the good work!
Great presentation on a subject where video makers are sometimes prone to work on fiction and not fact! But you're view is the way it should be done. They confused the Kormoran for the raiders tender ship hence why they allowed the only advantage that mattered to be lost range. One captains poor judgement lost it all but the crew fought to the last.
The constant AA fire from the Komoran to the deck and superstructure of the Sydney probably destroyed all life-saving equipment and vessels.
I cannot see why Captain Burnett was familiar with the Straat Malakka as the ship had never been to Australia, have I missed something?.
Thanks for this nice Video! Greetings from Stuttgart in South Germany. I like your other Videos !
Thank you Ruairidh, always enjoy your videos.
It is really sad to know that many of the Sydney crew would have been saved if the last shots wouldn't have hit the Kormoran.
Burnett stuffed up....I'm sorry, there is no other way to put it. What a terrible result of a single lapse.
Interesting story. I have to wonder what on earth the point is of escaping from a POW camp in Australia. Maybe they preferred to die in the desert?
It depends where they were interred in Australia. Italian POWs in the states of Tasmania and Victoria were deployed to farm work in wet mountain valleys surrounded by snow clad mountains. Escaping from there would have been even more difficult than crossing a desert.
@@Dave_Sisson Plus there is the small detail of being on a continent many thousands of miles away from home.
Good point just need to wait until they crawl back begging for water.
@@Dave_Sisson They came back to work on the Snowy.
It was the duty of an officer to attempt an escape. My grandfather was a member of the crew of the Komorran. He told about the battle in his later life. Unfortunately we will never know the complete truth as the version I was told was slightly different. My grandparents returned to Australia after the war to raise their family. For this I am grateful.
I have not read of this inflatable RAN Lifebelt before, where did that information come from? There was a Carley Life Float recovered by HMAS Heros. The Float did contain two Australian Naval Life Belts when found. The location of these are unknown.
Kormoran was not hastily converted. Her construction was partially funded by the German Government under the condition her design have strengthened points to mount her weapons.
2nd,Can't Wait To See This. Its Only 3:03AM For Me
Maybe controversial, but nevertheless a riveting story. Thanks for posting. Could there be any more terrible death than alone in the ocean, hanging on to the end because only then do you realize how precious life is?
Well done. Subscribed.
SMS Kormoran's exploits are very much similar to SMS Wolf during WW1, only SMS Wolf completed her mission and voyage through the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans and returned safely to Germany after 444 days.
Made my morning seeing this pop up in my inbox 😊
Actually only 644 of sydeny’s crew were killed there was only one survivor Thomas welbsy Clark
Excellent video and about a battle I knew nothing about. The German, for all their failings, were brave men, life in the Kreigsmarine was cheap and brutal!
There's the story of the captain of HMS Glowworm who received a posthumous VC after being sunk by the Admiral Hipper, on the recommendation of the Hipper's captain in recognition of Lt-Cmdr Roope's bravery in trying to sink Hipper and dying while helping his men climb onto ropes and nets let down by Hipper.
Hipper's commander, Captain Hellmuth Heye, put the recommendation through the Red Cross.
Both the Komarant and Sydney were very handsome ships.
Thank you.
It's CANberra not canbERRa also "Aitch", there's no such word as "Haitch" Happy New Year!
Another great video. Thanks.
It is an excellent video. However it should be mentioned that Commonwealth navy captains where under orders to try and capture axis blockade runners and commerce raiders before they scuttle. This was ordered because of the tremendous losses of merhcant shipping during the Battle of the Atlantic, the captured ships was needed as replacements. For a dutyfull captain at service so far away from action the in the Atlantic this order would have surely been taken even more serious.
This order was also rescinded by the Admiralty just some days after it was clear what had happened to the HMAS Sydney.
By issuing this order I think it was clear how much the Admiralty underestimated Kriegsmarine personell, only a fourth of the Uboat crews survived the war, and when a German capital ship went down it usually did it with its guns still firing. The KM was full of Horatio Hornblowers and Jack Aubreys ready to go to the bottom of the sea to fullfill their duty..
my grandfather was was a ran reserve captain ww2 RESPECT.///
The Sidney sank in Shark Bay, so the fate of any survivors floating in that waters is terrible to guess.
At the very end it should be mentioned that rules for merchant ship inspection were changed to avoid a repeat of the sinking.
Germany did not use 5.9 inch guns. They had 150mm (15cm).
Sydney was very badly commanded. Not at action stations, guns not manned and trained at the possible target.
A complete lack of common-sense.
I think Sydney thought she had found a German supply ship and drew close to attempt to capture the ship. The guns were aimed high in preparation for a warning Salvo. Reports of Sydney crew on deck would be boarding parties standing near the boats. Sydney pretended to not suspect anything to get close. Darkness was approaching and she needed to close the range before night. All makes sense with this scenario.
The only conclusion is that Burnett was outrageously incompetent. Everything Kormoran did, from the time she was first sighted by Sydney through to opening fire, was the exact behaviour one would have expected of a raider.
True however , who forging their way thru the pitfalls of life,does not, make mistakes , some life changing
Awesome
They were hard men in those days.
Lack of preparation on sidneys part
I would have thought that awards to the axis commanders was stopped after their defeat.
The award would have been made while he was a POW.
Battle of River Plait
TFP. Some of what is presented here is unflagged supposition. Disappointed at amount of irrelevant stock footage.
The Cormorant was a known menace to Allied shipping the scourge to everyone.
I was hoping Drachinifel had a video on this but found this instead almost as good
Kormoran sunk it self. The Sidney was sunk by friendly planes mistaking it for an enemy ship, the crew was killed to keep it quiet.
What rubbish
It makes me sick
It’s surprising how HMAS Sydney got sunk even though Sydney has more guns
Shame Burnett, shame.
lol my comments get deleted instantly when I say anything about the abuse of my national dutch flag by the kormoran
completely savage raiders
lol but some of the worst SS were dutch units,, that's ok with you
@@markspiers64 again my reply was deleted instantly.
@@MrJob91 If youtube has an issue with your comment the text turns the color RED. Usually some keywords you are using maybe look like a threat? That is usually what youtube is trying to block, threats of violence etc.
Also, there are some bugs in RUclips's software.
I've noticed that sometimes I enter a comment and when I click "Reply" or "Comment" the comment just disappears. (With nothing in any way controversial in it.)
Sometimes the second try works, sometimes not.
Strange how Sydney and crew all
Disappeared
Aliens?
If the ship broke up suddenly and sank, loss of all hands isn't impossible. Think about other ships that sank suddenly, like Hood.
Even HMS HOOD had three survivors.
@@ludo9234 Yes but took about a week for any rescue to show up.
Basically it had been so battered and raked by Kormoran's close-range fire that very few would have survived initially and the lifeboats would all have been wrecked. As the ship probably blew up later, there would have been little wreckage to cling to. And no search could be instituted until the Kormoran's boats were captured and the officers interrogated, several days later.
Good. I wait for love from you 💝💖
Sneaked not 'snuck' and the German Navy equivalent of a Royal Navy commander is Korvettenkapitan: Fregattenkapitan is a rank higher.
No, Korvettenkapitan is equivalent to Lieutenant Commander, Fregattenkapitan to Commander.
@@davidjones332 Incorrect: Fregattenkapitan is a higher rank than Commander (three thick stripes and one thin): the rank has no equivalent in either the Royal or US navies.
@@davidjones332 Don't forget, the ranks we're considering are those extant before NATO. Kapitänleutnant (two thick stripes one thin) equates to Lieutenant Commander. There is no equivalent rank (three thick stripes one thin) to Fregattenkapitän in either the Royal or US navies. A similar example would be the Lieutenant Junior Grade rank (one thick stripe, one thin) which neither existed in the Royal or pre NATO German Navies. Don't automatically accept Wikipedia as a font of military fact. Having written that, even Military Wikia shows the Korvettenkäpitan (as the three thick stripes rank) and they omit the Fregattenkäpitan rank (three thick one thin) altogether because it doesn't exist in either the Royal or US navies. It's the stripes that denote the rank, not the title.
I'm Single 😍😥