Yuku free message boards

About ten years ago, I got some bee in my bonnet and borrowed the three books the local library had on the loss of the Sydney. Detmer was a driven man and wanted to be the captain of the best raider in the German Navy.

He had every reason to complain at his rough handling by the Australians when he was captured but he had expected that. My impressions from reading about him, several different versions about him, was that he was a bit close about information about the battle. As stated, there were good reasons for that besides his being on the losing side.

At least one book spent some time on the character of the two captains, which of course, seems to be the key to the whole engagement. There are lots of theories about what Burnett was thinking to allow the initiative to pass to Detmers.

From memory, Burnett had less command experience than Collins and no wartime experience. He seems to have been a stickler for the rules, all the rules. He was around when another famous Australian commander was criticised for using too much ammunition because the engagement was conducted at extreme range.

I forget what the executive were like on Sydney but I suspect that Burnett did not rely on them at all and may have been in a sort of conflict or competition with the ones who were from the Collins era.

Detmers was pretty much the isolated removed commander, maybe with faults but very effective.

Detmers was always going to fight. To have possibly the best raider ever, with a captain who has many times theorised about taking on a cruiser with his ship coming up against a British light cruiser with an inexperienced, tired captain was really bad luck. Sydney and Kormoran did not get into their relative positions accidentally. Detmers intended to fight from the time Sydney was seen to follow them and maybe before. He positioned his ship to best advantage to bring as many of his guns and torpedoes to bear as possible.

But what else did he do? He ran a tight ship. Kormoran was never going to fail because of inadequate training or motivation. His ship and crew were the best that they could be. They could turn from an inoffensive merchantman to a fighting cruiser fast. The crew were proud of how fast and how good, they were.

Imagine the nerves of the man. An enemy cruiser is coming up from behind them at speed. It is not a corvette or even a destroyer but a cruiser! At any time their ruse could be discovered. He has to wait until he can bring every gun to bear but he also has to get in the first hit. Kormoran has to appear to have stopped. She has to come side on to Sydney so slowly that it has to appear to be accidental.

Kormoran has excellent gunnery and has achieved great success with her guns at ranges of (?) 10,000 yards. The Australian captain has regulations that tell him not to approach closer than 5,000 yards to a suspect ship. Reliable accounts have the Sydney at 1,500 yards and possibly as close as 800 yards before the Kormoran opens fire. It is commonly accepted that with the naked eye individual seamen could be seen going about the deck. Given that fact, 1,500 is the maximum and it was most probably less. To hold your fire until then knowing that with the binoculars available, they could see a man hiding with a rifle never mind a naval gun, requires immense discipline and nerve.

He uses his antiaircraft guns to take out the bridge. That was a masterstroke because it works. The officers on the bridge cannot issue orders before they are destroyed. As I remember, the Germans could drop the shields on the antiaircraft guns and have them firing in an instant.

If he has given the order to raise his colours and does not wait, the officers on Sydney are dead before they see the German flag. I believe that he gave the order to raise the colours but, the waiting? No, I do not think so. But if so, how long does he wait? Until the flag has reached the top? Until the Sydney has indicated or signalled that she has seen the colours?

I would not call that cheating. I would call that teamwork and excellent gunnery.

The torpedo(s) always has me wondering. Would Sydney observe the firing? When would Sydney detect the torpedo? Once the torpedo strikes, the Kormoran has more firepower than Sydney by a substantial margin.

One of the Kormoran crew accused the Sydney gunnery officer of firing unders and overs, trying to bracket the Kormoran rather than just firing for effect from the get-go. Other Kormoran crew say that the main guns were not trained on Kormoran. when the German opened fire. Some of the Kormoran crew report seeing Sydney sailors running for the guns indicating that they were not locked up and fully manned.

Detmers had time to communicate with his gunnery officers and explain when firing would commence and what would be the targets for each weapon. As far as we know, the German crew performed admirably. They waited and they waited and then they attacked with devastating swiftness, accuracy and coordination and Sydney was doomed as soon as hostilities commenced.

If Sydney's gunnery was closed up ready to fire, they should have been training the guns. Before Kormoran can get off her first shots from her main weapons and before the torpedo can arrive, Sydney should have been firing. Could a chance sea and the loss of the central director cause the first rounds to miss? Could it be that they were as unready as the Germans say they were? Many on Sydney should have seen the AA guns cleared for action regardless of the signals or flags flown by Kormoran.

So, what I want to know is what cheating would look like.