HMAS Sydney and naval archeology

[old iron]

A very detailed anaysis of the HMAS Sydney wreck has been published and is available as a pdf file at <http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/DSTO/DSTO.003.0001_LR.pdf>. It is well worth a look. This includes some information on the Walrus used by the cruiser.

To make this more pertinent to WIXers, the Sydney study provides an excellent model for future work at the Midway battlefield. While the aircraft would be widesly dispersed, a detailed study of the wrecks could provide much new historical information on the engagement.

So, if the Midway battlefield was to be found and studied, should any of the aircraft be retrieved? I know that our inclination is to "bring em up" and put them on display, but as a completely intact battlefield (battlebed?) - not to mention a burial ground - should the site be designated an international historical site? Should a representative aircraft be retrieved for study and display. What would prevent the private "looting" of the site as happened with the Titanic?

Over to you folks....

Kevin

[JDK Mod Edit 'A' for HMAS added.]

[John Dupre]

The Titanic site was not looted. The current holders of claims against the wreck authorized salvage. Robert Ballard as discoverer should have filed his own claims against the wreck and then he could have prevented salvage by not releasing his claim. Ballard says it was his biggest mistake since he always intended that the wreck should have been left alone.

[brucev]

isn't the Yorktown wreck about 17000 ft deep? i think the difficulty in raising something as fragile as a wrecked aircraft from that depth would serve to prevent it from happening

Just a slight correction to your post, it should read HMAS Sydney, not HMS Sydney.

DESIGN flaws in the cruiser HMAS Sydney II made it particularly vulnerable to shellfire when it encountered the German raider HSK Kormoran off Western Australia in 1941, a Sydney inquiry heard yesterday.

Lifeboats that could have saved some of the 645 sailors on board when the Sydney was shelled, machine-gunned and torpedoed were clustered in one area of the deck, near the crane that was to have been used to lower them into the sea, but the boats were hit by shells.

All the senior officers were on the bridge when the Sydney closed in on the Kormoran and, at a distance of between 900 and 2000 metres, every feature of the ship was visible to the enemy. Dr Roger Neill, one of a team of defence scientists who studied the wreckage of the Sydney after it was found last March, said the lifeboats were close to a Walrus aircraft and supplies of highly inflammable aviation fuel.

Dr Neill, appearing before the commissioner, Terence Cole, QC, said the gunners on the Kormoran took the Sydney by surprise and were able to fire seven salvos a minute of their 15-centimetre guns. Forty-four rounds were fired during the battle, and 41 struck home.

The enemy gunners were able to fire with pinpoint accuracy, knocking out the fore and aft gun turrets and the gun control tower. Carley floats - rafts that could keep men afloat for several days - were blown off the ship by a shell and damaged by shell fragments and fire. A davit, a device that governs lifeboats, was damaged, leaving a whaler boat hanging over the side. A shell blew away the remaining davit, sending the whaler crashing into the ocean.

A defence scientist, Dr Stuart Cannon, said doors in some internal bulkheads were made of thin metal and plywood, offering scant protection, feeding the fire and allowing smoke through to other sections.

The scientist Terry Turner said 70 per cent of the crew would have been incapacitated by shells and bullets or because they were trapped in closed spaces and overcome by smoke and fumes.

The inquiry adjourned.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hma ... 08325.html

[JDK]

Thanks for that West-Front. The actual report's worth reading (thanks very much for the heads' up, Kevin, I've just been updating my knowledge with reading this). The newspaper's not; over-simplifying too far, IMHO.

The 'design flaws' were integral to the nature of this class of cruiser. To have been heavier built would've detracted from speed and manoeuvrability. HMAS Sydney was a battle proven ship with a new crew.

The enquiry can (and has) told us what happened; but not why. They have proven the German eyewitness accounts check-out in all aspects (there are no other eye-witness accounts, Sydney sinking with all hands lost).

The questions, which can never be answered because the decision makes are dead, with no accounts, are, 1: "Why did Sydney close with a suspicious ship, and arrive in a position where it could shell and torpedo Sydney?" and 2: "How could a disguised raider change flags, drop covers, train (loaded) guns and fire several accurate salvos before a prepared cruiser fired it's already action stations ready, trained and loaded guns?" (And when Sydney's guns did finally fire, why were they not accurate?)

Page 167 shows remains which may be the Walrus aircraft. I'm hoping to get higher res versions to see if they are - it's not a restorable object! The HSK Kormoran's two Arado Ar 196 aircraft were blown to smithereens when the ship's mines went off. Other comments to Kevin's question later.

[PbyCat-Guy]

what kind of aircraft might be in/on the HMAS Sydney? I'm not familiar with British or Aussies in the Battle of Midway.

[JDK]

what kind of aircraft might be in/on the HMAS Sydney? I'm not familiar with British or Aussies in the Battle of Midway.

Ah. HMAS Sydney (II) was a county class cruiser, sunk (with all hands) before America's entry into the war by a disguised German Commerce Raider HSK Kormoran, which was itself sunk by Sydney, some distance off the coast of Western Australia.

http://www.findingsydney.com/default.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_(1934)

The wrecks of both ships were finally discovered last year. Not unreasonably, 'old iron' wondered what lesson might be applied from this recent discovery to others, such as the Battle of Midway.

Thanks for that West-Front. The actual report's worth reading (thanks very much for the heads' up, Kevin, I've just been updating my knowledge with reading this). The newspaper's not; over-simplifying too far, IMHO.

The 'design flaws' were integral to the nature of this class of cruiser. To have been heavier built would've detracted from speed and manoeuvrability. HMAS Sydney was a battle proven ship with a new crew.

The enquiry can (and has) told us what happened; but not why. They have proven the German eyewitness accounts check-out in all aspects (there are no other eye-witness accounts, Sydney sinking with all hands lost).

The questions, which can never be answered because the decision makes are dead, with no accounts, are, 1: "Why did Sydney close with a suspicious ship, and arrive in a position where it could shell and torpedo Sydney?" and 2: "How could a disguised raider change flags, drop covers, train (loaded) guns and fire several accurate salvos before a prepared cruiser fired it's already action stations ready, trained and loaded guns?" (And when Sydney's guns did finally fire, why were they not accurate?)

Page 167 shows remains which may be the Walrus aircraft. I'm hoping to get higher res versions to see if they are - it's not a restorable object! The HSK Kormoran's two Arado Ar 196 aircraft were blown to smithereens when the ship's mines went off. Other comments to Kevin's question later.

Intelligent questions JDK

There have been some very good and very badly written books on the loss of the HMAS Sydney. The Barbara Winters book being one of the better ones IMHO.

I have read that the Kormoran crew could strike and fly the reichsflagge in record time (seconds at the most). There is also evidence to suggest that the HMAS Sydney commander intended to board and inspect the Komoran (as he had done previously with other ships). German accounts speak of sailors from HMAS Sydney on deck watching proceedings. Perhaps a tendency to think they were safe as they neared Australia also played a part, we'll never know for certain.

Personally I feel the weight of fire of the 20mm sweeping the decks, which resulted in the A/C spewing burning fuel on deck, the accuracy of the main guns (and the speed at which it could be laid down) really decided this battle. There is no question that the Komorans crew were well trained, I have seen one wreck photo where a large entry hole can be seen directly between the twin guns of one of the Sydney turrets.

To put it in context, more Australians were lost in this single encounter than in the whole of the Vietnam war. Its hard to fathom (no pun intended), the catastrophe that this engagement was to the RAN. The loss of all hands and no survivors really was inconceivable to wartime Australians, and I feel still is.