kamui Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Acutally, until now I had never heard of both ships. The battle between the two ships was never an issue in German media. Probably because we had far bigger losses at sea during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Yeah i guess so... Big hear as we were/are a small nation and to see so many go down with the ship it was a very big story then and still is .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 As I am a passionate of WW2 history I compiled this morning all the info I could grab on the subject. (must probably be one of the few people crazy enough to have a library full of studies on the subject). Will not give you more info about HMAS Sidney than what you can find on wiki (for example). A few things: - It will end a very long controversy in Australia which in my opinion is pointless. (there were many warships during WW2 which sank leaving very few survivors.....) - I am glad for the families to know where their relatives are. Above all for me: It will be interesting to know how she sunk. By this I mean the wreck and its hull seem to be rather intact (especially if you compare with famous WW2 wrecks such as Bismarck, Yamato or Hood) -> if it is confirmed that the hull is almost intact then there never was a huge explosion which sent her to the bottom. (warships with very high casualties were mainly the results of a huge explosion, usually the ammo magasines, or to a very fast sinking) Then (if the ship's hull does not show any trace of huge explosion and with further assesment of the ship's damages) the questions I have: - If just one torpedo hit the cruiser and if it was really limping away how did it sink so as to leave no survivors. - Even if almost stationary and very close to the German raider how is it that the Sidney was sunk leaving the German ship fairly intact (from the crew casualties point of view) -> Did the Captain make a huge mistake by not having his crew beat to quarters prior to the engagement and his weapons trained on the German ship. We are talking about a light cruiser here against just a raider...... Quite a few more questions and I am waiting eagerly. By the way, I do not buy the German's survivors version -> because there are no other witnesses and the interrogation of the German prisonners forgot to segregate them at the begining. Did the German crew murdered the cruiser's survivors? (would be then the second or third case on the Kriegsmarine's part during ww2 and many mroe cases on the allies navies side) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 << Did the German crew murdered the cruiser's survivors? >> How? Their own ship was in danger of blowing up and the HMAS Sydney was sailing away. Her wreck was found exactly where the German survivors said it was. If my ship were sinking off the coast of Australia, the last thing I'd want to do is be killing Australian survivors! They hadn't killed the crews of any of the 11 merchant ships they captured, so why start now? << the interrogation of the German prisonners forgot to segregate them at the begining. >> Um ... some were picked up in lifeboats at sea over a period of days, others landed in lifeboats on the coast. They were sort of segregated into groups to being with. Them nasty Krauts! Evil bastards! p.s. The Kriegsmarine sailed under the identical orders as the US Navy in the Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 For myself I do not think the German crew shot the survivors in the water (highly unlikely as you mention it) but I am trying to find a reason why there were no survivors/bodies washed ashore from the cruiser (except the body which has been recently identified as being part of the cruiser's party). What I question on the part of the German crew is the sequence of events which led to the loss of the cruiser. From the sonnar's scan it seems the wreck is pretty much intact so a huge explosion due to the detonation of the cruiser's ammo is out of question. Then as it was a light cruiser how does it come that none survived when it went to the bottom??? I do not think that the torpedo explosion and subsequent shelling did kill that many crew members. There are plenty of examples during WW2 of warships being blown up which left survivors. In this case the ship did not obviously blow up so how is it that no bodies or survivors were found? Update: A possible explanation http://presspass.findingsydney.com/blogs/search_reports/archive/2008/03/16/discovery-of-hmas-sydney-ii.aspx But even if the bow broke then the capsizing must have been really fast so as not to leave survivors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Only a handful got off of the HMS Hood before she went down. What if all the lifeboats and rafts on the HMAS Sydney had been destroyed? Many sharks in that area? The USS Indianapolis was sunk by a Nipponese sub and the sharks got many of the survivors! "USS Indianapolis (CA-35) was a Portland-class heavy cruiser of the United States Navy. She holds a place in history due to the notorious circumstances of her demise, which was the worst single at-sea loss of life in the history of the U.S. Navy. "After delivering the first atomic bomb to be used in combat to the United States air base at Tinian Island on July 26, 1945, she was in the Philippine Sea when attacked at 00:14 on July 30, 1945 by a Japanese submarine. Most of the crew was lost to a combination of exposure, dehydration, and shark attacks as they waited for assistance while floating helplessly for several days" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Yes but the Hood was sunk by an internal explosion (quite apocalyptic in fact) and still there were survivors. Sharks? Sure many American and Japanese survivors were killed by sharks but a full crew? And for Indianapolis the research started a bit too late (disfunctional system in the US navy) and were left to die at sea for quite a few days. (I do not remember but it has been 3-5 days before search and rescue were launched) Another example are the survivors of a few US destroyers sunk at the battle of the Leyte gulf. Lifeboats destroyed during the engagement? Sure it is possible but how is it that in so many cases survivors/dead bodies were found even very lately in the water or washed ashore with their lifebelts. Flashermac: I like discussing with you, it helps to see things under a different light. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Thanks. My dad was a WWII vet - 186th Field Artillery Battalion, US First Army. Spent some time in Belgium in late 1944. WWII isn't really my favourite war, but I was a history minor. I've always had an interest in historical "mysteries". Wonder how Clive Cussler missed the Sydney for a plot. Know about this one? Really an oddball mystery ... "The loss of the ship and 306 crew and passengers without a trace sometime after March 4, 1918 remains the single largest loss of life in U.S. Naval history not directly involving combat. The ship's fate is still a mystery that remains unsolved to this day. No wreckage of the vessel has ever been found." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cyclops_(AC-4) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 My favorite wars are more during the antiquity or during the Napoleonic era..... Yep agree that cussler could have made something out of this one. (guess the Titanic was already enough for him) Thanks for the cyclops, very interesting story. If your dad is still alive please send him the congratulations of my family. (my grandfather was fighting in the same sector of the bulge as your dad and my grandmother was in a German camp), Belgium was quite cold at that time. What is your favorite period in military history and why? Just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Mostly North American history. I had ancestors in the colonial wars, the Am Rev (including a "Patriot" colonel and a Loyalist expelled from his colony), both sides in the Civil War, both World Wars (with family on both sides again!) ... and served in Vietnam myself. I come from a long line of conscripts. I tend to be fascinated by the forgotten wars and campaigns, the one nobody else knows about. Got one foot on each side of the Atlantic. I had a great uncle in the Crimean War and another one in the Boer War. Somebody in the family always seems to end up being shot at. Lost my dad six years ago, but he made it to 85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.