# Talk:HMAS Sydney (D48)

The Finding Sydney Foundation has released a sonar image of the wreckage. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sonar images from the Finding Sydney Foundation "press room' CAN be used reproduced under the terms of the Foundation's legal information. Images of the Sydney are here. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, they may not:
 Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep reading further down the same page.
 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sydney is described as being laid down on the 8th July 1933 as HMS Phaeton and then being purchased by the Australian Government, to then be renamed Sydney. She was launched on 22 September 1934. Does this then mean she was scheduled to be named Phaeton but didn't actually receive the name? Does this also mean she therefore never carried the name as she was never launched as the Phaeton? Ozdaren (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney was a modified Leander-class light cruiser of the Royal Australian Navy. The ship had great success in the first years of World War II, but controversy and mystery surrounds the loss of Sydney and her crew in November 1941. Her sinking with all hands represents the greatest ever loss of life in an Australian warship; Sydney was also the largest vessel of any country to be lost with all hands during the war.[2]
It was announced on 16 March 2008 that the wreckage of the German vessel which sank HMAS Sydney, the auxiliary cruiser HSK Kormoran, had been found on the night of 14 March 2008.[3] On the next day, 17 March 2008, the discovery of the wreck of HMAS Sydney was announced by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.[4] Sydney was located on 15 March 2008, 150 kilometres (81 nmi) from Shark Bay and 22 kilometres (12 nmi) from the location where the Kormoran was found.

There's no longer a mystery, and the dates as currently given are a bit jumbled. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many paragraphs without in line citations, as required at GA level in practice.  Presumably these are based on the books in "Further reading", but these will need to be looked at to give specific references.--Grahame (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the case. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, saw this on the GAN, just a small note: I looked at the article using Internet Explorer (I know a lot users use Mozilla), the sonar pic clashes with the first 3 refs in the "refs" section. Ryan4314  (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem pal, maybe you could check out a ship article I rewrote recently, HMS Cardiff (D108). Ryan4314  (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate, just had a look again, I don't think it's quite fixed. I took a screen of it for you here ( File:Sydney pic for Socrates.jpg ). I think it's the image sandwich that's doing it, maybe one of those two pics needs to go, hmmm tough choice. Ryan4314  (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Swapping the images seemed to have sorted it now, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen one or two texts refer to Sydney's class as a "Perth-class" light cruiser.  "Leander-class" was the original Royal Navy design, while "Amphion-class" was an upgraded Leander, originally intended for the Royal Navy.  However HMS Amphion was never commissioned into the Royal Navy - indeed none of the other ships in the class were, as they were purchased by the RAN.  So is "Perth-class" the correct designation, or just something someone assumed, given that HMAS Perth (ex-HMS Amphion) ended up being the first ship in the class? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Australian Navy calls Sydney and her two sisters 'Modified Leander Class Light Cruisers' at [1]. I'd suggest that this is probably the best name. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Perth Class" is one of several correct common descriptions. If you read the battle reports by Captain Detmers of HSK Kormoran he apparently said that when first sighted on 19 November 1941 that HMAS Sydney was identified as a "Perth Class" cruiser. Now either he said it or the investigator or translator at the time in late 1941 translated it that way. So in 1941 one or both navies called her "Perth Class". None the less I agree, leave the name alone. (Lanyon (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Given that the modified Leanders had two funnels instead of one large funnel they had a distinctly different appearance. So for identification purposes it made sense to list them as a class of their own in the ID-books to avoid confusion. Nevfennas (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Finding Sydney Foundation have now released photos of the deck and turrets.[2] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the photos from the Press Room. These CAN be used with acknowledgement under the same conditions as the sonar images. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


### On hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. I have a few issues at the moment

Refs
Refs, we need page numbers for the refs.
Factual issues
What is the displacement unit? Gross tons, displacement, tons etc...
This problem and some others with the class were fixed in HMAS Hobart, : What were the other problems, that is a very vague sentence.
How long were the sea trials?
Images
Check the legal status of Image:HMAS Sydney Sonar Image.jpg. Up for deletion on Commons.
Moot point now, it has been deleted. Woody (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
MOS
ndashes, and mdashes see WP:DASH
Make sure you are consistent with date formatting, you have missed a couple of links.
Prose
Merge the first two paras in the WWII deployment section.
Merge the last two paras in the WWII deployment section.
Merge the "then turned around to head back to Fremantle.Sydney was scheduled to arrive back in Fremantle in the afternoon " paragraphs.
Move "The wreck of the Sydney will be protected under the 1976 Historic Shipwrecks Act[25] and be treated as a war grave.[26]" to the bottom of the first paragraph of that section. (after ...of water.)
So, some work to do, leave a note on my talk when you have finished. I will pop back in a couple of days. If the issues aren;t dealt with in 7 days, then it will be failed. Thanks. Woody (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


### Passed
Excellent work. Before FAC, I would consider rejigging the refs further; I have not seen the subheadings used before. That is not to say they are not allowed under the FAC though. Well done overall. Woody (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks v much. FYI, reference headings cloned from Arnison  BTW, I believe your date format edits go against the international date format used in this Australian article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I formatted the dates in the lead per the most common one in the article. The ones in the Lead were different to everywhere else in the article. What you need to have is a consistent format.
About the refs, I would check to see what FAs use, if you were going to go down that route. See AHS Centaur for what I commonly see at FAC. Or look at some of the more recent additions to Wikipedia:SHIPS#Featured articles Woody (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be a shame not to include some of the ROV photos before FAC. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the copyright does not allow them to be modified, and Wikipedia won't accept them on this basis. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They can be uploaded onto Wikipedia (not Wikicommons) if a reasonable case for fair use is made. Given the high importance of photos of the wreck and the obvious impossibility of free photos of this ever becoming available there should be no problem with this approach. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
See Image:HMAS Sydney wreck, 64.jpg. Woody (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lifeboats have been found near the wreck.[3] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the latest batch from the Finding Sydney Foundation press room.[4][5] 59.167.40.126 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Completed Inquiry: The loss of HMAS Sydney.[6] I think a summary of this would be important in getting FA status.
The Sinking of HMAS Sydney: A Guide to Commonwealth Government Records by the National Archives of Australia.
An episode of ABC TV's Rewind had an item about the search of archival records about the Sydney in 2004.[7] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose the following revision. I have given a few specific examples indicating the tone of some submissions. I am not sure that I have given the references correctly. Help & comments welcome:
A Commission of Inquiry into the loss of Sydney was announced following the finding of the wrecks, since no formal inquiry had previously been held. The president of the inquiry is The Honourable Terence Cole AO, RFD, QC. Submissions closed in October 2008 and are available here.
Some submissions in defence of Captain Burnett claim that credible eye witness and circumstantial evidence already in the public domain show that Sydney may have been the victim of an illegal ruse de guerre. It is argued that such evidence casts reasonable doubt on the 'official' account of the battle (based on enemy evidence), and that Burnett should be exonerated .
GilesW (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of the benefit of quoting "The President of the Commission..." - just state the point.
I used the quote to supply the exact names & details. Have edited as you suggest. GilesW (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Weasel-like statement "It is claimed..." might work better in active tense.  I'm not sure about this, but I don't think WP uses quotes for things like "not guilty" to convey irony - however I can't think of a better way to convey the implied accusation of incompetence. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not intending to imply irony. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity: I see now from Wikipedia guidelines that I should have used italics. Some people who have studied the evidence, and I am one, think that the evidence is strong enough to exonerate Burnett, or failing that to cast reasonable doubt on his guilt, either of which would require a not guilty verdict, as stated in Whittaker's paper. There may be a better way to mention and summarise the support for Burnett. I used the weasel words because I was trying to be NPOV. Have removed the weasel words in draft, see above. Is that better? GilesW (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
However I must declare an interest: I helped to prepare the Whittaker submission. If you have time to read that paper you will see why I hold that view. Incidentally Whittaker's covering letter[8] shows that defence council (or whatever the correct term is) has been appointed to represent (or defend) Burnett at the Cole Inquiry. Should this be mentioned? GilesW (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Help and advice needed! GilesW (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
At this point, given your conflict of interest, my best advice is lay off the article and to follow suggestions for COI compliance  Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Socrates. The proposed text is also unacceptable as its inaccurate (multiple inquiries have been held since 1941), contains weasel words (eg, "Some submissions in defence of Captain Burnett claim...") and has serious NPOV problems as it doesn't reflect all the submissions and labels the Germans "the enemy". It would be better to hold off on this until the inquiry is completed and then explain what its conclusions are rather than add text about individual submissions. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Socrates, and have limited my changes to the Article to clarifications of wording based on these discussions. I also mentioned the previous investigations etc. Is that any better? GilesW (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am astounded that anyone should say that it is "unacceptable" or "not NPOV" to label the crew of Kormoran as enemy (of the Allies, during the war). As they and the Allies undoubtedly were enemies, and many of Kormoran's crew would have been motivated by a patriotic duty to the Fatherland and the Fuhrer that is hard to understand these days, how can it be unacceptable to remind people of the mind set of those times, where it would explain conflicting evidence? Please review the evidence in the reference documents before reaching your verdict. GilesW (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
To reflect all the published submissions would be a time consuming exercise, and as you say, out of place in this article. Another article perhaps, but not by me. GilesW (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
My aim is to inform people about (1) the existence of the formal Commission of Inquiry, and (2) evidence that could exonerate Burnett. We should also mention (3) the 'far out' theories that have also been submitted, which tend to confuse the fundamental issue of Burnett's guilt or innocence. We do not want to look foolish if the Commission exonerates Burnett, as I think they may.GilesW (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The submissions that I have referenced are intended to be appetisers for further study. There are many others that are equally worth reading. GilesW (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This section would be better moved to the article on the battle with Kormoran (whatever other issues there may be with it). PatGallacher (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the Commission of Inquiry in the last sentence of the 'battle' article, with a link to this article. These entries could be swapped as appropriate. GilesW (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Cool - now let's wait and see what the commission says - we should not be in any hurry here to pre-empt their findings or to present any arguments. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The National Archives has made a lot of previously classified documents available online. http://www.naa.gov.au/whats-on/online/showcases/hmas-sydney/ 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Added to external links, thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this unreferenced section as it does not add to the story of Sydney, and furthermore was laced with weasel words.  If you have a strong argument for bringing it back, please discuss here first, and ensure that you have reliable references to back the information up.  This is currently a good article - please help to keep it that way.  Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although I added some of this.  I have copied some of this to the article on the battle with Kormoran, as it has some bearing on conspiracy theories, if there are problems with lack of references and weasel words they should be dealt with there. PatGallacher (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good move. I nearly removed it myself. The correct claim is made in the 1st paragraph of the article. A comparison with not 'allied' sinkings or sinkings where not 'all hands were lost' is irrelevant. --Lanyon (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant information from the recently declassified sources should be digested and added over the next few months with the aim of making this the featured article for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine plan - the results of the Board of Investigation should be available long before then too.  Note that the declassified material is considered a primary source (The FA requirement is for reliable secondary sources). Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good plan and a good date to aim for. There may be some use for these primary sources but they would need to be digested by a secondary source. It looks like they were declassified specifically for the Board of Investigation so this may be a good enough source. The primary sources could be added as well for verification. ShipFan (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that the Board of Inquiry's final report will include an assessment of the primary sources Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not familiar with this article but just read these to stories. I thought it might be helpful. Sorry if it's old news.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/computer-images-show-hmas-sydney-damage/2009/01/12/1231608591927.html
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2009/Jan/20090112/index.htm
regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably, I think. It appears to be very conclusive explanation of why there were no survivors Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PS, nice article. Great reading. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - have added a link to the enquiry.  If we can establish the copyright status of the images, we might be able to use some of them as they are much better than the ones currently in the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The computer generated graphics will be covered by Defence copyright and the photos of the wreck are either Defence copyright or Finding Sydney Foundation copyright. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the plunge and nominated the article for FA. Feel free to leave comments. ShipFan (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so suggest that a plan of action is discussed here before the next FA.  Perhaps an A-Class review would be a good milestone on the way there? In any event the FAC comments already provide quite a few pointers as to where the article needs improvement. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm housebound for the duration of October following an operation, so I figured I could put that time to good use by expanding this article towards FA (unless anybody else has dibs on this).
I've identified seven books about the ship available from my local libarary network, but instead of borrowing them all, I was hoping that those more familiar with the subject could identify the two or three 'best' texts on which to base the expanded content, or (approaching it from another angle) indicate which works (or parts of works) may not be as reliable as desired or should otherwise be treated with caution.
In no particular order:

Olson, Wesley (2000). Bitter Victory: the death of HMAS Sydney. Nedlands, WA: University of WA
Winter, Barbara (1984). H.M.A.S. Sydney: fact, fantasy and fraud. Brisbane: Boolarong
Frame, Tom (1993). HMAS Sydney: loss and controversy. Sydney: Hodder (the 2008 edition published by Hachette Livre is also available if there is a preferred version)
Montgomery, Michael (1981). Who Sank The Sydney?. Sydney: Cassell
Mearns, David. (2009). The Search for the Sydney. Pymble, NSW: HarperCollins Publishers
McDonald, Glenys (2005). Seeking the Sydney: a quest for truth. Crawley, WA: University of Western Australia Press
Samuels, John (2005). Somewhere Below: the Sydney scandal exposed. Broadway, NSW: Halstead Press
On top of this, I will be borrowing other books with a broader subject area (mostly histories of World War II or the RAN) plus drawing from internet-accessible books (like Gill's World War II histories) and my own small collection to supplement the info and ensure a bit of diversity in the referencing.
So... your thoughts? -- saberwyn 10:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the Sydney didn't immediately sink, is there any explanation why the crew didn't abandon ship and evacuate the vessel before it sank? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that there were no survivors, no-one really knows. From what I've read, the likely explanation is that the severe damage to the ship's upper works during the battle is likely to have destroyed or damaged all of her lifeboats and life rafts, and the surviving crew members were trying to save the ship (most likely in appalling conditions due to the extensive damage and deaths of most of the ship's command team during the battle), when she broke up with little warning. We have no way of knowing whether some or all of the crew attempted to abandon ship due to the delays in commencing the search for survivors and the fairly remote location of the disaster - all we know is that no bodies were recovered. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can borrow a TARDIS, nobody will ever know exactly what happened. The 2009 inquiry estimates from the damage inflicted to the ship that around 70% of the personnel aboard died either during the battle, or immediately after from wounds and chemical inhalation. Very few (if any) of the ship's boats and rafts would have survived unscathed, and heavy seas and rapid deterioration of the cruiser's seakeeping ability would have made launching any of these incredibly difficult, making an attempt to limp the ship into port the best option. David Mearns believes that an evacuation was attempted after the bow snapped off without warning, but believes the ship would have fully submerged in two minutes at most, making such an attempt futile. Anyone who survived the sinking would have been, at best, relying on a lifebelt, which was only intended as a temporary flotation device: Wesley Olson thinks that they would have died from wounds, exposure, or drowning before the search commenced, and their bodies would not have floated back to the surface until after the search had concluded. Conversely, most of Kormoran's personnel survived because they were able to stage a controlled evacuation over four hours, into undamaged and well-provisioned boats. More detail is at the battle article, in the section No Sydney survivors. -- saberwyn 04:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The most likely explanation for the lack of survivors is simply that no order to abandon ship was ever given, and that the few seamen who did decide to leave the ship, and who were close enough to an exit, without being ordered to do so did not survive their time in the water.  Most of the crew during an action would have been below decks or  behind armour, thus would have to make a deliberate effort to go up on deck in order to abandon the ship.  This they could not do without being given permission to leave their posts by an "abandon ship" order. The duty and responsibility for giving this order falls upon the Captain or the next highest-ranking surviving officer. It is also the duty and responsibility of this officer to ensure that this order is promulgated throughout all departments of the ship, either via the PA (if still working) or by runner(s).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.25 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMAS Sydney (D48). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091121211705/http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/finalreport/index.html to http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/finalreport/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003010558/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/Sydney/Reportinx.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/sydney/Reportinx.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318070046/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/hmas-sydney-wreck-makes-heritage-list.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/hmas-sydney-wreck-makes-heritage-list.htm/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

hi everybody, i've just come across a booklet, H.M.A.S. Sydney (1971) OCLC 534081 by John Collins, its a great read, providing further details on the ship, including the actions, some photos, and has a full listing of the hands lost. just wondering if this could be included in a "Further reading" section or "External links" (to its worldcat library listing) of the article?, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have minimal understanding of Naval stuff but noticed these photos from the ANMM on Commons that could massively enrich the article if not just plonked in by a naive person like myself. Thoughts? PatHadley (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)