Talk:Sinking of HMAS Sydney

message: This article could easily become GA, with little work. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for editors 

message: This article says that the Sydney's guns were trained on the Kormoran, but the Kormoran page says that her guns were not trained on the raider.  Which article is right? 74.103.98.163 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns Trained or Not Trained on Kormoran? 

message: As the title suggests this article should be about the battle. Therefore most of the text in the Attempts to find the wrecks section should be shifted over to HMAS Sydney (1934)#Searches. What do the masses say? Nomadtales 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - We seem to have already two virtually identical articles, just with one in particlar, the article supposed to be just about the Battle, having more info than the other. Nomadtales 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - I know. We are Australian and that leads us to focus on Sydney. But we have to bear in mind that this is an international encyclopledia and not an Australian one. Personally I don't think the Sydney article is really the right place for a full description of the search, which is in reality a search for both ships.  Grant | Talk 03:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember reading about any effort being put into finding Kormoran - is her location even a mystery? (eg, did her surviving crew record her position when she sank?). --Nick Dowling 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The location of Kormoran is unknown because the German accounts are contradictory. HMAS Sydney Search Pty Ltd has been attempting to find it as a first step to finding Sydney. Grant | Talk 05:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: After its return from the Mediterranean, command of Sydney passed from the celebrated Captain John Collins to the relatively inexperienced Captain Joseph Burnett.
Many also found it difficult to believe that a senior officer like Burnett''
Which one is it? Although this could mean that he was a Senior Officer, but a Junior Captain. Any clarification on this? Heirware (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without checking one of my references, I believe that Burnett had spent relatively little time at sea in the years before he took command of Sydney, so he was both experianced as a staff officer (and a good one by all accounts) and inexperianced as a cruiser captain. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior Officer or Inexperienced Captain? 

message: Under the 'Controversy' section a number of 'conspiracy theories' are mentioned. I don't believe any of these involve a conspiracy per se - the chain of events is simply unknown...no one is actively trying to hide the truth.
Because of this I have removed the word conspiracy from this section.
ahpook (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They arent conspiracies but they speculation that has been commonly reported inrelation to the event so they should be in there in some form Gnangarra 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, most of the theories labelled as conspiracy theories are accusing the survivors of lying (i.e. conspiring to hide the truth about what happened) and continouing this to their dying days, perhaps with the support of the Australian government (who from what I can tell generally accept the survivors stories as the most likely scenario), they therefore are most definitely conspiracy theories. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories? 

message: The Further Reading section includes at least one document that was cited in line, which to my understanding makes it a 'Reference'. For those who have contributed to this article far more than I, are other items in Further Reading in the same situation?  If so, they too should be in a References sections, and the current References & Notes section renamed Notes. This would give us Notes for citations, References for works used to provide citations or general sourcing, and Further Reading for documents not used as references but which are known to be related to this subject, or whose range extends well beyond this particular subject – though looking at the titles of the works currently under Further Reading, I suspect all may in fact be References. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be correct, and if so, it's probably from before the article had footnotes and detailed, specific referencing.  The approach I've been taking to get this article to GA-quality is to find inline references for the details in the article, rather than trying to find facts for the old generic references, if you know what I mean.  There is no shortage of material to reference, so not having used a particular source doesn't trouble me too much at this point.  That said, if there is some fact, currently unreferenced, that you aware of that can be referenced, please point it out or update the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading or References? 

message: This article states in one place that the Sydney carried a Supermarine Walrus, and another that it was a Supermarine Seagull.
I don't know which is correct. However it also states the aircraft was operated by the 9th Squadron, which had Walrus's, and the 101st had Seagulls.
Respectfully....
122.57.87.188 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Supermarine aircraft had originally been ordered by the RAN as the "Seagull", but it was later also ordered for the RN and named "Walrus". So they are effectively the same aircraft.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Supermarine Seaplane aboard the Sydney 

message: I suppose it should now be "Battle of Dirk Hartog Island" or "Battle of Steep Point", but we should not be in the business of coining neologisms and I don't think there is a strict rule about how the naming feature of naval battles is decided(?) After all, some are named after geographical features a long way from where they took place (e.g. Battle of Makassar Strait). Grant | Talk 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: 1. HMAS Sydney spotted Kormoran at a distance but permitted itself to be lured within range of the Kormoran's guns, instead of staying out of range and sinking it.
2. Most of the Kormoran crew survived but not the Sydney crew.
3. The government, which has spent $3.9 million on the search, has appointed a retired judge to hold an inquiry into the new evidence.
ENDQUOTE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_wreck_mystery_1
QUOTE
5. According to the crew of Kormoran, the Australian warship did not appear to be fully prepared for the battle—her main guns were trained on Kormoran, but her secondary guns were unmanned.
6. The volume of hits that Sydney had now sustained along both sides of her superstructure and the resulting fires would have seen the almost complete destruction of her lifeboats and rafts. ENDQUOTE [So naturally none of the crew aboard HMAS Sydney survived].
QUOTE
In Australia, many found it difficult to believe that a converted merchant ship could sink a modern light cruiser. Many also found it difficult to believe that a senior officer like Burnett took his ship within 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) of an unidentified and possibly dangerous vessel during wartime, without preparing for action and with such disastrous results.
ENDQUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_Sydney_and_German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran
So, it looks like the Captain of the HMAS Sydney lost the ship due to his own errors: he got too close to the enemy and he failed to man all his guns.  Had he survived the battle, we might expect that he would be subject to court martial for losing his ship and his entire crew due to  his own errors.  Could this be why the government appointed a retired judge to hold an inquiry?  Is there a specific section of the Australian Navy Code that the captain violated?  These questions are very important because the honor of the German captain and crew of the Kormoran has been questioned and they have been condemned for war crimes.  But it begins to look as though they were honest all along.  The real problem has been that the Australians would prefer to allege war crimes than face up to the fact that the captain of HMAS Sydney was incompetant and was guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty to his ship and her crew.
rumjal 05:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there was never any allegation of war crimes from any Australians acting in any official capacity? So that makes this legally irrelevant, except that the newspapers keep repeating it. So WE repeat it, because it is a part of the story, true or not. As for the Australian captain, I do believe you are right in that he might well have been court-martialed if he had survived, but I dont believe THAT has anything to do with the appointing of a judge now for the inquiry. Judges are often selected for such posts because they are seen as neutral and have experience in similar proceedings - also, you normally don't try dead men anyway... Ingolfson (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The claims that the Germans committed war crimes duriong this battle have always been fringe theories. The German account of the battle has been accepted as truthful by all reliable sources, including the Australian official history. It's standard practice in the Australian Navy for formal inquiries to be held following the loss of a ship for any reason - I don't know why the government is holding yet another one into the loss of Sydney though. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not a public enquiry, then conspiracy theorists will continue to claim there was a "cover-up". It's a shame people can't just accept the truth sometimes, even if it hurts. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Second Note for the Editors 

message: I added a couple of sentences about the lifeboats being found. This was then removed with the comment that such information just belonged in the search for Sydney article. I dispute that because the discovery of the lifeboats sheds some light on the final hours of the Sydney, which is the subject of the latter part of the article. The 'mystery' of Sydney and anything which 'explains' it is germane to this article. --Mat Hardy (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree.  Per Wikipedia:Summary style, we have summary articles to discuss such issues, and while the lifeboat discoveries is interesting, the relevance to the final hours is still minor detail, IMHO.  —Moondyne click! 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifeboats found 

message: *Thought you might find this interesting - this is a Q-ship battle from WW1 - in fact TWO Q-ships (this time only the German one got sunk).
*Also in ref#9, the translated Action Report describes that "all guns could be manned" - surely this is bad translation? Why man the guns then?
*Also found this with a google - I dont know if it's already on the page, but it is readable - note the 2 bizarre twists at the end of the sailor's account.io_editor (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heinz Messerschmidt was no "Lieutenant Commander" but a mere Oberleutnant zur See. In 150 years of german naval history, no one ever reached field officer rank at the age of 26. Reibeisen 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various 

message: I realise I could be getting into original research here.  However it is possible that the disparity between the two ships was not as great as some have assumed.  The Sydney's main armament consisted of 8 152 mm guns, Kormoran's consisted of 6 150 mm guns, that is not a great disparity.  Kormoran was not comparable to a normal warship more in areas like lack of armour and lower speed.  However this was not a normal battle, like night fighting at sea it depended on "The instantaneous production of the maximum output".  So it's maybe not surprising that the 2 ships sank each other. PatGallacher (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should also take into account the four 102 mm High Angle guns of Sydney, her capability of firing a broadside with all her eight main guns in comparison to Kormoran's four and the fact that the german guns were over 30 years old (one of them actually took part in the Skagerrak battle aboard SMS Seydlitz). Reibeisen (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity 

message: I didn't realise until recently that there were Chinese POWs aboard Kormoran.  They might not have seen much, but what sort of account did they give? PatGallacher (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese POWs 

message: The page was recently moved to 'Battle between HMAS Sydney and Kormoran'.  I moved it back.  It's our convention in these cases to add a prefix or preceding qualifier.  This is doubly important in this case because as written it can seem to stand for Battle between Her Majesty's Australian Ships Sydney and Kormoran.  i.e. the German auxiliary cruiser is necessary to distinguish at the very least the differing nationalities.  I'm open to explanations for the move though? Benea (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Kormoran, a converted merchant ship was scuttled in controlled manner with less than ¼ of her crew being lost, whilst the Germans had sunk a major Australian warship (with all the crew lost) that could have effected outcome of the Battle of the Java Sea that took place only three months later. I fail to see how this was not a German victory. Regards, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion about a German victory and that Kormoran was not sunk by Sydney does not include a reference and furthermore disagrees with the various citations used here.  I have therefore reverted your edits here and in related articles.  Kindly read verifiability and original research before making changes to established articles. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kormoran not sunk by Sydney 

message: Could surviving members of Kormoran's crew have sued Michael Montgomery over his claims? PatGallacher (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer: yes, they would have had a good case under Australian libel laws. Grant | Talk 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel action against author? 

message: There has been an attempt to move this article to "Battle of Carnarvon", on the grounds that this is used by at least one writer.  An article like this should not have been moved without discussion, I know you can often be bold, but there are limits.  "Battle of Carnarvon" or anything similar might not be widely understood, creates the possibility of confusion with the town in Wales, the existing title might be clumsy but at least it is clear. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: Hmm.
Is this a typical Australian attempt to pass the buck?
Not once in any article on Wiki is the potential incompetence of Captain Burnett mentioned, yet we have alleged design flaws of Sydney as a possible cause for her demise.
Surely not another stealthy attempt to rewrite historical fact?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.245.63 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source, there's nothing stopping you adding this. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HMS Ajax and HMS Achilles managed to fight the Graf Spee without getting sunk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even before the war, there was concern about some features of Sydney’s design making her vulnerable to attack 

message: As far as I know, HMAS Sydney wasn't the largest warship in WWII to sink with no survivors. There were no survivors on IJN battleships Yamashiro and Fuso in the Battle of Surigao Strait 1944.62.237.141.27 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest warship to go down with all hands? 

message: This article, at 115KB, is quite long (see the guidelines on article size). Would it be possible to break out sections of it - the 'Analysis' and/or 'controversy' sections, for instance - into separate articles, to make it quicker to load and edit? Robofish (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that for these sections to be of effective use to the reader, the details of the battle need to be close at hand. I think that the most logical subarticles (the post-war searches and the Christmas Island corpse) have already been created. That said, I picked up a new source a little while ago (which includes one of the first post-Cole Inquiry analyses), and as I work in content from that, I'll see what fat can be cut away. -- saberwyn 06:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the past fortnight, I've shaved 14 and a bit kb from the article, to just a hair over 100kb. How does it look at the moment? -- saberwyn 03:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's acceptable - it would be a shame to break this up. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any objections to removing the tag? -- saberwyn 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me.Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: Can someone please put the killed in action symbol next to his name. it needs to be made explicit that he died since he did and you cannot tell for sure by reading the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.238.115 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Allied Leader was KIA 

message: In going through my father's records from the time that he was on Christmas Island, I found a spent bullet that was enclosed with other articles that he wrote shortly after inspecting the remains of the body and the carley float found near Christmas Island.  He theorized that the currents were aligned such that this float came from the south.  I believe that if this were to be tested, it would establish that it was of German manufacture, and that it likely came from the German raider.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.51.0 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should contact the Australian War Memorial or Royal Australian Navy about that - I'd imagine that they'd be really interested. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Definitely contact the AWM about it. -- saberwyn 07:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to expand, the AWM's Research Centre might be the best initial point of contact. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Island bullet? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473) cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: "Although Sydney is thought of as the only warship lost with all hands, the JCFADT report lists eight other ships lost during the World Wars where none survived, and another six where 95% or more aboard died.[236]" (JCFADT, Report on the loss of HMAS Sydney, pp. 89–90).
I think this sentence needs to be clarified. The numbers given must be taking into account only Allied or Australian ships, but not saying so gives the reader the impression that only nine warships, from all combatants, were lost during both world wars. But I know for a fact that at least 11 U-boats were lost with all hands in WWII alone. 71.189.63.114 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I just found the link to the JCFADT report. It wasn't linked at ref 236, so it took me a while to notice it. Page 90, tables 6.3-4 lists the other ships mentioned as lost with all hands or heavy losses of life. It's clear to me now that the list wasn't meant to be comprehensive, as I misread it, but meant merely to show ships of similar size and role that also shared Sydney's fate. I'm going to change the wording to, 'eight other surface warships...' 71.189.63.114 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of ships lost with all hands during WWI and WWII 

message: Seems written well-enough to be an easy pass for a WP:GA status, and maybe going further still to milhist A-class? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. 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/20091003082707/http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/collections/maritime/march/shipwrecks/sydney/Sydney.html to http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/collections/maritime/march/shipwrecks/sydney/Sydney.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. 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/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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified