soc.history.war.world-war-ii

thornley@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > torpedoes, and take evasive action (the government report says the
> > ships were steaming parallel at about 14 knots).
>
> The government report is untrustworthy, since it was based entirely
> on the reports of German survivors during a not particularly well-run
> interrogation. As pointed out, the Germans might or might not have
> lied, may have misremembered or been mistaken at the time, and may
> have come up with a common story.
>
> We know that Sydney and Kormoran both sank, and that there were
> survivors from Kormoran and not Sydney. It is reasonable to
> assume that the two were very close when combat started.

We also know that if the range was long enough for Kormoran to feasibly
use torpedoes, that would be a range long enough to activate the firing
mechanism and long enough that Kormoran would not be damaged by the
concussion of the explosions. At least 1,200 yards. That would have
been plenty of time for Sydney to see the torpedo tracks, open fire at
Kormoran, open fire at the torpedoes, and take evasive action. If
Sydney was in fact not moving at a substantial speed like 14 knots, but
standing still or barely moving, then it would be difficult to take
evasive action, and that would raise tactical questions.

Bottom line, Sydney should not have been "surprised" by torpedoes.
Gunfire on both sides should have commenced long before the torpedoes
would have hit.

> Aside from that, we really don't know anything.

If aside from the closeness, "we really don't know anything", then why
is it ok to insinuate wrongdoing on the part of the Germans on Kormoran?

Making comments (as Phil McGregor has done ad nauseum) such as "the
Germans might or might not have lied," and "may have come up with a
common story", and "may have committed a war crime/piracy", are
"almost statements", crafted to make the reader entertain the notion
that the Germans may have committed serious wrongdoing.