soc.history.war.world-war-ii

aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> >Five of Sydney's nine boats have been located --
> >
> >"The discovery of the boats in the debris field was both remarkable and
> >sobering. We were able to identify several different types of boats
> >ranging in size from 27-foot whalers to the larger 35 and 36-foot motor
> >cutters. Distinguishing features included the presence/absence of
> >propulsion and the type of build such as clinker or carvel. Some showed
> >signs of damage by gunfire and in one instance two of the boats were
> >resting on top of one another. This certainly supported our earlier
> >assessment that few of Sydney's boats were launched following the
> >action. The most striking feature, however, was the presence of
> >Sydney's badge mounted proudly on the bows of all boats found. These
> >carefully hand painted coloured icons remain in tact, undisturbed, and
> >will continue to serve as a silent epitaph to HMAS Sydney (II) and her
> >valiant crew."
> >http://presspass.findingsydney.com/blogs/search_reports/archive/2008/04/06/5th-april-2008-daily-report.aspx
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/5habwl
>
> Of course, this contradicts the so called evidence of the Germans ...

The source I posted contradicts itself?? Suuuuure...

> "Nearly everything found in the debris field listed above, excluding
> the bow, would have been ripped away from Sydney by the enormous water
> forces as she sank at rapid speed. The general absence of twisted and
> torn hull plating in the main debris field tells me that it is
> probable Sydney did not suffer any large explosion in her bow. It
> seems increasingly likely that Sydney's bow, severely damaged and
> weakened by the torpedo strike, broke away with Sydney pointed on a
> heading of 140 degrees, and still possibly underway. All the evidence
> indicates that the weather and sea conditions worsened on the evening
> of November 19th and rough seas may have played a factor in Sydney
> losing her bow and finally sinking."
>
> From the above source, which I notice you carefully did *not* cite.

I cited the URL, so that anyone could go to the source.

> It shows that the German claims of an explosion were ... wrong. Lies?
> Mistakes? Who knows. Except for *you*, of course.

It said: "it is probable Sydney did not suffer any large explosion in
her bow" and that the bow broke away.

It did not say that the rest of the ship did not suffer an explosion,
either then or later on.