soc.history.war.world-war-ii

aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> >If Detmers was competent, he would have judged that his torpedo tracks
> >would be visible to Sydney almost immediately, so he would have opened
> >fire with his guns immediately upon launch of the torpedoes. If he
> >waited until the torpedoes hit before he opened fire with his guns, he
> >would have been risking his ship looking like a piece of Swiss cheese.
> >Detmers would have been very stupid to hope that his torpedo tracks
> >would not be visible to Sydney.
>
> Please cite your experience as commander of a Q Ship or Raider.
>
> Hell, even as the commander of *any* sort of warship.
>
> Then we can judge your professional qualifications to judge this
> matter.

I don't recall any poster on this newsgroup claiming those kind of
professional qualifications. So your "logic" would disqualify you and
everybody else here from posting any opinion on the incident.

It is common knowledge that German torpedoes in 1941 would almost
certainly be visible, to where those who launched them would have been
an idiot to have based their tactics on the hope that the tracks would
not be visible.

Try posting your tripe in sci.military.naval ... there are posters there
with professional naval qualifications concerning torpedoes, and about
warship operation general, and they will disabuse you of your silly
notions about the subject.

> You are, of course, unaware (evidently) of Detmers practise with the
> underwater torpedo tubes in the Baltic?

Submariners practiced with and fired from underwater torpedo tubes all
the time ... what is your point? The torpedo tracks routinely betrayed
the location of the submarine to the escorts.

> http://users.bigpond.net.au/Sydney_search/Dermers'_Secret_Weapon.html

Several fundamental problems with that website --

1) Last updated in 2007, does not include any revisions subsequent to
finding the two ships.

2) No cite from author as to any professional naval qualifications of
his that would apply to this incident.

3) He acknowledges that the AU government investigations (plural) clear
Kormoran of any illegal actions. Quote from website --

"At the time, the Royal Australian Navy and the Government accepted the
German survivor's account of the action and blamed Captain Burnett for
the loss of his ship. The Government position has not changed and their
position is illustrated by the Minister for Defence's Submission to The
Government Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Sinking of HMAS Sydney
in 1997."

SMK: I don't live in Australian (and I noticed at the beginning of this
discussion that Phil does, based on the "AU" in his e-mail address), and
quite frankly I am much more interested in considering what the
Australian government investigations over the last 66 years have said
about the incident, than in what some freelance website author says.
Why should I believe his contrarian website?

Also, why does this have to be about "blame"? Battles are won and
lost. Soldiers do the best that they can. In a battle of wits,
sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

Quote from website --

"If HSK Kormoran is found west of the Houtman Abrolhos it will be proof
that Captain Burnett and his crew were victims of an illegal ruse and
they should not have been blamed for the loss of HMAS Sydney."

SMK: So that's the deal... some folks want to lift the "blame" by
calling Captain Detmers a "war criminal".

> >Here we go again ... you still haven't answered my request from last
> >week, concerning the AU government report --
>
> No. You still haven't bothered to read the cites I have already
> provided ...

You have not posted what I have asked for now 7 times, Phil. That is
the truth and you know it.

You haven't posted relevant quotes that show what exactly they said that
wasn't true, that rose above the level of "typical POW misstatements",
to the level of something that would suggest "evidence of a war
crime/piracy."