soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:09:44 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

>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.

Which is irrelevant.

YOU have claimed to KNOW how a Ship's commander thinks.

I have made no such claim on my own behalf.

YOU, therefore, have an obligation to indicate on what professional
qualifications you base your "expert" opinion.

We wait with baited breath ... knowing you will not provide any such
evidence.

>So your "logic" would disqualify you and everybody else here from
>posting any opinion on the incident.

Nope. That's your specious claim.

No-one else, so far, has made a claim to personally know how a warship
captain things ... so there has been no need to call anyone but you on
such claims, as only you have made them ...

... and sidestepped dealing with them.

Resolved: Mr Kozel has admitted he bases his *opinion* on how Detmers
would have though on ... nothing.

>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.

"Common knowledge"

Yet *you* specified "normally" they would be visible, rather than "all
the time" ...

You obviously chose your words carefully ... weasel words ... and you
are *still* refusing to say "100% spottable under all circumstances
and all conditions similar to that with the Sydney" ...

Weasel words for a weaselly claim.

>Try posting your tripe in sci.military.naval ... there are posters there
>with professional naval qualifications concerning torpedoes

I don't have a high opinion of the historical knowledge of many of the
denizens of smn. They may well know a hell of a lot about modern US
ships, but in previous crossposted threads between these two
newsgroups they have shown themselves woefully ignorant of history or,
indeed, many other things not directly involved with modern US ships.

Which is irrelevant. I am merely asking you to categorically state
that it was impossible, under the circumstances and conditions of the
Sydney-Kormoran engagement (or as close as we can assume, given the
Germans were clearly lying about some elements of the engagement), for
German torpedoes to have been missed by watchers on a battle ready
ship.

*You* are the one that has refused to do that simple thing *twice* now
... first using weasel words to sidestep, and second, now, simply
ignoring the reasonable request that you make such a categorical
statement.
>
>> 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

Detmers wasn't a submariner.

>the time ... what is your point? The torpedo tracks routinely betrayed
>the location of the submarine to the escorts.

Indeed. But when he tried it he managed to surprise the crew of a
German destroyer whom he was practising with ... as is cited from
Detmers OWN BOOK at ...

>> 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.

Which is irrelevant to the cited statement from Detmers own books.

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

So.

YOU won't provide YOUR "professional naval qualifications" ... yet
demand them of OTHERS.

Smacks of a double standard.

>> >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.

No. Again you are disingenous. Seven times previously, now eight, I
have indicated that I have already provided the cites from the Senate
select committe report, and you only have to read them.

Seven times you have deliberately refused to do that.

Your problem, sonny-jim.

Ball's in your court.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au