Talk:Sinking of HMAS Sydney

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

Why does this page give HMAS Sydney as 9000 ton but the HMAS Sydney (1934) page gives 6830t. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rubik3 (talk • contribs).

Guns Trained or Not Trained on Kormoran?
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)

Merge proposal
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). What do the masses say? Nomadtales 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - the searches seem to have only ever been focused on finding Sydney so the material doesn't really belong in this article. --Nick Dowling 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree - the finding of one ship would be a step towards finding the other one. Because of the history of World War II, and Germany's losses in it, Kormoran is not as well-known in it's own country. Nevertheless, I'm sure it would make the news in Germany if either ship were found. If Sydney is found, it would be significant enough to be mentioned in the Kormoran article &mdash; and vice versa; we would end up with two virtually identical sections in the two ship articles. Grant  |  Talk  01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment - "Battle" entry should be about the battle only. But rather than move everything to the Sydney article (making it seem like the searches have mostly been for the Sydney rather than both ships) can't a new page be created for searches for the Sydney and Kormoran and linked to from the other pages -- looks like there's enough commentary for this. Dawnfrenzy 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - Well, it is "HMAS Sydney Search Pty Ltd"! Put this in the HMAS Sydney article.  No-one's really looking for Kormoran.  Anyway, there's at least one precedent:  Finding the wreck is described in the Bismarck article, not its sinking page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.97.227 (talk • contribs) August 15 2007
 * Agree the battle article isnt the right place, but moving it to the Sydney article isnt either as unlike the Bismark its two vessels and finding one will trigger searches for the other. It should be moved into Search for HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran with each vessel article having a brief summary and a link to the search article. An additional benefit will be that when found Wikinews will be able to link into the detail on the searches, especially given that the current claim isnt expected to be the Sydney there are going to be more searches. Gnangarra 01:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak agree. I can see the logic and I could live with that. Grant  |  Talk  09:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that seems like a sensible and workable compromise. --Nick Dowling 11:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Senior Officer or Inexperienced Captain?
''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)
 * 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)

Conspiracy Theories?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"HSK" prefix
I don't think "HSK" is a real prefix. Nazi Germany didn't use a prefix in front of their ship names. HSK is a suffix identifying the ship type. If there aren't any objections, I'd like to rename the article and then update it to remove the HSK prefixes. TomTheHand (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's clearly an abbreviation for a type of ship, not a prefix. Maralia (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a reference for that?  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, do you have a reference for "HSK" being a prefix used by the Kriegsmarine? TomTheHand (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not taking shots at anyone - just want to ensure that this isn't changed through original-research-by-consensus.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me from the Kormoran article that saying 'the HSK Kormoran' is the equivalent of using the shorthand 'the SSN Virginia' for 'the nuclear attack sub Virginia' - a ship type, not a naval prefix. Maralia (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. Unfortunately this is a rough situation for me—I understand where you're coming from, but I'm sort of being asked to prove a negative: it's hard to find a source that says that HSK isn't a real prefix.  Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 does make it clear that HSK stands for Handels-Stör-Kreuzer (commerce-disruption cruiser) and identifies the ship type. TomTheHand (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno if this helps in any way, but HMAS Sydney Search Pty Ltd are currently using the prefix in their press releases (rightly or wrongly). Also, I'm not clear how "HSK" differs from say, "RMS" (e.g. RMS Titanic)   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   06:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, although the term "Handels-Stör-Kreuzer" isn't unknown, most sources concerning these ships use the term "Hilfskreuzer" (HK). As does the German Wikipedia. A book concerning the career of another raider (the Penguin) was actually subtitled HK-33 (the raiders received random numbers instead of name, although all took a name eventually. "Penguin" didn't get named until she reached Antarctic waters). I submit that simply for continuity with the German Wiki and also for sheer common sense (anything that wanders around and destroys commerce could be called a "Handelsstörkreuzer", "Hilfskruezer", at least, means an auxilary vessel), that "Hilfskreuzer" is the better name and "HK" the better prefix. That's IF you have to use a prefix at all. I don't believe it represents standard Kriegsmarine practice and seems to have been added largely for symmetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.238.139 (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked at German Wikipedia's article for Kormoran, and they use HSK on all of their Hilfskreuzer articles; I'm quite certain that that's the proper Kriegsmarine type designation. On the RMS subject, the difference is that RMS is a legitimate prefix used for seagoing vessels that carry mail under contract by Royal Mail, while HSK isn't a prefix and wasn't used as such by the Kriegsmarine.  HMAS Sydney Search Pty Ltd is incorrect for doing so, but it is a common mistake for people whose countries use prefixes to make up prefixes for other countries or misinterpret things that aren't prefixes.  For example, people sometimes use HIJMS (His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Ship, I think) for IJN vessels, and KMS (Kriegsmarine Ship) for Kriegsmarine vessels, but both are entirely fabricated and were not used by the navies in question. TomTheHand (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they use HSK-(number), but as a code name, not as a prefix. "Hilfskruezer" is definately the prefered descriptive term.(Also, we seem to be missing articles for "Orion" and "Pinguin", and probably a few other to. Didn't check "Widder" or "Michel"). Call her "HSK-9" or call her "Kormoran" (no prefix), but "HSK Kormoran" is something of a misuse. Like refering to an American Battleship as "BB New Jersey". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.238.139 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isnt asking for someone to prove a negative, its saying you've raised the issue and suggested the change as such the onus is on you to provide the basis for the change. All sourcing for the articles use HSK any changing of the name should only occur with provision of substantial reliable sources without which it's just original research. Search of the National Archives of Australia returns the use of HSK Kormoran as far back as 1942 Admiralty documents, along with other reports. Also the US Naval Institute Proceedings, December 1950 refers to the HSK Kormoran. Until a reliable source that refutes the current naming is provided there is no basis for such changes. misuse or not the all the source say "HSK Kormoran"  Gnangarra 15:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, hold on, lemme dig up my copy of Raeder's famous speech, "Der Kriegsmarine nicht üsen der Präfix 'HSK' für das Boot." Seriously, you're asking me to prove that the Kriegsmarine didn't use the prefix "HSK".  That's unreasonable.  There are no reliable sources stating that they did.  Per Naming conventions (ships), we do not use made-up prefixes for navies that didn't use them, no matter how illustrious the navy that fabricated them. TomTheHand (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I investigated your claim that all sourcing for the articles uses HSK, and it's not true. Indeed, several of the sources say "HMAS Sydney and the German raider Kormoran", specifically using a prefix with one and no prefix with the other.  I am sorry that I'm not going to be able to find a reliable source that says "HMAS Sydney and the German raider Kormoran, which some people call HSK Kormoran, but those people don't know what they're talking about." TomTheHand (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Australian War Memorial site that is used as a footnote in this article uses no prefix for Kormoran. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Detmer's book is titled simply Kormoran: Der Hilfskreuzer, der die"sydney" versenkte (English translation: "The Raider Kormoran")   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   07:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Older German texts appear to refer to either "HSK 8", "Kormoran" or "Schiff 41". According to this article, "HSK 8" was a yard number used during conversion into a raider, while "Schiff 41" was used in signals and correspondence, and I can't read the rest...  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I hadn't heard the yard number explanation before. Here's what Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 has to say:
 * On being impressed into the Navy, all ex-merchant ships were allotted a simple number: Schiff 1, Shiff 2, and so on. Those converted to raiders held their old pennant numbers for security reasons, but were also given an additional Handels-Stör-Kreuzer ("commerce-disruption cruiser") or HSK designation and a pennant number.  The commander of the vessel was furthermore given the right to name the ship according to his wishes.  All three intelligence systems were in use at the same time; in addition, British Intelligence allotted their own code letters to the ships: for example, Orion was "Raider A" and Atlantis "Raider C".
 * In the case of Kormoran, she was also HSK8 (Conway's doesn't stick a dash in), Shiff 41, and the British Intelligence designation "Raider G". TomTheHand (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the article about Kormoran is entitled GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISER Kormoran, that would seem to be the appropriate name to use for the title of this article and to refer to the ship in the lead. (The only exception I could see would be if the battle is well known by the current title.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's do this thing. TomTheHand (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted while I acknowledge that the Prefix HSK isnt necessarily correct the use of HSK is the name to which the Kormoran well known and referred to. Gnangarra 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page as title using HSK recieved over 60,000 hits in the 7 days from the announce of its discovery (source stats) Gnangarra 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of hits was caused by public interest in the discovery of the wrecks, not because the article had "HSK" in the title.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   05:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirect still exists at the old title, and the HSK is both simply wrong and against the MoS. TomTheHand (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur, no matter what the 'well known' title that is being used in the media, scholarly sources and our own MoS agree that there is no prefix, nor should one be used. Wikipedia above all reflects and reports on official uses, not populist accounts.  The article should be moved back to reflect this. Benea (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It also seems to me that this position is advocated by TomTheHand, Maralia, User:Socrates2008, User:Bellhalla, an anonymous ip and me, and opposed by User:Gnangarra. It sounds like consensus to me. Benea (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And you can add my name to the above list. Now can we please change the name because "HSK Kormoran" is still on the front page of Wikipedia and we shouldn't be promoting a mistake. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I as well agree that the HSK should be removed; it's not a legitimate prefix, like RMS or USS are. Regardless of what popular accounts say, scholarly works do not use it, and it contradicts our own MoS. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well don't I feel just a little silly; the page was moved to a more appropriate title before I commented :) I suppose all's well that ends well though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<---
 * As per WP:CANVASS here and here Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view., I see no consensus here. Gnangarra 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Predisposed to the point of view that only actual ship prefixes used by a Navy itself should be used on ship articles? Yes. It has been explained that HSK was not a Kriegsmarine ship prefix, and neither the english nor the german wiki articles on Kormoran use HSK at all. Using HSK Kormoran in this article would be furthering the erroneous misinterpretation of a ship-type acronym as a ship prefix, and as an encyclopedia, that would be irresponsible of us, don't you think? I mean, that is presuming you can accept that the Australian press and government are not the decision-makers when it comes to the proper name of a German ship. Maralia (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NC The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. The majority of readers interested in this article are Australian as the vessel is notable for its sinking of the Sydney and that even the Finding Sydney Foundation refers to the vessel as the HSK Kormoran this shows that that is how the vessel is most commonly known. Gnangarra 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The majority of readers interested in this article are Australian " Absurd. In the first place, Kormoran was the third most successful raider of the second world war and her career is of interest to naval historians. Secondly, this was a remarkable engagement in at least two ways. It's a mutually destructive single ship engagement, and I frankly can't think of any other in history. Bonhomme Richard vs Serapis comes close but neither ship was actually "sunk" plus there were other ships involved. Also it's an almost unique example of an auxilary cruiser "defeating", even at cost of her own destruction, a regular warship. I believe a WWI German raider managed to sink a British destroyer in similar circumstances but I'm unsure of details, and in any "Sydney" was a lot tougher than a WWI destroyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.178.141.62 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As per WP:CANVASS, notifying the relevant WikiProject is acceptable. This is not a group of people who are predisposed toward a particular POV; they are a group of people who know what they're talking about when it comes to ships. TomTheHand (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The notifications were bias in that it was written to convey the desired outcome wanted from editors responding to the discussion. the article uses a made-up prefix and was just reverted back to that prefix Gnangarra 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of readers interested in this article are Australian This is staggering presumption on your part. How can you possibly assert this? Maralia (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite wrong to assume who the most interested party is. I'm sure the ship is interesting to naval history buffs around the world. I myself have done some editing work on the WWII German raiders, and I am not Australian. The FSF also uses HMAS Sydney II, shall we use that as well, even though it's clearly not what the ship was named? There is a relevant MoS that answers this very question; let's do something that, from what I've seen, doesn't happen often on Wikipedia. Let's enforce it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese POWs
The article is not clear on what happened to the Chinese POWs. One would presume that given they were prisoners of the enemy and part of a force fighting against the Axis who would become part of the Allies in about a month that they would have been released but this is not clear from the article Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not even clear about whose prisoners they were -- i.e. were they POWs of the Germans who were liberated by the Australians, or did they become POWs along with the German crew? As Nil alludes to above, the common assumption is likely that, because China was considered an Ally of the war, that they were German POWs. However, China itself wasn't at war with Germany, and in fact China received Western military training and equipment from Germany at the time. So it could really go either way. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Four Chinese crew members of the Eurylochus were hired by Detmers after Kormoran sank that ship in January, 1941. Each of them signed a contract as a civilian laundryman, so they were definitely no PoWs. The Chinese were to be paid after the return to Germany and received the same food and cigarette rations on Kormoran as the Kriegsmarine sailors. The fate of these men is also just another proof against the outrageous conspiracy theories of some unrelenting German-haters who still claim that Australian survivors were machine-gunned in the water, because the Chinese would have been unwelcome witnesses who either would have been killed by the imaginary Nazi murderers or would have revealed the ostensible crime to the Allied authorities. Reibeisen 21:46, 5 April 2008
 * I don't buy the conspiracy theories and I have not seen any hard evidence to suggest that anyone on Kormoran committed war crimes, but none of this is relevant if you think about it, i.e.:


 * the laundry of Kormoran was unlikely to be an ideal spot from which to view the battle
 * Chinese civilians in such a situation may not have felt able to decline any such "contracts"
 * the Australian authorities decided that they were POWs.


 * Grant |  Talk  06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Detmers, nearly all of the 39 Chinese from Eurylochus offered their services when he asked for volunteers, and there is no reason to believe that the four he finally chose would have been forcibly held back if they had preferred to leave for France with Nordmark as the rest of the prisoners did. Those people probably had no personal interest in the war, and the Kriegsmarine was just another employer for them. One of them had already served on a German merchant vessel and even possessed limited German language skills. Of course one could argue that Detmers deliberately put the Chinese in harm's way, and in fact one of them was killed during the final battle, but then again, no one is safe on a ship in wartime, and many Allied prisoners from Kormoran died when the Spreewald was accidently sunk by an U-Boot, so leaving the HSK was evidently as dangerous as staying on board. But the PoW status is a legal question, not a moral one. A PoW is a military combatant (usually a soldier) who has been captured by enemy forces. As China wasn't at war with Germany, Chinese nationals couldn't become PoWs. And as the civilian laundrymen had no military status, they also couldn't become PoWs. Even the Nazi slave laborers in Europe (Fremdarbeiter or Zwangsarbeiter) were no PoWs, although no one claims they were volunteers or that they didn't suffer terribly at the hands of the Nazis (what the Chinese laundrymen obviously did not). But do just as you choose, the legal status of the three Chinese probably is of no real importance. Reibeisen 12:37, 6 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.229.225 (talk)


 * It had long been a tradition in the British Merchant Navy to employ ethnic Chinese as laundrymen on ships stationed in the Far East, in many cases these were Hong Kong nationals, and therefore British subjects, although other 'Chinese' from places such as Malaya, and Singapore, were also employed. This tradition of using 'Chinese' laundrymen continued in British ships until as late as the 1950-60s.

Further Reading or References?
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)
 * 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)

Which Supermarine Seaplane aboard the Sydney
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)


 * 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)

Name of the article
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)

This battle is referred to in a number of sources as the Battle of Carnarvon. Indeed the current title seems clumsy as such I propose to move it. Anotherclown (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A Second Note for the Editors
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Lifeboats found
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)
 * Sorry to disagree. Per 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.  &mdash;Moondyne click! 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

 * Allegations of war crimes were made[attribution needed] against the Germans, although none of these claims has been substantiated.

I removed this from the article as they are only allegations made as far as I am aware, are by one or two (uncited) newspapers and fringe theorists. Such allegations need to come from serious scholars of the incident rather than a newspaper hack sensationalising a story. &mdash;Moondyne click! 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point, in my opinion. The theories were never more than fringe in terms of "evidence" (none) or credibility (little, based on the fact that hundreds of witnesses told the same story and based on Detmer's war record before the battle). BUT the accusations were made by the son of a Sydney officer, and are being repeated (sometimes in a "we will never know if they are true!" kind of voice) in more than just hack articles.


 * Articles that reference the speculation here (Australlian), here (News.com.au), noting that such allegations had become part and parcel of conspiracy theories around Sydney's loss).


 * In 1999, an inquiry (via a DPA news source) (via Epoch Times) specifically cleared German survivors of the speculations, showing that this WAS more than just discussed at the fringe.


 * In sum, I believe that the allegations are an important part of the article, and should be in the lede as well. I will put them back as soon as my connection is back to broadband in a day or two (unless somebody else wants to do so earlier). Ingolfson (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the lead should introduce what actually happened, not what almost certainly did not happen. The fact of the matter is that the allegations have been debated and largely disproved.  This is fair enough and warrants a suitable section in the article where it can be thoroughly discussed.  But if we try and jam a section about it in the lead we are giving undue prominence to a controversial  and largely discredited theory.  The issue of war crimes has recently returned to media attention after the discovery of the wrecks and consequently this is receiving a lot of speculation, but wikipedia should follow the basic premise of reporting the scholarly accepted accounts in its description of events.  This does not mean that nothing should be said about the allegations, as they seem widespread enough to warrant a section discussing them.  For an apt parallel, the September 11, 2001 attacks article's lead introduces what actually happened.  The fact that allegations and conspiracy theories are rife are not, but are given their own place in the article.  This is a standard that we should follow here. Benea (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Benea. If these more or less fringe theories belong anywhere, it's in their own section in the body of the article, not in the intro. That would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also completely agree with Moondyne & Benea, it would be gross wp:undue. In fact the Germans were prisoners-of-war down-under for years afterwards, and they were not even subject to a trial or indictments, which would probably have been politically popular at the time. Leave the allegations stuff to the journalists trying to whip up a story.io_editor (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "... specifically cleared German survivors of the speculations ..." ergo, leave it out of the article, or at most demote it to a small sentence in the body, but certainly not in the lead. &mdash;Moondyne click! 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:LEDE "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." - I do believe that it is a notable controvery surrounding the story. We correctly spend three paragraphs discussing the past history of the subject of war crime allegations in the artice. Ingolfson (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are a disproven theory. Notable controversies would, to me, indicate something that happened that was true. &mdash;Moondyne click! 08:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there were notable controversies they should go in the lead, however, the issue in question is a fringe theory, and putting it in the lead would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. That the theories have been covered by some newspapers isn't exactly the point. The point, in my opinion, is that they have not been supported at all by any academic or official source, only by newspapers that may or may not be stirring up controversy just to sell a few more papers or draw more hits on their websites. That doesn't make the cut, at least in my humble opinion. As Moondyne states, the theory isn't correct anyway, even further detracting from "notable controversies" status. It needn't necessarily be true, but should be at least plausible. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Various

 * 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)
 * 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)

Disparity
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)
 * 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)

Chinese POWs
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)

Page move
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)

German victory
I have a problem with it being a German victory. How was it? Both ships were lost. What psychological victory are we talking about? Nothing much is mentioned about this in the article. As there were not any survivors from Sydney, and not a single soul saw her go down (well living soul anyway), how can it be claimed she was sunk by the Kormoran. For all we know she might have hit a mine! Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most sources, including Australian sources, regard this battle as being a German victory as Kormoran sank a greatly superior Australian warship. Only fringe theorists claim that anything other than Kormoran sank Sydney - there is ample proof that she inflicted fatal damage on the Australian cruiser. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Nick. There are two dimensions to this: the ships themselves and the historical context.
 * If Sydney had sunk Kormoran without incurring significant damage or casualties, no one would have been surprised. While Sydney's superiority is usually overstated and the crew of Kormoran may be regarded as an elite unit, Kormoran was significantly inferior in speed, and, to a lesser degree, weaponry and armour (although the Leander class was notably weak in the latter aspect).
 * The loss of Sydney was a psychological blow because it occurred close to Australia, far from the main theatres of war and was a huge shock to the Australian navy, government and public, who were very familiar with their small fleet and Sydney's exploits in the Mediterranean. Grant  |  Talk  12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends how you define victory. It still was not a clear victory. At the most it would have been a Pyrrhic victory, after all the German vessel was sunk as well. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it should read sunk. The ships were not "lost". It is even more inappropriate now that Sydney has been found. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the result is to be restored, and the assertion that it was in part a psychological victory kept in, I believe the information in the article alleging this "shock" should be cited. At the moment it is devoid of any accreditation. Dapi89 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How can this engagement be anything other than a German victory? Sure, both ships sunk, but in every respect the Germans came out on top. Sydney was a cruiser, very much superior to the German Q-ship. That's the scales tilted in the German favour, right there. The Germans survived, albeit in captivity, whilst Sydney's crew all died. That was a huge loss to the RAN - there is nothing else that comes close, when considering the list of names in the AWM. --Pete (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The point made about the disparity in capabilities is a good one. But I wonder whether the German crew regarded this as a victory. Spending six years in POW camp and failing to destroy more merchant vessels, which was their primary task, was not really that victorious. Bismarck sank Hood, but you wouldn't call the operation a success because Bismarck was brought to heel herself, and she didn't fulfill her assigned task. Anyway, it seems I am outnumbered, so I guess "the motion" is denied. Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have hit the nail on the head there. I would call Bismarck's sinking of the Hood a victory for the Germans, just as I would call the eventual sinking of the Bismarck by the Home Fleet a victory for the British.  When you look at the actual battle, and not see it in terms of an overall campaign or operation, in terms of basic material losses, the Germans come out ahead.  And in terms of psychological impact it is again a victory for the Germans.  There are various degrees of victory and defeat in any operation.  A complete German victory would have seen the Sydney sunk and the Kormoran continuing on her raiding career.  A complete Australian victory would have seen the Kormoran sunk with little effort and loss from the Sydney.  To break it down:
 * Ships lost = a draw.
 * Men lost = Australia comes out worst.
 * Psychological impact = Australia comes out worst.
 * Strategic impact = hard to tell. The loss of a cruiser was not to be taken lightly, but the allies were able to make do and come out on top.  The loss of the German raider was also significant, but they were not war winners themselves.  Each could have gone to play a significant role in the war, or end up achieving very little (especially as Japan's entry to the war would lead to the loss of a lot of allied warships). Perhaps call this a draw for argument's sake.
 * In short it is a qualified victory for the Germans overall. I don't particularly mind how this expressed in the infobox, but I thought it might address your 'how can this be seen as a German victory?' question. Benea (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Pyrrhic victory? I could deal with that. Dapi89 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What source do you have that states that the outcome of the battle was a pyrrhic victory? Everything I've read calls this a German victory. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if Sydney had been able to make port after the battle, it seems likely that most of its crew would have been dead and/or it would have taken years to repair (if the recovery of her sister, HMAS Hobart (1939), from a Japanese torpedo strike is anything to go by).

I look at it this way: Kormoran was equivalent to an army special forces unit, i.e. it was intended to operate behind enemy lines, against targets of opportunity, and with a high risk of destruction or capture. For such a unit to engage a regular enemy unit of greater strength, in enemy territory, and destroy it, represents a victory, regardless of the fact that said special forces unit is captured. (That is why, for instance, St. Nazaire Raid is described as a British victory, even though more than nine tenths of the British force was killed or captured.)  Grant  |  Talk  00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The ANZAC Day Press coverage reveals some gross misconceptions about the significance of the battle. Several articles quoted politicians or family members of the Sydney crew with remarks like "They didn't die in vain, by sinking the Kormoran they saved so many other lives" or "We now live in a better world because of their sacrifice" (Kevin Rudd). Fact is, the loss of the two ships was totally insignificant for both sides. All together, the pathetic little fleet of the nine German Hilfskreuzer sunk less ships than certain U-Boote alone, while Sydney could well have suffered the fate of Perth or Canberra if she survived into 1942. Also, the sinking of the 11 ships attacked by Kormoran during her career only cost a mere dozen lives, so she could have cruised on until the war's end and still would have killed only a fraction of Sydney's complement. For all concerned, it would have been better if both ships had never met, and the battle was neither the glorious victory of David against Goliath the Kriegsmarine claimed it to be nor the great heroic sacrifice the RAN made of it. It was just another unnecessary loss of life. Reibeisen (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is why philosophizing and editorialising needs to stay out of Wikipedia: ALL the above arguments make some sense.Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed! And whatever the article ends up stating, this must not be the result of any original research on this talk page.  i.e. it should not reflect editors' personal views, but rather those of verifiable, reliable external sources.   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I note that very few "Results" in battleboxes are referenced. Grant  |  Talk  06:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * how about simply calling it a minor german victory XavierGreen —Preceding comment was added at 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I have asked for some citations regading this alleged shock of the Australian public. I would also say the the British Commando's were to be evacuated, it was not a sacrificial operation. Although the objectives were met it was still a very expensive success, something which the British had not intended. Added to the fact that Hitler had forbade any warship from sailing the atlantic again after Bismarck, the operation was pretty pointless. The same can be said of the German ship, it did not live to fight another day. I think that listing the result as "both ships sunk" is better. If editors have the sources they claim asserts it as a clear Germany victory and nothing else then please add it. Dapi89 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you are saying but, after all, many one-line assessments of military actions are reductionist and normative; I'm not sure that they belong in an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, they are in every battle article in WP.


 * References for the psychological impact:


 * National Archives of Australia (fact sheet 111): "For the public the shock of the loss was accompanied by bewilderment that such a disaster could occur."


 * Mike McCarthy, Museum of Western Australia: "It was a major blow to the Country as a whole in WWII and was an unexplained loss that many families had been unable to come to terms with, some expressing concerns decades after the event."


 * Adelaide Advertiser (March 17, 2008) "The loss of the Sydney was a shock to Australia and the news was, in fact, withheld from the public until 11 days after the tragedy."


 * Grant |  Talk  12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But would still consider it expensive. I'll amend the result. Dapi89 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kormoran not sunk by Sydney
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)


 * 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)

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

Title of article
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)

Even before the war, there was concern about some features of Sydney’s design making her vulnerable to attack
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)


 * If you can find a source, there's nothing stopping you adding this. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Largest warship to go down with all hands?
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)
 * Clarified as "largest Allied ship", but can you please provide a source supporting your claims? -- saberwyn 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on current article status
Firstly, great effort in lifting this article - it's undergone significant improvement since I last looked at it. A few minor thoughts for areas of future improvement: More to follow... Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A map showing Kormoran's voyage from start to finish, with sinkings along the way?
 * 2) Why did Sydney not notice Kormoran's guns so close up (i.e. some explanation, and maybe a picture of the special counter-weighted covers over the guns?)
 * 3) Any pictures of the POW's after their internment?
 * 4) Is it worth including one of the underwater shots (copyright permitting)?
 * 5) There are a few citations that could potentially be consolidated
 * 6) Any reason why the Goldrick and Hore books are further indented than the others?
 * 7) Two columns might work better than one for the citations
 * 8) "Why did Burnett approach so close" heading is a question without puntuation - might be better reworded as "Why Burnett approached so close"
 * 9) Some pictures are missing ALT text
 * 10) A brief explanation for the Germans using auxilary cruisers as a strategy (limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles on the size and number of naval ships, I believe)


 * That map would be more relevant in the Kormoran article
 * My understanding is that they were all obscured by the structure of the ship. I'll try to find something
 * Will check the AWM Added a group photograph of ten senior officers (including Detmers) while interred. -- saberwyn 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We could probably only get away with one... which ship are we going to be biased towards?
 * See what I can do, although I will state now that I'm from the "all facts are contestable, therefore all facts should be clearly cited" school of thought.
 * Yes, agree - however for example where there's a citation for p. 3 and a citation for pp. 3-4, could these two not use one name citation instead of two? It's very trivial, I know.
 * In youe example, information for the first fact would be entirely contained on p. 3, while the second would overlap onto p. 4.
 * OK, as I said, trivial, but mentioning this because I've been pulled up about it before in a review.
 * Because they are not books, but chapters within books. This is also why they are cited as "Hore, in Stevens, The Royal Australian Navy in World War II, p. x"
 * As in ? For some reason, that coding never changes what I see, but if it works for you, I see no issue in it
 * Changed
 * Will work on it -- saberwyn 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a little bit in the "Ships" section to hopefully cover this -- saberwyn 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think that saberwyn has done a great work expanding this article. Here are my (rather belated) comments:
 * Sydney's extensive war service (especially in the Med) up to November 1941 should be noted in the background section
 * The article should note that Sydney was recalled to Australian waters following the successful attack by German raiders on Nauru (see the last section of German attacks on Nauru)
 * The description of the battle is excellent, but a map showing the two ships' courses during the battle would be a great addition
 * The search and rescue section states that No. 14 Sqn RAAF operated Catalinas - I'm pretty sure that this isn't correct. Also, I doubt that USN personnel ever flew as part of RAAF Catalina crews (except possibly in emergencies), and especially not before the start of the Pacific War
 * The sentence "A second carley float, which washed up on Christmas Island in February 1942 is believed, but not confirmed, to be linked with the cruiser." needs a cite
 * I think that the 'Post-war searches' section is much too long and detailed given that there's an article on this topic
 * The article understate's the severity of Tom Frame's criticisms of Gill's critical of Gill's account of the battle - he sums this up as "Gill's conclusions are seriously flawed, inconsistent and contradictory" (p. 203 of the 2008 edition) and "poor history" (p. 204) Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the current size of the article, I don't want to add too much. That said, I will scrounge some appropriate content. Added a little to "Background"... how does it look now? -- saberwyn 09:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While Gill makes the claim that both Sydney and Westralia were recalled, Goldrick says (in Stevens, The Royal Australian Navy, pp 110-1) that only Westralia was recalled in response to the Nauru attack: Sydney was rotated with Perth to distribute wartime experience amongst the fleet. I want to check a few other sources before I make a call on this... it might take a few days. -- saberwyn 09:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further info: Cassells (p. 150) claims that Perth and Sydney were switched to allow the latter a refit and leave in Australia. Grove (in Stevens, The RAN in WWII, p. 42) mentions raider activity as a contributing factor. Frame makes no specific mention of why Sydney came home, but the implication is a rotation off the 'front line'. I'll mention it here as a contributing factor, and go into a shade more detail in the ship's article. -- saberwyn 08:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as my animator friends finish uni for the year, I'll bribe them into throwing together something like the collision animations in HMAS Melbourne (R21).
 * The source reads "The aircraft, A24-11 from No.11 Squadron RAAF, and A24-14 from No.14 Squadron RAAF, were to be accompanied by two experienced United States Navy aircraft captains who were on exchange duty." It was an oversimplification, and I've rephrased the article slightly to more accurately reflect this.
 * I just checked the RAAF Historical Section's Unites of the Royal Australian Air Force series, and No. 14 Squadron was equipped with Hudsons and based at RAAF Base Pearce in WA at this time, so it can't have deployed a Catalina from Port Morsby or Darwin. No. 11 and No. 20 Sqns were the only Catalina-equipped units in Australia at the time (I think). Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "No. 14 Sqn. Catalina" was travelling from Rathmines, New South Wales to Port Moresby via Townsville, and was in the air when it was diverted to Fremantle via Darwin. As I can't find any statements identifying the squadrons these birds belonged to, I'm stripping it out of the article... we can always add it back in later when/if we find a collaboratory source. -- saberwyn 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done
 * My intention was for the post-war searches, the Christmas Island Body, and (possibly) the wartime search and rescue to be farmed out to the relevant articles and replaced by summaries: I'll get around to this over the next week or so. It was just easier than writing two more articles simultaneously.
 * Update: The Mearns search info has been copied over in full (as there was no content in the small sections there that wasn't covered in here), so we just need to trim things down on this end (done). The wartime and post-war-pre-Mearns search info will require more careful integration. -- saberwyn 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I think the wartime search is more relevant here (being directly related to the aftermath of the battle) with a summary section in the search article. I still need to get around to the post-war searches... its on the to-do list. -- saberwyn 08:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me what chapter those quotes appear in, so I can try to marry them up with my 1993 edition? -- saberwyn 06:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's entitled 'The Navy and the 'Official' History'. The 2008 edition is fairly different to the earlier edition, so it may not be there. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. p. 152. -- saberwyn 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. -- saberwyn 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "draught between 15 ft and 17 ft at standard displacement" If 17'3" is at std, what's the 15'3" for? Light? Normal?
 * I will have to check the sources, but one is draught at bow and the other at stern. -- saberwyn 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A minor point: the intro drops the name Detmers like I should know it, but doesn't explain who he is until later... I suggest at least a mention of the respective COs early; I'll leave to somebody more familiar with the subject to decide how to work it in.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a little too much detail, particularly with the crew breakdowns... how about now? -- saberwyn 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * •I think it's better now. Took out Sydney's length; it really doesn't add much, IMO. Also, I changed "launcher" to TT, 'cause "launcher" just doesn't sound right to me. I'd still be curious to know if Sydney & Kormoran each had port/starboard tubes (as the page suggests); I can't tell from the lores pix of Sydney... Draft has become irrelevant, I see. I do think leaving in crew strength is worthwhile, if only as point of interest, as a way to measure the magnitude of the losses.
 * •As noted, I changed Fregattenkapitän to Commander because a) it's a representative rank in USN/RN & b) it's more informative to those (including me, to some extent) less familiar (or unfamiliar) with Kriegsmarine ranks.
 * •On the page title, can I suggest "Battle of Carnarvon"? Or whatever the nearest point of land was? That's usual for naval battles; viz Battle of Savo Island, to name one off the top of my head, or Battle of Midway (maybe not so good an example).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the length back in, because its a good handle for laypeople to use when comparing ships: both ships have a size value, a displacement/tonnage value, a crew value, and a description of the weapons. I'd like to keep these comparisons to dispel the popular misconception that a fully armed and operational warship had her arse handed to her by a dinky freighter with some guns bolted on.
 * Fair call
 * The names of most naval battles are agreed on by multiple sources: the articles on the battles at Savo Island and Midway are called this because these are the names for those actions given in the sources. There is no name for this action that is agreed on by sources, as shown in the section below.
 * Again, thanks for your edits. -- saberwyn 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent move
Was the recent move necessary? Should it have been taken without discussion? Can somebody quote me the naming convention in question? There may be a default option of naming naval actions without a widely accepted name by their date, but that may cover actions involving several warships where naming them all would be unweildy. PatGallacher (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose the recent page move. First of all, renames shouldn't be done without checking on the talk page first. The edit summary said that the title violates "standard naming conventions". I haven't found those, and in fact I'd suggest that the old name is the most common name for the event, and should thus be used. Averell (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support every unnamed battle on wikipedia is named Action of (insert date here). There are dozenss of Good and even Featured articles under that naming convention. I seriously doubt it would be able to get any farther than b-class under the previous name. There is a good topics half made up of Action of (insert date articles)XavierGreen. This naming convention is used for all battles without names regardless of the number of ships. For an example of a good article about a single ship action named as such see Action of 27 June 1798 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This engagement is far more notable than most minor engagements (eg. the example above) and is commonly referred to in most news sources using the names of the ships involved. Could someone please post a link to the naming conventions for the benefit of this discussion?  Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a look round and I haven't found this alleged naming convention, I doubt if it exists. The nearest thing is the naming convention for events, which states that for naming events what happened is more important than when it happened.  The style guide for military history also provides no clear guidance.  As it is bad practice to move articles without discussion, and there is no clear guideline involved here, I propose to move this back in a day or so unless there are strong objections. PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the source of the convention i refer to the top of []. As ive stated before there are literally dozens of articles using this naming convention. Action of 29 November 1811, Action of 15 October 1917, Action of 13 December 1809, Action of 3 July 1810, Action of 18 March 2006, Action of 5 October 1804, Action of 17 November 1917, Action of 1 January 1800, there are dozens more if you wish me to post them.XavierGreen (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm given to understand that the articles mentioned above are given that name because theyare referred to that in reliable sources, and it would appear that this new titles is not used in reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to go with whatever consensus emerges from this discussion, but for the sake of those taking a side, I'll clarify some things in regards to the article's claim for no common name for the battle.
 * Amongst all the works I read in the leadup to the expansion, Tom Frame is the only source I found that gives a neutral name for the battle, being "Sydney-Kormoran Action". Apparently, Chris Coulthard-Clark's Where Australians Fought names the fight as the "Battle of Carnarvon" (as stated on one of the earlier pagemove justifications), but I have not seen this work. There are no other articles named like this, but most naval battles are named, even if the name is "Action of Date".
 * A minority of sources (including the Cole Report cited, and the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History) name the event as the "Loss of HMAS Sydney". I don't feel this is appropriate, because it is Australia-biased, completely ignores the loss of the other half of the fight, and is only used in a few sources. Some articles do use a similar naming convention, i.e. Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, but as I understand it, this title is the common name for the action, and is justified by the fact that this was a dedicated effort to sink the ship instead of a random encounter, and because it would be impossible to name the other side because there were so many of them.
 * The majority of sources do not name the battle at all, and refert to it with phrases such as "the [battle/engagement/fight] between Ship X and Ship Y", "Ship X was [defeated in battle by/lost follwing a fight with] Ship Y", or the "Ship X/Ship Y battle". -- saberwyn 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * •Comment: I do find the existing title clumsy (no less the previous, however). I will also go along with consensus (... ;p), but would raise these points.
 * Leading with the name of either ship is liable to bring accusations of POV from the other side's partisans, & ensuing edit war.
 * I'm unsure such a title would be a great deal better than it is now.
 * Since there were only the two ships involved, "Battle of" anything seems a trifle overblown.
 * IMO, "Action of [date]" seems the best compromise: descriptive, in compliance with WP's usual practise, & no POV issues.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of Action of titled articles are titled as such because there is no source that can provide a name for the battle. As for the title Battle between HMAS Sydney and german auxiliary cruiser Kormoran I have never heard of a single source calling the battle by that name, can someone provide a source specifically citing the battle as being called that? Otherwise i think original research would come into play since you would essentially be just making up a name out of the blue. I would not be opposed to using Battle of Carnarvon, but it does not seem to be a commonly used name for the battle. Other battles similar to this one involving an auxiliary cruiser are the Battle of Trindade, Battle of Rio de Oro, Action of 27 February 1941, Action of 8 May 1941, Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1940), and Action of 16 March 1917. There are other battles from the spanish american war involving auxiliary cruisers, such as Third Battle of Manzanillo though these were not used primarily as commerce raiders.XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to the naming guideline as such. However, it was my understanding that this battle/action/whatever was most often referred to by the name of the ships involved. Which would make it not an "unnamed" battle. I'm not familiar with the sources, though, and I may stand corrected. Averell (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move I've never seen this well-known battle referred to anywhere as the 'Action of 19 November 1941'. As saberwyn notes, most Australian sources call this the loss of HMAS Sydney, but this isn't suitable as it's Australian-centric. The previous name did the job. Nick-D (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that used the previous name? I've yet to see one.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I support PatGallacher’s renaming (to the original name); to me it seems the best descriptive title. The policy XavierGreen linked to above would only appear to be an explanation added to an article 4 years ago. It’s there for the benefit of the reader and seeing as it was added without any form of discussion or consensus (none was needed) I'm not sure it can be considered a policy or relevant to this discussion. So this just comes down to a choice between 2 formats - either something similar to the current title (using the ships names), or "action of such and such a date".

Neither have any specific sources backing them up, but given that I’ve never seen this action referred to as "Action of....." I strongly oppose using that name. I’d also suggest that this is a far more significant encounter than any of the other “Action of…” articles listed above all (1 of the examples posted above appears to link to a different title by the way), this being Australia’s worst-ever naval disaster. All the other articles using that format appear to be minor confrontations that aren't especially well known whereas this is a hugely significant encounter that has received widespread press and publicity, especially in the last year or two. Using the title “Action of…” doesn’t seem to do the engagement justice in my opinion.

Most of the press articles I've ever seen use the ship’s names to describe this engagement. Admittedly “Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran” isn’t referenced, but I’m not sure it needs to be given that it’s a description and not a name. I might be tempted to change it to “Engagement between…” and lose the capital letter at the start in the lead, but that’s all. I actually think there might be grounds to use “Loss of HMAS Sydney” – admittedly it doesn’t name Kormorant and might be Australia centric, but it can be referenced and the loss of the ship was the most significant part of this encounter. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically your for making up a name out of the blue then? If someone can find a sourceable name i'm all for using it, however if there isnt one then id rather use an established convention within naval history, and yes i can provide sources that it is an established convention in naval science through scholarly publications on naval warfare if nessesary.XavierGreen (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm up for providing a suitably descriptive title that makes sense to the reader and google, and follows these guidelines and these guidelines. Surely there can't be many people out there who link the loss of Sydney to a specific date, but there'll be a lot more who link it to a specific engagement.  Not all wiki titles need to be sourced, they just need to be descriptive.  There is no specific policy that says dates have to be used, so "Action of xxxx" is equally as made up as "Battle between xxxx", and I personally think the latter is far more descriptive. That's the first fundamental rule of deciding an article name. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Style guide also says that article names should be Concise and Consistent of which this current name is neither.XavierGreen (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only articles i can find similiar to the current naming style are within the Template:Campaignbox War of 1812: Naval, which the majority are single ship actions. They follow two formats (Ship 1) vs. (Ship 2) or Sinking of (Ship name) i think either of these would be better than the current title, though i still think Action of should be used since if conforms with the majority of articles on wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 2: I've looked at authoritative, non-book sources to see what they call the battle, or refer to this battle as:
 * the Australian War Memorial variously calls it "The action between HMAS Sydney and the auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, 19 November 1941", the "The loss of HMAS Sydney, 19 November 1941" (title) or the "Sydney-Kormoran action" (as previous, in body)
 * the Western Australian Maritime Museum calls it "The HMAS Sydney / HSK Kormoran engagement"
 * the Australian National Maritime Museum does not give a an outright name, but 'names' the battle by referring to the two ship's names
 * the Royal Australian Navy uses "the HMAS SYDNEY / KORMORAN engagement", "the loss of HMAS Sydney" and various phrases 'naming' the battle using the ship's names.-- saberwyn 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Along with the sources stated above, this seems to support the concept that there is no 'standard name' for the battle, but the most common way of 'naming' the battle is to use a descriptive phrase which includes the names of both ships and a noun indicating combat. -- saberwyn 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because all of the sources cited so far in the discussion are of Australian origin, I have left a request at the German military history task force for advice on how the battle is named in German sources. -- saberwyn 23:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look at the War of 1812 naval battles mentioned above, and most single-ship actions are called "Ship A v. Ship B", there are a few exceptions "Sinking of Ship C". So this title looks ok, but we might move it to the more concise "HMAS Sydney v. German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran". PatGallacher (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm late to the party, but 'Oppose in this instance but Support on general principles. A move on an article like this musy always be discussed first, and whoever moved it was wrong to do so without bringing it here before hand. However, for a number of reasons I think the Action of [date] is the best way to neutrally represent articles on naval battles that do not have formal titles, and should be used in almost all cases.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it should be called the "Battle of Carnarvon" as it is name used though it is not common among the general public. Or, "HMS Sydney vs Kormoran" because that is basically the same as the ridiculous sentence currently being used. Even "Action of...." would work. So out of all of this discussing it seems the sentence of a title is still being used. I'd like to start a new Oppose / Support thing here so that we can finally solve this problem. So please editors leave your opinion about renaming the page here and after 30 days time we can count the votes and rename the article accordingly.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to rush to some sort of voting? What are editors meant to oppose or support, and why do this without any discussion? From the above discussion it appears very unlikely that there will be consensus support for 'Action of 19 November 1941'. 'Battle of Canarvon' is obscure at best and using it would violate WP:COMMONNAME and 'HMAS Sydney vs Kormaran' is informal and unclear. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Article size
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think that's acceptable - it would be a shame to break this up.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to removing the tag? -- saberwyn 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None from me. Socrates2008 ( Talk )  23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Allied Leader was KIA
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)

Christmas Island bullet?
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)


 * 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)
 * Definitely contact the AWM about it. -- saberwyn 07:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

Number of ships lost with all hands during WWI and WWII
"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)

This could be a complex issue. Possibly they are thinking about surface warships. However, although Sydney seems to have been the largest Allied ship lost with all hands in WW2, there were at least 1 and possibly 3 Japanese ships larger than Sydney lost with all hands. PatGallacher (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Christmas Island Man Forensic Report
Am I missing something here? The official forensic report that was conducted on the body exhumed from Christmas Island in 2006 (http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/CORR/CORR.012.0233.pdf) includes a colour photograph (pg 16) of a top view of the skull that clearly shows what appears to be a perfectly rounded hole and yet I can't find any mention of this hole (and what may have caused it) in the report? Ayecaranya (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble identifying which image you are referring to, and which feature of the image you are describing. Regardless, the linked report is not a forensic investigation into cause of death, but an anthropological identification of the Christmas Island Sailor's age, sex, race, and physical characteristics for the purposes of aiding eventual identification. It is one of several reports into the Christmas Island Sailor (to quote from the first page: "This report focuses on the identification of the skeletal remains. Separate reports have been written on the dental identification and on the trauma.") Therefore, its not surprising to me that it doesn't go into details of potential wounds.
 * Based on the trauma report, the anthropological report, and other submissions, the 2009 inquiry report (relevant chapter here) identified the head wounds as consisting of a fragment of metal from a German armour-piercing shell lodged in but not penetrating the upper front of the skull, a 2 mm puncture on the right parietal bone believed to be from a bird beak, and damage to the left squamous temporal bone caused either by the sailor falling over after the fragment impact or a separate blow to the head (pp. 334-338, then continuing on to 344 for analysis of the metal fragment). Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Torpedoes
The article mentions that the Kormoran launched two torpedoes at the Sydney. One hit is noted, so what happened to the second?

The torpedo was the deadliest weapon of two world wars sinking more ships that all other systems combined. The alleged sighting of a periscope was sufficient to alarm Admirals and whole fleets put out to sea or drastically change course.

If the Kormoran put two torpedoes into the Sydney this ship was almost certain to be lost.AT Kunene (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Accounts of the battle and inspection of the wreckage indicate that Sydney was only struck by a single torpedo. As torpedoes of the era were unguided, the tactic was to fire multiple torpedoes on slightly diverging courses (a 'spread' or 'fan') to increase the odds of a hit. Its safe to say that the other torpedo (Kormoran was firing from a 2-tube launcher) missed Sydney completely (whether passing ahead of the bow or running too deep and under the keel) and sailed off into the sunset until it ran out of propellant and sank. -- saberwyn 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have the neccessary reference to hand but it might be worth checking the report recently published by the Royal Inst. Naval Architects which has some reference to the two torpedoes, possibly as hits.
 * Even a single torpedo hit can inflict considerable damage on a warship and maybe it was this that at least gave the Kormoran an advantage in the battle.AT Kunene (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While one torpedo missed, the other definitely hit. The torpedo strike, near the bow, was a contributing factor to the ship's defeat in the battle itself, but not a primary one: defeat came about due to Sydney being in too close when she was surprised by Kormorans true nature, then hammered by the Germans' fast and accurate rate of fire. The torpedo damage was a major factor in Sydneys sinking later that night. The torpedo had detonated near where the ship's asdic array met the water (a relatively weak part of the hull), and the stresses from the explosion (plus the other residual battle damage) caused the bow to snap off. -- saberwyn 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Although not a major factor in the battle itself (which was primarily decided by the Germans' high and accurate rate of fire and the element of suprise), it was a primary factor in the ship's later sinking


 * If the Sydney's captain had followed procedures well-established in the Royal Navy for some 300 years then the 'battle' would not have occurred in the first place. Upon sighting a strange ship the warship should immediately go to action stations, then send a challenge to the suspect ship, ordering it to stop, while training the warship's own guns on her. When the ship has stopped, the warship circles slowly at a safe distance with her guns aimed at the suspect ship and sends over a boat with an armed boarding party to inspect the ship and its papers. Australia was at war and Sydney's captain should have done this, not sailed blithely up to the Kormoran as if he was on a peacetime pleasure cruise. Even if he had felt sure of the ship's identity he should still have followed the correct procedure, if only because it would have been a good opportunity for exercising Sydney's crew.


 * If Sydney's captain had survived and been in the RN he would have faced a possible court-martial for recklessly losing his ship and her crew. Properly-handled, Sydney should have captured or sunk the Kormoran with little or no damage to herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Article
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&#124; reply here 08:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have the correct page for this purpose. I want to correct an apparent mistake, albeit of a relatively minor importance. In the relevant treatise reference is made to the entry of Japan into WW2 on 7 December 1941, which occurred several weeks after the above battle. Japan's hostilities opened with simultaneous attacks at eight locations [in fact several hours separated them], these were Hong Kong, Guam Island, Wake Island, the Gilbert Islands, southern Thailand, northern Malaya, the northern Philippines and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Singapore was of course the prime objective of the Japanese Thailand/Malaya campaign but was not actually invaded until 8 February 1942 [Wikipedeia: "Battle of Singapore"]and surrendered on 15 February. The treatise strongly implies an attack on Singapore that was simultaneous with that on Pearl Harbour which is incorrect.It should be noted that Pearl Harbour was "attacked". All other places were "invaded". My authority for submitting the above can be found in any specialised history of the WW2 Malayan Campaign and The Fall of Singapore. I have a meagre 22 in my possession of the many histories written on this subject. No disagreement is found among them in this matter.

If my submission is misdirected, I would humbly seek advice as to redirection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggles Prime (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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/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)

External links modified
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)

The title, "battle" is the wrong word and the title is too long
Try HMAS Sydney and Kormoran, 19 November 1941. Result German victory, but loss of both ships, doesn't conform to Template:Infobox military conflict "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That title doesn't make sense, or reflect how this is referred to (it was obviously a battle). The 'result' section is also fine, and reflects what sources say. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a relatively long title and does raise the question of whether it meets WP:CONCISE. It is not a title consistently used for the event - ie it appears to be a WP construct, which is appropriate if there is no name consistently appearing in the sources (see note 1 of article). To my understanding, a "naval battle" would be an event involving multiple ships, while "action" (or "engagement") would be used to describe a single ship action, which this is (again, see note 1 of article).  However, the event appears (in sources) to most commonly referred to as the sinking or loss of HMAS Sydney and, by WP:COMMONNAME, this would appear to be the most appropriate title.
 * As to the result in the infobox, it does appear curious to assign victory to one of the ships when the action directly resulted in the sinking of both. The guidance for the result parameter is quite specific and "German victory, but loss of both ships" certainly does not meet this. Who won and by how much is a matter of opinion.  Reading the article, we might form the opinion that Kormoran "won on points" but this would be WP:SYNTH.  We must rely on a consensus of opinion expressed in the sources.  Furthermore, if we are to say "X victory" such opinion should be sufficiently clear and unambiguous that we don't have to say "because Y said this he means it was an X victory" - that too would rise to WP:SYNTH. I am not seeing anything in the body of the article that would represent a consensus in the sources on this. The lead states: How and why a purpose-built warship like Sydney was defeated by a modified merchant vessel like Kormoran was the subject of speculation; and, in the body: Much of the controversy surrounding the battle stemmed from disbelief that a modified merchant ship could totally defeat a modern cruiser, with most theories describing how the Germans deceitfully gained the advantage. with a single source.  There is not a section in the article that can be clearly linked to a "see section" for a discussing an assessment of the result.  On the otherhand, both ships being sunk is ipso facto an inconclusive result.
 * As an aside, the second quoted text from the article is attributed to Goldrick at p. 96 but the bibliography refers to a section in a collected volume from pp 103-126. The bilbiography refers to the 2001 edition but gives the isbn for the 2006 edition. There is some inconsistency in citing this source. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Loss of the HMAS Sydney or similar might well be a good title, and would probably best reflect the sources. The sources tend to note that this was a German victory - trading an auxiliary cruiser for a crack light cruiser and its crew was to the Axis forces' advantage. There's general agreement in the sources (including the Australian official history) that Sydney should not have been lost in this battle, as she was much superior to the German ship and lessons should have been learned from previous encounters with disguised raiders. Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , the article does not reflect the comments you are making and attributing to the sources generally agreeing. The article does report that the disparity between the two ships was not so great and that the advantage of armour was lost with closing the range. The loss of Sydney may have been to the Axis advantage but the sinking of Kormoran was nonetheless a benefit to the Allies.  There is too much nuance to weighing all of this to be captured by such a simple term.  The infobox must be supported by the article and by the sources cited therein.  The result given is presently inappropriate.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I had missed the debate. As of the result, one could write "Evaluated as German victory, or as inconclusive (both ships were lost)". While I agree that the trade-off of sinking a light cruiser vs. an auxiliary cruiser is not such a strong argument to call it a German victory, the many German survivors may well be used as an argument.

About moving the article, I think it was not beneficial, as now the title implicitly suggests that Sydney's opponent has not been sunk. I would prefer the old title, be it overlong, at least as the minor evil. --KnightMove (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The result criterion can't stand, either X victory or inconclusive. Since both ships were sunk, I suggest See Aftermath regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After checking the template description, removing the "result" parameter all together is the intended solution in such controversies, so I have done so. --KnightMove (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Keith about the result. If we start trying to justify a particular result, that is WP:OR. To the name, it is very clearly WP:COMMONNAME.  This name implies nothing about the Kormoran. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a look at "Sinking of..." articles, be that restricted to warships sunk in military engagements: Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, Sinking of HMS Reindeer, Sinking of U-864, Sinking of Petrel, Sinking of HMS Avon... in all cases, the ships sunk as of the title were the only ships sunk, while their opponents were not. Admittedly, there is one exception, Sinking of USS Housatonic. But this is justified as sinking the Housatonic was the sole dedicated purpose of the engagement - bad luck for the Hunley that she didn't survive her attack.
 * Sinking of HMAS Sydney either implies her opponent was not sunk, or that sinking was an insignificant, not title-worthy event. Neither is the case. --KnightMove (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Titles are selected per WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME weighs very heavily in title selection. "Made up" titles are only suitable where there is no common name - ie an event is written about without giving it a particular name.  The event is widely referred to as the "sinking of HMAS Sydney".  While google searches are not usually great evidence, there are enough good quality hits in  this search to demonstrate the point.  To rename the article, you would really need to provide sound evidence that "sinking of HMAS Sydney" is not the most common name and that there is a more common name for the event. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, be it so. On occasion I will set some of the more usual terms as redirects. --KnightMove (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)