The HMAS SYDNEY Conspiracy

[Obviousman]

How much does this sound like many other conspiracy claims?

The Background: HMAS SYDNEY was a Royal Australian Navy light cruiser. In 1941, it battled the German raider HSK KORMORAN off the coast of Western Australia. After the battle, the SYDNEY was seen to sail away, heavily damaged. Nothing more was seen or heard from the SYDNEY or its 645 crewmembers. The details of the battle were relayed by survivors from the KORMORAN. It was the greatest loss of life for an Australian warship, and became a popular mystery. The wreckages of both the SYDNEY and KORMORAN were finally discovered in March 2008.

The Claims: Michael Montgomery, son of the SYDNEY's navigator Charles Montgomery. claims that rather being sunk by the KORMORAN, SYDNEY was actually sunk by a Japanese submarine. He also claims that this was known by the British and Australian governments but had been covered up for over 60 years because of embarrassment over the sinking. As evidence of his claims were the following:

- Cablegrams between Britain and Australian authorities referring to the sinking by Japanese submarine.

- Contents from the diary of Hetty Hall, a signals operator at the British naval radio station in Singapore, referring to the sinking by Japanese submarine.

- The recollections of Major Austin Chapman, who was stationed in Japan as part of the occupation forces in 1945. Whilst there, he visited the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy and saw a mural on a wall which depicted a Japanese submarine firing on an Australian warship flying the Australian White Ensign. Since there were no other incidents between Australian warships and Japanese submarines, it must be the SYDNEY sinking.

- An expert disputes the findings of the Australian War Memorial ballistics team regarding how the SYDNEY was sunk.

All sound pretty convincing, doesn't it? However, deeper research reveals many common conspiracy faults.

The Truth:

Cablegrams - When asked to produce the cablegrams supporting the claims, Mr Montgomery admitted he could not. Mr Montgomery claims this is because the government has removed all evidence of their existence. (Absence of evidence is evidence)

The diary - When the diary was examined, it was found not to contain any reference to the incident at all. Furthermore, it was discovered that Mrs Hall was not even on duty at the time of the sinking. (Creating imaginary evidence)

The Australian White Ensign - Flown by all RAN ships, the AWE was not introduced until 1967. Prior to this Australian warships flew the Royal Navy's White Ensign. (Factual errors)

Ballistics - The expert that disputed the ballistic investigation was an expert in Forensic Sedimentology, not ballistics. The War Memorial team were experts in ballistics investigation. (People speaking authoritatively in areas where they do not have expertise)

**********************

I like the comments by Commissioner Terence Cole, president of the inquiry:

"What you have done is transfer speculation plus a possibility into a certainty of the existence of this Japanese submarine. This is not a very happy process of logic."

[lionking]

I was sure that this has been covered before on this forum, but the search facility doesn't come up with anything.

Although I haven't gone into this in any depth, I thought that the finding of the wreck last year put paid to any suggestion that the Sydney was sunk by a Japanese submarine. Sorry, I'm too tired to look it up. :o

[Zep]

The issue about Japanese submarines and Australian ships is factually wrong. There were many incidents involving such clashes.

For example, my uncle was an Asdic operator on the mine-sweeper HMAS Deloraine working the north of Australia in 1942. They sank the Japanese sub I-124 off Darwin after being shot at (http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Deloraine_(I (http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Deloraine_%28I))). They were then in Darwin harbour when it was attacked by Japanese Navy aircraft in Feb 1942 (the same fleet that raided Pearl Harbour 2 months previously). Just one of many, many incidents.

[Thunder]

it was sunk by da joos...cause Mad Max had no Jews in it.

[Obviousman]

Exactly - there were many battles. Just like many conspiracy believers, if they can't find anything to support their version they just make stuff up.

[Corsair 115]

I was sure that this has been covered before on this forum, but the search facility doesn't come up with anything.


It definitely has been discussed before because I recall a thread about it too. But rather than being here in the Conspiracies section it may have been in the History, Literature, and Arts subforum.

[JoeyDonuts]

If she took a torpedo under the keel consistent with a submarine launch, that should still be evident in the wreck even after all these years. She'd have plenty of battle damage topside obviously but a sub-draft torpedo impact leaves a pretty obvious "wound" in the ship. Was she found in multiple sections, or still mostly intact?

[Zep]

IIRC, the Kormaran also launched torpedoes at her, but from closer range. So if one of those hit, she could easily have sustained fatal underwater damage, but may have stayed afloat long enough to move out of sight before she sank.

[JoeyDonuts]

IIRC, the Kormaran also launched torpedoes at her, but from closer range. So if one of those hit, she could easily have sustained fatal underwater damage, but may have stayed afloat long enough to move out of sight before she sank.

Kormoran had twin 21-in. SVTT's (surface torps)...If my wiki-fu is strong today, then analysis of the wreckage indicates that a torpedo hit on the Sydney led to the bow section breaking off. Also, there were reports of uncontrolled mainspace fire in the Sydney. A rampant fire could weaken the bulkheads and stanchions in the bow sections to a point where a 21-in. torpedo hit could destroy it past the point of being able to shore it up. If the fire was in the forward engine space, and the firefighting equipment was OOC, then whatever damage control parties were left alive would have a very tough time getting shoring/plugging gear to patch a forward torpedo hit. Apparently whoever examined it did not think a mag explosion was the cause...

As a young wog sailor back in the day, we were taught to fear uncontrolled fire aboard ship above all else. It is the worst thing that can happen to you at sea.

[defaultdotxbe]

The issue about Japanese submarines and Australian ships is factually wrong. There were many incidents involving such clashes.

For example, my uncle was an Asdic operator on the mine-sweeper HMAS Deloraine working the north of Australia in 1942. They sank the Japanese sub I-124 off Darwin after being shot at (http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Deloraine_(I (http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Deloraine_%28I))). They were then in Darwin harbour when it was attacked by Japanese Navy aircraft in Feb 1942 (the same fleet that raided Pearl Harbour 2 months previously). Just one of many, many incidents.
also, the implication that if there were no documented battles between japanese subs and australian ships that it must be the sydney (as opposed to any other ship) has got to be some logical fallacy, as well as the assumption that the mural must depict an actual event

[AJM8125]

IIRC, the Kormaran also launched torpedoes at her, but from closer range. So if one of those hit, she could easily have sustained fatal underwater damage, but may have stayed afloat long enough to move out of sight before she sank.

The Japanese battleship Kongo suffered such a fate. She was torpedoed but managed to carry on for a few hours before sinking with great loss of life. Kongo had two destroyers escorting her in an attempt to make port and witnessed her demise, otherwise her fate would certainly have been a mystery too.

USS Sealion, the sub that torpedoed her, trailed the battleship and her escort and witnessed the sinking as well.

[JoeyDonuts]

The Japanese battleship Kongo suffered such a fate. She was torpedoed but managed to carry on for a few hours before sinking with great loss of life. Kongo had two destroyers escorting her in an attempt to make port and witnessed her demise, otherwise her fate would certainly have been a mystery too.

Makes sense. No skipper, Japanese or otherwise, is going to want to abandon his ship unless it is absolutely the only option. I'm sure VADM Suzuki was not looking forward to reporting to the Japanese High Command that he gave Kongo an abandon ship order and scuttled her. He wanted to limp her back to port...problem is when you have persistent bulkhead failure associated with massive water ingress, the difference between "making head way and listing a little bit" and "massive catastrophic loss of seaworthiness" can be a matter of moments.

Combine that with the fact that the majority of the crew actually went BACK to their racks after the torp strike...AND the deputy DCO committing suicide not having the decency to tell anyone...AND the forward artillery magazines exploding after all remaining hands were gathered on the leeward side after abandon ship was finally given...and you have the Kongo sinking.

Funny item from the wiki entry:

The Imperial Portrait was not recovered.

Shucks.

[AJM8125]

Shucks.

Well, at least the imperial portrait went down with the crew. I can't see it serving a better purpose.

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, at least the imperial portrait went down with the crew. I can't see it serving a better purpose.

I beg to differ. I would poke the eyes out, hang it on a wall somewhere, hide behind the painting, and harass passerby in my best Engrish.

[Cuddles]

OK, I know very little about ships, but I have a question. Why was nothing heard from them? So they got a bit shot, tried to get home but sank before they managed. How come they didn't tell anyone about it? I'd have expected at least a short radio message along the lines of "Oh ****** We're sinking!". Would the sinking have happened so suddenly that no-one had time to do anything? Or is there some other reason no-one could have sent messages, launched lifeboats or done anything else that might have left clues?

[BenBurch]

OK, I know very little about ships, but I have a question. Why was nothing heard from them? So they got a bit shot, tried to get home but sank before they managed. How come they didn't tell anyone about it? I'd have expected at least a short radio message along the lines of "Oh ****** We're sinking!". Would the sinking have happened so suddenly that no-one had time to do anything? Or is there some other reason no-one could have sent messages, launched lifeboats or done anything else that might have left clues?

Depending on damage, they may have had no electrical power, or no operable radio set.

[Zep]

IIRC (relying on memory, need to do more research), the Kormoran's first few hits were on the main bridge, forward tower structures and main house (for some inexplicable reason the Sydney was far too close when the ruse was revealed). These would be the obvious target structures - the command and control centres. Likely the Sydney lost all communications at that point.

[JoeyDonuts]

Cuddles, in a surface to surface engagement between two combatants, the first thing you're going to want to disable/destroy is going to be their communications gear. Comms gear, then propulsion, then the magazines.

[Obviousman]

The CO of SYDNEY was at fault. The KORMORAN pretended to be a Dutch merchantman. SYDNEY got far too close (the range of her guns was an advantage over the KORMORAN) and was not even at action stations when the KORMORAN opened fire with here guns. SYDNEY was hit forward, damaging the bridge and taking out her forward guns. Further damage occurred around the vessel, including starting a large fire. The fire was fed by gasoline for the ships spotter aircraft.

[Magenta]

The Claims: Michael Montgomery, son of the SYDNEY's navigator Charles Montgomery. claims that rather being sunk by the KORMORAN, SYDNEY was actually sunk by a Japanese submarine. He also claims that this was known by the British and Australian governments but had been covered up for over 60 years because of embarrassment over the sinking. As evidence of his claims were the following:


I didn't understand why this would have been covered up but found this:

Others claim there was a Japanese submarine lurking in the area, operating in concert with the Germans, and it was the Japanese that torpedoed the Sydney.

Those who believe the Japanese submarine story, claim the Australian Government knew this to be true but refused to acknowledge it publicly because it would have meant declaring war on the Japanese, which they were not ready to do (the battle occurred 18 days before the bombing of Pearl Harbour).

Link (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hmassydney/altthrs.htm)


Interestingly, the merchant ship Centaur that found the Kormoran survivors was later (after being refitted as a hospital ship) sunk by a Japanese submarine off Queensland.

There was a very good documentary about the Sydney shown on ABC TV earlier in the year. Website here:

The Hunt for HMAS Sydney (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hmassydney/abthmas.htm)

The documentary is available in six parts on YouTube.

Previous thread here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109063#