There have been many discussions about ships that either survived ridiculous amounts of damage (Enterprise, Seydlitz, Shokaku, etc), took extreme amounts of overkill to sink (the two Yamatos, Hornet, etc), or both (Yorktown, etc). However, what are some examples of ships that sank unusually EASILY compared to what one would reasonably have expected from various major navies, discounting cases of the ship being incomplete as with Shinano?
Given that it directly led to the Fall of Singapore and to a lesser extent to the defeat at the Battle of the Java Sea and that there was no positive follow up (as in after the Battle of the Denmark Strait) or even a small bright side (like Acasta managing to torpedo Scharnhorst before being sunk thus forcing the two battleships to return to port after sinking the Glorious, instead of continuing and going after the two convoys), would i be right to conclude that the loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse was the worst defeat ever suffered by the Royal Navy in World War II if not in both World Wars? And what defeat in World War I even comes close to it?
Would you consider making some 5 minute guides on some of the Italian interwar and WW2 cruisers? The Capitani Romani class especially I think are really fascinating with just how much they straddled the line between light cruisers and destroyers.
Totally agree! During ww2 the game changed; any of the „romantic iron pirate stories“ where in my view due to cracked codes, long range air recon and radar not possible anymore.
It's interesting to note that Kormoran also picked up several Chinese laundrymen during their voyage, they provide a more neutral account of the sinking of Sydney which mostly affirms what the Germans said.
@@benwilson6145 "The laundry was just one level below the upper deck, providing a reasonable vantage point, and the Chinese had no `action station’ duties. One may reasonably assume that they did not conscientiously continue with washing and ironing during Sydney’s approach and the battle, but probably maintained a more constant `watch’ than the pre-occupied German crew. They may not have understood all they saw but they were unbiased non-German speaking observers and unlikely to be influenced by any crew discussions later." - Naval Historical Society of Australia
One of the biggest reasons behind why the Kormoran went up in flames is that the fuel oil was preheated by piping it up and down the funnel. Although this method allowed the fuel to be burned cleaner and more efficiently without a dedicated fuel preheater, it also meant that any hit to the funnel could (and in this case did) cause oil from the piping to spill out into the funnel where a fire could easily ignite and not be accessed by firefighting operations. When the fuel oil leaking in the funnel ignited, it didn’t just become nearly impossible to extinguish, it started flowing into the engine room, crippling the ship’s systems and rendering it a flaming hulk.
All of which is fine for a Merchant Vessel that is expected to never see combat, but becomes suddenly problematic when she is refitted as a warship and nobody notices the fuel pipes in the funnels.
@@carthienesdevilsadvocatenr2806 Reminds me a lot of the WW2 German He 112. Sure it was one of the fastest fighters of its era but because it was a converted racer it used the entirety of its wing surfaces as a radiator for its engine coolant. Which meant a few otherwise insignificant bullet holes in the wings would result in a distressing lack of coolant for the engine rather quickly.
@@alexsis1778 Small correction for those interested -- the aircraft being referred to is actually the Heinkel He 100. The He 112 was a far more conventional design that actually broadly resembled a squished Spitfire.
I've been told that, when the German PoW survivors of Kormoran were on their way to be repatriated at the end of the war, the *actual* MV Straat Malakka was in the same harbour at the same time, in plain sight of the Germans.
For your info, Steiermark (Kormoran's original name) is one of the federal states of modern-day Austria, and home to Austria's 2nd-largest city, Graz. The Latin and English name of this state is Styria.
As an English speaker, the way I've always kept it straight is to consider 'schiessen' versus 'scheissen': the first means 'shoot' and the second... um... doesn't (unless things have gone horribly, horribly wrong :-))
Drach, I must comment (in the comment section - [a double redundancy? ]), that I find the people who watch your videos bring the most to the table in nuance and varied information.
Could you expand that to maybe Pinguin (most successful auxiliary cruiser in both world wars, captured large parts of the Norwegian whaling fleet) and Atlantis (more than 600 days st sea)?
I don’t think there’s a five minute guide to the other Hilfskreuzer yet, but they’re all discussed in a longer video on the subject. The title is something like “German Merchant Raiders of WWII”
The most successful raider was Möwe by a considerable margin. Peguin did manage to score her 136,000 tons in 10½ months at sea, which was fast, but Möwe managed to sink a total of 180,000 tons directly, and another 20,000 to mines (admittedly most of those were from the pre-dreadnought King Edward VII), and did so in just about the same time spent on raiding duty.
It's a bummer none of these types of ship survived and were preserved as museums. It'd be very neat to see a ship like this, all the ways it hid its guns, the unusually luxurious quarters, etc.
I should start my farm chores. Wait... a new Drachinifel video! The ship reminds me of the Clive Cussler series about the Oregon, a spy/mercenary ship disguised as an old rust bucket freighter.
A Carly float believed to have been from the Sydney containing a single body was found about three months after the battle, it wasn’t until 2021 that a DNA sample from the body confirmed that the man had been a member of Sydney’s crew, the wreck of HMAS Sydney had finally been located in 2008.
Fantastic video @Drachinifel - really good. I'm ex-RAN and I can't help but think of all the sailors on both sides who perished in the battle between Kormoran and HMAS Sydney - it must have been a short but extremely violent battle. From the expedition led by David Mearns which located both ships, it seems the heavily damaged HMAS Sydney must have limped slowly away from Kormoran after the battle, both ships on fire. Kormoran sank shortly after when her mines exploded, but most of her crew managed to get into lifeboats and survived. There were no survivors from HMAS Sydney - most likely because HMAS Sydney's Captain Burnett and most of her officers and NCOs were killed or wounded during the battle, and the remaining crew were trying to save the ship, which foundered sometime during the night when her bow suddenly broke off due to torpedo damage and the ship abruptly sank, taking all 645 crew with her. A dreadful loss for the RAN and Australia which is still felt to this day. Please keep up the great work - I really enjoy your videos!
You have done a very good presentation of this story. The SYDNEY was Captain Bennett's FIRST seagoing command; she was coming home from the Mediterranean for a 6 months refit. Captain Bennett made 2 huge tactical mistakes in this encounter; as you stated, he got too close to Kormaran ( 1 mile is point blank range for a 6" gun); the 2nd mistake was that the crew of SYDNEY WAS NOT AT GENERAL QUARTERS (Her turrets were still pointed fore and aft) when Kormoran started being evasive; German survivors stated that SYDNEY's crew was lined up on the rails, thinking that this was going to be another "ROUTINE" merchant ship inspection. 999 times out of a thousand, they would have been right. In the battle, Kormoran fired 2 torpedoes at SYDNEY, one of which hit, shattering her bow; and later on, when it sheared off, she went down like a stone.
There's a memorial to the HMAS Sydney II in Geraldton, Western Australia. Completed in 1998, it includes a dome made up of 645 gulls, one for each of the crew lost.
The LEANDER nearly came a cropper against the Italian raider RAMB 1, in the Indian Ocean, in February 1941. The reason: approaching too close. Mercifully, the cruiser recovered quickly and the Italian shooting was poor.
Leander was at least at action stations and still 3000m from RAMB 1. HMAS Sydney's captain was unbelievably complacent to the point of criminal negligence and that killed him and his entire crew.
Interestingly the Kormaran book (The Raider Kormaran) details how she met up with U124 who’s biographical book (Grey Wolf, Grey Sea) also details the encounter at the same time as the two battlecruiser Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (which 124 had come perilously close to firing upon the day before).
Another vessel that, to me is a very interesting dive into, would be the captured (then repurposed) Speybank, renamed Doggerbank. For being an impromptu minelayer, Doggerbank managed a degree of success, some close calls to being discovered, and a horrific tale of friendly fire when sunk by a U-boat with the loss of all but one crewman. Worse is Doggerbank carried the survivors of the hilfskreuzer Thor that was destroyed by an accidental explosion in Japan (as was the Uckermark, ex-Altmark).
In the account of KzS Dettmer one of the remarkable things was that one of their 15cm guns had actually been on SMS Seydlitz during the Battle of Jutland. Basically Hilfskreuzers were equipped with stuff lying around in naval arsenals since WW1
The 3 most interesting Raiders are Komoran, Atlantis and Pinguin. Its definitely worth to go deeper and more detailed into their history. There are also some books about them, for example about Atlantis.
Note regarding pronounciation: The "ei" in "Steiermark" is pronounced like the english "I" in "Me, myself and I", i.e. an english speaker could spell it "St-I-ermark" for easier pronounciation.
The Kriegsmarine Hilfskreuzers of the Second World War are a fascinating story on their own. The fortunes of the different ships (of quite differing sizes) varied considerably just as their commanders had very different approaches to this cloak and dagger type of warfare. Whilst the Kapitans of Orion and Atlantis would be commended for the manner in which they conducted their operations, the same could not be said of Korvettenkapitan von Ruckteschell of the Widder and later the Michel whose preferred method of attack was without warning, and as a consequence he was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to ten years in prison.
@@ricardokowalski1579her Captain (Joseph Burnett) had only been in the ship for around 8 weeks when they crossed Kormoran’s path, Sydney was his first Cruiser command and first seagoing command in several years. The commission of enquiry into her loss found that Kormoran lured Sydney to within around 2 miles distance, which in gunnery terms was point blank range and suicidally close. This was also backed up by statements from the Kormoran’s crew that were rescued/captured. He was one of the first to die in the ensuing battle - Kormoran’s first salvo struck Sydney’s compass platform, likely killing every man there, including Captain Burnett. His mistake cost the lives of 645 men, and remains Australia’s worst Naval disaster.
@@stephenrickstrew7237 Not quite: a large proportion of her crew in the Med (for example, all of her medical staff) were posted off when she returned home. Doesn't make it any less tragic nonetheless
Sydney could have wrecked Kormoran with near impunity if she had stayed away and astern of it. In close quarters all the armor was near useless... Sad display from ship that had been doing so well previously in the Med.
@@Aelxi Less understanding for the majority of the world (about 80% ). Thoroughly inacurate; should be 5.906. Best way to approach the problem is record in the original measurement and then do the rough conversion.
I wish the Aquatania or one of the late 19th century or early 20th century Kaiser passenger ships survived to this day. It would be a wonderful experience to tour one. I guess the oldest passenger steamer around today is the Queen Mary which in the near future will be 100 yrs old.
Speaking of armed merchantmen... Sometime ago I read a book "The ship that hunted itself". An account of two merchant ships in WW1, one German and one British that were very similar. Both were armed. I forget the details but I think the brit was acting as an auxiliary military looking for German merchantmen and the German had been trading but had received guns from a German warship. For camouflage, the German ship disguised itself as the British lookalike. To make itself look safe to german ships the brit took on the identity of the German ship. As it happened, they met and had a bit of a shoot out off South America, ? Brazil. They both effectively destroyed each other and the German one sank.
I think it's worth pointing out that Britain had a similar system whereby the Government part funded major companies to allow for Merchant cruisers. Technically these were legitimate targets at the time. Matters became somewhat blurred later when Merchant vessels were armed some crewed by RN gunners. It stands to reason that such vessels were no match for actual Naval units, but of course they had no control over matching their enemy.
Love your work. I catch as many as I have time for. Just a small pointer on German pronunciation. EI is pronounced as IE. Steirmark would be pronounced Sty-er-mark.
I read, that the wrecks confirmed the German story, the inexperienced captain of the Sydney came to close and sacrificed his longer range and the first or second german salvo destroyed the Sydneys bridge
The Germans certainly weren't telling the whole truth as several 6-inch holes have been discovered around the waterline of Kormoran during expeditions to the wreck.
@@devonlord99 Pretty sure they also found the aft turret on Sydney with hatches open for visual aiming, so that's probably the source of your holes at the water line.
Today's version of this would be an armed container ship. . Imagine running into a "15000 TEU" ship. Not knowing which of the container doors are about to swing open.
@@Viper5delta iirc The Chinese are working on container mounted VLS. I think I have seen a report about that a while ago, so this is definitly not an outlandish possibility.
If you arm it with a couple of Harpoon or comparable missiles, defend it with pop-up RAM missile systems it would be tougher than most frigates or small destroyers.
Hipper, Graf Spee and Scheer want to have a word with you ... 🤣 To be fair, the Royal Navy battleships didn't do much either. Except HMS Warspite, but only because she was HMS Warspite. The Atlantic campaign was a war of submarines, destroyers/escorts and aircraft. Throw in some armed trawlers and S-boats/MTBs for the Channel. In WW1, when Germany actually had a decent fleet, there was a lot more surface action.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 I do agree the RN battleships (especially the new battleships), and frankly everyone else’s new battleships for that matter, also proved to be wasteful and redundant (I’ve joked before that the entire WWII generation of battleships turned out to collectively be the worst military procurement disaster ever, even if nobody knew that before the war). However, Royal Navy cruisers and destroyers (and those of other navies) still got a fair bit done compared to their German counterparts.
It is, to my mind, an amazing coincidence that this battle between HMAS Sydney (II) and a German commerce raider occurred where and when it did since, almost exactly 27 years before in another world war, a similar battle occurred in the same waters (west of Australia) between HMAS Sydney (I) and another German commerce raider (SMS Emden).
I just found out that the last name of the commander of the Destroyer Campbelltown during operation chariot was beety, I think I spelled that right, any relation to the bTW of the Battle of Jutland?
The British relied on 4.5" and 4.7" guns on its destroyers because handling larger calibres of single piece ammunition by hand was impossible when at sea and in action. Did the Hilfskreuzers have automated shell handling for their main armament? Also, I often read that the Kormoran was a match for the Sydney which sort of overlooks the reality that the Sydney's main armament of 8 x 6" guns was on the centreline and could fire on either beam. In addition, her guns were director controlled whereas Kormorans (6 x 6") were laid by hand and eye with only 3 (some say 4 to starboard) firing on each beam? It should have been a no contest battle. The Kormoran's skipper deserves enormous credit for his ship handling. The Sydney's would have been court martialled, and judged wanting, had he survived. I can never read the story of the loss of the Sydney without feeing intense anger for the loss of her crew, together with a fine ship, their deaths being entirely caused by the incompetence of Sydney's captain, Joseph Burnett.
I recall that one of the explanations in your five-minute guide for RHS Georgios Averof being stationed for a time at Bombay in the Indian Ocean was as a convoy escort to protect merchant ships from German, Italian and _Japanese_ raiders. When you expanded on that reasoning in that five-minute guide, I understood that you were referring to Averof's value against an armed merchant raider like the Kormoran, not against a warship of the Axis navies. While Germany used armed merchant raiders in both World Wars, in the Indian Ocean and other theatres, I don't recall reading of any _Japanese_ armed merchant raiders. Can you talk briefly about Japan's use (or lack thereof) of armed merchant raiders? Japan had a significant merchant fleet and could convert ships captured from the Allied nations early in their Pacific conquests if the IJN wished. If Japan didn't outfit and deploy armed merchant raiders, what was their thinking on their utility or effectiveness?
The Steiermark was not designed to carry cargos in bulk. The Steiermark was designed as a Cargo Liner for Hamburg America Line with a service speed of 18 knots. The crew of a Cargo liner would have been closer to 50 men.
I'm using bulk cargo as in 'cargo transported in large amounts/numbers' as opposed to ships designed to carry smaller amounts of extremely valuable cargo like gold or single large piece items like machinery. Most of the revenue from mixed use ships tends to be from the cargo, even when passengers are along.
Totally different set up. The subs had diesel engines that ran them on the surface or under snorkel and electrical engines for deep dive/non snorkling. Both are connected to the prop shafts. Diesel-Electric (also used in trains) has the diesel run as a generator that powers the electrical motor. The diesel (there are also petrol-electric drives see SdKfz 184 Ferdinant / Elefant) is not connected to the prop shaft. The idea is the diesel runs at an optimised rpm and does not need complex gearing. An electical engines do not need gears at all. Btw a couple of the US Standard BB had the same propulsion
Best bang for the buck the Kriegsmarine got from their surface raiders OR U-boats. Converting the auxiliary cruisers cost practically nothing & they averaged over 100k tons shipping sunk each.
Mind, it took fortitude to sail out in a Hilfskreuzer if only because you knew that there would be a bunch of u-boats out there also hunting, and all it took was one of your fellow Kriegsmariner sub captains misidentifying you for a legitimate target to ruin your day. As improbable as an Identification-Friend-or-Foe failure was, it was still possible, and the more u-boats out there...
Merchant raiding has always been one of the more understated and overlooked aspects of warfare, especially because A. it lacks the drama of proper warriors (or warships in the case of naval warfare) squaring off in a martial contest that results in dashing battles with proper names and large numbers of combatants; and B. it often feels dirty, since merchant ships are not built for warfare and thus it feels like soldiers attacking unarmed civilians, even when merchantships in wartime were often armed. Even Hi!t3r did not like the concept of commerce raiding, as he felt as a former army seargent it was beneath the role and purpose of warships, even when the reality of its necessity for Germany to go toe to toe against the Royal Navy, one of the largest and most powerful fleets int he world, required him to approve it.
It also has a few legality issues. Arguably the entire crew is subject to been executed as spies (or even pirates) if ever caught pretending to be a foreign flagged vessel, regardless of wether they raised their own national colours before been engaged. They don't get the privateer protections that existed during the age of sail because those vessels were not military in design, but merely acting in service to their nation under a letter of mark (and could still be classified as pirates by the other side).
@CipiRipi00 while true, they failed in section C of your response. As any military vessel during wartime is classified to be "fighting" at all times when encountering the enemy, even if shots have not yet been fired. Impersonating another nationality in an attempt to decieve and thus gain tactical advantage (which is exactly what they were doing, been able to flee or close the range is a tactical move) is a violation of the geneva convention because of that. Thus the crew would not have the protections of the geneva convention as they are attempting to decieve the enemy in the same way as a spy would. The reason however they were not executed is simple, both sides were engaged in this type of warfare at that time, and thus it would not be wise to set that precident. Oh its also worth noting this ship specifically also failed section B, they had "hired/kidnapped" some chinese nationals, civilians, to work aboard ship in the laundry. They were not military personel, and forcing them to work aboard ship was technically a warcrime.
@CipiRipi00 ahh I see your confusion. That actually is illegal because it invites confidence with respect to protection under the law. Actively pretending to be a ship that is either allied or netural (both are protected under the law) is illegal because it risks hostility towards those nations because of this. However passively pretending to be them is different, for example making your ship appear to look like theirs while not actively claiming to be theirs is merely camouflage. Basically your safe provided at no point you fly their national flags or claim to be them in any other communication. This is basically the same as fighting in the enemies uniform, illegal if it still bears the markings, but legal if its been cleansed of those markings (happened alot with captured vehicles). It's covered by the Hague regulations (1899 and 1907). It was not part of the Geneva conventions during ww2 however, only added in 1977 in regards to combat (pow escapes got a bit added in 1949). Even the ICC got involved but not until 1998 adding a section on misuse of enemy flags, uniforms and insignia, not that anyone listens to the ICC.
@CipiRipi00 yes it is, but the issue is what's considered "fighting" as its not as simple as merely exchanging fire, it's much broader than that legally. Many consider maneuvering to gain tactical advantage as part of fighting, most battles are won before the combat begins because of the maneuvering done beforehand, that is part of the fight. Trying to be sneaky to avoid combat by disguising yourself is i agree, not fighting, but should you be discovered and then engage in combat, any previous attempts at subterfuge lose that distinction. This is why many Q ship designs don't pretend to be other nation's, they just pretend to be unarmed merhantmen of their own country, or do not claim a nationality, as that's got no grey area at all and is entirely legal. Oh its also worth noting that pretending to be a netural nation can actually be deemed an act of war against said nation (as you are making their shipping legitimate targets).
With 2 more battlecruisers in the line there's a decent chance that all the german battlecruisers are actually engaged and Derfflinger can't have target practice so maybe Indefatigable and/or Queen Mary are saved. With 9 15" guns, newly worked up (and so unaffected by the battlecruiser squadron rate of fire mania) then they may have had accurate gunnery so I would expect the German battlecruisers are heavily mauled during the run to the South amd maybe the action gets broken off ürior to the run to the North
everytime i learn about mechant raiders i simple cant help but think a ship type similair could be used to ward off if not fully stop pirates in hot spots like singapor or horn of africa
It wouldnt fit in any turret and would take extremely long to reload. Battleships can carry multiple 400+mm guns. Still, one hit with that cannon would sink everything.
Kind of a shame to leave out that, supposedly the last of the crew being repatriated after the war back to Germany were carried home, by the Strad Malaka, the ship they were disguised as when sunk.
Mike Brady has made a really excellent rendition of the encounter between Sydney and Kormoran: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ycq0DOPy0Ds.html
What happened in the Sidney that caused such a total loss? She was a light cruiser with some armour and one could expect she was able to whistand fire from guns of her own kind...
Captain and crew were extremely complacent, basically. The war with Japan had not yet started, and off the coast of Australia seemd an unlikely place to find a German warship.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Not exactly. Sydney was rightly suspicious, but just not suspicious enough, and came too close to the Kormoran that would really have vastly prefered to have just sailed away. Sydney's superior speed meant that wasn't possible so Kormoran ended up having to do the only thing left that the could do, which was to suddenly open fire in the low probability hope that they might be able to do enough damage quickly enough before they took fatal damage themselves. They knew the chances of that happening were poor, and indeed so it proved. Imagine yourself as a crew member aboard the Kormoran - what options do you have? Surrender or fight? Brave choice, knowing correctly how slim their chances were, and as it turned out most of the crew did survive, though their ship was lost.
They had no choice when Sydney showed up. Dettmer successfully suckered in Sydney into a position where the technological difference played no role. Compare it to when Pinguin was sunk by HMS Cornwall. Cornwall stayed out of range of Pinguin's 15 cm guns and destroyed her at long range
@@JGCR59 the allies did not pay heed to just how lethal the hilfkreuzers could be from the close distance. Thus the instructions were somewhat ambivalent, suggesting that one should get closer to make the possible scuttling harder. Burnett was more ready to face a raider`s support ship than a raider itself. And to make the matters worse, there was not that much daylight left to finish the identifying. Still, Burnett put his ship on a dangerous position and all of the crew paid the ultimate prize.
@@WALTERBROADDUS but it's a british war grave! i know if it was a US war grave and i had anything to so with it they'd be a few megatons worth of righteous indignation on the possibility list!!! as to the chinese i've stepped in better walking through a barnyard if this is how they act!!!
As of August 1939 the germans had a law and a court system set up for prizes. (Prisenordnung and Priesengerichtsordnung) so there was a legal framework in place. Or more correctly it still IS in place, still in the german books with the last revison (basically re-stamping) in 1964 (ständigen Befehl der Flotte Nr. 10) and 1959 for the courts
The Sydney captain was criminally incompetent with getting so close to the raider. If he had survived he would of been court marshalled. I also can't believe the executive officer let him take the ship so close.
