[Mohoender]

HQ you are right.

Actually, that's a good point and the charge was brought on the fact that this ship (and several others) attacked merchant ships before. The Kormoran had sunk 10 merchant ships before it was scuttled. My mistake on that point.

I don't know if the following statement is true but I find it interesting:

In 1999, an Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade stated that: "[t]he statement of differing views [on the fate of HMAS Sydney] has become a dialogue of the deaf rather than a fruitful exchange within the norms of historical discourse."

O'borg, you are right but privateering was, nevertheless, forbidden and it is considered a very different thing. As HQ pointed out, using Q-ship is fair when used against combat vessels (and even more fair when used against submarines). However, the use of such ships against merchant ships has to be considered an act of piracy and was ruled as such (That charge was brought against Raeder not for that specific battle but because he issued the order that brought these ships to be uses as merchant raiders: a total of 12 ships).

An other point is that the Kormoran was a very well armed ship with a firepower similar to that of Sidney, especially at short range as it was the case.