|
|
|
#31
10-09-2008, 09:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Mohoender; 10-09-2008 at 09:21 AM. 
|
|
#32
10-09-2008, 02:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The paper of Spain in the Twilight war...well, who now? After all, Catalonia (where I live) becames independent... . I still remember the surprise when we looked at the Europe map of the v2.2 rulebook, in the Barcelona store where we discovered the existence of Twilight:2000!!!! Seriously, like the Spanish Orbat, the situation of the Iberian Penisula deserves a new thread. I will try to propose you several "what ifs" in a new thread. And I will suggest a friend of mine (which I hope I will manage to make him register in this forum) to help me. He surely will enjoy the exercise. About the Guardia Civil and the barbarians, I think that when Chadwick's team wrote the few notes about Spain that can be read in the V2.2 rulebook (and in Mediterranean cruise") they asked a catalan or a basque about the qüestion. 
|
|
#33
10-10-2008, 02:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
well..
Quote:
|
|
#34
10-10-2008, 02:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
outrage!!
Quote:
since when have I EVER had hostile NPCs use rubber bullets ? I am thinking hard to find someone you might have made friends with ..hmmm..that USN deserter you helped out by springing his girlfriend out MIGHT have become a friend if you hadnt treated his girl like you were drunken,amphetamine crazed Baader-Meinhof members with desperate prospects imminent.. Oh well..not long until next session .Maybe you can make some friends then...??
|
|
#35
10-10-2008, 03:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
on another note: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29871
__________________
The Big Book of War - Twilight 2000 Filedump Site Guns don't kill people,apes with guns do. 
|
|
#36
10-10-2008, 04:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
yeah...
Quote:
I know.. But dont let fear of rejection hold you back from trying to start a friendship!!
|
|
#37
03-04-2009, 02:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I know this is old but I'm still reading through many of the threads here. I don't often bother to comment on new threads let alone old ones but this made me change my mind.
Quote:
The crew of the Kormoran should be congratulated for accomplishing such an audacious act, if the roles had been reversed then Australians would be proclaiming the Australian sailors as heroes. The reason the loss of the Sydney rankles so much is that it was considered utterly unthinkable for a commerce raider to sink a major warship let alone a cruiser. Because the entire Sydney crew were lost, there was no explanation of events except for what the crew of the Kormoran could provide and no Australian wanted to hear that an armed raider had done the impossible and sunk a light cruiser that was also the pride of the RAN. The action occured as follows Sydney was patrolling the Western Australian coastline, Kormoran was in the region resupplying after attacking merchants in the Indian Ocean. She was reported as a suspicious vessel and Sydney was directed to investigate. The captain of the Kormoran (KorvettenKapitan Detmers) was aware that a RAN warship was in the region and he was keen to avoid a confrontation. Maintaining the disguise as the Dutch freighter Straat Malakka, the Kormoran sent messages to the maritime control office in Perth stating that they were being tailed by a suspicious ship. The maritime control personnel replied that the Dutch had nothing to worry about because it was an Australian warship. Detmers knew it was the Sydney and that he could not outfight her. Sydney was trying to establish the identity of the Kormoran, she was in the right place with the right look for the Straat Malakka but she could not display the correct Flag Of The Day for identity confirmation. The captain of the Sydney, Captain Burnett, was relatively inexperienced for his command and dithered. His actions cost not only his life, but his ship and, inexcusably, his entire crew. He continued to radio naval command in Perth for information and directions regarding his treatment of the "Dutch" freighter. He was suspicious enough to request further orders but not suspicious enough to maintain proper distance or to cover the Kormoran with Sydney's guns. Kapitan Detmers realized he could not avoid the Sydney and prepared to bluff his way out of a confrontation. However, Captain Burnett's dithering meant the encounter was stretching out longer than desired and the Sydney was getting closer to the Kormoran all the while. Knowing his ship could not stand up to close range fire from Sydney's guns, Detmers ordered his ship to make ready for combat while Sydney was within 1600 metres. Kormoran crew recall seeing below decks crew from Sydney up on deck to have a look at the "Dutch" ship. They also stated that Sydney did not appear to consider the "Dutch" freighter a threat as many of her guns were unmanned. With the Sydney closing to 1000 metres or so, Detmers order the Kreigsmarine flag to be raised and the gunshields dropped so as to attack the Sydney. Kormoran's gunners, already having trained many of their guns on critical points of the Sydney, opened fire. In the opening minutes, they hit A & B turrets, the bridge, the combat control centre and the onbord seaplane whose fuel caused a major fire. Kormoran took hits from Sydney's X & Y turrets and sustained major damage but she followed up with a torpedo attack on Sydney which caused serious below waterline damage. Further attacks by both ships were made but the main damage was done. Most of Sydney's command/control staff were dead or injured in the opening minutes. Both ships limped off with Sydney presumed to have sunk through damage while the Kormoran was scuttled. Before it's even said, I am not playing up the Germans at the expense of the Australians. I am fourth generation Australian, every generation having served in either Colonial military or Federal military forces (all three services). The Germans pulled off something considered impossible, luck certainly had something to do with it. Inexperience and a lack of aggressive action by Burnett also had a lot to do with it but the audacity, skill & luck of the Germans should not be twisted to make them out to be piratical scum because some Australians don't want to accept that they accomplished the unthinkable.
|
|
#39
03-04-2009, 05:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Kormoran committed no warcrimes, the actions as described in your post simply did not happen, the Sydney did not pull alongside for a cargo check, Kormoran ran up its battleflag at the same time as it uncovered its guns and the captain of the Sydney displayed an appalling lack of judgement and aggression. As revealed by communications transcripts to naval headquarters in Perth, he was inclined to believe that Kormoran was legitimate. He should never have approached as close as he did (Sydney's guns outranged the Kormoran's), he should have sent the seaplane to scout the Kormoran while sending a boarding party to her. The fact is, the Australian captain screwed up and as a consequence, he lost his life, his ship and his entire crew.
|
|
#40
03-04-2009, 06:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Of course not a definitive source but here is a wikipedia link in case anyone is interested (i was)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...d_HSK_Kormoran Guys I already have one potential flame war brewing so lets stick to the facts if we can. This actually is pretty OT but I will let it continue since I trust you guys.
|
|
#41
03-04-2009, 06:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
That last quote about the Sydney's captain, if you value your health you really should refrain from repeating that on any occasion in any RSL club, at a gathering of RAN personnel or pretty much to any Australian on ANZAC Day.
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#42
03-04-2009, 06:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We'll probably never know exactly what occured on that day over sixty years ago. It was a terrible loss for all involved and although I wouldn't put it past the German survivors to embellish the truth a bit, the Australians are likely to have stuffed up somehow for the ship to be lost.
Of course phenomenal luck on the German part could have had a lot to do with it too. A lucky hit in a critical location in the opening moments could well tip the balance in the raiders favour.... Of course I am a little biased here. Although I'm an Australian ex serviceman and member of the RSL, I was in the army and we all know just how useless the navy really is! 
|
|
#43
03-04-2009, 09:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A few things here, my apologies to all if this is seen as going off topic but I did believe it relevant as one of the initial aspects of this thread was about the ability of a raider to survive and mention had been made of the successes of various raiders during the World Wars including the Kormoran. Targan's description of the battle was incorrect and I sought to redress that.
The opening shots of the Kormoran's light guns hit the bridge and the fire direction centre of the Sydney. Without these, Sydney lost it's command and control before she began to fight. The fire control centre in particular was seen as a weak point in the design and had been armoured in other ships of the type although on Sydney it had been left unarmoured. That was some incredible luck for the Kormoran undoubtedly. When her larger guns began to score hits on Sydney, she hit A turret in a spot that wrecked it with one shot, skill or luck, who knows but they scored hits and that's all that counts. Both ships were taken out of the fight, it was a hollow, nasty victory for both sides. Targan, piss you off? It was not my intent but I cannot understand the need for revenge on the crew of the Kormoran when the events as portrayed to justify their murder are demonstrably wrong. I really do pity anyone who wants to initiate violence just for the sake of feeling better. If you wish to continue to believe an incorrect version of the event then so be it and I will speak of it no more but I will never accept revenge as a justifiable excuse to kill someone based on ignorance of the facts. If you wish, I can met you, you can punch me in the mouth and then I'll buy you and me a whisky or three and I'll call you a f**king arsehole for giving me a fatlip. We can get drunk and fall over and forget what the hell we were arguing about and then agree with Legbreaker that the navy really isn't as good as the army. As for Captain Burnett, he screwed up, plain and simple. As I first stated, he should never have allowed Sydney to get so close to Kormoran. Australians at the time did not want to believe that the Germans might actually have been telling the truth about the loss of the Sydney, many theories were concocted as to how they could possibly have done it including the Germans having the assistance of a Japanese submarine and some even more outlandish tales. However with the finding of both ships it was revealed by the latest board of inquiry in Australia that most of what the Kormoran survivors had said was correct. I was a member of a few RSL clubs across Australia as I moved around the nation and have discussed the loss of the Sydney with a few members and several navy personnel. Not one of them has ever threatened my health because I see Captain Burnett as ultimately responsible for the loss of the Sydney.
|
|
#44
03-05-2009, 02:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hello guys, it seems that the "Foster" is starting boiling around here. I'm entirely foreign on that subject but if I may, I'll try to ease things a bit.
If you really want to know about what happened, I would advise you to go and try to have access to the military archive (I don't know how that work in Australia, here they are in free access with only the need to ask). You might get more. Also I'm sure there are plenty of good books, authors are always running after their income and, therefore, they leave little room for neutrality. I understand all of you and can understand why you seem a bit tense on that. I understand Targan's point. Also I disagree with his will for revenge as I already told him (no need to get back on that). I understand the others point as well but don't be too arsh. Funny enough that both of you seem to express things from your heart. As a result, the Whisky idea seems to be a good one. If I ever come to Australia, I'll offer you a beer instead (I don't like whisky, hé hé). If you come to France I'll do that too. I know of the events of course but I don't know all the details. However, what I'm sure off is that facts of that type are never one sided. I'm sure that the loss was a terrible one, especially at the time. I'm also sure that sailors from both country were highly skilled and fought with bravery (On that matter, I would praise them both, don't throw the bottle, No! No! ).From what I know of the battle, the fact that all hands on the Sidney were lost would suggest me that they did their best to save the ship and remain on board until it was too late (One more point for their bravery). About revenge, that was not carried out by Australia at the time (In my opinion people who were alive at that time remain the only one with a full right to claim it; no offense Targ). From my point of view the fact that the German sailors finished the war as POWs is a strong point toward Australia's Grandeur. One thing is very true on Targan's side: the type of war carried out by the Kormoran had been banned before 1914 and privateers were no more than pirates. As a result, they could have been all executed as such. Again Australia should be proud of how it reacted as, if they were not innocent, I hardly see any justification to kill young men obeing orders. Unless you are willing to execute many soldiers from all sides in all wars. However, in a way, revenge had been carried out as Erich Raeder (the man behind these orders) was sentenced to life imprisonment at Nuremberg (one of the charge was his use of privateer war, and he was condemned for conspiracy, crime against peace, war crime and crime against humanity). You can criticize the fact that he was released for health reason in 1955 (he died in 1960) but again that's not for us to judge (IMO). An interesting point is that Karl Dönitz was only sentenced to 10 years for war crimes (and war crimes only). He died in 1980 and the sentence seems fair to me as the allied were also carrying out submarine war (that was not illegal).
|
|
#45
03-05-2009, 05:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Whilst the actions of the Kormoran were sneaky, underhanded and devious, I don't doubt they were any less so than a lot of other things that both the Axis and Allied powers did.
(Compare Operation Chariot or most other Commando raids) IMO, much of the fault has to lie with the Captain of the HMAS Sydney for failing to take proper precautions when approaching a ship acting suspiciously and failing to give proper recognition signals in wartime.
|
|
#46
03-05-2009, 05:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#47
03-05-2009, 06:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
not so
Quote:
disguised guns aboard merchant ,and dubious flag/symbols to confuse the observer ships etc that were used to try and lure enemy u boats and warships to approach and then open fire on them . Also , the raid on the German prisonship Altmark in Norwegian waters ( neutral at the time ) has legal implications and could be deemed piratical. It is my understanding that the rules state that the colours flown should clearly identify nationality and that unmarked warships/disguised warships posing as civillian craft are in fact in breach with conventions - unless they signal intent. Last edited by headquarters; 03-05-2009 at 06:11 AM.
|
|
#48
03-05-2009, 09:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
HQ you are right but we are not talking about the same thing. Allied Q-ships were used as protection against military vessels (subs...). This was perfectly legal. Of course, Germany never depended on atlantic see lane for its survival. Consequently the allied had no reason to use Q-ships against merchant ship but who care.
The German ships, however, were commerce raiders and they were intended to chase and capture merchant vessels. That is privateering and this was banned in 1856 at the congress on maritime law in Paris. Despite that congress, Germany, France and England used privateer ships during WWI. As a result, Germany was never charged for that after the end of the conflict. Such charges would have had to be brought against Britain and France as well, and that would have been silly, don't you think? On the other hand, during WWII, Germany was the only country to use merchant raiders and, therefore, it was the only country to be charged with it. Military Vessels attacking merchant ships is an entirely different thing. That is perfectly legal (and still is) as long as you don't attack neutral ships. Actually, you can attack and sunk neutral ships as well: "Oops sorry we made a mistake". That stand as long as you are the winner. If you lose the war that quickly becomes a crime again. Donitz had been charged with war crime because he ordered the German U-boot to leave no surivors. Several allied subs had the same type of habits (where would you put the survivors anyway?) but the allies won! Moreover, the Nazi crimes were so important that nobody was really paying attention to the ones comited by the allies.As a conclusion, you can't use civilian motor boats armed with Cal.50 to attack a cargo (that's a crime!!) but you can gladly use a nuke to wipe out an ennemy merchant convoy (that's a perfectly legitimate act of war).
Last edited by Mohoender; 03-05-2009 at 09:47 AM.
|
|
#49
03-05-2009, 10:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was reading the Wikipedia entry on the use of False Flag during war, and it seems it was considered acceptable practice by both sides that as long as the false flag was lowered and the national flag raised before engaging in combat.
The Kormoran cut things rather fine, but no more so than the HMS Campbeltown did at St Nazaire a few months later. If the situation regarding the Kormoran and the Sydney was reversed and an Australian Q-Ship had suckered an unwary German light cruiser, I'm sure the Aussies would be treated as national heroes.
|
|
#50
03-05-2009, 11:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
q-ships
but in the action in question here ,the Germans skillfully did what the allied q ships were unable to do ,lure a powerful warship in and then at the last minute hoist battle ensign and open fire.
This can no more be a war crime then the allied attempts of the same in the Atlantic .If the wwar ships is a u boat or a destroyer doesnt really mater as far as I can judge . Quote:
|
|
#51
03-05-2009, 01:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. Last edited by Mohoender; 03-05-2009 at 02:04 PM.
|
|
#52
03-05-2009, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Given that the fight was opened at around 1,500 yards, the raider was well-suited to win a knife fight at that range. The Australian Captain and the Bridge Watch probably had time to say "What in the Hell?" before the first 5.9" salvo slammed into the bridge. The German gunners were expert shots, and Kormoran had an ace up her sleeve: right after Capt. Detmers declared himself as a German warship, his torpedo officer launched torpedoes from both deck mounts and an underwater tube (similar to a U-Boat's). The two fish from the deck mount missed. The underwater one did not. Accurate 5.9" fire, plus 37-mm, 20-mm and machine-gun fire ripped the upperworks of Sydney to shreds, and killed the two forward 6-inch turrets. If Sydney's after fire control hadn't been on the ball and landed a salvo that ripped into Kormoran's engine room, the Germans would have not only followed Sydney to send her down, but would have picked up survivors. The Germans were sailors, and as far as raider crews were concerned, the war stopped when a ship was clearly sinking and one then followed the sailor's code. Only Von Rucketshell violated that on Widder's cruise, but he behaved more honorably on Michel's first deployment (SOLANT, IO, then on to Japan).
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage
|
|
#53
03-05-2009, 10:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And as for that previous crap about it being a war crime to shoot the crew of the Kormoran, it wouldn't be a war crime because the Kormoran's crew were pirates. I'd be happy to drop the hammer on scum like that. I've exercised a great deal of self control in this thread this week. This debate could go on talking about the Sydney vs Kormoran battle for a year but I won't be changing the way I feel about the matter.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#54
03-05-2009, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Perhaps you might be interested to read up on "The Krait" then. Correct, it wasn't a Q-ship but it was used to disguise the deployment of commandos to Singapore harbour wherein they padled canoes to place limpet mines on the hulls of, mostly, merchant ships in Japanese occupied Singapore harbour.
|
|
#55
03-05-2009, 11:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
 |
| Tags |
| watercraft |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| More Ships | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 2 | 06-21-2018 09:49 PM |
| Call Sign Book for Ships | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 09-10-2008 04:02 AM |
Linear Mode
