After WWII battle with HMAS Sydney, German seaman landed on WA coast

[SYZ]

Interesting historical story in today's ABC Australia news site:

In 1941, a German raider known as the HSK Kormoran was
stalking the port at Carnarvon with plans to lay mines and
cripple Allied trade routes.  The Australian light cruiser HMAS
Sydney appeared over the horizon and gave chase.  

Pulling almost alongside the Kormoran, which was flying a Dutch
merchant flag, HMAS Sydney ordered it to give a secret signal.

Unable to respond, the German gunship hoisted its true colours
and opened fire.  None of the 645 seamen aboard HMAS Sydney
survived as she was successfully torpedoed by the raider. However
the raider had to be scuttled soon after, because she was also
severely damaged, and disabled by engine-room fires.  Most of
her surviving crew were picked up from lifeboats by Australian ships.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-23/w.../104625214

HMAS Sydney was launched in 1934 and involved in multiple battles
during WWII.  (Note the crappy camouflage paint job.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, HMAS Sydney pulled in much too close in the interrogation phase of the encounter. Had she stayed ten thousand yards or so apart, Kormoran's accuracy would have been worse and Sydney's armor would have done better standing up to the former's guns.

Also, that camouflage is pretty standard, and useful in breaking up the ship's outline. The point wasn't to blend in with the ocean, the point was to confuse enemy spotters as to the direction and speed of your ship so that their gunnery would be amiss. It often worked, depending on the weather.

[SYZ]

The "Adaptor" pattern applied to the 80-ft US Motor Torpedo Boat PT-170.

[pattylt]

The "Adaptor" pattern applied to the 80-ft US Motor Torpedo Boat PT-170.

Wow…that’s an eye full!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Those dazzle patterns give me epilepsy.

[Minimalist]

I recall reading that for all the film that Hollywood expended on PT boats, they actually only managed to sink a single IJN destroyer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I recall reading that for all the film that Hollywood expended on PT boats, they actually only managed to sink a single IJN destroyer.

They did a pretty good job on Japanese supply vessels in the Solomons. Sank a resupply sub or two, a few cargo ships, and disrupted Tokyo Express runs even when not sinking stuff.

[Minimalist]

There seems to be a difference of opinion on that.

[Inkubus]

Those dazzle patterns give me epilepsy.

Spare a thought for the poor bastards who have to paint the thing.

[Fireball]

Those dazzle patterns give me epilepsy.

Spare a thought for the poor bastards who have to paint the thing.

Indeed. I only used white for everything except the bilges, for ships I served on. For the bilges, it was red lead. And, yes, I probably ought to talk to the Veteran's Administration about lead exposure. I never even though about that until now. I was only concerned about the noise, asbestos and fuel exposure. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

There seems to be a difference of opinion on that.

A destroyer, a couple of submarines, a lot of supply barges, and forcing rerouting of critical supplies ... it sure ain't glamorous and won't be noticed by Hollywood, but S.E. Morison sure took note.

[SYZ]

There seems to be a difference of opinion on that.

A destroyer, a couple of submarines, a lot of supply barges, and forcing rerouting of critical supplies ... it sure ain't glamorous and won't be noticed by Hollywood, but S.E. Morison sure took note.

Some of the PT crews claims of success against enemy
vessels were found to be exaggerated. Their vintage
21" Mark 8 torpedoes were too slow, had too small a
warhead, and ran erratically. Naval historian Morison
later labelled the PT "useless" as torpedo boats, and
called their attacks "futile" and "suicidal" whilst praising
them highly as a gunboat.

The Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo entered production as
early as 1911(!) so technologically it was already outdated
by the time of WW2.

[pattylt]

A destroyer, a couple of submarines, a lot of supply barges, and forcing rerouting of critical supplies ... it sure ain't glamorous and won't be noticed by Hollywood, but S.E. Morison sure took note.

Some of the PT crews claims of success against enemy
vessels were found to be exaggerated. Their vintage
21" Mark 8 torpedoes were too slow, had too small a
warhead, and ran erratically. Naval historian Morison
later labelled the PT "useless" as torpedo boats, and
called their attacks "futile" and "suicidal" whilst praising
them highly as a gunboat.

The Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo entered production as
early as 1911(!) so technologically it was already outdated
by the time of WW2.

Were they capable of carrying more powerful warheads?  If so, why weren’t they? 

Also, were PT boats used in Nam…updated or not?  I know there were boats used by the US military for traversing the rivers ala Apocalypse Now.

[SYZ]

Some of the PT crews claims of success against enemy
vessels were found to be exaggerated. Their vintage
21" Mark 8 torpedoes were too slow, had too small a
warhead, and ran erratically. Naval historian Morison
later labelled the PT "useless" as torpedo boats, and
called their attacks "futile" and "suicidal" whilst praising
them highly as a gunboat.

The Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo entered production as
early as 1911(!) so technologically it was already outdated
by the time of WW2.

Were they capable of carrying more powerful warheads?  If so, why weren’t they? 

Also, were PT boats used in Nam…updated or not?  I know there were boats used by the US military for traversing the rivers ala Apocalypse Now.

Yes, they were used in Vietnam.  There were a total
of 24 PTF boats—the Vietnam version of the PT boats
of WW2.   They were retrofitted as gunboats.

Interestingly, a Lieutenant J.F. Kennedy commanded
PT-109 in the Solomons (north of Guadalcanal) during
WW2, and which was later sunk by a Japanese destroyer.

[Minimalist]

A destroyer, a couple of submarines, a lot of supply barges, and forcing rerouting of critical supplies ... it sure ain't glamorous and won't be noticed by Hollywood, but S.E. Morison sure took note.

Some of the PT crews claims of success against enemy
vessels were found to be exaggerated. Their vintage
21" Mark 8 torpedoes were too slow, had too small a
warhead, and ran erratically. Naval historian Morison
later labelled the PT "useless" as torpedo boats, and
called their attacks "futile" and "suicidal" whilst praising
them highly as a gunboat.

The Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo entered production as
early as 1911(!) so technologically it was already outdated
by the time of WW2.

We didn't fix our torpedoes until 1943.  Before that they were shitty.  Submarine commander complained bitterly.  

The only capital ship ever sunk by a torpedo boat was the Austrian St. Istvan, by the Italians in 1918.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A destroyer, a couple of submarines, a lot of supply barges, and forcing rerouting of critical supplies ... it sure ain't glamorous and won't be noticed by Hollywood, but S.E. Morison sure took note.

Some of the PT crews claims of success against enemy
vessels were found to be exaggerated. Their vintage
21" Mark 8 torpedoes were too slow, had too small a
warhead, and ran erratically. Naval historian Morison
later labelled the PT "useless" as torpedo boats, and
called their attacks "futile" and "suicidal" whilst praising
them highly as a gunboat.

The Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo entered production as
early as 1911(!) so technologically it was already outdated
by the time of WW2.

All claims -- naval, aerial, or land -- featured overclaims. From all branches of all nations.

As for the torpedoes, the Mk 8 was certainly more reliable than the much later Mk 14. Many sub captains preferred them for that reason. S-44 sank the IJN cruiser Kako in the Solomons with a spread of them. They worked fine for introducing water into the hull. And the Mk 10 warhead was about 495 lbs, vs the Mk 14's 510 lbs, so it's not a big difference.

And yes, much of the success PT boats had against supply barges was a matter of using 20- or 40-mm deck guns. @Minimalist's objections weren't about the weapon but the platform. As a platform, PTs were fine for what they were: lightweight, hit-and-run attackers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Some of the PT crews claims of success against enemy
vessels were found to be exaggerated. Their vintage
21" Mark 8 torpedoes were too slow, had too small a
warhead, and ran erratically. Naval historian Morison
later labelled the PT "useless" as torpedo boats, and
called their attacks "futile" and "suicidal" whilst praising
them highly as a gunboat.

The Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo entered production as
early as 1911(!) so technologically it was already outdated
by the time of WW2.

We didn't fix our torpedoes until 1943.  Before that they were shitty.  Submarine commander complained bitterly.  

The only capital ship ever sunk by a torpedo boat was the Austrian St. Istvan, by the Italians in 1918.

The Mk 8s and Mk 10s used by the old S-boats were more reliable than the Mk13/14/15 used by later subs, warships, and airplanes, of a 1930s design. The later marks weren't tested very much due to lack of budget and so were much less reliable than the older Mks 8 and 10. Indeed, many Gato-class sub skippers preferred the Mk 10 for reliability, and chose to load them rather than -14s when possible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, those interested in the Mk14's problems may wish to view this video from one of my favorite Youtubers, whose expertise on naval matters has seen him, amongst other things, lecture at the USNA and USNI.

[pattylt]

Also, those interested in the Mk14's problems may wish to view this video from one of my favorite Youtubers, whose expertise on naval matters has seen him, amongst other things, lecture at the USNA and USNI.

Thanks for this video…I love British snark and the narrator was great!

[Minimalist]

And this is what they were up against in surface actions.