Jump to content

Talk:German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ship's armament

[edit]

The article says the Kormoran mounted 37 mm anti-tank guns. A naval ship would have no use for an anti-tank weapon, and both the Hipper class cruisers and the Scharnhorst class Battlecruisers mounted 37 mm anti-aircraft guns. This seems to be an erroneous statement. 72.149.161.130 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hilfskreuzer were of low priority for the Kriegsmarine, and Detmers was told that no 37 mm Flak guns would be available for his ship. Due to some private connections to the Heer, he was able to obtain a pair of 37 mm Pak 36 guns which were mounted to both sides of the bridge. All Flak guns on Kormoran were of 20 mm calibre. Reibeisen 22:16, 10 April 2008

Wreck of the ship found

[edit]

Added a link to the 16/3/8 news.com.au article on the discovery of the wreck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklord (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonar images of the wreckage

[edit]

The sonar images from the Finding Sydney Foundation "press room" CAN be used reproduced under the terms of the Foundation's legal information. Images of the Kormoran are here. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you read, but the following comes from their website:

Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading further down the same page.

203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of HSK

[edit]

This page gives the definition of HSK as Handelsstörkreuzer, or "commerce disruption cruiser", but Detmers himself states (on page 12 of the Kimber edition of The Raider Kormoran) that it stands for Handelsschutzkreuzer, "merchant navy protection cruiser".

Do we have a source for the currently provided definition?
Jb17kx (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^I put the disruption bit in. All German Kriegsmarine sites (after a quick google check) give the Handelsstörkreuzer meaning to the HSK acronym. It seems that this is a wartime term, whereas pre-war the KM thought they´d need cheap protection for the German merchant navy (like the Brits did). The German wikipedia lists all KM commerce raiders as Handelsstörkreuzer, click though this list :http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Schiffe_der_Kriegsmarine#Hilfskreuzer Sorry, no better sources but I thought it´d suffice - greetings, CH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.71.209 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice this question until just now. Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946, defines HSK as Handelsstörkreuzer or "commerce disruption cruiser" on p. 246. Conway's is by no means absolute, but there is a source for the currently provided definition. TomTheHand (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German medal citation for Detmers mentions Hilfskrauzer (Auxiliary cruiser). Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Plaque on Lifeboat?

[edit]

The caption under the image Kormoran lifeboat, Carnavon states that the plaque says, incorrectly, that 52 Germans survived in that lifeboat. Can it be verified that this is indeed incorrect?

SaintJimmy505 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROV photos of Kormoran

[edit]

Finding Sydney Foundation has released photos of the Kormoran wreckage.[1] These photos can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Wikicommons) if a reasonable case for fair use is made and subject to the terms on the Finding Sydney Foundation press page. See for example Image:HMAS Sydney wreck, 64.jpg. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Probable scene of Engagement is not the scene of Engagement.

[edit]

Given as Reference 9 the probable scene of engagement turned out to be rocks so this needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.44.18 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running the blockade

[edit]

There seems to be a little confusion here, according to recent edits.
When Kormoran was in German waters she was disguised as a Sperrbrecher, to conceal her true purpose; once she had left there, to get through the British blockade, she changed her disguise to be the Soviet freighter V. Molotov (the Soviet Union being neutral at the time, and habitually secretive). Once through she changed again (I can't remember to what). It was all described by Detmers in his book. We didn't have an article on pathfinder ships before, but now we do. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like its all my screwup. At the time I wrote the content for Kormoran, there was no article for the German Sperrbrecher, so instead of using the German word without/with minimal context, I attempted to use, and redlink to, what I though would be a catch-all term. I thought that pathfinder ship would be a catch-all term for ships of that general role, not realising that this appears to be a specific Allied/British classification of auxiliary warship. it would probably be better to un-pipe the link to avoid even more confusion. -- saberwyn 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I should confess, the confusion appears to be mine. :( :( It looked like she was already in international waters when the guise was changed. On more careful reading, which I should've done before, not... May I suggest a change to Sperrbrecher, rather than "pathfinder"? (That suggests an Allied convoy leader to me.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:58 & 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger vessel?

[edit]

Given the build of the ship, which looks as freighter like as I've ever seen, can someone please give me the reference for stating that the Steiermark was build as a passenger vessel for the HAPAG? Thanks. --134.171.184.245 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that cite [1] (Frame, HMAS Sydney, p. 45 - cited at end of paragraph) is where the claim is made, but investigation of offline sources is required, which may take some time. -- saberwyn 08:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 updated edition of Frame's book states that she was a "a cargo ship of 9800 tons" (p. 59). Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. I'll try to access the edition used here for a specific cite. -- saberwyn 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473) cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473) cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the picture

[edit]

Despite the quote (thx, btw), I'm more confused than ever. If Sydney is on her port bow, why is Kormoran turning to port--toward? (That does seem to make it 260 relative...) What am I missing? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the originally cited source (Hore in The Royal Australian Navy in World War II) to refer to, and will have to track it down at another library. However, based on the map in Gill's history (see book p. 455 / PDF p. 52 in this extract from the Australian War Memorial) gives an idea of the ship's paths. Up on p. 453/50, Gill states that the lookout "reported a sighting fine on the port bow." I've found an updated map in Mearns' book, which places (at the time of the sighting) Kormoran on 025 true, Sydney on 160 true, and the cruiser seen from the raider at 020 true. Neither work gives a numerical figure for Kormoran's turn into the sunset: my attempts to figure it out with a protractor give me around 250 true or 230 relative (assuming the map is accurate). -- saberwyn 10:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the chart does help. I had the impression Kormoran was bound the other direction (hence sighting Sydney to port), but it looks like she turned 180 & ran...which puts Sydney to starboard.... It also means the turn to 260 true (which the compass shown suggests is right) isn't a turn to port. Here, I should say, the light color used to mark her track makes it really hard to see on my monitor... :( I get the feeling I'm missing something obvious. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: colour: Welcome to the joys of printing in the 1950s; there weren't many options.
Re: missing something obvious: Let me try walking you through it (using compass points and left/right instead of numbers and bow/starboard).
  • At the start of things, Kormoran is heading NNE
  • Sydney is sailing SSE
  • When Kormoran sees Sydney, the Aussie ship appears just to the left of the Germans, almost bow-on
  • Relative to Sydney, the raider is to the right, around halfway between bow and amidships
  • Kormoran goes "oh crap" and turns left hard, until she's heading WSW
  • Sydney goes "that's interesting", and turns right to intercept: initially heading SW, then refining the course to WSW so she's almost parallel
Does this help with the confusion, or further add to it? -- saberwyn 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"At the start of things, Kormoran is heading NNE, Sydney is sailing SSE" This is what it was. I had Sydney pursuing: "approaching from just starboard of Kormoran's stern", before I changed it... If they're bow-on, it makes sense. Which suggests somebody else got it wrong. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that happenes next. The flag error because Sydney was "approaching from just starboard of Kormoran's stern" and couldn't see the signals is happening after both ships have turned to their west-ish headings. Sydney was signalling pretty much from her turn around 16:00, and although the ships are on roughly parallel courses through most of this, the cruiser was pretty far behind until just before 17:00. The Gill map isn't the best in that regard, more recent sources have the ship's tracks closer together. -- saberwyn 23:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing Sydney starboard, tho. Or has the turn put her on Kormoran's other beam, & I'm not seeing it? That appears right, & would explain it all. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Kormoran makes her "oh crap" turn, the relative position of Sydney starts just left of the bow, crosses, and ends up behind and to the right. -- saberwyn 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I suspected she'd turned around. If you can source it, IMO saying so would help avoid more confusion like mine... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piano 'problems'

[edit]

Detmers warned that if the piano caused any problems among the crew, it would be pushed overboard.

— It's difficult to envision just how the presence of a piano could cause "problems among the crew." Can this rather amusing sidelight be clarified? Sca (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the source at this time, and don't think it really elaborated. I assume that "problems" would be things like disruptions to shipboard activites, arguments over who got to use it when, or what was played, etc. Access to a piano in the middle of the deep blue is a privilege that should not be abused. -- saberwyn 09:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Germans were and remain a passionately musical lot. All you need is one Bach lover looking sideways at a Mozart freak... Rumiton (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HSK

[edit]

We have two explanations for this abbreviation. Handelsstörkreuzer (trade disruption cruiser) and Handelsschutzkreuzer (trade protection cruiser.) Australian defence sites are about equally divided. Does anyone know anything definitive? Rumiton (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) I have asked on the German Wikipedia "Hilfskreuzer" page. Stand by. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of vessels...

[edit]

This article, and other related articles, say the German Navy operated ten merchant cruisers.

I used to own a book that devoted a chapter to the cruises of all her WW2 merchant cruisers. I understand the confusion, as the first wave of cruisers included ten vessels. A second wave was sent out, also of ten vessels.

Only one vessel participated in both the first and second wave. So, there were a total of 19 vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 vessels? Then name them! On https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Hilfskreuzer_(Kriegsmarine) there is a list of 11 (eleven)and these were all, not one more. Even Togo is mentioned which never was used, only planned to be used as a merchant cruiser! 80.151.9.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Only one vessel participated" - again which vessel? I have at least Thor and Komet which made two sorties! 80.151.9.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Theodor Detmers vs. Felix von Luckner as youngest commander of a German merchant raider

[edit]

How could this be true: "Korvettenkapitän (Lieutenant Commander) Theodor Detmers was selected to command Schiff 41 in July 1940; the 37-year-old was the youngest man to command a German merchant raider.[4][7]"

When Felix von Luckner was 35 years old when he took command of the SMS Seeadler (1888)? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Felix_von_Luckner

Either von Luckner's date of birth is wrong, or that fact is wrong. I mean, an incorrect statement is still incorrect even if quoted, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.227.11 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran&oldid=1213768823"