Talk:HMAS Sydney (1934)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sinking

this site doesnt tell me anythig about the sinking of HMAS Sydney.... what happened to sites with plain nature of the event in simple black and white.....

As the link in the article says, that material is now at Battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran. Grant65 | Talk 09:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Search

Sunday Times on 25th MArch 2007 published astory that a recent seacrh of the most likely restng place of the Sydney has failed to find any trace. And that they are seeking funding for a search in a northern area. http://www.findingsydney.com/news8.asp for full details Gnangarra 08:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Added those details to the battle article, thanks Gnang. Grant | Talk 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wreck

Is this the largest ship to have disappeared without trace? Drutt 04:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Supermarine Seagull or Walrus?

A photograph caption in the main article says the aircraft carried by HMAS Sydney II was the Supermarine Seagull. Independent sources say it carried the Supermarine Walrus, as does the WP article about the Walrus. The Walrus was developed from the Seagull. Was HMAS Sydney (perhaps while named HMS Phaeton) formerly equipped with the Seagull, and requipped by the time of the photo (1940) with the Walrus?

I propose editing the photo caption to say "Walrus". GilesW 06:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The official caption to that photo in the Australian War Memorial's database (which is reproduced in the wikicommons uploaded photo) states that the aircraft is a Seagull, so I've changed it back. The RAAF operated both Seagulls and Walruses from the RAN's cruisers during the early years of the war. --Nick Dowling 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. In late 1940, HMAS Sydney was equipped with a Walrus, which was lost when Sydney was sunk in 1941. Prior to that Sydney had various Seagulls. http://www.adf-serials.com/2a2.shtml refers. GilesW 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Walrus Mk. I and Seagull Mk. V are different names for the same aircraft, which may be the source of the confusion. Drutt 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Probable Finding of HMAS Sydney wreck

Looks like they found her:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/back-from-the-deep/2007/08/10/1186530622306.html

Dawnfrenzy 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While I hope that it's Sydney, this claim is yet to be verified by the Navy - the discoverers appear to have gone straight to the media. It seems notable that the article doesn't mention anybody with expert knowledge of Sydney confirming what's shown on the video tape. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this though. --Nick Dowling 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too, but doubt is already being cast: the amount of wreckage appears to be very small if it is Sydney; two fishing boats have been lost in unknown locations in that area and the location is long way from those predicted, being a lot closer to shore than most accounts and a long way north of Warren Whittaker's alternative theory.

If it is so close to Dirk Hartog Island then it seems reasonable to expect at least some wreckage to be washed there or on the mainland, but I'm not an expert on ocean currents. Grant | Talk 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)