Kookaburra2011
THE HMAS ADELAIDE PROJECT with Graeme Andrews. The ADELAIDE versus KORMORAN hypothetical concluded. Photo Clem McManus, GKAC.
3865. The MkXIII 6-inch [152mm] guns of HMAS ADELAIDE and the 5.9in [15cm] of the KORMORAN were of similar size and vintage, both dating from the early years of the 20th Century.
KORMORAN'S guns were Circa 1905 pre-Dreadnought secondary weapons designed to protect capital ships against the new threat posed by Torpedo Boat Destroyers. Graeme Andrews reports that these guns fired at 7 rounds a minute, compared to ADELAIDE'S 4-5 rounds a minute - but ADELAIDE mounted five gun broadside from eight single weapons, while KORMORAN mounted only a four gun broadside from six.
ADELAIDE'S guns were also more widely spaced and better protected than KORMORAN's. This is entirely speculative, but firing at SYDNEY, KORMORAN's four broadside main weapons initially had four twin SYDNEY turrets clustered in two locations fore and aft to knock out, while ADELAIDE would have had five 6-inch mounts to neutralize, and they were not clustered, but spread out singly along perhaps 400ft of the 460ft-long ship.
On both Australian ships, with surprise and at close-range, KORMORAN's AA weapons and the 3.7cm German Army anti-tank gun that Captain Detmers had scrounged when fitting out his ship, would have decimated the unshielded 4-inch guns, the bridge and the command spaces. But as previously stated, ADELAIDE'S main gunnery systems were more amenable to locally directed fire, and even more critically, the mounts were hand-trained, rather than SYDNEY'S electrically turned turrets. Thus, ADELAIDE guns remained effective with a loss of power power.
The one-inch armour shield would also have protected their crews.
The critical question, of course, was whether Captain Showers would have taken ADELAIDE in so close as did Captain Burnett, and this has to be regarded as highly unlikely. KORMORAN's old guns had a flat trajectory, devastating at close range, and as the range increased ADELAIDE'S chances of success against the raider would have increased with every 1000 yards. The range of ADELAIDE's guns was 18,000 yards to KORMORAN'S 14, 700 yards, so ultimately ADELAIDE could have stood off out of range to blast the German ship if necessary.
So, of course, could Captain Burnett, whose guns had a range of 25,000 yards. What induced Burnett to throw away every advantage to a ship not answering his signals or call sign challenges will never really be understood. Prime Minister John Curtin, talking to the Melbourne Herald's Joe Alexander soon after the loss became known, put it down to 'a sense of invincibility.'
By comparison, the former crew of HMAS ADELAIDE have some justification in thinking that in the same encounter their old dear cruiser, not so complacent and not so proud, may have very well survived.
Photo: Clem McManus, ex-cook, HMAS ADELAIDE, Graeme Keith Andrews Collection [GKAC] , from a private disc, with permission.
THE HMAS ADELAIDE PROJECT with Graeme Andrews. The ADELAIDE versus KORMORAN hypothetical concluded. Photo Clem McManus, GKAC.
3865. The MkXIII 6-inch [152mm] guns of HMAS ADELAIDE and the 5.9in [15cm] of the KORMORAN were of similar size and vintage, both dating from the early years of the 20th Century.
KORMORAN'S guns were Circa 1905 pre-Dreadnought secondary weapons designed to protect capital ships against the new threat posed by Torpedo Boat Destroyers. Graeme Andrews reports that these guns fired at 7 rounds a minute, compared to ADELAIDE'S 4-5 rounds a minute - but ADELAIDE mounted five gun broadside from eight single weapons, while KORMORAN mounted only a four gun broadside from six.
ADELAIDE'S guns were also more widely spaced and better protected than KORMORAN's. This is entirely speculative, but firing at SYDNEY, KORMORAN's four broadside main weapons initially had four twin SYDNEY turrets clustered in two locations fore and aft to knock out, while ADELAIDE would have had five 6-inch mounts to neutralize, and they were not clustered, but spread out singly along perhaps 400ft of the 460ft-long ship.
On both Australian ships, with surprise and at close-range, KORMORAN's AA weapons and the 3.7cm German Army anti-tank gun that Captain Detmers had scrounged when fitting out his ship, would have decimated the unshielded 4-inch guns, the bridge and the command spaces. But as previously stated, ADELAIDE'S main gunnery systems were more amenable to locally directed fire, and even more critically, the mounts were hand-trained, rather than SYDNEY'S electrically turned turrets. Thus, ADELAIDE guns remained effective with a loss of power power.
The one-inch armour shield would also have protected their crews.
The critical question, of course, was whether Captain Showers would have taken ADELAIDE in so close as did Captain Burnett, and this has to be regarded as highly unlikely. KORMORAN's old guns had a flat trajectory, devastating at close range, and as the range increased ADELAIDE'S chances of success against the raider would have increased with every 1000 yards. The range of ADELAIDE's guns was 18,000 yards to KORMORAN'S 14, 700 yards, so ultimately ADELAIDE could have stood off out of range to blast the German ship if necessary.
So, of course, could Captain Burnett, whose guns had a range of 25,000 yards. What induced Burnett to throw away every advantage to a ship not answering his signals or call sign challenges will never really be understood. Prime Minister John Curtin, talking to the Melbourne Herald's Joe Alexander soon after the loss became known, put it down to 'a sense of invincibility.'
By comparison, the former crew of HMAS ADELAIDE have some justification in thinking that in the same encounter their old dear cruiser, not so complacent and not so proud, may have very well survived.
Photo: Clem McManus, ex-cook, HMAS ADELAIDE, Graeme Keith Andrews Collection [GKAC] , from a private disc, with permission.