As a commerce raider Kormoran guns were camouflaged and apparently were ‘unmasked’ and brought into action in six seconds during the engagement with HMAS Sydney. Although the guns of HMAS Sydney were trained on Kormoran the German witnesses saw ‘cooks’ lining the rails of HMAS Sydney and noted that the secondary armament wasn’t manned.

HMAS Sydney had closed to 1000 yards before Kormoran open fire; at that range a rudimentary sight on a 150mm mounting would probably be better than the more complicated fire-control of HMAS Sydney.

The first 150mm salvo from Kormoran was seen to “score hits on the cruiser’s bridge and forward gunnery fire-control position”.

“As the second 150mm salvo was fired by Kormoran, HMAS Sydney opened up with a full eight-gun broadside, which passed harmlessly high over the stern of Kormoran.”

“Kormoran then fired eight salvos in succession, at six second intervals, without any fire coming back.”

Altogether Kormoran fired 450 rounds of 150mm, hitting HMAS Sydney at least 50 times, Kormoran also fired a huge amount of 20mm automatic anti-aircraft fire that would have been deadly and hugely demoralising at such short range.

HMAS Sydney was also hit by a least one torpedo, abreast the forward turrets.

The quotations above come from this detailed account:

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/kormoran.html

You make a good point about the 11 inch guns of the Graf Spee striking the Ajax and Achilles. I can’t really explain that one, possibly the ammunition was a factor; armoured-piercing as opposed to high-explosive?

The Wikipedia account of the action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_Sydney_and_HSK_Kormoran

It sounds pretty plausible to me; the six 150mm guns carried by Kormoran would have inflicted severe damage on HMAS Sydney which was only lightly armoured.

If HMAS Sydney was damaged and on fire when she retired the fires could well have spread to cause an eventual magazine explosion, as was alluded to by the German survivors. The lack of survivors can easily be explained if this was the case; compare it with the loss of HMS Hood. How many would have survived from HMS Hood (only three did anyway) if she had been operating alone?

The Japanese submarine theory sounds like crude propaganda to cover-up the ‘embarrassing’ loss of Australia’s capital ship and crew to a weaker opponent whose crew survived and ended up reaching Australia in a (relative) blaze of publicity.

how did they react when they were damaged in the wars?

Some zeppelins were damaged by anti-aircraft fire (and / or the weather) and crash landed in Britain (were they would be burnt by their crews), the continent or the sea.

The key issue was the development of 303 incendiary ammunition (Pomeroy?) for British fighter aircraft. Before that it was relatively difficult to set a zeppelin on fire; the holes in gasbags caused by standard 303 ammunition would have no effect.

Zeppelin crews did not carry parachutes! So, as has been said, if the hydrogen was set alight usually the entire crew would be killed.

how big was it?

Very, very BIG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Building_and_ship_comparison2.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

Some good photos to give you some idea of the size here:

http://www.fairmile.fsbusiness.co.uk/zepdzredeerei.htm

how was it driven and operated?

Very carefully…..like a ship…..telegraphs to engineers in the engine cars, helmsmen in control gondola for rudder and elevators, captain giving the orders.

Hydrogen gas would not be released intentionally but it would constantly leak (from any airship); the loss lift from escaping hydrogen would be compensated by the burning of (many tons) of fuel on a long journey.

Height was usually controlled by the elevators and engine power (like an aeroplane).

Several tons of water ballast was carried to be dropped to accomplish ‘take-off’ and during the tricky ‘landing’; this water ‘wasted’ cargo or passenger carrying capacity of course.

did it have stairs to access the enevlope?

Not stairs exactly, but internal ladders and gantries gave access to almost all points around the hull; access to the nose, tail, engine cars was essential for mooring and maintenance, the crew could even get on top of the hull and walk around, without any safety harnesses!

The inside of the envelope would look like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LZ129-replica-structure_WL.jpg

From photographic evidence the RH&DR armoured train was armed with two Boys Anti-Tank Rifles (.55 calibre) and four Lewis Guns (.303 calibre), two of which were on anti-aircraft mountings.

As I said it is possible that they shot down an enemy aircraft, and I cannot even confirm that this happened, but I still prefer the other version of events.

Maybe somebody can answer this one. It has been claimed that the ‘armoured train’ run on the RH&DR ‘claimed a Messerschmitt’ during the war.

The wonderful story (and it probably is just that) is that the enemy aircraft misjudged its height and crashed while attempting to strafe the ‘small but perfectly formed’ steam locomotive.

Although the ‘armoured train’ was armed with a couple of Lewis guns I doubt that they would have managed to shoot it down but I suppose it is possible.

One engine went for scrap…

Noooooooooo! 🙁

All thats left of the NEAM example are two props and a slight stain on the ground.

What happened to the engines?