Archaeologists aren't historians, apparently

Two issues back, Archaeology magazine ran a short bit on some maritime work that had finally turned up the remains of "the (sic) HMAS Sydney," a warship sunk in WWII by a German armed merchant cruiser. The article referred to the Sydney as a "battle cruiser." Among what I assume were many notes sent to the magazine, there was the following, from me:

"Although it's interesting that the wrecks of the Kormoran and HMAS Sydney have been located (Archaeology, July/August, pp11) , I should point out that the Sydney was not a "battle cruiser." That term refers to a type of fighting ship built in small numbers, primarily during the naval arms race that preceded World War One. A battle cruiser was in size and armament similar to a battleship, faster, and with much reduced armor. By the second world war, when the Sydney - Kormoran engagement took place, there were only a few remaining battle cruisers in service -- HMS Hood was an example, and some authors would include the German "pocket battleships" Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The Sydney, in contrast, was a light cruiser, virtually without armor, and armed with weapons roughly the equivalent of those on the Kormoran. Had she been a battle cruiser, the chances of the Kormoran sinking her would have been vanishingly small.

Finally, your editors should note that it's not proper to refer to a British commonwealth warship as "the" HMAS Sydney, since the acronym means His (Her) Majesty's Australian Ship; use of the definite article is thus syntactically incorrect."

This month, they ran a tiny correction.

Shoals of Herring

Give this a listen. One of these days I'll tell you all about Ewan MacColl.