There seems no disagreement about the extent of damage caused by the Kormoran's first salvoes

Foolestroupe has presented a reason for getting the Walrus off the ship before engaging and possibly sussed a major reason for the Sydney being engulfed in fire.

Charley believes the Walrus was ready to be deployed but then (in apparent contradiction to a major reason - the risk of its fuel igniting in an imminent action - for getting it away from the ship) indicates it was not deployed.

I was hoping someone would clarify a possible reason for not using the Walrus for aerial reconnaissance of the Kormoran, while the Sydney was out of range of the Kormoran. The answer to this addresses one of the underlying questions about the Sydney's vulnerability.

If there was a good reason for not using the Walrus, the Sydney's captain could be said to be prudent but if there wasn't a good reason, and the Walrus was not only not deployed but retained with its inherent risk, the Sydney captain could be said to be culpable. There may have been a fault in the Walrus that was detected only just prior to its deployment; we'll never know.

But if the Kormoran was disguised from the air as well as from the surface, there'd be no point deploying it. I hoped those of you more familiar than I with such tactics might have relevant information.

Cheers, Rowan