Could one salvo silence Sydney's fire control?

Could early damage to Sydney's fire control alone explain the cruiser's weak response?

The class had primary, secondary, and local control arrangements, so bridge damage alone does not explain the reported differences in turret performance.

The class had more than one fire-control position, as well as local control at the turrets. The secondary director was basic by later-war standards but appropriate as a backup when the ships entered service. That redundancy makes the reported combination of accurate fire from X turret, poor fire from Y turret, and the early loss of the forward turrets an important part of the mystery. Damage to the bridge alone therefore does not provide a complete one-hit explanation for Sydney's response.