Talk:Battle of Coronel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Possible POV ?

The article suggests in various parts that the British force was by ship characterisics more or less chanceless against the German ships. This might favour British attidude to deny foreign navies' abilities, hoever, it is not true. The British ships were larger, and therefore their ability to survive shell impact basically higher. The speed was more or less the same, and so was the armament.

The fact is that the British admiral and the British sailors were defeated by superior seamanship of the German side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.237.99.113 (talk • contribs)

Superior German tactical position, and superior German seamanship, certinly contributed to the one-sidedness of the victory. However, it wasn't as fair a fight as you make it sound.

Firepower: HMS Good Hope and HMS Monmouth both had a significant handicap when compared to the German cruisers. The British cruisers carried a great deal of their armorment in casemates along hull. If someone actually tried to use these guns in a rough sea, they would allow water to pour into the ship. This single feature significantly reduced the effective firepower of the British heavy cruisers.

Speed: HMS Otranto was only capable of 18 knots, which is signifincalty slower then the German ships. The British fleet was then prevented from running by an unwillingless to sacrifise this ship.

Survivability: In general casements are not fully watertight. They can resist ocean swells, but once they are completely submerged they let water in. I do not know if this was the case for the british armored cruisers, but if it was this would have negated their size advantage.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.158.227 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the Good Hope did have an extremely slight advantage of speed (1-2 knots), but in the end, it doesn't matter.  :217.237.99.113's idea that the British vessels were capable of surviving shell impact was increased by mass is an entirely false :premise. British vessels were notorious in World War I for having armor inadequate to their needs- see the Battle of Dogger Bank, :and even the HMS Hood during World War II. The British, in their desire for speedy vessels, sacrificed armor for engines. The :older British vessels carried, as such, more engines than armor.
Or indeed weapons. Monmouth was armed entirely with six inch guns- barely the payload carried by the Glasgow. Good Hope had :two 9.2 inch guns, mounted in single-barrel turrets fore and aft. Of these, one was destroyed within the first few minutes :of the battle, meaning Cradock's heaviest guns were 6 inch. By contrast, Spee has 8.6 inch guns that were actually the same range :as Cradock's lone 9.2 inch gun. Spee also reported that he "got three salvoes off to the enemy's one," further disparaging the :performance of veterans versus reservists.
The British lost the battle. The casemates point stands, and there's no POV here- the British ships had zero chance, having even :lost a visibility advantage and being unable to flee after commiting. And unless you, sir, could go on an outdated naval ship :today, with almost no training, and defeat a German crack squadron, that comment is false. --138.88.133.164 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using for Good Hope's "slight advantage of speed"? I have her speed as 23.5, while the slowest of von Spee's squadron (Leipzig) is 23 knots.

As to armour, your statement "British vessels were notorious in World War I for having armor inadequate to their needs" is a gross generality. Certain classes of vessel were definitely underarmoured, i.e. battle cruisers but the battleships certainly weren't - the ships which mattered could hold their own. And of course HMS Hood's armour wasn't adequate, as she was a 20 year old ship faced with better ships and better planes. Technically her armour was superior to the un-totally reconstructed "Queen Elizabeths" but noone complains about them.

The issue of the sea-state is very important. On the German ships only the upper deck gunners could sight on the British force. The middle deck gunners were only able to catch the occasional glimpse of the British ships. Having the advantage of the light, which Cradock had tried to seize by trying to close the range in vain, and still suffering difficulties, one can only imagine the difficulties the British ships had.

I am intrigued as to where this idea of Monmouth's' Captain Brandt ordering Glasgow's Captain Luce away came from. Luce was the senior officer, and my source has it that after the Good Hope blew up Monmouth ceased fire and did not respond to any of Luce's signals in response to an imminent German torpedo attack. Why people don't cite these things I have no idea.

There might not be any POV, there's just shoddy scholarship. --Harlsbottom (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct spelling of Craddock

I have a question to the name of Rear Admiral Crad(d)ock. Which way of writing with one or two 'd' is the right one. I found in this article both. I am just writing a german article about 'Scharnhorst' and 'Battle of Coronel' an i will set a link to 'Christopher Crad(d)ock'. In my sources here is written 'Cradock' with one 'd'. But now I am not sure if the Link will be changed in future when anyone adds some content and knew the right (or wrong) way of writing. Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.118.242 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're right, judging from the number of references from a Google search on "Battle of Coronel" it should be "Cradock" (and I'm surprised how many sites are mirroring this article!). [1] records "Mount Cradock", British Columbia, as one of the mountains named after the ships and personalities of the battle. -- Arwel 11:44, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gneisenau?

I don't see anything about the Gneisenau firing or maneuvering during the battle, and the Gneisenau is not on the graphic chart. What did she do during this battle?

PAUL

I've seen versions of this chart before--essentially Gneisenau's track followed Scharnhorst's so closely she is generally not separately plotted. You might as well take Scharnhorst's track as being representative of her AND Gneisenau.


The Gneisenau's third salvo set on fire the foward turret of the Good hope, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau inflicted most of the damage on the British Cruisers, all four wounded german sailors where on board the Gneisenau. Edwarddonnell 05:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Coronel connection to founding of Israel

I have read an account (http://butanol.com/docs/Weizman-Terre_Haute.doc) that stated the loss at this battle first brought Chaim Weizmann to the attention of British military authorities such as Churchhill. Chaim Weizmann is noted for developing the acetone butanol ethanol (ABE) process, together with implementing it on an industrial scale to aid the war effort. This acheivement was doubtless important to his later influence bringing about the Balfour declaration of 1917 and subsequently becoming the first president of Israel. Acetone was important at this time because it was an ingredient in the production of cordite gunpowder. Presumably the need of gunpowder and supply lines to its ingredients was a major reason for this battle. I have read elsewhere, but not here, that British guns lacked range in this battle because of low quality powder - adding urgency to need. I wonder if that is true and whether Churchill or other authorities are know to have expressed concerns about this after the battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herkimer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Incorect Statement

THe intro says the british hadn's lost a naval battle since 1812; this should say the war of 1812 (which went until 1815) because the british definitely lost naval battles later in that war, like when they attacked baltimore.

[edit] where was the chilean fleet?

by that year the chilean fleet was a mighty force composed of several cruisers.... even when the country was neutral...i wonder why they didnt presented themselves in an armed incident in front of their coast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.23.29 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The battle was conducted off an uninhabited area of the Chilean coast, and I believe was outside the three mile range denoting international waters. --138.88.133.164 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualty discrepancy?

I noticed that there are different numbers listed in the infobox and the final paragraph of the article for the number of British Casualties. Probably one is dead and the other is dead and wounded, but it should be clarified. Someone who knows more about this than I should confirm this and change/clarify this in the article. Borg Sphere (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)