Talk:Battle of Coronel

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)
 * One must also remember, that had the British managed to cause any signigicant damage to the German ships, the Germans would have been half a world away from the nearest friendly repair facilities. It has been suggested by some historians (sorry, don't have my sources at hand right now) that this was what Craddock was hoping for: Even a single, solid hit on any of the German ships would have been unrepairable anywhere except back in Germany, now under blockade by the British high seas fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.164.46 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008


 * The above are daft revisionist comments that no German Historian would agree with. In the main armament of the "capital ships" the Germans possessed a total of 16 x 8.3 inch guns of 16,300 m range versus the British 2 x 9.0 inch guns of 14,200 m range, the latter of which were older and slower firing; in the secondary armament the Germans and British both possessed 12 useable 6 inch guns of 12,000 m range, which were largely irrelevant because the ships didn't come close enough to bring them into use. In effect the British were outpaced, outranged and outgunned by a factor of eight to one. For sure, British tactics left much to be desired, but they need to be seen in the light of Craddock's determination to inflict damage on the German squadron before he lost it in the Southern Ocean. If nothing else, Craddock certainly knew he was on a suicide mission.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on:
 * The German armoured cruisers each had a broadside of six 21 cm guns, not eight. If you look at the locations of the guns you will see why. File:Scharnhorst class Brassey's.jpg
 * That the Good Hope's 9.2 in guns were older, did not make them slower firing.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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 constitutes a victory? See my comment, above, about repair facilities. Leonidas lost at Thermopylae, didn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.164.46 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 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. --Harlsbottom (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember though, that spending any amount of time at sea with a coal-fueled engine would foul the boilers, reducing maximum speed drastically. The Brits had just left harbor, so presumably their boilers were in better condition than those of the Germans, who had been steaming through all of the Pacific up to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.164.46 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008

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)

A point no one has mentioned (so I shall mention it for the benefit of anyone not aware of it) is the problems the British had with the flamability of their cordite - see Battle of Jutland for more details. There were no survivors, so we shall never know what caused the "Good Hope" to blow up, but her fate seems like that of the armoured cruisers "Defence" and "Black Prince" at Jutland - not to mention the three battle cruisers lost there. So another point tipping the scales against any chance of a British success. Andrewshobley (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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!). 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)

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)


 * In the course of vectorizing the map I added Gneisenau, a few titles, &c. Criticism welcomed. It should probably be mentioned that sources vary on the details of the ship movements. Odysseus1479 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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).

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.

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)

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)

Motivation for attack?
I notice that this article draws extensively on Castles of Steel, but although this is the case, I find the interpretation of Massie's analysis to be rather far from the author's thesis. Castles of Steel mainly adopts the line that Cradock attacked for three reasons:

1) His orders were about as confusing as Churchill's telegraphs to "Arky-Barky" Milne, but essentially contained the phrase to engage von Spee so long as he had "a sufficient force." Moreover, when Cradock telegrammed the Admiralty informing them of his decision to leave Canopus behind, the Admiralty never countermanded or otherwise objected on this statement, continuing to insist Cradock had "a sufficient force."

2) Cradock's personality was well-known to his fellow officers, and as Beatty ruefully said later, "I fear he saw red." A man who declared he would die either on the hunting field or at sea is unlikely to have betrayed his own personal creed, particularly given hsi record of service.

3) "Kit" was a navy man, and with the Royal Navy still ghosted by Nelson, his correspondence indicates he would not suffer the indignity of letting it be said that a British squadron had let von Spee escape by simply steaming around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.211.236 (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Thanks for putting it right, I don't know how that happened. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Göttingen in Valparaiso, not Coronel
The text says:


 * "On 31 October, Glasgow entered Coronel harbour to collect messages and news from the British consul. Also in the harbour was a supply ship - Göttingen - working for Spee, which immediately radioed with the news of the British ship entering harbour."

The news from Glasgow's appearing in Coronel came through cable to Valparaiso (470 km to the north). Yorck was the German supply ship, which has anchored in Valparaiso and received the message, but the authorities locked her radio. Göttingen came afterwards and anchored to, but before the Chileans came on board she received the news from Yorck and she promptly sailed out from the harbour. Leaving the territorial waters she radioed the appearence of Glasgow to Spee. So there were no German ships in Coronel involved as the article suggests.--Andreas (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Casualties
Although a 2008 query was raised about the casualty numbers, this has never been resolved. The article on Good Hope says that casualties were 919 and that for Monmouth says 735, a total of 1654. The infobox says 1570 killed. Apparently, the memorial plaque in Coronel gives 1418.

The figures of 919 & 735 are also used on the britishbattles website.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission lists 898 casualties from the Good Hope and 725 from Monmouth, a total of 1623.

Which is the most reliable figure? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll havea a look and see if Marder or Massie give figuresTheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ... Marder, in From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow says "about 1600"; Massie gets a slapped wrist for repeating this figure but omitting the "about". I would be inclined to go with the figure from the war graves commission, which I assume is based on Admiralty records of how many people were on board ech of the ships.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Naval History website has a list of casualties which gives 926 on Good Hope and 734 on Monmouth, a total of 1660. When I searched on the CWGC database, I restricted my search to men commemorated in the UK, overlooking those from India and Canada. Adding them in gives 928 on Good Hope and 727 on Monmouth, a total of 1656. (8 men are listed as on Good Hope by CWGC but Monmouth on Naval History.) The discrepancy relates to civilians who are not recognised by CWGC.  I will therefore go with Naval History and amend the three articles accordingly.  Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any explanation for the very low figure on the memorial plaque? SteveStrummer (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)