# Talk:HNLMS Kortenaer (1927)

I read in a rather old book about the Pacific War that the ship actually executed a self-sacrificing act of taking the torpedo that would otherwise hit the already damaged HMS Exeter. The book contains several mistakes in some other places and I haven`t found a confirmation of this from another source. Anyone who knows weather this could be true?
Veljko Stevanovich 18. Jan. 2006. 18:30 UTC+1

I'm not exactly sure why Haguro sinking Kortenaer was omitted from this article, given the widely held fact that is. Combined Fleet is the most easily accessible source for Japanese warships, and it's forum page is equally as helpful. The Warship profile series, a number of Japanese Wikipedia articles, a number of Vincent O'Hara's online articles, Paul Dull, Donald Kehn, and many secondary sources support this fact (that's just what I can think of off the top of my head) 
I've seen on a lot of these rewritten Dutch warship articles pertaining to the battle of the Java Sea that "the Japanese launched mass salvo of torpedoes, and only one hit, sinking HNLMS Kortenaer, This is despite the fact that - as elaborated by Captain Tameichi Hara in his autobiography - the Japanese launched their torpedoes in multiple smaller torpedo spreads. Early into the battle, the light cruiser Naka leading the destroyers Asagumo, Minegumo, Murasame, Harusame, Yūdachi, and Samidare, fired a spread of 43 torpedoes at 15,000 yards. Many of these torpedoes prematurely detonated and none hit. Later into the battle, the light cruiser Jintsū leading the destroyers Yukikaze, Tokitsukaze, Amatsukaze, Hatsukaze, Ushio, Sazanami, Yamakaze, and Kawakaze unloaded 70 torpedoes at 6,500 yards, and none hit again. However, this did cause the allied fleet to maneuver, which enabled Haguro to switch fire to HMS Exeter and cripple her with a pair of shell hits.
This is how we definitively know Haguro torpedoed and sank Kortenaer. Those collum fired their torpedoes quite a while before Kortenaer was torpedoed, Haguro is the only ship which matches. She fired torpedoes 15 minutes before the Dutch destroyer sank at 22,000 meters (Nachi didn't join in as she was suffering electrical issues at the time). Micheal Harrens (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Micheal Harrens (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"The location, vector, and timing of the torpedo hit have led to a limited consensus that the torpedo, possibly aimed at the Houston, came from the Haguro, but the nature of mass torpedo attacks and the passing of time means the truth will likely never be known with certainty" - Page 289 of
Rising Sun, Falling Skies: The Disastrous Java Sea Campaign.
I was planning to add a footnote with a refrence from
JAVA SEA 1942 Japan's conquest of the Netherlands East Indies
to explain the disparity in sources, but websites such as Combined Fleet is an unreliable source on Wikipedia as it is self-sourced. Can you quote where you read this information?
GGOTCC 10:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I already said, "Japanese destroyer Captain" by Tameichi Hara. He served in the battle aboard the destroyer Amatsukaze, and I mixed with other sources like "In the highest degree tragic" and others.
Combined fleet is widely used on Wikipedia for Japanese warships, it's recognized as a trustworthy site. It comes directly from Japanese primary records. Again, it's forum page is there if you need details, the people who run it know the Imperial Japanese navy like the back of their hand Micheal Harrens (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
@Micheal Harrens According to WP:RSSELF, forums and other self-published content without refrences are not considered reliable sources. As this article has been nominated for A-class review, high standards of reliable sources are expected; please remove this citation. In addition, Sea Battles in Close Up: World War 2's citation makes no mention of what Haguro's torpedos hit. Kehn's source checks out, thank for you adding it. But in the future, please add sources in a similar manner to the article. In this case, that means linking short refs to the respective book, alphabetizing sources, and using the citebook template with most information slots filled in
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, colorized photos of black-and-white photos should not be used if the original is avaible. While this photo is the original, the image focus is split and does not show the ship well. Other images, such as this one, display the cruiser prominantly, although Wikimedia Commons lack good photos. This is why I initially used the space to show Encounter. GGOTCC 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, why does the battle of Badung Strait get it's own subheading even though Kortenaer ran aground beforehand and wasn't involved in the battle? Micheal Harrens (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Micheal Harrens: Thank you for the question. Per the textbook definition of Wikipedia's Summery Style, article content should be seperated into related ideas. For Wikiproject Ships, that also includes an article being structured chronologically. The article has a seperate section for the Battle of Badung Strait as the following seven-sentence paragraph introduces important information regarding the ship, including detailing her first role within the ABDA and introducing the damage to her boiler, which is heavily refrenced in the following sections. As the Battle of Badung Strait has a primary article, it should be prominantly displayed so that users intrested in the action itself, and not the role Kortenaer played, can click on the link to read more. Seperating the article into subsections regarding each battle she was involved in is benificial to the reader as they may easily skip around a timeline and firmly identify the larger context around the topic. GGOTCC 00:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)