Talk:Battle of Coronel

message: 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)
thread_title: Correct spelling of Craddock

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gneisenau? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Battle of Coronel connection to founding of Israel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  where was the chilean fleet? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualty discrepancy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Motivation for attack? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Göttingen in Valparaiso, not Coronel 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll havea a look and see if Marder or Massie give figuresTheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

text: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is there any explanation for the very low figure on the memorial plaque? SteveStrummer (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties