Talk:Battle of Cocos

message: According to the landing party of the Emden, stranded at Direction island, the battle was still going on at 18.00 hours. Does anybody know what scource the order of battle came from that we can read in the wikipedia article?
http://www.ezania.net/library/books/cocos/index_m.htm#theayesha 
The times found on the next page also don't add up:
http://www.argo.net.au/andre/emdenforwebENFIN.htm
How can the Sydney run the Emden aground on North Keeling at 11:20 on november 9, set course for Direction Island (about 30km away) and only arrive there on the 10th? Also there is talk of the Buresk in the article, but I can't find any mention about it in either of the two links presented.
User:Maasman didn't sign.
Buresk (British vessel) had been captured by Emden some weeks before. As the article wrote it was ordered to go to join Emden. So when Sydney finished Emden it went to get Buresk. Sydney sank Buresk and went back to Emden. Is that what you asked? Actually the second link is not working. Euty (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of battle 

message: In the WP article one can read: 
Emden's crew suffered 131 killed and 65 wounded, from a total complement of 360.
According to my source the correct numbers 133 killed 49 serious wounded, from a total complement of 314. Can somebody has a quotable source to clarify this? Euty (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers 

message: Should this page be in Australian English? Magus732 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so, but I'm biased. -- saberwyn 07:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree, but I thought I'd ask, so I could be sure... Magus732 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  English variant... 

message: Why isn't this called "Sinking of the Emden" That is what happened. There was no significant battle, a ship that was seriously outclassed got sunk by a ship that was far its superior in terms of guns and range. It's Title 101. Who calls it "Battle of the Cocos", exactly? Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 12:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to nitpick, but the Sydney did not sink the Emden. --Pete (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but how how do you describe it? The Emden's captain grounded her to avoid her sinking, she was smashed beyond functioning. "The destruction of the Emden"? Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the current title for the time being, though "The Sydney-Emden action" would be my suggestion, appropriately redirected. --Pete (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Will check sources tonight. -- saberwyn 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day all, Chris Coulthard-Clark lists this battle as "Cocos Island" on p. 97 of the 1998 edition of Where Australians Fought: The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles. Not sure if this helps or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At least someone calls it something close, "Battle of Cocos Island" would at least be based on a source. I tend to agree with Pete, although we should drop "The", if we adopt that title, so I suggest "Sydney-Emden action". Google Books isn't a huge amount of help, only 37 hits for Battle of Cocos, some of which are actually "Battle of Cocos Islands" and some of which are pretty dubious sources. "Sydney-Emden action" only gets 13 hits, but they are pretty good quality hits. Much of a muchness, but I personally prefer "Sydney-Emden action" as it is more specific and it is immediately clear what the article is about. Less so with "Battle of Cocos (Islands)", IMO. Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 05:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 08:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, both of you. I looked at the naval volume of the Official History - the complete text is free online, I note - but couldn't see anything really compelling. --Pete (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: The section on HMAS Sydney indicates that she carried anti-aircraft armament as well as depth charges.  I don't have access to the primary source cited, but it is hard to believe that she was so outfitted in 1914.  In particular, depth charges were not deployed in the Atlantic for antisubmarine work until around 1916, if I'm not mistaken.  Can someone confirm that the armament listed was correct for the time period of this battle?  If not, this section should probably be updated.  Best, Jrt989 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament on ''Sydney'' 

message: I think this article contains some false informations. Some striking examples:
:Sydney attempted to open the gap between the two ships as she opened fire.[40][42] This was hampered by the loss of both rangefinders, requiring each mounting to be targeted and fired locally.[43] The first two salvoes missed, but two shells from the third struck: one exploding in Emden's wireless office, another by the Germans' forward gun.[40][42]
In fact, the Sydney’s firing without rangefinders was poor at the beginning. Around a dozen salvos missed the target, according to Franz Josef von Hohenzollern 6-7 went over and 4-5 went short, before the Australians managed to hit first the Emden. This was just after 10:00. 20 minutes in the battle already.
:Emden ran aground at around 11:20, at which point, Sydney ceased fire.[37][48] 
At this point Sydney did not cease fire. The Australians were so gallant to fire two more salvos in the already beached ship.
:The Australian cruiser reached Emden around 16:00.[51] The Germans' battle ensign was still flying, generally a sign that a ship intends to continue fighting.[40][52] Sydney signalled "Do you surrender?" in international code by both lights and flag-hoist.[51][52] The signal was not understood, and Emden responded with "What signal? No signal books".[52] The instruction to surrender was repeated by Sydney in plain morse code, then after there was no reply, the message "Have you received my signal?" was sent.[51][52] With no response forthcoming, and operating under the assumption that Emden could still potentially fire, launch torpedoes, or use small arms against any boarding parties, Glossop ordered Sydney to fire two salvoes into the wrecked ship.[52][53] This attack killed 20 German personnel.[52]
Not two salvos were fired, but the Emden received a five-minute steady bombardment, according to von Hohenzollern – and even to Captain Glossop himself! After arriving the Sydney positioned herself 3000 meters to do aft of the Emden. Since the wrecked ships torpedotubes were only able to fire in broadside and the whole aft was burnt out, the above describeed fears were not reasonable. Also Glossop does not mention such things in his despatch. Instead he writes:
:On arriving again off "Emden" she still had her colours up at mainmast head. I enquired by signal, International Code, "Will you surrender ?" and received a reply in Morse "What signal? No signal books. " I then made in Morse "Do you surrender?" and subsequently "Have you received my signal?" to neither of which did I get an answer. The German Officers on board gave me to understand that the Captain would never surrender, and therefore, though very reluctantly, I again fired at her at 4. 30 p. m., ceasing at 4. 35, as she showed white flags and hauled down her ensign by sending a man aloft.
Seems like someone  tried to set a deterrent example – but only very reluctantly, of course.
---
Every sentence in this article is footnoted. I do not possess any of this books (those of Mr. Cassells, Mr. Carlton, Mr. Frame, Mr. Stevens), so I can only wonder whether this works do really contain this false informations, or the editors of this article are so busy to „retain the British moral highground”.
The official despatch of the British Captain you can find here: Despatch from Captain Glossop. H. M. A. S. "Sydney" at Colombo, 15th November. 1914.
Greetings: --Andreas (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  False informations 

message: Does anyone know of the existence of a listing of  the names of the Crew aboard the HMAS Sydney in the November 8-9 Battle with the Emden?
Frank Downes
Australia and Grand Son of a L Sig RANB Member from Sydney who (According to Family Folklore) was aboard as a Signalman at the Battle.    (Name of Person said to be aboard was Alfred Thomas Holloway, aged 19 at the time)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7D36:4900:118D:B823:6096:ABEC (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, Frank, Mike Carlton's First Victory has a crew list in Appendix 1, although he states that it may be incomplete. On p. 393 he lists "7941 L/Stoker Frederick James Holloway" as a member of the crew, but no "Alfred Thomas Holloway" that I could see. Potentially the National Archives of Australia might be able to assist you to obtain Alfred's service record if you contact them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew Complement aboard HMAS Sydney in 1941 Battle of the Cocos