This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Battle of Cocos is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I hate to nitpick, but the Sydney did not sink the Emden. --Pete (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Will check sources tonight. -- saberwyn 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sourcecheck!
InArthur Jose's RAN-focused volume of the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, the section related to the battle is headed "The Sydney-Emden Fight", while Glossop's and von Muller's sketch of the ships' tracks is captioned "The Sydney-Emden action". It does not use "Battle of Cocos" anywhere in the work
Tom Frame'sNo Pleasure Cruise uses "Sydney-Emden action" in the caption of the tracks, but does not appear to assign any name to the event.
David Stevens' (ed.) The Royal Australian Navy - A History does not appear to assign any name to the battle.
Mike Carlton's First Victory does not appear to assign any clear name to the fight, but the index has "Battle of Cocos" as an entry: the main page range goes to the meat of the action itself, and other entries show where the phrase "Battle of Cocos" is specifically dropped to mean this fight: one example in a postscript dealing with Glossop: "... his public lustre as the winner of the Battle of Cocos." (p. 374).
A. K. MacDougall's Australians at War gives the short section on the battle the heading "Sydney versus Emden".
John Bastock's Australia's Ships of War uses the phrase "Sydney-Emden duel" when referring back to the event.
Vic Cassells' The Capital Ships does not give a clear name
Having exhaused all the relevant deadtree on my shelf, I thought I'd check The Internets for what a few reliable online sources said:
AGoogle News search shows several articles using the "Battle of Cocos" or "Battle of Cocos Islands" as a name for the event.
In conclusion, my opinion is that the Battle of Cocos is a very plausible search term, but Sydney-Emden action would be a more historically and source-accurate title for the article. -- saberwyn 07:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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”.
Crew Complement aboard HMAS Sydney in 1941 Battle of the Cocos[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
