Britain's First Naval Defeat in 100 years - Coronel 1914 

There’s a mistake in the video. Canopus had 4 12 inch guns. Not two.

So question, I am doing a report on this battle for my ROTC class, do you mind if I use images from your video in the report, giving you credit for them at the end?

@@kkirschkk of course.

@@historigraph thank you so much

Where's part 2??

four words Battle of Tsuhima straits

Well it was the timing, the combination of technology and better design coming together. Whereas between wars there was a big jump in technology, but that allowed the improvements of the same basic layouts.

@DaveLewis: Hey, Dave. Can you elaborate a little on what made that battle a starting point for some new technology or innovation in the ships of the time? Why that battle was important in this regard. Thanks and have a good day. 🤙🏽

You are correct in that it was inappropriate to use the word “modern” to describe a 1909 ship. There is a meaning to the word modern; 1909 isn’t it.

It’s crazy the speed of progress during wars. One of the reasons I’m really into history of wars and battles is that you can track exactly why and how certain technologies where invented. Take radar, specifically created at some point to find enemy air raids and alert your own fighters in time. Now used to predict weather, navigate and even for cars in adaptive cruise control (several different types of radar, but all developed from the original invention) Planes as well would have never been where they are today without war. Might have never moved to jets without military need for it.

The irony is, HMS Canopus had the power to beano Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Unfortunately, her speed made her a total liabilty.

@@gazof-the-north1980 not really ironic. Speed is a major factor in obsolescence

@@gazof-the-north1980 You could say the same about Gibraltar.

😀

A constantly recurring name in every British misadventure.

I did a little reading on Spee he was a interesting man

Their jobs were to get human beings to blow other human beings into little bits. They should be abhorred not respected. Think of all those young men on the Monmouth, blown up or drowned, simply because they were ordered not to surrender in an utterly hopeless situation. The captain of that ship is mass murderer, not a brave hero.

von Spee absolutely knew. He was able to replenish in Chile, a neutral country. There was a reception by the Germans there. They gave him flowers and he said they would do nicely for his grave. He understood his situation but was going to go down fighting.

Replace bravery with normalcy, and doing their job with getting themselves killed for nothing, and your comment actually starts to make sense.

@@Thomas_Namebro nobody cares

Could be SMS Scharnhorst

He was lucky he got sick then.

My grandmother, who was born to a German father in Central America, told me of visiting Germany as a child, and meeting many relatives, including Graf Spee (and Graf Zeppelin, if that wasn't enough).She couldn't recall their relation ("Zey were uncles or somesing) unfortunately, but I was goggle-eyed to think our family had a relationship to these two historical figures.

so are you chilean?

weeena compadrito!

Coming from an American that loves anything ww2 related I must say out of *all the British top echelon* Brooke impressed me most. In fact id argue he had one of the best strategic minds in ww2.

@@CrazyNikel In fact I would argue that he had the best strategic mind - way better than any of his contemporaries and his diaries make for compulsive reading.

Don’t forgot Gallipoli

@@keiranallcott1515 Churchill's plan for Gallipoli was for the navy to force the Dardenelles and take Constantinople (as it was then). When that failed it was others who said it could be done with an amphibious landing and Churchill went along with them. The strategic aim was spot on as it would have driven Turkey out of the war.

Peter Lovett hmmm , well Churchill did originally planned the navy alone , and after that failed in which admiral John de robeck and sir Ian Hamilton ( might have not spelt them correctly ) recommended that an army be landed on the Gallipoli peninsula to aid the navy advance through to the Dardanelles , the war cabinet and Churchill gave it his support despite intelligence briefings before hand saying that it was high risk and likely to fail . Watch the Gallipoli documentary in 2003 I think for more details , it was Gallipoli that haunted Churchill more than ever ,for example his private secretary JR Coville said that many ministers in the May 1940 crisis didn’t want Churchill because they reminded him of Gallipoli , George Lucas who was the allied commander at the landing at Anzio later said after the debacle “ that it was run by the same guy who did Gallipoli) , in fairness your correct in regards to both Anzio and Gallipoli as it was his idea but poorly executed by other people . I would recommend looking for nextflix the two part series about Churchill one episode called Churchill’s soft underbelly that covers the Italian campaign in great detail. There were many more strategic errors that Churchill did , when World War One started he seized two Turkish battleships that Turkey paid for that thanks to the snub and then the Germans offering the Breslau and the goeben might have got turkey into the war against Britain. World war 2 , well he had the use of fleet aircraft carriers against submarines which nearly lost ark Royal to a Ubo’s and the loss of HMS courageous. The Norwegian campaign was his idea backed by the French to aid Finland against the Russians and to cut off the supply of iron ore to Germany , keep in mind that if it had succeeded that it might have lead to a conflict between Russian and the allies (Russia was neutral but was cooperating with the nazis in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact )but thankfully Finland submitted before that could happen. I could go on

yes

More like the Monmouth's captain's choice to not surrender and kill his whole crew.

@@charakiga A captain's duty is split between what's best for his country and what's best for his men. To have to choose between those two duties is a terrible burden. Regardless of the outcome, Monmouth's captain fulfilled his duty to his country to the bitter end; there is _honor_ in that.

i think the positioning was probably ok like that, a ship doenst exactly accelerate very quickly and by being up front it was not exposed to a sudden broadside or torpedoes.

@@DarkVeghetta Yet pragmatically, he actually achieved nothing in doing so but get his men killed. Sure, its honourable to fight till the end, but on the other hand it can be considered somewhat selfish to try and go out in a blast and sacrifice an entire crew's worth of lives, people who have lives and families at home.

Last time I was this early I thought the Charles Martel Class would be homogeneous.

Lol

Last time I was this early, we only used boats for river transport.

Last time I was this early Gilgamesh of Ur sailed up the Euphrates and the Tigris and conquered Mesopotamia.

Or last time I was this early Noah built the Ark to save the animals and humanity from the great flood.

That is an excellent story

You’ll certainly have a lot to talk about when you both meet in that big warship in the sky

Great story! To be in the same place, under the same circumstances as your grandfather was 68 years earlier must have been very compelling. Thank you for sharing.

One of my relatives Harry Pierce Ancill went down with Good Hope.

That’s amazing

The Pacific is so big that Asia and South America are on opposite sides of the globe.

@@concept5631 So is the USA & Australia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I’m stuck in the middle of it lol

Does historiograph liking this imply this is getting made!

@@brandenburgquentinthe3rd532 sure hope so, fingers crossed.

I am extremely excited if this is being made, it is such a shame that it is not talked a about more

I mean, it was a Squadron, not a fleet

Its easy to destroy ships by larger, more powerfull ships. but it`s not so easy tio win a fight with equal ships.

Its like an aviation saying "Never let an airplane take you somewhere that your brain didn't get to five minutes earlier."

And their stubborness! Seriously, with no engines left and almost no weapons: Why not surrender? I get it if your enemy is cannibals or something, but the German Empire was not an inhumane terror state or something (and no, Germany was not (entirely) to blame for WW1...or 2 for that matter (yes, the Nazis started it, but frankly: The Treaty of Versailles made a second WW a certainty! The French just didn't know when to stop (they kicked a Germany that was on the floor!) and the other nations didn't step in (despite being the ones who won the war - the French alone would have (badly!) lost WW1!))

@@dreamingflurry2729 And the Germans had the feeling that they did not lose in WWI, and believed in the 10 principles by President Wilson.

@@dreamingflurry2729 British had a tradition of not 'hauling down the flag', to do so was a disgrace worse than death!

Oh, I thought it was named Robinson Crusoe Island

"mas afuera" = "more outside"??

@@avishalom2000lm Yes. The other island of the archipelago, now "Robinson Crusoe", was then called "Más Atierra" (More to Land). Super Creative.

@@RodrigoFernandez-td9uk like Presque Isle in the Great Lakes ("almost an island")

Did not know that. Very interesting. Many thanks.

Considering how he used to put the name tag of places over the top, I think he is trying to show that Coronel is south of the tag rather than underneath the tag.

@@vrisbrianm4720 I don't think so, the other tags are right next the places. Coronel is the city directly East from the island, far away from the label. Probably he assumed that Coronel was the largest city of the area. Anyway, just for clarity.

Always has been

Dries Fosseprez -Von Spee

Always has been. Cocks gun

Thebluernemace Always have been *Loads the 6x11mm Gun**

if you sink one, there is always another one :-D

thats a bit academic isn't it? if you don't have a navy I mean!...and are landlocked.

@@K3end0 A bit like the Swiss and Austrians eh?

@@roythearcher the Austria-Hungarian Empire did have a Navy in WW1, it’s land included Croatia but it’s now been land-locked for over a hundred years. Austria haven’t lost a sea battle since then of course!

@@stewy62 Quite!....

@@roythearcher they do have a navy of 2 gun boats on a lake, look into it, its interesting

In 1914, surrender of a British warship was, unfortunately, considered dishonourable - unlike Nelson's time 120 years earlier. Nelson's victory at Trafalgar in 1804 made the Royal Navy increasingly arrogant over the following decades until finally, it considered itself invincible. Of course, if you're invincible, you can't surrender no matter what the circumstances.

“Surrender is not an option”

@@looinrims I think their loved ones wouldn't care for those plain words and would rather to see them alive :(

froggymusicman : Hostages? Don’t be silly. The British already had hundreds of German prisoners taken from captured German merchant ships. Hostages are useless if both sides have them.

Ivan Trapić certainly, but they weren’t on the ship, and we don’t know what the crew was thinking, to go down with honor? To not be remembered as the defeated sailors they were? To defy the Germans, who’d been challenging their power for decades? We will never know

He was, certainly, incompetent at times, during WWI. Look at Gallipoli.

As the below comment reads. Canopus was powerful enough to make a difference in this battle but tactically the British made other choices. Churchill wasn't really to blame on this one, he at least informed Cradock that Defence wasn't coming. Unlike the other people who should have also told him.

@@gwine9087 His plan required the element of surprise, the admiral lost it.

@@razorbird789 The video says, at least, twice that Cradock was NOT informed that Defense was not coming to him.

Because you are probably determined to blame him for everything since the Black Death.

'A gallant & honourable foe.' Which was exactly how he himself described Cradock at a dinner in Valparaiso after Coronel.

That´s often the case when the Royal Navy lost.

Norway could have gone well just a bunch of unfortunate events. Italy was eventually won.

@@profesercreeper Norway was lost when the Germans captured airfields, before the british even landed a single man. What did attacking Italy accomplish?

@@profesercreeper The Germans held Italy 'til the end of the war with 1/4 of the manpower they needed in the West, which in turn was only a fraction (1,5 million men vs 4 million men in 1944) of the strength used on the Eastern Front. The peninsula is suited for defensive warfare, expecially if you climb the boot South to North. Cassino was the best example of how not to wage mountain warfare. In the end, they did prevent Italy from falling to the Soviets, and they learned (thanks to Husky and Shingle) how to prepare for amphibious assaults which led to D-Day. But no "Balkan bridgehead" was entablished, no quick victory either, among other things Churchill wanted to achieve. While a strategic victory, for many reasons the Italian campaign was an operational failure.

Freedom Crusader knocking out Italy of the war and diverting german forces

@@profesercreeper Norway was a mess and many factors played in that mess, but, Churchill was a BIG factor in the mess. Had he stuck with the plan and sent the troops to Norway they would have gotten there, in force , at a critical time and in a professional manner. Instead Churchill called the audible to unload, and in so doing everything went down hill from there. As for Italy, may I remind you that the point of the campaign was to get to Berlin...thats how Churchill sold it, and for a minor amount of men and supplies thanks to the mountains. Entire allied armies were bogged down and not going anywhere.

See my reply above. One of the things Dr Bailey and Mr French found out was that Canopus had Harvey, and not Krupp cemented, armour. Her 6"harvey belt was not as good as Good Hope's 6"Krupp cemented belt. Canopus was not as well armoured as Good Hope was. Had she been there, she would have been sunk. On the run north, her bow turret was washed out. In that weather, her effective armament was 2 12"guns in the aft turret, and 2 6"upperdeck guns.

@@gyrocadiz9912 sorry why did you just lie, if Canopus used Harvey the belt would have been 9 inch to compensate (which was done on the majestic class). Even with 6" Harvey that would stop an 8 inch shell, if that wasn't just a barefaced lie. Where in the world did you get the evidence that she would only be able to use those guns and again even then that's still overwhelming firepower compared to the entire German force. Why did you bother with your comment all you've proved is a more inferior pre dreadnought would have changed the tide, if it was there. That's the reason Von Spee said if Canopus was there he wouldn't have attacked.

Canopus could only make 16 knots, better beach her fight in range of her 12 inch guns, course that never happened.

A leaky valve that could have been repaired in a couple of hours... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NOAwBoZHA5k.html

Honestly: Fuck the captain of the Monmouth. The most unnecessary deaths possible. And the worst thing is probably, that the decision to fire was harder to make for the German captain, then the decision to doom the lifes of his crew was for the british captain. What a shameful waste of life.

Which one? I know they _lost_ a naval battle to Zurich in 1445

@@dominicguye8058 Since it's Swiss on both sides I count it as a victory AND defeat and you can't stop me.

Largest Empire on earth and zero naval defeats in 100 years sounds rather nice

That’s like saying Liechtenstein never suffered a naval defeat!!!

His Math doesn't add up though. The battle of Baltimore was in 1814 and I'm pretty sure the British didn't win that... Just saying.

Hey yeah, the battle of Plattsburgh was in 1814. Only 100 years, not 102!

@@jayteegamble that's still during the war of 1812

@@micahistory Yeah i know, but it was not 102 years before Coronel as claimed in the video.

@@jayteegamble ok

No joke that is one of the names I have been considering

@Efkarpiotis Sure but Britain really is THE Empire (largest ever) also it's a reference to the famous news headline about Britain sending its fleet to deal with the Argies in the 80's.

As good as it is, I think Mark Felton might have beaten you to this idea… m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LLrT8mtE8So.html

@@ArcticTemper And the German's is Das Reich, (THE empire), not the largest but one so powerful that it took all the Great Powers, Britain included, to defeat it.

@@Cyricist001 Implying it wouldn't have also taken all the Great Powers to defeat Britain?

'Leader' is being generous. He was a good figurehead but he wasn't capable of leading a boy scout troop. He is the epitome of the British habit of crediting men with rank and talent based on the accomplishments of their ancestors rather than their own.

@@DomWeasel So, did you add content to my comment? In point of fact, as a figurehead he was marvelously effective during the Second World War. Did you bother to study that? Can you give me a list of British leaders credited with accomplishment which was based on their ancestry? I think you are in love with ideas which aren't rooted in anything. As the British often say upon departure, Cheers!

Fun fact: In 1866 in the battle of Lissa the Austrian (!) fleet won against the larger and more modern Italian fleet.

​@@brittakriep2938not that it did them much good in the long run. Italy got Venice out of the war, ironcially where much of the Austria-Hungarian Navy personal and officers present at that battle were from.

@@spudgamer6049 :My point was simply the Strange fact, that Austria won a naval Battle.

@@brittakriep2938 I had thought the Austria-Hungary navy won a few fights in WW1 against the Italians as well? In not sure, it has been too long since I've looked at that particular section of WW1 naval engagements.

@@santiagofaiella1255 there was a battle shortly after said battle between a British squadron and german far east squadon off the falklands. The two British dreadnoughts out gunned the germans and annilated them.

@@neilcrombie4100 two? 2 battlecruisers 3 armoured cruisers 2 light cruisers vs 2 armoured cruisers, one lasting until out of ammunition

@@canadianmmaguy7511 sorry dude I was thinking of the two battle cruisers my mistake.

Will do in next vid

@@historigraph I lived in Canada for a few months. Using imperial was difficult for me. They lie when they say they use metric :'D FYI: There is a town in my country (South Africa) called Cradock. It was named after John Cradock (1st Baron Howden), but I haven't been able to find out if they were related.

FWIW, given the relative level of precision of the distances reported (no fault to @Historigraph), you can approximate 1 meter = 1 yard. So the 'range closing to 4,500 yards' is still 4.5 km.

If it helps a meter is 1.094 yard, so 1000m is 1094 yards, or 1100 if you’re as lazy as I am

@@ANWRocketMan Hi from durban. They were not related.

Emden , surely.

Don't think that was the case, at least in 1914. Good Hope was in reserve in the UK when war broke out, and she was sent straight to the South Atlantic with a British crew.

It's obvs entirely possible that canadian sailors would have been on board

Agreed. At Gallipoli he`ll prove his worth as a strategic genius. That will teach his critics a lesson...

Ah yes, the Ottomans are incompetent and are incapable to stop us on the Strait. Going into Istanbul would be like a cake walk!

@@sam74mumm I see what u did there * wink wink*

Gallipoli?

Sadly,it wasn’t,they don’t think a lot of him in NZ or Australia.

This has actually been one of the shorter gaps between videos lmao

well... the battle for Jutland was also defenetly not a british victory their dreadnoughts lit up like a chrsitmastree

Perhaps yeah- but that would have been contrary to his orders

Not following orders and failing to do your utmost was severely frowned upon in the RN. Just ask Admiral Byng, executed by firing squad for failing to defend minorca in the seven years war. he too had a fleet not up to the job.

unknown ?

@@paulhellawell5920 Well maybe unknown may not be the best word but not many other history channels have covered this battle.

😂😂

Yeah, 102 or 104 years depending on which battle you count

@@historigraph : Generally, in naval history, an encounter which pits one single ship against one single enemy ship does not qualify as 'a battle', but as 'a single ship engagement'. Most of the naval encounters of the War of 1812 fell into that category.

@@historigraph it was actually only 101 years. The royal navy lost the battle of lake Erie in 1813

@Historigraph Lake Erie was in 1813, Lake Champlain AKA Plattsburgh was in 1814. Both were fleet actions that resulted in Royal Navy defeats. It was 100 years exactly since their last defeat

Shut up .... the Admiralty was part of the greatest naval tradition the World has known.

They can only act on the information they had,guess work comes into it as does knowledge of your enemies habits.

@@3vimages471 yes, the incompetent part, half wit!

@@paulritchie5868 yes that's true.

@@mrofnocnon If only the First Sea Lord had the brilliance of council flat Ronnie eh! Piss ant.