Talk:Action of 22 September 1914
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Action of 22 September 1914 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 22, 2016 and September 22, 2019. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Cressy firing on Dutch trawlers -after capsizing????
editI appreciate this is properly referenced (Collier. True Stories of the Great War VI. p. 214) but it seems unbelievable -particularly if the ship had capsized at that point. ..and there are better alternative theories for the gun discharging.
HMS Hood was observed to fire a last salvo after the explosion which wrecked her.
From HMS Hood association "According to the Germans, as the bow rose into the air, Hood’s forward turrets were seen to fire one last salvo. If this is true, it is likely due to a short or a mechanical failure."
I have read elsewhere that mercury switches would cause the turret to fire -and these could have been triggered by the list. JRPG (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
CE
editTidied prose, added some references and changed to sfn's for uniformity; suppressed comment about firing on Dutch vessel for lack of verification.Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Quite frankly it should remain unless you can prove that the account (of the Chaplain of Cressy) is false. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree, I don't have to prove a negative but if you want to revert it go ahead. I checked the Official History but perhaps other works mention it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can't find anything in my limited stash of navy works but I've put it back as a note, OK? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"ambush"
editThe introduction to this article describes the action as an "ambush". The term implies a calculated lying in wait. The body text, while scanty on these details, suggests that once the storm passed, it was a chance encounter—close to a surprise—that the U-boat came upon the patrolling cruisers. The chart of the action seems to support this: the two came at one another from an oblique angle. I would suggest a less loaded term. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair point. Keith-264 (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
A Naval History of World War I
editWhich edition of this book is being used as a reference here? Is it the Naval Institute edition or the University Colledge London edition?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- * {{cite book |last=Halpern |first=P. G. |authorlink=Paul G. Halpern |title=A Naval History of World War I |year=1994 |publisher=United States Naval Institute |location=Annapolis, Maryland |edition=pbk. UCL Press, London |isbn=1-85728-498-4}} see edition. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, UCL is the publisher, not the USNI.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- UCL is the publisher of the British edition of the USNI publication. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- That said, if you want to change it please do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)