Talk:HMS Curacoa (D41)

Why the name?

Would it be helpful for readers if an explanation of the name were given in the article? To name a ship Curacoa "after the place named Curaçao" seems surprising. I am not disputing the fact, merely suggesting that a simple explanation would be helpful Afterbrunel (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Afterbrunel: The article includes this line, "...and named to commemorate the capture of the Dutch island of Curaçao in 1807." I'm surprised we even have that much information about the rationale of naming the ship that particular name. I'm not sure what else more than that we could write? Mkdw ^talk 17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. What I meant was that the place name ends in ÇAO like "sow" and the ship name ends in COA like "Ko-er".

I realise that the Admiralty probably didn't feel the need to "justify" their naming decisions and therefore they may be no citable source to explain this, though. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right and it was a matter of convenience. I doubt they had the desire or ability to reliably and consistently add 'Ç' to all their documentation and communications. I haven't seen anything specifically about it in all the reference material I read. Mkdw ^talk 23:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The ship was named 'Curacao', as per the island. Contemporary reports confirm this. A typo has become embedded over time. 86.185.227.207 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Mkdw, I think you've missed the point. I came here to ask the same question. It's not about the 'Ç', it's about the apparent typo between naming something "...coa" after something that's called "...cao". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What is a "violation" when discussing ships?

What is a "violation" when discussing ships?

216.239.66.33 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the word in the article, so it's hard to answer the question. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

1940 bombing

The article says that there were "eight crewmen" killed on 24th April 1940. I don't have access to the source used here, so can't check exactly what it says, but I think this might be an undercount.

1. The naval-history.net service history has "30 of ship's company were killed and another 30 wounded";
2. the naval-history.net campaign history has "killing forty five ratings and wounding thirty six";
3. the naval-history.net casualty list has 42 killed on 24th April, with three more died of wounds on 26th and 27th April (total 45);
4. the CWGC database has 36 died on 24th, four on 25th, one 26th and two 27th (total 44)

The first of these is an outlier, but the others seem to converge on 44/45. The casualty list (#3) and CWGC database (#4) differ a little on whether some deaths were on the 24th or 25th, but otherwise seem to agree; the one extra on the casualty list is an FAA airman, missing presumed killed, who CWGC thinks was assigned to HMS Edinburgh but agrees died on 24th April. That ship was in refit at the time, so maybe he had been transferred, or given that he's at the end of the list it may have got tacked on by accident and the number should indeed be 44. Definitely suggests more than eight, either way!

The note about all eight being buried in Veblungsnes may also be off a bit; CWGC records only one Curacoa burial there. There are two additional unknown burials, but both are noted as unknown soldiers not sailors. All the others who died on 24th/25th are noted as commemorated on memorials. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Would definitely agree that the CWGC records form the core or what actually happened. The same, of course, can be said of the eventual lost of the ship. The CWGC database has 337 on 02/10/40 plus a presumed DoW on 20/10/40. There are also one each in 1944, 1945, and 1946, which again are presumably men injured in the 1940 sinking who never served on another ship subsequently. In this context, the current article text suggesting the number of casualties was only settled in 2013 is more than a bit suspect. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Cooper: Interesting - I've checked the contemporary (1945) reports of the loss being announced in May/June 1945, and they all give 338 - given this I suspect the one on 20/10 is a transposition of 02/10, rather than died of wounds two weeks later, since he is listed on a memorial rather than having a known grave. (His probate record also has 02/10, for what it's worth, so that seems to be the date his family were told.). This probably explains why the 2014 casualty list has 337 - it's ultimately drawn from whatever went into the CWGC list and missed the same record.

The notes on survivors being buried "in Chatham and in Arisaig" is also a bit odd: CWGC has known graves in Arisaig (5), Ashaig on Skye (13), Oban (2), Portree (3), and even Derry in NI (5), plus a handful in other west-coast cemeteries. There seem to be a few "unknown sailor" burials attributed to Curacoa in these graveyards as well, though it's harder to search for them. There is only one burial in Chatham - it seems to be one of about half a dozen cases where the bodies were taken to what I assume were family churchyards.

Not sure how best to fit the corrections into the text, though... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Yes, the 20/10 death is very probably a transcription error, although presumably an old one, as the scan of original register has it. Such errors are not unknown (I've certainly come across a number at different times), but are notoriously difficult to get the Commission to acknowledge or correct. I would assume that the west coast and Derry burials - including the unknowns - are where they were either recovered and landed, or washed up, but obviously families did have the option to have their relatives buried closer to home within the UK, hence the scattered ones that invariably correspond with where the next of kin lived as per the Additional Information field (certainly the case for the Chatham burial). This sort of thing is easy to deduce, but runs the risk of someone crying an Original Research foul! Nick Cooper (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)