PDA

View Full Version : Spotted.



Flying Officer Kyte
11-09-2012, 02:16
Meanwhile somewhere off the German East African coast an RNAS Sopwith Baby spots a Pre Dreadnaught German commerce raider.

64947

64946


64945


To be continued.

Rob.

Marechallannes
11-09-2012, 03:12
Achtung, Herr Kapitän! Britischer Doppeldecker im Anflug!

:erk:

Nightbomber
11-09-2012, 03:16
We stay tuned, Rob. Please continue.
BTW Thanks God we have Sven and his original German comments that add so much fun to the site:lol:

jbmacek
11-09-2012, 04:32
Neat! What scale is the ship?

Oberst Hajj
11-09-2012, 08:53
Looks nice... and interesting!

Flying Officer Kyte
11-09-2012, 09:00
Achtung, Herr Kapitän! Britischer Doppeldecker im Anflug!

:erk:

Ja Lieutenant, sag den Maschinenraum, um alle Geschwindigkeit zu machen.

Baron Rolf
11-09-2012, 10:07
That looks awsome Rob where did you get the ship from ?

Flying Officer Kyte
11-09-2012, 10:43
That looks awsome Rob where did you get the ship from ?

That is a very good question Mark.
I am not sure where I got the hull from, but I rebuilt it as a ram by adding an extra layer to the base of the hull. Then filled in the middships part of the deck to enclose it and added some extra superstructure to the bridge.
The main turrets, and masts, are scratch built. The cross trees and derrick for the ships boats were silver soldered together.
So abit of a mish mash altogether, to give the idea of an older Pre-Drednaught updated for use out in the backwater of East Africa.
Rob.

Baron Rolf
11-09-2012, 10:53
All I know Rob that it looks fantastic mate :hatsoff:

MoonSylver
11-09-2012, 10:53
Regardles of its origins, it's beautiful none the less. :thumbsup:

Nightbomber
11-09-2012, 10:57
Very creative, Rob.


(Funny: I've always thought that misz masz [:mish mash] used so often by my mother is just a saying of Polish origin. Now I can see she must have learnt it during her younger years in Britain!)

Kaiser
11-09-2012, 11:23
"Mischmasch" is also used in Germany :D It's means something like "a confusing mixture of things".

Nightbomber
11-09-2012, 11:25
Exactly the same meaning here:D I checked our Polish dictionary and it shows "miszmasz" of the same meaning!

flash
11-09-2012, 11:27
Nice job Rob, it certainly looks the part ! ;)

Burt
11-09-2012, 11:35
Nice:thumbsup:
What scale is the ship?
Don

Flying Officer Kyte
11-09-2012, 12:15
Nice:thumbsup:
What scale is the ship?
Don

I think the original was 1/1200 Don.
Rob.

gully_raker
11-09-2012, 15:09
:D Oh you are a tease Rob. Cant wait to read & see about the Mission. Great Ship by the way.:thumbsup:

Doug
11-09-2012, 15:46
Rob your ship model is very good I like it. To take nothing away from your model I use the Irregular miniatures 6mm WW1 gun boat.

Doug
11-09-2012, 16:02
To Battle 65020

csadn
11-09-2012, 16:10
Exactly the same meaning here:D I checked our Polish dictionary and it shows "miszmasz" of the same meaning!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mishmash -- it's been around a bit.

Which reminds me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michmash -- note the WW1 connection....

Lloydthegamer
11-09-2012, 17:58
Rob, that's a solid build on the ship. Whatever it is, it looks the part. Hope that makes sense. Since it is in East Africa will Bogie and Hepburn have a part in sinking it? Lloyd

Flying Officer Kyte
11-10-2012, 00:12
Rob, that's a solid build on the ship. Whatever it is, it looks the part. Hope that makes sense. Since it is in East Africa will Bogie and Hepburn have a part in sinking it? Lloyd

I think that somewhere in my deep subconcious that was the inspiration for this idea Lloyd, but I could not remember the name of the film. When I saw murpheys war recently it brought it all back.
Rob.

Doug
11-10-2012, 03:07
Yes it was losley based on the German Light Crusier the "Koisburg" (please excuse my incorrect spelling) While living in Tanzanier in the early 70's I was able to fly over the wreak, at first glance it looked like an island in the Ruffi river with all the vegitation growing on it. I have some phots of it as we flew quit low over the wreak when you got lower it looked more like a ship.

csadn
11-10-2012, 17:53
Yes it was losley based on the German Light Crusier the "Koisburg" (please excuse my incorrect spelling)

SMS _Königsberg_ -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_K%C3%B6nigsberg_%281905%29 .

Another shining example of the German military's inability to understand either the sea, or logistics....

Biggles downunder
11-10-2012, 20:35
I think that somewhere in my deep subconcious that was the inspiration for this idea Lloyd, but I could not remember the name of the film. When I saw murpheys war recently it brought it all back.
Rob.

'The African Queen'?

Flying Officer Kyte
11-11-2012, 00:38
'The African Queen'?

Thanks Wayne.
Must see if I can get it on Amazon.
Rob.

Flying Officer Kyte
11-11-2012, 01:02
That's a real nice picture you led me to Chris.


BEFORE.

65263

DURING.

65264

AFTER.

65265


It may figure in a later re- build.
Thanks.
Rob.

Marechallannes
11-11-2012, 01:30
Another shining example of the German military's inability to understand either the sea, or logistics....

Sometimes it's really hard to take it not personal. :hmm:



Imperial Germany did the best with his restrictes resources to fight on the sea.

The young Kaiserliche Marine blocked the entrance in the Baltic Sea and this was a big factor for the defeat of Russia. A standoff that the Royal Navy wasn't able to brake.

...and before we talk about the ineffectiveness of the Kaiserliche Marine - let's talk about the French or Italian Navy in WW I.

Good examples for German WW I "oversea" logistic operations are the support for troops in German Eastafrica with ships Rubens 1915 & Marie 1916 and the Luftschiff LZ 104/L 59 in 1917.

Zoe Brain
11-11-2012, 01:52
...and before we talk about the ineffectiveness of the Kaiserliche Marine - let's talk about the French or Italian Navy in WW I.

Captain Von Rizzo of the Italian Navy commanding a torpedo boat sank the battleship SMS Wien in 1917... then sank the dreadnaught SMS Szent István in 1918! Not bad going by any standards...

65296

By my reckoning though, top marks for Naval Exploits in the 20th century (individual ship and captain category) goes to...

Graf Von Luckner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_von_Luckner), captain of the Seeadler. He did more to tie up enemy resources than all of Von Spee's fleet put together. Toasts are still drunk to him in Royal Australian Navy officers' messes.

Not bad for a sailing vessel!

65297



Other awards:

Forethought and Planning Award: British Admiralty, by buying up all the Portugese coal in out of the way places, which the Kaiserliche Marine had been relying on to fuel their raiders. Sneaky.

Someone Had Blundered Award (for heroism in the face of disaster) : Joint award, HMS Glowworm and HMS Jervis Bay. (WWII)

Sweeping the Sea Award (for maximising the effectiveness of a superior fleet) : Joint Award, Graf Spee (Coronel) and his nemesis, Sturdee (Falkland Islands)

Jager
11-11-2012, 04:05
Another shining example of the German military's inability to understand either the sea, or logistics....

Sometimes it's really hard to take it not personal. :hmm:

Imperial Germany did the best with his restrictes resources to fight on the sea.

The young Kaiserliche Marine blocked the entrance in the Baltic Sea and this was a big factor for the defeat of Russia. A standoff that the Royal Navy wasn't able to brake.

...and before we talk about the ineffectiveness of the Kaiserliche Marine - let's talk about the French or Italian Navy in WW I.

Good examples for German WW I "oversea" logistic operations are the support for troops in German Eastafrica with ships Rubens 1915 & Marie 1916 and the Luftschiff LZ 104/L 59 in 1917.

Many of the individual ships did excellent work; The biggest problem was that the geography was against the Germans war effort overseas. Unless they could eliminate the Royal Navy (and they would have had to have at least 50% more ships to do that), the only strategic means of beating the British was with Unrestricted U-Boat warfare, which was politically and technologically impossible in 1914-1915, and very unlikely after the introduction of the convoy system, and the US entry in the war. Given that, the biggest effect the HSF had was to increase the likelihood of a British entry into the war, and to take resources away from the army, which might have defeated France, and ended the war long before the blockade had any real effects. And after the British organized the blockade fully, the Germans were locked into the North Sea, as much as the Russians were locked into the eastern Baltic.
Karl

Jager
11-11-2012, 04:21
Rob;
That's a fine looking ship, and I'm sure the thought of it running across the shipping lanes going from India to the Suez Canal would just freak the RN out.
Karl


Meanwhile somewhere off the German East African coast an RNAS Sopwith Baby spots a Pre Dreadnaught German commerce raider.

64947

64946


64945


To be continued.

Rob.

crashx
11-11-2012, 05:35
Rob, you never cease to amaze!!!

Lloydthegamer
11-11-2012, 07:34
Indeed, it is The African Queen. What a mighty little steamboat she was! Lloyd
'The African Queen'?

David Manley
11-11-2012, 07:57
65317

Flying Officer Kyte
11-11-2012, 08:46
65317

I just found it Dave.
The fact that it said "Suitable for remote control" made me smile.
Rob.

Rabbit 3
11-11-2012, 11:20
I seem to recall another film which also drew from the "Königsberg" affair made back in the 1970`s that starred Lee Marvin and Roger More.
Called `Shout at the Devil` or something, `The African Queen` is the better film though.

csadn
11-11-2012, 12:45
Imperial Germany did the best with his restrictes resources to fight on the sea.

The young Kaiserliche Marine blocked the entrance in the Baltic Sea and this was a big factor for the defeat of Russia. A standoff that the Royal Navy wasn't able to brake.

Russia is even worse off than Germany as regards sea power -- it wasn't until they got nuclear-powered submarines that they developed any real ability to project power outside their own littorals. (And needing no fewer than *three* separate, non-mututally-supporting fleets doesn't help.) Coupled with the rot and ineptitude of the Imperial Russian military as a whole, and the only reason they lasted as long as they did was because they didn't rely over-much on that Navy, knowing how utterly worthless it was.

That said: Imperial Germany's staff wasn't much better -- they could easily have controlled the South American coasts (and the South Atlantic trade lanes in particular -- pre-war, German windjammers practically owned the nitrate and other trade lanes between South America and Europe; a little judicious flag-waving, and keeping the HSF at sea rather than in harbor, and they could have built a network of bases similar to what the US and Britain controlled; and what does *that* do to the US's involvement in the War?); but they let themselves get bottled up in Kiel instead. As much as the German staff were learning from the British, they should have listened to Nelson's credo "Ships and seamen rot in harbour", and remembered what happened to the Continent 100 years previously. They instead focused on building shiny objects, and ignored how those shiny objects get the job done. And that, me droogie, is ineptitude writ large.

And o the subject of the Continent-at-large...


...and before we talk about the ineffectiveness of the Kaiserliche Marine - let's talk about the French or Italian Navy in WW I.

France's almost-total lack of activity was a result of various treaties signed with Britain; these delegated control of various sea zones to the respective countries -- in this case, Britain's responsibility was for the North Sea, the Channel, and the North Atlantic; while France watched over the Med. Given the uselessness of Austria-Hungary's and the Ottoman Empire's navies (for much the same reasons as the Germans), the French had little to do aside from flag-waving.

Italy -- second verse same as the first. Aside from the occasional small-unit action, and the Otranto Barrage operation, their opponents stayed home, giving them few chances to demonstrate competence (or lack thereof).


Good examples for German WW I "oversea" logistic operations are the support for troops in German Eastafrica with ships Rubens 1915 & Marie 1916 and the Luftschiff LZ 104/L 59 in 1917.

Hmm....

[Data from _The Great War In Africa_, Byron Farwell]

_Rubens_ -- a British steamer which happened to be in Hamburg when the War started; it was seized, and renamed _Kronborg_ -- made it as far as Manza Bay before getting blasted by HMS _Hyacinth_. Onboard were: 1,000 105mm shells; some thousands of 47mm shells; 1,800 modern rifles; 3,000,000 rounds ammo for the rifle aforementioned; two new 60mm guns; six machine guns; 2,800 tons of Westphalian coal; plus uncounted tons of lumber, dynamite, medicines, tinned foods, clothing, machine tools, and other such [p. 139]. Of that load, what survived: 293 rifles; 375 rounds rifle ammo; one field gun; four MGs; 100 105mm shells; 40 officers' tents; one boat repair kit; and other random items [p. 141]. (Those survived mainly due to British unwillingness to finish off the beast while under fire from shore, and the ineptitude of the British commander on-scene, Adm. Herbert King-Hall.)

_Marie von Stettin_ was more successful -- the only cargo lost from it was as a result of Aussie cattleman Arnold Wienholt's capture and destruction of some 200 porter-loads being carried up from Sudi Mto Bay [p.278] -- but that was the only success of the attempts to resupply von Lettow-Vorbeck.

_L-59_, of course, never actually made it to its destination; why it didn't is still being argued. (That there was a radio message telling _L-59_ to turn back is not disputed; what is disputed is *who* sent it.) And given the state of the German troops at the time, there's some question as to whether the mere fifteen tons of supplies it carried would have done any good in the first place; von Lettow-Vorbeck's force may not have suffered any decisive defeats, but they were running for their lives surely enough.

Had the Imperial German staff looked at a map of the world, seen how scattered and divided their overseas suppliers were, and taken action to alleviate this, they might have managed a win or a draw; instead, they focused on the land war, and wondered why they lost. (And then an even-less-ept crowd did the same damned thing twenty years later.)

I've always wanted to run a WW1 campaign where the German HSF starts out on the high seas, with the U-boat force handling the North Sea area (imagine Jutland as a surface-fleet-vs.-sub-fleet action -- esp. at night), to see how much more effective the German navy would have been if it hadn't spent the whole War in harbor. And I hesitate to think what some of this crowd here would wind up doing with that opportunity.... :)

Marechallannes
11-11-2012, 23:18
Hey, that's a fundament we can can discuss with.:)

Reading the book: "Die Deutsche Schutztruppe 1889/1918", the author Werner Haupt writes, that the ship Rubens broke the blockade and delivered rifles and ammo. No word about HMS Hyacint and the fact, that most of the supplies were lost. (I read about the Hyacint in the internet.) But sometimes a few rifles make the difference.

Hilfsschiff Marie delivered 2000 rifles & six cannons. 50.000 bearers need 3 weeks to transport the supplies to the front.


With their limitied numbers of ships and possibilities, the German admirality realized, that their only possibility was to disrupt Entente trading routes with submarines, Hilfskreuzern and blockad runners.


There are always examples of misplaning and projects that failed, but nothing to generalize the whole stuff. :smack:

Both World Wars wouln't have lasted that long, when Germans had no idea of logistics. The system wasn't perfect. Have look on the situation in Winter 41 at the Eastern Front, or North Africa with spies in the Italian High Command, giving all informations about convoys in the Mediterranian Sea to the Allies.

Nothing you can compare with Entente or Allied logistics & support - definetely not.

gully_raker
11-11-2012, 23:28
:D Anyone on Forum remember a Film called "Savage Islands" starring a young Tommy Lee Jones set in the Pacific where he played "Bully" Hayes & it featured a German Gunboat that was trying to make an alliance with some South Seas Cannibals?
I think it had an alternate title "Nate & Hayes". It featured some Australian actors as well.
It was a great romp & Jones really acted the role.:thumbsup:

Biggles downunder
11-12-2012, 00:47
Then of course there was the movie 'The Sand-pebbles'...

wargamer
11-12-2012, 02:43
One thing your logistics fail at in the 1914 navies, is that only one navy had ships designed for around the world operations, and limited numbers of them. All of the pre-dreadnaughts were coastal defense ships at the best, they just did not have the capabilities to sortie for months on end without resupply. Underway replenishment was really a pipedream for the future, and pretty much required a port facility of some sort to transfer fuel and other supply. I mean really, the idea of battleships built for a lake?

csadn
11-12-2012, 13:27
Both World Wars wouln't have lasted that long, when Germans had no idea of logistics. The system wasn't perfect. Have look on the situation in Winter 41 at the Eastern Front, or North Africa with spies in the Italian High Command, giving all informations about convoys in the Mediterranian Sea to the Allies.

There's different kinds of logistics. If I can dredge up an example from "down at the docks": Napoleon's failure to accomplish much in his naval campaigns was because he had no comprehension of How Sailing Ships Worked. He looked at a map, saw two points 200 miles apart, and determined "it will take ten days to get there, assuming a travel speed of twenty miles each day", because that's how it worked for Land Troops. Problem: Sailing Ships particularly Do Not Work Like That -- if the wind is blowing the wrong direction, it can take *days* just to get out of harbor, never mind cover the intervening distance. Naturally, when Nappy's plans came unstuck at the naval end, his response was to go apes*** on his admirals; this destroyed what little morale they had left, and they either couldn't be arsed to leave port, or did a half-arsed job when they did.

That said: Note that it takes *TEN YEARS* to get from Trafalgar to Waterloo. The British were dominant on the sea, this is true -- but on land, they relied too extensively on "paid clients" (most of whom were armies with low pay, worse training, and no morale at all) which resulted in no fewer than *five* Coalitions getting squashed before the British finally figure out to put British troops on the ground on the Continent and do the job properly.

So: The British understood the sea; Napoleon understood the Land; and the result was a much-longer war than most folk think is necessary.

Germany in WW1 -- much the same (note where most of the "paid clients" from those failed coalitions mentioned previously came from): Great on land (tho' they completely misinterpreted what Schlieffen was trying to tell them with his plan...); on sea, less so. Germany in WW2 -- there's a story told that Adolf was quite pleased when he received news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which turned to rage when *none of his admirals could find Pearl Harbor on a map*....

There's probably a lesson inhere somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is. :)