DOCSLIB.ORG

German Auxiliary Cruisers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
German Auxiliary Cruisers The Naval Historical Society of Australia Inc. GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISERS OF WORLD WARS I AND II 1914-1918 1939-1945 John C Date MONOGRAPH 168 German Auxiliary Raiders of World War I & II John C Date Monograph No. 140 GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISERS OF WORLD WARS I AND II 1914 - 1918 1939 - 1945 Tragedy struck the Royal Australian Navy in 1941 Our light cruiser HMAS SYDNEY II while returning to Fremantle in Western Australia from convoy patrol between SW Australia and Java, about 1600 on 19 November, encountered the German auxiliary cruiser, or raider, KORMORAN which was posing as the Dutch merchantman STRAAT MALAKKA. Failing to confirm her identification and knowing that the game was up, KORMORAN opened fire inflicting decisive damage on SYDNEY, both by shellfire and a torpedo hit before SYDNEY could make an effective reply. The German vessel was crippled and set on fire by a hit in the engine room and with a number of fires on board, her captain gave orders for KORMORAN to be scuttled and the exploding of mines on board finished the job just as the last lifeboats drew clear of the ship. The Australian cruiser was last seen disappearing over the horizon, engulfed in flames. What was this enemy raider that could outwit an 8 x 6" gunned cruiser of well trained and experienced war personnel? KORMORAN was an example of a particular breed of ships, sometimes called Q-Ships by the British or armed merchant cruisers, or perhaps more correctly, auxiliary cruisers, manned by naval personnel. KORMORAN was of 9,400 tons, had a speed of 19 knots and carried a main armament of 6 x 5.9" guns and shipped 2 small Arado aircraft for reconnaisance purposes. KORMORAN had only been completed in 1938 and was now refurbished to take a crew up to 410 men, plus Monograph 168 - German Auxiliary Cruisers 1 accommodation for crews of captured ships and an ingenious corridor had been made through the length of the ship from stem to stern to enable each man to get to his action station quickly and unobserved in case of sudden alarms. REFER IILUSTRATION 1939/45 (F) KORMORAN But how did these ships evolve - how successful were they - and what is their place in history? In 1856, the Declaration of Paris outlawed privateering, that is to say the seizure of belligerent country’s merchant ships by private enterprise, under the sanction of international laws. In 1861/65 American Civil War, fast steamers were purchased to impose or run blockades, armed or unarmed, and a merchant ship profile retained as part of the deception. In 1877/92, British and German shipping companies were permitted in their designs of new ships to allow provisions for gun mountings and other adaptations, that were compatible with commercial considerations, but allowed conversion for wartime purposes. As a result, the first German auxiliary cruiser was NORMANNIA commissioned in 1895 for a short term. Her tonnage was 8716, she could achieve 19 knots and was armed with 8 x 5.9" guns and other smaller weapons. REFER ILLUSTRATION 1914/18 (A) NORMANNIA In 1904 Russo-Japanese War, Russia deployed seven auxiliary cruisers and Japan had 20 such vessels. The Russians called their ships ‘commerce destroyers’ and the Japanese ‘commerce protectors’! In the early years of the 20th Century, the German Admiralty took steps to earmark fast liners under construction for rapid version into auxiliary cruisers. Such ships were afforded a subvention to cover the provisions of the necessary strengthening for gun positions and the planning for suitable storage of ammunition, fuel and food supplies while the appropriate armament was held apart on shore ready for fitting should the need arise. 2 German Auxiliary Cruisers - Monograph 168 WORLD WAR I 1914-1918 When war was declared in 1914, some ships were, of course, in foreign parts, including New York etc. Others were at sea or in ports sympathetic to the German cause, and others were effectively armed to become auxiliary cruisers. The aim of these surface raiders was to destroy British shipping and to conceal their whereabouts, or even their existence! Thus the German raiders delayed and paralysed Allied shipping by their sinister presence, as well as inflicting damage through their sinkings and captives. So began the German endeavour to destroy liners, tramp steamers, colliers, food ships, tankers, sailing ships and others. In its vastness, its carefully thought out detail, daring and originality, its bluff and deception, its amazing situations and fierce duels, we have one of the most gripping narratives in the whole story of the sea. We will here consider a few of the unusual happenings of these raiders. The German auxiliary cruiser fulfilled her role if she succeeded in maintaining her deceptively peaceful character until the last moment of an encounter and so gain a position to enforce her will. It was all the better if she was disguised to resemble a particular vessel, customarily seen in a particular area. And above all, the ship’s military fittings had to be hidden so that they could not be detected until they were revealed at the decisive moment. Accordingly, guns, torpedo tubes and light armament were either camouflaged thoroughly, or their outlines built over. The carrying of mines became a very successful operation by most of the World War II auxiliary cruisers, as did the addition of light seaplanes for scouting purposes. For the early part of World War I Germany utilised that which was readily available, the existing passenger ships as raiders. The first German auxiliary cruiser as such, away in World War I, was the four funnelled express steamer KAISER WILHELM DER GROSSE which was the only ship actually to have been fitted out for the purpose in Germany according to plan. She sailed in August 1914, the day Britain declared war on Germany, a ship of 14,349 tons, with a main armament of 6 x 10.5" guns. Her route was up the North Sea, past the coast of Scotland and on 7 August when 50 miles west- north-west of Stalberg, Iceland, sank her first prize, the British steamer trawler TUBAL CAIN of 227 tons. Heading south eight days later encountered the Union Castle liner GALICIAN but allowed her to proceed than face the embarrassment of providing accommodation and food for 250 passengers. The same day two other ships were stopped and sunk - KAIPARA of 7,392 tons originally from New Zealand with 4,000 tons of wheat and maize - and NYANGA of 3,000 tons with a cargo of African produce. Another ship ARLANZA was met but released because she too carried women and children. But on 26 August while taking on coal Monograph 168 - German Auxiliary Cruisers 3 KAISER WILHELM DER GROSSE was discovered by HMS HIGHFLYER, a three funnelled 5,600 ton cruiser with 11 x 6" guns, which sank the raider. REFER ILLUSTRATION 1914/18(B) KAISER WILHELM DER GROSSE Soon the Germans were to realise that large liners were too extravagant with coal and that the most ordinary medium sized steamer was the ideal decoy, alias mystery ship. However, in the Far East PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH left Isingtau in China on 6 August 1914 and in December sought internment at Newport News in Virginia, but not before sinking 11 ships. Likewise KRONPRINZ WILHELM of 14,908 tons, at sea on the outbreak of war, had a number of successes until 11 April 1915, when she arrived off Newport News where eventually she was interned. REFER ILLUSTRATION 1914/18(C) KRONPRINZ WILHELM By the time of the entry of the USA into the war in 1917, the number of auxiliary cruisers had been reduced to three, namely:- MOEWE of 4,788 tons, which returned to Germany on 4 March 1916 after accounting for fifteen merchant ships, plus sinking by mines laid, the battleship KING EDWARD VII; LEOPARD a 4,652 ton ex-prize of MOWE in December 1916, was later lost with all hands on 16 March 1917 after being cornered by the armoured cruiser HMS ACHILLES; and WOLF II which after 15 months at sea, a remarkable feat of endurance, arrived back in Germany on 24 February 1918 after sinking 27 ships. REFER ILLUSTRATIONS 1914/18 (E) MOEWE- (F) LEOPARD- (G) WOLF II Much had been learned through experience, however these ex-cargo ships were fitted out with a concealed armament of modern 5.9" guns and a pair of 20" torpedo tubes, making them far more effective in the raider role than the converted passenger liners of the early war years. In addition, by 1917 an effective organisation for the provision of fuel and other essential supplies had been built up so that the vessels were not faced, to the same extent by fundamental problems, which had beset their forebears. Although the extent of their successes was not to be compared with that of the German submarine flotillas in the early months of 1917, their very presence in the vicinity of the regular trade routes exerted an influence out of all proportion to the small number of raiders at sea. These three ex-cargo ship raiders were soon joined by other armed ships at sea in 1917. The German navy fitted out the barque-rigged sailing ship SEEADLER formerly the US flag vessel PASS OF BALMAHA, which in August 1915 had surrendered to a German submarine in the North Sea. This sailing ship with a concealed 4 German Auxiliary Cruisers - Monograph 168 armament of 2 x 4.1" guns and two 20" torpedo tubes sailed in December 1916, disguised as the Norwegian ship HERO and under the command of Court Felix von Luckner and successfully evaded the British blockade.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iranian Support for Terrorism
    OUTLAW REGIME: A CHRONICLE OF IRAN’S DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES Iran Action Group U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail.” PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, MAY 2018 In recognition of the increasing menace posed by the Iranian regime, President Trump announced a new strategy to address the full range of the regime’s destructive actions. OUTLAW REGIME: A CHRONICLE OF IRAN’S DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES A Letter From Executive Chapter One: 4 Secretary of State 6 Summary 8 Iran’s Support Michael R. Pompeo for Terrorism 18 Chapter Two: 22 Chapter Three: 26 Chapter Four: Iran’s Missile Illicit Financial Iran’s Threat to Program Activities in Iran Maritime Security Chapter Five: Chapter Six: Chapter Seven: 30 Iran’s Threat to 34 Human Rights 40 Environmental Cybersecurity Abuses in Iran Exploitation AP PHOTO OUTLAW REGIME: A CHRONICLE OF IRAN’S DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES | 3 A LETTER FROM U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE MICHAEL R. POMPEO I am pleased to release the State Department’s new report detailing the scope of the Iranian regime’s destructive behavior at home and abroad on the eve of the Islamic Revolution’s 40th anniversary. On May 8, 2018, President Donald J. Trump announced his decision to cease U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to as the Iran deal. The Iran deal was proving to be a failed strategic bet that fell short of protecting the American people or our allies from the potential of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The futility of entrusting our long term security to an agreement that will quickly expire was underscored by the recent bombshell that Iran had secretly preserved its past nuclear weapons research after the implementation of the JCPOA.
    [Show full text]
  • STATEMENT of REQUIREMENTS for the Supply of Upholstery and Soft
    UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS for the supply of Upholstery and Soft Furnishings UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 CONTENTS Section Title 1. Introduction 2. Quality, Defects and Non Conformance 3. Prices 4. Logistics 5. Development 6. Management 7. Key Performance Indicator 8. One Off Special Item or Service Requests 9. Electronic Catalogue Annexes A Distribution Addresses B Authorised Demanders B1 Delivery Addresses C Delivery Addresses D Deliveries Into Defence Storage And Distribution Agency Bicester and Donnington (DSDA) E One Off Special Items or Services F Key Performance Indicators G Procedure for P2P Demand Orders H Procedure for Non-P2P Demand Orders i UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Statement of Requirements (StOR) sets out the Medical and General Supplies team's (M&GS) requirements for the supply of Textiles, Upholstery and soft furnishings requirements. 1.2 The Contractor shall supply the Articles and Services detailed in the SOR, as they are ordered by authorised Demanding Authorities listed at Annex B of this StOR and in the Master Database. The majority of demands under this Contract will be direct for the customers detailed in the Master Database. Demands for stock into the main delivery points will form the lesser part of the contract. As well as timely delivery of the Articles to the Authority, the Contractor must endeavour to achieve reductions in Article
    [Show full text]
  • Fig. 1. Frigate Believed to Be Pallas. Painted by Charles Brooking, 1759
    149 APPENDIX A FIGURES Fig. 1. Frigate believed to be Pallas. Painted by Charles Brooking, 1759. From Brooking, 8 Fig. 2. Frigate entering Portsmouth. Painted by Thomas Mitchell, 1780. From Brooking, 100 150 Fig. 3. Ship’s lines for frigate HMS Pallas. Based on NMM: ADM 2042 - Admiralty drawings for Pallas’ sister ship HMS Brilliant Fig. 4. Keel and keelson assembly detail. From White, 31 151 152 Fig. 5. Interior profile plan for frigate HMS Pallas. Based on NMM: ADM 2196 Admiralty drawings HMS Pallas 153 Fig. 6. Various types of scarfs used in construction of Pallas. 154 Fig. 7. Stem assembly detail. After Goodwin, 37 Fig. 8. Bow construction detail of frigate Pandora. From McKay and Coleman, 30 155 Fig. 9. Stern construction detail of frigate Pandora. From McKay and Coleman, 31 Fig.10. Stem boxing detail. From White, 31 156 Fig. 11. Interior construction detail for frigate HMS Pallas. © 2005 by P. Erik Flynn. All Rights Reserved 157 Fig. 12. Frame assembly detail. From White, 39 Fig. 13. Hawse pieces detail. From Ollivier, 57 Fig. 14. Midship section detail frigate HMS Pallas. © 2005 by P. Erik Flynn. All Rights Reserved 158 Fig. 15. Spirketting and quickwork detail. From Ollivier, 57 159 160 Fig. 16. Gun deck construction detail for frigate HMS Pallas. © 2005 by P. Erik Flynn. All Rights Reserved 161 Fig. 17. Lower deck construction detail for frigate HMS Pallas. © 2005 by P. Erik Flynn. All Rights Reserved 162 Fig. 18. Fore and aft orlop construction detail for frigate HMS Pallas. © 2005 by P. Erik Flynn. All Rights Reserved 163 Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 4: Conclusions and Recommendations & Appendices
    Twentieth Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth: Characterisation Report PART FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final focus of this report is to develop the local, national and international contexts of the two dockyards to highlight specific areas of future research. Future discussion of Devonport and Portsmouth as distinct designed landscapes would coherently organise the many strands identified in this report. The Museum of London Archaeology Portsmouth Harbour Hinterland Project carried out for Heritage England (2015) is a promising step in this direction. It is emphasised that this study is just a start. By delivering the aim and objectives, it has indicated areas of further fruitful research. Project aim: to characterise the development of the active naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth, and the facilities within the dockyard boundaries at their maximum extent during the twentieth century, through library, archival and field surveys, presented and analysed in a published report, with a database of documentary and building reports. This has been delivered through Parts 1-4 and Appendices 2-4. Project objectives 1 To provide an overview of the twentieth century development of English naval dockyards, related to historical precedent, national foreign policy and naval strategy. 2 To address the main chronological development phases to accommodate new types of vessels and technologies of the naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth. 3 To identify the major twentieth century naval technological revolutions which affected British naval dockyards. 4 To relate the main chronological phases to topographic development of the yards and changing technological and strategic needs, and identify other significant factors. 5 To distinguish which buildings are typical of the twentieth century naval dockyards and/or of unique interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 – the Evolution of HMS Dorsetshire
    Appendix 1 – The Evolution of HMS Dorsetshire This image and the one on the next page show Dorsetshire in 1930, during builder’s trials1 Dorsetshire in July 19312 Dorsetshire in 1932.At this time her secondary and tertiary armament is still very light, just four single 4-inch guns abreast the forward funnels and four single 2-pdr pompoms abreast the bridge3 This 1948 model, shown to better advantage on the next page, depicts Dorsetshire under refit in 1937 in No. 14 Dock at Portsmouth Dockyard. The twin 4-inch mountings are in place abreast the funnels, as are the octuple 2-pounder pom poms aft of the torpedo tubes.4 Dorsetshire in dock at Singapore after her 1937 refit.5 This image and the one on the next page show how difficult it was for her to engage aircraft attacking from directly ahead. The arrows highlight her guns as follows: blue = twin 4-inch red = quad .5-inch green = octuple 2-pdr pom poms Dorsetshire in 19416 Three shots of Dorsetshire in 1941. The painting of the aft funnel and part of the hull in a light colour was meant to make her appear to be a single-funnelled vessel – a sloop, according to one source. The paint scheme was possibly first applied at Simonstown between 16 and 20 March, since this was apparently Dorsetshire’s only docking between December 1940 and June-July 1941. The top image was taken at Cape Town, possibly between 21 and 23 April 1941. The centre image was presumably taken prior to the June-July refit, since the ship sports what seems to have been the original version of this paint scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    Notes 1 Introduction 1. Donald Macintyre, Narvik (London: Evans, 1959), p. 15. 2. See Olav Riste, The Neutral Ally: Norway’s Relations with Belligerent Powers in the First World War (London: Allen and Unwin, 1965). 3. Reflections of the C-in-C Navy on the Outbreak of War, 3 September 1939, The Fuehrer Conferences on Naval Affairs, 1939–45 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1990), pp. 37–38. 4. Report of the C-in-C Navy to the Fuehrer, 10 October 1939, in ibid. p. 47. 5. Report of the C-in-C Navy to the Fuehrer, 8 December 1939, Minutes of a Conference with Herr Hauglin and Herr Quisling on 11 December 1939 and Report of the C-in-C Navy, 12 December 1939 in ibid. pp. 63–67. 6. MGFA, Nichols Bohemia, n 172/14, H. W. Schmidt to Admiral Bohemia, 31 January 1955 cited by Francois Kersaudy, Norway, 1940 (London: Arrow, 1990), p. 42. 7. See Andrew Lambert, ‘Seapower 1939–40: Churchill and the Strategic Origins of the Battle of the Atlantic, Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 17, no. 1 (1994), pp. 86–108. 8. For the importance of Swedish iron ore see Thomas Munch-Petersen, The Strategy of Phoney War (Stockholm: Militärhistoriska Förlaget, 1981). 9. Churchill, The Second World War, I, p. 463. 10. See Richard Wiggan, Hunt the Altmark (London: Hale, 1982). 11. TMI, Tome XV, Déposition de l’amiral Raeder, 17 May 1946 cited by Kersaudy, p. 44. 12. Kersaudy, p. 81. 13. Johannes Andenæs, Olav Riste and Magne Skodvin, Norway and the Second World War (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1966), p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Institution of Naval Architects and Lloyd's Register
    The Royal Institution of Naval Architects and Lloyd’s Register Given their common roots in the UK maritime industry, it is not surprising that throughout the 150 years in which the histories of both organisations have overlapped, many members of the Institution have held important positions within Lloyd’s Register. Such connections can be traced back to 1860, when the joint Chief Surveyors, Joseph Horatio Ritchie and James Martin were two of the 18 founding members of the Institution. The Lloyd’s Register Historian, Barbara Jones, has identified others who either worked for Lloyd’s Register in some capacity, or who sat on its Committees, and had a direct connection with the Institution of Naval Architects, later to become the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. Introduction would ensure the government could bring in regulations based on sound principles based upon Martell’s The Royal Institution of Naval Architects was founded calculations and tables. in 1860 as the Institution of Naval Architects. John Scott Russell, Dr Woolley, E J Reed and Nathaniel Thomas Chapman Barnaby met at Scott Russell’s house in Sydenham for the purpose of establishing the Institution. The Known as ‘The Father of Lloyd's Register’, it is Institution was given permission to use “Royal” in 1960 impossible to over-estimate the value of Thomas on the achievement of their centenary. There have been Chapman’s services to Lloyd's Register during his forty- very close links between LR and INA/RINA from the six years as Chairman. He was a highly respected and very beginning. The joint Chief Surveyors in 1860, successful merchant, shipowner and underwriter.
    [Show full text]
  • My War at Sea 1914–1916
    http://www.warletters.net My War at Sea: 1914–1916 Heathcoat S. Grant Edited by Mark Tanner Published by warletters.net http://www.warletters.net Copyright First published by WarLetters.net in 2014 17 Regent Street Lancaster LA1 1SG Heathcoat S. Grant © 1924 Published courtesy of the Naval Review. Philip J. Stopford © 1918 Published courtesy of the Naval Review. Philip Malet de Carteret letters copyright © Charles Malet de Carteret 2014. Philip Malet de Carteret introduction and notes copyright © Mark Tanner 2014. ISBN: 978-0-9566902-6-5 (Kindle) ISBN: 978-0-9566902-7-2 (Epub) The right of Heathcoat S. Grant, Philip J. Stopford, Philip Malet de Carteret and Mark Tanner to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. A CIP catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. This publication may be shared and distributed on a non-commercial basis provided that the work remains in its entirety and no changes are made. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Naval Review c/o http://www.naval-review.com Charles Malet de Carteret c/o St Quen’s Manor, Jersey Mark Tanner c/o http://warletters.net http://www.warletters.net Contents Contents 4 Preface 5 1: From England to South America 7 2: German Ships Approaching 12 3: The Coronel Action 17 4: The Defence of the Falklands 19 5: The Battle of the Falklands 25 6: On Patrol 29 7: To the Dardanelles 33 8: Invasion Preparations 41 9: Gallipoli Landings 45 10: At Cape Helles 49 11: Back to Anzac 51 12: The Smyrna Patrol 56 13: The Suvla Landings 61 14: The Smyrna Patrol (Continued) 63 15: Sick Leave in Malta 67 16: Evacuation 69 17: Operations Against Smyrna 75 18: Report on Operations 82 19: Leaving for Home 85 APPENDICES 87 1: Canopus Officers 87 2: Heathcoat S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LIBERATION of OSLO and COPENHAGEN: a MIDSHIPMAN's MEMOIR C.B. Koester
    THE LIBERATION OF OSLO AND COPENHAGEN: A MIDSHIPMAN'S MEMOIR C.B. Koester Introduction I joined HMS Devonshire, a County-class cruiser in the Home Fleet, on 16 September 1944. For the next nine months we operated out of Scapa Flow, the naval base in the Orkneys north of Scotland which had been home to Jellicoe's Grand Fleet during World War I and harboured the main units of the Home Fleet throughout the second conflict. It was a bleak, uninviting collection of seventy-three islands—at low water—twenty-nine of them inhabited, mainly by fishermen and shepherds. Winters were generally miserable and the opportunities for recreation ashore limited. There was boat-pulling and sailing, weather permitting; an occasional game of field hockey on the naval sports ground; and perhaps a Saturday afternoon concert in the fleet canteen or a "tea dance" at the Wrennery. Otherwise, we entertained ourselves aboard: singsongs in the Gunroom; a Sunday night film in the Wardroom; deck hockey in the Dog Watches; and endless games of "liar's dice." Our operations at sea were more harrowing, but only marginally more exciting, consisting mainly of attacks on German shore installations on the Norwegian coast. We rarely saw the coastline, however, for the strikes were carried out by aircraft flying from the escort carriers in the task force. At the same time, we had to be prepared for whatever counterattack the Germans might mount, and until Tirpitz was finally disabled on 12 November 1944, such a riposte might have been severe. That and the ever-present threat of submarines notwithstanding, for most of us these operations involved a large measure of boredom and discomfort.
    [Show full text]
  • Surya Class Frigate
    SURYA CLASS FRIGATE A trailblazing design, the Surya class takes its place with the Constitution, Saladin and Fed- It wasn’t until 2248 that the Surya—along with the Coventry, Loknar, Saladin and Larson eration as one of the most important ship classes of the Class I era. classes—was able to free up the larger heavy cruisers and assume primary responsibility for defensive/offensive operations. It was from this point forward that these ships began to Originally, the Anton class was set to be produced to uprated specifications—the design build an impressive and fearsome reputation. itself being altered to correct a number of flaws. However, the changes compounded what was already a complicated and complex design. After review, the decision was sub- sequently reversed and existing ships were gradually withdrawn from service. In 2249, the Pralaya (FF 1855), Avenger (FF 1860) and Illustrious (FF 1863) were present with the 8th Fleet at the Battle of Thranstor. The introduction of Phaser weaponry that year and Instead, the ASDB revisited an earlier proposal, the Hunt class Light Cruiser. Little more than its presence on the majority of the Starfleet vessels present at the battle helped ensure a a Ptolemy class transport/tug with more comprehensive armament, Hunt was an intriguing swift and overwhelming Federation victory. The Pralaya was lost with all hands not long af- modification of an already proven design, though it was eventually dropped in favor of the ter, being drawn into an ambush outside the Beta Aurigae star system. Kearsarge class. Throughout the war though, a favored tactic of fleet commanders was to disguise these The potential of a fully armed Ptolemy was not lost on designers though and from this point, vessels as Ptolemy class transport/tugs and use them (usually in groups of 2 or more) as they continued to study various proposals based around it.
    [Show full text]
  • Portsmouth Dockyard in the Twentieth Century1
    PART THREE PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY1 3.1 INTRODUCTION The twentieth century topography of Portsmouth Dockyard can be related first to the geology and geography of Portsea Island and secondly to the technological development of warships and their need for appropriately sized and furnished docks and basins. In 2013, Portsmouth Naval Base covered 300 acres of land, with 62 acres of basin, 17 dry docks and locks, 900 buildings and 3 miles of waterfront (Bannister, 10 June 2013a). The Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust (Heritage Area) footprint is 11.25 acres (4.56 hectares) which equates to 4.23% of the land area of the Naval Base or 3.5% of the total Naval Base footprint including the Basins (Duncan, 2013). From 8 or 9 acres in 1520–40 (Oppenheim, 1988, pp. 88-9), the dockyard was increased to 10 acres in 1658, to 95 acres in 1790, and gained 20 acres in 1843 for the steam basin and 180 acres by 1865 for the 1867 extension (Colson, 1881, p. 118). Surveyor Sir Baldwin Wake Walker warned the Admiralty in 1855 and again in 1858 that the harbour mouth needed dredging, as those [ships] of the largest Class could not in the present state of its Channel go out of Harbour, even in the event of a Blockade, in a condition to meet the Enemy, inasmuch as the insufficiency of Water renders it impossible for them to go out of Harbour with all their Guns, Coals, Ammunition and Stores on board. He noted further in 1858 that the harbour itself “is so blocked up by mud that there is barely sufficient space to moor the comparatively small Force at present there,” urging annual dredging to allow the larger current ships to moor there.
    [Show full text]
  • The Old Pangbournian Record Volume 2
    The Old Pangbournian Record Volume 2 Casualties in War 1917-2020 Collected and written by Robin Knight (56-61) The Old Pangbournian Society The Old angbournianP Record Volume 2 Casualties in War 1917-2020 Collected and written by Robin Knight (56-61) The Old Pangbournian Society First published in the UK 2020 The Old Pangbournian Society Copyright © 2020 The moral right of the Old Pangbournian Society to be identified as the compiler of this work is asserted in accordance with Section 77 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, “Beloved by many. stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any Death hides but it does not divide.” * means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior consent of the Old Pangbournian Society in writing. All photographs are from personal collections or publicly-available free sources. Back Cover: © Julie Halford – Keeper of Roll of Honour Fleet Air Arm, RNAS Yeovilton ISBN 978-095-6877-031 Papers used in this book are natural, renewable and recyclable products sourced from well-managed forests. Typeset in Adobe Garamond Pro, designed and produced *from a headstone dedication to R.E.F. Howard (30-33) by NP Design & Print Ltd, Wallingford, U.K. Foreword In a global and total war such as 1939-45, one in Both were extremely impressive leaders, soldiers which our national survival was at stake, sacrifice and human beings. became commonplace, almost routine. Today, notwithstanding Covid-19, the scale of losses For anyone associated with Pangbourne, this endured in the World Wars of the 20th century is continued appetite and affinity for service is no almost incomprehensible.
    [Show full text]