Adrian Roberts Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 The latest issue of Cross and Cockade has an article by Paul Leaman on the Hansa-Brandenburg seaplanes. It mentions a twin-engined torpedo-carrying seaplane, the GW. Does anyone know if the GW was ever used in action and if they ever sunk or attempted to sink any ships? I had always thought that the only ships sunk by airlaunched torpedo in WW1 were the Turkish vessels attacked by RNAS Short 184s in the Aegean in August 1915. But it seems about 25 Hansa-Brandenburg GWs were built, mostly stationed in the Baltic but a few in the North Sea. Russian ships would have been their principle targets. On the face of it the GW with its twin engines would seem to be a more viable torpedo carrier than the 184 or the Cuckoo. Maybe the records of any such actions in the chaotic Baltic theatre around 1917 have been lost. I did post this question on the Cross and Cockade forum, but received no answer apart from a book title that I am unlikely to acquire, so I thought I would throw the question open. I also thought of scanning a photo of a GW and posting it here, but some C&C staff come to this forum and they might have issues about copyright - maybe if Mick Davis sees this I can let him decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 Adrian This is about another type, but it may be relevant. In Marine Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War there's this in the section on the Gotha WD14: WD14 floatplanes served at most of the flying stations on the North Sea coast and offshore islands, and particularly at Zeebrugge, strategically placed for the deployment of torpedo-carriers against Allied shipping coming through the Straits of Dover, skirting the Goodwin Sands on their way up to the Port of London. They had a fair measure of success, and some losses, because the comparatively slow speed of these machines when launching their torpedo made them easy prey for the guns on ships. Cheers Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 With a speed of under 65 mph (even slower than the Gotha WD 11) the Brandenburg GW would be very vulnerable to ships AA fire. All airborne torpedo operations were halted at the beginning of 1918 as the results did not justify the losses. The Gotha WD 14 the German torpedo bomber built in the largest numbers had a speed of just under 85 mph but had to attack at a lower speed as the German torpedoes could not stand the shock of a drop at full speed. Successful launches required the combined efforts of a skilled and well trained pilot and a torpedo man and a successful launch was one thing, a hit was yet another. The torpedo bombers were redeployed for marine reconnaissance duties that Zeppelins were proving too vulnerable to undertake. They had a fair measure of success, Apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 Apparently not. I have to compare your opinion and Heinz Nowarra's - the author of Marine Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War. It's a difficult decision, so I turned to Vol 4 of The War in the Air, which tells us that on 1 May 1917 the SS Gena was sunk by an aeroplane's torpedo. The same fate befell the SS Kanakee on 15 June, and that on 9 September the SS Storm was sunk by the same means. Near misses were recorded against the armed drifter Carolbank and SS Nyanza on 19 April 1917, while the monitor Marshal Ney was also attacked. On 20 May the collier Birchgrove was attacked, as were another two vessels on 14 June. More ships were attacked on 9 July. For the Germans, the attacks had the effect of seeing RNAS aeroplanes deployed away from the Western Front to protect shipping in the English Channel/North Sea. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 I have to compare your opinion and Heinz Nowarra's - the author of Marine Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War. It's a difficult decision, so I turned to Vol 4 of The War in the Air, which tells us that on 1 May 1917 the SS Gena was sunk by an aeroplane's torpedo. The same fate befell the SS Kanakee on 15 June, and that on 9 September the SS Storm was sunk by the same means. Near misses were recorded against the armed drifter Carolbank and SS Nyanza on 19 April 1917, while the monitor Marshal Ney was also attacked. On 20 May the collier Birchgrove was attacked, as were another two vessels on 14 June. More ships were attacked on 9 July. For the Germans, the attacks had the effect of seeing RNAS aeroplanes deployed away from the Western Front to protect shipping in the English Channel/North Sea. Gareth Not my opinion Peter Grey and Own Thetford's also see accounts in Cole and Cheeseman. In the attack on the 19th by four aircraft two of the torpedoes sank when launched and one went astray and stuck in a mud bank. The fourth aircraft never attacked the Marshal Ney as it got lost and brought its torpedo back home. There were no near misses. Where were the three ships you mention sunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 I have to confess to knowing very little about German aeroplanes. Paul Leaman, who is working through the Atlas of German Seaplanes, is quite an expert. The accompanying pic is from the CCI Archive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 None of the aircraft that attacked on the 20th May carried torpedoes - they were not torpedo bombers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 Where were the three ships you mention sunk? The North Sea. I really don't have the time, nor inclination, to debate this. See Chapter II, Vol 4 of The War in the Air by H A Jones. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 I have to confess to knowing very little about German aeroplanes. Paul Leaman, who is working through the Atlas of German Seaplanes, is quite an expert. The accompanying pic is from the CCI Archive. Nice photo - its the prototype Brandenberg GW (the only one with a triple tail). Note the inward leaning interplane struts - one of Heinkel's distinguishing design features. The North Sea. I really don't have the time, nor inclination, to debate this. See Chapter II, Vol 4 of The War in the Air by H A Jones. Gareth Thats a shame. Jones did make mistakes you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 SS Kanakee was not sunk in the North sea - the wreck is in the Thames Estuary. Whist she is said to have been sunk by an unexpected sea plane attack on the 14th June 1917 the Air Defence of Britain 1914 1918 (a pretty reliable record) shows no attacks on the 14th or 15th of June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 SS Storm was also sunk in the approach to the Thames Estuary - not far from SS Kanakee. Again the Air Defence of Britain 1914 1918 shows no enemy air activity - I would suspect mines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 Hi, Leutnant Richard Freude and Flugmaat Karl Berghoff of II Torpedostaffel Zeebrugge sunk SS GENA on 1/5/1917 KANKADEE was hit on 14/6/1917 by Torpedoplane T991 (Leutnant Löwe and Thomsen) SS STORM OF GUERNSEY was sunk on 9/9/1917, joint action Torpedoplanes and C-planes of Zeebrugge Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 Hi, Leutnant Richard Freude and Flugmaat Karl Berghoff of II Torpedostaffel Zeebrugge sunk SS GENA on 1/5/1917 KANKADEE was hit on 14/6/1917 by Torpedoplane T991 (Leutnant Löwe and Thomsen) SS STORM OF GUERNSEY was sunk on 9/9/1917, joint action Torpedoplanes and C-planes of Zeebrugge Cnock I am puzzled, given that all three ships sank in British coastal waters (two off the Thames Estuary and one off the Suffolk Coast, why these attacks are not covered in The Air Defence of Britain 1914 1918 which is in general assiduous in reporting all attacks on shipping around the coast. Any suggestions anyone? BTW I assume that you mean SS Kanakee whose wreck lies the Thames Estuary side of the Sunk light. The wreck of ship also sunk off the Sunk light is named as SS Storm and not Storm of Guernsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 February , 2011 Share Posted 12 February , 2011 SS STORM OF GUERNSEY was sunk on 9/9/1917, joint action Torpedoplanes and C-planes of Zeebrugge Cnock Can you provide more detail please? Although C types (two seat single engined land based) did carry out some hit and run raids on British land targets it seems normal to have used float planes against shipping. If nothing else the disparity in speed between the German float planes used and the C types would have created problems in co ordiatng such attacks. Perhaps someone translated seaplanes as C planes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 13 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Thanks everyone for these answers. I won't get involved in the debate as I have nothing to add, but it appears that some respected sources suggest some use of German torpedo-bombers. At any rate, it seems to be an over-simplification to say that the Short 184 torpedo operations in the Med in 1915 were the only such attempts. Thanks Mick for the photo - this is one of the photos in the article, so rather you than me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Centurion, claims of Torpedostaffel were confirmed, may be You can start to look for proove that ships concerned were sunk by mines (your 'suspect') Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Centurion, claims of Torpedostaffel were confirmed, may be You can start to look for proove that ships concerned were sunk by mines (your 'suspect') Cnock Yes but there are numerous discrepancies which I'm trying to resolve so more detail would be helpful - where were they confirmed for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 I don't want to waste more time, nor have the inclination to debate this further I advise You again to keep looking for proof that ships were sunk by mines, that was Your idea wasn't it? Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 I don't want to waste more time, nor have the inclination to debate this further I advise You again to keep looking for proof that ships were sunk by mines, that was Your idea wasn't it? Cnock Oh come on I'm not trying to prove or disprove but to clarify. If you're not prepared to provide any further detail then the discrepancies have to stand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Oh come on I'm not trying to prove or disprove but to clarify. If you're not prepared to provide any further detail then the discrepancies have to stand This is getting tedious but, at the moment, it looks like it's you against both the Official History and Cnock's detailed information. Perhaps you could provide more information about the mines responsible for the shipping losses. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 This is getting tedious but, at the moment, it looks like it's you against both the Official History and Cnock's detailed information. Perhaps you could provide more information about the mines responsible for the shipping losses. Gareth Its the refusal to supply extra detail and engage in a discussion thats tedious. For goodness sake I'm not trying to prove anything about mines and it isn't me against anything DO NOT PERSONALISE! All I'm trying to do is to determine and clarify discrepancies such as why accounts of some attacks detailed in The Air Defence of Britain don't agree with other accounts or why certain incidents don't appear at all and why wrecks don't seem to be where the official history would have them. If The Air Defence is wrong in such instances then its general credibility must be at risk which given its authority is a serious point and worth exploring. I do wish people wouldn't treat discussions as duels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 14 February , 2011 Share Posted 14 February , 2011 Can you provide more detail please?Although C types (two seat single engined land based) did carry out some hit and run raids on British land targets it seems normal to have used float planes against shipping. If nothing else the disparity in speed between the German float planes used and the C types would have created problems in co ordiatng such attacks. Perhaps someone translated seaplanes as C planes? centurion, go back and revisit the style of your posts. I have just selected the one example from this thread. Cnock is just one of several contributors who has access to significant extra material, much of it not available in English. Your request for more detail is associated with a seeming definitive statement that then ends by suggesting that Cnock made a mistake. You made not have intended this but that is the implication. This style is repeated over and over. Perhaps if you took a different tack you would find it less problematic?Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonharley Posted 14 February , 2011 Share Posted 14 February , 2011 Centurion, and others, no details for you but a list of ships believed by the British at the time to have been lost to torpedo attack by seaplane up to October, 1917. From "British Vessels Captured or Destroyed by the Enemy", prepared by the Trade Division at the Admiralty and dated 1 October, 1917. Sunk: GENA, "Off Southwold", 1 May, 1917. KANKAKEE (the spelling given), "2 miles from Sunk L.V.", 14 June. STORM, "1 mile S.E. from Sunk L.V.", 9 September. Attacked but not sunk: BIRCHGROVE, "North Sea", 20 May, 1917, torpedo missed, machine gunned. JARRIX, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. HASLINGDEN, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. BATTERSEA, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. HARTLEY, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. According to the following volume, dated 1 July, 1918, there were no other torpedo attacks by aircraft on British merchant vessels up to that date. Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 14 February , 2011 Share Posted 14 February , 2011 Centurion, and others, no details for you but a list of ships believed by the British at the time to have been lost to torpedo attack by seaplane up to October, 1917. From "British Vessels Captured or Destroyed by the Enemy", prepared by the Trade Division at the Admiralty and dated 1 October, 1917. Sunk: GENA, "Off Southwold", 1 May, 1917. KANKAKEE (the spelling given), "2 miles from Sunk L.V.", 14 June. STORM, "1 mile S.E. from Sunk L.V.", 9 September. Attacked but not sunk: BIRCHGROVE, "North Sea", 20 May, 1917, torpedo missed, machine gunned. JARRIX, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. HASLINGDEN, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. BATTERSEA, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. HARTLEY, "North Sea", 9 July, torpedo missed. According to the following volume, dated 1 July, 1918, there were no other torpedo attacks by aircraft on British merchant vessels up to that date. Simon Thanks for this. I wonder why the Carolbank or the Nyanza are not mentioned in the attacked but not sunk category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 14 February , 2011 Share Posted 14 February , 2011 Robert, Simon, thank for the replies regards, Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now