Annette Carson Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 (edited) I imagine many members will recognize this photograph, but my interest is in this German bomber's life story. Do we know when and how it met its end? Any comments welcome Regards, Annette Edited 19 January , 2018 by Annette Carson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin-Staaken_Riesenflugzeuge quote: The first of the Zeppelin-Staaken R-planes was constructed at Gothaer Waggonfabrik A.G.[3]Initially fitted with three 240 hp (180 kW) Maybach Mb.IV engines in their original "HS" version,[4]one in the nose and one in the rear of each of the twin engine nacelles, the V.G.O.I was first flown on 11 April 1915. Carrying the registration 'R.M.L.1' it was built for the Kaiserliche Marine and served on the eastern front before being returned to Staaken where two additional engines were fitted in the nacelles. During flight testing, after the extra engines had been fitted, the V.G.O.I crashed in December 1915, killing two of its crew. [emphasis added] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Carson Posted 19 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2018 Thanks, I read this too, but having found EGREGIOUS errors on Wikipedia I never take anything it says at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 29 minutes ago, Annette Carson said: but having found EGREGIOUS errors on Wikipedia I never take anything it says at face value. Agreed; always best to check for further refs Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loader Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 Never believe everything you read on the internet. That's how WW1 got started!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 Never believe anything. We've had (quite) a few bits of misinformation posted here on the GWF! At least citations are expected and given on Wikipedia. Which takes us a bit close to a debate we had in 2016 about primary sources - what are they and how reliable are they? Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 20 January , 2018 Share Posted 20 January , 2018 18 hours ago, Moonraker said: a debate ... we had in 2016 about primary sources - what are they and how reliable are they? Short answer from an archaeologist who deals with historic-period archaeology: "primary sources" are from the time of the event and are reliable in the eye of the beholder and compiler... So, I have just been checking five accounts of the same 19th century event by (claimed) eye-witnesses and they all agree on the episode I am researching, so I'll accept these as primary and factual. But I still have my doubts about aspects reported in the single source I have for another campaign of the same period, as it is just the one source, and so a primary source, yes, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Carson Posted 20 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 20 January , 2018 In relation to primary sources, unfortunately the farther back in history you go, the greater the latitude applied to categorizing sources as 'primary'. In researching and writing about the 15th century it is entirely normal for many historians to regard 16th-century chroniclers and commentators as 'primary' when they are nothing of the sort and their remarks are clearly coloured by hindsight if not outright political expediency. <sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 20 January , 2018 Share Posted 20 January , 2018 I was going to say "damn" and rue my post 6, as it's taken us further off topic, which I thought might upset the post originator. Then I saw that it was Annette who had continued the divergence! Both she and Trajan make good points. It may be a forlorn hope, but perhaps any further discussion about primary sources should continue in the Hot Air thread which had reached 111 posts a year ago. Then this thread can continue to discuss the German bomber? Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 20 January , 2018 Share Posted 20 January , 2018 10 minutes ago, Moonraker said: I was going to say "damn" and rue my post 6, as it's taken us further off topic, which I thought might upset the post originator. ... Then this thread can continue to discuss the German bomber? That's the funny way it goes sometimes - going off-topic, as it were, often opens up new things one never knew about before, as with German bombers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Carson Posted 20 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 20 January , 2018 I'm entirely relaxed about pursuing the secondary thread here or moving it to a more suitable place if desired. Whatever works best. Regrettably I have no time to continue chatting about the unreliability of sources as I'm working all hours on my book. Otherwise I would have some hair-raising tales to tell! Regarding RML1, I think it's well known enough for people to have chimed in if there was anything more to say. Unless its demise in 1915 is contradicted I'm happy to regard this as a curiosity of which Captain Armstrong happened to pick up a photograph. He hadn't even gained his ticket in 1915 so apparently it doesn't feature in his RFC story. Thanks to all Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 21 January , 2018 Share Posted 21 January , 2018 Hello! You find a lot of infos about it in the brilliant book "The german giants - the german R-Planes 1914-1918" by Haddow and Grosz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Carson Posted 21 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 21 January , 2018 Hello Andy, thanks for your recommendation. Wish I had the time and money to consult all the books I'd like to; doubtless your recommendation will be noted by members who wish to delve deeper. Basically if no one has anything to add to michaeldr's post (or anything to contest), then I'm happy to accept that RML1 lived and died in 1915 as described and that's adequate for my immediate purpose. I guess we'll never know why its photo ended up in Capt Armstrong's album, which otherwise records his own career and pals. Regards, Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 21 January , 2018 Share Posted 21 January , 2018 (edited) Hello Annette! MichaelDr report about 1915 is correct. The deadly crash of 1915 happened in a winter storm the flight to Gotha (they came from Friedrichshafen, where it has been for 6 months to repair the motors). In June 1916, the rebuilt machine was accepted by the navy and it started to the base in Alt-Auz. Because of technical problems the flight from Gotha to Alt-Auz took two months instead of three days. They had to stop in Döberitz and Schneidemühl. Then they had a emergency landing near Königsberg. They reached Alt-Auz in August 1916... Here are the the flight reports of 1916 1a) August 13, 1916, both (RML.1 and VGO.III) should attack a railroad junction at Schlok (Estonia). RML.1 had a damaged motor, so the commander deicided to return to the base. 1b) August 15, 1916 they should attack Runö, an island in the gulf of Riga. Racsh, the commander of RML.1 decided to attack Runö and Schlok again. 2) August 16, 1916, target was thr russian seaplane base at Lebara. RML.1 recieved some shrapnells from airplane and anti-aircraft bullets. 3) August 17, 1916, target russian air station Runö and camp Kemmern. It recieved shrapnel holes again. 4) August 24, 1916 target Kemmern. RML.1 had a boiling motor so the attack was cancelled No more flight reports are known. The last entry of the diary from September 1, says "RML.1 has in the meantime been damaged". This day it started fully loaded with fuel and bombs. At an altitude of 50mts. two of the engines, one after the other "exploded", so they landed hard in a pine-forest, 69 trees were sheared off. So the history of RML.1 has ended. Unfortunately I can´t say, where your photo was taken. Edited 21 January , 2018 by The Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aspern Posted 21 January , 2018 Share Posted 21 January , 2018 (edited) Hi Annette - I agree with The Prussian. In fact RML.1 wasn't known as that until after the crash in December 1915. It was rebuilt and entered service with the Navy; it was they who gave it the ID, RML.1 - Reichsmarine Landflugzeug 1. There was an earlier reference to the book, 'The German Giants' by Haddow & Grosz: this gives about 18 pages to the development and service of this particular aircraft. If you would like to PM me I can sort out some scans of the relevant pages if you would like them. Ian www.IanCastleZeppelin.co.uk Edited 21 January , 2018 by Aspern spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 21 January , 2018 Share Posted 21 January , 2018 (edited) Yes, I forgot to say, that I got my infos from that brilliant book. You can get it here: https://www.euro-book.co.uk/?gclid=CMm__67Rz9ICFQIM0wodnAgFNQ Edited 21 January , 2018 by The Prussian 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