World War One

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Not sure it belongs here but it touches on something that happened during WWI. The German parliament has just adapted a resolution that called the murder of roughly 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman forces in 1915 genocide.
Turkey has called it's ambassador in Berlin back to Ankara as a response.

http://www.sharenet.co.za/news/Germa...0d22c62a18b9fb

On the BBC News site as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36433114

[Sailor Steve]

This nicely illustrates one of the problems I have with research for the '100 Years' thread. Today is supposedly the 100th anniversary of the first kill by future German ace Herbert Knappe. A lot of the time there is no information on the plane the pilot flew, or even the plane he shot down.

In this case Wikipedia, and all the sites that copy them, says he was flying an Albatros D.II. The problem there is that the first Albatros D.II didn't see service until August, and that was on the Western Front. Knappe was on the Eastern front, and the plane he shot down was Russian. Records are clear on this.

Possibilities are that Knappe was flying a different plane, or maybe the date is wrong and it wasn't June 1916, but 1917. This would make sense as his second victory didn't come until May 1918, and there were still Albatrosen around in mid-'17. I've put in a request at The Aerodrome forums in case someone there has better information, but it will probably be a few days before I know anything.

[Sailor Steve]

Max Immelmann - The Controversies:

The first controversy is, of course, Immelmann's death. McCubbin and Waller, in an FE.2b, put in a claim, for which they were later awarded the Distinguished Service Order and Distinguished Conduct Medal, and Waller received a promotion to sergeant.

From the German side, it was originally said that he was hit by a German AA shell, mainly because of the way the plane came apart in the air. Anthony Fokker supported this claim, but he had a stake in Immelmann's fate, since it was his interrupter gear and his company was already under fire for what was described as "shoddy construction techniques".

Then there is the interrupter failure. This came about when authorities examined the wreckage, and found the propeller severed in line with Immelmann's machine gun.



On the other hand, while Immelmann had survived just such a failure not long before, there are almost no reports of anyone else having this problem, and it seems improbable that the same man would suffer the same failure so soon after the first, and in a different aeroplane. It's possible that McCubbin actually hit Immelmann's propeller, and it's possible that it shattered when the plane hit the ground.

In October 1935 McCubbin wrote an article for the magazine Popular Flying:

On the 18th of June 1916, a Lieutenant Savage with his observer and myself with my observer, both of 25 Squadron, were sent up for the last patrol of the day merely to keep an eye on the line between La Bassée and east of Lens. At about 9.00 in the evening, we both saw three Fokkers at the back of Lens. Savage and I were quite a distance apart, but we signaled to each other that we were going to engage these Fokkers.

Savage, whilst proceeding towards them suddenly signaled that he was returning. He was much nearer the Fokkers than I was, and they Apparently noticed this as well, and one dived on him immediately. I was flying much higher than they were and immediately dived on the one that was by this time on Savage's tail, but did not open fire. The other two got on my tail, with the result that you had a string of machines all diving down.

Savage's machine suddenly got out of control, as the Fokker had been firing at it, and Savage's machine went down. By this time I was very close to the Fokker and he apparently realized that we were on his tail, and he immediately started to do what I expect was the beginning of an "Immelmann" turn. As he started the turn we opened fire and the Fokker immediately got out of control and went down to earth.

I then turned to see what the other two machines were doing, who had been firing at me, but found that they had turned and were making back to their own lines, which to my mind rather proved they knew that Immelmann was in the other machine.

I went down fairly low to see what had happened to both Savage and the German machine, but as it was getting dark, I could see nothing, and although I flew around for some time I had to give it up and go back to my aerodrome and report the encounter.

With regard to the German statement that Immelmann crashed because he shot his own prop off, it is quite on the cards that our bullets not only got him, but his prop as well, and that would be the reason for them trying to make this statement.

The second controversy involves Immelmann's last kills. Some sources award him two victories that day for a final score of 17. Most, however, only allow the 15 he had prior to this day. The first, at 1700, was not claimed by anyone, yet the plane is known to have crashed and a Fokker was seen shooting at it. If not Immelmann, then who? And if someone else, why didn't he claim it. If it was Immelmann, then why wasn't a claim put in in his name?

Equally puzzling is the second, at 2145. Max von Mulzer put in a claim for that plane, and was awarded victory number 4. Immelmann was of course not there to put in his own claim. That said, according to McCubbin he attacked and shot down the plane that was attacking Savage. No matter the actual cause of his death, that pilot was Immelmann. If Mulzer had shot down Savage, wouldn't Mulzer have been the plane that McCubbin attacked?

Possibly von Mulzer shot down Savage and then dove away, making McCubbin think he had been shot down, and Immelmann's loss took place around the same time, but coincidentally. Immelmann may have been shooting at McCubbin. Or it may have been exactly as McCubbin described. No one knows for certain.

As I said - Controversy.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

On the BBC News site as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36433114

(regarding the genocide of Armenians, by the Ottoman Empire)
If anyone wants to inform himself, this is a very good book about what happened: "The fourty days of Musa Dagh" by Franz Werfel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fo...s_of_Musa_Dagh
Have read it last year, was really impressed by it.

[Sailor Steve]

Aviation author Norman Franks compiled a list of aerial victories as of June 25, 1916.

German:
Oswald Boelcke 18
Max Immelmann 15 or 17
Kurt Wintgens 7
Walter Höhndorf 7
Ernst von Althaus 6
Hans-Joachim Buddecke 6 (flying for Turkey)
Wilhelm Frankl 6
Rudolf Berthold 5
Max Mulzer 5
Gustav Leffers 4
Otto Parschau 4

British:
Lanoe Hawker 7
Albert Ball 5
Charles G. Bell 5

French:
Jean Navarre 12
Charles Nungesser 10
Georges Guynemer 9
Jean Chaput 7
Eugene Gilbert 6
Maxime Lenoir 5
Edwards Pulpe 5
André Chainat 4
Albert Deullin 4
Georges Pelletier D'Oisy 4
Noel de Rochfort 3
Lucien Jailler 3

I find it curious that Franks doesn't mention the world's first ace, Adolph Pegoud. This may be because Pegoud got most of his kills in two-seaters. Also not mentioned is Roland Garros, the first single-seat fighter pilot, with three victories. Possible he was only recording pilots who were still in action, but in that case why list Immelmann?

I guess some questions aren't meant to be answered.

On the other hand I have no mention of Edwards (or Eduard) Pulpe. who scored his fifth and last victory on June 10, and was killed in August. This seems to be because he is not listed at The Aerodrome, which was my primary source for my original lists. He is listed at a French website I've been using for cross-checking. I'll probably go back and add him in on the relevant dates.

[Jimbuna]

Naval Action of 19 August 1916

Background

Although Jutland had been officially hailed as a success, the German commander Admiral Reinhard Scheer felt it important that another raid should be mounted as quickly as possible to maintain morale in his severely battered fleet. It was decided that the raid should follow the pattern of previous ones, with the battlecruisers carrying out a dawn artillery bombardment of an English town, in this case Sunderland. Only two battlecruisers were still serviceable after Jutland, Moltke and Von der Tann, so the force was bolstered by the addition of three battleships, Bayern, Markgraf and Grosser Kurfürst. The remainder of the High Seas Fleet, comprising 16 dreadnought battleships, was to carry out close support 20 miles behind. The fleet set sail at 9:00 pm on 18 August from the Jade river.

The attack
Intelligence

Information about the upcoming raid was obtained by British Intelligence in Room 40 through intercepted and decoded radio messages. Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, commander of the British fleet, was on leave so had to be recalled urgently and boarded the light cruiser Royalist at Dundee to meet his fleet in the early hours of 19 August off the river Tay. In his absence, Admiral Cecil Burney took the fleet to sea on the afternoon of 18 August. Vice-Admiral David Beatty left the Firth of Forth with his squadron of six battlecruisers to meet the main fleet in the Long Forties. The Harwich Force of 20 destroyers and 5 light cruisers commanded by Commodore Tyrwhitt was ordered out, as were 25 British submarines which were stationed in likely areas to intercept German ships. The battlecruisers together with the 5th Battle Squadron of five fast battleships were stationed 30 miles ahead of the main fleet to scout for the enemy. The assembled fleet now moved south seeking the German fleet, but suffered the loss of one of the light cruisers screening the battlecruiser group, HMS Nottingham, which was hit by three torpedoes from submarine U-52 at 6:00 am.

Finding the opposition

At 6:15 am Jellicoe received information from the Admiralty that one hour earlier the enemy had been 200 miles to his south east. However, the loss of the cruiser caused him to first head north for fear of endangering his other ships. No torpedo tracks or submarines had been seen, so it was unclear whether the cause had been a submarine or entering an unknown minefield. He did not resume a south-easterly course until 9:00 am when William Goodenough, commanding the light cruisers, advised that the cause had been a submarine attack. Further information from the admiralty indicated that the battlecruisers would be within 40 miles of the main German fleet by 2:00 pm. and Jellicoe increased to maximum speed. Weather conditions were good, with plenty of time for a fleet engagement before dark.

The German force had received reassurances about Jellicoe's position, when a zeppelin had spotted the Grand Fleet heading north away from Scheer, at the time it had been avoiding the possible minefield. Unfortunately for the British, the Zeppelin L 13 sighted the Harwich force approximately 75 miles east-north-east of Cromer, mistakenly identifying the cruisers as battleships. This was precisely the sort of target Scheer was seeking, so he changed course at 12:15 pm also to the south-east and away from the approaching British fleet. No further reports were received from zeppelins about the British fleet, but it was spotted by a U-boat just 65 miles north of Scheer. Scheer turned for home at 2:35 pm abandoning his potential target. By 4:00 pm Jellicoe had been advised that Scheer had abandoned the operation and so turned north himself.

The attack

Nassau-class battleship SMS Westfalen damaged by torpedo from HMS E23
A second cruiser attached to the battlecruiser squadron, HMS Falmouth, was hit by two torpedoes from U-63 at 4:52 pm and sank the following day while being towed to the Humber, when hit by two more torpedoes fired by U-66. By 5:45 pm the Harwich force had sighted German ships but was too far behind for any prospect of an attack before nightfall so abandoned the chase. The British submarine HMS E23 (Lieutenant-Commander R. R. Turner) managed to hit the German battleship SMS Westfalen at 5:05 am on 19 August but the ship was able to return home.

Aftermath

This was the last occasion on which the German fleet travelled so far west into the North Sea. On 6 October, a decision was made in Germany to resume attacks against merchant vessels by submarine, which meant the submarine fleet was no longer available for combined attacks against surface vessels. On 13 September, a conference took place on the flagship to discuss recent events and it was decided that it was unsafe to conduct fleet operations south of latitude 55.5° North (approximately level with Horns reef and where the battle of Jutland had taken place), except in an emergency such as a German invasion force.[6] Scheer was unimpressed by the efficiency of the Zeppelin reconnaissance. Only three Zeppelins had spotted anything and from seven reports four had been wrong.

From 18–19 October, Scheer led a brief sortie into the North Sea and British intelligence gave warning; the Grand Fleet declined to prepare an ambush, staying in port with steam raised ready to sail. The German sortie was abandoned after a few hours when SMS München was hit by a torpedo fired by E38 (Lieutenant-Commander J. de B. Jessop) and it was feared other submarines might be in the area. Scheer suffered further difficulties when in November he sailed with Moltke and a division of dreadnoughts to rescue U-20 and U-30, which had become stranded on the Danish coast. British submarine J1, Commander J. Laurence, managed to hit the battleships Grosser Kurfürst and Kronprinz. The failure of these operations reinforced the belief, created at Jutland, that the risks involved in such operations were not justified by the outcomes. Both sides feared the loss of their capital ships to submarines or mines.


Town-class cruiser HMS Falmouth, sunk after torpedo attacks from two submarines.


Nassau-class battleship SMS Westfalen damaged by torpedo from HMS E23.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_19_August_1916

[Sailor Steve]

Czech-born Austro Hungarian ace Jindřich (Heinrich to his Austrian comrades) Kostrba scored his eighth and last victory on this day in 1916. In November he took command of Flik 2, but scored no more kills. In September 1918 he went home to Prague and became chief of police there. He was part of the bloodless coup that led to the formation of the independent Czechoslovakia on October 28, 1918. Kostrba then helped create the Czech Air Corps. He commanded this for a year before being removed due to political differences with his superiors.

In 1921 Kostrba returned to the Air Corps as a squadron leader, where he served for five more years. In 1926 he announced his retirement and plans to become the director of the new Czech State Airline. A week before his announced retirement he was leading a group of Yugoslavian aircraft from Prague to Warsaw. During the takeoff, at an altitude of 30 feet, one of the other aircraft collided with his, killing Kostrba and the two crewmen of the other plane.

[Schroeder]

OT
Am I the only one who thinks the term "casualties" is complete BS? I mean someone gets shot in the little toe -> casualty
someone gets shot in the head and dies instantly -> casualty
So all in all the number of "casualties" doesn't tell me anything about how severs things are. Over here "casualties" are referred to as wounded and dead with the respective numbers for each.

So what does 6,444 "casualties" concretely mean? People we won't see again or people who will soon be there again to fight another day? We don't know and therefore those statistics contain zero tangible info.

/OT

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

OT
Am I the only one who thinks the term "casualties" is complete BS? I mean someone gets shot in the little toe -> casualty
someone gets shot in the head and dies instantly -> casualty
So all in all the number of "casualties" doesn't tell me anything about how severs things are. Over here "casualties" are referred to as wounded and dead with the respective numbers for each.

So what does 6,444 "casualties" concretely mean? People we won't see again or people who will soon be there again to fight another day? We don't know and therefore those statistics contain zero tangible info.

/OT

Technically the 'Second' Battle of Gaza: Gen. Dobell launched another frontal assault on the Turkish defences, which was supported by six tanks: and gas shells. The tanks and the gas were both dismal failures and the attacking forces could make little headway against well-sited Turkish redoubts. After three days of fighting the attack was called off, having not gained any significant ground.

During the battle the Ottoman defenders suffered between 82 and 402 killed, between 1,337 and 1,364 wounded, and between 242 and 247 missing. About 200 Ottoman prisoners were captured.
Unit Casualties 52nd (Lowland) Division 1,874 53rd (Welsh) Division 584 54th (East Anglian) Division 2,870 Anzac Mounted Division 105 Imperial Mounted Division 547 Imperial Camel Brigade 345 Total 6,325 Between 17 and 20 April, EEF lost 6,444 casualties. The infantry suffered 5,328 casualties; 2,870 of these were from the 54th (East Anglian) Division and 1,828 from the 163rd Brigade alone. The 52nd (Lowland) Division suffered 1,874 casualties, the 53rd (Welsh) Division 584, the Imperial Camel Brigade 345 casualties, the Imperial Mounted Division 547 casualties, and the Anzac Mounted Division 105 casualties. Only one brigade in each of the 52nd (Lowland) and the 54th (East Anglian) Divisions was intact or had suffered only light casualties. The 74th Division had not been engaged.
Official casualty figures include 509 killed, 4,359 wounded, and 1,534 missing; including 272 prisoners of war, while unofficially the figure was much higher at 17,000. A slightly lower figure of 14,000 has also been claimed. The 10th Light Horse Regiment, (3rd Light Horse Brigade, Imperial Mounted Division) lost 14 officers and almost half the regiment's other ranks killed or wounded. Three months later on 12 July, General Allenby reported "Units are, however, below strength, and 5,150 infantry and 400 yeomanry reinforcements are required now to complete the four divisions and mounted now in the line to full strength." The Gaza war cemetery bears silent witness to the casualties which were much more severe than the British public was told..

So...it was official BS indeed...and mean! The defeat of the EEF boosted the Ottoman Fourth Army's morale. Within weeks Kress von Kressenstein was reinforced by the 7th and the 54th Divisions, and by October 1917 the Eighth Army commanded by Kress von Keressenstein had been established with headquarters at Huleikat north of Huj. The EEF's strength, which could have supported an advance to Jerusalem, was now decimated. Murray and Dobell were relieved of their commands and sent back to England. Map shows the problem: old-fashioned linear tactics against entrenched Turkish machine guns: simply won't work in 1917:(enlarges)

[Schroeder]

@BBY

Thanks, but my frustration was more with this uninformative term itself and it's wide spread use in the English language.

[Aktungbby]

than the British public was told..

^ As I pointed out: it's intended to keep the public uninformed...

[Sailor Steve]

Posts moved to proper forum.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Gee, what else didn't happen 100 years ago today?

Originally Posted by SailorSteve

Posts moved to proper forum.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Allied troops are defeated in their attempt to take Gaza, suffering 6,444 casualties. Ottomans suffer around 2000 casualties.

NOPE: a discussion ought to be held in the context (forum in which the question is raised) on the casualty count connected with the Second battle of Gaza as inquired by Schroder. In this case, a direct itemized accounting of the casualties and their intentional misrepresentation ...occurring on or as a consequence of the date in which they are enumerated by Jimbuna or yourself. The 'proper forum' is thus the forum in which the alleged fact is enumerated. As per your own precedent "gee what else...." the discussion involves what happened precisely one hundred year ago: highlighting the casualty aspect of Jimbuna's statement and it's reason for official obfuscation (or 'complete BS' as Schroeder puts it). Schroeder's question is not off topic and my response was pertinent (concrete??!!) and completely in sync and does not deviate from the date and the topic posted by the moderator-in-chief....Jimbuna. General discussion of an event not related to a specific date/event in WWI made be conducted elsewhere. The OP: Oberon has not specified the diary format exclusively (which I occasionally use myself) therefore Schroder's casualty query and my somewhat detailed but precise response ought to remain in the original thread. Schroder's post and my response does not qualify for transfer in this instance.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

NOPE: a discussion ought to be held in the context (forum in which the question is raised) on the casualty count connected with the Second battle of Gaza as inquired by Schroder... Schroder's post and my response does not qualify for transfer in this instance.

Schroeder's post was by his own admission Off-Topic. His question may have been brought up in reference to a Jimbuna's post, but it was a generic question worded specifically to spark a discussion - a discussion which has nothing to do with what happened one hundred years ago today.

Your response, while using the particular battle as an example, was directly tied to his question, and I couldn't move one without moving the other. I considered editing the parts that weren't tied directly to the battle, but then decided that was not only not my place but more work than I was willing to do considering the several hours I already put in every day on the '100 Years' thread. I thought your response was a good one, and if you wish to create an edited version with regards to the battle itself, please feel free to do so.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

@BBY

Thanks, but my frustration was more with this uninformative term itself and it's wide spread use in the English language.

It's an interesting point, and one I've struggled with for several years now. I have always thought of "casualties" in terms of death and injury, but it seems that the common usage refers to any combatant removed from service. A dead man is a casualty. A wounded man is a casualty. A man who deserted is a casualty. A man who got temporarily lost is a casualty.

Anyone not available for even a day due to a battle is a "casualty".

This has been especially interesting in the recording of the Air War. I've discovered many days in which several pilots on one side recording shooting down planes on the other side, but the other side's report reads "Casualties - nil". If the plane has engine damage but lands on its own side of the lines with the crew unhurt, it's not a casualty, at least to them.

How do you reconcile it? I don't know.