Talk:Raid on Cuxhaven

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Maritime / British / European / German / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force World War I task force

The article stated that the battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann was damaged during the attack; this is simply not true. Massie's book Castles of Steel explicitly states that it is a "long-perpetuated myth" that the ship was damaged during the raid. There is no indication that the website that was used to source the claim is at all reliable. Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three versions of this story online: One states that she collided with another ship taking evading action, another that she collided with another ship while manoeuvring at high speed to set out to sea to attack the British ships (both possible interpretations of the same thing), while a third fancifully claims that she was damaged (!) when a British aircraft flew into her. While it seems clear that she was not damaged by direct action (i.e. a bomb hitting her), there must be some reason for her not having sailed with the rest of the group to the action at Dogger Bank a couple of weeks later. One source states that she was being repaired at the time. Does Massie have anything to say about that? --TraceyR (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ship was undergoing periodic refit at the time of Dogger Bank. Tarrant's Jutland: The German Perspective states the same. As far as I can tell, the ship never actually moved; Massie indicates that the four BCs got up steam and retracted their torpedo nets in anticipation for the order to sail out and find the British ships, but the order never came, so they remained in the harbor (apparently Ingenohl was under the impression the whole Grand Fleet was in the area). Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Improved Type 74 is described here as a "folder" despite not being listed as such in the Short Folder article and specifying that it does not have folding wings in its own article. Does anyone know of a reference to support the existence of a folding version? Djapa Owen (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The designation "Improved Type 74" was given by the Admiralty to a series of 8 folder seaplanes which were built at the Rochester seaplane works in April 1914, with serial numbers 811-818. Due to a shortage of the Salmson 135 hp engine used in the prototype Type 135 (constructor's number S.87), 100 hp Gnome-Monosouspape engines were used. All eight were assigned to Empress, Engadine and Riviera, and folders nos. 811, 814 and 815 took part in the Cuxhaven Raid (from Barnes & James, Putnam, p.97-102). So the confusion lies in referring to them by the Admiralty's name; they were in fact folder versions of Short Admiralty Type 135s (themselves non-folding), which are in fact listed in Short Folders (but for which no article yet exists, except for a redirect to Short Admiralty Type 166). Confused? I certainly am! --TraceyR (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the confusion, the 135 hp aircraft with the intended Salmson engines, of which 18 where produced, were known as the "Admiralty Type 830". As far as I can tell, the eight Gnome-powered aircraft mentioned above were never referred to by any name other than the Admiralty's (incorrect) term "Improved Type 74". --TraceyR (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuxhaven Raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070630123514/http://www.greatwardifferent.com:80/Great_War/Paris_6/Journal_01.htm to http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Paris_6/Journal_01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]