Talk:Raid on Cuxhaven

Von der Tann
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"Folders"
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?&#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)