Cargo Submarine U-Deutschland Artifacts and Model

[drmessimer]

There is a metal plaque being offered on ebay that I think is a fake. The price alone--$9.99--causes me to believe that. And it isn't shown in the John Bull Catalog. In addition, this one is pretty crude and appears to me to be made of lead or pweter. There are some small spots on it in various places that I think are supposed to represent rust, but I know from building models that virtually all metal can be treated with commercially produced agents that will cause it to turn different colors, and I suspect that was done on this plaque. This is the link to the auction site New Results. Dwight

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11021...E:B:SS:US:1123
WW1 German Submarine Deutschland Siberia POW Ballast plaque paperweight

[rogge16]

Dwight: The listing has been removed. Wonder if someone bought it?

Luke

[rogge16]

I just found it! That link doesn't work for me.
WW1 German Submarine Deutschland Siberia pow Ballast Plaque Paperweight | eBay

Luke

[drmessimer]

Luke has been doing some detective work on this thing by asking the seller what sort of metal the plaque is made of. The seller said he "did not know" Since the deutschland carried only iron ballast, anything perporting to be made from the boat's ballast has to be iron. The easy test is to touch it with a magnet. If the magnet sticks it's a ferris metal, if it doesn't it's made from something else and is a fake. I have seen plaques like this before on German E-Bay, which were made of either lead or pewter. In fact, I wonder if this could be one of that lot. The link I posted didn't work for Luke, try this one. Click here: WW1 German Submarine Deutschland Siberia pow Ballast Plaque Paperweight | eBay Dwight

[drmessimer]

Here's an update. My son got this response from the seller, "I am not sure, but a magnet does adhere to it. I assume lead since it mentions the ballast of the sub." Here are some more photos from the site:

Even if the metal is iron, which I still doubt, this item just doesn't look right to me. Maybe Claas will join us on this issue. Dwight

[STBaltimore]

The article below might be a bit of comic relief for the ballast 'sub'thread above - Is it U-DEUTSCHLAND or is it MEMOREX?

"... See Plan to Avoid Trap.

"The arrival of the undersea liner Deutschland at New London early today gives point to a report in well-informed circles yesterday that in the future all German submarines coming to the United States, whether naval or merchantmen, will make either New London or Newport their port of call. No more submarines will enter Hampton Roads because of the danger of nets being dropped to trap them off the Virginia Capes.

"American submarines are usually operating in the waters off New London and Newport at all times of the year. British nets dropped there might endanger American vessels and the lives of American sailors. German officials do not believe that the British would take the chance of netting an American vessel."

Source: "U-LINER IS BACK AGAIN" The Washington Post, November 1st 1916.

[STBaltimore]

Do you suppose the U-Bremen may have followed the same course as U-DEUTSCHLAND did on the latter's second voyage to America? This is what Captain Koenig said upon his arrival at New London:.

“… we went through the Fair Island Channel between the Orkneys and Scotland… As soon as we got around the coast of Scotland we steered a straight course for Newfoundland.”

Source: New York Times, November 2nd 1916

[STBaltimore]

Paint Scheme Changed to Conning Tower Prior to U-DEUTSCHLAND 2nd Voyage to America in 1916 --



“Access to the pier at which the Deutschland lay was refused to sightseers, but by the climbing of the barbed wire entanglements, at risk of scratches and arrest, a good view of the submersible could be obtained. She was painted sea green with her superstructure of a darker shade of green.”

So, kind readers, what I had earlier assumed was an application of black paint to DEUTSCHLAND’S conning tower in a 1916 B&W New London newsreel clip, was in error.

Source: New York Times, November 2nd 1916

[GaryM]

Couple of new photographs.

[drmessimer]

The newspaper article that STBaltimore cites in post #626 above is an excellent example of the misinformation that the US press put out about Germany's commercial U-boat program. For that reason it has historical value, and one could write an interesting history of the wartime fantasies woven by the press using articles like that one. How much of the fantasy was the result of the reporters' ignorance of the subject or deliberate fabrication is hard to say. In this case, the method of deploying anti-submarine nets was no secret and the reporter certainly had access to that information, so he was either too lazy to get it, or he just wanted to add to the phony press-created drama that surround the whole cargo U-boat affair.
In order to assure that none of the readers of this thread are misled, allow me to explain that there were two kinds of anti-submarine nets--fixed position nets, and towed nets. Fixed fixed net systems required hundreds of large support floats, and a massive anchoring system, and could only be used where the water was shallow enough for them to be properly laid, tended and re-laid as needed, which was very often. The waters off the Capes were vastly too deep for those nets to be used. For those same reasons, the Allies never netted the Otranto Strait, and their inability to maintain the massive Folkestone-Gris Nez boom net resulted in the total abandonment of the type in May 1915. Thereafter, heavy boom nets, as they were known, were used only at harbor entrances, which the British could hardly have done at New Port and New London.
Towed nets, which were much smaller, were used throughout the war with little effect. But warships, such as the cruisers that the British deployed off the U.S. East Coast, were not equipped with towed nets. The only vessels that were so equipped were trawlers and drifters that the Royal Navy pressed into service, none of which were sent across the Atlantic.
The article is correct that New London had become the Germans' choice for the cargo U-boat port in the US. But they made that decision because they owned property in New London, not because of the threat of British nets off the Capes. And STBaltimore is right on the mark when he says that the article provides comic relief. In fact, that same observation could apply to nearly all the silliness written about the U-Deutschland in the US Press. Dwight

STBaltimore: Thanks for the second article you posted, too. U-Deutschland used the Fair Island route for both trips across the Atlantic. The Fair Island route was one of three routes the High Seas Fleet U-boats used to reach their operations areas in the Irish Sea and the Western Approaches after after 12 April 1915 when Adm. Hermann Bauer ordered them not to use the Dover Strait. Though not assigned to the High Seas Fleet, the U-Deutschland fell into the catagorey of a large, ocean-going U-boat and was thus governed by the order, which underscores the fact ttaht she was not a private commercial venture. Dwight

GaryB: Thanks for posting those excellent photos of the U-155 before she was stripped, gutted, and sold to Horatio Bottemly. If you have any photos of the U-Deutschland, we hope you will post them too. Dwight