Jump to content

Talk:SMS Seeadler (1915)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Julien1978 (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 30 July 2015 (Julien1978 moved page Talk:SMS Seeadler (1878) to Talk:SMS Seeadler (1888)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Bark or Ship

The introduction now claims that the Seeadler was built as a bark (only fore-and-aft sails on the last mast). However, the image to the right shows a ship-rigged vessel (3 masts, with square sails on all masts). Was she re-rigged or is the text or (my interpretation of) the image in error? --Stephan Schulz 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this was fixed on 31st July 2006; but to answer the question, the picture I've seen of Seeadler (in "German Raiders" by Paul Schmalenbach) shows her side-on under full sail, as herself (black hull, IGN ensign, the name Seeadler on the side, (which is curious, to mind)), not as Pass of Balmaha, which the article picture shows: She has 3 masts, square-rigged on each, though with a fore-and-aft sail on the mizzen. So that would make her ship-rigged, not barque-rigged, no? Xyl 54 11:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. So based on the two photographs, it seems safe to call her a ship, not a bark (with ship being a safe bet anyways, as it also used as the more general term today). --Stephan Schulz 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage of the Seeadler

There is a much better description of her voyage on the WIKI page for her captain, Felix von Luckner, which should probabnly be brought here. Unless someone objects to this, I will attempt to do this in the next few days. Cosal

Cosal, I was thinking the same thing, SMS Seeadlers story is the most interesting of all WW1 stories, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be done as originally proposed in 2006. And this may seem like a minor thing--but the whole "accidental" death thing needs to go. The sailor killed deserves to be recognized as a casualty. He was killed when his ship was fired upon, period.Tuelj (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now gone from the Luckner page. If the casualty should be mentioned, it should probably be in more detail, somewhere further down. Does anyone have the details? DanielDemaret (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it in a wiki article yesterday but I was doing research on all deceptive guerre de course. Might be in the article on merchant raiders. Just of it was Luckner fired on a ship's radio room and a steam pipe burst killing the sailor in question. In the US military that would be a combat action death. I'll try to find it.Tuelj (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly both a casualty of war and a combat action death. And of course, it does not matter whether the casualty was a german or french sailor or shipsboy - it was still a casualty of war. The "accident" part that was mentioned was merely written because it was clear that Felix actively tried to avoid casualties. His men did not shoot at people, just as you confirmed. The point is not to try to glorify Felix, but to explain that this "pacifist streak" is the very thing that made him famous right until this day in Germany. Without this "detail", he might not even have been remembered today. DanielDemaret (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. I don't think Luckner should be vilified. Quite the opposite. I only object to the term "accidental." Actually I think verbiage like "amaizingly with only one casualty..." or the like takes nothing away from either fellow.Tuelj (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I've moved this page, to bring it in line with the other commerce raider pages; I trust that isn't too bold. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of voyage

I added the map showing the route they took from German Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.248.137 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]