John R

Has it ever been resolved if the AS in a triangle is Adolf Scholze or A D Schwerdt? Weber's book on the Minesweeper badges has it as Adolf Scholze as do most posts in other forums--with the caveat that nobody knows really. I just refer to it as AS but would like to see if any more information has developed concerning the maker of this badge. John

This badge does not match the one in Torpedo Los, obverse looks OK, reverse hardware not typical. I am not sure if this badge is good or not or if we can even make a call on it unless it has shown up elsewhere as a period variation. If I had to make a call, I would have to say it is authentic as I see nothing really that jumps out reflecting otherwise. The recessed catch looks too complicated for most fakes IMO. Opinions? John

Excellent information Gordon and Stijn. Thanks, John

Thanks, John

Does anyone know what the "68" stood for on some Schwerin Berlin maker marks and why some had them and some did not? John

Please note that the hinge has been turned upside down on this version to accomodate the pin length. This is a quick way to spot this version besides the color of the pin and the shape of the pin and separate it from the "normal" schwerin version below. Personally, at this point, I do not see this badge as a Schwerin quality standard badge due to the above "tricks" to the reverse hardware and differences in finish to the pin. John

Martin, could you show the front of the badge? John

Just to help visualize the point made by Gordon on the possiblility of the unmarked Schwerin as a possible Steinhauer. It does make sense in a way---I can't think of any other Kriegsmarine Schwerin that is not marked but the one U-boat badge. There were 3 main marked Schwerin U-boat types, two with the the wire catch (different mark fonts) and the third with the flat catch and marked and then the fourth, unmarked style which is identical to the third type but no mark. Actually, there are two versions of this unmarked style, one of which is below and matches the catalog it seems. I am also assuming the only reason we call the Schickle type a Schickle is the catalog illustration? We do not know for sure since we have no reverse setups from Schickle with this pin type? The second image is the Schickle catalog drawing from this website. John

Richard, This should basically bring you up to date but the link provides much more information. John

The first badge is the accepted Hymenn badge, not the one in the Deumer catalog drawing. The second badge is the "unknown" Hymenn, now apparently made by Deumer. Clearly the drawing of the unknown badge is very similar to the one being sold by the firm of Deumer. Note the line in the rudder, not apparent in the accepted Hymenn version. Deck gun, flag, flat eagle head, basic expression of the eagle--many other details. The two badges are very different and the one in the Deumer catalog matches the second badge in nearly every basic conceptual aspect. Also remember the badge was not actually authorized until 13 October 1939, so changes would have been made between drawing (artist's rendering of the badge) and final production. Additionally, the reverse setups on the "unknown Hymenn" which I now call Deumer, are exactly the same as the EK1 spanges by Deumer. Those images are on the link provided. John

Dietrich has provided this image from the 1938 Deumer catalog. I think this is as good as one would need beyond having a technical drawing of the finished product. "Original" means exact size to the example in the catalog for those not following this thread on other forums. John

Since it is a drawing and not a photo, doubt if you should be so specific in your comparison--I would call it an artist's interpretation of the badge itself. In fact, it might have only been taken from a drawing, not the final design. If you are correct, then who made the unknown Hymenn style? No matter what, even if you were right, we now know for sure that Deumer had a Hymenn type badge for sale which has not made its appearance if one were to go by measurements from a drawing, which would be strange as this company is one of the oldest makers of badges in Germany. Best wishes, John

Do not have time yet, but will do so when I can. I recommend you join as many forums as you can, they each have something to offer. By the way, it is free and takes 5 minutes to join waf to view the images. Much of what I deduced in this thread came from Gordon's posts/images/postcards and Torpedo Los. John

Instead of reposting all the images here, I will provide the link to my thread at WAF. This is based on the 1937 Deumer catalog now for sale by Kai Winkler. While dated 1937, it seems that the catalog actually came out in final or other versions well after that date without changing the "1937". I think the only conclusion is that Deumer made the "Hymenn-type" badge and later changed to the Deumer style we are familiar with. http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=245935 I want to be clear in what I am saying: there are two Hymenn "type" badges. One, identified in Torpedo Los as "Hymenn" is the only accepted Hymenn badge. The badge I am referring to here is the "unknown Hymenn type" in Torpedo Los and on this forum--it seems very clear to me that the "unknown Hymenn" type was probably made by the firm Deumer. John

No the barograph went elsewhere although I was thinking about it. Just have to draw the line sometimes. If what you say is correct, and it sounds like you know your subject, then the #615 would have been a very early issue KM item if it covered not only sextants. John

It also looks like the sextants by Plath were sequentially numbered from 1 to the last one made. Mine is #615 and dated 1939. Looking at the other examples, it looks like this number kept getting bigger as the war went on, so I do not think they started over at the beginning on the year. Does this make sense to anyone else? John

Beautiful, especially since you have both first and second types. Do either of the boxes have a serial number plate on the exterior of the box. Mine does not, but it appears that there was a place where one was attached. John

I look forward to your photos. John

OK, thanks. It looks like the first pattern, besides the early dates, have a completely different and more complex structure than the second. This must be what Michel means by brackets, or the internal webbing. Thanks for pointing that out to me in your PM. It also looks like mine must be bronze since it does not have a painted arc, I do not know what the weights are but my guess this is the case. The aluminum sextants were all black, the bronze unpainted arcs. Thanks for posting your sextants Eduardo. John

Not sure what you mean by bracket. There are many brackets on a sextant from the mounting bracket in the case to the many brackets that hold the mirrors, filters and scope. If the first type, which I assume mine is since it dates from 1939 without reference to a bracket, can be bronze or aluminum, can you tell if the one I posted is bronze or aluminum just by looking at it? I would think an aluminum sextant would be fairly light, but not sure if you define it as bronze or aluminum by the main frame of the sextant which is painted or by the graduated arc which seems to be either black or metallic. John

I still would like the members that know to explain how you know if it is a first or second type sextant and if my sextant is aluminum or bronze. I assume aluminum. Also like to see other sextants if members have them. These sextants were carefully treasured, some were just rotten out of the box, others very accurate. When you had a good one, you took care of it. No banging around, they were delicate. John

The officer in your photo is taking a "sun line" by the way, which can give you a very accurate latitude and a decent logitude if you get enough "sights" and have a decent starting point, but the longitude would not be good enough usually to meet up with another U-boat although you would have an idea where you were and certainly you would know your exact latitude. It was the longitude that was the problem. Since I do not see a recorder, this officer must be shouting down a voice pipe or through the hatch to the navigator his readings, which makes the most sense to me. The man standing behind him I believe is just doing a search, has nothing to do with navigation. John

That is a nice photo, any more out there of the sextant in use at sea? It is my impression based on some experience at sea as a navigator, that the IWO actually had the responsibility of taking the "sights", not the leading quartermaster to use the US title who is listed as "navigator" in U-boat books. I think the enlisted man was responsible for keeping up the charts, calibrating the sextant, electronic navigation, many other duties, but when it actually came to taking sights with the sextant, it was the IWO and sometimes for training the IIWO but I might be wrong. I never have seen a photo with a sailor taking the shots, always an officer. So what I think happened is that the officer took the shot, shouted down the reading, and the "navigator" logged the reading and started working out the calculations to provide a navigational solution. Maybe on a nice day, the navigator would stand next to the IWO with a pad and the stopwatch and write down the angles at the same time logging from the stopwatch how many seconds had ticked by so later he could get the correct GMT which you need as an entering argument for any navigational problem. Meaning, he added the seconds to the previously recorder chronometer reading. Yes, I was a navigator and taught navigation at a merchant marine school, that is why I am a bit dubious that the enlisted navigator (steersman) actually used the sextant too often, but of course, he could have since every quartermaster I ever met was quite good at it. On a large ship, like a cruiser and battleship, there would be 3 or so men out there all shooting the same stars at the same time more or less in order to get the best possible fix. I do not see this as the case with a submarine. As a side note, drop one of these sextants and see what happens. The recalibration effort is monumental and quite frustrating. If you bend the arm or arc, forget it. John

4

3