Arctic Convoys 1942 The Luftwaffe

Cuts Russia s Lifeline 1st Edition Mark

Lardas & Adam Tooby
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/arctic-convoys-1942-the-luftwaffe-cuts-russia-s-lifelin
e-1st-edition-mark-lardas-adam-tooby/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Arctic Convoys 1942: The Luftwaffe cuts Russia's

lifeline 1st Edition Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/arctic-convoys-1942-the-
luftwaffe-cuts-russias-lifeline-1st-edition-mark-lardas/

Stalingrad Airlift 1942–43: The Luftwaffe's Broken

Promise to Sixth Army 1st Edition William E. Hiestand &
Adam Tooby

https://textbookfull.com/product/stalingrad-airlift-1942-43-the-
luftwaffes-broken-promise-to-sixth-army-1st-edition-william-e-
hiestand-adam-tooby/

Battle of the Atlantic 1942–45: The Climax of World War

II’s Greatest Naval Campaign 1st Edition Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/battle-of-the-
atlantic-1942-45-the-climax-of-world-war-iis-greatest-naval-
campaign-1st-edition-mark-lardas/

The Kamikaze Campaign 1944 45 Imperial Japan s Last

Throw of the Dice 1st Edition Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-kamikaze-
campaign-1944-45-imperial-japan-s-last-throw-of-the-dice-1st-
edition-mark-lardas/
Truk 1944–45: The Destruction of Japan's Central
Pacific Bastion 1st Edition Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/truk-1944-45-the-destruction-of-
japans-central-pacific-bastion-1st-edition-mark-lardas/

Rabaul 1943-44: Reducing Japan's Great Island Fortress

1st Edition Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/rabaul-1943-44-reducing-japans-
great-island-fortress-1st-edition-mark-lardas/

Japan 1944–45: LeMay’s B-29 Strategic Bombing Campaign

1st Edition Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/japan-1944-45-lemays-b-29-
strategic-bombing-campaign-1st-edition-mark-lardas/

Hitler s Eagles The Luftwaffe 1933 45 1st Edition Chris

Mcnab

https://textbookfull.com/product/hitler-s-eagles-the-
luftwaffe-1933-45-1st-edition-chris-mcnab/

South China Sea 1945: Task Force 38's Bold Carrier

Rampage in Formosa, Luzon, and Indochina 1st Edition
Mark Lardas

https://textbookfull.com/product/south-china-sea-1945-task-
force-38s-bold-carrier-rampage-in-formosa-luzon-and-
indochina-1st-edition-mark-lardas/
Author’s dedication:
To the memory of LtC (ret) William Brendan Welsh, US Army Special
Forces. I knew him as “Boss Mongo” on a message board, as good a
friendship as I have ever had with someone I met only virtually. He admired
my writing, while I admired his many accomplishments. We were going to
meet up some day but never got the chance. You left us too soon, Boss.
AIR CAMPAIGN
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHRONOLOGY
ATTACKER’S CAPABILITIES
DEFENDER’S CAPABILITIES
CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES
THE CAMPAIGN
AFTERMATH AND ANALYSIS
FURTHER READING
INTRODUCTION
By February 1942 the Allies had been running convoys to Russia via the
Arctic route for six months. Losses had been light through to the end of that
month and by then 97 ships had been sent to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk,
with another 61 returned. In 158 sailings only one ship had been sunk (a
second was torpedoed, but towed safely to port).

The fear of losses due to a potential attack on Convoy PQ-17 by Tirpitz led to massive
losses of independently sailing merchantmen to Luftwaffe aircraft and U-boats. One victim
is shown being sunk here. (USNHHC)

This was not to say the voyage was easy. The threat of enemy action was
ever present, even if it had not posed a serious danger during 1941.
German-occupied Norway and German-allied Finland offered nearby bases
from which the Kriegsmarine (the German navy) and Luftwaffe could
launch attacks, which therefore required a heavy escort for Russian
convoys.
Nor was enemy action the only threat. Arctic conditions made the
journey perilous at all times, with ice damage an ever-present threat that
increased during the winter months, and Arctic storms another danger. A
man going overboard in the Arctic Ocean or surrounding waters had only
minutes to live before succumbing to hypothermia.
Yet the Arctic convoys were vital. Soviet Russia was Germany’s biggest
opponent, and if the Soviet Union surrendered Anglo-American chances of
defeating Germany shrank dramatically. The Soviets had to be kept in the
war. Much of the Soviet industrial belt was overrun by Germany, and while
it was relocating war production east of the Urals, Russia faced critical
shortages of weapons, ammunition, and all the hardware required for
modern war.
The Western Allies had all the materiel in plenty, but the challenge lay in
getting it to the Soviet Union. Three supply routes were available. One ran
from the North American Pacific Coast to Vladivostok and from there to the
battlefield through the Trans-Siberian Railroad. A second wound its way
from Britain or North America around Africa into the Persian Gulf, across
Iran and across the Caucuses or Caspian Sea. Both these routes were long
and slow, and the Iranian route was just opening as 1942 began.
The shortest and fastest route ran by sea across the Arctic Ocean to
Russian Arctic ports, but it was also the most perilous. Providing an
adequate escort for Arctic convoys strained Allied naval resources requiring
destroyers and antisubmarine craft to protect Atlantic convoys from U-
boats. Protection was also needed to prevent attacks by Focke-Wulf
Condors. Arctic convoys passed within easy range of Kriegsmarine surface
ships and Luftwaffe medium bombers, so cruisers and battleships were
required as protection from the surface ships, and antiaircraft ships
(including antiaircraft cruisers) were used to guard against air attack.

The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 brought the Soviets into the war as a
British ally. Keeping the Soviets fighting was a British priority, leading to the institution of
Arctic convoys to bring munitions to Russia. (AC)
 The most exposed part of the voyage was made without air cover. The
nearest Coastal Command airfields to the Arctic run were in Iceland and the
Shetlands, but land-based aircraft stationed there lacked the range to reach
convoys north and east of Norway’s Narvik harbour. The Soviet air forces
might have provided air cover on the eastern end of the run, but the Soviets
were reluctant to operate aircraft over open water and needed the limited
aircraft they had to protect their own ports and cities. Aircraft carriers
would have been welcome, but, in January 1942, the Royal Navy’s fleet
carriers were too valuable to risk on convoy escort duty. Furthermore, the
Royal Navy had lost its only commissioned escort carrier in December
1941 and no more would be available until the last half of 1942.
Despite that, through to the end of February 1942, Arctic convoys
successfully reached their destinations with minimal losses. But in March
that began to change, owing to two British Commando raids the previous
December. Hitler took the raids on Vågsoy Island and the Lofoten Islands,
which took place on 26 and 27 December 1941, as precursors to a British
invasion of Norway, and ordered warplanes, U-boats and warships to
protect the country.
A major purpose of the raids was to draw German forces away from areas
where the Allies intended to fight, but it succeeded too well. German
ground forces sent to Norway were effectively removed from fighting
theatres elsewhere, but German air and sea forces could now reach well
beyond the Norwegian coastline, threatening the Allied convoys. Neither
Admiral Erich Raeder of the Kriegsmarine nor Reichsmarschall Hermann
Göring of the Luftwaffe wanted their forces in Scandinavia standing idle,
and the Arctic convoys proved irresistible.
At first the Allied losses remained low. Despite the Royal Navy’s
concerns over what Kriegsmarine surface forces might do to convoys, that
fear went largely unrealized over the first nine months of the Arctic run.
Losses were mainly due to U-boats and the hazards of the sea, but then the
Luftwaffe joined the fight. During March and April, the Luftwaffe’s
contribution was minor, but by May, and now carrying torpedoes as well as
bombs, Luftwaffe bombers sank half the Allied ships lost during Convoy
PQ-15. Having found their stride, the Luftwaffe became the true menace to
Allied shipping, and their ability to find convoys grew with the lengthening
Arctic summer days.
 So did the peril faced by merchantmen on the Arctic run. Though the
Allied naval commanders obsessed over the threat posed by the surface
ships of the Kriegsmarine, at war’s end the number of Allied ships sunk by
these warships could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Meanwhile,
however, U-boats and Luftwaffe bombers were ripping Arctic convoys
apart. In July 1942, following an ill-advised dispersal of Convoy PQ-17 a
massacre ensued in which 24 of the 38 merchant ships in the convoy were
sunk. Three were lost before the convoy dispersed; 21 afterwards. Of that
total, seven were sunk by Luftwaffe aircraft and nine crippled by bombers
allowing them to be finished off by U-boats.
The Allies tried everything they could to counter the threat posed by the
Luftwaffe. They added antiaircraft ships to the convoys, sent RAF units to
Murmansk and the Kola Peninsula to attempt to close the Luftwaffe’s bases
through bombing, put Hurricane fighters on merchant ships equipped with
catapults (this allowed a one-shot attack by the Hurricane, which had to
ditch afterwards), and finally, they committed one of their scarce escort
carriers to an Arctic convoy.
The climax came in September 1942, with convoy PQ-18. The Luftwaffe
threw everything it could at the convoy, and the Allies retaliated in kind. A
bloody fight ensued, at the end of which the convoy remained together but
30 per cent of the ships sent were sunk – over three-quarters of the losses
were due to air attack.
The Luftwaffe lost 15 to 20 per cent of the aircraft it committed to the
battle, but the Allies threw in the towel and suspended Arctic convoy sailing
until December, relying on the long Arctic night to shield them from the
Luftwaffe. They never again attempted an Arctic convoy during the summer
months of June through August, due to the perceived threat of Luftwaffe
aircraft. However, the Luftwaffe’s tide ebbed as quickly as it rose. In
November the Allies landed in North Africa in Operation Torch, and to
counter this and a new British offensive in northeast Africa, the Luftwaffe’s
bombers harassing Arctic convoys were redeployed to the Mediterranean.
The Arctic convoys continued to face the twin perils of the
Kriegsmarine’s U-boats and surface warships but most of the aircraft
remaining in the Arctic Circle were maritime reconnaissance. The Arctic
run remained hazardous, but not nearly as hazardous as when the Luftwaffe
was present in force. From December 1943 when convoys resumed until
May 1945 when the war ended, aircraft sank only one ship sailing in an
Arctic convoy, and sank only one more during an air raid on a Russian port.
The 1942 Arctic convoy battles proved to be the last successful air
campaign of the Luftwaffe. Even there, success was tenuous. German
success depended heavily on Allied reluctance to risk merchant convoys to
the threat of German air attack – a threat that existed largely within the
imagination of Allied planners. Regardless, the result constricted supplies
sent by the Arctic route for the rest of the war.
This campaign was hard-fought by both sides, and the margin of victory
narrow as both adversaries strove to meet their goals in one of the most
inhospitable places in the globe. The Arctic was an area hostile to ships and
even more unforgiving to aircraft – the environment as much a foe to each
side as the enemy they were fighting. The men of both sides which fought
this campaign were courageous and resolute, and all were tested to the
limits of human endurance. This book tells their story.
STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
CHRONOLOGY
1941
22 June Germany attacks the Soviet Union.
12 July Anglo-Soviet Agreement signed,
obligating Britain to supply the Soviet
Union with munitions.
21–31 August Convoy Dervish sails to Arkhangelsk,
Russia, from Hvalfjörður, Iceland,
beginning Arctic convoys to and from
Russia.
28 September The PQ–QP convoy series opens with
the sailing of Convoy QP-1 to Scapa
Flow.
10 December United States declares war on Germany
and Italy.
26–27 DecemberVågsoy Island and the Lofoten Islands
raided by British commandos.
29 December Hitler decides the commando raids
presage a British invasion of Norway,
ordering Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and
Luftwaffe reinforcements sent to the
area.
1942
2 January The 5,135grt Waziristan becomes the
first Arctic convoy ship lost.
17 January HMS Matabele sunk by U-454, the first
British warship lost on the Arctic run.
24 January First Kampfgeschwader (KG) 30 aircraft
arrive at Banak and Bardufoss.
March KG 26 begins transferring two Gruppes
to Bardufoss and Banak.

December 1941 raids on Vågsoy Island (shown here) and the Lofoten Islands convinced
Hitler the British planned an invasion of Norway. His orders led to reinforcement of Luftflotte
5 in Norway, making bombers available to attack Arctic convoys. (AC)

11 April Luftwaffe Ju 88s bomb Convoy QP-10,

sinking 7,161grt cargo ship Empire
 Cowper. It is the first ship sunk in
convoy by Luftwaffe aircraft.
14 April Luftwaffe dive bombers sink British
steamship Lancaster Castle (5,172grt) in
port after its arrival at Murmansk in PQ-
12.
3 May Six He 111 bombers of KG 26 make the
first Luftwaffe torpedo bomber attack of
World War II. They hit three ships,
sinking two and damaging a third.
21–30 May Convoy PQ-16 sails from Reykjavík to
Murmansk. Constantly attacked by
Luftwaffe aircraft, it loses six ships to
aircraft with three damaged.
June Final Luftwaffe reinforcements arrive in
Norway.
26 June Convoy QP-13 leaves Arkhangelsk.
Despite being spotted by Luftwaffe
reconnaissance, it is largely ignored due
to the Germans concentrating on Convoy
PQ-17.
27 June Convoy PQ-17 departs Reykjavík.
4 July Convoy PQ-17 ordered dispersed.
7 July Convoy QP-13 arrives at Reykjavík after
losing five ships to a friendly minefield.
These are the only casualties suffered by
QP-13.
25 July Final five surviving ships from PQ-17
arrive in Arkhangelsk.
2 September Convoy PQ-18 departs Loch Ewe,
Scotland for Murmansk.
13 September First Luftwaffe attack on PQ-18,
including the war’s first ‘Goldene Zange’
attack.
14–18 Luftwaffe makes heavy attacks daily on
September Convoy PQ-18.
22 September PQ-19 is cancelled.
Two ships destined to play important roles in PQ-17 were the ASW trawler Ayrshire and the
Hog Islander Troubadour. Ayrshire is shown in this photo taken from Troubadour’s deck.
The M-3 tank in the foreground is part of Troubadour’s deck cargo. (USNHHC)

26 September PQ-18 arrives at Arkhangelsk, after

losing ten of the convoy’s 40 cargo ships
to air attacks and two to U-boats.
29 October–3 Operation FB, individual sailing by
November unescorted merchantmen, replaces
escorted Arctic convoys.
8 November An Anglo-American army invades
French North Africa as Operation Torch
begins.
8–12 November Luftwaffe units begin transferring from
Norway and Finland to the
Mediterranean.
17 November PQ–QP series terminates with the sailing
of QP-15 from Kola Inlet on 17
November and its arrival at Loch Ewe on
30 November.
15 December British resume Arctic convoys, with a
new convoy code. Convoy JW-51A
departs Liverpool for Murmansk.
 The real danger on the Arctic run came from the foe the Allies were least able to fight in
1942: Luftwaffe aircraft. A lack of air cover and inadequate antiaircraft defences enabled the
Luftwaffe to attack convoys with relative impunity during this year. (AC)

31 December Battle of Barents Sea fought. Two British

light cruisers drive Lützow and Admiral
Hipper away from Convoy JW-51B.
1943
2 March 12 KG 30 Ju 88s attack RA-53, the first
Luftwaffe attack on an Arctic convoy at
sea since PQ-18, but sink no ships.
26 December Battle of North Cape, Scharnhorst sunk
attempting to attack JW-55B.
1944
September KG 26 begins transferring back to
Norway.
1945
7 February KG 26 sends a 48 aircraft strike against
JW-63, its first since returning to
Norway. It fails to find the convoy.
10 February 32 KG 26 torpedo bombers attack JW-
63. They score no hits, and lose five
aircraft.
23 February Liberty Ship Henry Bacon becomes the
last ship sunk in an Arctic convoy by
Luftwaffe aircraft, and the first to be
sunk at sea since the resumption of
convoys in December 1943. It is the last
ship lost on the Arctic run.
7 May Germany surrenders to the United
Nations.
30 May Final Arctic convoy, RA-53, arrives at
Clyde.
ATTACKER’S CAPABILITIES
The Luftwaffe’s maritime strike force

Aircraft
The Luftwaffe was initially conceived as a bomber force to support
Wehrmacht operations; maritime patrol and strike was largely added after
World War II began but, by the beginning of 1942, the Luftwaffe had
gained proficiency in both.

The Ju 88 was Nazi Germany’s most versatile aircraft, deployed in almost every role except
transport. It was an important tool in the Luftwaffe’s campaign against Arctic convoys,
serving as a bomber, torpedo bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. (AC)

The most significant aircraft used in this campaign were the Luftwaffe’s
main medium bombers, the Heinkel 111 and the Ju 88. These aircraft were
used most frequently to attack Allied convoys. They were supplemented by
pre-war Luftwaffe maritime patrol aircraft, such as the Heinkel He 115 and
the Blohm & Voss BV 138, as well as the wartime-developed Focke-Wulf
200. These were used primarily for reconnaissance, although the He 115 did
occasionally attack convoys, especially after being adapted to a torpedo-
bomber role.
 Luftwaffe single- and multi-engine fighters played minor roles in this
campaign, as did single-engine strike and reconnaissance aircraft. Limited
Allied aircraft presence with Arctic convoys during 1942 gave fighters like
the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110, or the Focke-Wulf 190, little scope
for action. These aircraft protected German bases in Scandinavia from
Allied bombers or escorted bombing raids against northern Russian ports.
Similarly, the limited range of the Arado Ar 196 meant its reconnaissance
role was better served by multi-engine patrol aircraft. Only the Junkers Ju
87 saw use, and that largely against ships in Russian ports or close to the
Scandinavian coast.
The aircraft most involved in interdicting the Allies’ Arctic convoys to
Russia were:
Junkers Ju 88: The Ju 88 was the Luftwaffe’s most versatile aircraft,
serving as a bomber, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, reconnaissance aircraft,
night fighter and heavy fighter during World War II. With twin-engines, it
had a crew of four as a bomber. Its length was 14.36m (47.1ft), its wingspan
20.08m (65.9ft). It had a 470km/h (290mph) top speed, a 370km/h
(230mph) cruising speed, a 1,790km (1,110 miles) operational range and a
service ceiling of 8,200m (26,900ft). As a bomber it could carry up to
1,400kg (3,100lb) of bombs internally and up to 3,000kg (6,600lb)
externally. It could be modified to carry two torpedoes. It had five MG 81
7.92mm machine guns, three in flexible single mounts firing from the nose
and ventral positions fore and aft, and a dorsal flexible twin mount at the aft
cockpit.
The Germans called the Ju 88 Mädchen für Alles (Maid of all Work) due
to its flexibility. It had been strengthened and modified pre-war to serve as a
heavy dive bomber. Other models were also modified to serve as
reconnaissance aircraft, radar-equipped night fighters (with upward-firing
Schrage-Musik 20mm cannon) and as heavy fighters with up to six 20mm
forward-firing cannon in the nose. Against Arctic convoys, the Ju 88 was
primarily used for reconnaissance, and as a bomber, both a dive bomber and
torpedo bomber.
Heinkel He 111: The He 111 twin-engine bomber was Germany’s main
medium bomber through most of World War II. Its length was 16.4m
(53.8ft) with a 22.6m (74.15ft) wingspan. It had a 440km/h (270mph) top
speed, a cruising speed with a full bomb load of 300km/h (190mph), a
2,300km (1,400 miles) range and a 6,500m (21,300ft) service ceiling. It
could carry up to 2,000kg (4,400lb) of bombs internally, or 3,600kg
(7,900lb) or two torpedoes on external racks. (It could not carry bombs
internally with external racks attached.) For defensive armament it carried
six or seven MG 15 or MG 81 7.92mm (.30cal) machine guns and one MG
151 13mm machine gun in single-mount hand-held positions.
It first flew in 1935, disguised as a civilian airliner, though military
versions appeared in 1936. Although it was upgraded throughout
production, by 1942 it was obsolete, but despite this, production continued
until 1944. Equipped with torpedoes or bombs, it served satisfactorily
against convoys without air cover. It was primarily used as a torpedo
bomber against Arctic convoys.
Heinkel He 115: The twin-engine He 115 was a floatplane maritime
patrol aircraft. It was frequently used for reconnaissance, but also used as a
torpedo bomber and a minelaying aircraft. It had a crew of three, was 17.3m
(56.75ft) long with a wingspan of 22.28m (73.08ft). It had a combat range
of 2,100km (1,300 miles), a service ceiling of 5,200m (17,100ft), a
maximum speed of 327km/h (203mph), a cruising speed of 280km/h
(174mph) and a maximum endurance of 18 hours. It could carry up to
1,250kg (2,750lb) of bombs, one torpedo or one 920kg (2,000lb) sea mine.
It was armed with one flexible MG 17 and one MG 15 7.93mm machine
guns, in nose and dorsal mounts.
The He 115 was ordered in 1935, and first flew in 1937, entering
operational service in 1939. By 1941, 138 had been built, with production
restarting in 1943. Considered the best floatplane of World War II, the He
115 was a torpedo bomber and reconnaissance aircraft in the Arctic.
Blohm & Voss BV 138: The Blohm & Voss BV 138 Seedrache (Sea
Dragon) was a tri-motor flying boat used for long-range maritime patrol. It
was 19.85m (65.08ft) long, with a 26.94m (88.4ft) wingspan. It had a
285km/h (177mph) top speed, a 235 km/h (146mph) cruising speed, an
operational range of 1,220km (760 miles) at 195km/h (121mph), a
relatively short six-hour endurance and a 5,000m (16,400ft) service ceiling.
It had a six-man crew and carried a defensive armament of two 20mm MG
151 cannon individually mounted in power nose and tail turrets, and a
single 13mm MG 131 machine gun in an open ring mount behind the centre
engine. Primarily a reconnaissance aircraft, it could carry up to six 50kg
(110lb) bombs under the wings.
 First flown in 1937, it became operational in 1940, and 297 were built
between 1938 and 1943. It had an odd appearance with a short fuselage,
two engines mounted mid-wing in nacelles forming twin booms holding the
horizontal and vertical stabilizers, and the centre engine mounted above the
fuselage in a streamlined fairing. Its side profile gave it the appearance of a
shoe, giving rise to the nickname Der Fliegende Holzschuh (Flying clog) a
play on the name Der Fliegende Hollander (The Flying Dutchman).

The He 111 was the Luftwaffe’s main medium bomber when World War II began. One
Gruppe, KG 26, converted to carrying aerial torpedoes. These aircraft saw extensive
service in the Arctic, proving a hazard to Allied shipping. (AC)

Focke-Wulf Fw 200: The Fw 200 Condor was a very-long-range

maritime patrol aircraft. It had a 360km/h (223mph) top speed, a 335km/h
(208mph) cruising speed, a service ceiling of 6,000m (20,000ft), a 3,560km
(2,210 mile) range and a 14 hour endurance. Its wingspan was 32.85m
(107.77ft) and its length 23.45m (77ft). It was armed with an MG 151
20mm cannon in the forward ventral gondola, an MG 131 13mm machine
gun in a hand-held aft dorsal mount and four MG 15 7.9mm machine guns
individually mounted in a power top turret, and flexible beam and aft
ventral mountings. It had a maximum bomb load of 5,400kg (4,620lb) on
wing mounts or 1,000kg (2,200lb) internally, but generally carried less for
greater range. It had a crew of five to seven.
Originally an airliner, it was converted to military use by attaching a
bomb bay beneath the fuselage and adding machine guns and cannon for
anti-shipping and air-to-air defence. The Condor was structurally weak and
virtually helpless against fighters (or even Allied patrol bombers), but
became the terror of the Atlantic in 1940 by operating against largely
unarmed merchantmen sailing individually. By 1942 its reign as an attack
aircraft was over, though it remained a superb maritime patrol aircraft due
to its endurance and long range, and was so used on Arctic convoys.
Junkers Ju 87: A two place, single-engine dive bomber, the Junkers Ju
87 Stuka (short for Sturzkampfflugzeug ‘dive bomber’) was a dive bomber
developed as an army ground support aircraft, though it proved effective
against maritime targets during the war’s opening months. It had a 383km/h
(238mph) top speed, a 209km/h (130mph) cruising speed, an 8,200m
(26,900ft) operational ceiling and a 595.5km (370 mile) range when
carrying bombs. It was armed with two fixed forward-firing MG 17
7.92mm and one flexible rear-mounted MG 15 7.29mm machine gun. It
carried a centre-mounted 250kg (550lb) bomb and four wing-mounted 50
kg (110lb) bombs.
The Ju 87 was World War II’s iconic Luftwaffe aircraft. A low-wing
metal monoplane, with inverted gull-wings and fixed landing gear in faired
housings, it looked like a predatory hawk. An accurate dive bomber, it was
deadly against unarmed opponents, but it was also slow, had limited
manoeuvrability and weak defensive armament, making it vulnerable to
fighters. Its short range limited its usefulness in maritime roles, but it did
attack Arctic convoys close to German-held shores.

Facilities and infrastructure

The Germans faced two obstacles in conducting an aerial offensive against
Arctic convoys: possessing adequate facilities from which to mount the
offensive and then developing the infrastructure to support and supply those
facilities.
The path to Russia through the Arctic crossed one of the world’s most
hostile environments – even during summer months it was cold and
inhospitable. The lands bordering Arctic waters were a frozen desert most
of the year, and plains upon which airfields could be built frequently
became bogs during the brief Arctic summer.
The population of Finnmark, then Norway’s northernmost county, was
sparse at the beginning of World War II. There were few communities, and
those that did exist had populations numbering only in the hundreds – for
example, the population of Vadsø, the region’s administrative centre, was
under 2,000 in 1940. Little existing infrastructure could support airfields
and naval ports, and conditions in Northern Finland were little better.
Northern Lapland was just as sparsely populated as Finnmark, with its
largest town, the port city of Petsamo, about as large as Vadsø.
As 1942 began, the Luftwaffe had a series of airfields and seaplane bases
throughout Norway and Finland – a combination of bases which existed
prior to the 1940 Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union and the
1940 occupation of Norway, and those built for the Luftwaffe after
occupation. Additionally, Sola Airfield at Stavanger and Værnes Airfield in
Trondheim supported Luftwaffe activities against Arctic convoys by
providing bases for long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft.
The most important northern airfields included Kirkenes, Banak,
Bardufoss and Bodö in Finnmark, and Petsamo in Lapland. Banak, Bodö
and Bardufoss were existing Norwegian airfields taken over by Germany
after conquest, and similarly, Petsamo was one of six pre-war airfields in
Lapland. The major seaplane stations and anchorages which were used in
this campaign included Alta-See and Tromsø, though there were also
seaplane facilities associated with Bodö, Kirkenes, Stavanger and
Trondheim.
None of these airfields, except Stavanger, were well developed prior to
World War II. Stavanger had a concrete runway, but the rest were unpaved,
with Banak, Bardufoss and Bodö having been built in the late 1930s by the
Norwegians to protect Finnmark from a potential Soviet invasion. They had
either gravel or turf runways in 1940, as did the airfields around Trondheim.
Petsamo, along with the other five Lapland airfields, were little more than
cleared fields with a few small buildings or sheds for support.
Luftwaffe aircraft operated under primitive conditions out of Finnmark airfields. The airfields
had gravel or wood-plank runways and maintenance facilities were crude. Fuelling and
servicing had to be done outdoors in a harsh climate. (AC)

GERMAN AND ALLIED AIRFIELDS

 Between the start of the German occupation and the invasion of Russia in
June 1941, the Germans extensively improved their airfields in Norway. At
first, airfields in southern and central Norway, including Trondheim, were
improved to support the Battle of Britain; however, as the Germans
prepared to invade Russia, they also upgraded airfields in Finnmark. The
Luftwaffe improved Finnish airfields after Finland declared war on the
Soviet Union in June 1941, and by January 1942 these were able to support
a broad range of Luftwaffe aircraft, even multi-engine aircraft.
However, even these improvements were more rudimentary than seen
elsewhere in Europe. Banak’s two main runways had wooden-plank
surfacing, as did Petsamo, and Kirkenes had only dirt and gravel-surfaced
runways throughout its existence. Trondheim, Bardufoss and Bodö gained
concrete runways between 1940 and the middle of 1942, although Bodö’s
runways were partly wood and partly concrete, while its taxiways were
wooden. All had buildings permitting maintenance and rudimentary repair
of aircraft, as well as fuelling and ammunition storage facilities, and aircraft
dispersal areas.
Tromsø, a pre-war Norwegian Naval Air Service Station, was the
Luftwaffe’s main seaplane station in northern Norway. It had 30 mooring
buoys, jetties for fuel and ammunition, and a large double hangar with
attached workshop and concrete apron. Alta-See was primarily a seaplane
anchorage with basic fuel and ammunition capabilities, but no maintenance
facilities, and Bodö-See was a refuelling stop. In 1942, Kirkenes’s seaplane
facilities were just an anchorage, whereas Trondheim and Stavanger had
extensive seaplane facilities used mainly by long-range reconnaissance
seaplanes involved with Arctic convoys.
The Luftwaffe’s infrastructure supporting their forces in Finnmark and
Lapland were as ad hoc and improvised as their airfields and facilities. One
problem faced by forces in the far north, Axis and Allies alike, was that it
was at the end of a long supply line. Everything except drinking water,
including rations, arms and materiel, had to be shipped there by sea. No
railroads ran to Finnmark or Lapland, and roads were poor in summer and
impassable in winter.
 Tromsø was the Luftwaffe’s main seaplane station in northern Norway. It had pre-war
mooring buoys and maintenance jetties, but Arctic conditions made it difficult to operate
from. A BV 138 is being towed ashore, and an He 115 can be seen in the background.
(USNHHC)

Narvik was northern Norway’s most important harbour, serving as the point from which
Swedish iron ore was shipped to Germany. It served as a Kriegsmarine anchorage,
although it lacked repair facilities to make it a full naval port. (AC)

Although Norway’s west and north coast remained ice-free during the
winter, logistics were complicated by the relatively small merchant marine
available to the Axis in Scandinavia. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe was not
the only organization requiring use of Germany’s sealift capabilities –
multiple demands fell on it. The Wehrmacht was pursuing a land offensive
to capture Murmansk and the Kola Peninsula in 1941 and 1942, and so the
Kriegsmarine maintained a large naval presence in Norway. It kept its major
surface units in Trondheim and the northern ports in 1942 and 1943, and the
13th U-boat Flotilla operated out of Trondheim during this period.
Furthermore, Narvik was an ice-free port from which Swedish iron ore
went to Germany and was an anchorage (along with Alten Fjord) for
Kriegsmarine warships attacking the Arctic convoys.
Additionally, the German merchant marine did not grow to meet
demands for greater shipping, but instead shrank as the hazards of the sea
took a toll. Furthermore, to protect Allied Arctic convoys, the Royal Navy
maintained heavy submarine patrols off Norwegian coastal waters whose
main targets were major Kriegsmarine warships (especially the battleship
Tirpitz), but few submarine commanders ignored merchant targets when
encountered.
The Luftwaffe could only maintain a maximum of 300–400 aircraft in the
Arctic. That limit was mitigated by two factors: the ability to stage aircraft
from southern Scandinavia and the number of aircraft available to the
Luftwaffe.
Staging involved operating aircraft out of airfields in southern or central
Norway to support actions in the Arctic. Aircraft would be maintained,
serviced and armed in airfields such as Stavanger’s Sola or Trondheim, and
flown to airfields in Finnmark where they refuelled to attack the convoy.
Returning to the Finnmark airfields they might be rearmed and refuelled for
another attack or flown back to southern bases for servicing, depending
upon whether this was needed.
The period during which a convoy could be attacked by aircraft was brief
– rarely more than a week. Staging minimized the time aircraft spent in the
far north, reducing the logistical demands at the Finnmark air bases.
Additionally, very-long-range patrol aircraft, such as the He 115 or Fw 200
could operate effectively out of Stavanger, Bergen or Trondheim.
The real reason logistical limitation never constrained Luftwaffe Arctic
operations was that the Luftwaffe lacked the aircraft to commit enough to
strain logistic limits. By January 1942 the Luftwaffe had to maintain a
presence supporting air activities in Russia, the Mediterranean, France and
Germany, and 200–250 multi-engine aircraft were as much as could be
committed in Norway and Lapland. Even in Lapland, most of the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
objects whose names occur in ancient literature, we lose half the
pleasure of reading it. In reading the New Testament, I can
certainly say for myself, that I derive more pleasure from the
narrative of the woman who poured the contents of the alabaster
box over the head of Jesus, now that I know what an alabastron
is, and how its contents would be extracted; and in the same way
I appreciate the remark made by the silversmith in the Acts, that
all Asia and the world worshipped the Ephesian Diana, now that I
know her image to be stamped not on the coins of Ephesus only,
but on many other cities throughout Asia also. Here, I think, we
have pleasure and profit combined in one. Instances are
abundant where monuments illustrate profane authors. The
reader of Aristophanes will be pleased to recognise among the
earliest figures on vases that of the ἱππαλεκτρυών, the cock-
horse, or horse-cock, which cost Bacchus a sleepless night to
conceive what manner of fowl it might be. “The Homeric scholar
again,” it has been said, “must contemplate with interest the
ancient pictures of Trojan scenes on the vases, and can hardly
fail to derive some assistance in picturing them to his own
imagination, by seeing how they were reproduced in that of the
Greeks themselves in the days of Æschylus and Pindar[25].”
24. Figrelius, quoted in the Museum of Classical Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 4.

25. Edinburgh Review, u. s.

Further, not only is ancient literature, but also modern art,

aided by archæology. It is well known how, in the early part of the
thirteenth century, Niccola Pisano was so attracted by a bas-
relief of Meleager, which had been lying in Pisa for ages
unheeded, “that it became the basis of his studies and the germ
of true taste in Italy.” In the Academy of St Luke at Rome, and in
the schools established shortly afterwards at Florence by
Lorenzo de’ Medici, the professors were required to point out to
the students the beauty and excellence of the works of ancient
art, before they were allowed to exercise their own skill and
imagination. Under the fostering patronage of this illustrious man
and of his not less illustrious son a galaxy of great artists lighted
up all Europe with their splendour. Leon Batista Alberti, one of
the greatest men of his age, and especially great in architecture,
was most influential in bringing back his countrymen to the study
of the monuments of antiquity. He travelled to explore such as
were then known, and tells us that he shed tears on beholding
the state of desolation in which many of them lay. The prince of
painters, Raffaelle,

timuit quo sospite vinci

Rerum magna parens et moriente mori,

and the prince of sculptors, Michael Angelo, both drew their

inspiration from the contemplation of the art-works of antiquity.
The former was led to improve the art of painting by the frescoes
of the baths of Titus, the latter by the sight of a mere torso
imbibed the principles of proportion and effect which were so
admirably developed in that fragment[26]. And not only the arts of
sculpture and painting, but those which enter into our daily life,
are furthered by the wise consideration of the past. Who can
have witnessed the noble exhibitions in Hyde Park or at
Kensington without feeling how much the objects displayed were
indebted to Hellenic art? In reference to the former of these Mr
Wornum says: “Repudiate the idea of copying as we will, all our
vagaries end in a recurrence to Greek shapes; all the most
beautiful forms in the Exhibition, (whether in silver, in bronze, in
earthenware, or in glass,) are Greek shapes; it is true often
disfigured by the accessory decorations of the modern styles, but
still Greek in their essential form[27].”
26. For this and the preceding facts see the Museum of Classical Antiquities, Vol. I.
pp. 13-15. The frescoes of the baths of Titus have subsequently lost their
brilliancy. See Quatremère de Quincy’s Life of Raphael, p. 263. Hazlitt’s
Translation. (Bogue’s European Library).

27. The Exhibition as a Lesson in Taste, p. xvii.*** (Printed at the end of the Art-
Journal Illustrated Catalogue, 1851).

And yet I must, in concluding this Introductory Lecture, most

strongly recommend to you the study of archæology, not only for
its illustration of ancient literature, not only for its furtherance of
modern art, but also, and even principally, for its own sake. “Hæc
studia adolescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant, secundas res
ornant, adversis perfugium ac solatium præbent; delectant domi,
non impediunt foris, pernoctant nobiscum, peregrinantur,
rusticantur[28].” Every one who follows a pursuit in addition to the
routine duties of life has, by so doing, a happiness and an
advantage of which others know little. The more elevated the
pursuit, the more exquisite the happiness and the more solid the
advantage. Now if

The proper study of mankind is man,

then most assuredly archæology is one of the most proper

pursuits which man can follow. For she is the interpreter of the
remains which man in former ages has left behind him. By her
we read his history, his arts, his civilisation; by her magical
charms the past rises up again and becomes a present; the tide
of time flows back with us in imagination; the power of
association transports us from place to place, from age to age,
suddenly and in a moment. Again the glories of the nations of the
old world shine forth;

Again their godlike heroes rise to view,

And all their faded garlands bloom anew.

28. Cicero pro Archia poeta, c. vii.

To adopt and adapt the words of one who is both a learned

archæologist and a learned astronomer of this University, I feel
that I may, under any and all circumstances, impress upon your
minds the utility and pleasure of “every species and every
degree of archæological enquiry.” For “history must be looked
upon as the great instructive school in the philosophical
regulation of human conduct,” as well as the teacher “of moral
precepts” for all ages to come; and no “better aid can be
appealed to for” the discovery, for “the confirmation, and for the
demonstration of the facts of history, than the energetic pursuit of
archæology”[29].
29. See an address delivered at an Archæological meeting at Leicester, by John Lee,
Esq., LL.D. (Journal of Archæol. Association for 1863, p. 37).
 NOTES.

Pp. 15-20. Nearly everything contained in the text relating to

pre-historic Europe will be found in the Revue Archéologique for
1864, and in Sir C. Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, London, 1863; see
also for Thetford, Antiq. Commun. Vol. I. pp. 339-341, (Cambr.
Antiq. Soc. 1859); but the following recent works (as I learn from
Mr Bonney, who is very familiar with this class of antiquities) will
also be found useful to the student:
Prehistoric Times. By John Lubbock, F.R.S. London, 1865.
8vo.
The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark. By Prof. Worsäe.
London, 1849. 8vo. (Engl. Transl.).
Les Habitations Lacustres. Par F. Troyon. Lausanne, 1860.
Les Constructions Lacustres du Lac de Neufchâtel. Par E.
Desor. Neufchâtel, 1864.
Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes. Par Boucher de
Perthes. Paris, 1847.
Die Pfahlbauten. Von Dr Ferd. Keller. Ber. I-V. (Mittheilungen
der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zurich). 1854, sqq. 4to.
Die Pfahlbauten in den Schweizer-Seeen. Von I. Staub. Zurich,
1864. 8vo.
Besides these there are several valuable papers in the
Transactions of the Royal, Geological, and Antiquarian Societies
(by Messrs John Evans, Prestwich, and others), the Natural
History Review, and other Periodicals.
 p. 26. For the literature relating to ancient Egypt see Mr R. S.
Poole’s article on Egypt, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I.
p. 512.
pp. 29-31. Besides the works of Robinson, De Saulcy, Lewin,
Thrupp, and others, the following books may be mentioned as
more especially devoted to the archæology of Jerusalem:
The Holy City. By George Williams, B.D. (Second edition,
including an architectural History of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre by the Rev. Robert Willis, M.A., F.R.S. 1849.)
Jerusalem Explored. By Ermete Pierotti. Translated by T. G.
Bonney, M.A. 1864.
Le Temple de Jérusalem. Par le Comte Melchior de Vogüé,
1865. The Count considers none of the present remains of the
Temple to be earlier than the time of Herod.
To these I should add Mr Williams’ and Mr Bonney’s tracts,
directed against the views of Mr Fergusson, in justification of
those of Dr Pierotti.
p. 31, l. 20. From some remarks made to me by my learned
friend, Count de Vogüé, I fear that this is not so certain a
characteristic of Phœnician architecture as has been commonly
supposed. He assigns some of the bevelled stones which occur
in Phœnicia to the age of the Crusades.
p. 31, last line. For the very remarkable Phœnician
sarcophagus discovered in 1855, and for various references to
authorities on Phœnician antiquities, see Smith’s Dict. of the
Bible, Vol. II. p. 868, and Vol. III. p. 1850.
p. 36. As a general work on Greek and Roman Coins Eckhel’s
Doctrina Numorum Veterum (Vindobonæ, 1792-1828, with
Steinbuchel’s Addenda, 8 Vols. 4to.) still remains the standard,
though now getting a little out of date.
The same remark must be made of Mionnet’s great work,
Description de Médailles Antiques, Grecques et Romaines,
Paris, 1806-1813 (7 Vols.), with a supplement of 9 Vols. Paris,
1818-1837, giving a very useful Bibliothèque Numismatique at
the end; to which must be added his Poids des Médailles
Grecques, Paris, 1839. These seventeen volumes comprise the
Greek coins: the other part of his work, De la Rareté et du Prix
des Médailles Romaines, Paris, 1827, in two volumes, is now
superseded.
Since Mionnet’s time certain departments of Greek and other
ancient numismatics have been much more fully worked out,
especially by the following authors:
De Luynes (coins of Satraps; also of Cyprus); L. Müller (coins
of Philip and Alexander; of Lysimachus; also of Ancient Africa);
Pinder (Cistophori); Beulé (Athenian coins); Lindsay (Parthian
coins); Longpérier, and more recently Mordtmann (coins of the
Sassanidæ); Carelli’s plates described by Cavedoni (coins of
Magna Græcia, &c.); other works of Cavedoni (Various coins);
Friedländer (Oscan coins); Sambon (coins of South Italy); De
Saulcy, Levy, Madden (Jewish coins); V. Langlois (Armenian,
also early Arabian coins); J. L. Warren (Greek Federal coins;
also more recently, copper coins of Achæan League); R. S.
Poole (coins of the Ptolemies); Waddington (Unedited coins of
Asia Minor).
For Roman and Byzantine coins (including Æs grave and
Contorniates) see the works of Marchi and Tessieri, Cohen,
Sabatier, and De Saulcy.
Others, as Prokesch-Osten, Leake, Smyth, Hobler, and Fox,
have published their collections or the unedited coins of them;
and all the numismatic periodicals contain various previously
unedited Greek and Roman and other ancient coins.
p. 40. Fabretti’s work is entitled, Glossarium Italicum in quo
omnia vocabula continentur ex Umbricis, Sabinis, Oscis, Volscis,
Etruscis, cæterisque monumentis collecta, et cum
interpretationibus variorum explicantur (Turin, 1858-1864). Many
figures of the antiquities, on which the words occur, are given in
their places.
 p. 43. Cromlechs in some, if not in all cases, appear to be the
skeletons of barrows.
p. 44. The following works will be found useful for the student
of early British antiquities:
Pictorial History of England, Vol. I. Lond. 1838.
Archæological Index to remains of Antiquity of the Celtic,
Romano-British, and Anglo-Saxon periods. By J. Y. Akerman,
F.S.A. London, 1847 (with a classified index of the Papers in the
Archæologia, Vols. I-XXXI.).
Ten years’ diggings in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills in the
Counties of Derby, Stafford, and York, from 1848-1858. By
Thomas Bateman. London, 1861. A most useful work, which will
indicate the existence of many others. In connection with this see
Dr Thurnam’s paper on British and Gaulish skulls in Memoirs of
Anthropological Soc. Vol. I. p. 120.
The Land’s End District, its Antiquities, Natural History, &c. By
Richard Edmonds. London, 1862.
Catalogue of the Antiquities of Stone, Earthen, and Vegetable
Materials, in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. By W. B.
Wilde, M.R.I.A. Dublin, 1857.
The Coins of the Ancient Britons. By John Evans, F.S.A. The
plates by F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. London, 1864. By far the best and
most complete work hitherto published on the subject.
Also, the Transactions of various learned Societies in Great
Britain and Ireland, among which the Archæologia Cambrensis is
deserving of special mention.
For the Romano-British Antiquities may be added Horsley’s
Britannia Romana, 1732; Roy’s Military Antiquities of the
Romans in Britain, 1793; Lysons’ Relliquiæ Britannico-Romanæ.
London, 1813, 4 Vols. fol.
Monographs on York, by Mr Wellbeloved; on Richborough and
other towns, by Mr C. R. Smith; on Aldborough, by Mr H. E.
Smith; on Wroxeter, by Mr Wright; on Caerleon, by Mr Lee; on
Cirencester, by Messrs Buckman and Newmarch; on Hadrian’s
wall, by Dr Bruce; on various excavations in Cambridgeshire, by
the Hon. R. C. Neville.
p. 45. For the Roman Roads, &c. in Cambridgeshire, see Prof.
Charles C. Babington’s Ancient Cambridgeshire, Cambr. 1853
(Cambr. Ant. Soc).
— No doubt need have been expressed about Wroxeter, which
should hardly have been called ‘our little Pompeii’; the area of
Wroxeter being greater, however less considerable the remains.
See Wright’s Guide to Uriconium, p. 88. Shrewsbury, 1860. For
various examples of Roman wall-painting in Britain see Reliq.
Isur. by H. E. Smith, p. 18, 1852.
p. 46. For Romano-British coins see
Coins of the Romans relating to Britain, described and
illustrated. By J. Y. Akerman, F.S.A. London, 1844.
Petrie’s Monumenta Historica Britannica, Pl. I-XVII. London,
1848 (for beautiful figures).
Others, published by Mr C. R. Smith in his valuable
Collectanea Antiqua; also by Mr Hobler, in his Records of Roman
History, exhibited on Coins. London, 1860. Others in the
Numismatic Chronicle, in the Transactions of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society, and perhaps elsewhere.
For medieval and modern numismatics in general we may
soon, I trust, have a valuable manual (the MS. of which I have
seen) from the pen of my learned friend, the Rev. W. G. Searle.
He has favoured me with the following notes:
On medieval and modern coins generally we have
Appel, Repertorium zur Münzkunde des Mittelalters und der
neuern Zeit, 6 Vols. 8vo. Pesth, 1820-1829.
Barthélémy, Manuel de Numismatique du moyen âge et
moderne. Paris, 1851. 12mo.
The bibliography up to 1840 we get in
 Lipsius, Biblioth. Numaria, Leipz. 1801 (2 Vols.) 8vo., and in
Leitzmann, Verzeichniss aller seit 1800 erschienenen Numism.
Werke, Weissensee, 1841, 8vo.
On medieval coins, their types and geography, we have
J. Lelewel, La Numismatique du Moyen-âge, considérée sous
le rapport du type. Paris, 1835, 2 vols. 8vo. Atlas 4to.
Then there are the great Numismatic Periodicals:
Revue Numism. 8vo. Paris, 1836.
Revue de la Num. Belge, 8vo. Brussels, 1841.
Leitzmann, Numismatische Zeitung, 4to. Weissensee, 1834.
On Bracteates:
Mader, Versuch über die Bracteaten. Prague, 1797, 4to.
And the great Coin Catalogues of
Welzl v. Wellenheim. 3 vols. 8vo. Vienna, 1844 ff. (c. 40,000
coins).
v. Reichel at St Petersburgh, in at least 9 parts.
On current coins we have
Lud. Fort, Neueste Münzkunde, engravings and descr. 8vo.
Leipzig, 1851 ff.
p. 45. For almost everything relating to ivories and for a great
deal on the subjects which follow, see Handbook of the Arts of
the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Translated from the French
of M. Jules Labarte, with notes, and copiously illustrated,
London, 1855, which will lead the student to the great authorities
for medieval art, as Du Sommerard, &c. I have also examined
and freely used Histoire des Arts industriels au moyen âge et à
l’époque de la Renaissance, Par Jules Labarte. Paris, 1864, 8vo.
2 volumes; accompanied by an album in quarto with descriptions
of the plates, also in two volumes.
 p. 47. For examples of medieval calligraphy and illuminations
see Mr Westwood’s Palæographia Sacra Pictoria, (Lond. 1845),
and his Illuminated Illustrations of the Bible, (London, 1846).
p. 48. A good deal of information about Celtic, Romano-British,
and medieval pottery will be found in Mr Jewitt’s Life of
Wedgwood, London, 1865. For ancient pottery in general
(excluding however the medieval) see Dr Birch’s Ancient Pottery
and Porcelain, London, 1858, which will conduct the student to
the most authentic sources of information. In connection with this
should be studied Mr Bunbury’s article in the Edinburgh Review
for 1858, to which Mr Oldfield’s paper on Sir W. Temple’s vases
in the Transactions of the Royal Soc. of Lit. Vol. VI. pp. 130-149
(1859), may be added.
—— For medieval sculpture see Flaxman’s Lectures. The
‘horrible and burlesque’ style of the earlier ages was discarded in
the thirteenth century, when the art revived in Italy. Italian artists
executed various sepulchral statues in this country, which
possess considerable merit, as do others by native artists, but
the great beauty of our sepulchral monuments consists in their
architectural decorations.
p. 49. For the coinage of the British Islands see the works of
Ruding, Hawkins, and Lindsay, also for the Saxon coins found in
great numbers in Scandinavia, Hildebrand and Schröder.
Humphreys’ popular work on the coinage of the British Empire,
so far as the plates are concerned, is useful, but the author is
deficient in scholarship.
p. 52. For the statements here made on oil-painting see
Bryan’s Dict. of Painters and Engravers, by Stanley, (London,
1849), under Van Eyck, and Sir C. L. Eastlake’s Materials for a
History of Oil-painting. (London 1847.)
p. 53. For medieval brasses, see
Bowtell, Monumental Brasses and Slabs. London, 1847, 8vo.
——— Monumental Brasses of England, a Series of
engravings in wood. London, 1849.
 Haines, Manual of Monumental Brasses. 2 parts. London,
1861, 8vo. This contains also a list of all the brasses known to
him as existing in the British Isles. Mr Way has given an account
of foreign sepulchral brasses in Archæol. Journ., Vol. VII.
p. 56. Several English frescoes are described and figured in
the Journal of the Archæological Association, passim.
p. 62, l. 13. The omission of ancient costume has been pointed
out to me. The actually existing specimens however are mostly
very late; with the exception of a few articles of dress found in
Danish sepulchres of the bronze period, or in Irish peat bogs of
uncertain date, the episcopal vestments of Becket now
preserved at Sens are the earliest which occur to my
recollection; and there are few articles of dress, I believe, so
early as these. However both ancient and medieval costume is
well known from the representations on monuments of various
kinds. See inter alia Hope’s Costume of the Ancients; Becker’s
Gallus and Charicles; Strutt’s Dress of the English People, edited
by Planché, (Lond. 1842); Shaw’s Dresses and Decorations of
the Middle Ages.
p. 67. The statement about Patin is made on the authority of a
note in Warton’s edition of Pope’s Works, Vol. III. p. 306. (London
1797.)
p. 68. The remark about the crab was made to me by the late
Mr Burgon, and I do not know whether it has ever been printed;
its truth seems pretty certain. For the Rhodian symbol see my
paper in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1864, pp. 1-6.

PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION,

An Introduction to the Study of Greek Fictile Vases; their
Classification, Subjects, and Nomenclature. Being the
substance of the Disney Professor’s Lectures for 1865, and
of those which he purposes to deliver in 1866.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Transcriber’s Notes:
Missing or obscured punctuation was
silently corrected.
Typographical errors were silently
corrected.
Inconsistent spelling and
hyphenation were made consistent
only when a predominant form was
found in this book.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE ON ARCHÆOLOGY ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information