View allAll Photos Tagged Simplify
Guanyin is the bodhisattva associated with compassion as venerated by East Asian Buddhists, usually as a female. The name Guanyin is short for Guanshiyin which means "Observing the Sounds (or Cries) of the World". She is also sometimes referred to as Guanyin Pusa (simplified Chinese: 观音菩萨; traditional Chinese: 觀音菩薩; pinyin: Guānyīn Púsà; Wade–Giles: Kuan-yin Pu-sah; literally "Bodhisattva Guanyin").[1] Some Buddhists believe that when one of their adherents departs from this world, they are placed by Guanyin in the heart of a lotus then sent home to the western pure land of Sukhāvatī.[2]
It is generally accepted among east Asian adherents that Guanyin originated as the Sanskrit Avalokiteśvara (अवलोकितेश्वर), which is her male form. Commonly known in English as the Mercy Goddess or Goddess of Mercy,[3] Guanyin is also revered by Chinese Taoists (sometimes called Daoists) as an Immortal. However, in Taoist mythology, Guanyin has other origination stories which are not directly related to Avalokiteśvara.
I found this simplified form of cedilla on a traffic sign in Turkey. These simplified forms provide good legibility at large distances. The space between S and the cedilla is far too small though.
This is now Solace Spa at 60 Calthorpe Road in Five Ways. Solace Spa is an approved beauty day spa in a house dating from approx 1800.
It stands a the corner of Calthorpe Road and Harborne Road on what seems like an island.
It is a Grade II listed building.
Circa 1800, a good detached town house of rectangular plan, on important
corner site straddling apex of Harborne and Calthorpe Roads at Five Ways.
Two storeys, finely pointed mellow red brick with restrained stucco dressings
and neo-classical details. Formerly had single storey wings including coach
house. Well proportioned 3 bay symmetrical front. Stucco capping to plinth
as ground floor sill course. Thin first floor sill band. Thin stucco string
as bed mould to brick frieze, broken in line with centre of outer first floor
windows, by acanthus leaf consoles which support a broad pediment advanced
from sharply profiled stucco cornice and blocking course. The tympanum contains
a stucco framed oeuil-de-boeuf. Low slate roof with coped gable ends surmounted
by corniced brick chimneys. Ground floor windows, contained in camber headed
reveals rising from plinth, have glazing bar sashes in flattened slender
column frames with entablatures. Outer windows on first floor plainly revealed
glazing bar sashes with panelled stucco heads flanked by slender console
brackets to thin cornices. The centre window is of simplified Venetian pattern,
contained in camber arched revealed, similar to ground floor but 3x4 pane
sash with 1x4 pane narrow side lights, pilaster lining to reveals and slender
columns divising entablature with thin course under arch. Blind balconette
below sill rising from roof of porch which has slender Doric columns, the
entablature with triglyphs curved out and back to pilasters against wall.
Tripartite panelled pilaster doorway with side lights, echoing the window
above. No 60 is now one of the very few surviving examples of late C18/early
C19 polite domestic architecture in central Birmingham.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
After the division of Czechoslovakia by Germany in 1939, Slovakia was left with a small air force composed primarily of Czechoslovak combat aircraft. This force defended Slovakia against Hungary in March 1939, in the Slovak–Hungarian War in March 1939 in which Hungary reoccupied Carpathian Ruthenia and parts of southern Slovakia. In this the SVZ suffered some losses against Royal Hungarian Air Force. Later, the SVZ also took part in the German Invasion of Poland. The SVZ took part in Axis offensives in the Ukraine and Russian Central front sectors of the Eastern Front under the lead of Luftwaffe in the Stalingrad and Caucasus operations. This engagement resulted in great losses of aircraft and personnel, though.
During the World War II, the Slovak Air force was charged with the defense of Slovak airspace, and, after the invasion of Russia, provided air cover for Slovak forces fighting against the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front. For the rest of the war the SVZ fought US Army Air Forces and Royal Air Force raids against Slovakia.
Among the many more or less outdated German aircraft types inherited from the Luftwaffe during the early stages of WWII was a small number of Hs 123 A-1 dive bombers. The Henschel Hs 123 was a small single-seat biplane dive bomber and close-support attack aircraft. The aircraft was designed to meet the 1933 dive bomber requirements for the reborn Luftwaffe. Both Henschel and rival Fieseler (with the Fi 98) competed for the production contract requirement, which specified a single-seat biplane dive bomber. The first prototype, the Hs 123 V1, was cleared for its maiden flight on 1 April 1935; General Ernst Udet, a World War I ace, flew it on its first public demonstration flight on 8 May 1935. The first three Henschel prototypes, with the first and third powered by 485 kW (650 hp) BMW 132A-3 engines and the second by a 574 kW (770 hp) Wright Cyclone, were tested at Rechlin in August 1936. Only the first prototype had "smooth" cowlings; from that point on, all aircraft had a tightly fitting, characteristic cowling that included 18 fairings covering the engine valves. The Henschel prototypes did away with bracing wires and although they looked slightly outdated with their single faired interplane struts and cantilever main landing gear legs attached to smaller (stub) lower wings, the Hs 123 featured an all-metal construction, clean lines and superior maneuverability. Its biplane wings were of a "sesquiplane" configuration, whereby the lower wings were significantly smaller than the top wings.
The overall performance of the Hs 123 V1 prototype prematurely eliminated any chance for the more conventional Fi 98, which was cancelled after a sole prototype had been constructed. During testing, the Hs 123 proved capable of pulling out of "near-vertical" dives; however, two prototypes subsequently crashed due to structural failures in the wings that occurred when the aircraft were tested in high-speed dives. The fourth prototype incorporated improvements to cure these problems; principally, stronger center-section struts were fitted. After it had been successfully tested, the Hs 123 was ordered into production with a 656 kW (880 hp) BMW 132Dc engine.
The Hs 123 was intended to replace the Heinkel He 50 biplane reconnaissance and dive bomber as well as acting as a "stop-gap" measure until the more modern and capable Junkers Ju 87 became available. As such, production was limited and no upgrades were considered, although an improved version, the Hs 123B, was developed by Henschel in 1938. A proposal to fit the aircraft with a more powerful 716 kW (960 hp) "K"-variant of its BMW 132 engine did not proceed beyond the prototype stage, the Hs 123 V5. The V6 prototype fitted with a similar powerplant and featuring a sliding cockpit hood was intended to serve as the Hs 123C prototype.
About 265 aircraft were produced and production of the Hs 123A ended in Autumn 1938. It was flown by the German Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War and the early to midpoint of World War II. At the outbreak of hostilities, Hs 123s were committed to action in the Polish Campaign. Screaming over the heads of enemy troops, the Hs 123s delivered their bombs with devastating accuracy. A frightening aspect of an Hs 123 attack was the staccato noise of its engine that a pilot could manipulate by changing rpm to create "gunfire-like" bursts. The Hs 123 proved rugged and able to take a lot of damage and still keep on flying. Operating from primitive bases close to the front lines, the type was considered by ground crews to be easy to maintain, quick to re-equip and reliable even under dire field conditions.
The Polish campaign was a success for an aircraft considered obsolete by the Luftwaffe high command. Within a year, the Hs 123 was again in action in the Blitzkrieg attacks through the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Often positioned as the Luftwaffe's most-forward based combat unit, the Hs 123s flew more missions per day than other units, and again proved their worth in the close-support role. With Ju 87s still being used as tactical bombers rather than true ground support aircraft and with no other aircraft capable of this mission in the Luftwaffe arsenal the Hs 123 was destined to continue in service for some time, although numbers were constantly being reduced by attrition.
The Hs 123 was not employed in the subsequent Battle of Britain as the English Channel proved an insuperable obstacle for the short-ranged aircraft, and the sole leftover operator, II.(Schl)/LG 2, went back to Germany to re-equip with the Messerschmitt Bf 109E fighter bomber (Jabo) variant. The Bf 109E fighter bomber was not capable of carrying any more bombs than the Hs 123. It did, however, have a greater range and was far more capable of defending itself. On the downside were the notoriously tricky taxiing, ground handling, and takeoff/landing characteristics of the Bf 109, which were exacerbated with a bomb load.
At the beginning of the Balkans Campaign, the 32 examples of the Hs 123 that had been retired after the fall of France were taken back into service and handed over to the Slovak Air Force to replace the heavy losses on the Eastern Front after combat fatigue and desertion had reduced the pilots' effectiveness. Most of Slovakia's obsolete biplanes were replaced with modern German combat aircraft, including the Messerschmitt Bf 109, so that the Hs 123s were initially regarded with distrust – but the machines proved their worth in the ensuing battles. The Slovak Hs 123s took part in the Battle of Kursk and supported ground troops, some were outfitted with locally designed ski landing gears which proved to be a very effective alternative to the Hs 123’s spatted standard landing gear which was prone to collect snow and mud and even block. After this deployment at the Russian front, the Slovak Air Force was sent back to defend Slovak home air space, primarily executed with Messerschmitt Bf 109 E and G types, Avia B-534, and some other interceptor types, also helped by Luftwaffe units active in the area.
Being confined to national borders, the Slovak Hs 123s were put in reserve and relegated to training purposes, even though they were occasionally activated to support German ground troops. From late August 1944 the remaining Hs 123s also actively took part in the suppression of the Slovak National Uprising against Germany.
Since Hs 123 production had already stopped in 1940 and all tools had been destroyed, the permanent attritions could not be replaced - due to a lack of serviceable airframes and spare parts the type’s numbers dwindled. When Romania and the Soviet Union entered Slovakia, they organized with some captured aircraft and defectors a local Insurgent Air Force to continue the fight against Axis forces in country, including the last operational Slovak Hs 123s. No aircraft survived the war.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 8.33 m (27 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 10.5 m (34 ft 5 in)
Height: 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 24.85 m² (267.5 sq ft)
Empty weight: 1,500 kg (3,307 lb)
Gross weight: 2,215 kg (4,883 lb)
Powerplant:
1× BMW 132Dc 9-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine with 660 kW (880 hp),
driving a 2-bladed metal variable-pitch propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 341 km/h (212 mph, 184 kn) at 1,200 m (3,937 ft)
Range: 860 km (530 mi, 460 nmi) with a 100 l drop tank
Combat range: 480 km (300 mi, 260 nmi) with 200 kg (440.9 lb) of bombs
Service ceiling: 9,000 m (30,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 15 m/s (3,000 ft/min)
Armament:
2× 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns, 400 rpg
Up to 450 kg (992.1 lb) of bombs under fuselage and wings
The kit and its assembly:
A relatively simple what-if project, and it took a while to figure out something to do with a surplus Airfix Hs 123 A kit in The Stash™ without a proper plan yet. The Hs 123 is an overlooked aircraft, and the fact that all airframes were used during WWII until none was left makes a story in Continental Europe a bit difficult. I also did not want to create a German aircraft – Finland was an early favorite, because I wanted to add a ski landing gear (see below), but since I won’t build anything with a swastika on it this option was a dead end. Then I considered an operator from the Balkans, e. g. Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia or Slovakia – and eventually settled for the latter because of the national markings.
The kit was built almost OOB, and the Airfix Hs 123 is a nice offering. Yes, it’s a simple kit, but its is IMHO a very good representation, despite the many rivets on the hull, a rather bleak interior and some sinkholes (e. g. on the massive outer wings struts). It goes together well, just a little PSR here and there. I just added a dashboard (scratched from styrene sheet) and modified the OOB 50 kg bombs with extended impact fuzes with a flat, round plate at the tip, so that the bomb itself explodes above soft ground or snow for a bigger blast radius.
The only major modification is a transplanted ski landing gear from a PM Model (Finnish) Fokker D.XXI, which had to be reduced in length to fit under the compact Hs 123. A small tail ski/skid was scratched from styrene sheet material.
Thankfully, the Hs 123 only calls for little rigging – just between the central upper wing supports and there is a characteristic “triangle” wiring in the cowling. All these, together with the wire antenna, were created with heated sprue material.
Painting and markings:
Finland had been a favorite because I would have been able to apply a more interesting paint scheme than the standard Luftwaffe RLM 70/71/65 splinter scheme with a low waterline that was typical for the Hs 123 during WWII. However, as a former Luftwaffe aircraft I retained this livery but decided to add a winter camouflage as a suitable thematic supplement to the skis.
The basic colors became Humbrol 65 underneath and 30 and 75 from above – the latter for a stronger contrast to the Dunkelgrün than Humbrol 91 (Schwarzgrün). Thanks to the additional whitewash mottles, which were inspired by a similar livery seen on a contemporary Bulgarian Avia B.534, I did not have to be too exact with the splinter camouflage.
The cockpit and cowling interior were painted with RLM 02 (Humbrol 240), the propeller blades became Schwarzgrün (Humbrol 91, further darkened with some black) and the bombs were painted in a dark grey (Revell 77) while the small 100 l drop tank became bare aluminum (Revell 99).
However, before the white mottles could be added, the kit received its decals so that they could be painted around the markings, just as in real life. The Slovak national markings had to be scratched, and I used standard white simplified German Balkenkreuze over a cross made from blue decal stripes. Later a separate red decal circle was placed on top of that. The only other markings are the red “7” codes, edged in white for better contrast (from a Heller Bf 109 K) and the fuel information triangles on the fuselage from the Hs 123’s OOB sheet. As an ID marking for an Eastern Front Axis aircraft, I retained the wide yellow fuselage stripe from the OOB, sheet, too, and added yellow tips on the upper wings’ undersides.
The whitewash camouflage was then created with white acrylic paint (Revell 05), applied with a soft brush with a rounded tip. Once this had dried, I treated the surfaces with fine wet sandpaper for a weathered/worn look.
Finally, after some soot stains behind the exhausts and around the machine gun nozzles, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and the rigging (see above) was done.
The Hs 123 might not be the sexiest aircraft of WWII, but I like this rugged pug which could not be replaced by its successor, the Ju 87, and served in its close support role until literally no aircraft was left. Putting one on skis worked quite well, and the exotic Slovak markings add a special touch – even though the national markings almost disappear among the disruptive whitewash camouflage! The result looks quite plausible, though, and the old Airfix kit is IMHO really underestimated.
Dr. Wilson's Blue Pills for Blue People, 1901.
Dr. Coderre's Red Pills for Pale Women & Weak Women, 1897
Dr. Williams Pink Pills for Pale People, 1887.
It's just that simple.
Thanks to Hal Morgan's Symbols of America.
Hoi Polloi Tarot
The Hoi Polloi Tarot is an early example of the unending wave of Smith-Rider-Waite clones that have appeared from the 1960s through to the present day.
Published by Reiss Games Inc., of New York, and presented in a range of different packaging, this copy sports the original copyright date of 1972 on the backs of the cards, and 1973 on the very large 342mm x 150mm box.
At first glance it is just a simplified, psychedelic pop-art version of Pamela Colman Smith's designs, but there are some rather interesting subtle changes, particularly among the Trumps.
The Fool looses the feather in his hat, but has gained a pink ball by his right foot; the Magician now raises his wand in his left hand and points at the Pentacle on his table with his right, instead of the ground; the acolytes in front of the Hierophant both blame each other for the disappearance of the two keys normally seen at the Pontiff's feet; the Charioteer now has Alpha & Omega on his shield; Justice is 8 and Strength is 11, reverting to their original order; The Star looses the bird in the tree, but gains a butterfly; the Moon has a curious scroll on the ground between the two dogs, which I have only ever noticed before on one ancient Tarot de Marseille deck and the Insight Institute deck from the late 1940s!
The pip cards are colour coded by way of their title panels being: orangey tan for Wands; russet red for Cups; lime green for Pentacles; and tealy sky blue for Swords.
When I bought this deck, second hand some years ago, the 8 of Wands was missing, but very recently I managed to aquire a replacement card through the excellent Aeclectic Tarot Forum "Lost and Found Cards Singles Bar" Thank you Nixxxy!
Cards measure 114.5mm x 70.5mm on semi gloss average stock, the deck measuring 27mm thick. It came with two title cards, the background colour feild being rendered slightly differently, and four blank cards.
The 12 page LWB, in this case a LARGE white book, provides three different spreads and divinatory meanings for the cards, as well as rules for three different tarot games and two original versions of solitaire.
Picture: Museum of Inner Mongolia
Location: Huhhot, Inner Mongolia
The Inner Mongolia Museum (simplified Chinese: 内蒙古博物馆; traditional Chinese: 內蒙古博物館; pinyin: Nèiměnggǔ Bówùguǎn) is a regional museum in the city of Hohhot in Inner Mongolia, in north-west China.
This museum was founded on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, in 1957. The building, expressive of local minority characteristics, is located at the intersection of Xinhua Dajie and Zhongshan Lu in the heart of Hohhot City, the capital of the autonomous region.
The Museum has over 44,000 objects relating to ethnic history in its collections. Among these quite a few are rare treasures seldom seen in China, especially the artifacts relating to the northern tribes called Xiongnu, Xianbei, Qidan, Mongolians and others.
A bone carving in the museum
The museum in particular offers an insight into the history and traditions of the Mongolian people exhibiting paraphernalia used by nomadic Mongols, including saddles, costumes, archery and polo equipment and a ger (a portable tent used by Central Asian nomads).
One of the important sources of its collections are precious materials excavated from the earth as a result of archaeological research. These materials are of great speciality to the museum. The Inner Mongolia Museum is renowned for its extensive collection of fossils and dinosaur remains found in both Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia including a complete skeleton of a wooly rhinoceros unearthed from a coal mine in Manzhouli.
The upper floor of the museum is dedicated to the life of Genghis Khan who in the 13th century united the disparate Mongol tribes and established one of the largest land empires in human history. Many of the maps and objects on display have English captions.
The museum also contains a number of intricate Mongol bone carvings depicting historical events.
Source from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Mongolia_Museum
Mobile shot of 60 Calthorpe Road.
This is now Solace Spa at 60 Calthorpe Road in Five Ways. Solace Spa is an approved beauty day spa in a house dating from approx 1800.
It stands a the corner of Calthorpe Road and Harborne Road on what seems like an island.
It is a Grade II listed building.
Circa 1800, a good detached town house of rectangular plan, on important
corner site straddling apex of Harborne and Calthorpe Roads at Five Ways.
Two storeys, finely pointed mellow red brick with restrained stucco dressings
and neo-classical details. Formerly had single storey wings including coach
house. Well proportioned 3 bay symmetrical front. Stucco capping to plinth
as ground floor sill course. Thin first floor sill band. Thin stucco string
as bed mould to brick frieze, broken in line with centre of outer first floor
windows, by acanthus leaf consoles which support a broad pediment advanced
from sharply profiled stucco cornice and blocking course. The tympanum contains
a stucco framed oeuil-de-boeuf. Low slate roof with coped gable ends surmounted
by corniced brick chimneys. Ground floor windows, contained in camber headed
reveals rising from plinth, have glazing bar sashes in flattened slender
column frames with entablatures. Outer windows on first floor plainly revealed
glazing bar sashes with panelled stucco heads flanked by slender console
brackets to thin cornices. The centre window is of simplified Venetian pattern,
contained in camber arched revealed, similar to ground floor but 3x4 pane
sash with 1x4 pane narrow side lights, pilaster lining to reveals and slender
columns divising entablature with thin course under arch. Blind balconette
below sill rising from roof of porch which has slender Doric columns, the
entablature with triglyphs curved out and back to pilasters against wall.
Tripartite panelled pilaster doorway with side lights, echoing the window
above. No 60 is now one of the very few surviving examples of late C18/early
C19 polite domestic architecture in central Birmingham.
Same pattern changes as the red/white seersucker dress except I used the pretty SYL curved, stitched hem on this one.
ODC, March 9, 2022, B-SIDES. The B-side of the Leica M-10D, no LCD, no video. The LCD and assortment of buttons are replaced by exposure compensation "dial", just like the M7. The most "analog" experience I've ever had with a digital camera, opposite the F5's experience. Even includes a "film advance" lever.
Hasselblad 500 C/M
Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8 C
Fomapan 100
Developed with HC110 dilution B
A nice new big lcd tv, a cleaner-looking entertainment center (that matches the rest of our living room furniture), and a scaled down stereo system (sans cd player and tape deck, but now featuring streaming itunes) make for a more function and better looking entertainment system.
April 26, 2022 - Our second stop today was The Peace Palace. "The Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands) houses the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the United Nations International Court of Justice and The Hague Academy of International Law. These institutions are supported by the Library of the Peace Palace, one of the most prestigious libraries in its field. The Carnegie Foundation is the owner and manager of the Peace Palace.
For the design of the Peace Palace the jury launched an international architecture competition. The competition enjoyed enormous interest: a choice had to be made out of 216 contributions sent in from all over the world. From the large variety of drawings the jury selected 6 prize winners and awarded first prize to the design entered by the French architect Louis Cordonnier. The choice for Cordonnier’s design, which was inspired by the architecture of earlier centuries, led to a fierce architectural debate. Many had hoped for a building that also in its appearance would inaugurate a new age.
Cordonnier’s original design was quite exuberant, and impossible to realize within the 1.5 million dollars budget provided by Carnegie for the purpose. The French architect was asked to adapt and simplify his design, resulting in the original number of four towers being brought down to only two. A final design was made in collaboration with the established architect Johan van der Steur, who was also appointed as executive architect for the construction of the palace. In six years’ time, an impressive building in the style of the neo-renaissance arose on the grounds of the former estate Zorgvliet, where former Dutch queen Anna Pavlovna had once resided. The great and small towers mark the two courtrooms, the most important spaces in the palace."
Previous descriptions from the following website: www.vredespaleis.nl/?lang=en
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The "Entwicklung" tank series (= "development"), more commonly known as the E-Series, was a late-World War II attempt by Germany to produce a standardized series of tank designs. There were to be six standard designs in different weight classes, from which several specialized variants were to be developed. This intended to reverse the trend of extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability.
The E-series designs were simpler, cheaper to produce and more efficient than their predecessors; however, their design offered only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace, such as the Jagdpanzer 38(t), Panther Ausf. G or Tiger II. However, the resulting high degree of standardization of German armored vehicles would also have made logistics and maintenance easier. Indeed, nearly all E-series vehicles — up through and including the E-75 — were intended to use what were essentially the Tiger II's 80 cm (31½ in) diameter, steel-rimmed road wheels for their suspension, meant to overlap each other (as on the later production Tiger I-E and Panther designs that also used them), even though in a highly simplified fashion. For instance, while the E-50/75’s running gear resembled outwardly the Tiger II’s, the latter’s torsion bar suspension, which necessitated a complex hull with many openings, was replaced by very compact conical spring coil packages that each held a pair of interleaved road wheels – with the benefit that all suspension elements remained outside of the hull. This considerably simplified production and saved time as well as scarce material.
Focus of initial chassis and combat vehicle development was the E-50/75 Standardpanzer, designed by Adler. These were two mostly identical vehicles and only differed in armor thickness, overall weight and running gear design to cope with the different weights. While the E-50 was the standardized replacement for the medium PzKpfw. V “Panther” and the last operational PzKpfw. VI “Tiger”, with an operational weight of around 50 tons, the E-75 was intended to become the standard heavy tank in the 70 ton class, as a replacement for the Tiger II battle tank and the Jagdtiger SPG. They were to share many components, including the same Maybach HL 234 engine with up to 900 hp output and the drivetrain, as well as running gear elements and almost all peripheral equipment. Both E-50 and E-75 were built on the same production lines for ease of manufacture.
This universal tank chassis would, beyond the primary use for battle tanks, also become the basis for a wide range of specialized support vehicles like self-propelled artillery, assault guns, tank hunters and anti-aircraft weapon carriers, which would gradually replace and standardize the great variety of former support vehicles, dramatically optimizing maintenance and logistics.
The E-50/75 SPAAG sub-family itself was quite diversified and comprised a wide range of vehicles that mainly carried different turrets with the respective weaponry as well as air space surveillance, targeting and command equipment. The range of armament included not only guns of various calibers for short, medium and long range in armored and mostly fully enclosed turrets. There were furthermore armored launch ramps for anti-aircraft missiles, including the guided “Rheintochter”, “Wasserfall” or “Enzian” SAMs as well as batteries with unguided “Taifun” anti-aircraft missiles.
The most important vehicle among this new family was the Einheits-Flakpanzer E-50/55mm, even though its development was delayed and protracted. In May 1943, Oberleutnant Dipl. Ing von Glatter-Götz, responding to the orders of Inspectorate 6, initiated the development of a new series of Flakpanzers based on already existing chassis. The Panzer I and II were outdated or used for other purposes. The Panzer III tank chassis was earmarked for the production of the StuG III and thus not available. The Panzer IV and the Panzer V Panther were considered next. The Panzer IV tank chassis was already in use for several German modifications, so it was decided to use it for the Flakpanzer program, eventually leading to the light “Kugelblitz” SPAAG. The Panzer V Panther was considered in case even the Panzer IV chassis proved to be inadequate for the task, as an interim chassis for new turrets until the new tank generation, the “Einheitspanzer” or “E-Serie”, had become available. This would only happen in late 1945, though.
In the meantime several SPAAG proposals were made on the Panther basis, including the “Coelian” family of AA turrets with weapons like the 37 mm Flak 37 and the new 3.7 cm (L/77) Flak 341 twin gun, the Luftwaffe’s 30 mm MK 103 machine cannon and a new 55 mm autocannon, mounted in a fully closed turret on a medium to heavy tank chassis.
The new 55mm gun had its roots in a newly developed medium 50 mm gun, the Flak 41, which had been banned in 1942 to save resources and focus on existing anti-aircraft weapons. Nevertheless, the German field troops demanded such a weapon to finally be able to deal with Allied attack aircraft, esp. the Soviet Union’s armored Ilyushin Il-2 “Shturmovik”. Since the development of the Flak 41 had expressly been forbidden, Rheinmetall and Krupp set about building a completely new weapon with a bigger caliber for longer range and a heavier explosive shell that would fill the operational gap between the established 37 and 88 mm anti-aircraft guns.
This new gun project was handled under the alias "Gerät 58" and launched in early 1943. It gradually evolved in the course of the year with only little (if any) official support. In fact, it was rather a private venture that responded to the army’s needs, and it was already the attempt to anticipate a worsening war situation. For instance, all experiences made with the construction of the 37 mm Flak 43 with regards to the sheet metal stamping technology, which saved material as well as production time, were adopted for the Gerät 58, too. The result was – for its size – a relatively compact and foremost simple gun which, thanks to its low fire height and a modern design of the mount, showed very good shooting results.
Initial work was centered around a single-barrel field gun version. Its lower carriage consisted of a turntable to which the wheel racks of the special trailer 204 were attached to two spars. In the firing position, the carriage was set down as with all other anti-aircraft guns. Three small hydraulic supports were attached to the mount ring, on which the weapon could be fired in the driving position. The Krupp design had some problems but required 300 kg less raw materials to manufacture than the Rheinmetall design. However, when the prototypes were presented to Heeresamt authorities, the development of this very successful weapon was again prohibited in November 1943 as "not necessary".
In 1944, however, the lack of usable anti-aircraft weapon systems between the light and heavy flak guns was finally recognized, supported by the analysis of experiences from the Battle of Kursk during the last year. After revisions, three experimental guns (2 from Rheinmetall, one from Krupp) were tested in comparative shooting in mid-1944 at the Luftwaffe’s development center. A few shortcomings emerged and it was agreed to build a fourth experimental gun based on the Rheinmetall designs by the end of 1944. New trials began in February 1945 and were completed in April. By the time a twin mount for the Gerät 58 in a modified “Coelian” turret was also ready for trials, and tests with this weapon in the new Rheinmetall Einheits-Flakturm for the Einheitspanzer series started, too.
In these final forms the Gerät 58 was quickly cleared for production and service, and the weapon’s project designation was retained, even though “Flak 45” was also common. The autocannon had an overall length of 8,15 mm (26.7 ft) and weighed 2.990 kg (6,586 lb). The barrel length was 4,21 m (13 ¾ ft) for a bore of 77, and the weapon fired a HE/fragmentation shell (weighing 2.030 g/4 ½ lb) with a muzzle velocity of 1.050 m/sec /3,440 ft/sec). Recoil was 280 mm (11 in). Against aerial targets, the Gerät 58 had a maximum effective ceiling of 6,000 m (6,560 yards) and a practical rate of fire of 140 RPM. Armor-piercing rounds were able to penetrate 110 mm vertical hardened steel armor at 500 m or 70 mm at 2,000 m. The ammunition could be fed in from both sides and the spent cases were ejected downwards, so that the gun could be easily adapted to multiple mounts and to fully enclosed tank turrets. In the Rheinmetall turret the Gerät 58 received a manual magazine feed for each barrel that could store five rounds (plus one ready in the gun chamber) for short continuous bursts. These magazines were driven by gravity, though, and once expended, had to be reloaded manually. The ammunition supply in the Rheinmetall turret comprised 104 rounds in total.
In its operational form the Gerät 58/Rheinmetall turret combination introduced another novel feature: The rangefinding point on the gun had been dispensed with, but instead of this the most modern radio-based measuring devices were able to feed their data directly into the sighting device – what meant that the fire control input had to come from an external device in the form of electric impulses. In the case of the Gerät 58, this was the newly developed Kommandogerät 44, a very compact combined stereoscopic sight, coupled with an analogue range calculator. This replaced the traditional scope. Due to the weapon’s weight and bulk, all weapon orientation was carried out by means of hydraulic motors via a control column that were slaved to the gunner’s Kommandogerä, so that aiming and firing was semi-automatized. The gunner still had to use an optical scope to find and pinpoint the target, but the Kommandogerät translated this, together with additional information like range, temperature or wind shear, into electrical input for the guns that automatically corrected the weapon’s orientation and triggered them with a respective lead at an ideal moment.
Thanks to the Gerät 58’s innovative electronic input interface and its motorized controls, aiming and firing could also be slaved to an external director. This could be the bigger and more capable Kommandogerät 40 or the Sd.Kfz. 282 “Basilisk” mobile anti-aircraft radar. Furthermore, several anti-aircraft weapons could be guided and operated this way by a single command unit with improved sensors, for higher accuracy under any weather condition as well as for concentrated and more effective fire and an improved first shot hit probability
Due to the dire war situation and an urgent need for this formidable new anti-aircraft weapon, the Gerät 58 and its highly innovative periphery were immediately pushed into production. The first field guns reached the frontline units in September 1945, with mixed success. Due to parallel delays with the new E-50/75 chassis and material shortages, which highly limited the output of the new tanks from early 1945 on, the new Gerät 58, mounted together with the Kommandogerät 44 in the new Rheinmetall Einheits-Flakturm, were initially combined with other chassis, primarily revamped Panzer V battle tanks as well as some leftover heavy Tiger I tanks.
The first complete E-50/55mm SPAAGs reached the frontline units in March 1946, but since both chassis and weapons had been ushered into production and service, many teething troubles emerged and it would take until late 1946 that the Sd.Kfz. 191/3, how the new vehicle had officially been designated, had turned into an effective and reliable weapon system.
Specifications:
Crew: Six (commander, gunner, two loaders, driver, radio operator)
Weight: 56.5 tonnes (62.2 short tons)
Length: 7.27 m (23 ft 10 ¾ in), hull only
9.29 m (30 ft 5 in) with guns forward
Width: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in)
Height 3.38 m (11 ft 1 in)
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Suspension: Conical spring
Fuel capacity: 720 liters (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
30 – 60 mm (1.2 – 2.4 in)
Performance:
Speed
- Maximum, road: 55 km/h (34 mph)
- Sustained, road: 45 km/h (28 mph)
- Cross country: 20 to 30 km/h (13 to 19 mph)
Operational range: 160 km (99 miles)
Power/weight: 16 PS/tonne (14.5 hp/ton)
Engine:
V-12 Maybach HL 234 gasoline engine with 900 PS (885 hp/650 kW)
Transmission:
ZF AK 7-200 with 7 forward 1 reverse gears
Armament:
2× 5,5 cm (2.17 in) L/77 Gerät 58 anti-aircraft cannon with 104 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
Finally I found the motivation to build a “standard” E-50 Flakpanzer to complete my growing German SPAAG collection. I had this kit stashed away for years, but never was in the right mood to tackle this OOB build of the ModelCollect kit. It’s s decent kit that comes with brass barrels for the 55 mm guns and a small PE sheet for grates on the engine cover and small bits like lugs and protectors for the hull crew’s periscopes. It’s finer than the similar Trumpeter kit and more friend – but this also comes at a price, because some molding solutions are quite doubtful, e. g. three(!) sprue attachment points for tiny and most delicate bits or placing sprue channels between the teeth of the sprocket wheels. WTF? As a bonus you get all the parts to build an E-75 chassis – for the E-50 you just leave a pair of wheels per side away.
The kit went together well, and I used all the PE options for this one. The only modification I made are dented and partly deleted armor mudguards, so that the tank looks less “uniform”.
Painting and markings:
Another variant of German late WWII standards, with roots in the “Hinterhalt” scheme. The paint scheme was inspired by a real Panther Ausf. D from the Eastern front in late 1943, which consists only of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) and Olivgrün (RAL 6003) in rather pale shades and in a kind of rough splinter pattern.
I interpreted the scheme as if the tank had been painted all-green and then the lighter color had been applied on top of that. Since no view for the upper surfaces were available, I assumed that this might have been a late-war “Sparanstrich” with only minimal use of the Dunkelgelb, so that hull and turret roof remained green – even though I added mottles in Dunkelgelb to them, as if sun was shining through the leaves of a tree, to better break up the vehicle’ outlines. Dunkelgelb was also added under the gun to reduce the contrast of the barrels against the sky when they are raised.
True to this concept, the model received initially an overall coat with modern RAL 6003 from the rattle can, plus a light coat of RAL 6011 (Resedagrün) on top to the upper surfaces as a shading and weathering measure – and for a rather pale look. The wheels were painted uniformly in the same way, too.
Once dry, the “wedges” on the more or less vertical surfaces were added with a brush, using a mix of Humbrol 121 and 72 for a pale and less yellowish interpretation of RAL 7028.
The kit received the usual washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint before the decals were applied – puzzled together from the scrap box. A dry brushing treatment with light olive green (Revell 45) followed, highlighting surface details and edges. More dust and dirt traces as well as some rust marks with watercolors followed, and then a coat of matt varnish.
Unfortunately. the kit’s tracks were molded in a yellowish sand color and had to be fully painted. Onto a black base coat, a cloudy mix of dark grey, red brown and iron acrylic paints was added. The many delicate tools on the tank’s hull are molded, and instead of trying to paint them I rubbed over them with graphite, leaving them with a dark metallic shine. Just some wooden handles were then painted with a reddish brown. The antennae were made from heated sprue material, and, finally, the tank’s lower areas were dusted with a greyish-brown mineral pigment mix, simulating dust and mud residue.
A quite simple build, since the kit was built straight OOB with no conversions at all. However, the Modellcollect E-50/75 model is still tricky and need some attention, the Trumpeter kit is easier (but also not as detailed). The result looks a bit odd, thanks to the pale paint scheme (pistache and vanilla?), but it’s something different from the usual standard “Hinterhalt” tri-color variations. And it’s certainly not the last semi-fictional German SPAAG…
Church of St Withburga, Monument to Juliana Countess of Leicester, Marble, Sir Joseph Boehm, 1872
Inscribed: IN MEMORY OF JULIANA WIFE OF THOS. WILL 2nd EARL OF LEICESTER WHO DEPARTED THIS LIFE APRIL 21 1870/ BY WHOSE PIOUS CARE THIS CHURCH WAS RESTORED AND REOPENED DEC. 14 1869/ SHE IS NOT DEAD BUT SLEEPETH
Listing status: Grade II*
The tomb-chest is set in the north chapel of the chancel, part of the church rebuilt by J.K. Colling, commissioned and paid for the Countess of Leicester. She is shown asleep her left hand, with wedding ring, on a bible and her head on a pillow decorated with the Christian symbol of the vine. The portrait is based on Sir Francis Grant’s painting, at Holkham Hall from the mid 1850s, when Lady Juliana was in her thirties and is accompanied by her eldest daughter. Boehm simplified the long flowing robes and removed the bow shown at her waist in the painting, handling the folds with a classic simplicity which, like the attributes, suggest her piety and recall earlier alabaster effigies. This is also true of the sarcophagus, where the contrasting patterned squares and roundels recall early Christian models. The choice must have been deliberate in view of her restoration of the church of St Withburga. This is a unique dedication to a local East Anglian saint, who built a convent in East Dereham, but who spent time at Holkham before her death in 743 and whose body was later stolen and removed to Ely.
Juliana (1825–1870), eldest daughter of Samuel Charles Whitbread (1796–1879), brewer and astronomer, of Southill, Bedfordshire was the first wife of Thomas Coke, second earl of Leicester of Holkham (1822–1909).
Richard and Sarah Cocke, The Public Sculpture of Norfolk and Suffolk, Liverpool University Press for the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, 2013, p. 272
Miniature models of musical instruments, Germany, 16th century
This models are, according to tradition, toys of the children of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol. Some of them, however, are reduced and simplified imitations of instruments of the Ambras collection of art, still preserved in its original.
Miniaturmodelle von Musikinstrumenten, Deutschland, 16. Jahrhundert
Diese Modell sind der Tradition nach Spielzeug der Kinder Erzherzog Ferdinands von Tirol. Einige von ihnen sind indes verkleinerte und vereinfachte Nachahmungen von Instrumenten der Ambraser Kunstsammlung, die noch im Original erhalten sind.
Austria Kunsthistorisches Museum
Federal Museum
Logo KHM
Regulatory authority (ies)/organs to the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture
Founded 17 October 1891
Headquartered Castle Ring (Burgring), Vienna 1, Austria
Management Sabine Haag
www.khm.at website
Main building of the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Maria-Theresa-Square
The Kunsthistorisches Museum (KHM abbreviated) is an art museum in Vienna. It is one of the largest and most important museums in the world. It was opened in 1891 and 2012 visited of 1.351.940 million people.
The museum
The Kunsthistorisches Museum is with its opposite sister building, the Natural History Museum (Naturhistorisches Museum), the most important historicist large buildings of the Ringstrasse time. Together they stand around the Maria Theresa square, on which also the Maria Theresa monument stands. This course spans the former glacis between today's ring road and 2-line, and is forming a historical landmark that also belongs to World Heritage Site Historic Centre of Vienna.
History
Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery
The Museum came from the collections of the Habsburgs, especially from the portrait and armor collections of Ferdinand of Tyrol, the collection of Emperor Rudolf II (most of which, however scattered) and the art collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm into existence. Already In 1833 asked Joseph Arneth, curator (and later director) of the Imperial Coins and Antiquities Cabinet, bringing together all the imperial collections in a single building .
Architectural History
The contract to build the museum in the city had been given in 1858 by Emperor Franz Joseph. Subsequently, many designs were submitted for the ring road zone. Plans by August Sicard von Sicardsburg and Eduard van der Null planned to build two museum buildings in the immediate aftermath of the Imperial Palace on the left and right of the Heroes' Square (Heldenplatz). The architect Ludwig Förster planned museum buildings between the Schwarzenberg Square and the City Park, Martin Ritter von Kink favored buildings at the corner Währingerstraße/ Scots ring (Schottenring), Peter Joseph, the area Bellariastraße, Moritz von Loehr the south side of the opera ring, and Ludwig Zettl the southeast side of the grain market (Getreidemarkt).
From 1867, a competition was announced for the museums, and thereby set their current position - at the request of the Emperor, the museum should not be too close to the Imperial Palace, but arise beyond the ring road. The architect Carl von Hasenauer participated in this competition and was able the at that time in Zürich operating Gottfried Semper to encourage to work together. The two museum buildings should be built here in the sense of the style of the Italian Renaissance. The plans got the benevolence of the imperial family. In April 1869, there was an audience with of Joseph Semper at the Emperor Franz Joseph and an oral contract was concluded, in July 1870 was issued the written order to Semper and Hasenauer.
Crucial for the success of Semper and Hasenauer against the projects of other architects were among others Semper's vision of a large building complex called "Imperial Forum", in which the museums would have been a part of. Not least by the death of Semper in 1879 came the Imperial Forum not as planned for execution, the two museums were built, however.
Construction of the two museums began without ceremony on 27 November 1871 instead. Semper moved to Vienna in the sequence. From the beginning, there were considerable personal differences between him and Hasenauer, who finally in 1877 took over sole construction management. 1874, the scaffolds were placed up to the attic and the first floor completed, built in 1878, the first windows installed in 1879, the Attica and the balustrade from 1880 to 1881 and built the dome and the Tabernacle. The dome is topped with a bronze statue of Pallas Athena by Johannes Benk.
The lighting and air conditioning concept with double glazing of the ceilings made the renunciation of artificial light (especially at that time, as gas light) possible, but this resulted due to seasonal variations depending on daylight to different opening times .
Kuppelhalle
Entrance (by clicking the link at the end of the side you can see all the pictures here indicated!)
Grand staircase
Hall
Empire
The Kunsthistorisches Museum was on 17 October 1891 officially opened by Emperor Franz Joseph I. Since 22 October 1891 , the museum is accessible to the public. Two years earlier, on 3 November 1889, the collection of arms, Arms and Armour today, had their doors open. On 1 January 1890 the library service resumed its operations. The merger and listing of other collections of the Highest Imperial Family from the Upper and Lower Belvedere, the Hofburg Palace and Ambras in Tyrol will need another two years.
189, the farm museum was organized in seven collections with three directorates:
Directorate of coins, medals and antiquities collection
The Egyptian Collection
The Antique Collection
The coins and medals collection
Management of the collection of weapons, art and industrial objects
Weapons collection
Collection of industrial art objects
Directorate of Art Gallery and Restaurieranstalt (Restoration Office)
Collection of watercolors, drawings, sketches, etc.
Restoration Office
Library
Very soon the room the Court Museum (Hofmuseum) for the imperial collections was offering became too narrow. To provide temporary help, an exhibition of ancient artifacts from Ephesus in the Theseus Temple was designed. However, additional space had to be rented in the Lower Belvedere.
1914, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne, his " Estonian Forensic Collection " passed to the administration of the Court Museum. This collection, which emerged from the art collection of the house of d' Este and world travel collection of Franz Ferdinand, was placed in the New Imperial Palace since 1908. For these stocks, the present collection of old musical instruments and the Museum of Ethnology emerged.
The First World War went by, apart from the oppressive economic situation without loss. The farm museum remained during the five years of war regularly open to the public.
Until 1919 the K.K. Art Historical Court Museum was under the authority of the Oberstkämmereramt (head chamberlain office) and belonged to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. The officials and employees were part of the royal household.
First Republic
The transition from monarchy to republic, in the museum took place in complete tranquility. On 19 November 1918 the two imperial museums on Maria Theresa Square were placed under the state protection of the young Republic of German Austria. Threatening to the stocks of the museum were the claims raised in the following weeks and months of the "successor states" of the monarchy as well as Italy and Belgium on Austrian art collection. In fact, it came on 12th February 1919 to the violent removal of 62 paintings by armed Italian units. This "art theft" left a long time trauma among curators and art historians.
It was not until the Treaty of Saint-Germain of 10 September 1919, providing in Article 195 and 196 the settlement of rights in the cultural field by negotiations. The claims of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Italy again could mostly being averted in this way. Only Hungary, which presented the greatest demands by far, was met by more than ten years of negotiation in 147 cases.
On 3 April 1919 was the expropriation of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine by law and the acquisition of its property, including the "Collections of the Imperial House" , by the Republic. Of 18 June 1920 the then provisional administration of the former imperial museums and collections of Este and the secular and clergy treasury passed to the State Office of Internal Affairs and Education, since 10 November 1920, the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Education. A few days later it was renamed the Art History Court Museum in the "Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna State", 1921 "Kunsthistorisches Museum" . Of 1st January 1921 the employees of the museum staff passed to the state of the Republic.
Through the acquisition of the former imperial collections owned by the state, the museum found itself in a complete new situation. In order to meet the changed circumstances in the museum area, designed Hans Tietze in 1919 the "Vienna Museum program". It provided a close cooperation between the individual museums to focus at different houses on main collections. So dominated exchange, sales and equalizing the acquisition policy in the interwar period. Thus resulting until today still valid collection trends. Also pointing the way was the relocation of the weapons collection from 1934 in its present premises in the New Castle, where since 1916 the collection of ancient musical instruments was placed.
With the change of the imperial collections in the ownership of the Republic the reorganization of the internal organization went hand in hand, too. Thus the museum was divided in 1919 into the
Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection (with the Oriental coins)
Collection of Classical Antiquities
Collection of ancient coins
Collection of modern coins and medals
Weapons collection
Collection of sculptures and crafts with the Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments
Picture Gallery
The Museum 1938-1945
Count Philipp Ludwig Wenzel Sinzendorf according to Rigaud. Clarisse 1948 by Baroness de Rothschildt "dedicated" to the memory of Baron Alphonse de Rothschildt; restituted to the Rothschilds in 1999, and in 1999 donated by Bettina Looram Rothschild, the last Austrian heiress.
With the "Anschluss" of Austria to the German Reich all Jewish art collections such as the Rothschilds were forcibly "Aryanised". Collections were either "paid" or simply distributed by the Gestapo at the museums. This resulted in a significant increase in stocks. But the KHM was not the only museum that benefited from the linearization. Systematically looted Jewish property was sold to museums, collections or in pawnshops throughout the empire.
After the war, the museum struggled to reimburse the "Aryanised" art to the owners or their heirs. They forced the Rothschild family to leave the most important part of their own collection to the museum and called this "dedications", or "donations". As a reason, was the export law stated, which does not allow owners to perform certain works of art out of the country. Similar methods were used with other former owners. Only on the basis of international diplomatic and media pressure, to a large extent from the United States, the Austrian government decided to make a change in the law (Art Restitution Act of 1998, the so-called Lex Rothschild). The art objects were the Rothschild family refunded only in the 1990s.
The Kunsthistorisches Museum operates on the basis of the federal law on the restitution of art objects from the 4th December 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, 181 /1998) extensive provenance research. Even before this decree was carried out in-house provenance research at the initiative of the then archive director Herbert Haupt. This was submitted in 1998 by him in collaboration with Lydia Grobl a comprehensive presentation of the facts about the changes in the inventory levels of the Kunsthistorisches Museum during the Nazi era and in the years leading up to the State Treaty of 1955, an important basis for further research provenance.
The two historians Susanne Hehenberger and Monika Löscher are since 1st April 2009 as provenance researchers at the Kunsthistorisches Museum on behalf of the Commission for Provenance Research operating and they deal with the investigation period from 1933 to the recent past.
The museum today
Today the museum is as a federal museum, with 1st January 1999 released to the full legal capacity - it was thus the first of the state museums of Austria, implementing the far-reaching self-financing. It is by far the most visited museum in Austria with 1.3 million visitors (2007).
The Kunsthistorisches Museum is under the name Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum with company number 182081t since 11 June 1999 as a research institution under public law of the Federal virtue of the Federal Museums Act, Federal Law Gazette I/115/1998 and the Museum of Procedure of the Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum, 3 January 2001, BGBl II 2/ 2001, in force since 1 January 2001, registered.
In fiscal 2008, the turnover was 37.185 million EUR and total assets amounted to EUR 22.204 million. In 2008 an average of 410 workers were employed.
Management
1919-1923: Gustav Glück as the first chairman of the College of science officials
1924-1933: Hermann Julius Hermann 1924-1925 as the first chairman of the College of the scientific officers in 1925 as first director
1933: Arpad Weixlgärtner first director
1934-1938: Alfred Stix first director
1938-1945: Fritz Dworschak 1938 as acting head, from 1938 as a chief in 1941 as first director
1945-1949: August von Loehr 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of the historical collections of the Federation
1945-1949: Alfred Stix 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of art historical collections of the Federation
1949-1950: Hans Demel as administrative director
1950: Karl Wisoko-Meytsky as general director of art and historical collections of the Federation
1951-1952: Fritz Eichler as administrative director
1953-1954: Ernst H. Buschbeck as administrative director
1955-1966: Vincent Oberhammer 1955-1959 as administrative director, from 1959 as first director
1967: Edward Holzmair as managing director
1968-1972: Erwin Auer first director
1973-1981: Friderike Klauner first director
1982-1990: Hermann Fillitz first director
1990: George Kugler as interim first director
1990-2008: Wilfried Seipel as general director
Since 2009: Sabine Haag as general director
Collections
To the Kunsthistorisches Museum are also belonging the collections of the New Castle, the Austrian Theatre Museum in Palais Lobkowitz, the Museum of Ethnology and the Wagenburg (wagon fortress) in an outbuilding of Schönbrunn Palace. A branch office is also Ambras in Innsbruck.
Kunsthistorisches Museum (main building)
Picture Gallery
Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection
Collection of Classical Antiquities
Vienna Chamber of Art
Numismatic Collection
Library
New Castle
Ephesus Museum
Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments
Arms and Armour
Archive
Hofburg
The imperial crown in the Treasury
Imperial Treasury of Vienna
Insignia of the Austrian Hereditary Homage
Insignia of imperial Austria
Insignia of the Holy Roman Empire
Burgundian Inheritance and the Order of the Golden Fleece
Habsburg-Lorraine Household Treasure
Ecclesiastical Treasury
Schönbrunn Palace
Imperial Carriage Museum Vienna
Armory in Ambras Castle
Ambras Castle
Collections of Ambras Castle
Major exhibits
Among the most important exhibits of the Art Gallery rank inter alia:
Jan van Eyck: Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, 1438
Martin Schongauer: Holy Family, 1475-80
Albrecht Dürer : Trinity Altar, 1509-16
Portrait Johann Kleeberger, 1526
Parmigianino: Self Portrait in Convex Mirror, 1523/24
Giuseppe Arcimboldo: Summer 1563
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary 1606/ 07
Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary (1606-1607)
Titian: Nymph and Shepherd to 1570-75
Portrait of Jacopo de Strada, 1567/68
Raffaello Santi: Madonna of the Meadow, 1505 /06
Lorenzo Lotto: Portrait of a young man against white curtain, 1508
Peter Paul Rubens: The altar of St. Ildefonso, 1630-32
The Little Fur, about 1638
Jan Vermeer: The Art of Painting, 1665/66
Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Fight between Carnival and Lent, 1559
Kids, 1560
Tower of Babel, 1563
Christ Carrying the Cross, 1564
Gloomy Day (Early Spring), 1565
Return of the Herd (Autumn), 1565
Hunters in the Snow (Winter) 1565
Bauer and bird thief, 1568
Peasant Wedding, 1568/69
Peasant Dance, 1568/69
Paul's conversion (Conversion of St Paul), 1567
Cabinet of Curiosities:
Saliera from Benvenuto Cellini 1539-1543
Egyptian-Oriental Collection:
Mastaba of Ka Ni Nisut
Collection of Classical Antiquities:
Gemma Augustea
Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós
Gallery: Major exhibits
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armoured divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.
Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.
The Kugelblitz used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement. The MK 103 was a powerful aircraft weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in caliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft). The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed, an innovative feature at that time for AA guns.
In the fully enclosed Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously, and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. The MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, so that fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.
The Kugelblitz turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body was hanging in a ring mount, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s top and kept the profile very low. The turret offered full overhead protection, 360° traverse and space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition – even though it was very cramped. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec.
The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns, and the spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors..
However, the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz SPAAG was ill-fated: A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops.
In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, too, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited - in early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production already ceased in May.
By that time, the Kugelblitz turret had been successfully adapted to the Hetzer chassis, even though this had called for major adaptations of the upper hull due to the relatively wide turret ring, which originally came from the Tiger I. The conversion worked and the unique turret could be successfully shoehorned into the Hetzer basis, making it a very compact and relatively light vehicle – it was 5 tons lighter than the Panzer IV-based “Kugelblitz” SPAAG.
In order to carry the turret, the welded upper hull had to be widened and the glacis plate was reinforced with an extra plate, which also covered the Hetzer’s original opening for its 75 mm gun. The resulting 60 mm (2.36 in) thick front plate was inclined 60 degrees from the vertical, and therefore offered around 120 mm (4.72 in) of effective protection – much better than the Panzer IV’s almost vertical 50 mm (or 80 mm with additional armor on late versions). In this form, the vehicle could withstand direct frontal hits from most medium Allied tanks. The side walls were rather thin, though, only 20 mm, and they became more vertical to make room for the turret mount. The engine cover behind the turret had to be modified, too. Due to the massive changes, the vehicle received a new, separate designation, “Sonderkraftfahrzeug (Sd.Kfz.) 170” and it was officially called “Leichter Flakpanzer 38(t) 3 cm“.
However, there were many drawbacks. The interior was cramped: the self-contained Kugelblitz turret itself already lacked internal space, but the driver – the only crew member in the hull – also had little space in front of the turret’s mount and he could only access his working place through an opening in the turret at the commander’s feet when it was in a level forward position. There was no dedicated hatch for the driver, only an emergency escape scuttle in the floor.
Another issue was the field of view from inside for everyone. As already mentioned, the driver did not have a hatch that could be used for a good view when not driving under fire. He also only had a single panoramic sight, so that he could just see what was going on directly in front of him. There were no side view openings, and especially the right side of the vehicle was literally blind. The crew in the turret also could only rely on forward-facing sights, just the commander had a rotating periscope. But due to its position, the areas directly along the vehicle’s flanks and its rear remained wide blind areas that made it very vulnerable to infantry attacks. This flaw was even worsened by the fact that there were no additional light weapons available (or even deployable from the inside) for close range defense – the Panzer IV-based SPAAGs carried a hull-mounted machine gun. And the crew had, due to the open weapon stations a much better field of view or could directly use their own light weapons.
With the turret’s additional weight (the Sd.Kfz. 170 was 3 tons heavier than the Hetzer), and despite a slightly uprated petrol engine, the tank was rather underpowered, especially off road. Another negative side effect of the turret was a considerably raised center of gravity. The original Hetzer was a nimble vehicle with good handling, but the Sd.Kfz. 170 was hard to control, tended to build up and roll even on the road and its off-road capabilities were markedly hampered by the concentration of weight so high above the ground, making it prone to tip over to the side when the driver did not take care of terrain slope angles. This wobbly handling, as well as the turret’s shape, gave the vehicle the unofficial nickname “Kugelhetzer”.
Nevertheless, all these flaws were accepted, since the Sd.Kfz. 170. was, like its Panzer IV-based predecessors, urgently needed and only regarded as an interim solution until a light E-Series chassis had been adapted to the turret. It was also surmised that the vehicle would not operate independently and rather escort other troops, so that close-range protection was in most cases ensured. Under this premise, about 100 Sd.Kfz. 170s were built until early 1946, when production of the Hetzer and its components were stopped. Operationally, the vehicle was not popular (esp. among drivers), but it was quite successful, not only against aircraft (esp. when used in conjunction with the new mobile radar-based fire direction centers), but also against lightly armored ground targets.
Plans to stretch the hull for more internal space, better field performance and crew comfort as well as replacing the engine with a bigger and more powerful 8 cylinder Tatra engine were never executed, since all resources were allocated to the new E-series tanks.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander/gunner, 2 assistants incl. radio operator, driver)
Weight: 18 tons (22.000 lb)
Length: 4.61 m (15 ft 1 in)
Width: 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)
Height: 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)
Ground clearance: 40 cm (15 ¾ in)
Suspension: Leaf spring
Fuel capacity: 320 litres (85 US gal)
Armor:
10 – 60 mm (0.39 – 2.36 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 42 km/h (26 mph)
Sustained road speed: 36 km/h (22.3 mph)
Off-road speed: 26 km/h (16 mph)
Operational range: 177 km (110 mi)
Power/weight: 10 PS/t
Engine:
Praga 6-cylinder 7.8 liter petrol engine, delivering 180 PS (178 hp, 130 kW) at 2,800 rpm
Transmission:
Praga-Wilson Typ CV with 5 forwards and 1 reverse gears
Armament:
2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
The so-called “Kugelhetzer” was a real German project in late WWII, but it was rather a vague idea, it never it made to the hardware stage. Even from its predecessor, the Panzer IV-based “Kugelblitz”, only five tanks were actually built. However, I found the idea interesting, since the combination of existing elements would lead to a very compact SPAAG. And since I had a spare Kugelblitz turret from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” SF mecha kits at hand, I decided to build a model of this conceptual tank.
The chassis is a Bergepanzer 38(t), a.k.a. “Bergehetzer”, from UM Models, an unarmed recovery tank based on the Hetzer hull with an open top. For my conversion plan it offered the benefit of a blank glacis plate and lots of spare parts for future builds. However, upon inspection of the parts-not-intended-to-be-mated I became slightly disillusioned: while the Hetzer’s upper original hull offers enough room for the ball turret itself to be inserted into the roof, it could NEVER take the turret bearing and the armored collar ring around it. They already are hard to mount on a Panzer IV hull, but the Hetzer is an even smaller vehicle, despite its casemate layout. I was about to shelf the project again, but then decided to modify and adapt the upper hull to the turret. In real life the engineers would have taken a similar route.
I started to scratch the superstructure from 0.5mm styrene sheet, and work started with the roof that had to be wide enough to carry the turret ring. This was glued into place on top of the hull, and from this benchmark the rest of the “armor plates” was added – starting with the engine bay cover, then adding side walls and finally the more complex corner sections, which actually consist of two triangular plates, but only one of them was actually fitted. The leftover openings were filled with acrylic putty, also in order to fill and stabilize the void between the original hull and the added plates. Later, the necessary space for the ball turret was carved away from the original hull, so that the Kugelblitz turret could be inserted in its new opening. Sounds complicated, but the construction was less complicated than expected, and it looked even better!
Once mated with the lower chassis, some details had to be added to the blank surfaces – e. g. racks with spare barrels for the guns and some tools and stowage boxes. These were taken from the Bergehetzer kit and partly modified to match the different hull.
What really became a challenge was the assembly of the tracks upon the model’s completion. Unfortunately, they consist of single elements and even links that have to be glued to the wheels, and since they were not crisply molded (just like the sprocket drive wheels) their installation was a rather tedious affair.
Painting and markings:
This is another variation of the “Hinterhalt” concept, using the three basic tones of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). In this case – as an autumn scheme with fading light and more red and brown leaves - I used a late-war Panther as reference and gave the vehicle a rather dark basic livery consisting of green and the brown, and on top of that I added counter-colored (green on brown and brown on green) mottles, plus contrast mottles in Dunkelgelb. The tones I used were Humbrol 83, 86 and 113 - the latter is not the standard tone for the Hinterhalt scheme (180 would be appropriate), but it comes close to the typical German red Oxidrot (RAL 3009) primer, which was not only used on bare tank hulls during production but was also integrated into camouflage schemes, frequently stretched and lightened through additives. Effectively the livery is very standard, and since this Kugelhetzer model would depict a standard production vehicle and not a conversion, I extended the camouflage to the turret, too, for a consistent look.
The wheels remained in a single color (just the basic red brown and green), since camouflage was prohibited to be extended onto moving parts of the vehicle: a swirling pattern would have been very obvious and eye-catching when the vehicle was on the move.
A washing with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint followed. The decals – mostly taken from the small OOB sheet – came next, and I settled upon simplified national markings and just white outlines for the tactical code, due to the rather murky camouflage underneath.
The model’s main components were sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can before their final assembly, and I did some dry-brushing with light grey to emphasize details and edges. Finally, a coat of pigment dust was applied to the model’s lower areas and used to hide some flaws along the fiddly tracks.
A conclusive outcome, and a more complex build than obvious at first sight. The re-built upper hull was easier to realize than expected, the true horror came with the assembly of the tracks which consist of tiny, not really crisply molded elements. Why the return track section has to be constructed of five(!) segments - even though it's a straight line - is beyond my comprehension, too.
However, the outcome looks quite good, even though the use of the original Hetzer hull would have created several problems, if the original Kugelblitz turret had had to be integrated. Esp. the lack of space for the driver (and a suitable access hatch!) make this design idea rather unpractical, so that a stretched hull (AFAIK there’s a model of such a modified vehicle available) would have made sense.
A booklet from a correspondence course from the 1920s. Blogged (with link to whole booklet in PDF format) here.
► My boys Sam & Edrin, their little cousin Hakim and a stranger are at the "simplify your journey" showcase at the departure hall, Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). This is captured the night when seeing their Auntie Jae off to London last month.
Yeah, it's a tagline of the IATA (International Air Transport Association) that serves the airline industry. Malaysia Airlines (MAS), Malaysia Airport Berhad (MAB) and SITA (specialists in air transport communications and IT solutions) are collaborating in bringing a simpler travel experience for passengers.
Much deeper than that, I think I had better work harder to simply my journey to the eternity. The fact that matters is, our final day is closing in by the tick of second.
Hey folks,
Have a good life!