75mm Field Gun Battery Position - Part 1

Posting on this blog and the two websites has certainly slowed down over the last few months but this does not mean I've been idle - far from it! I've now completed my field work in the main Westleton training area, made another visit to the National Archives and also been carrying out recording in two other areas with David Sims. The next few blogs will detail the work on one of these locations.

I stumbled on this site last winter, but as I am so far behind in converting cassini grid references could not tie it down to any locality in the War Diaries. However David was able to provide the answer - it is the position of a four 75mm gun battery . It is an interesting survival as earthworks related to actual Field Batteries are incredibly rare which is strange considering the number of practice gun pits that still survive in Suffolk.

We have interpreted the remains as comprising a Battery Command Post, and at least two remaining gun pits (it is possible that all four remain). Stretching the imagination a little a fifth pit may have been dug to position one of the guns for an anti-tank role:  "Guns must be prepared to engage tanks and where a road or other likely tank approach exists in the vicinity of the posn, a gun position must be reconnoitred and prepared (if necessary) to deal with tanks approaching along such a road etc." - HQRA 55th Div.

First Image: GPS Plot of Field Battery Battle Position.
Second Image: Trench, possibly part of the Battery Command Post
Third Image: Gun Pit
Fourth Image: Could this pit have been dug as an anti-tank position? The pit is screened from view of the road except for the area in which the car can be seen.

This position does not appear to have  occupied for long. It is first noted in 52nd Field Regt's War Diary in Jan 1941, part of the artillery covering the front of 42nd Division. Work on the position probably commenced on 15th Jan 1941 when the  War Diary notes "Regiment organised on a 2 Battery basis (205 battery - A,B and E Troops; 206 Battery - C,D and F Troops). Troops move into Battle Positions".  The position we have found was the Battle Position of "A" Troop, 205 Battery. The War Diary notes that "Preparation of Battle Positions continues" throughout much of January. "A" Troop undertook firing practice on Jan 28th. 42nd Div were relieved by 15th Div during Feb 1941 and 130 Field Regt took over from 52nd Field Regt (with "E" Troop, 494 Battery taking over the position). "E" Troop had a primary defensive fire task of Walberswick and a secondary defensive fire task of Dunwich. These tasks were almost at the maximum range of the gun (approx 7,500yds).

Above: Fire Plan of "E" Troop, 494 Battery

RA 15th Division  Operation Instruction No 28 dated 26th Mar 1941 detailed a change in gun positions "with a view of making available the greatest possible fire power available for A/tnk defence and siting Arty within defended localities".  "E" Troop were to move  to Tinker's Walks. This move was to be completed by 16th April.

The next post will look in more detail at the remains and try and relate them to what information we can   glean about Field Battery positions with reference to Field Engineering Manuals and War Diaries.

15th Div Operating Instruction No 10

Took a walk down to Shingle Street / Hollesley Marshes today. I noted that some scrub had been cleared around a couple of the pillboxes, so had another look inside. Although I've been in them before I noticed something new in one of them that relates to the title of this post.

15th Division Operating Instruction (Beach Defence) No 10 Apr 16th notes the following:

Unoccupied Pillboxes:

Surplus pillboxes for which no personnel are available to man after “stand to” constitute a danger should they be occupied by the enemy. The loopholes of all surplus pillboxes within two miles of the coast will be filled with concrete under arrangements of C.R.E.

Commanders of No’s 1,2,3 & 4 sub-sectors will forward lists to this H.Q (copy to C.R.E) giving exact sites of all such pillboxes by 21 Apr 1941.

Although the photos below show that this order was clearly carried out on this pillbox, there is dating evidence  on the inside of two of the blocked embrasures I had not noticed before. On the inside a very neat job had been carried out blocking the loopholes with a rendered finish which the people carrying out the work had marked with "June 1941" and "Bristol Garland 1941" - not sure if that is a name or not!

Above: Image 1 and 2 clearly show the loopholes have been blocked with cement as per Operating Instruction No 10. Images 3 and 4 show where the rendered finished has been marked with the date 1941.

To finish off with a couple of more shots of pillboxes I have blogged on before at Hollesley / Simpsons Marsh but it is always nice to take new pictures in differing light / weather conditions!

Top image shows a Type 22 with a flying buttress - Hollesley Marshes which has had scrub around it cleared since my last visit.

Bottom image shows a Type 22 at nearby Simpsons Marsh with presumably the remains of the bridge that once allowed access to it. Note the screw picket in the foreground. 

Pre War Pillbox Design

This post is in answer to a comment I received from my last post from Hong Kong. I must admit I was pleased to see my blog entries being read from so far away! Anyway unfortunately I don't think I can really answer Kwong's questions in much detail but the following is as much as I know on inter-war design for pillboxes. The 1936 RE Manual gives three drawings for concrete machine gun emplacements, the first being the familiar 1936 Design referred to in Kwong's comment, variations of which were used in pillbox construction in the UK during 1940 (esp in Norfolk, Taunton Stop Line, GHQ Line in Surrey / Kent) and as Kwong suggests  in Hong Kong as well. 

Above: The familiar 1936 design for a machine gun emplacement.

The  other two examples of concrete machine gun posts include one of which is built into the shell of a house. The other is described as an emplacement with medium cover where concealment is necessary. I don't think this was a practical design (although please feel free to correct me) because as far as I understand it, the air space in this design, which was intended to help in the absorption of the shock of shell impact, was very hard to achieve in construction. 

Above: Top - concrete machine gun emplacement design for construction within the shell of a house. Bottom - concrete machine gun emplacement where concealment was important. Note  the air space, designed to reduce concussion from shell blast.

The manual gives several other designs for machine gun emplacements but these were all field work emplacements designed for trench systems.

Above: Three designs for machine gun emplacements which would have been incorporated into trench systems.

The 1933 Manual Kwong refers to was a Field Engineering manual - i.e. only deals with field works and not concrete emplacements, which were only considered necessary for protracted defence.

The 1925 Manual  Field Works does refer to reinforced concrete emplacements dealt with in Military Engineering Vol II (Defences) but unfortunately I don't have a copy of this. 

Trenches again - Westleton

Made the most of a beautiful sunny day yesterday recording at Westleton Walks. I am nearing the completion of recording on this particular site after three years of exploring.  The next task, as already mentioned in previous posts will to be and try and bring it all together and and interpret the remains.The next couple of posts will look at the most interesting features recorded today, again all training earthworks.

Y Shaped Trench:

Perhaps the best trench remaining on the Walks. It is approx 5ft wide and over 5ft deep in places. There is a weapons-pit on each of the 'long arms' of the Y. It bears some resemblance to an earthwork shown in the 1925 manual Field Works (All Arms). Nearby is another large pit, with remains of angle iron revetting, connected to a crawl trench (see plan). This looks to wide for a weapons-pit, perhaps the remains of a dugout?

Above: GPS plan of Y shaped trench and Y shaped defended post, Manual Of Field Works (All Arms) 1925. The pictures of the trench taken last year (remains of snow on ground!).

Trench and pits

Not far away is another trench system. The first part of the trench is over 3 1/2 ft deep but then continues as a much shallower crawl trench, ending in a weapons-pit. Two short crawl trenches run off the main trench. In the immediate area are a series of slits and a pit dug into an existing bank (the bank is shown by a dotted line on the plan).

Above: GPS plans of trench and pits and a detailed plan of the trench. Photo shows the deepest part of the trench.

Westleton 30.12.2011

Spent yesterday mapping at Westleton. By the end of March I hope to have the main Kruschen site mapped at Westleton so may be able to start  making some sense of the data collected so far. However I will probably not have time to map the bit of the Kruschen site remaining at Dunwich. There will also be mapping to complete at Westleton in areas not part of the Kruschen site.

Three features of some curiosity mapped today.

Firstly  three pits created by deepening an existing old boundary ditch. I am not sure of the age of the boundary ditch but it is certainly not any time recently!

Above: Map of a crawl trench system along with three pits dug by deepening an existing boundary ditch (shown by the dotted line). The crawl trench is of interest in that its is the first I've seen which incorporates a V shaped weapons-slit. Photo shows pit dug in existing boundary ditch.

Secondly a series of slits dug alongside the anti-tank ditch.

Above: Plot of slits alongside the anti-tank ditch. Photo shows one of the slits and the anti-tank ditch. This section of the ditch was not dug as part of Kruschen but was excavated in early 1941 and ran from Minsmere to Dunwich.

Thirdly, when I went to map what I thought were only two slits that I had found previously, I ended up mapping 21! It just goes to show how easily they can be missed and the value of repeat visits. What puzzles me is the layout - I cannot see what it was hoped to achieve in training with them (except possibly just giving troops a chance to dig a 6 ft X 2 ft slit). They are way too close together to represent any kind of unit defence post or even for PAD. The ground was certainly shelled during live firing exercises (as the shell fragment shows) but presumably not when these slits were being dug! This is going to be the biggest headache when it comes to making sense of the data - deciding which earthworks were part of Exercise Kruschen and which were not. For the vast majority of the one or two man slits I've mapped to date, it will probably not be possible to come to a conclusion! Even so I think it still of value to map what is in effect the remains of a major training area, more or less undisturbed since the end of the War.

Above: Plot of 21 slits, which I can make no sense of the layout. Two photos show my bag in one of the slits, showing just how well preserved some of them are. Last photo shows a fragment of shell, indicating live firing in the area.

Finally thanks to all who have viewed the blog / website (which has now had 21,000 hits!!) and wishing you all the best for the New Year.

WW2 Mechanical Earth Moving Equipment - Part 3

Either the weather or other things have prevented me from getting out and recording in the field so it's  a good opportunity to post Part 3 in the Earth Moving equipment thread.

This post will concentrate on some of the attachments for the base RB machine used by the Army for defence works etc. 

Dragline

This was considered to be the most universal equipment. It consisted of a long boom, or jib, and specially designed drag bucket. It is not positive in action but is rapid in operation. It requires a great deal of skill to operate. 

The bucket is thrown (or cast much the same way as in an angler casting a fly) by swinging the jib with the bucket held well up. The hoist and drag ropes were released allowing the bucket to fall forward of a vertical line from the top of the jib. The swing of the jib was checked at a point in line with the fall of the bucket. The drag rope was wound in dragging the bucket forwards to the base of the jib.

It could only be operated in soft materials and was ideal for dredging under water. This equipment would certainly have been used to widen and deepen existing ditches on Suffolk's coastal marshes to from anti-tank ditches. It may well have been used for digging anti-tank ditches elsewhere as well, much of the soil along the Suffolk coastal strip being sandy. 

Back Actor

This consisted of a digging shovel, downward and backward towards the machine, similar to the drag line but was positive in action.  The bucket was attached to a bucket or dipper arm, which was mounted on a stout boom.  The forward edge of the bucket is fitted with teeth and side cutters.It could be used to dig deep trenches or pits and can operate in fairly hard soils but it was not as rapid as the Dragline. This equipment may also have been used for anti-tank ditch construction in Suffolk although I have as yet found no specific reference to its use.

In Sept 1940 135 Excavator Coy R.E carried out experiments using excavators (Back Actors) to dig down to unexploded bombs.For example a 50 kg bomb buried 12 1/2 ft in clay was excavated, brought to the surface and defused in two hrs by 135 Coy; it would have taken five men with picks and shovels approx  two and a half days. Chief Engineer GHQ recommended that sub-units consisting of one Dragline and one Back Actor be employed for bomb disposal. Twelve sub units were required by Oct 31st of which six were required by Eastern Command. The War Diary of 135 Coy would suggest that Earth Augers were eventually used for bomb disposal works rather than Back Actors.

Skimmer

This equipment was used for excavating material at or above the level of the base of the machine. It could cut accurately within fine limits. It consisted of a short boom and bucket. The bucket is open at the forward end. The bottom is hinged at the forward end and secured by a trip at the rear. The bucket slides forwards and backwards along the boom on rollers. It is operated by lowering the boom to the digging position. The drag rope was then taken up drawing the bucket forward along the boom into the soil, filling the bucket. The bucket was emptied by operating the trip, allowing the bottom of the bucket to fall open on its hinge.

WW2 Mechanical Earth Moving Equipment - Part 2

This post will look at the excavator. The base machine built by Ruston Bucyrus was the standardised  machine  used by the British Army during WW2. The normal base machines used were:

10 Roston Bucyrus

19 Roston Bucyrus

22 Ruston Bucyrus

37 Ruston Bucyrus

The RB 10 and RB 19 were normally employed in the field due ease of mobility. The RB 22 and 37 were considerably heavier and required special transport to move.

Above: Roston Bucyrus 19 Base Machine

All were powered by a diesel oil engine. The RB 19, 22 and 37 were started by compressed air - a small petrol driven donkey engine operating a compressor. The RB 10 was equipped with an electric self-starter assembly.

10 RB

Type of Engine: 3 VRON

Horse Power: 30

Weight of Base Machine: 9 tons

Ground Pressure lbs./sq.ft.: 1,440

Rated Capacity of Bucket: 3/8 cu.yd.

19 RB

Type of Engine: 3 VRON

Horse Power: 55

Weight of Base Machine: 17 tons

Ground Pressure lbs./sq.ft.: 1,650

Rated Capacity of Bucket: 5/8 cu.yd.

All the machines were fitted with three rope drums, or winches, which operated the jib or derricking rope, hoist rope and drag rope. Interchangeable front-end equipments were available for the base machines enabling the unit to be used for a variety of purposes.

Transporting Excavators

The only trailer normally available for the movemment of excavators was the Roston Bucyrus Trailer. It would take a load of up to 20 tons. It consisted of a triangular girder frame fitted with a removable platform. The front wheel assembly was detachable allowing the apex of the railer to be lowered to the ground. The usual prime mover was an A.E.C Matador or Scammell.

To transport excavators, the platform was removed and the front wheel assembly detached. A timber ramp was put in place  allowing the excavator to travel onto the trailer. The apex of the frame was then jacked up allowing the front wheel assembly to be slid back into position. With the platform in place the trailer could be used to tow any size tractor as well.

Above: Top - Excavator mounting trailer ramp. Bottom - 19 RB mounted on RB trailer attached to prime mover.

Subsequent posts on this thread will look at the various front-end equipments available to the base machine - dragline, back actor, skimmer and face shovel