Dani Alfonsea Posted 8 December , 2004 Share Posted 8 December , 2004 Hello, Some questions relative to the type of German dugout shown in attached image... What would be the earliest approximate date for such a kind of construction? I believe such elaborate dugouts belong to mid-to late war. Is that so? Would this be found in the first line of trenches, or nearby communication trenches, or would it be more appropriate for support lines? What is its more likely use? What kind of door (if any) would such a dugout have? Wood? Metal? Any additional insight or image of similar construction would be more than welcome!!! Dani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat McLachlan Posted 9 December , 2004 Share Posted 9 December , 2004 Dani, It looks more like an observation post than a machine gun emplacement, but the scattering of German gear and the machine gun belt would seem to contradict this. In most cases German blockhouses were open at the back, with no door covering the entrance, although I recall that one of the pillboxes on Broodseinde Ridge had a solid metal door which made it almost impossible to breach by the attacking Aussies. Hope this helps a little. Cheers, Mat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Some questions relative to the type of German dugout shown in attached image... I agree with Mat re the appearance. It is possible that the observation slit is on the other side of the structure; we are looking at the back end because the doors faced away from the British lines. Certainly, I would not call it a 'dugout' as such. This would have been an underground structure, often, in the case of the Germans, located 20-30 feet down and accessed by at least two stairways usually arising in a trench. It is possible that this is the reinforced entrance to a dugout. What would be the earliest approximate date for such a kind of construction? I believe such elaborate dugouts belong to mid-to late war. Is that so? Yes, this is so. Would this be found in the first line of trenches, or nearby communication trenches, or would it be more appropriate for support lines? What is its more likely use? It is doubtful this would have been in the first line of trenches. Typically, these were thinly held, potentially on the forward slope. An observation post would sit on a high point - ridge line for example. Other pillboxes would have been located on the reverse slope. What kind of door (if any) would such a dugout have? Wood? Metal? Sometimes there might be a curtain for anti-gas protection. Any additional insight or image of similar construction would be more than welcome!!! Construction of observation posts would have to be carried out very carefully. If observed, then the site would be an immediate target for British gunners. Work would usually go on at night. The base would be poured in concrete, with steel rods inserted as reinforcing for the walls and roof. Boxing might be used. Sometimes steel girders and pre-cast reinforced concrete slabs were laid on the top before being capped with concrete then, sometimes, a layer of earth, though this is probably not the case with this structure. Blockhouses were a specific type of construction. Typically, they were very large oblong structures with slits on the side facing the British. These were observation slits. They served as protection to MG units and riflemen, who would shelter inside during the obligatory bombardment. When the infantry assault got underway, the Germans would debouch from the blockhouse to nearby wall/s and shell holes, thereby fighting outside the blockhouse. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcderms Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Firstly, I'd say that the picture shows the rear of a small MG bunker. Probably German but possibly a late war British model, given the position of the photographer. My reason for leaning towards a german bunker is that it looks almost like a door has been cut where the MG slot was. All the equipment appears to be Allied issue but I'm not an expert on MG belts. As to the construction, all the posts above are correct. The majority of bunkers were constructed using steel rods, boxed in with wood to make a farm/mould. The cement was then poured into this. There's an interesting story concerning the Scots regt who took the bunkers at the rear(?) of the Newfoundland Memorial Park. They were carpeted with Blue Circle cement bags - the cement having been sold to a Swedish co. who sold it on to the Germans. Apparently our cement was higher quality than the German equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mebu Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Dani, what you have is a copy of an IWM photo, reference Q870. This was taken near Mametz on 10th or 11th August 1916. It was one of several OPs to this design, one or two can still be found (Monchy, and the remains of one at Thiepval, towards Pierre St Divion). Attached is a copy of the intelligence Fieldwork Plate. PS the story about the Blue Circle bags is tosh (sorry Robert)...the name wasn't even invented then...and the Swedes were not involved...but there was a trade in British cement via Holland, which was discovered during Ypres in 1917...became a political hot potato, questions in the House etc..more to follow on this?. Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mebu Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 The attached letter to the Times, November 1917, started a big debate....the seals referred to were not British, but Antwerp (in German hands of course) but a fair sized trade was uncovered, to be followed by the discovery of trade in British wool and worsted to Germany " to clothe her army and assist her allies". humph! Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 PS the story about the Blue Circle bags is tosh (sorry Robert)... Peter No need to apologise to me. I didn't raise the issue Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now