sanctuary wood trenches how real?

[salientpoints]

< - > hill 62 , new location + new dug trenches in the 50's + pure tourism

Kristof, you have quoted this before about Hill 62, I would be interested to see/hear your evidence to prove this fact when they were opened shortly after the war and indeed Jacky posted an original image from the 1920's which was for all tense and purposes an advert back then.

Surely you are simply stating they were 'redug' or 'improved' for tourism if at all they were in the 1950's? You seem to have a thing about this.

It would also seem they are original in the sense they are part of a trench system and in the correct place - in the main which we can see from maps and I for one trust the Holts, they have been in the business longer than any of us!

I don't really see what the problem is myself, I will still visit Hill 62 and will visit your project and the Croonaert / Bayenwald ones. I will also still visit Vimy and the Yorkshire Trench ones amongst others.

Ryan

[bkristof]

< - > hill 62 , new location + new dug trenches in the 50's + pure tourism

(nothing wrong with it, but not historical)

I quote myself: There is nothing bad about visiting Hill 62 !

I am looking for hard evidence, but except the eye withnesses + the son of the one of the "workers" of the rebuild trenches i don't have a hard proof, that is wright. About the ad of 1920, indeed those where original, but they disapeared in the '30's because there was no more money for tourism + keeping them in shape.

The same happend with the tunnel, who was visitable, at Hill 60. And the panoramic tower there + the trenches, who are completely gone now...

Do you have proof they are indeed the same trenches like in 1920?

Same problem I think...

We should need very detailed, correct maps of WW1 + co-ordinates + a GPS to check it all. I am open to any suggestion...

Everybody is free to visit what he wants + believe what he want. so... no problem with it. I just gived my opinion. Aren't we all searching for the historic bakcground and the 'how it possibly was' feeling. But we will never now and let's hope we will indeed never now!

Greets,

kristof

[Paul Reed]

Are you, perhaps, aware that the trenches at Hill 60 were totally false?

[bkristof]

Hi paul,

I think you talk about the pubs/ museums who had them?

i can't know... i am to young for that and never saw them.

Was the tunnel also fake? You never know what people do for money...

But the ones on the memorial park where real? Except craters and the things you see today, nothing really looks like an old trench, but i heard there where some, who vanished by time. They disapear fast, i saw pictures of the Trench of Death at dixmude in 1921, it was almost gone! But the they stared to restore it several times.

This one is also no longer 100% historic, but still pretty good. Except i don't like the special features, call them modifications, to keep tourist feet dry... Gravel and such.

[salientpoints]

Kristof, we all await your groups' project with eager anticipation!

1) Will your trenches be in an historically accurate position? or will they simply be dug in a more convenient position for tourism purposes like you say, near a museum?

2) Will they be created using only materials of the era?

3) Will they be visitable all year round? I know you mentioned installing some kind of drainage and soakaway prior to the actual installation of the trench system so with this in mind I guess it will be the 'perfect' scenario!

Either way, personally I do not mind as long as they give the impression of a correct system and get people in them and involved in what it would have been like (as far as possible) it can only be a good thing.

Things like this generate interest and keep the memory alive. That is what it is all about.

Cheers

Ryan

[bkristof]

Kristof, we all await your groups' project with eager anticipation!

1) Will your trenches be in an historically accurate position? or will they simply be dug in a more convenient position for tourism purposes like you say, near a museum?

2) Will they be created using only materials of the era?

3) Will they be visitable all year round? I know you mentioned installing some kind of drainage and soakaway prior to the actual installation of the trench system so with this in mind I guess it will be the 'perfect' scenario!

Either way, personally I do not mind as long as they give the impression of a correct system and get people in them and involved in what it would have been like (as far as possible) it can only be a good thing.

Things like this generate interest and keep the memory alive. That is what it is all about.

Cheers

Ryan

Well, it is still just planning...

But we should start this year and open them next year in april if all goes well.

my answers:

1) we are lucky, the museum is on a "hot spot" of the frontlines (Zonnebeke) with a few meters further an original dug out (not open yet) next to the Church of Zonnebeke.

There are already some remainings of trenches visible, but like they where at Bayernwald (Bekaert) just vague.

We will do some research and we will try to locate the original trenches + restore them. We hope to find dug boards or such to have a good trail to follow.

2) We are already collection as much original stuff as possibel, we have a nice collection of Elephant plates and curved iron plates (is this correct?).

Offcourse the wooden constructions, like A -frames must be rebuild and the sandbags will be new ones. But we use regulations from WW1 1916-1917.

3) We hope to keep them visitable in the winter too. Offcourse drainage is NOT historical, but who wants to stand in 1 meter of water to visit a trench?= The idea is to make 2 parts. One open to the public and one for display and living history (once a month we do living history open to all visitors) that will be showing regular activities in the trenches like: restoring sandbags, cleaning rifles, pumping, eating, delousing (chit chat)... The living history parts will possibly be more historical and less comfortable, maybe if possible, no draining at all. We must pump to get it dry.

This will cost money offcourse! We will get support + hlep from the museum. But we will try to do some special happening to get support and help from others too.

The trench on a real battlefield became a part of our goal of our living history organisation. Isn't that a dream of all WW1 re-enactors?

We aim to show the people how it was (a bit anyhow) and we try to get a bit of the experience for ourselfs too. It is our way to remember "them".

It must become some kind of living museum once a month.

That is the whole idea.

I hope there are more people thinking like us and we don't created wrong thoughts about us / the museum / the idea.

By the way, living history groups of other countries will be welcome too, as long they respect the construction + the idea behind it.

thanks,

kristof

[Marco]

I'll post some pictures of the construction work at two different phases of the trenches at Bayernwald tonight. For those that have been there in the past, the wood is gone and so is the house (finally....). Too bad there is a new shiny fence now because that will be the backdrop for all your photographs.

It might also be explained that Kristof is ABAC, which is a split group of ABAF, which is a split group of The Diggers. All nasty splits (those trenches they all (re)dig might come in use some day). I don't believe Kristof's leaving out of The Diggers' Yorkshire Trench was a mistake. Or am I becomming a cynical old man?

Regards,

Marco

[bkristof]

Hi marco,

i am NO member of ABAC, ABAF or the diggers or any other split of Digging people. I am a memeber of a living history group, that is all.

We were in the yorkshire trench with full equipment and rifle. It was too small. And certainly to pass with 2.

Is "testing" it not the best evaluation?

I am not agianst the yorkshire trench, i am even happy with it. It was/is a good thing the diggers made it. But my critics are real and i think correct.

Did they find sandbags at the inside of the trench? i dont think so.

So far as i know, i never saw a picture of British trenches with sandbags at the lower part of the trench. All sandbags were laying on the top of the trench, at the end of the A-frames. Certainly in muddy flanders.

Too bad you didn't get my intensions and you can't stand critics.

greets,

kristof

[bkristof]

look to this diagram:

http://www.worldwar1.com/special/btw/btw097.gif

[bkristof]

As i saw the real A-frames of the Yorkshire trench at Hooge Crater museum + i saw the messures of the frames i could tell it was a communication trench.

So only above the ground sandbags, the rest in curved iron plates.

See diagram right trench.

[Marco]

Kristof, you are confusing things, on purpose or not. Your critic only came after someone pointed out you left them out in a full rundown of available sites. It was not your criticism I commented upon but the leaving out. I have no problem with someone being critical, hence my being critical of your move, or more precisely the lack thereof.

If you explain ‘belonging to’ as having a membership card, T-shirt & tattoo then you are right. If you explain ‘belonging to’ as being likeminded and involved then I beg to differ.

Regards,

Marco

[bkristof]

I did not leave the Yorkshire trench or something else out on purpose.

I hate the "politics" and claim and honour wars about historical sites.

I helped ABAC with the yzertoren dug out.the reconstruction in the tower, as you know, marco.

I helped the diggers, indirectly, to give a friend some relics that he gave them to put in their exhibition about the Boesinge site.

I am helping the Zonnebeke museum.

I am supporting the Bayernwald project, who is ABAF.

So... I don't think you can say i am choosing sides.

I am doing living history, and i like to do every effort to remeber the fallen and the veterans. Sometimes people forget why they are doing it because of, what i call, politics. There are offcourse also some "bad" guys, who have no good aim, just themself.

i hope it is cleared up with this...

[Aurel Sercu]

We were in the yorkshire trench with full equipment and rifle. It was too small. And certainly to pass with 2.

Is "testing" it not the best evaluation?

I am not agianst the yorkshire trench, i am even happy with it. It was/is a good thing the diggers made it. But my critics are real and i think correct.

Did they find sandbags at the inside of the trench? i dont think so.

Hi Kristof,

I'm afraid I have to disagree...

"Is testing not the best evaluation" ? No, not in this case. It's not because it is not very comfortable to pass with two soldiers, that this is a proof that ...

It is narrow indeed. But that is also the instructions given in contemporary trench warfare manuals. And we have other proofs too. When the excavator scraped off the top soil it became visible how narrow the trench was.

On our website www.diggers.be there is a set of 4 articles about the Restoration of Yorkshire Trench.

1. The historical setting

2. The restoration

3. 25 May 2003 - the opening

4. Frequently Asked Questions.

http://www.diggers.be/E/activiteiten/yorks...restauratie.htm

At the end of each article you will be linked to the following (red arrow).

And Yorkshire Trench a communication trench ? Please, let's be serious. The maps in the first article answer this. It was the southwest boundary of no man's land between Feb 1916 and end of July 1917.

That Yorkshire Trench is not 100% a restoration is dealt with in the 4th article. The infrastructure is on the exact same location (to the inch !). But we know that the top half is a compromise (the parapet and parados probably were different, less regular, the parados even higher maybe), but we explained why we did it the way we did it. (Article 4)

And yes, we did find sandbags in the trench. About 1/3 of its length. The other two thirds were chicken wire and corrugated iron.

Aurel

[Somme1916]

As i saw the real A-frames of the Yorkshire trench at Hooge Crater museum + i saw the messures of the frames i could tell it was a communication trench.

So only above the ground sandbags, the rest in curved iron plates.

See diagram right trench.

Kristof,

You seem to have a great passion for this, I applaud that!

On a cautionary note, don't get too wrapped up in what the official plans and regulations called for. With so many trenches built by so many different units you can't expect all of them to follow the official plans. To me logic even suggests that the same trench might have had several different kinds of materials used to revet the sides. The photographic evidence seems to suggest that the soldiers used whatever supplies or materials they could in their construction and maintenance efforts. This seems to be especially true in the middle of big battles when the trenches got knocked around a lot.

As for the sandbags in Yorkshire trench I can't attest to what evidence the archeological record did or did not provide the Diggers. What I can say is that I've seen archeological evidence that supports that sandbags were used in the trenches in that area but I have not spent sufficient time at the dig sites to determine to what depth or to what existent sandbags were used.

For all I know the Yorkshire trench could have had sandbag remains all the way to the floor, as does the reconstructed trench. On the other hand for all I know too they may not have found more than a few sandbags at the site either. On several occasions I did see sandbag remains at that site and the others in the immediate area where the Diggers were working.

As for corrugated iron sheets I never saw any evidence that they where used to line any of the trenches in that area. Also I never saw any evidence to suggest that the trenches were lined with woven wood (I'm afraid I don't know what term to use for this method of trench revetment). Of course this doesn't mean it wasn't so it just means I didn't see any during my visits to the sites.

I did see remains of A frames in both the German & Allied trenches as well as evidence that straw and some kind of paper was used to cover the floor in a couple of places that soldiers probably used to rest or get out of the weather. Not much help I know but it's a little something.

All the best with your living history project. I hope to get to see it someday.

Jon

[Somme1916]

Aurel,

I didn't see your post before I started writing. I was hoping you were going to weigh in on this as you and the other Diggers have the first hand knowledge of the site.

Chicken wire, huh? I've yet to see that in a period picture but it goes to show soldiers will use what ever they can get their hands on to get the job done.

Cheers,

Jon

[Paul Reed]

Below is a 20s/30s tourist postcard of the Trenches at Hill 60. They look good don't they? They were all false, having been dug by British WW1 veterans who had worked for IWGC and on other battlefield related projects, which had then come to an end. They did not survive WW2, for whatever reason, and there are houses built on where they were now. This is not, however, the area of preserved battlefield on Hill 60 itself, which many members of this forum will have visited.

On a different note, I have a number of wartime photos of trenches at Boesinghe. They show them to be almost identical in width and design to the reconstructed example at Yorkshire Trench. As Jon and others mention, manuals were only guidelines - in the field trenches came in all shapes and sizes. I would post these photos here at well, but they are packed away in a place where I can't get them at the moment.

[bkristof]

People, people,

I don’t want to get you angry our feel insulted!

Aurel I am glad to hear you. I like to discuss about this. That is how we can learn. And I like to learn. So I like your opinions, visions about this item.

I will be the last one to say I am professor in trench warfare and to say I am right and you are all wrong. You don’t have to take me serious if you don’t want to, that is up to you. But is say what I think, to keep the discussion alive.

I know also very well that kings’ regulations + the field are 2 different things.

I was just launching some thoughts to get more info.

I am also NOT against the diggers or they projects, like someone insinuated.

I even visited the trenches with several groups (why should I visit something that I don’t like).

You even saw us / me Aurel during a visit, you were guiding to that moment, a group of Het Davidsfonds.

I wasn’t there to dig it up. So I can really believe you found some sandbags. But that doesn’t want to say that they where completely in sandbags, not?

The sandbags can also be a repair. You tell you found them only on 1/3 of the trench.

On the Diggers website there is a nice picture of a wooden fire step, they aren’t there now.

You also found corrugated iron you said, on the same nice picture i see trails of rust on the outside of the A- frames. So what I suggested can be true?

What happened after 1917? Can’t it be used a communication trench? Or maybe just restored with small communication trench A- frames? After October 1917 it had no real defensive job anymore, but in april 1918 it had some defensive value so are the findings indeed all 1916-1917?

As I always understood, the British command didn’t believe in defensive positions (that is why they made temporally dug outs and almost, in need to be carefull, no concrete bunkers).

So I believe that the trench suffered a lot of damage after the 3th battle of Ypres.

Quote: That Yorkshire Trench is not 100% a restoration is dealt with in the 4th article. The infrastructure is on the exact same location (to the inch !). But we know that the top half is a compromise (the parapet and parados probably were different, less regular, the parados even higher maybe), but we explained why we did it the way we did it. (Article 4)

Did I said that is wrong? No, I just said it is not 100%. I also never said that the location is not right. By the way is it possible to give a 100% waterproof image of a trench? I don’t think so.

Aurel and others you may think you now for sure that it was certainly an assault trench (also in 1918?) and it was made in sandbags, I have another opinion. Off course I wasn’t there to dig it up. So maybe my view is incorrect. But is every discovery giving us an exact image? Can you always tell this is 1916, this is 1917, ’18? I think that is the challenge of all our interests, research and interpretation, discussions and conclusions.

No hard feelings and thanks,

kristof

[Aurel Sercu]

Chicken wire, huh? I've yet to see that in a period picture but it goes to show soldiers will use what ever they can get their hands on to get the job done.

Jon,

Yes, "chicken wire". Whether this is the correct wordI don't know. We (the Diggers) call it "kippendraad" (chicken wire) and that is the word I used to use, until in "British Trench Warfare, 1917-1918, a reference manual" I read :

"The sides of the trenches must be revetted. (...) Rabbit netting held up by stout stakes at frequent intervals (...) form a useful type for this purpose." (p 26)

So from then on I called it "rabbit netting". Until a few months ago I was corrected by a British visitor who told me : "Rabbit wiring ? Better call it chicken wire !"

I am so confused now ... (Can a kind British soul put me out of my misery ? Rabbits ? chickens ? Wire ? Netting ?)

To the point : we did find chicken wire / rabbit netting from time to time in Yorkshire Trench indeed. I hope the attached photo illustrates this. (I suppose you can see the rhombic (rhomboid ? diamond shaped ?) pattern ?

Of course, it's very brittle and fragile, and desintegrates as soon as you want to take it out. But we were struck because it did not really look like wire or netting pinched from a farm nearby, but stuff used methodically and systematically by the troops.

Aurel

[Marco]

As promised:

2003 showing the drainage system (no longer visible)

2003 drainage (no longer visible

Nearly completed

Regards,

Marco

[bkristof]

marco,

you should see it now with the sandbags in place!

do you already know they found the second listening shaft too!

Paul,

thanks for the Hill 60 pictures, this was very interesting + new for me, never saw it before.

[Guest private, 2nd worch. btn.]

hallo all,

I have some comments on this topic.

I am also part of Kristofs group, and am living historian. I've been following this thread, and now I want to share my knowledge with you all...

I had a great-granddad who lived next to Hill 62 (on the place where that huge villa is standing now)(build without a buildinglicensce). And I can remember him well, while telling me about how HE and Jacques Schier (owner of Hill 62) redig the collapsed trenches, and making some new, to make the whole thing bigger and more attractive to the public.

He told me it was a huge work to make it that way, and to built the 'tunnel'. So, in my opinion, I am quite sure these trenches are not original.

BUT, before I get angry email and replys from other users, I DON'T say you can't visit them, or they should be filled in, or whatever...

It is still some way to visit the old battlefield, because besides Hill 62, you have only a handfull of other sites you can visit, where the battlefield is still somehow in its old 'shape'.

second comment is on the yorkshire trench. About the building of it: great, finally Ieper did something... I don't attack the Diggers (who do a great job), but I think Ypres has been a stupid town, letting such a place dissapear. There is so much space around Ypres where they could located that industrial estate.... but noooooo, they wanted to destroy their ONLY ORIGINAL piece of battlefield they've got left. And on the very end of the constructing, they've got the wonderfull idea of buying a tiny piece of land to put a very small piece of trench on. (tjee, I wonder if ******** has something to do with this )(just like ********* ruined the Ypres memorial museum, and turned it into Flanders Fields Museum, probably the worst museum on the Western Front)(yes, even worse than the relic room of Sanctuary wood museum).

It's a pity that the town council never did any effort in doing something, and now their desparate last gasp bought them the Yorkshire trench.

And however the trench is very well constructed, it has 1 mistake. And now I'm going to say the same as Kristof. The sandbag, and iron sheets are on the wrong side of the A-frames. I've went in, in full equipment, and I couldn't traverse a soldier coming from the other way. It's way to small on the inside. And what's the meaning of constructing A-frames(besides drainage), if you put the sandbags on the inside?

However, still a very nice piece of work, and needs encouragement for other things to follow (maybe draining Lancashire Farm Dug Out, and make it accessable? Would be a very nice thing to do!!!)

This is my humble opinion. If I've offended anyone, I didn't mean to.

Edited 30 March , 2004 by Chris_Baker

[Aurel Sercu]

(1) I don’t want to get you angry our feel insulted! (...)

I am also NOT against the diggers or they projects, like someone insinuated. I even visited the trenches with several groups. (...) You even saw us / me Aurel during a visit, you were guiding to that moment, a group of Het Davidsfonds.

(...)

(2) The sandbags can also be a repair. You tell you found them only on 1/3 of the trench.

(...)

(3) On the Diggers website there is a nice picture of a wooden fire step, they aren’t there now.

(...)

(4) You also found corrugated iron you said, on the same nice picture i see trails of rust on the outside of the A- frames. So what I suggested can be true?

(...)

(5) What happened after 1917? Can’t it be used a communication trench? Or maybe just restored with small communication trench A- frames? After October 1917 it had no real defensive job anymore, but in april 1918 it had some defensive value so are the findings indeed all 1916-1917? (...)

(6) Quote: That Yorkshire Trench is not 100% a restoration is dealt with in the 4th article. The infrastructure is on the exact same location (to the inch !). But we know that the top half is a compromise (the parapet and parados probably were different, less regular, the parados even higher maybe), but we explained why we did it the way we did it. (Article 4)

Did I said that is wrong? No, I just said it is not 100%. I also never said that the location is not right.

(...)

Hi Kristof,

(1) Of course no hard feelings. I only wanted to complete the picture and add some information of which I thought it was relevant. That's all...

And of course I remember you.

(2) One third yes. And especially when parts of the trench had been repaired after a shell impact.

(3) The wooden fire step of the photo ? No, it's not there. We excavated the Yorkshire Trench about 3 times the size it is now, up to where Essex Trench began. The place where the wooden fire step was found now is beneath 'Penguin NV' (deep frozen vegetables plant).

(4) Of course ! We found corrugated iron sheets as well.

(5) What happened to Yorkshire Trench in 1918 ? No idea. Hardly any information about what happened there in and after April 1918, nor about the exact position of the 1st German line then, near Pilkem.

But there is nothing that indicates that the A-frames are from 1918. On the contrary, too many things situating them in 1916 or 1917. (War diaries, maps...)

(6) No, I didn't say you were wrong. But I didn't mention this quote to suggest that you were wrong either. Just saying what I said, no insinuation whatsoever.

Bye

Aurel

[Somme1916]

Kristof,

Hey mate I for one am not angry or insulted in anyway. In fact I'm glad to see the banter. Hey we all know you're just speaking your mind and I must say you've handled yourself quite well. That's what makes this forum so great, people can say what they want and as long as it isn't beyond the pale we all can chat about it in a mature and enlightening manner.

Deferent views help keep the fires of interest burning and I must say I haven't seen this much zeal in a thread sense the one that discussed the Dogs vs the Somme in Snow thread ("A Niggle Please", I believe it was or something to that effect). Oops shouldn't bring that up again should I because we really beat that one to death and I'm not sure everyone is totally over it yet.

Aurel,

You are right that looks like something build for the purpose and not chicken/rabbit wire as I know it. Isn't English/American a troubling laugh? What the Brits would call rabbit wire we Americans would most likely call Chicken wire. I guess it's name comes from what it is mostly used for. Here in America I've seen rabbit hutches/cages made from chicken wire. Just gets more confusing doesn't it. Sorry we've got such strange language.

All the best,

Jon

[mebu]

Hope you don't mind yet another comment on sanctuary wood trenches....of course they have been re-dug over the years, or they would be only 6 inches deep....it's a while since I visited, but it would have been a major task to dig the tunnels...the concrete frames are not commercially available, and were probably specially cast by an RE (or Canadian, more likely) Tunnelling Company...the answer to this will lie in PRO or RE Library.

[Marco]

Sandbags: I've been there a month ago and they weren't there (yet). Have they been placed recently?

As to the offending part: when you say something people will reply. If people are offended, b.u.g.g.e.r. them. I think our English friends can follow this discussion better with some of the background I provided, because that 'something is up' is apperent when you compare this thread with others on this forum. Hard statements are made which end in 'no hard feelings' or words of that nature, but the things that have been said, have been said.

Picture telling is the fact that a Belgian working with a French organisation just over the border refuses to be seen dead on Belgian locations because that would accoording to him automaticly be explained as them siding with the fraction that works on that side. To misquote Oblix: strange people those Belgians.

No hard feelings,

Regards,

Marco