Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Fort Toronto...


roel22

Recommended Posts

'Fort Toronto' depicted by the conventional sign signifying 'strong point'. Secret edition 1:20,000 scale trenchmap dated 1st April 1917...

Dave

post-357-010141000 1297369277.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at some 1918 dated French trenchmaps, 'Fort Toronto' (though unnamed) is shown as a simple ,detached, circular trench. However (and , possibly, interestingly(?)), on one particular 1:5,000 scale map (dated 26th April 1918) it's shown as a small circular (relatively insignificant) trench BUT it also has a more substantial, though very short, length of trench in the centre.

A few 1918 German trenchmaps I've looked at (all 1:25,000 scale unfortunately) all show it as either a detached circular trench, a 'U' shaped trench or an 'H' on its side shaped trench.

Don't know whether this helps at all!:ph34r:

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It helps, Dave!

The journal of Private Fraser (CEF - 31st (Alberta) Battalion):

Sunday september 26, 1915

We were at the crossroads at Kemmel. the 29th Batt went into the trenches named the E's and F's on our right and the 28th Batt into parts of the F's and G's on the left.

Our frontage was the lower slope of the Wytschaete Ridge.

And:

Thu., Nov 25, 1915 WESTOUTRE, BELGIUM

Day fine. Fairly quiet along our front. Enemy shelled WATLING STREET in front of MAXIM FARM during A.M. We did not operate our Machine Guns this day on orders from O.C. Lieut. CARRUTHERS R.C.R. 2 NCO’s and 21 men reported at 4 p.m. and got settled in dugouts and started work on M.G. Continued. M.G. strong point in front of VIERSTRAAT. Sergt. CURRIER relieved Corp. KNAPP at MAXIM FARM he returned to billets with an attack of grippe.

--- signed P.A.G. MacCarthy, Capt. O.C., Borden's Motor Machine Gun Battery.

Source:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joris, another piece of the jigsaw. Hence all the 'F's ie 'Fort...whatever'. Nice point.

Robert/Joris - sorry to chuck a spanner in the works here!:ph34r: -, but the problem with this is that, in this particular sector, 'H' trenches ran from (opposite) the southern fringe of Petit Bois to the Kemmel-Wijtschaete Road, 'G' trenches ran from this road southwards to 'Peckham Corner' , 'F' trenches from there to just south of Spanbroekmolen and 'E' trenches to the south of here

Not really in the area in question (the 'forts' appearing in various areas well away from the 'F' sectors too. Un-named 'forts' being simply named 'S.P.1', 'S.P.2', etc)

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem, Dave :thumbsup: . Thanks very much for checking that possibility out. Have you picked up that 'Fort... whatever' is typically linked to a strong point? Obviously the first letter of the fort name is not consistent with the sector associated with a specific letter - at least as far as Fort Toronto is concerned.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you picked up that 'Fort... whatever' is typically linked to a strong point?

Yes...they're ALL depicted with the 'strong point' conventional sign on the 1917 map (some with several belts of completely surrounding barbed wire as part of the defences).

I'll have another look tomorrow to double check (just about to call it a day now), but I think that the namings of them are totally random and nothing to do with their specific sectors.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, chaps, I'm really glad that you've all finally brought the thread back to post #13. Sorry if I sound frustrated, and perhaps there's a language barrier, but it really helps if we try to build on each others' contributions rather than just ignore them. Some of us do have some experience of soldiering. In reading a trench map, it is rarely useful to look at a small extract and just ignore other similar features that might give insight to its message (there are at least three strong-points shown on the first map posted; to ignore the possibility that Fort Toronto was similar to the others is to ignore the obvious). Post #21, in particular, simply appears out of the blue as if post #20 didn't exist and then misinterprets the source of the information posted therein ("the position known as Fort Toronto" makes it clear that it was NOT a "fort" in the pallisaded barracks-and-cannons sense but was, as David repeats, a strong-point - my point exactly way back in post #13). A knowledgeable look at the maps also shows that any barrack-like structures were mostly along what was known as Cheapside Road and were not at the position called Fort Toronto. Anyway, Roel, I hope that you've got something useful from this even if it wasn't the barracks and other buildings that you may have hoped for. On a practical basis, it is possible that research might uncover the names of some of the "several camps" that were in the vicinity, especially if the Cheapside Road markings did depict hutted structures and from those names some photographs might be unearthed. I hope that your thread winds in that direction rather than a continuing circular argument about whether or not it was anything other than a strong-point. Cheers, Antony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested, this is a scan of a section of my grandfathers map of the area. The map says trenches are corrected to 9-4-1916. He was there in the summer of 1916 with the CDN 47th Btn.

The black markings are all penned on the map.

Regards

Neil.

post-47263-056193900 1297395273.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXCELLENT confirmation of the position being a strong-point and with a Canadian connection. Interestingly; a ) Fort Morro was in Puerto Rico and taken by the US during the Spanish War in 1898 and occupied by them for many years and, b ) the strong-points known as Captains and Majors are marked "copse" on this map and "post" on the previous ones (no big deal, just an interesting take on map-making). The point known as Fort Morrow appears to be trenched and possibly sited heavier weaponry than the three other standard strong-points. All appear to be strategically sited between the "GHQ Lines (which break over the central ridge) and the Vierstraat switch trench. Thanks for building our knowledge and understanding, Neil. Antony

Another interesting aspect of this is that the pond shown on your g/f's map just above Fort Toronto appears to be still there. The cemetery mentioned in previous posts is nowhere near, relatively speaking) the position and is, in fact just off Kriekstraat (the old Cheapside Road) where later maps appear to show a row of buildings or other features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Neil!

Antony,

I totaly agree with you. That's for sure. :thumbsup:

And I learned again (that's my daily aim), also out of previous posts as for exemple 21.

What I would like (and was trying) to know, is the first use of the name Fort Toronto. First "official" appearence on trenchmaps. And the further use of it, during the war? I was trying to gather information on that to create a timeline. Also out of personal interest. As it is in my neighborhood and as a serviceman, military history is a great interest of mine since my childhood (Granddad served in WW1). But my interest don't makes me a historian. I'm aware of that.

I would also know for what Fort Toronto was used. (as in post 21: I'm guessing that elements of the Canadian Expeditionary Force were billetted in those camps, hence the nickname, Fort Toronto, which remained with the map position even after the front became "hot" in that sector and the camps had disappeared).

Sorry for my language if something was/is misunderstood. I hate to use google translations!

But I'll stop here.

Kind regards! :poppy:

Joris

Westouter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Joris: thank you for your courteous response to my grumpy post #41. I appreciate the sentiment and hope that perhaps we might meet when I'm next in Flanders. I'll owe you a good Flemish beer :P

I think Neil has expanded our knowledge of Fort Toronto backwards to 1916 and shown that it was certainly there as early as that. Again, on Neil's map, the position called "Fort Toronto" is clearly marked with the accepted Canadian symbol as a "strong-point" (that is, a strongly-fortified tactical defensive position). In this case, the "fortified" would generally mean sand-bags, trenched dug-outs, reinforced breast-works, possibly some slight elevation, and heavily-armed men likely with a machine-gun, bombs, flares, etc.). In some case, especially on the German side where the lines were relatively static, these strong-points could be concrete pill-boxes and could stretch to more elaborate structures with covered communication passages - more like a "fort" in our laymen's imagination. I suppose the ultimate strong-points were the fortresses of the Maginot Line - but this is not what we're dealing with here. The Commonwealth armies were all "visitors" and so their structures (apart from the tunnels and some heavy fortifications) were more temporary in nature.

It appears from all the evidence that Fort Toronto was used as part of a defensive tactical line that included the Captain's and Major's Copse points (or "posts" - presumably after the trees were removed).

What is of continuing interest, as you say, is the temporary camps that were established near or around it during the period when this part of the battle area was relatively quiet. Its name suggests the Canadian presence as Neil has confirmed and I think your suggestion is correct - that Canadians were encamped round about. Hopefully, someone with knowledge of the camps and the C.E.F. will surface and we might even get photographs.

Fort Morro seems to suggest that the Doughboys were in the area but, of course, they didn't enter the War until 1917 and Neil's map is earlier than that. Possibly the mapping officer had some American connections. The position disappears from later maps but full tracks or communication trenches appear to cross at its location.

I'm intrigued by the earlier posts where the maps clearly showed a line of huts(?) along the Kriekstraat. Most of the construction activity (if that's what it was) appears to have taken place in 1917, after these strong-points were already established but I believe that most of the camps would have been tented.

I must go an search for larger maps to get a better understanding of the strategic lay-out of this area from 16 through 18. Cheers, Antony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's excellent, Neil. It makes things very clear. Fort Toronto started out as a strong point that was isolated, as were other strong points by the looks (well, at least Fort Morro in the above map). This is very akin to the notion of the frontier forts in Canada, which could well explain why these locales were named after various forts.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

><<

What is of continuing interest, as you say, is the temporary camps that were established near or around it during the period when this part of the battle area was relatively quiet. Its name suggests the Canadian presence as Neil has confirmed and I think your suggestion is correct - that Canadians were encamped round about. Hopefully, someone with knowledge of the camps and the C.E.F. will surface and we might even get photographs.

>><<

I'm intrigued by the earlier posts where the maps clearly showed a line of huts(?) along the Kriekstraat. Most of the construction activity (if that's what it was) appears to have taken place in 1917, after these strong-points were already established but I believe that most of the camps would have been tented.

I must go an search for larger maps to get a better understanding of the strategic lay-out of this area from 16 through 18. Cheers, Antony

I am puzzled that there would be an encampment along the Kriekstraat - which if I remember correctly may almost have been on the crest of the local ridge, so any camp (and associated activity) would be visible on the horizon. My inclination would be to build a little to the NW - possibly near the trenches marked as GHQ lines. There may be a stream in that hollow, so you would need to be sufficiently above it for good drainage and avoidance of flooding - but at least you would be out of sight.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's excellent, Neil. It makes things very clear. Fort Toronto started out as a strong point that was isolated, as were other strong points by the looks (well, at least Fort Morro in the above map). This is very akin to the notion of the frontier forts in Canada, which could well explain why these locales were named after various forts.

Robert

Robert: with respect, I think you're reading too much into the name. Piccadilly was a communication trench. It bore no resemblance to Piccadilly in London. For every strong-point called "Fort Something", there were thousands called something else. These strong points were only "isolated" in the sense that they weren't always linked to a trench system directly, but were a few yards (not miles) in advance or behind. For a view of a concrete-built, fort-type strong-point see http://www.ww1battlefields.co.uk/flanders/images/plug/plugbunker2_1_thumb.jpg or http://www.ww1battlefields.co.uk/flanders/images/plug/plug_epf1_thumb.jpg or http://www.ww1battlefields.co.uk/flanders/images/plug/plug_epf2_thumb.jpg but bear in mind that most strong-points were not of this type.

Naming map features during WW1 was not an exact science:

Trench geography

The confined, static and subterranean nature of trench warfare resulted in it developing its own peculiar form of geography. In the forward zone, the conventional transport infrastructure of roads and rail were replaced by the network of trenches and light tramways. The critical advantage that could be gained by holding the high ground meant that minor hills and ridges gained enormous significance.

Many slight hills and valleys were so subtle as to have been nameless until the front line encroached upon them. Some hills were named for their height, such as Hill 60. A farmhouse, windmill, quarry or copse of trees would become the focus of a determined struggle simply because it was the largest identifiable feature. However, it would not take the artillery long to obliterate it, so that thereafter it became just a name on a map.

Battlefield features could be given a descriptive name ("Polygon Wood" near Ypres or "Lone Pine"), a whimsical name ("Sausage Valley" and "Mash Valley" on the Somme), a unit name ("Inniskilling Inch" at Helles named for the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers) or the name of a soldier ("Monash Valley" at Anzac named after General John Monash). Prefixing a feature with "Dead Man's" was also popular for obvious reasons, such as "Dead Man's Road" leading in to Pozières, "Dead Man's Ridge" at Anzac or "Le Mort Homme" at Verdun.

Trench naming

There were numerous trench networks named "The Chessboard" or "The Gridiron" due to the pattern they described. For the Australians at Mouquet Farm, the advances were so short and the terrain so featureless that they were reduced to naming their objectives as "points" on the map, such as "Point 81" and "Point 55".

The trenches of the enemy, which would become objectives in an attack, needed to be named as well. Many were named for some observed event such as "German Officers' Trench" at Anzac (where a couple of German officers were sighted) or "Ration Trench" on the Somme (where German ration-carrying parties were sighted). The British gave an alcoholic flavour to the German trenches in front of Ginchy; "Beer Trench", "Bitter Trench", "Hop Trench", "Ale Alley" and "Pilsen Trench". Other objectives were named according to their role in the trench system such as the "Switch Trench" and "Intermediate Trench" on the Somme.

Some sections of the British trench system read like a Monopoly board, with names such as "Park Lane" and "Bond Street". British regular divisions habitually named their trenches after units, which resulted in names such as "Munster Alley" (Royal Munster Fusiliers), "Black Watch Alley" (Black Watch Regiment) and "Border Barricade" (Border Regiment). The Anzacs tended to name features after soldiers ("Plugge's Plateau", "Walker's Ridge", "Quinn's Post", "Johnston's Jolly", "Russell's Top", "Brind's Road" and so forth).

In short, some Canadian gave a strong-point near Vierstraat the name of "Fort Toronto", probably in recognition of the place at the Canadian National Exhibition grounds in Toronto where he had been mustered before embarking with the C.E.F. That's probably all there is to it. Cheers, Antony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am puzzled that there would be an encampment along the Kriekstraat - which if I remember correctly may almost have been on the crest of the local ridge, so any camp (and associated activity) would be visible on the horizon. David

Me, too, David, but post #6 contains a map that seems to show a row of "new" buildings along the north-east side of the Kriekstraat (assuming map is oriented square to north) and also a collection of the same on the other side of the road. These are outlined in blue so are not pre-war local structures - if, indeed, structures they are. And, yes, that portion of the Kriekstraat is all withing the 45 contour, apparently the highest ground around. Cheers, Antony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antony, yes I made the same point in post #9 in this thread. Your point may well turn out to be correct. It is interesting, however, that there were several 'Forts...' in the area. An earlier post listed: Fort Galgary (?Calgary); Fort Garston; Fort Halifax; Fort Mount Royal; Fort Regina; Fort Saskachewan (?Saskatchewan); Fort Toronto; Fort Victoria; and Fort Simmons. And there is a Fort Morro on Neil's map. I have done a quick double-check of Canadian forts. There are some excellent lists online. I can match some of the names with earlier frontier forts, such as Fort Calgary and Fort Saskatchewan, but not all of them. There is a Morro Peak in Alberta but I can't find a Fort Morro. Also, I can't find a Fort Simmons nor even a location called Simmons in Canada. Do any Canadian Pals know? If, and this is a big if, some of the names were not actual forts (e.g. Simmons may have been an officer) then this might suggest that 'Fort...' was chosen to describe the strong points.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Robert. I've taken a look at a full trench map for that sector. It's quite interesting. There are, indeed, several features named "fort something" with Canadian connections. Most of them are clearly nothing but individual strong-points except for Fort Regina (which is a three-quarter square of trench) and Forts Saskachewan (sic) and Victoria (which are each a short row of double trench. One other thing I notice, however, are that many other features have Canadian names including Beaver Street, Beaver Hat, Alberta Line, Yonge Street Dugouts, Alberta Dugouts, Banff Dugouts, McGee Trail and Boardman Trail. Interestingly, the features called "dugouts" (of which there are others with non-Canadian names) are almost identical to the row of markings along the Kriekstraat shown in an earlier post. This would seem to put the kybosh on the thought that they might have been barracks, especially as they were on the ridge. To return to the OP's original questions; was there a fort at Fort Toronto at the crossroads in the sense of a large, fortified enclosure with barracks and storage and the like and what did it look like? I would have to say that there is absolutely no narrative or mapping evidence to support that thought. All the evidence points to the several local "fort" names having been applied to strong-points or fortified trenches, very likely by members of the Canadian military. There is narrative evidence that there were temporary encampments around the area of Fort Toronto - but certainly not "in the fort" - and the fort was halfway between the crossroads and Vierstraat. Cheers, Antony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never dreamed this topic would get so many replies, especially because this sector normally doesn't get so much attention, so thanks to you all.

Antony, I now fully agree Fort Toronto must have been a strongpoint, which officially had nothing to do with the huts/tents at the Vierstraat crossing.Perhaps the presence of these structures and several strongpoints made the Vierstraat/Kiriekstraat a busy place at some time (especially because it was not in the frontline for some years). But this would not have happened under the name Fort Toronto (when I first saw the map in post #6 I assumed Fort Toronto referred to the buildings and not the small "B"-shaped trench, but the maps in posts #26 and #40 prove the strongpoint was there before the huts/tents were built). So it's all clear to me now! (All I can ask for is a photo of Fort Toronto...:rolleyes:)

A few additional questions looking at the map in #40:

- Did the letters in GHQ-lines have some meaning?

- I assumed Kleine Vierstraat Cab(aret) was at the Vierstraat crossings, but this map puts it in the middle of the GHQ-lines. Post #6 and #26 position it next to Arttillery Farm. Probably this was some sort of camp?

Roel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>><<

A few additional questions looking at the map in #40:

- Did the letters in GHQ-lines have some meaning?

- I assumed Kleine Vierstraat Cab(aret) was at the Vierstraat crossings, but this map puts it in the middle of the GHQ-lines. Post #6 and #26 position it next to Arttillery Farm. Probably this was some sort of camp?

Roel

Roel,

I am presuming that GHQ carried the normal meaning "General HeadQuarters" - but why that line should have acquired that name (it looks very much lik the line that you and I have referred to as "the Blue Line" in another thread), I do not know.

Was Kleine Vierstraat a (civilian) small hamlet (near Artillery Farm) not on The Vierstraat but South west of it on the Molenstraat? The military camp may have been on the junction of Vierstraat and Molenstraat - In April 1918 1/4th and 1/5th Y&L had their Battalion Headquarters near this junction?

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...