CROONAERT Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 The GHQ Line (its not it's 'name' as such - a GHQ Line is a predetermined rear area of organised defence... not just in WW1 - there are many references in 1940 war diaries of 'withdrawals to the GHQ Line for example) in this area was an intended last resort 'stop line' before Ypres constructed as from 1915 in the case of a German break-through . A fortified line reinforced by a number of outposts /strong points to the front (ie. 'forts', 'SP's, etc) intended to 'break the tide' before the potential advance fell upon the actual entrenched line... ...A bit of a British attempt at a slightly less complex 'Siegfried stellung' I suppose! Sections (to the north) were reached and fought over during 2nd Ypres as well as in 1918. By 1918, the GHQ line depicted here was the 'GHQ 2nd Line' and, no longer quite as 'last gasp' as previously as there were other organised lines further back too As for the locations of the 'ridgeline' hutments in question... well, when they would have been constructed, they would have been about 5 miles (?) to the rear of the front, so why not? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 >><< As for the locations of the 'ridgeline' hutments in question... well, when they would have been constructed, they would have been about 5 miles (?) to the rear of the front, so why not? Dave Dave, You know this area well; would activity at that location have been easily visible to ground observers, either from existing held German ground - or from ground that might become held by the Germans (given that this are was on the edge of a salient and therefore it would be unwise to assume it would not be attacked)? Given the choice, wouldn't building at Klein Vierstraat have appeared more secure? Unless of course the hutments were ridgeline observation posts (why so many?). David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 David, see my previous thought on the symbols for dugouts. We are assuming huts without evidence. The size of the marking (compare with evidence of existing buildings) and their similarity to other dugout marking (e.g. Yonge Street Dugouts, Banff Dugouts) makes it more likely, though not positive, that they were dugouts, not huts. Cheers, Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 would activity at that location have been easily visible to ground observers, either from existing held German ground No.... the Messines-Wijtshaete ridge was in between the area and the German frontline (plus it was a fair distance) when they would have been constructed. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 We are assuming huts without evidence. I don't think we're actually assuming anything at all ... the majority of British and French trenchmaps for the correct period and place that show anything in this location (and even one German trenchmap that I've seen) show this location as being inhabited by... hutments (with not even a shadow of a doubt that they mean something else)* Dave * that said, Its quite often a mistake to take what is found on trench maps too literally (especially if just using those produced by a single nation), but, when the same feature appears on maps produced and surveyed by three countries totally independantly of each other, then there is usually some substance in what is depicted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 13 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2011 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? Kleine Vierstraat (the hamlet) is at the Kriekstraat(Cheapside)/Vierstraat crossings. The military camp was at the Molenstraat, SW of the Molenstraat/Kriekstraat crossings (the spot where you assumed the hamlet would have been). The Y&L battallion headquarters was also at the Molenstraat, where now Kemmel no. 1 cemetery is (in grey circle, see next post...) Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 13 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2011 David, your link in post #52 mentions "HQ was established in a dugout...". The map shows this dugout was at the Molenstraat-Vierstraat crossings. Most likely spot would have been next to the road, because here the road runs about two metres beneath ground level. When I visited Kemmel no. 1 in 2009 my imagination started to get a little out of control, when I noticed three large cracks in the SW-cemetery wall. Where these cracks perhaps caused by a collapsed dugout? (getting a bit off topic here, but hey, it's my own thread... Please do continue about anything Fort Toronto-related, it's been very interesing so far!) Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 David, your link in post #52 mentions "HQ was established in a dugout...". The map shows this dugout was at the Molenstraat-Vierstraat crossings. Most likely spot would have been next to the road, because here the road runs about two metres beneath ground level. When I visited Kemmel no. 1 in 2009 my imagination started to get a little out of control, when I noticed three large cracks in the SW-cemetery wall. Where these cracks perhaps caused by a collapsed dugout? Roel Roel, I'm sure that CWGC must (at least by now, one hopes) be aware of these cracks. Possibly an enquiry to their Ieper office? Has the exact alignment of the Molenstraat been changed near to the crossing? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 13 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Not that I'm aware of (the differences in ground level do not make it very likely) (sorry, must leave now, grandpa is waiting...) Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 I don't think we're actually assuming anything at all ... the majority of British and French trenchmaps for the correct period and place that show anything in this location (and even one German trenchmap that I've seen) show this location as being inhabited by... hutments (with not even a shadow of a doubt that they mean something else)* Dave * that said, Its quite often a mistake to take what is found on trench maps too literally (especially if just using those produced by a single nation), but, when the same feature appears on maps produced and surveyed by three countries totally independantly of each other, then there is usually some substance in what is depicted Hello, David: I should have said "without supporting narrative evidence". I agree that the little squares on the upper side of Kriekstraat on the map look like huts on most maps. However, on some, they don't look large enough. All I was saying, in connection with using them as an argument for the existence of barracks-in-a-fort, is that other maps show similar features as dugouts and, following sensible soldiering, there is some doubt that huts would have been built on the ridge - even if it was five miles from the German guns. Further to this, the map in post #58 (also posted earlier by roel22), shows some of these features alongside the Kriekstraat ro the south of the Vierstraat BUT, to the north, similar features appear right in the middle of the roadway. On today's google-earth view, there are a couple of wee feautures to the south of the big farm on the Kriekstraat (just south of the Vierstraat) which could be surface evidence of former dugouts. To develop your own argument, "when the same (or similar) features appear on (different) maps . . . independently . . . then there is usually some substance . . . " Some of these maps show similar features as "dugouts". None of them are marked "hutments". I conceded that it's not a conclusive argument but, to return to the point of the OP, it also clearly doesn't support the thought of barracks-in-a-fort. Cheers, Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joris Ryckeboer Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Hello, I took some pictures today. It's very difficult to describe the situation. But I'll give it a try. http://maps.google.be/maps/ms?hl=nl&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=207081082969160515437.00049c2e3e4ad1b9b272f&ll=50.801704,2.85696&spn=0.01801,0.054846&z=14 Picture 1: From Hollandscheschuurstraat (Near Bayernwald). So from the sloop of the Wijtschaete-ridge with Wijtschate in the back. The big road crossing Vierstraat; the Kemmelstraat is also on a lower ridge! Picture 2: Vierstraat from the other side. Picture token at 'Kleine Vierstraat'. At the right side is Klein Vierstraat Mil Cem. In the distance, where the street met the horizon is the location of picture 3. Vierstraat or Wijtschate ridge aren't visible. Picture 3: Between Kleine Vierstraat and Vierstraat. At the demarcationstone. Crossing with the Kriekstraat. We see Vierstraat and the crossing with Kemmelstreet where the car is. In between was the location of Fort Toronto. Almost on a little "plateau". It's very difficult with the buildings, to imagine how the visibility was. But I think the little ridge of the Kemmelstraat was a good cover for everything behind that street when looking down from the Wijtschate ridge. Especially everything behind the crossing with the Kriekstraat! Also bearing in mind that not everything was cut down allready. Hedges, trees, debris, houses, were still in the landscape in 1915, I presume... Antony, a beer and a chat is a great idea!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Hello Antony, I think there may have been some crossed wires here. Anyway, the following may clear it up... ...I agree that the little squares on the upper side of Kriekstraat on the map look like huts on most maps. However, on some, they don't look large enough... Just had a browse through 23 different trenchmaps dating between 1917 and 1918 (French, British and German of scales 1:5,000, 1:10,000, 1:20,000 and 1:25,000) that show the area in detail and can say that every single one of them that shows anything here shows the road lined with nothing other than huts (sometimes the size of the symbol corresponds with the actual size of the actual feature).... the actual number of huts varies according to period, but huts they are. There actually are a number of dugouts that appear on the maps in the area (some of them (about 6, I think) even show up on a German map so, unless captured maps were being used as a basis, then they must have been quite obvious from the air), but not on the 'Cheapside row'. ...following sensible soldiering, there is some doubt that huts would have been built on the ridge - even if it was five miles from the German guns... Why? The whole area was wick with hutments by early 1918. It was a relatively safe enough area at this time - totally invisible to ground observation - and camps/huts etc can be found a lot closer to the 'old frontline' and at higher elevations than these elsewhere anyway. ...Further to this, the map in post #58 (also posted earlier by roel22), shows some of these features alongside the Kriekstraat ro the south of the Vierstraat BUT, to the north, similar features appear right in the middle of the roadway... That particular map is a 1:20,000 overprint on an expanded , older 1:10,000 base map (to make it 1:20,000). Being a 'local printing' (printed on 12th July 1918 using information recieved up to the 11th July), the overlay is slightly out on this particular one. The huts above 'Cheapside' should actually be nearer to the road and those that you mention as being actually in the road should actually be just to the south side of it. It's only a few yards out, but out it is. The similarly dated and printed 1:10,000 version of this map shows the location more accurately. ...to return to the point of the OP, it also clearly doesn't support the thought of barracks-in-a-fort... There is definately no 'barracks in a fort'. I thought this had been cleared up the other day. In the case of Toronto, its simply an entrenched outpost. (some others are more complex, but Toronto is a pretty simple construction as far as SPs go.) Dave . (PS. Roel.... this may be of interest regarding your particular interest in the area. - Have you seen the trenchmap that shows an area of fighting trench just above Kleine Vierstraat that has 4 of the traverses filled in by the time it falls back into Allied hands? I'm not suggesting anything of such here, but, regarding our conversation of a while ago regarding 'trench burials', this may be of interest, no? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 13 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2011 (PS. Roel.... this may be of interest regarding your particular interest in the area. - Have you seen the trenchmap that shows an area of fighting trench just above Kleine Vierstraat that has 4 of the traverses filled in by the time it falls back into Allied hands? I'm not suggesting anything of such here, but, regarding our conversation of a while ago regarding 'trench burials', this may be of interest, no? ) Haven't seen this map, Dave...but it would be VERY much of interest...!! Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Hello, Dave, thanks for the explanation on the mapping offset. I appreciate the time and interest you have taken to answer my arguments. I accept that these were hutments and I think that we now agree on all aspects of the matter. I do find the mapping protocols odd in that the hutments continue to appear on trench maps in 1918 long after photographs show that the area had been literally flattened after the German advance. Oh well. Again, thank you for your courtesy amd learning. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 I do find the mapping protocols odd in that the hutments continue to appear on trench maps in 1918 long after photographs show that the area had been literally flattened after the German advance. Ah , but they were still there (perhaps miraculously!). I suppose this would have stopped any doubt a while back, but here's a clip from an aerial shot of 'Cheapside' taken on July 21st 1918... a nice long row of huts for the world to see (though those nearer the crossroads look a bit flatter than the others)... Dave **** EDIT*** Just taken a look at an August 1918 aerial and take back my last comment... those nearer to the crossroads appear just as whole as the others. Strange really as some nearby ones appear to be nothing more than wrecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Haven't seen this map, Dave...but it would be VERY much of interest...!! Roel I think I've got your email address Roel, so will send some stuff to you later this week. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 13 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Looking forward to it, Dave; many thanks in advance! Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Thanks, David. Were these concrete foundations or are the huts still standing - or are they like the shelters which are shown on your website [Brokrn link removed]? It is hard to believe that they'd still be recognisable after that devastation. Again, thanks for continuing to expand my knowledge. Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcarleton Posted 14 May , 2011 Share Posted 14 May , 2011 I wonder if 'Fort Toronto' is related to 'Toronto St' or road? The account of a raid of the German wire 4 June 1917 where one of my great uncles was killed mentions this area. I put an extract of it below. 44th AIF Barley, A.R M. June 4th 1917 “I was told by a man in the 41st Bn (whose name I forget) that he went out with a burial party, about 8 days after June 4th and that he found a man called Barley (44. D. XV) and another man, near the German wire, and buried them both. The other man he could not identify, but he knew Barley very well as he had formerly been in the 41st Bn. And they had known each other in Queensland. He was quite certain about it. There were two brothers, Arthur (sic) Barley and Ronald Barley both in D. Company. They went out on a day light raid on june 4th at Toronto Avenue St. Yoon (sic) near Ploegsteert Wood. Nine men from each Company went out with two officers. Lieut. F. Gaze (44 D. XIII) was in charge of B and C Companies. They got into the German line and brought back four prisoners. I was left with a Reserve party waiting for them to come back. Both brothers were missing afterwards. That night, after it got dark, about 10 pm I took four men out to patrol No Mans Land, to look for the missing. We found Ronald Barley lying wounded and brought him back but we found no trace of his brother although we went right up to the German barged wire…” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 14 May , 2011 Share Posted 14 May , 2011 Thank you for posting the extract. Toronto Avenue is probably not directly related. Ploegsteert Wood was further south. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 14 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May , 2011 In june 1917 the German wire was some 3 km east of Fort Toronto near Wijtschaete, so indeed no connection with Toronto Avenue... Roel 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