Pillboxes

[Mat McLachlan]

A query for any pillbox experts out there. I took this photo of a row of German pillboxes near Fromelles and would like to know what they were used for.

In case it's difficult to make out in the photo, there is a loophole on the left of the pillbox (that is, the left side if you are in the pillbox, looking out) and the whole right half is open from front to back.

My best guess is that this is a trench mortar enclosure, but it doesn't look like other ones I've seen in the area. There were three identical pillboxes in the field spaced a couple of hundred metres apart.

Thoughts?

Mat

[salientguide]

Mat how big is the opening at the far end? My guess would be a reinforced field gun or slightly bigger battery?? Are they german and pointing towards the British?

salient guide

[Mat McLachlan]

SG,

Could be for a field gun, but I'm not so sure. The open space on the right is large, but not that large. It also seems to be built below ground level, even allowing for 'sinking' of the pillbox over the decades.

The pillboxes are definitely German and face the British lines.

Mat

[Robert Dunlop]

Here are some pics, taken from the Battle of Arras in 1917, that illustrate this:

[Robert Dunlop]

From the inside of another bunker with a shattered field gun:

[Robert Dunlop]

A naval gun:

[Robert Dunlop]

And another exterior shot:

Robert

[Mat McLachlan]

Thanks Robert. These pics convince me it is not a field gun emplacement. The opening in the pillbox was probably less than 2x2 metres - much smaller than the emplacements in these pics.

Hmm... the mystery continues...

[mebu]

Mat, hope I'm not too late to contribute....the Aubers/Fromelles area , as you seem to have found, contains some very interesting structures.

I think you will find that these are anti-tank defences. The small embrasure, for a horizontal trajectory, is a guide...trench mortars, would, of course, require an almost vertical opening.

As you are probably aware, in late '16/early '17 the Germans began designing their defences around the "stellungsbau" or field work regulations, much of which was based on experiences during the Somme. This document contained instructions for idealised concrete gun emplacements (copy below), you will see that the photos from Robert are along these lines. However they also made some local variations....

An RE officer, Wilson, produced a report from his visits to Aubers Ridge immediately after it was take., "Studies of German Defences Near Lille". He made observations of the defence organisation and some detailed studies of concrete emplacements. The use of "Tank Forts", ,with designs similar to that of the field gun in the drawing, was quite common. Some of a similar design furter along the Ridge were examined in detail..." The influence of the Stellungsbau manual was clearly indicated in the general design, which was stereotyped and pretentious"..."The Germans were evidently not satisfied with them as they had been re-appropriated as ordinary shelters. They were interesting as the first attempted reply to the tank peril"

I recall looking at these some time ago, but my notes and photos are not well filed....if you can give me the map references or precise location I will see if I can provide any more specific info...possibly a contemporary photo.

Hope it's of help, Peter. PS if you visit the area go to Somerset Farmat the rear of the Ridge, this was the fire control and command post for the sector, OP and HQ still there, very interesting.

[Guest Russell.Gore@crawley.gov.uk]

visited these beauties years ago,they seem to be just about big enough to hold an M.G. crew,they face the british lines,there used to be more but they were demolished after the war,the ones that remain are for the most part knee deep in water,i was told by the locals that A.Hitler had actually dwelt in one of these Bunkers and that during the occupation a guard was placed outside this Fuhrer bunker,and there was a plaque fitted to the Bunker that also stated the fact,the locals told me that the Plate used to be in the Village Museum but later vanished.

[Mat McLachlan]

Thanks Peter. I think we are getting closer.

It was a few years ago that I visited these Pillboxes but I'll check my maps and see if I can pinpoint the location. I came across them after taking a wrong turn on my way to the Australian Memorial, but hopefully I can remember where they were.

Thanks for your comments.

Mat

[Robert Dunlop]

Mebu

Thanks for the interesting diagrams! The particular example that you have provided looks like a bunker for a howitzer. Front line anti-tank weapons started out with the 77mm field gun. Specialised anti-tank weapons appeared later in the war.

Mat, I have been puzzling about the relatively large aperture (by comparison with pillboxes for MGs) in the bunkers. From what you say, they are not big enough to have been used by field guns. I guess it is possible that something like a 37mm anti-tank gun might have been used. The size of the apertures seems too big for use by machine gunners. Nor are they typical of the examples used for minenwerfer that I have come across (not that this means an awful lot). At least not in their normal role for bombarding trenches and strong points. Minenwerfer were used in the anti-tank role, when they were used in direct fire mode. I wonder if they were used in a position like this?

Robert

[Mat McLachlan]

Robert,

Could be. The most interesting thing about the large aperture is that, being open at both ends, it provides relatively little protection in front. That's what led to my thinking that it may be a mortar (or other indirect fire weapon) enclosure - protection is excellent from above, but pretty lacking from the front.

I could be wrong, but it seems that if this blockhouse was constructed as a relatively short-range anti-tank position there would be more protection at the front.

Thoughts?

Mat

[Robert Dunlop]

Mat

All the desciptions and pictures of mortar positions that I have seen to date consist of an uncovered pit, below ground level, with an adjoining covered dugout. The positions have always been separate from bunkers and other strong points. I have seen several photographs illustrating this, where trench mortar pits have a characteristic signature on the photograph. The reason for the large, relatively unprotected forward aperture would be to ensure maximum field of fire. Given that most artillery bombardments would have used plunging fire and not direct fire to engage such a bunker, then the overhead protection would have been the most important.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Being open on both sides supports the idea that a gun/mobile minenwerfer could be run into the position quickly.

Robert

[Mat McLachlan]

Robert,

All good points. You're convincing me! Does the location of three identical pillboxes so close together enhance/detract from the field gun theory?

Incidentally, have you seen the heavy minenwerfer pit that has recently been uncovered behind the German lines in Fromelles? Very interesting. There's a strong likelihood it fired the round that caused the massive crater in the British lines depicted in a famous photograph.

Mat

[Robert Dunlop]

I don't know that it helps one way or the other, which just reflects a lack of knowledge on my part and I don't have access to my source books at present.

I have seen a photograph of the minenwerfer pit that you mention.

Robert