What are the round objects on this aerial?

[egbert]

I tend to say they are shell holes. The following map snippet shows in green colour the sector which was posted by Roel in his first post. Clearly visible the front line was situated right in the center of my snippet (no I do not know the date my snippet is from) and should be subject of  shelling

 

 

 

 

[Muerrisch]

The lack of overlap, where overlaps seem more likely than not, suggests that these artefacts are man made. The virtually identical size is another pointer towards man-made. Other than giant doughnuts [what else?] these are probably man-made for battle training.

 

 

[Beechhill]

If Timeteam has taught me anything, they're roundhouses. 

 

 

[ss002d6252]

17 minutes ago, Beechhill said:

If Timeteam has taught me anything, they're roundhouses. 

 

 

Or it's religious

 

Craig

[Beechhill]

9 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Or it's religious

 

Craig

*ceremonial 

[Guest]

They are definitely man made and either gun pits or protective circular berms for large circular canvas water tanks. The British Army still has these. 

 

I think most likely gun pits. Probably Anti-Aircraft gunpits. There was an Anti-Aircraft Campjust to the West, just out of image on one of the trench maps shown earlier. 

McMaster Maps here click

 

Snippet here:

Edited 7 December , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

I  would be unhappy about gunpits apparently at random, with no visible entrance/exit, and with no obvious ammunition storage and distribution centre, or indeed fire control facility.

 

 

[trajan]

33 minutes ago, Beechhill said:

If Timeteam has taught me anything, they're roundhouses. 

 

15 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Or it's religious

 

A professional archaeologist adds: "Ritual emplacements".

 

Good to see those maps though, which clearly show the hut encampment.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

I  would be unhappy about gunpits apparently at random, with no visible entrance/exit, and with no obvious ammunition storage and distribution centre, or indeed fire control facility.

 

 

 

Possibly abandoned? ...some time ago and weather has washed out traces of tracks etc...

 

Edited 7 December , 2016 by Guest

[Terry_Reeves]

It says anti-aircraft camp, not AA gun positions. Why would there be such a concentration of AA guns?  Even key points such as the ammunition depot at Audrique did not have such a concentration?  Unlikely methinks.

 

TR

Edited 7 December , 2016 by Terry_Reeves

[Aurel Sercu]

Man made.

We had them in Boezinge too, but only beginning of 1918, when the frontlines had moved eastward.

This photo is 02-02-1918.

 

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Same area, a month later (06-03-1918), sun in the same position.

Doughnut time ... :-)

 

Aurel

[Muerrisch]

The only argument against Bell tents, and Bell Tent earth surrounds, is the irregular spacing and arrangement.

 

Surely Aurel's photo includes tents with doors open?

 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

It says anti-aircraft camp, not AA gun positions. Why would there be such a concentration of AA guns there? Highly unlikely.

 

TR

 

Why would there be an AA Camp there? Equally unlikely, but there it is marked on the map. ...along with a complex rail network - see other maps on the McMaster website of the same area.... equally close to the front line.

[Terry_Reeves]

Martin

 

Your quote is selective.  I asked why would there be such a concentration of of AA guns there and there is an awful lot of them, even for a complex rail network. To reiterate, even key points such as ammunition depots, which were bombed,  did not have that concentration of AA defences. The mention of an AA camp does not necessarily mean  there was  a strong concentration of guns in that area.

 

TR

Edited 7 December , 2016 by Terry_Reeves

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Martin

 

Your quote is selective.  I asked why would there be such a concentration of of AA guns there and there is an awful lot of them, even for a complex rail network. To reiterate, even key points such as ammunition depots, which were bombed,  did not have that concentration of AA defences. The mention of an AA camp does not necessarily mean  there was  a strong concentration of guns in that area.

 

TR

Terry - Edit. in answer to your question on the number of pits - an AA unit unit might have, say 6 guns. It also has ammunition that needs to be stockpiled close by which might double the number of pits required and also explain the proximity of multiple pits. Guns also changed position in case they were observed and could become targets for guns firing off the map. In short there are always far more pits than guns... I think. Alsso pits, rather like trenches deteriorated for a number of reasons and had to be repaired or moved. There are a myriad of reasons why there could be lots of seemingly randomly placed pits. They might even be decoy pits... who knows? 

 

You seem to suggest it cant be an AA position due to the proximity of the front line. Apologies if I am mis-reading your comments. The presence (or otherwise) of gun pits (or whatever they are) might not correlate to the date that the photo was taken. The pits look pretty empty to me, suggesting they might relate to an earlier period and have since been abandoned. ..possibly some time ago. Previous occupants leave their mark. The AA Camp, and possibly their guns might have been there long before the front line was as close as it appears to be on the map. 

 

At risk of stating the obvious, places on maps often retained their names throughout long campaigns. So Rifle Farm, or Worcester Flat or Black Watch Corner and a thousand other place names might simply reflect what was once there long after their original occupants who lent their name to the location had disappeared.  The AA Camp marked on the map might simply be where an AA Camp once was. It does not necessarily mean it was there when the map was dated, it might simply reflect the name that was associated with the place. The trench map overlays prepared by the RE might simply be showing old place names. In this case there was once an AA Camp very close by and I cant image why the AA gunners would want to be far from their AA guns. 

 

The first British Army AA Sections arrived in 1914, and given the marked location is to the SW of Ypres and at one stage in the rear areas, long before the front line came so close.... think it is a possibility, given we know for sure some AA was there at some stage. The only question in my mind is 'when?'. If the photo was taken in 1915, 1916, 1917 or 1918 it is quite possible that the scars of former occupation are still there and the name that it was once associated with is still marked on the map. To draw a parallel I don't think  Black Watch Corner (marked on the map) was occupied by the Black Watch for the whole of the war  or Rifle Farm was occupied by the Rifle Brigade for four years.... In a similar way the AA Camp might not have been occupied by the AA when the map was dated. Apologies if this is blindingly obvious. Happy to be shot down, preferably with AA. 

 

It is not that important and was only a suggestion. MG

 

 

Edit. Separately: On the subject of fake shell-holes. The Army could spend may hundreds of man-hours digging fake holes, or it could place a large calible HE shell in the ground and detonate it. I suspect the Army did the latter if it wanted to create the effect for a number of reasons: it was more economical, it was faster, easier and created exactly the right effect. I think the chances of these being fake shell-holes is low. MG

Edited 7 December , 2016 by Guest

[Aurel Sercu]

Does this fragment help ? Both doughnuts and non-doughnuts.

As to the size : on the left is the Boezinge railroad. The distance between the rails ... The length of the sleepers may give an idea.

 

Aurel

[Terry_Reeves]

Martin

 

Thank you. None of what you have to say however confirms anything  about the the photograph. Please supply some evidence as to why there was such a concentration of AA guns. Take a look at the number of so called "gun pits". I will reiterate, even the most protected areas did not have that density of AA fire and you need to provide evidence that  these might be abandoned positions. None of this makes any sense at all.

 

TR

 

 

[Muerrisch]

Under the spotlight of "inherent military probabiĺity" these are too unmilitarily spaced to be military at all.

Even a Boy Scout camp would be neater.

I dont fancy any of the theories, not even mine

[roel22]

11 minutes ago, Aurel Sercu said:

Does this fragment help ? Both doughnuts and non-doughnuts.

As to the size : on the left is the Boezinge railroad. The distance between the rails ... The length of the sleepers may give an idea.

 

Aurel

 

 Hi Aurel, sure looks a lot like the douhgnuts in my pic...

 

Roel

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Martin

 

Thank you. None of what you have to say however confirms anything  about the the photograph. Please supply some evidence as to why there was such a concentration of AA guns. Take a look at the number of so called "gun pits". I will reiterate, even the most protected areas did not have that density of AA fire and you need to provide evidence that  these might be abandoned positions. None of this makes any sense at all.

 

TR

 

 

 

OK Terry. The AA was nowhere near the location. The map makers simply made it up. I surrender. 

[charlesmessenger]

I would go for Bell tents, but spaced irregularly so as to puzzle Photographic Interpreters just as we have been puzzled.

 

Charles M

[Phil Evans]

From the IWM Mapping the Front CD.

 

Army Administrative Situation Map 1.2.18

Shamrock symbol is Supply Refilling Point

B in a circle is Baths

Wheel symbol is an Ordnance Workshop

 

Take your pick

 

Phil

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aurel Sercu said:

Does this fragment help ? Both doughnuts and non-doughnuts.

As to the size : on the left is the Boezinge railroad. The distance between the rails ... The length of the sleepers may give an idea.

 

Aurel

 This photo is without doubt bell tents. look at the pointed shadows leaning toward the top right. Definitely conical.

[ss002d6252]

Bell tents certainly would fit the shadows - the rings may well be a sandbag ring which was apparently built up around the base of some tents to stop water ingress etc (or protecting a sleeping man from shrapnel ?).

Craig

Edited 7 December , 2016 by ss002d6252