|
|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 11, 2017 8:45:04 GMT -6
I wish I could "Like" a post (the one lack I find with this architecture), but this will have to serve. A big +1 to that Pops. Proboards supports that function, idk why it's not on this particular forum |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 11, 2017 10:00:39 GMT -6
I wish I could "Like" a post (the one lack I find with this architecture), but this will have to serve. A big +1 to that Pops. I was hoping that I had expressed a common belief that getting first hand knowledge of a battlefield, or other historical sites is valuable to round out the history that we study. It is one thing to read history, examine maps but its another to visit the sites. I know my knowledge was enhanced after visiting Gettysburg on the 150 anniversary of the battle, seeing the reenactment of the first day, climbing little round top, seeing the bloody angle, Seminary and Cemetery ridges and the whole battlefield, getting the visual perspective of the heights and obstacles. It does change your perspective. This is one reason I enjoy documentaries because I probably won't visit most of the sites, but at least I get some visual perspective. Just my view, as always. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 11, 2017 12:15:36 GMT -6
Piling on to your comment about Gettysburg. I had read and re-read of Pickett's Charge countless times since I was a kid. And had also seen the (very good) reenactment in the Gettysburg movie. But I didn't really understand until I stood near that treeline at the bottom of the hill and looked up toward the crest of Cemetery Ridge. I think the sheer distance and scale can't quite be brought home in words, photos, or even film. It was a bit of an emotional moment.
That sense of "being there" is even more elusive for naval engagements. Through a 22-yr USN career, I steamed through the exact waters of quite a few major naval engagements (this is typical...due to the nature of naval warfare and just maritime activity in general, most - not all - major naval battles happen to have occurred in/near heavy-traffic areas, ports, and chokepoints). It was difficult, however, to extrapolate a sense of whatever battle took place in a particular location, especially since weather tends to be such a big factor. One can steam through the waters of Trafalgar countless times (and anyone who's regularly entered/exited the Med through Gibraltar - one of the world's busiest shipping lanes - has done so), but I think one would have do it in a) a heavy sailing vessel, b) in extremely light winds, c) with impending storm later in the day, to truly get that "aha!" moment.
It does happen sometimes though. On one occasion our carrier group traveled through the Philippines, and took the Surigao Strait route through the archipelago. The strait's narrowness was readily evident, and somewhat claustrophobic. Imagining Oldendorf's BB's in line across the northern end, the firepower they were able to concentrate in that narrow approach...and the Japanese' lack of maneuver room, wasn't difficult at all, and a bit chilling. One could describe it not-entirely-inaccurately as the maritime counterpart of a Pickett's Charge or Fredericksburg. I had looked up beforehand the location of IJN Fuso & Yamashiro's sinkings, and displayed those points on our NTDS screen in TFCC. Sure enough our track passed directly over the exact spot of Fuso's visible demise; I'm confident we had to have steamed well within a mile of her actual wreck (assuming of course that the originally documented lat/long 60ish years previous had been accurate to begin with). The Yamashiro posit was within just a couple thousand yards as well. And this wasn't some sort of million-in-one coincidence like it might have been in open ocean...the thin strip of navigable water dictated that we *had* to come that close. It would have been difficult and risky for the Japanese to have even turned 180 at full speed at night, simply from a safety-of-navigation perspective, let alone Oldendorf's massed firepower.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 11, 2017 13:27:35 GMT -6
Piling on to your comment about Gettysburg. I had read and re-read of Pickett's Charge countless times since I was a kid. And had also seen the (very good) reenactment in the Gettysburg movie. But I didn't really understand until I stood near that treeline at the bottom of the hill and looked up toward the crest of Cemetery Ridge. I think the sheer distance and scale can't quite be brought home in words, photos, or even film. It was a bit of an emotional moment. That sense of "being there" is even more elusive for naval engagements. Through a 22-yr USN career, I steamed through the exact waters of quite a few major naval engagements (this is typical...due to the nature of naval warfare and just maritime activity in general, most - not all - major naval battles happen to have occurred in/near heavy-traffic areas, ports, and chokepoints). It was difficult, however, to extrapolate a sense of whatever battle took place in a particular location, especially since weather tends to be such a big factor. One can steam through the waters of Trafalgar countless times (and anyone who's regularly entered/exited the Med through Gibraltar - one of the world's busiest shipping lanes - has done so), but I think one would have do it in a) a heavy sailing vessel, b) in extremely light winds, c) with impending storm later in the day, to truly get that "aha!" moment. It does happen sometimes though. On one occasion our carrier group traveled through the Philippines, and took the Surigao Strait route through the archipelago. The strait's narrowness was readily evident, and somewhat claustrophobic. Imagining Oldendorf's BB's in line across the northern end, the firepower they were able to concentrate in that narrow approach...and the Japanese' lack of maneuver room, wasn't difficult at all, and a bit chilling. One could describe it not-entirely-inaccurately as the maritime counterpart of a Pickett's Charge or Fredericksburg. I had looked up beforehand the location of IJN Fuso & Yamashiro's sinkings, and displayed those points on our NTDS screen in TFCC. Sure enough our track passed directly over the exact spot of Fuso's visible demise; I'm confident we had to have steamed well within a mile of her actual wreck (assuming of course that the originally documented lat/long 60ish years previous had been accurate to begin with). The Yamashiro posit was within just a couple thousand yards as well. And this wasn't some sort of million-in-one coincidence like it might have been in open ocean...the thin strip of navigable water dictated that we *had* to come that close. It would have been difficult and risky for the Japanese to have even turned 180 at full speed at night, simply from a safety-of-navigation perspective, let alone Oldendorf's massed firepower. Excellent first hand account. I remember going to Seminary Ridge and to the woods in front where the Charge started then up to Cemetery Ridge to the Bloody angle and getting an excellent perspective of how steep and wide open it was. We actually went to the Emmetsburg Road and saw where they had to climb the fence. You say to yourself "What were you thinking General Lee". I've never been in the Navy so your descriptions are great. My dad was on Guadalcanal with the Saratoga Air wing and CASU 11. He gave a good perspective on Savo Island and the Florida Straits. He said it was narrow and pitch black at night, you could not see anything. Your observations on the Surigao Straits are enlightening for me, looking at map has always told me that those straits were just so narrow and to be caught in their by the US forces was like you said, another Pickett's Charge. Great stuff, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 11, 2017 21:28:13 GMT -6
Here is an interesting fact about the Maginot Line forts and the German's. The best weapon against the embrasures, casemates etc. was the High Velocity German 88 mm. Flak gun. It would knock holes and pieces off of the concrete and then destroyed the guns. It did better than the bombs and 150 mm artillery pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 12, 2017 1:01:29 GMT -6
Here is an interesting fact about the Maginot Line forts and the German's. The best weapon against the embrasures, casemates etc. was the High Velocity German 88 mm. Flak gun. It would knock holes and pieces off of the concrete and then destroyed the guns. It did better than the bombs and 150 mm artillery pieces. I am not completely sure that the gun has so much power. I saw effects of German tests on Czechoslovak pillages and fortresses and the damage was minimal. I cannot confirm that it was this gun however I know that German tests their weapons to prepare for west campaign. As I know these fortresses was impenetrable by guns at the start of WW2 except portholes which is quite unlike to be hit as they were minimal and not opened to front fire. There were only cupolas on top open to enemy fire, the whole front wall was concrete, in some cases the pillages on hills was part of the hill so no front side to enemy. Firepower was installed laterally that pillboxes defends mutually each other. Part of defence lines are trenches, anti-tank hedgehogs, anti-personal wires, open field without obstacles to hide for attacker. I think that at start of WW2 if line is properly defended it is very difficult to defend. Sometimes there is comparison with Belgian fortress Eben Emael but there should be pointed that the quality of training between Belgian, Czechoslovak and French troops was significant. Other point is as this Belgian fortress are considered one of the heaviest at that time but mutually defence was not at that level as other lines and have weaknesses from the top. At the start of WW2 the only way to disable such line was by eliminating supporting force, however how you do it if this supporting force is after the line. Czechoslovak border fortification was never true tested however when Red Army marched to Czechoslovakia via Ostrava as part of heavy fortifications there were heavy fights to get through at time where this fortresses and heavy pillages was striped down and partially damaged. The only and main disadvantage of these line at start of WW2 is you need to defend whole line but attacker could choose one place and concentrate the forces there to overweight defenders if defender could not respond with mobile reinforcements quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Dec 12, 2017 2:58:45 GMT -6
This is what I was told.
The 88 gunner aimed at the portholes. This was not an artillery piece but a multifunctional gun. Therefore, it had sights like an AT gun and could depending on the distance aim on details. Furthermore, it had AP cartridges and I think that these could penetrate concrete.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 12, 2017 5:27:01 GMT -6
This is what I was told. The 88 gunner aimed at the portholes. This was not an artillery piece but a multifunctional gun. Therefore, it had sights like an AT gun and could depending on the distance aim on details. Furthermore, it had AP cartridges and I think that these could penetrate concrete. The issue is that you cannot usually shoot directly concrete. And the pillages are support by another line or army. See picture |
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Dec 12, 2017 8:13:13 GMT -6
French model was probably different... or they skimped on the concrete mix and ended up with something too soft/brittle.
|
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Dec 12, 2017 8:16:44 GMT -6
I am a bit puzzled.
Shall the link show that bunkers have no portholes to the enemies direction, only to the side? Not very clever bunker design?
I am not a technician but I know that with the older NATO rifle ammunition (7,62 mm) you could penetrate a house wall.
Why should you not be able to penetrate concrete with 88 mmm AP projectile?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 12, 2017 9:09:30 GMT -6
The quote that I have is from "The Battle for the Maginot Line 1940" and it states; "In 1940, the 88mm Flak Gun .... tore apart the reinforced concrete of the strongest construction materials every used by military engineers. The 88's high velocity anti-aircraft shells..... chipped away from close range at the concrete and the steel reinforcing rods, piece by piece, and tearing the thick steel walls of the observation cloches to shreds."
It was not a one shot deal, it was a series of well aimed shots at the embrasures and port holes which tore the fortifications apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 12, 2017 11:45:58 GMT -6
I am a bit puzzled. Shall the link show that bunkers have no portholes to the enemies direction, only to the side? Not very clever bunker design? I am not a technician but I know that with the older NATO rifle ammunition (7,62 mm) you could penetrate a house wall. Why should you not be able to penetrate concrete with 88 mmm AP projectile? On opposite, its improvement over previous design based on Maginote line. You can see, the space in front of the pillages are covered by side fire of right and left pillages. These pillages have several functions: 1. To defend against suprised attack (it is difficult attack them with light forces and heavy forces are more easily noticed 2. To support defence to decrease amount of manpower 3. Support army defending border I will little elaborate. In 1932 foreign minister Beneš (later president. If somebody interested, very clever man but controversal as he has important influence on creation of Czechoslovakia and mainly the its border. On opposite he was main person in Munich crisis and takover Czecholovakia by communist regime, at that time already ill) came back from Geneva conference stated there would be crises in 4-5 years. In reality crises was after 6 years. General staff prepare design studies to defend borders of Czechoslovakia against mainly Germany but also Germany and Poland. Basic studies excpected mobile defence as Czechoslovakian officers staff was one of the most experienced with mobile warfare (Czechoslovakian legions in Russia on Trans-Siberian Railway knows very well advantages of mobility). However these studies show that Czechoslovakia has not enough manpower to defend own borders and that in case of sudden attack army would be not ready. Study showed that for Nothern border the manpower needed could be decrease almost 4x if there is fortification. So Czech staff visited France to study Maginote line and French specialist were sent to Czechoslovakia and in 1934 fist budget for detial studies was approved. Originally plans were for heavy fortification as Maginot line which was started in Northern Bohemia. However the plan was prepared to have best defence and completely build up will take till 1950 - nobody take notice of Beneš to plan according to. So the revised plan put more emphasies on lighter pillages and construction was speed up in 1937-8. The better pillages (vz. 37) was prepared and used. These ones are the one on picture. They found out that weak point of all pillages are from front and that its dangerous so that defence based on friendly fire from pillages on both side could cover the front part of pillages making them even more difficult to destroy or disable. Pillages in line were not alone, there were several lines and 2nd lines have some of the pillages firing directly ahead and on all places should be army with artilerry tu support pillages. The main point was that pillages are difficult to destroy if there are supported by another line and standard army as enemy cannot fire directly to them as grass is what enemy can mainly see. The whole line was more modern than Maginote line (the most important was concept of mutual friendly defence fire and front side of pillages was covered in terrain) however only most important parts was defended by heavy pillages and in 1938 only around around 10.000 from planned 15.000 light pillages were finished (usually not the front lines). None of the fortresses was finished and full equiped at the time of crises. |
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 12, 2017 11:46:46 GMT -6
"...chipped away from close range..." Rather makes one wonder about the tactical context in that immediate area, that the 88 gunners were able to enjoy such leisure at such proximity. I'm not sure this vignette tells us as much about the efficacy of the 88mm as it does about the French defense (or lack thereof), at least in whatever local spot(s) this occurred. Throughout history, no fortification would have resisted long if the defenders left the wall to do the job all by itself.. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 12, 2017 13:33:19 GMT -6
"...chipped away from close range..." Rather makes one wonder about the tactical context in that immediate area, that the 88 gunners were able to enjoy such leisure at such proximity. I'm not sure this vignette tells us as much about the efficacy of the 88mm as it does about the French defense (or lack thereof), at least in whatever local spot(s) this occurred. Throughout history, no fortification would have resisted long if the defenders left the wall to do the job all by itself.. The book I am currently reading is very, very detailed in the construction, manning and tactical doctrine of the Maginot Line. The sector in question was the Malmedy-Sedan area where the German armor broke through. This area was not well defended even though it had pillboxes and embrasures along with observation posts. The problem was mobile back up for these fortifications and the command and control which appears to be almost non-existent. The German infantry was able to breach the AT ditches and wire, move around the concrete fortifications and then bring up the Luftwaffe manned 88mm guns at close range, then disable then breach them. One mistake the designers made was to install air vents because the German's could block them and suffocate the soldiers inside. The details by this author are something and I can't provide all the details but I believe that mistakes were made in the northern portion of the Maginot line in deployment of the forts and their mobile backup. Most of which was in the north. What I find fascinating is that one and half years later, the Japanese took Singapore with its fortifications, from behind just the like the German's. |
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 12, 2017 14:18:50 GMT -6
Interesting stuff. What's the title/author? Sounds like something I might need to put on my reading list. :-)
|
|
