Gefechtsstand Aalborg See

[Jackman DK]

Hi

A 3 year restoration project is now near completion.

The "Gefechtsstand/Auswertestelle" bunker on the former "Seefliegerhorst Aalborg" or "Aalborg See" (now "Aalborg Defence & Garrison Museum"), is now beginning to look a bit like the day it was built. The rooms are finished and just need some exhibitions. The plan is to restore 3-4 rooms as close to the original as possible and use the rest to different exhibitions like the 3 airfields in Aalborg during the war (Aalborg West, Aalborg Ost and Aalborg See), the refugeecamps just after the war and 1 room as the inside of a personelbunker (like a Regelbau 622).

Comments are welcome. The colours chosen for the inside is as close to the original paint as possible (found when bunker was opened) and the camouflage colours and pattern on the outside is chosen from old paint residue found when the bunker was exposed.

mvh Jan

[Jackman DK]

The pictures is missing. Why, i dont know.

One more try:

[Jackman DK]

And the last one:

The toilet is an original

toilet a.jpg (297.54 KiB) Viewed 1370 times

[wartourist]

Hi Jackman,
The bunker looks really great now - unrecognizable if you go only a couple of years back. I poked around in there in 2006 (in rubber boots) and have a few photos if you are interested?

Must make a return visit soonest possible

Greetings
Dan

[Jackman DK]

You are welcome. The museum is closed from 1/11 2012 to 28/3 2013. Also open in weeks 7-8 2013 (winterholliday).

Did you visit the bunker with AC (Anders)?

We have some of his older pictures from the time the bunker was first opened.

Jan

[Larry D.]

Great job! It must have taken several thousand volunteer hours and a very considerable amount of money to complete the project. Who won't love that vintage toilet! Everyone will want to see this fascinating antique.

[Jackman DK]

Thx.

This picture is 3 years old and made just after the pumps had removed the water. More than 1 m. deep at the time.

[Larry D.]

It appears to have been in better condition than I thought it might have been in. Still, a lot of hard work to restore.

I am curious about one thing: during the war years, was the Gefechtsstand in a wood and surrounded by trees? Most wartime Gefechtsstände located on Luftwaffe airfields were unseen in aerial photographs because they were both camoflaged and buried in woods on the edge of the airfield. This double concealment made almost all of them undetectable from the air.

L.

[Jackman DK]

No wood and no trees. It was surrounded by a dirt mount with grass and had grass on top. A camouflage netting between the edge of the bunker and the mount. The "A" in the picture is the bunker and the "B" is the hangar. The main museum is in the hangar since 2002.
The picture is from a british plane just after the war.

Jan

[Larry D.]

Thank you, Jan. It makes sense.

Larry

[SES]

It appears to have been in better condition than I thought it might have been in. Still, a lot of hard work to restore.

I am curious about one thing: during the war years, was the Gefechtsstand in a wood and surrounded by trees? Most wartime Gefechtsstände located on Luftwaffe airfields were unseen in aerial photographs because they were both camoflaged and buried in woods on the edge of the airfield. This double concealment made almost all of them undetectable from the air.

L.

Hi Larry,
As you know my interest is both the LW history and concrete, and I have always been astounded by the fact that British intel maps and photo interpretation reports are devoid of reference to bunkers. Please see attached. We are looking at 165 bunkers . But not one is annotated on the map.
bregds
SES

[Larry D.]

Yep, that's the truth, SES. Over the past 5 years, I've carefully examined well over 1,000 of the A.I.2.(b)/Air Ministry airfield sketch maps that they drew based on aerial photos and other sources, and I may have seen 5 or 6 labeled bunkers in all. They either decided that there were too many of them to label, or they truly did not see them, or they felt there was no point in labeling them because they were 90% impervious to severe bomb damage or destruction. Do you think that's probably the case?

L.

[Larry D.]

Duplicate post.

[SES]

Hi Larry,
I'm at loss to find a reasonable rationale. On many airfields all vital C3I facilities were in bunkers to protect them against aerial attacks. And maybe the RAF did not understand the significance of the bunkers seen in a joint service perspective namely anti invasion defence. From being a humble Einsatzhafen, Grove developed to a major airfield and a fortress. The bunkers were grouped in clusters called a Stützpunkt, which had bunkers and weapons sited to perform a 360 dg defence and sustain combat for some time with autonomous water supply and provisions (housed in bunkers). The Stützpunkte were interconnected to form a 360 dg defence of the airfield both against an attack over land and an airborne landing. (A Stützpunkt Gruppe).
Please see:
http://www.gyges.dk/fliegerhorst_grove%20intro.htm
for details
bregds
SES

[Larry D.]

Indeed, they really poured some time, money and materiél into Grove, there can be no doubt about that. There were a few others that were built out like that - Venlo, Rheine, Leck, Eggebek and Husum come to mind - but I have no idea how extensive their bunker system was. Along with Aalborg/West, it seems like they really focused on Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark as possibly a last-stand area or redoubt.

L.