Tobruk with Kleinstglocke

[bunker14]

I answer in French because my English is very bad

If someone can translate?

Le premier Tobrouk est de forme carré avec une Coupole.

Le second Tobrouk (celui de la photo) a bien eu une coupole mais juste posée, sans béton pour la fixer.

[dirk Peeters]

OK j ai compris

[Ronguild]

I answer in French because my English is very bad

If someone can translate?

Le premier Tobrouk est de forme carré avec une Coupole.

Le second Tobrouk (celui de la photo) a bien eu une coupole mais juste posée, sans béton pour la fixer.

First tobruk is square with a cupola.
The second (the one of the picture) had a copula which was not fixed with concrete

[moonraker]

hi,
but how do you know that the bell is raised without sealer ??

best regards

[bunker14]

hi

with aerial pictures and canadian document

bregs

[moonraker]

good thank

best regards

[dirk Peeters]

OK if you say so it s clear . canadian documents
Thanks
Dirk

[dterrier]

Hoi,

The exact position of the To with kleinstglocke of Mont-Fleury can be found at GSGS 923864.
Using this website http://www.echodelta.net/mbs/eng-welcome.php the coordinate in google earth can be found.

Translator : put in = vT923864 , result : 49°20'32'' - 0°31'19""

On google earth :




This is between Wn33 and Wn34.
I have found nothing until now.

Grtz,

Dirk T.

[dirk Peeters]

this is another position ... it s not easy ..
Would like to see some pictures where we can pinpoint them
There must be some evidence that is used in the book
Thanks Dirk

[dirk Peeters]

another thing
again the english picture

here a picture of another tobruk but constructed with formsteine

your opinion
does they appaer the same or is the photo with cuppola not longer ?
Thanks for answering
Dirk

[Natter]

How about the tobruks (Rs58c) with similar cupolas made of concrete in Hirtshals?

Photos/discussions in the norwegian kystfort-forum:
http://www.kystfort.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6519
http://www.kystfort.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6331

EDIT: I attached a photo from the first link above (it was taken and posted by Yngvar)

[dirk Peeters]

we have measured them in Hirsthals
we could not say they are the same
in Hirsthals they are rotating
Dirk

[Natter]

in Hirsthals they are rotating

That's interesting. Any idea of the purpose of these? Although the cupola rotating would compensate for the small opening (the large one, not those for observation), but still I can't see how a MG and crew would "fit" inside..?
According to the info given by the museum, there were mortars here - could it be used with a 5cm festungsgranatenwerfer?

[TH]

Doubt it was for mortar. The firing angle would have been very limited and mortar crews were already decently protected simply by their low position.
From the inside these cupolas are bigger than they look - I think there was enough room for an lMG mount (see combination of Lars' drawing and 944S6 below).

mgrs.jpg (102.01 KiB) Viewed 575 times

[Natter]

Doubt it was for mortar. The firing angle would have been very limited and mortar crews were already decently protected simply by their low position.

Yes, that makes sense.

From the inside these cupolas are bigger than they look - I think there was enough room for an lMG mount (see combination of Lars' drawing and 944S6 below).

My opinion was that it's to thight for the gunner to operate the MG, not to mention the loader as well. I'm not 100% convinced by the drawing in that respect, but I haven't been inside the bunker, nor taken measurements, so I'm not gonna argue against those who have

Thanks!