Tom Oliviers
Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
-
Bunkerfreak
- Member
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 19:45
- Location: Antwerpen
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
And some X-Ray print screens of the model:
Notice the interior-wall between the machinery section and the assembly hall!
Regards,
Tom Oliviers
Notice the interior-wall between the machinery section and the assembly hall!
Regards,
Tom Oliviers
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
In the very first answer to this post by Prosper, a link is provided by Prosper... nothing very detailed on this link but a small mentioning on the plans of the Wasserwerk on this link could answer Tom's question...Bunkerfreak wrote:The reason why there where concrete walls placed before the main entrance, is what i believe due to an impact of a bomb during the construction.
If you look to the second wall you can see the roof was comming down.
So i think the purpose of the base changed from V1-firing facility to an factory/logistic facility due to some heavy impacts on the bunker.
...
The wall which has been placed after an impact that lowered the roof.
Regards
Tom
EDIT: perhaps this is also the case for the patched-up bombcrater Dirk was wondering about; that it was done by the british... perhaps the bunker was in use by the british for a short while during the liberation of europe and therefore had to be repaired and altered??
On photo 2 we see one single track leading into the bunker which leads dead-end inside the bunker...
On a photo of 'a bunker' for V1 found on CEGESOMA (don't know where...) we can see a V1 beeing rolled inside one by one in 'a bunker' on it's own trolley and without the wings attached. If this was also the case for Siracourt, then this would/could mean the following:
- the small entrance measured by Dirk and his companigions would be sufficient to roll in the V1 one by one; meaning they where unloaded of the trains outside and placed on individual trolleys
- as the wings aren't yet attachted to the V1's the with of the entrance must not be more then neaded to pass a V1 and a couple of men aside of it, also a standard doorheight would be enough to pass
- as seen on the photo from CEGESOMA no railtrack was needed and should this have been the case for Siracourt, a single Decauville-track would be sufficient... or perhaps at Siracour they where hauled in one by one on a ceiling track as Dirk mentions to have found traces of such a track.
- siracourt4.jpg (91.9 KiB) Viewed 533 times
seems you guys are re-writing some history here! As it is generally assumed (possibly even educated) that trains ran throug the building.
... we need more WW2-german-veterans on the forum! and if possible, who worked at siracourt
greetz
Jean
Last edited by myt1prod on 03 Dec 2014, 17:22, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
this is then an assembled and fueled V1 leaving 'a bunker' trough a very different and much larger gate (also CEGESOMA)... here we clearly see the wings attached (d'uuuh :roll: ), which explains the need for a larger exit (would it be Siracourt, this would then be the large side-exit).
- siracourt5.jpg (93.56 KiB) Viewed 532 times
-
Bunkerfreak
- Member
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 19:45
- Location: Antwerpen
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
Hello Jean,
I've noticed the tekst on the plan before, but i cannot understand why the Brittisch would place two such blocks in the entrance. I had to be sure so i checked my pictures again and again and i see some difference in the shuttering shades of those walls
It could explain why the Tallboy crater on top of the building was re-poured with concrete as one of the Sanders-documents state that there was a crater where the nose of the tallboy was found in. If i see to my pictures, i can state that there is a global measure of shuttering-planks which the Germans used everywhere on the Wasserwerk. Only those two blocks have other (smaller) planks which were used.
See below pictures: Red: "Britisch" small planks, Blue: German planks
even on other inner wals the Germans used large planks
Does anyone know what the Britisch where planning with this base?
But it's still posible that those small planks where placed by the germans during constructionworks...
I've noticed the tekst on the plan before, but i cannot understand why the Brittisch would place two such blocks in the entrance. I had to be sure so i checked my pictures again and again and i see some difference in the shuttering shades of those walls
It could explain why the Tallboy crater on top of the building was re-poured with concrete as one of the Sanders-documents state that there was a crater where the nose of the tallboy was found in. If i see to my pictures, i can state that there is a global measure of shuttering-planks which the Germans used everywhere on the Wasserwerk. Only those two blocks have other (smaller) planks which were used.
See below pictures: Red: "Britisch" small planks, Blue: German planks
Does anyone know what the Britisch where planning with this base?
But it's still posible that those small planks where placed by the germans during constructionworks...
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
i just return from another trip to Siracourt with Y DElefosse and Olivier
With great dificulties we found the height
5 m 40 is the large room
i looked also at the blocks and i think the germans did it because the block was weaked
With Yannick we discussed it
The british didn t do anything with that bunker but the French repaired the roof because the army had plans with this bunker but they where abanded
maybe the French did it , i don t know but why should the english do such a thing anyway?
it is easier to destroy like they did with Lindemann etc then try tu utilise a bunker that surely isn t finished
I must finish many plans now and start to draw them now
Jean i look your tekst over this evening and Tom nice Job
Dirk
With great dificulties we found the height
5 m 40 is the large room
i looked also at the blocks and i think the germans did it because the block was weaked
With Yannick we discussed it
The british didn t do anything with that bunker but the French repaired the roof because the army had plans with this bunker but they where abanded
maybe the French did it , i don t know but why should the english do such a thing anyway?
it is easier to destroy like they did with Lindemann etc then try tu utilise a bunker that surely isn t finished
I must finish many plans now and start to draw them now
Jean i look your tekst over this evening and Tom nice Job
Dirk
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
I just found this very interesting essay on the Wasserwerk Siracourt from the BCMHnewslettre (in english):
http://www.bcmh.org.uk/archive/articles ... ivesey.pdf
At first it seems you have to try and get hold of the Flakregiment 155(W) diary which should be available since some years now according to the newslettre... there should be clues in this document on the true function of large Wasserwerkbunkers (which seems to be nothing more then storage).
I also notice there is a book called 'Vergeltung' on the Flakregiment 155(W) which could contain interesting information on the Wasserwerk as they where responsible for the buildingsite.
http://www.paulmeekins.co.uk/?page=shop ... t_id=21413
When reading the essay on Siracourt which seems to written by someone very well informed on the subject we see that they had the same questions as Dirk, Tom and Co... but already came to conclusions which seem very well underbuilt and therefore could be very usefull to Dirk! In my opinion it very well answers every question in this topic. Up to you to read it and make your own conclusions.
for those who prefer a short resumé on the conclusions in this document, read this:
- at first: the Colonel Sanders report is in fact nothing more then speculation and allied intelligence based, as there where no German plans or documents found on the purpose and construction of the bunker they could only 'guess' using the little information they did have.... leading to the assumption it was a launching site. The widely spread drawing of the bunker with the railroadtracks running trough it is nothing more then an artistimpression!! which eventually found it's way into historywriting, same goes for the conclusion (rather assumptions) from the Sanders report. This essay tells us in fact NOT to look at the sandersreport as a liable source! If so, history has been done injustice since a long time... this topic proofs it as we are still looking for possibilties to run a train trough the bunker based on false information anno 2014.
- the document proofs that the earth slope on the side-exit of the bunker could NOT have been used to fire V1's simply because it is too close to the bunker (would cause damage to the bunker and personel, exhaustfumes would enter the bunker and it would probably create pressuredifferences) and the unreinforced slope would not be able to withstand the trembling created during the launch of the V1
- As Dirk & Co also found out; as it is impossible to de-magnetize the V1's in a bunker with 5000tons of steel it is impossible that the bunker itself (and even the slope) was intented to launch rockets from.
- apparently there are some theories on the bunker being intended for launching V2 by creating a vertical launching shaft in the roof... also this theory is proven wrong by the essay as it is impossible to enter, manoeuvre and especially to raise a V2 rocket in the bunker.
- it would have been impossible to store the 2 seperate fuels (T and Z Stoff) for the V1 under the same roof as both are to volatile and unstable to be stored in a bunker where assembly-activity or possibly nearby launching takes place...
- If this was ever intented as a launch site it would have been a very unsafe one, as many of the activities had to take place outside the bunker: unloading of V1s one by one (as there is no possibility for trains to enter) + need for a outside location for de-magnitizing and launching + outside storage of fuels and thus unprotected transport of these fuels to the assemblybunker... so the use of the bunker would seem obsolete as the most crucial activities could not take place under it's protection
from all these well underbuilt conclusions the essay's general conclusion is that the bunker is nothing more then a storagefacility for short term storage of V1 (short term because otherwise they would become magnitized again due to the large amount of steel in the bunker). The 'storagefacility-theorie' was confirmed by Speer and his assistant Saur during a post-war interview Colonel Sanders had with both.
Another bold conclusion, or rather fact based on all given references, is the following:
That eversince the facillity was discovered by the Allies (already early during construction) the works where kept ongoing just to serve as a 'bomb-bait' (decoy)... if so, a very good one when looking at the time, money, ammo and mostly the lives spent on this construction site by Allies in their attempts to destroy it. This would mean the original plans for this facility where already given up very early after the start of the construction and therefore we'll perhaps never know what was the true meaning of this building... What we see nowadays is nothing more than a decoy!!
A claim also confirmed by Oberst Max Wachtel the commander of the 155 (W) Flak Regiment in a conversation with his officers...
and also in this text:
very interesting quotation from the essay:
"On 12th November 1943 a meeting was held at Zempin2
, the main topic of which was the speed of
development of the FZG 76, the construction of the launching sites and the construction of the Deep
Sites (Wasserwerk). Oberst Max Wachtel and his officers were all at the meeting along with Oberst
Berg and Oberstleutnant Ziervogel, representatives from the Führer Headquarters, Oberstleutnant
Niemeier from Luftwaffe High Command, and Major Berneburg from Army Headquarters. The
meeting went very well and finally turned to the subject of the Wasserwerk. Leutnant Dr Pohl noted
the following in the diary of Flak Regiment 155 (W):
‘A very profitable discussion was held on the subject of Wasserwerk Oberst Berg stated that a
construction site had been attacked in the Cherbourg area, as a result there was now some doubt
about the value of these deep sites. The size of the construction sites makes it very difficult to provide
a foolproof camouflage, as the Cherbourg example proved. In view of the enemy’s present superiority
in the air the bunkers would probably be destroyed before they could be finished. The time involved
and the expenditure of labour and materials involved was too great and so construction would be
terminated’
.
This was confirmed a few days later when an order arrived from the Führer Headquarters.
Further discussions then followed the meeting and it was decided that skeleton construction crews
would continue at St Pol (Siracourt) to act as a deception so that Allied intelligence services would
think the bunker was still being built. It would be a tempting target for Allied bombers. The four
Wasserwerk bunker sites would now become ‘bomber bait’ and very successful bait they were."
seems logic to continue the buildingsites once discoverd to use as a bomb-bait... meanwhile the Germans could concentrate more on mobile launchinginstallations without the Allied noticing... as they are to busy watching the big constructionsites.
Jean
http://www.bcmh.org.uk/archive/articles ... ivesey.pdf
At first it seems you have to try and get hold of the Flakregiment 155(W) diary which should be available since some years now according to the newslettre... there should be clues in this document on the true function of large Wasserwerkbunkers (which seems to be nothing more then storage).
I also notice there is a book called 'Vergeltung' on the Flakregiment 155(W) which could contain interesting information on the Wasserwerk as they where responsible for the buildingsite.
http://www.paulmeekins.co.uk/?page=shop ... t_id=21413
When reading the essay on Siracourt which seems to written by someone very well informed on the subject we see that they had the same questions as Dirk, Tom and Co... but already came to conclusions which seem very well underbuilt and therefore could be very usefull to Dirk! In my opinion it very well answers every question in this topic. Up to you to read it and make your own conclusions.
for those who prefer a short resumé on the conclusions in this document, read this:
- at first: the Colonel Sanders report is in fact nothing more then speculation and allied intelligence based, as there where no German plans or documents found on the purpose and construction of the bunker they could only 'guess' using the little information they did have.... leading to the assumption it was a launching site. The widely spread drawing of the bunker with the railroadtracks running trough it is nothing more then an artistimpression!! which eventually found it's way into historywriting, same goes for the conclusion (rather assumptions) from the Sanders report. This essay tells us in fact NOT to look at the sandersreport as a liable source! If so, history has been done injustice since a long time... this topic proofs it as we are still looking for possibilties to run a train trough the bunker based on false information anno 2014.
- the document proofs that the earth slope on the side-exit of the bunker could NOT have been used to fire V1's simply because it is too close to the bunker (would cause damage to the bunker and personel, exhaustfumes would enter the bunker and it would probably create pressuredifferences) and the unreinforced slope would not be able to withstand the trembling created during the launch of the V1
- As Dirk & Co also found out; as it is impossible to de-magnetize the V1's in a bunker with 5000tons of steel it is impossible that the bunker itself (and even the slope) was intented to launch rockets from.
- apparently there are some theories on the bunker being intended for launching V2 by creating a vertical launching shaft in the roof... also this theory is proven wrong by the essay as it is impossible to enter, manoeuvre and especially to raise a V2 rocket in the bunker.
- it would have been impossible to store the 2 seperate fuels (T and Z Stoff) for the V1 under the same roof as both are to volatile and unstable to be stored in a bunker where assembly-activity or possibly nearby launching takes place...
- If this was ever intented as a launch site it would have been a very unsafe one, as many of the activities had to take place outside the bunker: unloading of V1s one by one (as there is no possibility for trains to enter) + need for a outside location for de-magnitizing and launching + outside storage of fuels and thus unprotected transport of these fuels to the assemblybunker... so the use of the bunker would seem obsolete as the most crucial activities could not take place under it's protection
from all these well underbuilt conclusions the essay's general conclusion is that the bunker is nothing more then a storagefacility for short term storage of V1 (short term because otherwise they would become magnitized again due to the large amount of steel in the bunker). The 'storagefacility-theorie' was confirmed by Speer and his assistant Saur during a post-war interview Colonel Sanders had with both.
Another bold conclusion, or rather fact based on all given references, is the following:
That eversince the facillity was discovered by the Allies (already early during construction) the works where kept ongoing just to serve as a 'bomb-bait' (decoy)... if so, a very good one when looking at the time, money, ammo and mostly the lives spent on this construction site by Allies in their attempts to destroy it. This would mean the original plans for this facility where already given up very early after the start of the construction and therefore we'll perhaps never know what was the true meaning of this building... What we see nowadays is nothing more than a decoy!!
A claim also confirmed by Oberst Max Wachtel the commander of the 155 (W) Flak Regiment in a conversation with his officers...
and also in this text:
very interesting quotation from the essay:
"On 12th November 1943 a meeting was held at Zempin2
, the main topic of which was the speed of
development of the FZG 76, the construction of the launching sites and the construction of the Deep
Sites (Wasserwerk). Oberst Max Wachtel and his officers were all at the meeting along with Oberst
Berg and Oberstleutnant Ziervogel, representatives from the Führer Headquarters, Oberstleutnant
Niemeier from Luftwaffe High Command, and Major Berneburg from Army Headquarters. The
meeting went very well and finally turned to the subject of the Wasserwerk. Leutnant Dr Pohl noted
the following in the diary of Flak Regiment 155 (W):
‘A very profitable discussion was held on the subject of Wasserwerk Oberst Berg stated that a
construction site had been attacked in the Cherbourg area, as a result there was now some doubt
about the value of these deep sites. The size of the construction sites makes it very difficult to provide
a foolproof camouflage, as the Cherbourg example proved. In view of the enemy’s present superiority
in the air the bunkers would probably be destroyed before they could be finished. The time involved
and the expenditure of labour and materials involved was too great and so construction would be
terminated’
.
This was confirmed a few days later when an order arrived from the Führer Headquarters.
Further discussions then followed the meeting and it was decided that skeleton construction crews
would continue at St Pol (Siracourt) to act as a deception so that Allied intelligence services would
think the bunker was still being built. It would be a tempting target for Allied bombers. The four
Wasserwerk bunker sites would now become ‘bomber bait’ and very successful bait they were."
seems logic to continue the buildingsites once discoverd to use as a bomb-bait... meanwhile the Germans could concentrate more on mobile launchinginstallations without the Allied noticing... as they are to busy watching the big constructionsites.
Jean
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
thanks jean
good if others came to the same conclusion
but a decoy? with wat we saw and measured it seems they intended realy to do something with it
theu even put irons and so on but no time to pour the concrete
no i think it just isn t finished due shortge of time
The whole block is reasonable build
with interior walls etc
why no one mention them i don t know but this day we found the thick interior wall and we are going to provide the beautifull pictures we took of it
also the entrances now are really measured with the good Heights
lets finish the drawnings first and we see what it gives
if its a decoy they could easily pour only the roof and seeing it it is not to easy to build with all the angles in it
you don t need that if it was a decoy , all these dificulties
Dirk
good if others came to the same conclusion
but a decoy? with wat we saw and measured it seems they intended realy to do something with it
theu even put irons and so on but no time to pour the concrete
no i think it just isn t finished due shortge of time
The whole block is reasonable build
with interior walls etc
why no one mention them i don t know but this day we found the thick interior wall and we are going to provide the beautifull pictures we took of it
also the entrances now are really measured with the good Heights
lets finish the drawnings first and we see what it gives
if its a decoy they could easily pour only the roof and seeing it it is not to easy to build with all the angles in it
you don t need that if it was a decoy , all these dificulties
Dirk
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
Dirk
for a good decoy to work in times of espionage even the workers (mostly 'slaves' and prisoners) would not be informed about them carrying out unusefull construction... not to make them suspicious themselves and thus perhaps inform spions, it would seem logical to keep the works going aswell inside as outside the bunker. If they were only asked to work on the exteriour they would find it suspisious and thus there is a risk that this info leaks to the allies who would realise that this is in fact nothing more than a decoy.
Also notice if the buildingsite was bombed, the loss of prisonners is a minor cost to Germans comparred to having a good decoy which allows them to carry out their mobile launches without allied interference.
Also notice; if it was intended as a actual working facillity... why didn't they start to build simultaneously on the storagebuildings for the 2 separate fuels, the de-magnitizinghouse, a launchingramp...??
I guess we must keep this option in mind as it is confirmed by German officers.
I'd advise you to try and get hold of the diary of the flakregiment 155W... perhaps this provides even more information
Greetz
Jean
for a good decoy to work in times of espionage even the workers (mostly 'slaves' and prisoners) would not be informed about them carrying out unusefull construction... not to make them suspicious themselves and thus perhaps inform spions, it would seem logical to keep the works going aswell inside as outside the bunker. If they were only asked to work on the exteriour they would find it suspisious and thus there is a risk that this info leaks to the allies who would realise that this is in fact nothing more than a decoy.
Also notice if the buildingsite was bombed, the loss of prisonners is a minor cost to Germans comparred to having a good decoy which allows them to carry out their mobile launches without allied interference.
Also notice; if it was intended as a actual working facillity... why didn't they start to build simultaneously on the storagebuildings for the 2 separate fuels, the de-magnitizinghouse, a launchingramp...??
I guess we must keep this option in mind as it is confirmed by German officers.
I'd advise you to try and get hold of the diary of the flakregiment 155W... perhaps this provides even more information
Greetz
Jean
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
i ll let these things over to specialists jean
i only measure things
with what i have read in the books about shooting and trains running through i have my doubts
i m not going to work on v1 or v2 that s not my thing
i only want a good description of what is build
if they write a train could pass i ll say impossible
if they say a decoy i have my doubts but i m not a specialist and i dont think i have the knowledge for searching for that
for me after delivering the finally plans this week Siracourt for me is ended and i m going to look for another thing for measuring
I ve read many diaries but not found anything (for me) intresting
maybe if we have the OT diaries that would be usefull stuff
not a diary by Wachtel (Chief of 155 Flak reg
i think that guy was even not near a unfinished site
he wants to fire as many V1 to england and that he did
You can read much about it in the books of Yannick Delefosse (who was with me tonight and he is a specialist on this (even on 155 flakreg) and he even didn t see many doc that wrote about Siracourt ....
i ll provide plans not the history behind it ... That s why i am a fieldworker ....
but i ll love the work you do and the research for us here
don t let you down but continue to search and give it to us here ; i ll provide the plans
Dirk
i only measure things
with what i have read in the books about shooting and trains running through i have my doubts
i m not going to work on v1 or v2 that s not my thing
i only want a good description of what is build
if they write a train could pass i ll say impossible
if they say a decoy i have my doubts but i m not a specialist and i dont think i have the knowledge for searching for that
for me after delivering the finally plans this week Siracourt for me is ended and i m going to look for another thing for measuring
I ve read many diaries but not found anything (for me) intresting
maybe if we have the OT diaries that would be usefull stuff
not a diary by Wachtel (Chief of 155 Flak reg
i think that guy was even not near a unfinished site
he wants to fire as many V1 to england and that he did
You can read much about it in the books of Yannick Delefosse (who was with me tonight and he is a specialist on this (even on 155 flakreg) and he even didn t see many doc that wrote about Siracourt ....
i ll provide plans not the history behind it ... That s why i am a fieldworker ....
but i ll love the work you do and the research for us here
don t let you down but continue to search and give it to us here ; i ll provide the plans
Dirk
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
Hello
Regarding Flakregiment 155 (W) - I would like to Draw your attention on this topic:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=93265
I have for years studied this unit and the V1 operations, and I have the KTB of the Flakregiment 155 (w) but no direct clue to this here.
We need to have the German documents and plans / drawings to get to the point in this topic.
Regards
Kurt
kstdk
Regarding Flakregiment 155 (W) - I would like to Draw your attention on this topic:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=93265
I have for years studied this unit and the V1 operations, and I have the KTB of the Flakregiment 155 (w) but no direct clue to this here.
We need to have the German documents and plans / drawings to get to the point in this topic.
Regards
Kurt
kstdk
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
As i thought Kurt
i read many KTB , Hans Sakkers has many of these
i don t even look anymore at them because for me not intresting about bunkers , and i only mean types or plans
these info i ll search you don t find in the KTB ,
but i m glad to hear you and Jean and others search in another way as me
So we can all help eachother
Dirk
i read many KTB , Hans Sakkers has many of these
i don t even look anymore at them because for me not intresting about bunkers , and i only mean types or plans
these info i ll search you don t find in the KTB ,
but i m glad to hear you and Jean and others search in another way as me
So we can all help eachother
Dirk
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
here the Heights at the middle door
here the Heights at the Nord entrance
and here the Heights of the sud entrance
so only the whole plan now but that takes a bit of time
But Tom has given us for that already a marvelous 3d plan
But Tom has given us for that already a marvelous 3d plan
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
here the interior wall in the middle of the north path (gives a room of 45 m long
it is as the northern entrance not completely connected with the roof
but the connecting irons are there
i cant say this is easy to reach
you ll have to crawl in the mud to get there
it is as the northern entrance not completely connected with the roof
but the connecting irons are there
you ll have to crawl in the mud to get there
-
dirk Peeters
- Member
- Posts: 6568
- Joined: 24 May 2011, 21:18
- Location: Heist op den Berg Belgium
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
we had luck to be there
the northern entrance now is completely blocked
you have to dig now to get inside in that part
Dirk
-
Bunkerfreak
- Member
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 19:45
- Location: Antwerpen
Re: Siracourt Wasserwerk St Pol
Nice plans Dirk,
If you look in previous posts, i've mentioned this inner-wall several times
in the X-Ray plan for example 
I now edit the siracourt project
About the decoy, its possible yes, but everything what nowadays is complete must be assumed that this is build during the time that the main purpose of the bunker was there, the decoy with wooden shutterings can indeed been placed afterwards on top of the bunker, perhaps it was easy because the western part of the bunker was still in this shuttering/skeleton fase.
I'm very shure they did not poured new concrete when the whole thing was re-used as decoy, because at that time they allready had problems with concrete and steel amounts for their atlantikwall. I don't think they would spent this valuable buildingmaterials on a Decoy, so the concrete we see is from the time before the decoy.
Tom
If you look in previous posts, i've mentioned this inner-wall several times
in the X-Ray plan for example I now edit the siracourt project
About the decoy, its possible yes, but everything what nowadays is complete must be assumed that this is build during the time that the main purpose of the bunker was there, the decoy with wooden shutterings can indeed been placed afterwards on top of the bunker, perhaps it was easy because the western part of the bunker was still in this shuttering/skeleton fase.
I'm very shure they did not poured new concrete when the whole thing was re-used as decoy, because at that time they allready had problems with concrete and steel amounts for their atlantikwall. I don't think they would spent this valuable buildingmaterials on a Decoy, so the concrete we see is from the time before the decoy.
Tom