40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
Hello
Just teasing you - but it worked
Very nice pictures indeed, thanks for sharing
It is nice to see the place so nicely preserved and maintained, they do a fine Work there.
Regards
Kurt
kstdk
Just teasing you - but it worked
Very nice pictures indeed, thanks for sharing
It is nice to see the place so nicely preserved and maintained, they do a fine Work there.
Regards
Kurt
kstdk
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
Yeah no problem.
You can see my camera was about to die, some of the pictures are a bit off.
Like i said, the guided tour was quit brief.
I prefer batteries like Vara and Austratt, were you can roam around and take your time.
But still worth a visit !
Apart from that dustbin in the last picture, such a waste of an excellent case...
Anybody got any good tips regarding fully intact coastal batteries in Norway ?
Zünder,
www.wk2ammo.com
You can see my camera was about to die, some of the pictures are a bit off.
Like i said, the guided tour was quit brief.
I prefer batteries like Vara and Austratt, were you can roam around and take your time.
But still worth a visit !
Apart from that dustbin in the last picture, such a waste of an excellent case...
Anybody got any good tips regarding fully intact coastal batteries in Norway ?
Zünder,
www.wk2ammo.com
-
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 01:52
- Location: New York
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
I'm sure Churchill slept better at night knowing these massive weapons were emplaced somewhere the Allies never intended to invade. If they had been part of the Atlantic Wall along the channel coast he probably would have lost sleep.
Seeing the guns with no concrete bunkers makes me wonder if the Germans simply wasted effort building the ones they did in France. It limited the field of fire and made the guns useless once outflanked. Granted, exposed turrets would have been a much more tempting target but I'm sure they would have still required a lot of effort to disable or destroy.
Paul
Seeing the guns with no concrete bunkers makes me wonder if the Germans simply wasted effort building the ones they did in France. It limited the field of fire and made the guns useless once outflanked. Granted, exposed turrets would have been a much more tempting target but I'm sure they would have still required a lot of effort to disable or destroy.
Paul
- AvB
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 3425
- Joined: 20 Jun 2004, 01:00
- Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
Its sister battery was placed at the Channel coast at Sangatte, Bt Lindemann. And because they were so close to GB, they received a roof. So it's a tradeoff. And yes they were outflanked but could fire shells at Dover until the last days in September. The exposed 28cm turrets of Bt Grosser Kurfürst were able to launch some shells inland at the advancing Canadians.
-
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 01:52
- Location: New York
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
Anyone know what the thickness of the various armor plates were on these turrets? Surely not as robust as those on a battleship.
Paul
Paul
- AvB
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 3425
- Joined: 20 Jun 2004, 01:00
- Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
This data comes from WO 196-27 Engineer Survey of Heavy German Coastal Batteries in the Calais-Boulogne Area.
I suspect the thickness of the Lindemann armour is the same as at Harstad.
These are newly made "gun houses".
The 28cm turrets of the Gneisenau Bruno and Cäsar were directly put onto bunker, so they have their original armour.
I suspect the thickness of the Lindemann armour is the same as at Harstad.
These are newly made "gun houses".
The 28cm turrets of the Gneisenau Bruno and Cäsar were directly put onto bunker, so they have their original armour.
Re: 40,6 cm Battery at Harstad.
This is three very different gun emplacements.AvB wrote:This data comes from WO 196-27 Engineer Survey of Heavy German Coastal Batteries in the Calais-Boulogne Area.
I suspect the thickness of the Lindemann armour is the same as at Harstad.
These are newly made "gun houses".
The 28cm turrets of the Gneisenau Bruno and Cäsar were directly put onto bunker, so they have their original armour.
The best fortified and protected solution was the Greisenau turrets B and C. I addition to the original shipbased armour both batteries were given additional front and topside armour plates (weight increased from about 750 tons total turret weight to approx. 1000 tons turret weight). As for protection and operational standard this was the optimal coast defence batteries i Norway.
The second best protected batteries were those in Kst.Drh.Laf.C/37, four 28 cm SKL/50 guns at Batterie Grosser Kurfürst and thre 28 cm SKC/34 guns at Batterie Rozenburg in Holland (ex Gneisenau Turret A guns). The Kst.Drh.L.C/37 was a pre war design intended to be used with the planned standard heavy coast artillery gun: the 30,5 cm SKC/39. (Ballistics almost indentical to the 30,5 cm SKL/50). Due to the war the C/37 only came out of Krupp in a number of 7 units, much of the interior solutions were derived from the Drh.L.C/28.
The least protected of the mentioned batteries, but still better than the old BSG alternative, was the guns in BSG C/39 like Harstad - Engelöy - Vara - Hanstholm and Lindemann/Todt batteries. Adding concrete shelters like Lindemann/Todt helped a little, but the BSG C/39 had only light armour and the large cirkular ammunition trail with its steel cover plates were very exposed to aircraft attack in the way these evolved with use of rockets. A hit could easily block the traversing of the guns.
JEF