H.K.A.A. 769

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
myt1prod
Member
Posts: 1076
Joined: 14 Jul 2012 15:18

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by myt1prod » 11 Apr 2018 22:29

Nice to see the Stp Bochum-mystery solved..........
ALTHOUGH... according to me the 6 brick open emplacements don't relay to the 6 canons which stood there already in 1940. In my opinion the 6 brick emplacements where built together with and in function of the bunkers and all canons which stood there earlier where standing in open air without any kind of protection.

The reason I think so is simple and is a reasoning anyone can follow;
1. the emplacements don't follow a regular half-circle lay-out which is quite common on any other battery with or without ST-bunkers as shown in the examples of HKB La Panne/Duinhoek and Stp. Von Rundstedt (both in De Panne)
>>> according to me the emplacements were built in this irregular fashion because they where constructed together with the bunkers, and as the bunkers form an obstruction to obtain a 360° field of fire from only 4 emplacements, 2 extra where added which where both connected by a concrete path to their own bunker (so 2 bunkers in 4 had 2 emplacements to which they connect as clearly seen on aerials). Depending on the direction of attack the canons could be set up in one of the two emplacements connected to the bunker to obtain a maximum firerange in the direction of attack. (other examples of bunkers with 2 OB's attached are not uncommon) In the case of Stp. Bochum it are the bunkers which follow a regular half-circle lay-out and not the emplacements... seems to support my claim??
2. the emplacements and their entrance aren't orientated in the same direction just by looking at the in-the-field-situation we see the entrances of the emplacements are not all orientated in the same direction... when looking at any other example of a batterie with open emplacements without ST-bunkers attached we see that the entances to the emplacements are always orientated in the same direction.
>>> according to me the emplacements would all face the same direction if they where built before the bunkers where built. But in reality they rather seem to be orientated in function of the concrete paths wich lead to the bunkers... which seems to be the case according to me.
>>> another fact which could prove me right is the fieldradioconnection in one of the emplacements which connects to one of the bunkers; it's cable comes from underneath the emplacement... if the emplacement was built first and the cable was only fitted later when the bunkers where built it would seem logical that the cable would be lead along the walls and floor of the emplacement or through it's wall's rather then coming from underneath it.... It would be quite a job to lead a cable under an existing emplacement??!

to be 100% shure we deseperately need aerials of the area which date back to 1940 - 1943/44... recently I saw someone taking about 1941 British reconnaisance aerials of the region which where quite blurry, but up to today he hasn't provided me with this aerial as he can't find it ....
According to me the mystery is far from solved :P
Cabour evidence 1.jpg
Cabour evidence 3.jpg
Cabour evidence 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

jopaerya
Member
Posts: 18006
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 13:21
Location: middelburg

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by jopaerya » 12 Apr 2018 08:16

@ von Luck , I could not find anything on the Arko 111

@ Pierre nice find , strange is that at La Panne there were two batteries of 1./ and 2./A.A. 620 with 6 guns

@ Jean , you are also right one + one is not always two

A other question were there 15 cm M 16 or K 16 ??

Documents = NARA
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
myt1prod
Member
Posts: 1076
Joined: 14 Jul 2012 15:18

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by myt1prod » 12 Apr 2018 11:51

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5&start=75

in this topic we see many photo's of the 15cm K39 which was used already from 1940 inside the domain Cabour (stp Bochum from 1942 on), none of them seem to have brick emplacements in this early stage of the coastal defence.

possibly one or some of the unmarked K39 photo's in this link are even taken at domain Cabour... although the photo's contain no referencepoints which would prove them being taken at Cabour... the landscape of some photo's is very similar to the domain.... who knows....

for me just another indication that the brick emplacements at Cabour have nothing to do with the first canons which saw action on this domain.

User avatar
myt1prod
Member
Posts: 1076
Joined: 14 Jul 2012 15:18

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by myt1prod » 12 Apr 2018 21:10

What do you people think about my 'theorie' concerning the emplacements at Cabour/Bochum??
Dirk? Pierrot? others... who know more about early batteries in the coastal defence?

jopaerya
Member
Posts: 18006
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 13:21
Location: middelburg

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by jopaerya » 13 Apr 2018 07:59

Found for the guns in Uwe's books, 2./A.A. 820 rearmed at 01-12-1940 in 15 cm K.18 i.s.o. of the 15 cm K.16 :thumbsup:

User avatar
myt1prod
Member
Posts: 1076
Joined: 14 Jul 2012 15:18

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by myt1prod » 13 Apr 2018 09:01

firerange seaward.jpg
(in my assumption that the emplacements where built together and in function of the bunkers at Cabour) When using this combination for each of the 4 canons which normally would stand inside the bunkers, a full seaward field of fire is obtained... but defending inland from the open emplacements is obstructed by nearby standing bunkers.
firerange inland.jpg
when using this combination a full inland field of fire is obtained (the gap in the inland field of fire of the most eastern emplacement is perfectly filled in by the other emplacements which you can check by enlongating the edges of the green 'quadrants').
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Von Kluck
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 13 Dec 2015 11:04
Location: Belgium

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by Von Kluck » 13 Apr 2018 12:17

jopaerya wrote:Found for the guns in Uwe's books, 2./A.A. 820 rearmed at 01-12-1940 in 15 cm K.18 i.s.o. of the 15 cm K.16 :thumbsup:
Hi,
Do you speak about schwere Artillerie-Abteilung 820 ? The only information I can find about this unit states it was part of AOK 6 in May-June 1940 ( http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... rmee-R.htm ). Where was it located? Which guns?

Or is it a typo and do you mean 2./ s. Art. Abt. 680 ?

Von Kluck

jopaerya
Member
Posts: 18006
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 13:21
Location: middelburg

Re: H.K.A.A. 769

Post by jopaerya » 13 Apr 2018 13:09

You are 100% right, thanks for the correction . :oops:

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”