Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
That does seem to be the case, even for airfields like Tobruk. My guess is that the war there was so fluid, and building materials so scarce, that they got used for infantry and gun positions.
Where there was more time to plan and better supply lines, there were more fortifications.
|
That is my guess too. Apart that, the general policy of the Allied in the mid-to-late war years was to use widely dispersed hardstands rather than shelters. This was true for the all theaters. Just compare any early war airfield with the later ones. Malta was obviously an exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
Also, there were 4 major powers fighting in the area - UK/Commonwealth, Germany, Italy & France. All of them probably had different engineering designs and specifications, as well as whatever field-expedient fortifications local commanders dreamed up.
|
That was probably true in the early war years. But from early 1943 onwards unification of commands and procedures was steadily introduced by the Allied forces. This applied also to airfield construction. On the other hand, by 1943 most of the development of airfields in the MTO was carried out by the Germans, while the Italian logistic machine was collapsing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
Looking at the photos you provided, I'm seeing 7 different blast pen designs:
V-shaped, C-shaped, S-shaped, N-shape, a "crab claw" extended C-shape (Ariana airfield), an "anchor" or "arrow"-shape (|->, Protville West) and truncated V-shaped (like you showed originally), as well as the ]-shape or E-shape that we've already got in the game.
For the V-shaped designs, some are closed at the base of the V, while others have a narrow "S"-shaped passage through the walls for ease of access and, perhaps, shelter. Still others have "double V" design (<<), which might be a wall within a wall, or might be a structure faced with stone or sandbags and filled with dirt.
For the C-shaped designs, some are clearly structures made using stone or sandbag facings and filled with dirt. They'd probably have flat or rounded tops, as opposed to the pyramidal, or truncated pyramidal cross section that a rammed earth revetment would have.
|
Having all possible variations would be too much. I would be happy to have the small and V and C types for fighters, the cutted hoctagon (similar size to n.2 in the scheme above) and a couple of single, linear walls to use as wildcars in the construction of blast pens...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
Are the Engineering Command Surveys available online?
Are there field fortification manuals available?
|
Documents are not available freely. You can browse the title of each folder but then you have to purchase a copy of the microfilm, it's 30 US dollars each. For the MTO Engineering Command there are at least 11 rolls, plus those containing aerial recon reports. I managed to purchase four of them but at the moment I'm not in the position to get more. The quality of the material is not uniform, so it is not easy infer the evolution of a single airfield with time, and a lot of research and guess is needed. But for Tunisia and Sicily I hope to provide multiple time frames, like Solomons and NGNB maps.