Blockhaus at Eperlecques (Hardened Bunkers of Northern France)

I just toured the Blockhaus (and Coupole) near St. Omer in northern France. I subsequently read up on the history, including "Vengeance", which mentions the possible V2 nuclear material payload connection.

I have a question that was not to my satisfaction answered at the site: The two tall portals that were in the original Blockhaus design, for the V2's to exit to the two launch pads do not seem to be in evidence or even to be provided for. I know that the site intent was changed during construction from a launch site to liquid O2 production only but I would have thought that some evidence of the original launch portals would have been obvious. The museum attendants told me that the Germans intended to cut the portals later, which, based on the thickness of the walls, is not at all reasonable. I am sure this issue has come up before so I would appreciate any insight that you could provide. In "Vengeance", the author claims that there were to be launch silos on the north side of the Blockhaus, one on each side of a "control" structure, which essentially reverses the location of launch and control from the south side, as noted in the guide book, to the north side (the side toward England). However, two launch silos in close proximity to the main building structure, essentially inside the structure, and adjacent to the control facility does not make sense, for high explosive, nuclear material or chemical war heads. Also, the two massive concrete and steel blast doors on each end of the train unloading hall are not compatible with having two wide open launch portals on the south side with, apparently, no means of blocking them. These two portals would have had to have been formed and poured at roughly the same time as the two heavy blast doors but there is no evidence. The eastern portal hallway has the steps in the wall to mitigate launch blast shock waves and then no portal or indication of a portal design and thus no reason to have the wall steps (this is where the model of a V2 now rests against the south wall).

This was a very confusing aspect of the Blockhaus design, so if you could clear it up or direct me to a source that might address it, I would appreciate it!

Engineer

 

As a result of this inquery, I got in touch with Tracy Dungan, the author of "V-2 A Combat History of the First Ballsitic Missile". All of the seeming inconsistencies in the construction sequence at the Watten Blockhaus, and also the Coupole, were explained in detail in his book. I appreciate the information provided by Mr. Dungan by email, in answer to my specfic questions, and also really enjoyed reading the entire book which provided even more details regarding Nazi decision making during the rapidly changing conditions in northern France during 1943 and 1944.

 

Was the answer something to do with mobile V2 launchers?....operation CROSSBOW could only hit fixed sites...these mobile launching platforms caused lots of problems....thank sweet Jesus they DIDn't get the BOMB...otherwise they would have had the delivery system to bring the Allied alliance to it's KNEES...

 

Was the answer something to do with mobile V2 launchers?....operation CROSSBOW could only hit fixed sites...these mobile launching platforms caused lots of problems....thank sweet Jesus they DIDn't get the BOMB...otherwise they would have had the delivery system to bring the Allied alliance to it's KNEES...
Christos,

Thanks for your response and interest. You are correct that the mobile launchers were more effective and were nearly impossible to destroy, but fortunately, Hitler put a lot of energy into hardened bunkers, and in fact was quite taken with the whole concept of hardened bunkers. He even apparently specified the roof thickness based on the biggest then available British bombs! It appears that the mobile launchers played no roll in the bunker designs or design evolution but that Hitler hung onto the idea long after it was practical and the various design elements that seemed so incompatible when I toured both sites are understanable when the sequence of war time conditions are factored into the equation. As an engineer, I was greatly impressed with the two sites. As for the nuclear bomb or dirty bomb idea, I was not able to find a single credible fact to support that theory. In fact, I just finished the book "Hilter's Scientists" whick clearly makes the point that nearly all the V1 and V2's that actually landed on Britsh soil were roughly the explosive equivalent of a single massive allied bomber raid near the end of the war. We can consider ourselves lucky that the amount of expertise, energy, money and manpower that went into the two bunkers, and other fixed sites, and the V projects in general, was not expended on bombers or tanks, just as two examples.

 

Christos,

Thanks for your response and interest. You are correct that the mobile launchers were more effective and were nearly impossible to destroy, but fortunately, Hitler put a lot of energy into hardened bunkers, and in fact was quite taken with the whole concept of hardened bunkers. He even apparently specified the roof thickness based on the biggest then available British bombs! It appears that the mobile launchers played no roll in the bunker designs or design evolution but that Hitler hung onto the idea long after it was practical and the various design elements that seemed so incompatible when I toured both sites are understanable when the sequence of war time conditions are factored into the equation. As an engineer, I was greatly impressed with the two sites. As for the nuclear bomb or dirty bomb idea, I was not able to find a single credible fact to support that theory. In fact, I just finished the book "Hilter's Scientists" whick clearly makes the point that nearly all the V1 and V2's that actually landed on Britsh soil were roughly the explosive equivalent of a single massive allied bomber raid near the end of the war. We can consider ourselves lucky that the amount of expertise, energy, money and manpower that went into the two bunkers, and other fixed sites, and the V projects in general, was not expended on bombers or tanks, just as two examples.

WEll said engineer. I wouldnt disagree with anything there. You only have to look at the moderm (in inverted comma's) short range balisitc misiles and these are almost allways mobile launchers.

Kev

 

It is always gratifying when somebody such as yourself improves my knowledge...I' would be interested in just about anything you have to say......Thanx for the pix....I certainly look forward to hearing more from your good slef...thanx again!