Think Defence &#187; Combat Engineering

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

Jenkins Marine MEXEFLOTE

Think Defence — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:10:21 +0000

Mexeflote pontoons have proven to be a versatile solution for working over water. They are road transportable, shallow draft, capable of supporting loadsof up to 10 tons per float. They can be assembled to create a wide variety of different sized platforms, from a 30m x 12.5m crane barge to a four pontoonconfiguration (measuring 11m x 6m) for site investigation works.

UK Military Bridging – Equipment (Construction Bridging)

Think Defence — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:24:34 +0000

This is relatively short post, construction, or non equipment bridging uses construction materials rather than pre –manufactured equipment like a Bailey or Medium Girder Bridge.

As bridging equipment evolved, the need to use construction bridging techniques has lessened but it is still a subject that is taught to all combat engineers. As weights of vehicles increased the ability of these locally constructed bridges to carry those loads decreased and build times increased although in some operations there has been little alternatives.

The image below shows a very basic bridge over the River Narin in modern day Iraq.

Men of the 7th Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment, cross a temporary bridge over the River Narin at Narin Kopri, 26 April 1918. The original stone bridge was blown up by retreating Turkish forces during operations by III Indian Army Corps to drive them from the area around Tuz Khurmatli - Qara Tepe - Kifri. IWM

Another example here, complete with cans of petrol should the Germans get close.

Battle of the Lys: A British sentry beside a foot bridge over the Lys Canal at St Floris. Tins of petrol are on hand for burning the bridge should it be reported that the Germans are advancing nearby, 18 May 1918. IWM

With the usual great video from British Pathe here

World War II operation in Burma for example, made considerable use of local building materials such as timber, bamboo and vines because Bailey or Floating Boat Equipment was in short supply.

Making do was the order of the day.

This image shows a construction bridge in Burma at the site of a large Bailey build but using local materials.

lorry loaded with pontoons arrives at the site of the 1,100ft floating bailey bridge over the Chindwin River, built after the capture of Kalewa, 2 December 1944. IWM

And this one, also in Burma

Men of the 19th Indian Division get their first glimpse of Mandalay Hill as they cross a bridge close by, 9-10 March 1945. IWM

Even in later conflicts, non equipment bridging, especially in jungle terrain is the norm rather than the exception.

A patrol of 1st Battalion, 2nd King Edward VII’s Own Grrkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles) which was part of the 51 Gurkha Brigade, seen here crossing a bridge made of bamboo poles in the jungles of Sarawak. IWM

In 1982 in the Falklands the bridge between Fitzroy and Bluff Cove had been blow by the Argentine forces and was repaired by 9 Squadron Royal Engineers using locally obtained steel girders and timber.

Fitzroy Bridge, Flickr user bonnernicholas

More images here

Even in Afghanistan, non equipment bridging is still in use as this news story from the MoD shows;

Soldiers from 9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers (RE) carried out the repairs on the bridge after being alerted to the damage and resulting problems by soldiers from 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment (2 PARA), who regularly patrol the area. Following an initial assessment of the damage and the work required to make the crossing capable of carrying tractors once again, the necessary materials for the job were transported to nearby Checkpoint Perkha by the Paras. To do this, they made several journeys by quad bike – the only vehicle capable of getting through the series of narrow tracks running between irrigated fields. A team of six engineers, led by Lieutenant Keith McDougall, then began the task of building the new bridge. Firstly the abutments were shored up with pickets and corrugated iron sheeting, then a deck was constructed, consisting of timber baulks held together with a giant iron staple and resting on sandbags.

Returning back the beginning, this image shows that non equipment bridging does not have to be simple.

The Royal Engineers conduct a bridging exercise on the Chatham Lines close to the building which now houses the Royal Engineers Museum in Brompton Barracks. 1914, Flickr user lossow.vamp

There are a small number of equipment’s that have endured in the building of ‘non equipment’ bridges, beyond the normal hand and power tools.

Christchurch Crib

Developed in the inter war period, the Christchurch Crib is deceptively simple yet incredibly useful. It is nothing more than a skeletal steel construction used as a kind of Lego building block to form bridge supports, abutments and other devices.

Although the 3ft Bridging Crib had been used in WWI the evolved Christchurch Crib was not introduced until the mid-thirties. The Crib, properly known as the Bridging Crib 20 ton, was widely used in WWII in place of trestles and piers.

View from Vaucelles of Monty’s Bridge, built in eight days by the 20th Field Company, Royal Canadian Engineers. Caen, Normandy, 12 August 1944 - showing Christchurch Crib bridging supports

The key to their utility was their uniform dimensions and the ability to be joined together with simple bolts and nuts and used vertically or horizontally.

Christchurch Cribs

The 20 ton crib was developed further in the fifties to become the bridging Crib 50 Ton, but the design was essentially the same although there were some important differences such as being hot dipped galvanised instead of painted. Although they are interchangeable the position of the welds dictated which was up.

They were also used extensively to build water tank supports, especially for the common S Tank and Braithwaite tanks although cuplock scaffolding is now the norm.

Christchurch Cribs are still in service today, arguably one of the oldest pieces of military equipment still in service in their (more or less) original form.

Temporary improvised bridge, 104 Field Squadron RE(V)

An unusual use of the Christchurch Crib was in the construction of the prototype Harrier ski jump.

John Farley doing the first Ski Jump take-off in the Sea Harrier at SBAC Show Farnborough 1978. Image from RAF Jever site

Tirfor Jack

Sometimes called the Tirfor Winch, it is a uniquely useful piece of equipment, nothing more than a hand operated winch but its main feature is something it doesn’t do. Instead of drawing the steel wire onto a drum the Tirfor uses an opposed set of jaws to clamp directly onto the specially constructed wire rope.

The Tirfor can be used to pull, lift or apply tension when using appropriate anchors or block and tackle, without needing external power.

It has many uses outside bridging but when using a gin and shears to create a rope bridge it is used to tension the ropeway.

Royal Engineers constructing a cable crossing over a river. IWM

Click here for a brochure.

Tensioning the cables in any bridge construction is vital, especially rope bridges!

Members of 298 Field Ambulance Company, Royal Army Medical Corps, demonstrate a method of carrying a stretcher case across a river using a rope bridge at Grasmere in the Lake District, 18 November 1943. IWM

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

Palfinger Crayler F3

Think Defence — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:47:22 +0000

The CRAYLER BM is a remote controlled forklift complying to EMC 89/336/EWG with lifting capacity options from 1500 up to 2100 kg andis available with 2 and 4 wheel drive. C130 Hercules transportation is possible. Lifting capacityoptions from 1500 up to 2500 kg (3000 kg for the CRAYLER CR) and lifting mast heights up to 3.7 m are characteristics of the CRAYLER F3 and CR. The centered seat position on the CRAYLER F3 andCR models protects the operator from any danger while offering perfect surround visibility

Concrete Cloth

Think Defence — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:30:57 +0000

Concrete Cloth is a revolutionary material technology that has a wide range of applications in the construction and defence industries. Visit www.concretecanvas.co.uk for further information. Essentially a cement impregnated fabric, the material is flexible and can conform to complex curvatures. Once hydrated, the material hardens to form a durable, water proof and fire proof concrete layer.

UK Military Bridging – Floating Equipment

Think Defence — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:47:59 +0000

The pontoon bridge is probably the oldest form of military bridging equipment, back to the original ‘Bridge of Boats’ I looked at the beginning of the series.

Roman Floating Bridge

At its simplest form, a pontoon bridge is a collection of shallow draft boats, lashed together across a river or canal, with some form of track or deck lashed to the top.

The water acts as a support so the limitation on load carrying is governed by the total and point buoyancy of the pontoons or boats.

Bridge of Boats - Menai Straits

The reality of pontoon bridges is that they haven’t progressed much since then.

Of course materials have improved, techniques for anchoring the pontoons, decking materials and so on have led to improvements in load carrying capacity, the ability to withstand fast currents and speed of deployment but the basic principles remain.

An even older variant of the pontoon bridge is the river ferry, a simple, unpowered flat bottomed boat that is hauled across a wet gap using human, beast or engine power.

A pontoon bridge will in general have a much higher volumetric throughput than a ferry but a pontoon bridge has the distinct advantage of not blocking the river or canal to other vessels. In fast flowing rivers and those with high tidal ranges a pontoon bridge might also suffer without extensive anchoring and constant attention from the bridge builders.

Pontoon bridges and ferries now often share components, for example, the Bailey Pontoon, not surprisingly, used many Bailey bridge parts and the modern Air Portable Ferry bridge can be used either as a bridge, pontoon or ferry.

It is therefore difficult to split the development of pontoon bridges and ferries because they are so inter-related.

Early Pontoons

These early open boat type pontoons had a number of disadvantages, difficulty in transporting them to site (if not riverborne) and susceptibility to bad weather amongst many. It was in the early 1800’s that a concerted effort was made to improve the design. In 1814 Colonel Sir James Colleton designed a cylindrical pontoon that unfortunately was not a success but it did form the basis for later types.

The first significant development after this was the 1817 Pasley Pontoon, designed by Lt Col Charles Pasley of the Engineer Establishment at Chatham. The Pasley Pontoon differed from the open boat type in a number of key areas. It was enclosed and therefore had greater resistance to swamping, had many lashing points for attaching the bridge deck and perhaps more importantly, was sectional. The bow was pointed and the stern square ended. This allowed the pontoon to be broken down into two for ease of transport and fixed together to form a single float whose ends were both pointed, an important consideration in wet gaps that had tidal flows. The Pasley Pontoon saw many years service but was replaced in 1836 by the Blanshard Pontoon which was cylindrical with parabolic ends. Handles were sunk into the body of the pontoon for handling and lashing with two 24ft long pontoon carried on a single horse drawn wagon.

The trials that would result in the successful entry into service of the Blanshard Pontoon were described in the Army and Navy Chronicle of November 1836, click here to read.

Writing in the Royal United Services Institute Volume 9 in 1865, Lt Col Lovell RE described in some detail the use of pontoons in military bridging.

Click here to read, this is a really interesting edition that includes some great reading on the use of electricity on military operations, naval tactics, magnetism of ironclad ships and current state of the ‘artillery question’

With one or two modifications the Blanshard Pontoon stayed in service until the late 1870’s when they were replaced with the Blood Pontoon.

The Blood Pontoon

Designed by Sir Binden Blood RE (cracking name by the way) the Blood pontoon was interesting because it returned to the concept of the open boat design.

From his memoirs, Four Score Years and Ten, published in 1935.In 1865

I was appointed to one of the Troops of the Royal Engineers, of which the speciality was the transport and rapid construction of floating bridges in ‘First Line’. In November 1866 I marched to Chatham with this Troop, and we spent an instructive and very pleasant year there, returning to Aldershot on November 1867.While my troop was at Chatham in the summer of 1867, our higher authorities decided that our pontoon bridge equipment was unsatisfactory in some particulars, and invited officers to submit designs for a new pattern. So I submitted a new design which was approved for trial, and sometime after my troop returned to Aldershot in November 1867, I was sent back to Chatham to carry out the necessary manufacture and experiments under the orders of the R.E. Committee, which then attended to such matters. I remained at Chatham, with a short interval at Aldershot in 1870, until I went to India in 1871, the new pontoon equipment being finally adopted in 1870

Trivia alert: Winston Churchill served under Binden Blood in the Malakand Field Force.

Described in the Treatise on Military Carriages and other manufactures of the Royal Carriage Department;

The pontoon can be used either as a pontoon on a bridge or as a boat: Its outside dimensions are 21’1” x 5’1” x 2’6.5” in depth; its weight is 7cwt 1qr 0lbs., and its tonnage 9.685 tons. In horizontal section it is rectangular, its sides are nearly straight and vertical, and its ends rounded. The framework, which is very light, is of yellow deal and rock elm, the straight parts being made of the former, and the bent of the latter. The frame is boarded over with yellow pine, and each side of the boarding covered with canvas attached by India rubber solvent. The canvas is covered with marine glue before the pontoon is painted, and the bottom protected by four longitudinal ribs shod with iron friction plates. The pontoon has eight wooden handles along each side, about half way up, six attached by rope grummets and two by wire, the latter serving as eyes to receive lashing ropes, it has also a ring at each end for a cable, and is fitted with four rowlocks along the gunwale at each side, and at each end with one for a steering oar; it also has fitments for securing the saddle beam

Why did we return to the open boat design?

Experience of the tubular designs showed that should they be more than half submerged they became unstable and difficult to handle. One idea to counter this was to make the pontoons triangular in nature so that as they were depressed by passing loads a greater volume would be immersed and this form a more stable and increasing counter force. It was a good idea but impractical with construction techniques of the time so the conventional open boat design was returned.In fact, the numerous European armies had never adopted the British closed pontoon method and given their significant pontoon experience, especially the Dutch and French, this was obviously a case of experience winning out over new designs.

The Blood Pontoon did have a number of important features, instead of loading the bridge decking baulks onto the pontoons gunwales as the French preferred a separate longitudinal saddle beam was fitted, as the Austrians preferred. This saddle beam could be easily removed if the pontoon was to be used as a conventional boat.A comparison of the various pontoons in use by contemporary armies can be seen in the image below;

pontoon Comparison

At about this time, the Royal Engineers, in common with many European armies, formed dedicated Pontoon Troops. These were amongst the largest soldiers in the Army because they needed to be physically able to lift the heavy pontoon equipments. These specially constituted units acquitted themselves well in the South African wars and by virtue of their size and power, won no less than thirteen inter service tug of war championships!

A development of the Blood Pontoon that was to be retained in service until 1924 was the Mark II Pontoon or Clauson Pontoon.

Named after Lt JE Clauson RE, the modified pontoon essentially cut the Blood pontoon in half, going back to the multi section design of the earlier Pasley Pontoon and the very successful Austrian Birago Pontoon. Instead of two identical sections, the Clauson pontoon used a pointed bow and square stern configuration. The two sections could be used independently or joined together using phosphor bronze fittings and this flexibility allowed a range of bridge configurations to be used, light infantry types or heavier types for wagons and vehicles for example, modularity in action.

Mk II Pontoon on its carriage

Herman Haupt published an excellent book on military bridging in the US Civil War in 1864, click here to read. Much of the equipment used in the Civil War was based on European designs and the book provides an excellent reference.

The images below show the Mk II pontoon in action in WWI.

A British artillery battery crossing a pontoon bridge over the River Diyala near Baghdad in March 1917. This bridge was completed by the 71st Field Company, Royal Engineers, at 11am on 10 March, following a night river crossing by the 5th Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment, 88th Field Company, Royal Engineers, and the 8th Welch Pioneers to secure a bridgehead on the Turkish held side of the river.

D’ Company 1st Battalion, The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) crossing a pontoon bridge over the Marne at La Ferte sous Jouarre, 10 September 1914

Some arrangement is needed to provide access from the river bank to the pontoon bridge deck, especially important if the bank is higher than the deck or the river is tidal. The Austrian Birago Trestle was used until 1890 although this video clip of the Austrian Army in 1939 shows what would seem to be a Birago Trestle in use!

The Birago trestle was replaced by the Weldon Trestle

Weldon trestle

Weldon trestle in use on the River Tigris

At the start of WWI, the two Bridging Trains were equipped with Mark II Pontoons and Weldon Trestles in addition to a number of Light Raft Equipment, derived from a much earlier design.

Developments during WWI included the introduction of the Marston Lever Trestle and Mark IV Trestle. As vehicles and artillery increased in weight it was obvious that the floating bridging equipment would need to change to accommodate them.

Included in these developments were the Mark III Pontoon, a Mark II with different cladding and the Mark V Trestle that remained in service until the 1920’s.

During the war a number of floating bridges were designed and used but in relatively small numbers, these included the Sankey Type B Bridge that used steel joists instead of timber baulks on the Mark II Ponton and the Heavy Steel Pontoon.

Medium, Light and Sankey Type B pontoon bridges

The next major advance was the Inglis Heavy Floating Bridge, unique at the time because it used a continuous girder design to spread the load over a number of the newer Heavy Pontoons. Despite being a significant advance it was not taken into service, the war only having recently ended.

In the late twenties a series of equipment upgrades saw the introduction of a number of new pontoons and trestles including the Mark IV Pontoon and Mark V Trestle. The Mark IV pontoon was completely enclosed and used a type of plywood called Consuta and so the pontoon was often called a Consuta Pontoon with a safe buoyancy of 6.5 tonnes. The Mark V Trestle used mild steel instead of wood.

Morris Carrimore, 6 x 4, Light Lorry of the 17th Field Company, Royal Engineers, towing a pontoon on a trailer. Copyright IWM

The Mark VI Trestle was much stronger and introduced in 1929.

Trestles could be used without pontoons for short gaps.

British Pathe clip of what looks like a Mark IV or V pontoon in use here

Kapok Assault Bridge

The Kapok Assault Bridge was an infantry bridge designed following the extensive use of improvised floating bridges during WWI. Instead of any convenient materials, petrol cans and cork, as used during the Great War, the Kapok Assault Bridge used a kapok filled canvas float and timber footwalks. The US Army also had their own version.

Sappers from 1st Training Battalion, Royal Engineers, double across a river on a kapok bridge during a demonstration of river crossing techniques near Coventry, 30 October 1941. Copyright IWM

Men of the 8th Sherwood Foresters cross a river using a small kapok pontoon bridge, Dunadry in Northern Ireland, 28 August 1941. Copyright IWM

The floats were each 6 foot 6 inches long and decking sections were 6 foot 6 inches long and 1 foot 10½ inches wide.

The training pamphlet describes the construction process;

Two men carried each float and one man carried each length of decking. A float was attached to each end of a length of decking using simple catches. The completed bay was then pushed out into the water. A second decking section was attached to the shore end of the first bay and then a float was attached. The bridge was progressively pushed out into the water until the far bank was reached. The maximum practical length was 150 foot, but this was only in still water. Any tide, current, flow or wind would make this length hazardous or impossible.

Thirty bays of kapok bridge could be carried in a 3ton GS lorry.

Folding Boat Equipment (FBE)

The FBE was adopted by the Army in 1928 and through a number of versions improved; it was still widely used in WWII where it often complimented the Bailey Pontoon. It was designed to provide a means of getting light vehicles over a river in the immediate support of an assault, taking much less time to construct than the Heavy Pontoon it was inevitably less sturdy but perfectly matched to its task.

The design of the boat was quite ingenious, when folded it was completely flat for ease of transport and storage and used a continuous fabric hinge. The boat itself could carry 16 men either rowing or using a Coventry Victor 7.5hp outboard motor. In overload condition, up to 30 men could be carried although it would be low in the water.

With the addition of a range of deck and connecting equipment the basic folding boat could be used as the FBE Tracked Raft, FBE Decked Raft and FBE Bridge.

THE FBE Tracked Raft could support vehicles up to 3 tonnes in weight and used two boats, a pair of wooden transoms and 6 trackways. The centre pair of trackways were 14ft long and the front and rear loading ramps were shorter, at 9ft long

Royal Engineers operating a vehicle raft. Copyright IWM

FBE Mk II

The FBE Decked Raft used 3 boats and larger ramps with a capacity of 4.5 tonnes.

The FBE Bridge consisted of multiple connected FBE Decked Rafts to form a continuous bridge span, the FBE Trestle and reconnaissance folding dinghy completed the set.

Royal Engineers constructing a Folding Boat Equipment (FBE) Bridge during manoeuvres. Copyright IWM

The FBE equipment was improved in the early thirties, the Mk II design only a minor change but the 1939 Mk III, that was to see extensive service in WWII, was a significant improvement, moving the capacity up to Class 9.

The Mk III FBE could also be used in a number of configurations including the Class 5 Decked Raft, Class 9 Decked Raft and Class 9 Shore Loading Decked Raft. Any of these could be used as a powered raft using outboard motors. Finally, the Class 9 bridge consisted of a number of decked rafts connected together with each end using a half floating bay and FBE Trestle, much like the Mk I variant.

The Mk III decked variants used steel Road Bearers that weighed 380lbs each, shown below) and 3ft 10.5 inch deck panels of Douglas Fir. Bay connectors were designed to limit deflection under load and the Mk III FBE Trestle was improved to cope with Class 9 loads.

FBE Road Bearers, Copyright IWM

Additional images of the Mk III Folding Boat Equipment in use during WWII are shown below;

FBE Mk III Boat

FBE Mk III Bridge

FBE Mk III Bridge, David and Goliath Bridges, Vernon, IWM

A lorry crosses a pontoon bridge during Exercise 'Columbus' involving British and American forces in Wiltshire, May 1943. IWM

Mk III FBE Ferry

A 25-pdr field gun and jeep being transported on a pontoon raft down the Kalapanzin River from Buthidaung, January 1945. IWM

This video from British Pathe shows the FBE and Kapok Assault Bridge in use and this video, again from British Pathe, shows the FBE being used in 1939 somewhere in England’

FBE Mk III and a Small Box Girder bridge in the background

Another clip from British Pathe shows both the FBE and Small Box Girder bridge under construction in a scene that looks identical to the image above.

Bailey Pontoon and Raft

I will of course be covering the iconic Bailey Bridge in some detail in a later post but the design was so adaptable it was also used in both floating pontoon and raft configurations. Because the Bailey does not have any projections below the bottom chord it was soon realised this would make it ideal for use with pontoons and design work commenced in 1941.

The final configuration used a 30ft single-single Bailey bay supported on two pontoons.

These pontoons comprised three sections, front and rear were the existing Mark V Pontoons but a new Bailey Centre Pontoon was designed and introduced to enable the greater weights to be supported.

Sherman tank of the 1st Coldstream Guards, fitted with 60lb aircraft rockets on the turret sides, crossing a pontoon bridge over the Dortmund-Ems Canal, 6 April 1945. IWM

The sections were connected using a semi flexible connector that provided a degree of movement and the necessary rigidity to spread loads across the entire structure.

A key feature of the Bailey Pontoon was its landing pier; this was a single span from the bank to the bridge level and eliminated the need for unwieldy and unreliable bridge trestles. 4 Pontoons assemblies were used on the landing pier and this can be clearly seen in the image below.

Pontoon bridges being built across the Rhine. IWM

The Bailey Pontoon was constructed by floating completed sections into place with the assistance of small boats, often a Royal navy PN boat as per the image below

A landing craft helping in the fitting of a bridge section after towing it from the bank. A Taylorcraft Auster spotter aircraft is flying low in the middle distance. This Royal Navy “molcab”- mobile landing craft advanced base at Reichswald, Germany is playing an important part in the army’s crossing of the Rhine. IWM

The standard Bailey Pontoon was Class 40 but this could be increased to Class 70 by doubling up (more on this later) and using additional pontoons.

Class 50/60 Raft

As versatile as the Bailey bridge was it did not lend itself to rapid construction of rafting equipment especially during the early stages of a river assault. The existing FBE was quicker but did not have the load carrying capacity for anything but light vehicles so in 1943 a new design study commenced to create a raft capable of rapid construction and with a load carrying capacity sufficient for a Churchill tank.

To make building quicker and simpler each pontoon was identical and carried its own superstructure of two folding panels. The raft could be operated with 22hp Johnson outboard motors or unpowered using boats, DUKW’s or shores based winches, often borrowed from the RAF.

An Archer 17-pdr self-propelled gun of 61st Anti-Tank Regiment being loaded aboard a raft while Churchill tanks wait their turn to cross the Rhine, 24 March 1945. RAF barrage balloon winches are used as motive power for the rafts. IWM

Post War Rafts

With a greater abundance of raw materials and the availability of modern alloys a number of improved rafts and ferries were developed including the Light Assault Raft and the Light Assault Floating Bridge, the latter being the first military bridge to utilise hydraulic articulators.

Light Assault Floating Bridge

The LAFB was designed to carry all the vehicles and equipment of an Infantry Division (not all at once though!) and a scaled up version, not surprisingly called the Heavy Assault Floating Bridge was introduced in in the same post war period although it was not until 1962 that it actually entered service by which time the amphibious bridging equipment was looking a more acceptable proposition.

This video from British Pathe shows the LAR

The Heavy Assault Float Bridge

Design work on the Heavy Ferry, sometimes called the Class 80 Heavy Ferry, started in the late fifties as tanks started to increase in weight, again.

The Heavy Ferry comprised 3 pontoon sections, main, buoyancy and propulsion. The inner main pontoon could carry a Class 80 vehicle, the outer buoyancy pontoons provided extra lift and the propulsion pontoon powered the ferry at speeds up to 7.5 knots using a Rolls Royce B80 powered Gill waterjet system, the same engine as used on the Saladin and Saracen armoured vehicles.

Class 80 Heavy Ferry

From the RE Museum exhibit card;

These pontoons were connected together in the water; using spring loaded self-actuating linkages, to form a free ranging ferry with a 15ft wide roadway, 109ft long from ramp end to ramp end. The Heavy Ferry helped to solve the problem of carrying heavy support weapons across a water obstacle in time to enable assaulting infantry to repulse a enemy counter attacks. The ferry could be built in an hour in good conditions. It was capable of carrying either six 3 ton GS trucks, three 10 ton GS trucks or of course the main battle tank and could achieve ten round trips an hour across a 400ft water gap.

Modern Floating Bridges

I will look at the floating variants of the Medium Girder Bridge, Air Portable Ferry Bridge and Logistic Support Bridges in later posts.

Landing Ship Logistic and Harbour Pontoon Equipment (Mexeflote)

The Mexeflote came into service with the British Army in the early 60’s, elegant in its simplicity, they are simply pontoon sections that can be pinned together (much like the Bailey bridge) to form lighterage rafts, jetties and piers.

When used as a powered pontoon they use what are in effect, large outboard motors.

The Knights class RFA’s would carry two, one on each side. To deploy them the lashings were removed leaving a single quick release fitting holding it until the whole thing was released, the mexeflote falling into the water.

Recovery involves manoeuvring them alongside, removing the engine, winching them up over the fender belt and securing for transit.

Multiple Mexeflotes can be combined and in addition to acting as a powered raft can also be as a jetty, floating transfer platform or other floating structures. The modular construction allows a variety of shapes to be constructed.

When used as a powered raft they are usually commanded by a junior NCO with a crew of 5.

Individual pontoons are of welded steel construction with flush sides.

Built into the sides and ends of the pontoons are recessed slots into which the connectors are fitted.The bow pontoon consists of a forward section, an aft section and a ramp. The forward section is hinged to the bottom edge of the box-shaped aft section and can articulate vertically to a maximum of 457 mm above the deck level and be lowered to a maximum of 380 mm below the surface of the aft section. The manually operated, demountable articulator is mounted in a recess in the aft section and is connected to the forward section by an articulator ram.

The articulator has a safe working load in excess of 80 tonnes. The pontoon ramp is hinged to the forward section and slides over the forward end of the aft section to bridge the gap between the sections.The centre pontoon is a box-shaped unit with an internal lateral bulkhead dividing the interior into two watertight compartments.

The front ramps are hydraulically mounted and the engines/propulsion units are connected at the rear.

Soldiers serving with 17 Port & Maritime Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps offload stores equipment and ammunition off the RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) Fort Rosalie using a mexeflote

Mexeflote off Tristan de Cuhna in support of operation Zest

Total payload depends on the size of the assembled pontoon

20.12 x 7.32m 60 tonnes

8.41 x 7.32m 120 tonnes

38.41 x 12.2m 180 tonnes

The propulsion units, or outboards to you are me, are rather special.

Modular Z Drive propulsion units from Sykes Hyrdromaster provide the motive force when used as a powered raft and although it might not look particularly seaworthy can be used in 1.5m wave conditions.

In 1994 the Army ordered an additional 50 units and in 2000 upgraded most of them.

The Z Drives have now entirely been replaced with OD150N from Thrustmaster.

Thrustmaster

The pontoon sections are sized to be compatible with ISO containers and although I am not sure who made them, their construction is relatively simple so if Australia did buy Largs Bay and the mexeflotes weren’t included in the optional extras list they should be relatively easy to manufacture.

Alternatively, they could buy them from Jenkins Marine in Poole, Dorset, ironically, not all that far from Christchurch and MEXE.

Mexeflote Pontoons from Jenkins Marine

Mexeflote and ammunition pallets (image from 17 P&M Facebook page)

The US Army Logistician Journal had a good article on the role of 17 P&M, especially how they fit into an amphibious operations, in 2005. Click here to read it.

The Falklands

Mexeflotes really came into their own during Operation Corporate, a hugely challenging logistic effort. The lines of communication stretched 8,000 miles or 21 sailing days from the UK and there were no plans for an operation of this scale outside of Europe.

Each of the Knights Class LSL’s had a detachment from 17 P&M and a Mexeflote or two although they were carried on the deck for the voyage south after Ascension because it was thought the severe south Atlantic weather would rip them from their side mounts.

Sir Tristram - L3505b (naval history.net)

Operating around Green Beach in San Carlos Water, mexeflotes landed a significant amount of vehicles and stores including 63 Battery RAF Regiment. After initial operations on the 20-21 May, they continued for a couple of weeks. It is estimated that the Mexeflotes offloaded some 75% of the stores and due to the weights being carried, especially ammunition pallets, the pontoons were often underwater, as the picture above.

Mexeflote and Eager Beaver

The LSL’s were used to transfer equipment from the larger RORO vessels offshore and it is during this operation that a Mexeflote was used for at sea ship to ship transfer. Connecting the LSL and a larger ship the Mexeflote would form a floating causeway and fork lift trucks like the Fiat Allis would trundle between the two. In the sea conditions encountered this must have been a very hairy operation.

LSL’s and mexeflotes continued to be used at Teal Inlet and the ill fated Bluff Cove

Sergeant Derrick Sidney Boultby of the Royal Corps of Transport was awarded the Military Medal for his actions and his citation was as follows;

Sergeant Boultby of 17 Port Regiment, RCT, was the NCO in charge of MEXEFLOTE rafts throughout the Falkland Islands operations. At Ascension Island, during a massive re-stow operation he worked all hours under difficult conditions to move cargo quickly. In San Carlos Water, the MEXEFLOTE rafts played a major part in the logistic landing of equipment to ensure the success of the fighting troops. From the exposed position which such a raft offers, Sergeant Boultby worked continuously throughout daylight hours and in extreme weather conditions.

The vulnerability of his position to constant enemy air attack did not deter him from his task and he was an inspiration to his crew and other RCT personnel. He was coxswain of the MEXEFLOTE present at Fitzroy during the bombing of RFA SIR GALAHAD and RFA SIR TRISTRAM, and repeatedly returned to the area of the stricken ships to rescue survivors and, with complete disregard for his own safety, dived into the sea to rescue a Chinese crewman. Sergeant Boultby’s dedication to his tasks in dangerous conditions was outstanding.

Highlighting a deficiency in ship to shore fuel transfer the mexeflotes were used to move podded fuel vehicles, these would be driven off the beach, used to fill jerrycans and returned to the ship for refilling, hardly efficient but the best that was available.

After hostilities finished, mexeflotes continued to provide an essential ship to shore transfer service until more permanent facilities could be established, FIPASS for example.

Haiti

In the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, DFiD and the armed forces supplied a number of locations with much needed food and other supplies.

Bay Class Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) vessel Largs Bay, with members of 17 Port and Maritime Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps, and other members of her embarked military force delivered essential supplies at Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince, the ship and her crew continued to work, redistributing World Food Programme (WFP) food and commodities to Haitian communities who were logistically cut off from the rest of the island in the aftermath of the quake.

Mexeflote Haiti

Since the disaster, the population of Anse-à-Veau, in Nippes province on Haiti’s southern peninsula, was swollen by refugees from Port-au-Prince. With the roads impassable due to mudslides and flooding, the only way to get aid through to the the area has been by occasional air drops.

RFA Largs Bay and its crew were tasked by the WFP to deliver Anse-à-Veau’s first major relief package since the earthquake.

During the four-day relief operation at the village, RFA Largs Bay’s Mexeflote raft shuttled 275,000 ready meals, 30 tonnes of rice, six tonnes of beans, more than 200 boxes of corn soya blend, 100-plus boxes of vegetable oil, and 13 bags of salt to the shore at Anse-à-Veau.

Mexeflote Haiti 02

Mexeflote Haiti - Anse-à-Veau

For a great gallery of RFA Largs Bay and the Mexeflote in and around Haiti, click here

Afghanistan

No, I haven’t been on the sherry,

Mexeflotes have been used for transferring vehicles from the Points class RORO vehicles to facilities at RAF Akrotiri as part of the ‘sail to fly’ movements programme.

The Joint Movements Squadron (JMS) is made up of RAF and Army personnel from 17 Port and Maritime Regiment (Royal Logistic Corps)

Mexeflote - Sail-Fly

Amphibious Equipment

There had been some preliminary work on amphibious bridging equipment but this had concentrated on add on flotation units for existing vehicles. In the early sixties the idea was developed into a requirement for an amphibious bridge unit that could build a Class 60 bridge at about 400 feet per hour and to also have the flexibility to operate in raft mode under its own power.

Advantages of the amphibious bridging equipment would be the elimination of concentrations of mean and equipment at bridging sites but they would be useful for wet gaps only. Given the likely operational areas in West Germany this was a reasonable disadvantage to accept and the idea progressed.

Unfortunately no such equipment existed on the drawing board but the EWK-Gillois equipment was available and so the Royal Engineers established a trials unit.

Designed by the French Army Officer, Col Jean Gillois and manufactured by the German Eisenwerke Kaiserslautern, the EWK-Gillois was an ingenious and wholly unique concept.

The Gillois was accepted into service in 1961 but the German M2 alternative was soon introduced as a superior alternative.

The M2 was a Class 24 amphibious vehicle with the buoyancy, decking and ramps needed to construct a bridge or ferry. The side pontoons were stored and hydraulically rotated into position before entering the water. Additional stringers were stored and used for making ramps or between adjacent units. A single m2 Rig could be used as a Class 10 ferry, two rigs joined together for form a Class 30 Ferry and more combined for a maximum of Class 60. The in service M2B’s were converted to M2D’s that raised the carrying capacity to MLC70 Tracked and MLC93 Wheeled.

M2 Rig during trials

General Staff Requirement 3987 – A Deliberate West Support Bridge outlined what was to become the M3 Rig. The M3 was a collaborative development between the UK and Germany, the UK eventually taking 38 units in 1999, each one costing £1.2million.

The M3 is basically an improved all round M2, greater load carrying capacity (up to MLC 70 tracked and 100 Wheeled) and faster into use. In comparison, the M3 can be used to build a 100m bridge in 20 minutes using 24 men, the M2 would need 48 men, take twice as long and need a greater number of vehicles.

Despite this, the Amphibious Regiment and now Squadron is relatively complex requiring combat support boats, divers and an extensive REME workshop.

Despite being used in action in Iraq, with the latest round of cuts the M3 rigs will be placed into extended readiness.

Click here for the General Dynamics M3 Brochure.

Infantry Assault Bridge (IAB)

To end this post on floating bridging equipment is the IAB, although strictly speaking it does not always operate in floating mode, its clear span being quite large

The float is used to assist with launching and it can be used to extend the bridged distance.

Infantry Assault Bridge, courtesy Plain Military

Additional images from General Dynamics

Infantry Assault Bridge and float

infantry assault bridge

The IAB is also produced by General Dynamics, click here for the product page and here for a brochure.

Infantry Assault Bridge in Afghanistan

The IAB has seen extensive service in Afghanistan and is an obvious improvement on the Kapok Assault Bridge!

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – Iraq and afghanistan

Think Defence — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:39:38 +0000

So this is the last of the first half of this series, looking at the history of UK military bridging. Once past this, it’s on to equipment.

Any takers on whether Mexeflotes and ISO containers will sneak in?

Iraq – Operation Telic

During the initial assault operations in 2003, Iraqi forces had tried to destroy one of the bridges (North Ramaylah) on the advance route but had only managed to drop a single span creating a 33m gap. There was also some additional damage caused by US forces, creating a large 4m crater. The explosives left had to be cleared by hand on the 20^th March 2003 to allow a forward air refuelling point to be established.

9 Parachute Squadron RE installed a Medium Girder Over Bridge (MGOB) over the crater under fire to support an MLC35 vehicle and on the 23^rd of March 64 HQ Squadron (28 Engineer Regiment) installed a 32m un-tensioned BR90 Long Span General Support Bridge (GSB) with an MLC of 16 at the bridge site in support of 51 Field Squadron (Air Support) who also assisted at the bridge site by demolishing a span to provide access space for the GSB.

This was the first operational deployment of the GSB (although other sources state that another was deployed by 2 Hq Sqn) and allowed the bridge to traffic CVR(T).

General Support Bridge at the North Ramaylah Bridge

A day later the GSB had a reinforcement link set installed to increase the classification to MLC 80.

On the 26^th March in the first operational deployment of the M3 Rig, 23 Amphibious Engineer Squadron (including 413 Amphibious Engineer Troop (V)) supported by 59 and 131(V) Commando Squadrons provided a ferry service for the Scots dragoon Guards at ‘Crossing Point Anna’

M3 Ferry - Crossing Point Anna. Image Credit: Keith Dodds

Crossing Point Anna. Image Credit; Keith Dodds

Crossing Point Anna, video courtesy Keith Dodds

On the 30^thMarch the M3 Rigs were used at the North Ramaylah Bridge site to allow AS90’s and other heavy vehicles of D Battery 3 RHA to cross.

M3 Rigs at the North Ramaylah bridge site with BR90 General Support Bridge in the background

The GSB here was subsequently replaced with a Logistic Support Bridge

Logistics Support Bridge replaces the General Support Bridge at North Ramaylah

At a single location a MGOB, BR90 GSB, M3 Rig and LSB were all used.

In 2005 the bridge was permanently repaired and the temporary span removed, coincidentally, by 9 Squadron.

Prior to hostilities in 1991 the concrete bridge over the Shatt al Arab at Al Bushayr was a swing bridge type to enable river traffic to pass. The bridge spans an island in the middle of the river called Sinbad Island, supposedly the home of Sinbad!

Shatt al Arab Bridge at Sinbad Island in better times

The bridge was destroyed in the Gulf War in 1991 and replaced with a pontoon bridge; this had subsequently been destroyed in the early stages of Operation Telic.

Pontoon bridge over the Shatt al Arab

A repair was needed, some elements of the existing damaged pontoon bridge had been stolen and used elsewhere on the river as landing stages for example so the repair required some of them to be ‘stolen back’. Repairs were made and new sections inserted, this time, everything was bolted and welded together.

The repaired bridge, cost $55, was named Cullingworth Bridge after SSGT Simon Cullingworth, who was murdered together with Sapper Allsopp, and built by 29 Armd Engr Sqn supported by 23 Amph Engineer Squadron.

Sometime later the bridge was damaged by an overloaded concrete truck and yet more repairs needed.

Engineers from the New Zealand Defence Force were also involved in a second bridge repair and the image below shows them working on the Al Tannumah Bridge, adjacent to Cullingworth.

New Zealand engineers working on the Al Tannumah Bridge

Another interesting bridge was the Aldershot Bridge, an extremely long floating Mabey Compact Bridge that was continually maintained over a number of years.

Excavating the abutments for the Aldershot Logistic Support Pontoon Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

Moving the pontoons and bridge sections into place for the Aldershot Bridge, a floating Logistic Support Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

Moving the pontoons into place using Combat Support Boats for the Aldershot Bridge, a floating Logistic Support Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

A local Iraqi was also engaged to support the bridge build with his large mobile crane

Lowering bridge sections onto a Flexifloat pontoon at the Aldershot Bridge, a floating Logistic Support Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

The completed Aldershot Bridge

The completed Aldershot Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

The story does not end there though because almost immediately after it was finished the same helpful Iraqi crane operator drove his enormous crane over the bridge and damaged it so badly it needed explosive cutting charges to enable the bent, submerged and buckled sections to be extricated before a repair and rebuild process could be completed.

Damage to Aldershot Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

Damaged Aldershot Bridge. Image Credit: Taff

Damaged Aldershot Bridge before repair. Image Credit: Taff

Other bridging operations were of course carried out over the period UK forces were deployed to Iraq.

Afghanistan – Operation Herrick

Although one might imagine the combat engineering focus in Afghanistan has been on Counter IED, force protection, life support and introducing Hesco Bastion to every corner of the country there have been some significant bridging operations.

The full gamut of bridging equipment has been used including infantry assault bridges, BR90, MGB, APFB, LSB, Chinook emplaced bridges and of course the old fashioned but still relevant construction bridging (non equipment).

The video below shows a Medium Girder Bridge being built at night and in combat conditions in 2008.

The GSB has been successfully used in operations in Afghanistan, crossing the 34m gap Nahr-e-Bugra Canal near Shaheed in northern Nad-e-Ali on the 20th February 2009, as part of Operation Moshtarak.

Step 1 - Push the Nose Rail Out

Step 2 - Assemble and Launch

Step 3 - Withdraw the Rail

Step 4 - Finishing Touches

Step 5 - Job Well Done, Pose for the Camera!

A good example below of a Logistic Support Bridge is in the video below, it replacing a BR90 GSB

In March 2011 Royal Engineers built a 34m Mabey Logistic Support (called the Friendship Bridge), click here for more details

The newly constructed logistics support bridge crossing the Nahr-e-Bughra Canal near the border of Nahr-e-Saraj and Nad ‘Ali was completed on June 12. Over the course of six days, 25 engineers with 39 Armored Engineer Squadron, 24 Engineer Regiment, 3 Commando Brigade, constructed the 45-meter-long logistics support bridge

and another similar bridge in August 2011 as part of operation Omid Haft.

Also as part of the same operation is the longest GSB built in a combat theatre, the 45m Haft Bridge

Haft Bridge

A recent video from BFBS below shows another GSB, this time a 32m one built at night in just 22 minutes.

So as can be seen from the images above and looking back through the previous posts equipment bridging has come a long way from the Canal Lock Bridge and Bailey but the basic principles remain, bridging supports the objectives of the military commander by providing or improving mobility across obstacles or gaps.

Despite all the hi-technology on show I am going to close this half of the bridging series with a simple image from this news story from the MoD

Soldiers from 9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers (RE) carried out the repairs on the bridge after being alerted to the damage and resulting problems by soldiers from 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment (2 PARA), who regularly patrol the area. Following an initial assessment of the damage and the work required to make the crossing capable of carrying tractors once again, the necessary materials for the job were transported to nearby Checkpoint Perkha by the Paras. To do this, they made several journeys by quad bike – the only vehicle capable of getting through the series of narrow tracks running between irrigated fields. A team of six engineers, led by Lieutenant Keith McDougall, then began the task of building the new bridge. Firstly the abutments were shored up with pickets and corrugated iron sheeting, then a deck was constructed, consisting of timber baulks held together with a giant iron staple and resting on sandbags.

Non Equipment Bridging or construction bridging is just as vital and relevant a skill today as it was at the beginning of military bridging.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – Post War

Think Defence — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:11:21 +0000

The final part of the history part of the series will look at Iraq from 2003 onwards and Afghanistan but in this penultimate post, post war and recent UK bridging operations will covered.

Germany

The Royal Engineers were in just as much demand post war as during, the landscape of Germany, France, Holland, Italy and Belgium was devastated and in order to restore lines of communications many of the destroyed bridges and viaducts were replaced with Bailey equipment. The vast majority of the bridges erected during the campaign were built for speed. On the long spans across the wide rivers of Europe pontoon equipment was generally used with no consideration for maintaining navigability by the numerous barges and ships that formed an integral part of the transport infrastructure of the region. These bridges were also often built away from existing population centres or lines of communication.

There were four semi-permanent bridges across the Rhine that were started before the end of the war; Dempsey Bridge at Xanten, a 4000ft Class 40 timber piled Bailey, Tyne Bridge at Rees, a 4,980 feet Class 70 Bailey bridge, Tees bridge at Rees, a 4,980feet Class 40 piled Bailey bridge and the Spyck railway bridge Emmerich. The Tyne and Tees bridges were the longest military bridges ever constructed and in addition to these monsters, an additional 500 temporary road and rail bridges were constructed.

Despite these, in the UK/Canadian area of occupation it was decided to create three crossings across the Rhine at Dusseldorf, Wesel and Cologne that would be a semi-permanent replacement for major civilian bridges in population centres. These were to be called Freeman, Montgomery and Patton respectively and were truly impressive feats of engineering.

Freeman Bridge, Dusseldorf

The Oberkasseler Bridge in Dusseldorf was destroyed by retreating German forces in 1945.

Oberkasseler Bridge in Dusseldorf, pre warThe Oberkasseler Bridge in Dusseldorf was destroyed in 1945

The Oberkasseler Bridge in Dusseldorf was destroyed in 1945

The replacement Bailey bridge was designed by Major Ralph Freeman, Chief Engineer to 21 Army Group who had been involved with the early trials of the Bailey bridge. It was opened in early October 1945 and was a 2,391ft long Class 24 that used floating pontoons constructed from US Naval Lighterage pontoons and a large navigation span.

Freeman bridge under construction

Freeman Bridge

Freeman bridge under construction 1945

It is often reported that the bridge was named after Lt General Freeman because it was not believed that such a major construction effort would be named after a Major, yet alone one whose rank was temporary. In 1948 the Freeman Bridge was replaced with a newer structure that itself was replaced in 1973.

The Oberkasseler Bridge today, click here

Montgomery Bridge

The Montgomery Bridge was built over the Rhine at Wesel at the site of the first crossing over the Rhine, carried out by US engineers using their M2 Treadway inflatable pontoon equipment. A conventional timber piled bridge had also been constructed by US engineers but a central navigation span was cut into the bridge to allow river traffic to move. Using the US bridge German civilians drove a number of steel piles into the riverbed, which were then filled with concrete, a method chosen for its resistance to heavy ice.

The bridge was then completed by various Royal Engineer units and involved a number of construction innovations, 2,030 feet in length it was double carriageway with a cycle track in the middle.

Montgomery Bridge

Some good pictures of the various bridges at Wesel, including the Montgomery, can be found here and a detailed description of the construction phase at a German bridge website, English version click here.

Patton Bridge, Rhine

The final of the three semi-permanent bridges over the Rhine was called the Patton Bridge at Cologne, it’s design was similar to the Montgomery Bridge but the navigation span used surplus Wermacht railway bridging equipment.

Click here to see the opening ceremony at British Pathe. 500 Sappers and 900 German civilians used 2,400 tonnes of steel and 28,000 cubic feet of timber to build the bridge.

Patton Bridge was not replaced until the 1960’s and Dr Ludwig Erhart, Chancellor of the Bundesrepublik was quoted as saying;

Without these bridges the economic miracle of Germany’s recovery would have been long delayed

Holland

In interesting semi-permanent bridge construction took place in 1954 in Holland, a joint Dutch/British force of engineers built a long Bailey bridge to improve lines of communication. After some negotiations on the subjects of workshare and funding work started in February 1954, with the approach roads designed in such a way that they would be used for a later permanent bridge.

The site was at Well, half way between Nijmegen and Venlo at a location that was actually used for a Bailey pontoon during the war;

750ft Bailey Pontoon Class 40 Bridge over River Maas. Consisting of: Two 10ft ramps, one 80ft D/S approach span, one 110ft T/S landing bay onto type “D” pier, one 70ft D/S sloping bay, two 41ft 6ins end floating bays, one 44-46ft sliding bay, one 70ft landing bay, one 50ft landing bay, and one 50ft approach span. Constructed by 7 Army Troop Engineers. Consisting of H.Q. 7 Troop Engineers, 7/72/73 and 503 Field Companies R.E. and 277 Corps Field Park Company R.E. 71 Field Company R.E. constructed one 70ft landing bay, one 50ft landing bay and one 50ft approach span.

The bridge was called Queens Bridge after Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Juliana and when completed was 1,385 feet long and Class 80 (Quad/Triple) to allow a Centurion tank and tank transporter to cross.

Queens Bridge

Queens Bridge over the River Maas at Well, HollandQueens Bridge over the River Maas at Well, HollandQueens Bridge

If you understand Dutch, the video below has the full story

Another Dutch site describing the Queens Bridge in more details here and more pictures here

Incredibly, this semi-permanent bridge was not replaced until 1980 which is surely a testament to the British and Dutch engineers that built it, plus of course those tasked with maintaining a non galvanised steel structure for so many years!

British Pathe have a good (but silent) clip of the UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) constructing a Double Double Bailey, click here

The Falklands

The Murrel River on East Falkland was to play an important part in the Battle of Mount Longdon and whilst traversing the existing bridge a Sampson CVR(T) recovery vehicle loaded with ammunition damaged collapsed it.

Because much of the task forces engineering supplies had been lost on the RFA Sir Tristram a conventional bridging operation was not possible. 9 Squadron RE did have some parts of an Air Portable Bridge (APB) but without a launching nose and so the bridge was assembled, carried to site using a Chinook and successfully emplaced. The Chinook also lifted the Sampson out of the gap at the same time.

The Gulf War – Operation Granby

About a third of the strength of the Royal Engineers was deployed to the Gulf and had a considerable impact upon operations although mostly route development rather than bridging. Although not strictly bridging related it was the last swan song for the petrol engine Centurion AVRE.

The Balkans

Starting with Op Grapple I the Royal Engineers were to be deployed to the Balkans for 5 years during which time many bridging operations took place using Extra Wide Bailey Bridges, Heavy Girder Bridges, Mabey Compact and the medium Girder Bridge.

At Mostar over the River Neretva the original Tito Bridge was demolished and in 1993 a replacement Extra Widened Bailey Bridge (EWBB) was constructed by local engineers. This was eventually damaged by Croation tank fire making it impassable to vehicular traffic.

Original EWBB at Mostar

A joint UK/Spanish team built the 270 feet EWBB by the end of September 1993.

The permanent replacement was called the Bridge Musala after a nearby square.

At Kulen Vakuf an 11 bay double story MGB was built by 26 Armoured Engineer Squadron in 1196, click here to see its permanent replacement.

The UK

Bailey Bridges and their derivatives, the EWBB and HGB have were used extensively in the post war period, this clip is of a Heavy Girder Bridge being used to ‘overbridge’ a damaged bridge over the Thames between Windsor and Datchet being removed, with this clip of it being removed.

In the UK, the recent floods in Cumbria have bought military bridging to public attention. The Barker Crossing was erected by 3 Armoured Engineer Squadron, 22 Engineer Regiment, to reunite the two halves of Workington after the original bridge was destroyed. Named after PC Bill Barker, the policeman who lost his life during the collapse of the Northside Bridge, the footbridge actually used the Compact 200 from Mabey. There is very good video here, here and here, including shots of the new Terex cranes for you plant spotters.

Preparations and Foundations

Preparation

Build

The completed Barker Crossing (image credit visitcumbria.com)

Posing for the Camera

3 Sqn , 22 Engineer Rgt Royal Engineers

Opening

Barker Crossing

Units involved with the project were;

64 Works Group Royal Engineers, based in Nottingham
3 Armoured Engineer Squadron, part of 22 Engineer Regiment, based in Tidworth
32 Signal Regiment, based in Glasgow
27 Transport Regiment RLC, based in Aldershot
9 Supply Regiment RLC, based in Hullavington
Royal Military Police
63 Medical Squadron, based in Preston
Headquarters 42 (North West) Brigade, based in Preston
4th Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, North West England’s TA infantry battalion

A temporary road crossing was also designed by Capita Symonds and constructed by Morgan Sindall, for which they won an industry award.

Temporary Road Bridge constructed by Morgan Sindall (image credit visitcumbria.com)

After much use the Barker Crossing is being removed as the damaged Calva Bridge has now been repaired sufficiently to allow foot traffic to use it.

Those involved with the strip out were;

64 Works Group Royal Engineers
53 Field Squadron Royal Engineers
4th Battalion Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment
156 Transport Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

That’s a job well done I think.

Barker Crossing - Mabey Compact 200

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Italy)

Think Defence — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:02:44 +0000

UK military bridging enjoyed several finest hours during WWII and it would be impossible to describe every single operation. Instead, I am going to look at a significant operation in the three theatres of North West Europe, Italy and the Far East.

Italy

The Italian campaign, although on a smaller scale to North West Europe is interesting because it was longer and for simple reasons of geography meant spans were generally longer. Because British and Commonwealth forces operated on the left flank, rivers were closer to the sea and therefore usually wider than those encountered in North West Europe. The retreating German forces also did an excellent job of destroying bridge infrastructure as they went, not just dropping spans but also destroying piers and approaches.

Between 1943 and 1945 the combined British/Commonwealth and US 15^th Army Group completed 2,832 fixed span Bailey bridges of some 45 miles long, 120 floating Bailey or Treadway bridges, 490 railway viaducts and an incredible 430 permanent bridges.

Picking a few examples from that list is clearly difficult but the first operational Bailey Pontoon build in any theatre was completed on over the River Volturno at Capua in October 1943 by 56 Division and elements of 46 Division RE.

The longest bridge completed during the Italian campaign was the 343m (1,126ft) high level Class 30 Bailey Bridge over the River Sangro.

Squad of South African Pioneers from Bechuanaland, along w. group of willing Italian civilians, repair railroad bridge over the Sangro river which was demolished by retreating Germans during the campaign to oust Axis forces from Italy.

Sangro high level bridge under construction (by pk1920)

Sangro River bridge

Twelve hundred feet across, and spanning the Sango River in Italy (crossed in November 1943), was the largest Bailey bridge in the world at the time.

The 69^th Field Company Bengal Sappers carried out an incredible feat of military bridging over the River Moro, the Impossible Bridge (as it was called) was built by crossing over to the enemy side and building the bridge in reverse direction, to overcome a lack of construction space on the home bank. The word ‘impossible’ stems from the opinion of Canadian engineers; the Indians of course saw this as a challenge and resorted to manhandling all the parts of the bridge over the river. Bengal Sapper pride retained, signage with appropriate wording completed!

The Italian campaign also saw extensive and hugely impressive railway bridging, two very detailed accounts can be found here and here.

Another bridge snippet worth recording before wading into detail is the ASAMFU Bridge at San Andrea over the River Santerno.

The ASAMFU Bridge

The ASAMFU Bridge Site Today

The ASAMFU Bridge site today

This was a difficult location, both spans and piers were destroyed and there was very limited space for. It was therefore decided to build the 480 feet Bailey bridge from both sides and meet in the middle.

Why ASAMFU?

Apparently, when the two halves met in the middle it was realised that the male ends of the bridge led from both banks and a hastily modified link was fabricated to correct the parts. The origins of the word are apparently, A Systematic And Military Fuck Up!!

The Rapido

Towards the end of 1943 it became clear to the Allies that breaching the German defensive Gustav line was not going to be easy if at all possible, the strength of the defences, a bitter winter and unfavourable terrain precipitated a plan to conduct an amphibious assault at Anzio that would link up with a swift advance by the Fifth Army between the sea and the Liri Valley. At the same time, the Eighth Army would advance through the Liri Valley parallel to Highway 6/ Much has been written about the Anzio landings but it is a matter of history that things did not go according to plan.

A number of battles along the Gustav Line, especially at Monte Cassino failed to achieve a breakout.

The high ground around the Liri Valley is dominated by Monastery Hill an which stood the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino overlooking the junction of the Liri and Rapido rivers. Whilst the Rapido is a relatively small river as the name suggests, the current is very strong and storms could result in significant depth changes. Monte Cassino was a bottleneck and was unavoidable.

With the arrival of Spring and time to prepare, this was to prove the decisive battle.

From Wikipedia

The plan for Operation Diadem was that U.S. II Corps on the left would attack up the coast along the line of Route 7 towards Rome. The French Corps to their right would attack from the bridgehead across the Garigliano originally created by X Corps in the first battle in January into the Aurunci Mountains which formed a barrier between the coastal plain and the Liri Valley. British XIII Corps in the centre right of the front would attack along the Liri valley whilst on the right 2nd Polish Corps (3rd and 5th Division) commanded by Lt. Gen. Władysław Anders, which had relieved 78th Division in the mountains behind Cassino on April 24, would attempt the task which had defeated 4th Indian Division in February, isolate the monastery and push round behind it into the Liri valley to link with XIII Corps’ thrust and pinch out the Cassino position. It was hoped that being a much larger force than their 4th Indian Division predecessors they would be able to saturate the German defences which would as a result be unable to give supporting fire to each other’s positions. Improved weather, ground conditions and supply would also be important factors. Once again, the pinching manoeuvre by the Polish and British Corps were key to the overall success. Canadian I Corps would be held in reserve ready to exploit the expected breakthrough. Once the German Tenth Army had been defeated, U.S. VI Corps would break out of the Anzio beachhead to cut off the retreating Germans in the Alban Hills.

The MoD have also published a good general account of the battles around Monte Cassino, click here

A number of crossings had been made over the rivers during the first, second and third battles but it was during the fourth battle (Operation Diadem) that one of the most famous crossings took place, the Amazon Bridge.

Three field company’s RE were assigned to the bridging effort, 7^th, 225^th and the 59^th would build two Class 40 Bailey Bridges (Amazon and Congo), two Bailey ferries and a single Class 9 Bailey (Blackwater) as a return route between the two Class 40’s.

One of the bridges was to be called Blackwater, the Class 9 Bailey and on the 27^th of April a recce was completed by a small team of engineers, the river area was not entirely secure and the recce party encountered a force of German engineers although no action was taken, discretion was needed. Because of the presence of enemy forces it was decided to carry out a second recce to confirm the span and examine the far bank. A volunteer was called for and eventually Driver McTighe chosen because he was the best swimmer in the Company. On the evening of the 30^th moon weather conditions were suitable and the second recce started. Despite loud explosions being heard in the area (it was never determined whether these were grenades or trip wires) Driver McTighe bravely completed the measuring exercise and came back with a figure of 52 feet. A subsequent flight by the attached Tactical Reconnaissance flight resulted in a measurement of 55 feet.

Amazon Bridge Recce Notes. Image Courtesy 2LT A Hobson MC 7th FD COY RE, by kind permission of his son, Peter

A complex bridging plan was subsequently formulated for the 12^th of May 1944 with H Hour set for 10pm.

The Gustav Line - Image Credit: Paul Reed

The operation started with a huge artillery barrage from 900 guns.

From Lt Col Daniell RE’s account;

Meanwhile the old Boche, cunning fellow that he always was, did not retreat under the barrage, but instead came forward to line the shingle bank of the river with machine guns. It was, originally, a still night with natural mist hanging over the river. But to add to the general confusion, the Boche thickened up this natural mist with smoke till it was an impenetrable fog some hundred yards or more wide.

The fog and smoke made for an extremely difficult assault.

Again, from Lt Col Daniell;

Half an hour after “W” hour, I set up my Bridge H.Q. at the top of the approach track and at the same time the old bulldozer trundled down the track. This seemed to enrage the Boche, who directed all his available fire in the direction of the sound. This brought the bulldozer to a standstill, wounding one driver, but not until he had got almost to the bank. Thereafter, every time he started up, a hail of bullets arrived. Next the Sappers arrived with the first of the lorries. But nothing could be done in that awful fog with bullets whizzing overhead. We simply must get some chaps across to deal with those “Spandaus”

By dawn, nothing had been achieved and the order was given to withdraw.

It was then decided to concentrate all resources on a single site, the 225^th Field Company site called Amazon. The initial operation would be carried out by the 225^th with 7^th and 59^th relieving each other in turn. The bridge itself was a conventional 80 foot Double Single Bailey.

Under constant fire the bridge build commenced at 1700 hours on the 12^thThe Germans fired illuminating rounds behind the build site in order to silhouette the sappers and make them vulnerable to sniper fire but this stopped by an extremely accurate counter battery attack by the Royal Artillery. On the far bank a small group from 8 Field Squadron commenced mine clearing operations.

At 0300 Hours the bridge was pushed out.

It is worth pausing at this stage to consider the actions of Sergeant Arthur Parry of 59 Field Company RE, a perfect illustration of the simple fact that sappers are soldiers first and combat engineers second, from Lt Col Daniell (again)

For some time, one particular “Spandau” on the left had been causing almost continuous interference and quite a few casualties. So Sergeant Parry of 59 Field Company decided to go across on the launching nose and deal with this man. He lay full length on the leading transom until it grounded, and at once ran a few yards along the bank, throwing himself on the ground to take cover. When the “Spandau” opened fire, he got the direction and made a dash toward the spot, firing two magazines of his Tommy gun. The “Spandau” did not fire again. Sergeant Parry returned to organize getting the launching nose onto rollers. When the job of lifting the nose onto rollers was done and the bridge moved forward again, more “Spandau” bursts appeared to be coming from directly inland. Again Sergeant Parry, but this time with Sapper Halliday, decided to go after this “Spandau.” They were going straight toward the direction of the “Spandau” when they heard cries to the right. On going to investigate they found two wounded men, an officer with his foot blown off by a “Schu” mine and a badly wounded sergeant. Sergeant.10 Parry took the officer back to the bridge on his back, while Sapper Halliday and Sapper Coombs carried back the sergeant. They were the 8th Field Squadron Recce party. Sergeant Parry and Sapper Halliday then returned to shoot up the “Spandau,” which they must have succeeded in doing, as the fire ceased. Sergeant Parry was awarded the Military Medal.

NAILS or what?

The Amazon Bridge

The bridge was completed by 0400 Hours, every available man and a small Caterpillar D4 bulldozer were needed to push it into position but with only 20 feet left to go the bulldozer seized up, having had its radiator and sump peppered by shrapnel. The first tanks due to go across had arrived some time earlier so one of these was pressed into service to remove the bulldozer and provide mechanical power to complete the build. Despite not being able to construct a proper bank seat and thus not strictly a Class 40, Amazon was open for traffic soon after and by 0500 Hours a squadron of the 17/21 Lancers was across.

A message from Lt General Kirkman, Commander 13^th Corps read thus;

Now that Cassino has fallen to your division, I would like to let you know how well I consider they have done. The assault across the Rapido was undoubtedly a most formidable undertaking, as the river, so aptly named, is swift and deep and the defences were well prepared and strong. The overrunning of the enemy’s positions was a magnificent effort, the work of’ your Sappers on the second night was first class, and the building of’ the bridge which allowed you to pass over your tanks was a turning point in the battle. Each subsequent advance which you were asked to do has been quickly and successfully carried out. What has been achieved will long be remembered as a credit to the 4th Division.

15 sappers were killed and 57 (including 3 officers) wounded.

Click here to see a model of the Amazon Bridge

To finish this post, a fitting tribute from Field Marshall Alexander;

Here would appear to be an opportunity to pay a tribute to a distinguished British invention. Whatever the valour of the righting troops, without the ‘Bailey’ to bridge the rivers and ravines of Italy, the campaign would have been abortive from the outset.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Africa and Northwest Europe)

Think Defence — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:37:14 +0000

Africa

The first Bailey Bridge to be constructed in any operational theatre was at Medjez-el-Bab over the River Medjerda in Tunisia. Retreating German forces had damaged the Roman bridge and the Bailey overspan was completed by 237 Field Company RE

View along a river and a bomb-damaged bridge repaired with a section of bailey bridge. Medjez-el-Bab © IWM (Art.IWM ART LD 3100)

Bailey Bridge crossing the River Medjerda, Medjez el Bab, Tunis, 1942. The first Bailey bridge to be built in contact with the enemy was the 100ft bridge built across the River Medjerda at Medjez el Bab, Tunis in late November 1942 by 237 Field Company of 78 Division. Flickr: Redhouse

North West Europe

Before commencing operations in support of Overlord one bridging operation in the UK is worth mentioning.

I am going to cover the role of assault bridging in more detail in a later post but its impact should not be underestimated. Once the beachhead had been established and the breakout commenced bridging operations began in short order.

Normandy

The first Bailey Bridge to be built in France was aptly named London Bridge I. Completed 2 days after D Day by 17 Field Company RE it was a pontoon Bailey over the Caen Canal, about 700m away from the famous Pegasus Bridge.

British Pathe have a clip of London Bridge here

Many others soon followed over the River Orne and Caen Canal in the build-up to Operation Goodwood, many built under constant enemy fire.

One of these was called York Bridge I, a 115m Class 40 Bailey Pontoon across the Caen Canal at Ouistreham and then continuing over the River Orne, the continuation being of course called York II

A good account of the drive on Caen was produced by the Veterans Agency for the 60^th anniversary, click here to read

Christopher Long has an excellent website on the surviving Bailey Bridges in Normandy and other historical restoration projects, click here to have a read of this fascinating site.

Cromwell tanks moving across ‘York’ bridge, a Bailey bridge over the Caen canal and the Orne river, during Operation ‘Goodwood’, 18 July 1944. © IWM (B 7656)

A Sherman tank crosses ‘Winston Bridge’, a Bailey bridge built over the River Orne for the ‘Goodwood’ offensive, 24 July 1944 © IWM (B 7969

Prime Minister Winston Churchill and General Sir Bernard Montgomery crossing the River Orne over the Winston Bridge, 22 July 1944.© IWM (B 7873)

The Royal Canadian Engineers constructed two Class 40 Bailey bridges over the River Orne to the South of Caen and these were called Winston and Churchill.

Railway bridging units were also to see a great deal of action as the relentless logistic buildup and breakout created an insatiable demand for material.

Crossing the Seine (Operation Neptune)

Once the situation around Caen had stabilised and the tremendous battles in that area bought to a conclusion the allies were ready to advance on the Seine.

The map below shows the planned advance

Maintaining the speed of advance was critical and to support this, a number of specially trained and equipped bridging columns were formed, it being obvious that intact bridges would be in rather short supply.

The British 21^st Army Group was to cross at Vernon and the 30^th Corps Armoured Divisions push onwards towards the Somme, Brussels and Antwerp.

Vernon had two bridges, one rail and one road and as part of the overall D Day strategy they, and many others, were to be destroyed to isolate Normandy and delay and counter offensive. There was a problem, no one actually knew how many bombs would be enough to deny a bridge but allow it to be repaired or used later, it’s a fine line between dropping a span and completely obliterating it.

The railway bridge was successfully dropped by an awesome display of precision bombing carried out by six US P-47’s with minimal damage to surrounding areas and loss of civilian life.

Vernon Rail Bridge, Image Credit Visit Vernon

The same method was not used for the road bridge, 2 sorties of 73 and 26 B26 bombers dropped nearly 200 tonnes of bombs, resulting in significant loss of civilian life.
The 43^rd Wessex Infantry Division had for a couple of years prior been practising assault rover crossings as was the obvious choice to spearhead the crossing. On the 25^th of August 1944 lead elements of the 43^rd Wessex Div including the Middlesex Regiment and 15/19^th Hussars arrived at Vernon and despite being invited to liberation banquets proceeded to quietly establish their positions overlooking the crossing point, ably assisted by the French Resistance.

Targets were located with the assistance of the town inhabitants, remarkably, the German defenders on the far bank suspected nothing.

The crossing was not to be as easy.

On the afternoon the far bank erupted with fire from the British forces and a thick smokescreen established. The 5^th Battalion the Wilshire Regiment were first across in assault boats but only one boat survived as and the battle raged into the night a small bridgehead was established. There is a tale that a solitary RE officer stripped down to duffle coat and socks to pilot the small assault boat that transferred small numbers of soldiers across, a DUKW was also used to transfer personnel. The assault boats were also manned by detachments of 583 Field Company RE.

The 4^th Battalion The Somerset Light Infantry and 1^st Battalion the Worcestershire Regiment also took part in assault crossing at other locations. During the night, the destroyed bridge was used to cross a small number of personnel, in single file.

Infantry cross the River Seine across the wrecked road bridge at Vernon, 27 August 1944. © IWM (BU 199)Crossing the Seine and the advance to the Siegfried Line 24 August - December 1944: British troops crossing a temporary bridge over the River Seine at Vernon as General Montgomery’s 21st Army Group launched a drive which in a week covered 200 miles to reach the Scheldt River in Belgium.

It was planned to complete two bridges, a Class 9 FBE and a Class 40 Pontoon Bailey.

During the night some of the pontoons were put in place but despite heroic efforts to complete the Class 9 Bridge during the following day, enemy fire prevented it. However, as the fighting on the far bank progressed it did allow the first bridge to be completed by early evening.

Bulding an FBE at Vernon

By the morning of the 26^th there were three battalions firmly established on the far banks in the suburb of Vernonnet and a Class 9 FBE bridge established but it was imperative that the Class 40 bridge was constructed as soon as possible to allow the heavy armour to cross.

During the following day construction of the Class 40 Bailey was carried out by 7^th Army Troops RE, with the Class 9 and Bailey Rafts doing brisk business.

A bulldozer is ferried across the River Seine at Vernon, 27 August 1944. © IWM (BU 196)Building Goliath IWM

Building The Class 40 Bailey Pontoon Bridge called Goliath at Vernon, 1944. IWM

The two bridges were now in place, called David (Class 9) and Goliath (Class 40)

David and Goliath bridges at Vernon, IWM

An ambulance and infantry crossing the River Seine on a Bailey bridge at Vernon, 27 August 1944. © IWM (BU 185)Class 9 FBE, Verno. IWM (note the number 9 on the sign denoting the bridge class)

Traffic wasn’t only 1 way and there were one or two famous visitors!

A third bridge was also constructed, another Class 40 Bailey finished on the 29^th

This third bridge was over 230m long and named Saul.

A couple of video clips of bridging operations around Vernon in 1944, click here and here

From the Giverny.org website

British lost 600 men in 4 days, Germans 1600 men. 12 Resistance fighters were killed, adding to the 107 civilian dead during the last four months. The city had to be rebuilt, what would not be done before 1949. But this victory was crucial. It made it possible for the allied troops to go on with their march upon the East. Montgomery crossed the Seine in Vernon on September 1st, 1944. A street of Vernon is named after him, it is one of the numerous testimonies of gratefulness from the inhabitants of the city for their Liberators. Military corners in the cemeteries as well as many memorial stones in Vernon and its surroundings still recall to those who offered their lives to liberate our region.

The Worcestershire Regiment website has an excellent and detailed 14 part account of the crossing at Vernon, click here to read.

In 1945, a new Callender Hamilton bridge was built and in 1954, the current bridge was completed.

The Worcestershire Regiment website details a reunion that took place in 1992, well worth a read, click here

There are often other Royal Engineer supported events at Vernon, celebrating and remembering the crossing.

The Vernon memorial reads

ON THE 25TH AUGUST 1944, THE 43RD (WESSEX) DIVISION LIBERATED VERNON AND CROSSED THE RIVER SEINE UNDER THE FIRE OF THE GERMAN UNITS DUG IN ON THE PROMINENT HILLS OF THE EASTERN BANK. THE INFANTRY SUPPORTED BY 4 ARMOURED REGIMENTS FOUGHT DURING 3 DAYS TO REPULSE THE ENEMY. THE CROSSING WAS ACHIEVED BY THE USE OF 3 FLOATING BRIDGES BUILT BY THE ROYAL ENGINEERS. FROM THIS INITIAL BRIDGEHEAD THE 30TH CORPS LED THE ADVANCE TOWARDS BELGIUM. THE BRITISH TROOPS SUFFERED 550 CASUALTIES IN THIS OPERATION.

The Rhine (Operation Plunder)

Once over the Seine the objectives were to destroy German forces, secure deep water harbour facilities and deny the Germans access to launch sites for their V rockets. British and Canadian forces were ranged to the North with US forces to the South.

There was much hard fighting to be done in the approach and many instances of significant bridging operations, especially across canals in Holland and the River Maas.

Once the approaches had been secured crossing the Rhine was the next obstacle before Germany proper. The meticulous planning that had been going on since 1942 had envisaged no bridges being left intact by the Germans but the speed of advance had allowed some to be preserved but even with this relative good fortune there was still a considerable bridging effort needed to improve lines of communication in front of the Rhine. An experimental unit was also established at Nijmegan to trial specialist equipment that was going to be used, including an RAF Wild Kite barrage balloon winch that would be used to haul rafts over the rover. XXX (30) Corps had also established a formidable bridging force comprising eight Divisional Engineers, four Armoured Divisional Engineers, two Assault Engineer Regiments, four Corps Engineers, two Army Engineers, eight GHQ Troops Engineers, two Bridge Companies RASC, a Tipper Platoon RASC, General Transport Platoon RASC, nine Pioneer Companies, four Mechanical Equipment Platoons RE and finally a Royal Navy attachment that were in charge of the heavy tugs.

Crossing the Rhine was always going to be a significant challenge and it is beyond the scope of this piece to look at every single crossing and the airborne (Operation Varsity) and river assault phase so I will just look at a few examples.

Before moving on it should be noted that the first tactical bridge across the Rhine was completed by the US Army 150^th Engineer Construction Battalion in late March 1945 using a Class 40 M2 Treadway bridge, the M2 Treadway used inflatable pontoons and was an excellent design with very short construction times

Baileys of many kinds, ferries and Buffalo vehicles were part of the elaborate plan.

The first Bailey over the Rhine however, was a British effort.

Once the assault crossing had completed the first Bailey bridge over the Rhine was at Xanten, a 300m Class 40 Bailey Pontoon started on the morning of the 24^th of March 1945 and completed soon after by 7^th Army Troops RE.

This was called the Digger Bridge but some disputes still seem to persist.

Digger was closely followed by 9 others, at Wardt, Rees, Honnepel and Emmerich called Draghunt, Sussex, Lambeth, Waterloo, London, Blackfriars, Westminster, Sparrow and Maclean (Canadian).

There is some dispute over ‘firsts’, Digger or Draghunt (Wardt) but Draghunt was a Folding Boat Equipment (FBE) Bridge not a Bailey although it is credited with being the first British tactical bridge over the Rhine. Sussex Bridge, a Class 12 Bailey pontoon also at Xanten was started at the same time as Digger (within 30 minutes) but was twice as long although and in two spans joined by a causeway.

D plus 1 - the last stages of the building of the first bridges across the Rhine. © IWM (BU 2529)

Naval landing craft on the Rhine with, in the background, the first completed bridge in the British sector, below Xanten. This Royal Navy “molcab”- mobile landing craft advanced base - is playing an important part in the army’s crossing of the Rhine. © IWM (A 27816)

The first Bailey bridge over the Rhine nears completion, 24 - 25 March 1945.© IWM (BU 2542)

Different sources vary but I suppose it doesn’t really matter which was first, they were all completed in short order against great odds.

Beyond the Rhine there was of course yet more bridges to complete and a good account can he found here with a voluminous amount of information on the Airborne element of the crossings at the Pegasus Archive

I will close this post with a rather iconic image

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke (Chief of the Imperial General Staff), Winston Churchill, Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery and Lieutenant-General William Simpson walk across a Bailey bridge over the Rhine on 26 March 1945. IWM

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – World War II (The Far East)

Think Defence — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:48:42 +0000

The Far East

Operations in the Far East were very different to those in Europe and although the area of operations was enormous British and Commonwealth forces were mainly engaged in Burma.

The initial retreat from Burma saw more bridge demolition that building but the Indian Engineers managed through sheer perseverance and hard work support the retreat.

As plans for the 1943 advance were made routes were chosen and bridging considered, the Manipur River was a significant obstacle, over 350 feet wide at the optimal crossing point. After the Relief of Imphal the Manipur was crossed using light ferries, only capable of carrying jeeps and trailers. These were soon replaced with a larger 16 tonne raft was used but with the rising river caused by monsoon rains operating rafts became impossible.

Locally made PN Boats were bought up and these provided some relief, operating as a pontoon in conjunction with the original rafts. This did not last long as the river rose even more, sweeping all away.

Another crossing used a lightweight suspension bridge, again, only suitable for very light vehicles and foot traffic.

It was time for a Bailey Bridge.

In January 1944 a Class 18 Bailey Bridge was completed, vastly improving the volume of traffic over the pontoons, ferries and lightweight suspension bridge. Later in the year the Manipur was crossed again, this type using a combination of ferries, rafts including a Class 40 Mark V and Class 24 Bailey raft. These were operated as ‘flying ferries’ with Elephants operating as the tractive prime movers. Conditions continued to be extremely challenging with the river flowing at one stage of 12 knots.

The next major obstacles were the Chindwin and Irrawaddy Rivers.

Bailey Bridges were coming into theatre in much greater quantities and the next phase of the advance were in the advanced stages of planning.

Lead elements of the 19^th Indian Division crossed the Chindwin using ferries in November 1944 and by the end of the month the entire division had established a strong bridgehead, able to provide protection for the 11^th East African Division and the rest of the Fourteenth Army to cross.

The Chindwin is a wide River and a ferry would not be sufficiently capable to support the planned forces crossing in good order so a bridge was planned. This was to be a Class 30 Bailey pontoon with a backup of a Class 12 Bailey pontoon should the heavier bridge not make it forward.

The bridge dump was selected and some 26 miles away from the crossing site, transporting all the bridging equipment from Dimapur, through the Kabaw Valley and Myittha Gorge was no easy task, the roads in the area generally being extremely poor. This approach itself needed 22 timber and 9 Bailey bridges to be constructed.

By the beginning of December all the bridging stores were in place, four sets of 130ft double-double Bailey, four sets of Class 40 Bailey rafts and many pontoons, cordage, Somerfield and coir matting and other construction materials.

On the 6^th, work commenced; 67, 76 and 361 Field Companies Indian Engineers, 332 Field Park Company Indian Engineers, a company of the Pathan Engineers Battalion, 852 and 854 Bridge Companies Indian Engineers, under the command of Colonel Seymour-Williams.

Construction of some elements of the bridge took place upstream where there was less danger of Japanese artillery and working conditions for vehicles were better. The construction site was protected by barrage balloons bought up from Calcutta. Grub Bridge, as it was called, after Colonel Seymour-Williams son, was open for traffic 4 days later and the first vehicle crossed on the afternoon of the 10^th December 1944.

Grub Bridge was impressive, over 1,150 feet long it was the longest span bailey Pontoon constructed in any wartime theatre and only surpassed by those built over the Rhine after the end of the war and much later by Indian engineers in 1971 in Bangladesh (now), the Wer Madhumati River bridge being just short of 1,500 feet.

A view of the 1,100ft bailey bridge across the Chindwin River as it nears completion, less than 12 hours after the 14th Army captured Kalewa, 2 December 1944. © IWM (SE 835)

A Bailey bridge over the Chindwin River near Kalewa, December 1944. © IWM (SE 2827)

In an echo of events in 1982, the BBC announced that a Bailey bridge had been built over the Chindwin and given that a 1,100ft Bailey bridge is not that difficult to spot if one knows the river it is spanning, it was attacked by Japanese fighter and lightly damaged, requiring the bridge to be closed for twenty minutes.

The Grub Bridge was used continuously for 10 weeks after which it was replaced with a more substantial bridge, partly dismantled and floated down river for use in the crossing of the Irrawaddy.

Viscount Slim attributed the speed of the Japanese withdrawal largely to the swiftness of the crossings of the Chindwin and the surprise bought about by this speed. In addition to a number of deceptions and careful siting of the bridge construction site the Indian Engineers quickly put in place a ‘superhighway’ along which significant forces could be moved, reducing the Chindwin to merely a slight restriction in road speed for the advancing forces. It should also be noted however, that the Japanese had intended the area between the Chindwin and Irrawaddy to be semi sacrificial.

Slim seized the opportunity and rapidly changed his plans, deciding on OP EXTENDED-CAPITAL, which was a massive deception. Instead of attacking across the Irrawaddy at the strongest Japanese point he would move part of the 14^th Army southwards through the difficult Myittha valley, crossing the Irrawaddy at Pakokku and thus on to the real target of Mektila, a short 80 miles away.

In true Clauswitz style, the simple things were indeed difficult.

All that was needed was to move more or less and entire Corps unobserved, 300 miles through the Kabaw and Myittha valleys, establish a bridgehead on the far bank of the Irrawaddy and then launch the main body across the river to Mektila before the Japanese realised what was going on and that Mandalay was not the main target!

In these days of inter service rivalry it is worth taking a moment to reflect on the truly joint nature of this operation. Without the transportation and air cover provided by the allied air forces none of this would have been possible and equally, although sometimes less noticeable, the Royal Navy had with a great deal of foresight instigated a river tug and pontoon construction effort that would be vital in subsequent operations.

The Indian Engineers would play an equally vital role in the construction of river transportation and there is an interesting quotation from Slims epic take, Defeat to Victory;

One hot day at the beginning of the advance I took Bill Halsted, my quietly spoken Chief Engineer, a little upstream of the Kalewa and said ‘Billy, there’s the river and there are trees. In two months I want 500 tonnes of supplies a day down that river’. He looked thoughtfully at the river and trees, and then at me. ‘The difficult we will do at once, the impossible will take a little longer,’ he quoted from a saying in frequent use in the 14^th Army, and added with a grin ’For miracles, we require a month’s notice!’ ‘You’re lucky’, I answered, ‘you’ve got two!’

By the end of the campaign over 540 boats were in use and with the assistance of Commander Holt of the Royal Navy, some of them were even armed. Slim went on to joke that he was the only General ever to have designed, built, commissioned, launched and commanded warships for the Royal Navy. The boats were called Una and Pamela after the daughters of Slim and Mountbatten.

Crossings were of course made higher up the river but these were parts of Slims deception.

Even further South the crossing would not take place at the obvious points and the site chosen was Nyaungu, 20 miles downstream of Pakokku. It is beyond the scope of this post to describe what happened after the crossing but it was a masterful stroke of genius, surprising the Japanese and drawing them into their predictable huge counter offence that would be a simple battle of destruction, they lost.

But what about the bridge?

Well, strictly speaking there wasn’t one.

The initial crossing on the 14^th February 1945 to establish a bridgehead was a classic assault crossing and given that in some places the crossing was in excess of 3,500 yards the journey was a long one. Three crossing points were selected and the equipment needed 250 lorries to bring to the assembly point.

First over were elements of the South Lancashire Regiment, silently paddling in assault boats, whilst especially noisy diversionary crossings took place elsewhere. Follow on waves were to use assault boats with outboards but many of these simply failed to start so there was a period of chaos but despite fierce fighting and the need for close air support the bridgehead was established.

Using a collection of rafts including three Class 40 Bailey Rafts the majority of the Indian 7^th Division was across by the 15^th.

Once the 7^th Division was across the next phase necessitated and increase in rafting capacity and over 30 rafts of various types were used to get the 17^th Indian Division, 225 Armoured Brigade and Corps troops across by the 22^nd of February.

At its peak, the crossing rate was over 100 vehicles an hour.

During the rest of the campaign, bridges and rafts continued to be a vital enabler.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – WWI

Think Defence — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:29:20 +0000

As the Boer War drew to a close most of the Royal Engineer units returned to the UK and a period of re-organisation followed that culminated in the formation of three bridging Companies, allocation of Field Companies to Divisions and additional units to take responsibility for searchlights, air, works and telegraph signals.

A number of additional organisational recommendations were made before 1914 but many of these were not implemented before the outbreak of war.

Pontoons, trestle bridges and rafting equipment were the main equipment held but construction bridging was also a large part of the RE repertoire. Lord Haldane ensured that the British Army of 1914 was probably as best prepared for conflict as any but bridging equipment and the Corps was arguably not prepared for the nature and duration of what was to follow for the next 4 years.

Rapid expansion of course followed, at its peak, the Corps was over a quarter of a million men.

It was during this period that it became obvious that time consuming construction bridging was impractical and the majority of gaps to be crossed were not suited to floating or pontoon bridges. Thus came to the fore, equipment bridging; stock spans, canal bridges, the Hopkins Bridge and the Inglis Bridge (the forerunner of the Bailey Bridge) were all developed during this period.

With the introduction of the tank, the need for assault bridging also became apparent and rapid advances were also made in this area.

Europe

One might not immediately envisage static trench warfare having a great deal of need for bridging, the majority of engineer tasks were fortification, infrastructure, tunnelling and the myriad of other duties that the Royal Engineers had, let’s not forget the Royal Engineers were the birthplace of the modern RAF, REME and Signals.

For an extensive look at the Royal Engineers in the Great War click here

Bridging a once Boche trench - Bridging a trench, Western Front, during World War I. British soldiers, possibly Royal Engineers, setting bridges across an abandoned German trench. The bridges seem to be pre-fabricated sections and the soldiers are using spades to bed the sections into the trench edge - The derogatory term for a German, 'Boche' or 'Bosch', originates from the French slang 'alboche', which was two words 'Allemand' (German) and 'caboche' (pate, head) put together.- National Library of Scotland

During the initial German advance and retreat, as positions stabilised, there were a number of bridging operations including the famous Pont des Anglais. The crossing over the River Aigne was called the Pont Saint Waast and this was destroyed by German forces as they retreated on September 13^th 1914.

During the following days a number of pontoon bridges were constructed and the main crossing at Sousson finished on the 1^st of October. The bridge in question was designed and constructed under the supervision of the commander of 9 Field Company, consisting of locally available materials including floorboards from the local houses!

The bridge was subsequently named the Pont des Anglais, a name which is still used today.

The 1933 account of Military Operations in France and Belgium 1914 written by Brigadier-General Sir James E. Edmonds described the efforts of the bridge builders as such;

A wooden girder bridge to replace the broken span of the existing bridge was begun at Soissons on the 1st October and completed on the 9th. It was then handed over to the French, as the British were leaving the locality; it was known hereafter as the “Pont des Anglais,” (The permanent bridge built after the war perpetuates the name.) and was in use continuously until destroyed in the German offensive in 1918. In addition to all these bridges, barges equipped with roadway were prepared, ready to be swung instantly across the river to form additional bridges if required.

This bald enumeration, however, gives but a slight idea of the strain borne by the engineers during the weeks that the Army was on the Aisne. Nearly all of the bridges were within known range of the German guns; most of them were constructed, and at different times all of them repaired, under fire. At Vailly, where a permanent bridge was much needed, the German shells prevented even attempts to build one. The rise of the water necessitated frequent changes and modifications of level; and the incessant rain made the task of keeping the approaches in order most difficult and trying. Yet the engineers contrived not only to maintain the bridges, but to make bridgeheads and to entrench positions against the possibility of a retreat. In the course of the operations on the Aisne, the divisional Field Companies R.E. which had done the work were reinforced by the 1st and 2nd Bridging Trains, and by the 20th and 42nd Fortress Companies from the Line of Communications; but even with this assistance the burden of work thrown upon them was very heavy.

It was also reported that the Chief Engineer of III Corps was seen hanging on a rope at one stage, such was the maximum effort required.

Another crossing point is shown in the image below.

The bridge over the River Aisne where the British 2nd Division crossed, September 1914. Image Credit: Imperial War Museum

The Somme offensive of 1916/7 was the next major phase in bridging operations; the majority of the initial operations were confined to improving lines of communication to enable the huge volume of stores to be brought forward in preparation.

During the offensive the Germans commenced a withdrawal back to the Hindenburg Line and during their movements destroyed all the bridges across the Somme and a number of canal bridges.

Click here for a map.

The Field Companies from 1 Division were given the job and despite all stores having to be carried forward by horse because of the state of the roads would not support trucks construction commenced in short order. 6 heavy bridges were completed ahead of schedule.

Although equipment bridging was not carried out on the same scale as in WWII there were still over 60 bridges completed any many were successively improved to take extra weight, especially with the advent of the tank.

The final stages of the war, where battles were less static, saw the pace of bridging activity markedly increase; over 300 heavy equipment bridges and 200 timber bridges had been constructed.

The final advance of 1918 saw increasing use of the new Inglis Bridge and in particular the ability to rapidly erect and dismantle this type of bridge provided a glimpse into the future and the Bailey Bridge.

Although the advance saw many bridging operations carried out by British, Canadian, New Zealand and other Commonwealth nations engineers one of particular note was the crossing of the Canal du Nord in October 1918 by New Zealand and British engineers at the Hermies-Havrincourt Road.

Designed to link the Canal de La Somme at Peronne and Canal de La Sensée, Canal du Nord was still under construction at the outbreak of hostilities and the Germans would use much of the uncompleted works as part of their defences, some parts were flooded and others were not.

The image below shows an RE bridging party on the canal near Moeuvres in September 1918.

Royal Engineers bridging the Canal du Nord near Moeuvres, 28 September 1918. Image Credit: Imperial War Museum (Q 9344)

The most notable bridge though was elsewhere on the canal, the Hermies to Havrincourt Road goes over a deep cut. The image below shows the site before the arch bridge was destroyed, although later pictures show the canal bed was devoid of water and the actual bridging site was a little South as clear in the images later in this post.

Canal du NordCanal du Nord - Destroyed Bridge - IWM Q56827

There are a couple of good images of the cutting and bridge here

The final offensive needed the bridge across the canal at this location and the combined New Zealand and British force of engineers used large Hopkins bridge, which at the time was the longest bridge available. The slight problem was that the bridge had a maximum span of 120feet and the gap was just over 180ft, 85ft in the air. Building piers was out of the question so two bridges were joined, something that was easier said than done.

Working in two shifts the engineers constructed wooden towers on the East side to pull the bridge over the gap from the West side using cables and ropes that would also support the free floating bridge. A 20 tonne counter weight was also used to lessen the strain on the ropes and towers but because the weight was greater than normal because of the extended span there were several during the construction. Despite these problems the bridge was ready for trafficking only a few days after construction.

The erection of the Havrincourt Bridge over the Canal du Nord, 3rd October 1918 (Reference Number: MS 2008/45, Personal album of Robert Ronayne, Auckland War Memorial Museum Library, New Zealand)

Canal du Nord - Inglis Bridge - http://archives.govt.nz/

The 'Tunnelers Bridge' - The New Zealand Electronix Text Centre - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/WH1-Fran-fig-WH1-FranP077b.html

On the site today are a pair of one way bridges.

Canal du Nord Today

The bridging party consisted of 14 officers and 310 men from the New Zealand Tunnelling Company, 565 and 577 Army Troop Companies Royal Engineers.

There is a dedicated website for the New Zealand Tunnelling Company that is well worth a visit, click here

The Middle East

Whilst it is easy to forget anywhere but North West Europe when discussing WWI it should be remembered that the conflict touched many other parts of the world and the need for bridging was just as apparent. Italy, Palestine, Egypt and Iraq all saw significant bridging operations.

An interesting one was a steel girder bridge over the River Jordan, actually completed just after the Armistice and called the Allenby Bridge, but which saw daily use until it was destroyed in 1946, it was however replaced with a Bailey Bridge until repaired.

Opening of the Allenby Bridge 1918The Allenby Bridge destroyed in 1946

View of the Allenby Bridge carrying the main road from Palestine to Trans-Jordan following an attack by Jewish saboteurs during the night of 16-17 June 1946. In the background can be seen a Bailey Bridge put up by sappers of the 42nd Indian Field Company Engineers within 52 hours of the attack on the main bridge.© IWM (E 31950)

The repaired bridge was destroyed, properly this time, in 1967 by Jordanian engineers during the 6 Days War.

Many bridges were built in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) up and down the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.

The boat bridge across the River Euphrates at Nasiriya, which linked the British military camps established on both sides of the river. © IWM (Q 34379)A British artillery battery crossing a pontoon bridge over the River Diyala near Baghdad in March 1917. This bridge was completed by the 71st Field Company, Royal Engineers, at 11am on 10 March, following a night river crossing by the 5th Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment, 88th Field Company, Royal Engineers, and the 8th Welch Pioneers to secure a bridgehead on the Turkish held side of the river. © IWM (Q 25183)

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – Early Days

Think Defence — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:20:45 +0000

Anything to do with ancient China always seems to elicit a great deal of discussion and debate so the historical reference points for the emergence of military bridging are varied but most historians see China as the first recorded place that military bridging used pontoon bridges several hundred years BC

These were commonly called a bridge of boats or pontoon bridges.

Greece and Rome

Although not strictly British it is useful to set the scene.

A large pontoon bridge was constructed in 480BC for Xerxes the Great of Persia across the Hellespont, or Dardanelles in modern terminology, that separated Asia from Europe. The first bridge was made of papyrus and flax; unsurprisingly it was destroyed in a storm to which Xerxes entirely sane reaction was to have the engineers beheaded and the water flogged.

A later pontoon bridge was sturdier, the Greek writer Herodotus wrote;

and meanwhile other chief-constructors proceeded to make the bridges; and thus they made them: They put together fifty-oared galleys and triremes, three hundred and sixty to be under the bridge towards the Euxine Sea, and three hundred and fourteen to be under the other, the vessels lying in the direction of the stream of the Hellespont (though crosswise in respect to the Pontus), to support the tension of the ropes. They placed them together thus, and let down very large anchors, those on the one side towards the Pontus because of the winds which blow from within outwards, and on the other side, towards the West and the Egean, because of the South-East and South Winds. They left also an opening for a passage through, so that any who wished might be able to sail into the Pontus with small vessels, and also from the Pontus outwards. Having thus done, they proceeded to stretch tight the ropes, straining them with wooden windlasses, not now appointing the two kinds of rope to be used apart from one another, but assigning to each bridge two ropes of white flax and four of the papyrus ropes. The thickness and beauty of make was the same for both, but the flaxen ropes were heavier in proportion, and of this rope a cubit weighed one talent. When the passage was bridged over, they sawed up logs of wood, and making them equal in length to the breadth of the bridge they laid them above the stretched ropes, and having set them thus in order they again fastened them above. When this was done, they carried on brushwood, and having set the brushwood also in place, they carried on to it earth; and when they had stamped down the earth firmly, they built a barrier along on each side, so that the baggage-animals and horses might not be frightened by looking out over the sea.

The Romans were great military engineers and many of their military constructions stand to this day.

During the First Dacian War in 200AD Roman engineers constructed a large pontoon bridge over the Danube

Roman Pontoon Bridge

This was somewhat overshadowed by the famous Trajan Bridge which for more than a thousand years was the longest arch bridge in the world.

Great Britain

One of the earliest instances of military bridging in the UK was King Edward 1’s attempt at crossing the Menai Straits in Wales, although it was hardly an auspicious start. In 1277 in order to quell a Welsh rebellion King Edward I sent a force of 2,000 soldiers to capture Anglesey, thus depriving the opposing forces of much of their food supply and to outflank defending forces at Conwy.

The Warden of the Cinque Ports (Stephen de Pencaster) was given the construction task and used carpenters and shipwrights from his area to create the bridge, comprising a number of interlinked boats, commonly called a ‘bridge of boats’.

Unfortunately these were too heavy to be conveyed by the naval force and a second set had to be constructed at Chester.

Bridge of Boats

Despite the bridge being perfectly adequate, poor communication and coordination meant the English forces crossed at exactly the wrong moment and were caught between a rising tide and the opposing forces with obvious results.

Walter of Guisborough wrote;

When they had reached the foot of the mountain and, after a time, came to a place at some distance from the bridge, the tide came in with a great flow, so that they were unable to get back to the bridge for the debt of water. The Welsh came from the high mountains and attacked them, and in fear and trepidation, for the great number of the enemy, our men preferred to face the sea than the enemy. They went into the sea but, heavily laden with arms, they were instantly drowned.

Edward also made use of military bridge builders in Scotland, this time to greater effect.

Commissioning Kings Engineer (Magister Richard) to create a set of portable bridges at Kings Lynn in Norfolk, he went on to use them to cross the River Forth, neatly bypassing the heavily defended Stirling Bridge.

The next major milestone in UK military bridging is the establishment of the Board of Ordnance in 1597 and subsequently Ordnance Trains which although were predominantly concerned with artillery had a significant combat engineering element. Ordnance Trains were raised only in times of war and built on a small full time contingent.

Overseas Adventures

In 1704 British and Dutch forces captured Gibraltar and the territory was granted to the UK in perpetuity in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1714. Gibraltar and other overseas territories needed a larger contingent of engineers to develop infrastructure and fortifications and although not necessarily bridging related it is important to understand the source of an expansion of military engineering.

The regular Corps of Engineers was formed under a Royal Warrant on May 26^th 1716, although it only consisted of a handful of people without military rank. This split the artillery and engineering functions that had been combined in the original ordnance trains.

In 1757 the members of the Corps were granted military rank, commissioned by the King.

In 1787, another royal warrant was issued, this time conferring the title Royal.

We are further pleased to direct that Our said Corps of Royal Engineers shall rank in Our Army with Our Royal Regiment of Artillery, and whenever there shall be occasion for them to take post with any other corps of Our Army the post of the Corps of Royal Engineers shall be on the right with the Royal Regiment of Artillery, according to the respective dates of the commissions of the officers belonging to the Royal Regiment of Artillery and Corps of Royal Engineers. And for so doing this shall be, as well unto you as unto all other officers and ministers herein concerned, a sufficient warrant.

After using a number of improvised pontoon bridges in India General Sir Arthur Wellesley returned to Europe to start his long series of dust ups with the French.

A significant bridging effort in 1812 was over the River Tagus is Spain, the original Roman bridge was funnily enough called the Trajan Bridge (see above) and was about 190m long, constructed of granite without the use of mortar. The bridge was strategically vital and alternatives such as fords were not available. In 1809, Lord Wellington (as he was now known) ordered the bridge destroyed to impede French freedom of movement and although the explosive demolition was not entirely successful a single arch collapsed some time later, the locals being somewhat less than impressed, especially because although it was a British military commanded operation, the actual forces involved were Portuguese.

As the tides of war changed, in April 1812, Wellington instructed Lieutenant Colonel Sturgeon to effect a repair. Sturgeon was not an officer of the Corps of Engineers but instead the Royal Staff Corps. The design was to create a suspension bridge, spanning the destroyed arch. Construction took place away from the bridge site and transported using wagons. Once on site ropes were strung across the gap and pulled tight, onto these the rolled up bridge was unfurled and secured.

The superb website Napoleon Series quotes from General Leith Hay, commander of the 5^th Division

The arch destroyed was of so extensive a span, and the parapet of the bridge so great a height from the bed of the river, that no repair by using timber was practicable; the gap to be passed over being ninety feet wide, and the height of the bridge, one hundred and eighty from the bed of the river… The work was commenced by placing two beams on supporters four feet high and ninety feet asunder. These were secured to the side and end walls of the building by braces and tackles, to prevent their approximating by the straining of the ropes. Eighteen cables were then stretched round them, extending from end to end; eight pieces of timber, six inches square, at equal distances, were placed upon the ropes, with notches, one foot asunder, cut on their surface to secure them; these notches were seared with hot irons to prevent the ropes from chafing. The cables were then lashed to the beams; they were netted together by rope-yarn, and chains of sleepers were bolted and laid on the network, and secured to the two beams originally placed at the extremities of the work. Planks were cut and prepared for being laid across, bored at the ends so as receive a line destined to secure them to the sleepers and to each other… The next point was to prepare the edge of the fractured part of the bridge, and to cut channels in the masonry for the reception of the purchases. When arrived on the spot, four strong ropes were stretched from side to side, as conductors, for passing the cable-bridge across, the beam on the south side having been previously sunk into the masonry; the whole was then stretched by windlass erected on the opposite pier, by which means it was so tightly drawn as to prevent any great sinking, or the vibration which might render it insecure and dangerous, even when heavy weights were passed over

To understand the importance of this and a subsequent destruction of the French pontoon bridge at Almaraz these two simple acts reduced the march distance for Wellington’s forces by 250km and added 650km for the French.

The bridge was illustrated in the Royal Engineers Journal and a model can be seen in the Spanish Army Museum

Tagus Bridge - Image Credit http://www.napoleon-series.org/

Once completed, a column of siege artillery was able to cross the Tagus with ease on their way to Salamanca.

As Wellington prevailed in Spain he pushed into France.

In order to blockade Bayonne on his way to Toulouse, the River Adour would need to be crossed. Selecting the crossing site was compounded by the presence of French garrison forces so in order to provide some protection a site downstream was chosen, this however, meant the gap was larger (nearly 275m) and subject to strong tidal fluctuations.

Two Corps of Engineers officers (Lieutenant Colonel Elphinstone and Lieutenant Colonel Burgoyne) and one from the Royal Service Corps (Lieutenant Colonel Sturgeon, again) were tasked with this significant challenge. Lieutenant Colonel Burgoyne would later go on to achieve the rank of Field Marshal and incidentally, have a building (The Burgoyne Study Centre) named after him at the Royal School of Military Engineering in Chatham.

Due to the size of the gap and extreme tidal fluctuation it was obvious that conventional pontoons or a suspension bridge would not be up to the job so they decided on a solution that used local coastal vessels called chasse matrees. These were large boats, some in excess of 15m long. 48 boats were ‘hired’ and the plan called for them to be moored at 10 to 12 metre centres with the bridging surface combining timber planks. Because of the large quantity of timber that would be needed Lieutenant Colonel Sturgeon suggested using a similar technique to that employed by him in the construction of his bridge over the Tagus in Spain, using ropes to provide a surface onto which a reduced number of planks could be placed.

The cables were paid out towards the shore from the two centre boats and secured using weights (18 pounder cannons) and capstans anchored into the ground.

Under a Royal Navy escort the flotilla of boats set sail on the 22^nd of February 1812.

Because of the fast flowing river this was easier said than done and the effort to establish the bridge was considerable, a number of boats were lost to weather and tide, only 34 making it to the bridge site. A bridgehead was also established on the far bank and had to fight off a strong attack from the garrison.

The Subaltern by George Robert Gleig, published in 1825, describes the operation in some detail but the most interesting segment is the description of anchors for the pontoon boats.

I need not add, that no economy was exercised in the matter of anchors

Working through the night the bridge was quickly finished and by noon the next day was being trafficked by troops, wagons and artillery.

The historian Napier said of the bridge;

A stupendous undertaking which must always rank amongst the prodigies of war

What came next can be read here

Wellington took a great deal of interest in military bridging and fully realising the strategic advantages it could deliver, much more attention was therefore given to the subject.

Permanent Bridging Trains were introduced and the Royal Engineer Establishment created. In 1812 a Royal Warrant established a permanent training facility at Chatham for the instruction of Corps of Military Artificers (later Corps of Sappers and Miners) and Royal Engineers.

During the Peninsula Wars Wellington also realised that bridging equipment needed to be highly mobile, took the horses from the Artillery Train and gave them to the engineers. Writing in his despatches he wrote;

We have been sadly delayed by the movements of our bridge, without which it is obvious that we can do nothing, the equipment is quite new and has marched only from Abrantes but there has already been much breakage and I understand the carriages are shamefully bad. I shall have sad work for this bridge throughout the campaign and yet we can do nothing without it.

The end of the Napoleonic Wars ushered in nearly 50 years of European peace but British forces were engaged overseas in India for example.

In 1839 during the advance in Afghanistan a very long span pontoon bridge was constructed at Bukkur, now in Pakistan.

Good images and maps of present day Bukkur Island here and here

Bukkur is a fortified island on the Indus, between Sukkur and Itoree and a natural crossing point. The bridge itself consisted of two spans, one 200m long and the other over 300m, using over 90 boats and 14 days to construct. Although the high speed of the river its rocky banks caused problems the bridge allowed several thousand troops and equipment to cross.

The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register (May to August 1839) records events around the crossing including this gem;

PS, the bridge of boats has just given way, and several camels have been carried off, no one knows where

A further detailed account can be read here

Later in the century bridging continued to play an important role in Abyssinia, the Crimea, India, West and Southern Africa

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

Think Defence — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:20:11 +0000

Any military commander will always strive for freedom of movement and the opposing commander will equally strive to deny that freedom.

Obstacles may be natural or man-made.

Mobility and counter mobility is the core role of military engineers.

Breaching those gaps, providing the force with that essential mobility and freedom of movement is as old as warfare but as speeds of movement increased, the geographic span of operations equally enlarged and the increasing weight of the machinery of war since the turn of the century military bridging has had to rapidly evolve; faster to deploy, longer and greater load bearing are constant drivers for innovation and ingenuity.

The British Corps of Royal Engineers and associated civilian engineers have been at the forefront, the iconic Bailey Bridge is of course a symbol of this but before and since have been a number of equally revolutionary equipment’s and techniques that have advanced the art, and it is an art.

We might argue the same for many areas of military endeavour but bridging or gap crossing is without a true stand out and yet little exists online to celebrate this.

In understanding the background we need to look at a few underlying issues that govern the subject.

What is different between a military and civilian bridge?

The main difference is speed of construction, commanders do not want to wait for bridges that will last a century to be built; time is always precious. So it speed that fundamentally governs the design and operation of military bridging. Detailed site preparations and surveys are unlikely to be possible; the military engineer but carry out a short survey and simply get on with it.

There are always exceptions of course; a number of WWII Bailey bridges are still in regular use today and the military bridges constructed by Roman engineers would hardly be characterised as rush jobs!

Although they go hand in hand and must be mastered by military engineers, mobility and counter mobility are fundamentally different. For mobility to be maintained; roads, bridges and railways must be constructed or those that are already there and damaged by deliberate actions or natural events must be repaired. Counter mobility seeks to deny mobility to enemy forces by destroying that infrastructure, laying mines or demolishing bridges for example.

So it is mobility that the military bridge will improve or enable.

Military bridging is a broad term and can be broken down into a number of equipment sub categories;

Construction Bridging; sometimes called expedient bridging or non equipment bridging will use locally available materials such as timber, stone or other engineering stores such as rope, cable or a block and tackle to create the bridge. Despite the full range of equipment and assault bridging equipment now available this is a core Sapper skill and still taught today.

Equipment Bridging; this uses specially designed and manufactured equipment, the Bailey Bridge is a good example of equipment bridging. The category can be subdivided into floating equipment and dry equipment. Recent terminology describes these as wet or dry support bridges.

Assault Bridging; a relatively new term that describes specialist equipment bridging equipment used in the direct fire zone, more often than not supporting armoured vehicles in the assault phase

These are joined by three terms that define how and where they are used;

Close support Bridging (CSB) assets are mechanically launched bridges that enable gap crossing in the combat zone, with crews protected by armour, assault bridging in the categories above.

General Support Bridging (GSB) and Logistic Support Bridging (LSB) are a mix of mechanically and hand launched equipment with no armour protection and generally used in different locations or phases of an operation. Logistic Support Bridging usually has greater spans and load bearing capacity, used on lines of communication to provide new, replacement or greater capacity bridges.

Infantry bridging are somewhat the odd one out but no less important.

Factors influencing the design of military bridging, especially the equipment and assault type include;

Cost and Ease of Production; if a bridge is to be available at the point of demand it must first be manufactured and purchased from the manufacturer. If it is so complex and difficult to produce it is quite simply, unlikely to be obtained and therefore available. Ease of production and its likely big brother, cost, is therefore a fundamental consideration.

Reliability and Maintainability; bridging equipment will need to be used and reused several times over several years. It must be easily maintained or have minimal maintenance requirements both when it is installed and when it is not being used. It must also be reliable once installed, carrying the desired load until it is no longer needed.

Flexibility; if a bridge can be used for differing gaps then this flexibility will provide many advantages, the Bailey Bridge was so flexible and adaptable it was used for floating bridges, suspension bridges and a full range of spans. The bridge must also be installed in a wide range of locations, bank conditions such as load bearing and slopes will vary, for example.

Speed of Installation; as soon a bridge is built it will be used, armoured vehicles or men and material queuing up waiting for a bridge to be opened is never a good thing so the ability to build a bridge at speed and recover it with equal rapidity is a major factor.

Resistance to Environmental Factors; military bridges will be used in all climates and must be able to work in ice, rain or desert conditions and resistance to NBC agents is a recent addition to the list.

Transportability; equipment bridges need to be transported to site and therefore use the transport equipment available to the force using it. Transportability over long distances is also an increasingly important consideration given the general expeditionary nature of recent and likely future operations.

Load Bearing; finally, a bridge must be able to traffic whatever equipment is held by the force using it, whether that is a Land Rover or heavy Equipment Transporter carrying a Challenge 2 main battle tank. Load bearing will also include related factors such as load distribution, crossing speeds, wind loading and allowable deflection.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

UK Military Bridging – Introduction

Think Defence — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:19:35 +0000

One of the great unsung success stories of British military endeavour is that of gap crossing, or perhaps more commonly known as military bridging.

In the next series of posts I am going to shine a light on this little known subject, concentrating on UK aspects but touching on other nations where I think it adds value.

This is a labour of love, hope you enjoy the series as it builds;

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

An introduction to the series

A look at terminology and general requirements

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90 and REBS)

BR90, today’s bridging system and the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

Bridging support equipment

A summary of the series

A Note on Sources

The posts have liberal hotlinks that readers can use for additional reading and in some cases these links will have provided inspiration and factual information for the main post, acknowledgement is assumed in these cases.

In addition, a number of primary sources have been used which will be detailed in the individual posts.

Although the internet is a superb research tool (even Wikipedia) there is no substitute for an old fashioned cracking read, in this case, One More River to Cross written by JH Joiner. Don’t go to Amazon, if you are interested in this subject and want to know more beyond this series of posts pop over to the Sapper Shop to buy the book and visit the RE Museum in Brompton.

The Changing Fortune of Pill Boxes

DaveT — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:47:45 +0000

Thought I would drag an article out of the archives and republish/recycle, because it’s such a good one i.e. not from me!

Pillboxes are the iconic symbol of WW2 anti-invasion defences so I thought a post on their use, with reference to Suffolk, during WW2 may be of interest. As I said in my earlier post, up to May 1940, virtually no defences had been built in Britain. After events in France, the biggest military engineering programme in Britain’s history began with defences constructed along the entire coast as well as inland, with up to 28,000 pillboxes being constructed during the war.

The density of construction of pillboxes in Eastern Command was one of the highest in the country – in this command the number per mile of beach was 11 (7.8 in Northern Command, 1.8 in Scottish Command, 3.2 in Southern Command and 2 in Western Command). In Eastern Command this represented a total of 5,054 pillboxes completed as at Oct 1940 with a further 765 projected.

Pillboxes where usually constructed with two pouring of concrete. The first pouring was up to the base of the embrasures. Precast embrasures were then added along with the seconded pouring. The concrete was reinforced with steel rods. Due to a shortage of timber, bricks or concrete blocks were often used as shuttering. This has led to a common misunderstanding that many pillboxes were only built of brick! Where the shuttering has been removed, the two pouring of concrete often show up as a fault line.

Pillbox for machine gun (Hopton) – note brick shuttering and precast embrasures.

Infantry Pillbox (Beccles)- note fault line at embrasure level. The lower embrasure was for the Boys anti-tank rifle.

In towns camouflage was often provided by trying to make pillboxes look like petrol stations, shops etc.

Infantry pillbox (Felixstowe) - disguised as a petrol pump!

In the countryside camouflage was provided by camouflage pattern paint, camouflage nets or making them blend in with surroundings by e.g. by disguising them as haystacks. Many had turf laid on the roof to try and hide them from aerial observation. A letter from the General Staff, 55^th Div (front line Division, Suffolk, 1940) to its Brigade Commanders notes that many pillboxes had been painted too brightly to fit in with surroundings! In one example at Minsmere, a pillbox has been constructed inside 13^th century chapel remains in order to try and hide it. However the chapel remains are sited on a high point dominating the surrounding low lying marshes and would surely have been the first place any invading German troops would have suspected an infantry post to be located!

Traces of camouflage paint around the embrasure can be seen on this pillbox at Knodishall Whin

Pillbox built into 13th century Chapel, Minsmere

Not surprisingly such a rapid construction programme was not without problems. From the records of the time it would appear many pillboxes were constructed without the supervision of the Royal Engineers – both in the location and materials used in construction. Lt. Col Ovey D.S.O (Commander 7^th Bttn Suffolk Home Guard) notes that in July 1940, “Pillboxes began to spring up mainly at road junctions and crossroads often in most visible and vulnerable positions…………I have no idea who was responsible for their sighting as no reference was ever made to the local Home Guard Commanders or as far as I know to any regular military Commander”.

Maj Gen Majendie, Commander 55^th Div notes(Aug 1940): “ I am very much afraid we have gone pill-box mad, and losing all sense of proportion in siting defences…..The countryside is covered with pill-boxes, many of which will never be occupied, many could never serve any useful purpose, and many face the wrong way”. This may have well been in response to a visit to Eastern Command by Gen Brooke in July , in which he noted in his diary his concern about the amount of resources committed in constructing a rear defence line comprising of pillboxes and anti-tank ditches (the Corps Line) and the fact there would never be sufficient Field Forces to man the line. Maj Gen Majendie does state that this state of affairs had come about “due to haste and the desire to get something done quickly”.

This pillbox (Ipswich) was built with its entrance facing the direction the enemy would approach from so another blast wall entrance was added to correct this.

Plan of pillbox with additional blast wall entrance added

The reliance on pillboxes in the summer of 1940 was undoubtedly due to the lack of mobility and weapons following Dunkirk when much equipment was abandoned or destroyed. Pillboxes did provide some protection to the few anti-tank guns available and troops. However with the replacement of Gen Ironside with Gen. Brooke such static defences no longer fitted in with a more mobile defence based on counter attack . Brooke envisaged a light line of defence along the beaches to hamper any landing with mobile counter attack forces held nearby to attack any landings before they became established. Future pillbox construction was now limited to stop-lines and nodal points as had already been notified.

The pillbox had one serious flaw in a defence based around mutually supporting section posts with all round fields of fire. With a section post usually comprising of six men, only two at a time could fire in any given direction (unless in the unlikely event that the post was under attack from all directions at once) with the rest of the garrison taking no part in the defence. They were also vulnerable to isolation by smoke and gas. Instructions were now issued that if pillboxes were still to form part of a section post they were to be regarded as a keep where the garrison could take cover if under air attack. As soon as the attack was over or the enemy troops appeared d the garrison was to leave the pillbox and fight in trenches sited for all round defence, the key point that the entire section’s weapons could be fired in any one direction. The light machine gun could fire from the pillbox if it could carry out its role otherwise it should come out to a prepared position.

Having said all this, a memo from GHQ dated October 1940 noted that “For defence against invasion concrete works often have many advantages over field works. Many defences are in places much exposed to the weather; others must be left ready for occupation in places where few or no troops are normally stationed, and where maintenance is consequently difficult. Many have to be erected near or among buildings, where a concrete structure is less conspicuous and more easily camouflaged than an earthwork”“

In 1941 a policy was put in place to deny to the enemy redundant pillboxes. This was to be achieved by filling pillboxes with barbed wire and blocking up loopholes. In Suffolk, 15^th Div issued instructions that redundant pillboxes in forward areas were to be wired up with booby traps placed inside – these were to be marked with a white cross. In rear areas they were to be wired up with dummy booby traps placed inside and marked with a red cross. If cement was available loopholes were to be blocked. This policy did not apply to stop lines and nodal points were the defences were to be maintained.

In October 1941 instructions were issued from GHQ to strengthen pillboxes still in use. This was to be achieved by increasing the thickness of the wall facing the enemy to 6 ft thick and the other sides to 3ft 6in. The number of loopholes were to be reduced to reduce the chance of enemy rounds entering through them – the so called ““sieve” type pillbox is nothing but a deathtrap”. This policy came about after trials with pillbox designs which could withstand a six pounder and the requirement that they should be proof against the German 88mm or a 250 kilo bomb. This was a marked departure from the view of the memo of October 1940 already quoted above which noted “pill-boxes now erected will withstand the weapons most likely to be brought against them [basically it was not envisaged that heavy guns could be landed either by air or sea in the first stage of invasion] and we see no reason which would make a change in design worthwhile at the moment”.

A number of pillboxes in Suffolk were detailed for strengthening but the only evidence that this was carried out is to be found at Bawdsey. But many pillboxes do have some embrasures blocked.

Type 24, Bawdsey with a reinforced brick skirt filled with rubble up to embrasure level

This pillbox (Sizewell) has had a Turnbull mount for a light machine gun fitted and also two embrasures blocked.

By 1942 pillboxes had completely fallen out of favour. A letter (23^rd Feb 1942) from GHQ Home Forces to the Commands noted “all experience of modern warfare….points most strongly to the fact that the pillbox is not a suitable type of fortification for either coastal or nodal point defences”. The letter also noted that the Commander In Chief has directed that in future field defences would consist of well constructed and concealed earthworks. It was noted that many pillboxes occupied the best firing position – in this case they could remain part of the defence although alternative field works should be provided.

In conclusion, it would appear that pillboxes were constructed in a somewhat haphazard manor in order to ‘get the job done’. The concept of stop lines and concrete defences would seem to have given the impression that Britain’s defences had reverted to the linear line defence of the First War. However there is no evidence that I have seen to suggest that Eastern Command expected the Corps Line or any other stop line to be held in the manor of First War defences – the principal role was to delay the enemy until counter attack reserves could be brought forward. There is perhaps some contradiction in GHQ’s views in the worth of pillboxes given the amount of training from 1942 onwards that was devoted to overcoming similar German defences consisting of mutually supporting defences of pillboxes and earthworks. The US Intelligence Service certainly did not underestimate the value of permanent fortifications: “The Germans well understand that fortifications are truly offensive in character when their employment is based on the military maxim of economy of force. They cannot defend adequately at all points, but by the use of permanent fortifications to maintain an effective defense with a minimum of man power, they hope to keep the bulk of their force in reserve for offensive action”.

Platoon tactics in attacking a pillbox- Infantry Training Part VIII 1944

So if Britain’s pillboxes had ever been put to the test what would the outcome have been. Obviously we will never know, but the substantial causalities the US Forces experienced in assaulting the Siegfried Line in 1944/45 may give some clues. Like Britain’s defences it was constructed in haste, with often sub-standard material used and in late 1944 manned by an increasingly tired and material starved German Army.

German bunker on the Siegfried Line

References:

Infantry Training, 1937 – Supplement No 1 : Tactical Notes for Platoon Commanders, WO 1941

Infantry Training, Part VIII: Fieldcraft, Battle Drill, Section and Platoon Tactics, WO 1944

The Turn of The Tide, A Bryant, Collins 1957

55^th Div papers, TNA

GHQ papers, TNA

7^th Bttn HG papers, SRO

You may also be interested in my website:

pillboxes-suffolk.webeden.co.uk – a website on Suffolk’s anti-invasion defences in WW2

On Soft Ground

Think Defence — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:13:11 +0000

Continuing my quest to find the most obscure subjects to write about, the next in line is Trackway and Matting.

Vehicles

Soft ground obviously creates problems for all types of vehicles reducing mobility and access to key points or routes.

In the preparations for D Day and as a result of some very brave reconnaissance missions carried out by the Combined Operations Assault Pilotage Parties (COPPS) it was discovered that the intended landing beaches had large strips of very soft ‘blue clay’ that analysis showed would not support armoured vehicles and heavy trucks. Similar geology was to be found on Brancaster Bay in Norfolk so the team behind the 79th Armoured Division (Hobart’s funnies) set to work testing various solutions.

Soft Blue Clay at Brancaster

Out of this work came the Churchill Bobbin tank, a development of the crude device first deployed during the Dieppe raid.

Early Bobbin AVRE at Dieppe

Post Dieppe development

The early bobbin mat was made from coir matting reinforced with scaffolding pipe and whilst not particularly durable allowed the initial assault to press home its attack.

This design was refined in time for D Day and used a canvas track and several variations were ultimately employed;

AVRE with Bobbin Mk I and Mk II; a single spindle and 9ft 11in wide canvas mat, the Mk1 had moveable arms and the Mk2 fixed

AVRE with log carpet device; not used as much, consisting of 100 6inch diameter logs bound together with wire, the mat was unfurled by firing an explosive bolt which released the coiled mat

AVRE with Twin Bobbins; experimental only, designed to offer a choice of matting types

TLC Laying Device; the early types used at Dieppe

Churchill Carpet Device Type A

Track Laying Device

Churchill AVRE with Type B Mk1 Bobbin

After the initial assault they were replaced with Pierced Steel Plank (PSP) and Square Mesh Track (SMT)

The bobbin tanks were to prove invaluable on Gold Beach and within an hour of landing, they, and the other Hobart’s ‘funnies’ had created four safe transit lanes which allowed the assault and follow on forces to push on to their objectives.

Churchill AVRE with Type C Mk2 Bobbin

Assault Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE) equipped with the Type C Mk 2 Bobbin track laying device

After the war, most of these were taken out of service

In the early 1940,s Laird Anglesey manufactured a number of defence products including pontoons and trackway.

In 1960, MEXE in Dorset designed the modern trackway after extensive exercising in Germany showed that assault and logistics bridgeheads needed some form of ground stabilisation system to prevent vehicles getting bogged down. The ever fascinating British Pathe has a short clip here

Bridgeheads are obvious concentration points and in poor weather they would quickly be churned into impassible quagmires by tracked vehicles making use of the bridges. In conjunction with MEXE, Laird Anglesey developed the ubiquitous Class 30 Trackway and subsequently won manufacturing contract.

British Army personnel deploy a Class 30 Trackway portable roadway from a Bedford Mark 4 X 4 4-ton truck during Exercise CHECKERED FLAG ‘83. Image Source: Military Photos

In 1968, Mexe also outlined a requirement for a heavier version of the Class 30 product and the Class 60 was developed, trialled and placed into production soon after.

Class 60 Trackway was also extensively used for airfield bomb damage repair purposes and the RAF and Royal Engineers deployed large quantities to the strategic airfields in Germany.

Faun acquired Laird Anglesey in 1996 and continue to develop and promote trackway products.

A waterproof and winterised Case 721 BXT wheeled loader is used to deploy Class 30 trackway in support of amphibious landings, a specialised dispenser from Ulrich is used, the UK had in service 8 modified Case vehicles and 29 trackway dispensers.

Beach Operations

The Case 721′s are in the process of being replaced with JCB 436 eHT wheeled loading shovels to be designated the Medium Wheeled Tractor or medium wheelie under the ALC C Vehicle PFI.

MGMS Beach Dispenser on JCB436 Medium Wheeled Tractor

Class 30 has now been renamed the Medium Ground Mobility System (MGMS) and Class 70, Heavy Ground Mobility System (HGMS). Heavier vehicles can use the trackway beyond its classification but this depends on the ground bearing capacity and number of passes before the trackway becomes unusable.

Continuous lengths can be joined using a joining strip, as below

MGMS

From Faun’s website

MGMS is a military specification system that facilitates the launch and recovery of a temporary roadway. A standard MGMS provides one 32m length of roadway as standard, further spools containing additional 32m lengths can be stored and deployed by the same FASTRACK.

MGMS can be deployed by a trained two-man team in less than 6 minutes. The aluminium TRACKWAY will withstand repeated loads of up to 30 tonnes (rated to MLC 30).

MGMS is suitable for tracked and wheeled vehicles up to 30 ton, and is chassis mounted by crane, MGMS can also be deployed by tractor to create a solid beach landing area, utilising the BEACH DISPENSER system.

MGMS provides access for these vehicles into areas where there are no roads, or roads have been damaged. MGMS enables boggy or marshy terrain to become accessible to medium sized vehicles.

MGMS is best suited to adverse terrain conditions, including snow, marsh, mud and sand in a variety of climates. MGMS can also be used as shelter and tent flooring. MGMS is in use worldwide in a variety of military engineering applications, including humanitarian and disaster relief.

Brochures here and here

HGMS

HGMS or Class 70 (was reclassified from Class 60) is the heavy duty version.

From the Faun website

HGMS is a military specification system that facilitates the launch and recovery of a temporary roadway. A standard HGMS provides one 50m length as standard, with the option of further 50m lengths to be carried by trailer.

HGMS is suitable for very heavy tracked and wheeled vehicles, including tanks and bridge transporters.

HGMS provides access for these vehicles into areas where there are no roads, or roads have been damaged. HGMS enables boggy or marshy terrain to become accessible to large, heavy vehicles.

HGMS can be deployed very quickly and efficiently. A trained two-man team can deploy 50m of roadway in less than 10 minutes over the toughest of terrain. The aluminium TRACKWAY will withstand repeated loads of up to 70 tonnes (rated to MLC 70).

HGMS features a unique ‘spool to spool’ transfer system that allows multiple 50m lengths of roadway to be laid quickly and easily. HGMS can be easily mounted to chassis with a PLS/DROPS hook lift system.

HGMS is best suited to adverse terrain conditions, including snow, marsh, mud and sand in a variety of climates. HGMS also provides rapid access to bridgeheads. HGMS is in use worldwide in a variety of military engineering applications, including humanitarian and disaster relief.

One of the ingenious features of the Faun trackway system is its ability to utilise any DROPS vehicle. Both the Trackrack (launch and recovery) and Spoolrack (additional lengths) can be carried and operated from any number of military trucks, the MGMS needs a 4×4 or 6×6 with a 4 tonne payload and the HGMS needs an 8×8 vehicle with a 13 tonne payload.

Brochures here and here

Class 30 and 70 trackway has achieved excellent export success and it has had a great deal of operational deployment spanning many years, a good example is Operation CHIKARA in 1980 in which trackway was used to recover an RAF Phantom that had overshot the runway at RAF Coningsby (Images from 60 Company Royal Engineers)

Class 30 Trackway also enjoyed considerable export success

Class 30 Trackway in Vietnam

Class 30 and Class 70 Trackway remains in service with the British Army

M3 Rig, Case 721 and Trackway, image from http://www.299association.com/

British design, innovation and the operational art at its best

A number of other solutions are in use including plastic matting and hexagonal section trackway, many of these coming from the events and leisure markets.

A lighter duty woven textile mat commonly called ‘mammoth mat’ from Robusta of Holland is often used to supplement the heavier duty aluminium sectional trackway for non heavy tracked vehicles and recovery applications.

Mammoth Mat from Robusta

Robusta have a selection of videos here and the fast deployment dispenser is below

Mammoth Mat Dispenser

Aircraft

Although the challenge is somewhat similar, expedient surface reinforcement for aircraft is sufficiently different to have created a range of unique solutions.

Rapid airfield construction in support of manoeuvres forces was essential and as aircraft grew heavier the need evolved, in addition, the enemy would seek to disrupt air operations by destroying your airfields. This also created a range of rapid repair needs and solutions.

Somerfeld Matting (patent details here) was used in the early stages WWII but was soon replaced with Square Mesh Tracking for use in Normandy and beyond. The French also created an innovative chevron pattern steel planking used for runway construction, pictured here and the US created the Pierced/Perforated Steel Planking (PSP) that is still in widespread use today. PSP is often called Marston Matting and during the war years over 800 million square feet was produced.

When the invasion plans for Normandy started to crystalise it was clear than a rapid expansion in the number of airfields would be needed, Operation Hadrian created 26 so called Advanced Landing Grounds on the south coast of England, all constructed to a common design and making extensive use of temporary matting and trackway.

PSP was suited to heavier loads but suffered from poorer drainage than some of the ‘chicken wire’ mesh type products like SMT and the US Rod and Bar Tracking

Much of this development was carried out in the UK and USA, particularly MEXE and the US Army Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg Mississippi. WES is still there today and have published a detailed account of landing mat developments here

A development of PSP was PAP, or pierced aluminium plank, this was used where logistic constraints meant a lighter version was needed but it was not as durable.

A good PSP gallery is here

It should also be noted that PSP was used well beyond aircraft applications as shown below

PSP at Iwo Jima

After the war, runway repair and expedient airfield construction was not neglected because it was widely assumed that airfields in western Europe would be very quickly attacked by Warsaw Pact air forces and of course, this is where the Harrier came from.

Since the cold war a bewildering number of solutions have evolved, everything from matting to soil stabilisation binding agents.

Key manufacturers are Faun and Rola Trac

This is a huge subject and I will be covering it in a separate post in the future but here are a few videos that demonstrate the range of products for both landing site construction and runway repair

null

An interesting project called JRAC from the US and Australia

More on this in a follow on post and don’t forget to click the links!

The Miracle that is HESCO

Think Defence — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:31:52 +0000

I am working on a post about another marvel of British combat engineering expertise, the HESCO Bastion.

As a taster

Gap Crossing with Sticks

Think Defence — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:11:15 +0000

A fascine is simply a bundle of brushwood lashed together to form a lightweight gap crossing. It can also be used to secure the banks of rivers or other construction uses but for the purposes of this post it is the former. They have been used since the early days of warfare , in the published work, a Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons by Francis Grose, published in 1786, he mentions their use a number of times.

Derived from the Roman word Fasci, it’s greatest advantage is that it an be constructed more or less on the spot, it is a simple device.

WWI

With the introduction of the first tanks in WWI there was an obvious need to breach gaps, trenches everywhere!

In 1917 the newly formed Tank Corps was started to look for the most effective terrain to test the new vehicles with as little shell holes and mud as possible. Cambrai was selected because of the terrain and after looking at the comparative cost of using artillery fire to destroy the barbed wire along the proposed attack route it was clear that the tank at least presented an economical alternative. GHQ, however, remained sceptical, pointing out that in some places the trenches were up to 18 feet wide, too wide for the tank to cross.

The answer was the ancient technology of the fascine.

Despite the Royal Tank Corp’s enthusiasm GHQ remained sceptical and concentrated on planning the Third Battle of Ypres, a battle where tanks were continually squandered in unsuitable ground. By mid September it was clear that the Third Battle of Ypres had been a failure and so reluctantly the Tank Corps’s Cambrai plan was approved.

The attack started on the 20th November using a carefully planned combined arms approach and initial advances were rapid. After the inconclusive results of using tanks at Ypres and by the French at a number of locations it was thought to be make or break for the new machines.

Despite being ultimately inconclusive, the Battle of Cambrai showed that the humble fascine could be used to support tanks and tanks were here to stay.

Prior to the battle 400 fascines were constructed, 11 feet in diameter and 10 foot long. Whilst the construction work was the responsibility of the Tank Corps Central Workshop the majority were made by the 51st Chinese Labour Company who were attached to the Workshop. The timber for the fascines came from the Forest of Crecy and special techniques were used to compress them, two tanks driving in opposite directions!

18 tanks were specifically modified to carry the fascine bundles.

Mark IV Tank with Fascine

Reinforcing the old adage of train hard fight easy, fascine launch drills were relentlessly practised, using a technique devised by none other than Colonel Fuller himself. The tanks worked in sections of three with the lead tank responsible for barbed wire clearance, stopping just short of the obstacle it would veer away to the side and provide covering fire for the two follow on vehicles that would be carrying the fascines. These would be dropped into the gap with the first tank following through. It was an effective drill and its elegant simplicity did much to restore the morale of the tank crews who had suffered in the mud of Ypres.

In a precursor to the great deceptions prior to D Day a wide variety of counter intelligence and deception activities were used to mask intentions and keep the massive build of forces secret. A little known aspect of the battle was the logistic preparations beforehand. Using a combination of light railways, trucks and of course horses, an enormous amount of material was moved forward with little knowledge of the German forces. The tanks themselves were moved from the Plateau rail head, located close to Central Workshops.

Mark IV Tanks with Fascines on the eve of Cambrai

In addition to combat roles, many tanks were converted to carry telegraph wire, grapples and bridging equipment. A total of 476 tanks were to cross the start line and there was no doubt that it was make or break for the tank. Brigadier General Ellese was even to lead the tanks into battle, a remarkable act of leadership.

The fascines did their job and armoured warfare was born.

WWII

D-Day was no different to any operation past, present or future.

The need to overcome the formidable field defences on the Atlantic wall was a primary concern, unless they could be neutralised no progress off the beaches could be made. The scale of challenge was huge, everything from mines to tank traps to barbed wire to concrete pill boxes would face the invading allied forces.

The combat engineering story of D-Day began years earlier, Royal Engineer surveyors started the task of looking at possible landing areas, drawing information from existing maps, photographs and even postcards. Hard facts about the geology, tide, obstacles, load bearing and topographic information were obtained by covert surveys. The work of the Combined Operations Pilotage Parties (COPP) was essential, these were comprised of Royal Navy midget submarines and Royal Engineers surveyors.

The beaches in Normandy were well defended with both passive means such as obstacles and mines but also more active means such as artillery and infantry.

The primary objective by the Royal Engineer Assault Regiments was simply to clear obstacles on the beach and allow exit points to be created. Getting off the beach, although perhaps an obvious statement, was vital to maintain momentum. Both these tasks would have to be carried out whatever the weather, under fire and against the changing tide.

The disastrous Dieppe raid in 1942 had resulted in many lessons learned, most notably the need for an effective armoured combat engineering capability. The North African experience also demonstrated the need for obstacle breaching, especially against anti tank mines.

The sheer breadth of obstacles, both man made and natural, that were likely to be encountered led to the need for an equally wide range of specialist vehicles. Pioneering the implementation effort was Major General Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart, commander of the newly formed 79th Armoured Division. The resultant vehicles were widely known as ‘Hobart’s Funnies’ although the task they were to carry out were far from amusing.

Major General Hobart was commissioned into the Royal Engineers, serving with the Bengal Sappers and Miners before transferring to the Royal Tank Corps. He was a forward thinker and in many ways revolutionary (he is often credited with being the originator of the Blitzkrieg concept!)

This outspoken and aggressive manner led to him being retired in 1939 so when the call came to command the 79th Armoured Division he was serving as a Corporal in the Home Guard. An influential Times article by Liddell Hart that was reportedly seen by Churchill saw him quickly returned to service.

It was thought that a normal divisional command would not be the best use of his considerable intellect, the requirement for a specialist force of combat engineering vehicles and specialist armour was exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from his insight.

Hobart was eventually tasked with training this specialist unit, later to become the 79th (experimental) Armoured Division. Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery was Hobart’s brother in law and this ensured that Hobart had sufficient resources. Eisenhower quickly appreciated the value of Hobart’s ‘menagerie’ and ensured that red tape was slashed and top priority given to him.

Breaking new ground at almost every turn the resultant vehicles, tactics and training were truly revolutionary. Uniquely, the 79th did not deploy as a single unit but were used by any unit that needed them, including the US and Commonwealth forces. Most of the vehicles were converted Churchill or Sherman tanks and although many of the concepts had been used before and Hobart was not an engineer, he undoubtedly perfected the overall concept.

The Churchill was the ideal donor vehicle because it was heavy, with a low centre of gravity, roomy interior and side escape hatches, and was therefore used for the majority of the funnies. The Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE) mounted a 290mm Petard spigot mortar which fired a demolition charge to approximately 80 yards, unfortunately the spigot mortar had to be reloaded from outside the vehicle. This was the basic donor vehicle for many of the variations.

Others included the Carrot and Double Onion demolition charge vehicles, VEB or Vehicle Emplaced Banagalore torpedo for breaching large barbed wire entanglements, Armoured Ramp Carrier (ARK) using a series of ramps to bridge gaps, assault bridges, the distinctive flail and bobbin ‘carpet layers’.

The slightly modified AVRE was also used to carry fascine bundles, not much had changed in the basic design since those used at Cambrai.

Churchill VII AVRE with Fascine

General Eisenhower wrote

Apart from the factor of tactical surprise, the comparatively light casualties which we sustained on all beaches, except OMAHA, were in large measure due to the success of the novel mechanical contrivances which we employed, and to the staggering moral and material effect of the mass of armor landed in the leading waves of the assault. It is doubtful if the assault forces could have firmly established themselves without the assistance of these weapons.

The fascine was part of that group of novel mechanical contrivances.

Churchil Fascine AVRE

Later in the war, fascines were used extensively in the campaign in Italy, notably in the crossing of the River Senio by New Zealand forces. In this instance modified Sherman’s joined the Churchill’s and a new type of fascine called a bolster was used, combining the traditional bundle with a steel lattice crib.

Sherman Fascine Carrier

The Modern Era

The greatest step forward in fascine development came from the Royal Engineers in the early eighties, instead of using bundles of brushwood the modern polythene pipe system was developed. Although the gaps can be bridged, these bridges are expensive and always in short supply. The area of operations of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) had numerous small gaps (streams, ditches etc) that would hamper the free movement of military vehicles.

The traditional brushwood bundles were approaching the limits of vehicle weight and as main battle tanks started pushing the 60 tonne plus mark something else was needed. In addition, wooden fascines have a tendency to float which makes them difficult to use in water filled obstacles.

Plastic water pipes had seen rapid introduction in civil works and they were seen as a promising alternative. After much testing and refinement by the Experimental Bridging Establishment and 32 Armoured Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers a version of the Centurion AVRE was introduced in conjunction with modified bundles of plastic pipe. The launch technique was to approach the target gap at speed, brake sharply at a marked point and fire the explosive bolts holding the travel hawsers so that the fascine, through inertia, rolled off the AVRE directly into the middle of the gap. When in position the AVRE would then travel over it to level the road surface for other vehicles to cross.

Chieftan AVRE Carrying Fascine

Chieftain AVRE Op Granby

This whole process would take less than 1 minute, essential for an assault crossing possibly under fire.

The new pipe based system is flexible enough to almost mould itself to the shape of the gap and will not impede water flow.

Pipe fascines continued to be used on the Chieftan AVRE and they saw action on Operation Granby, the liberation of Kuwait.

Today and Tomorrow

The Royal Engineer’s new engineering ‘tank’ is called the Trojan and this continues to use the plastic pipe fascine system, available from Pearson Engineering in a couple of sizes.

Trojan AVRE Tank Cuts Through the Afghanistan Desert

The all encompassing US FCS and UK FRES programmes did look at gap crossing and fascines in particular. Both programmes had a lot in common so the solutions proposed did have some commonality.

QinetiQ have the ‘Compact Gap Crossing’ systems as below

This uses a series of inflatable tubes to fill the gap. Obvious advantages are volume reduction when not deployed and crucially, they can be deployed without resorting the specialist vehicles. QinetiQ worked with RFD Beuafort (now Survivetec) to produce a working prototype that was successfully tested. JW Automarine have also produced similar devices.

QintetiQ Fascine

The principle advantage of these inflatable fascines is a reduction in bulk, vehicles can carry them in addition to their normal payload.

The status of these projects seem to ‘on hold’, they are ready for funds to appear, the inflatable fascine replacement is nothing new though, as this 1965 clip from British Pathe at MEXE shows.

One thing is certain, the fascine, one of the simplest pieces of military equipment, will continue to see action wherever the British Army goes.

Trojan AVRE in Helmand, Afghanistan

Can We Have Our Bridge Back Now Please

Think Defence — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:45:20 +0000

When I looked at military bridging in august last year the Mabey Logistic Support Bridge was used as an example of the semi permanent bridge types used by military engineers. The Barker Crossing and was erected by 3 Armoured Engineer Squadron, 22 Engineer Regiment, to reunite the two halves of Workington after the original bridge was destroyed. Named after PC Bill Barker, the policeman who lost his life during the collapse of the Northside Bridge, the footbridge used the Compact 200 from Mabey.

Preparations and Foundations

Preparation

Build

The completed Barker Crossing (image credit visitcumbria.com)

Posing for the Camera

3 Sqn , 22 Engineer Rgt Royal Engineers

Opening