A number of design drivers informed the requirement for the MGB, an increasing desire for air portability for example, but what made it possible was a rapid advance in aluminium alloy composition and aluminium welding techniques. Aluminium had of course been used extensively in aerospace industry but this was largely confined to cast or sheet parts, the new aluminium zinc magnesium alloys had excellent heat recovery properties and could therefore be welded. Different types of alloy were experimented with including Hiduminium 48, Impalco 720 and the French Superalumag 75 but none of these proved to be completely satisfactory so MEXE decided to create its own formulation, the DGFVE Specification 232. DGVFE Specification 232 contained 4% zinc, 2% magnesium and 0.35% manganese and the latest version is still widely used, DEFSTAN 95-31 contains 0.15% of copper to improve resistance to stress corrosion.

Not content with developing new material MEXE also pioneered the welding thick sections of aluminium alloy using the Metal Inert Gas (MIG) and Tungsten Inert gas (TIG) systems.

Design work for the MGB, a replacement for the HGB and EWBB except on lines of communication, started in the early sixties in response to a requirement for a hand built bridge that could carry a Class 60 load over a 100 foot span and be used on battle group supply routes, not in the direct fire zone.

At about the same time Sir Donald Bailey left to become the Dean of the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham and was replaced by Brigadier Jarret-Kerr (mentioned in the post on Bailey bridges). Leading the MGB design project was the former Royal Engineers Major, Eric Longbottom, who had helped to design the Mobile Bailey, the Heavy Girder Bridge and, yes, the MEXEFLOTE!

The original single storey proposal was changed to a double storey to enable greater flexibility and the design specification called for a Class 60 load in single storey construction at 30 feet span and the same Class 60 load at 100 feet span but in double storey construction. The concept is similar to the Small Box Girder bridge, that is two longitudinal girders with decking panels, that of course is where the similarity ends.

Basic Design and Features

One of the key aspects of the MGB’s success is its simplicity, this does not mean it was simple to design, far from it, but users have to contend with a mere 7 major components and a number of supplementary components like curbs and footways.

Only 4 of these major components are used in the single storey configuration.

MGB components

MGB components

The longitudinal girders are built connecting multiple top panels and deck units used to connect them. Bankseat beams connect the girders at either end of the bridge and ramps are hooked on to these. For a single storey bridge, that is all that is needed.

Adding the triangular shaped bottom panel, junction panel and end taper panels turn the bridge into a double storey configuration.

MGB Configuration

A great deal of thought was also given the speed of construction; there is even a special trailer where pallets can pulled onto the ground, the same roller bearings are used for single or double storey construction and when building the frame, jacks allow it to accommodate uneven ground.

Medium Girder Bridge Frame

A building frame is used to assemble and launch the sections

All bridges are launched ‘undecked’ and a launching nose used with long and double storey bridges in a similar manner the Small Box Girder bridge, this is a specially designed component available in light and heavy flavours.

Medium Girder Bridge Launching nose

MGB Launch Phases

The panels themselves are designed to be very quick to fit together and the outer jaw of the panel will fail first, thus any stress or fatigue failures will be detected early.

The MGB is shot through with clever design features.

MGB DROPS Pallet, courtesy Plain Military

MGB DROPS Pallet, courtesy Plain Military

MGB Pallet

In comparison with the Extra Widened Bailey Bridge, at a Class 60 100 foot span, the MGB weighs less than a third, needs just over a quarter of the manpower and less than 20% of the time.

To say the MGB was a significant advance is rather an understatement.

The MGB was fast, teams from the UK, Holland and the USA would compete for the Fairey Engineering Silver Cup at annual ‘Sapper Games’ and the World Record is (I think) just over 6 minutes for a 5 bay single storey by a Royal Engineer regiment, 4 Squadron 21 Engineer regiment I think, although the rules changed often and with modern safety regulations unlikely to ever be bettered even though it will provide hours of debate and discussion about rules, whether teams could use fewer (big strapping) men on the build to reduce timing etc.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What does the manual say?

30 minutes!

Wikipedia has some good pictures of the construction sequence, click here

The component parts on their pallets are air portable by Chinook and in some configurations a complete bridge without decking panels can be placed into position by air although there would still need to be time allowed to prepare the bridge site and finish it off with other components either driven or flown in separately.

The image below shows an Australian trial conducted in 2002 with a 22m single span MGB.

Australian MGB Heli Bridging trials

To summarise, the MGB can span 9.8m in single storey configuration, 31.1m in double storey, 76m using multi span equipment and 49.4m using the link reinforcement set, all built by hand and in very short times.

The MGM entered service in 1971.

Although the Medium Girder Bridge was officially replaced by the General Support Bridge it has been retained in use for training and has also been deployed on recent operations a number of times, it seems the Mean Green Bridge just won’t go away!

Mechanized Brigades Royal Engineers, 26 Engineer Regiment, are pictured putting their trade skills to the test by building a bridge at Swinton Barracks in Perham Down in the run up to their deployment to Afghanistan this year. Photographer: Cpl Paul Morrison RLC

Overbridge

In UK service, the modern form of the MGB is the medium Girder Overbridge, or MGOB.

An ‘overbridge’ is a method of reinforcing an existing bridge that might have been damaged or simply not have the required carrying capacity.

This is a good example from US forces in Afghanistan of the MGB being used an overbridge

Multi Span

To accommodate longer gaps a set of multi span equipment was designed and introduced. The multi span equipment consists of two major components, the span junction set and portable pier set. Any length bridge can theoretically be built from MGB components but for more than three spans the practical launching procedure is complex and places a great deal of stress on the bridge so for these reasons, a limit of 3 spans is enforced, 76 metres.

MGB Multi Span

Bridge sections are joined together using the span junction set, it being essentially a linking adapter for double span bridges and the bridge is supported on multiple piers, not dissimilar in concept to the pontoon piers I looked at earlier in the series.

The pier has a maximum height of 18m and can be used in wet or dry gaps, built up in sections with articulators being jacked into position to adjust position. Improvised or existing piers can also be used.

Floating

For longer spans the MGB can be to create a floating or pontoon bridge, at Class 70. It can be used in single storey or double storey configuration depending on the distance between pontoons. Where a large rise and fall of the river is expected due to flooding or tides double storey construction allows the landing span to be longer and thus accommodate this variation. A double storey floating bridge can accommodate bank heights of up to 5m.

Floating MGB

Multi Span Floating MGB

Any type of pontoon can be used but WFEL produce a dedicated MGB Pontoon but I don’t think these ever came into service with the British Army.

MGB pontoon

The same span junction set used in multi span bridges is also used to connect multiple bridge sections to provide articulation when being supported on pontoons or other floats.

MGB’s can also be used to create floating ferries at Class 90.

Reinforced

To increase the load capacity of single span MGB’s a Link Reinforcement Set was introduced. The LRS uses pinned reinforcing links that are attached underneath the bridge and tensioned using steel cables and Tirfor jacks although the tension is kept to a minimum, enough to remove slack from the links and move them into a vertical position.

MGB Link Reinforcement Set

The LRS does not increase the load carrying capacity but maintains it over a longer distance, up to 49.4m.

This all sounds very simple but have a read of this manual to dispel any of those thoughts!

Mechanically Aided Construction

In order to reduce the personnel needed to construct MGB’s the MACH MGB (Mechanically Aided Construction by Hand) is used. MGB modules, a 3 bay double storey panel for example, are built away from the bridge site and built on site using suitable cranes or hydraulic jibs.

Manufacturing

Fairey Engineering Limited were contracted to manufacturer the MGB and still do to this day. Fairey Engineering are now called WFEL Limited and for a comprehensive history of WFEL, their web site has the details, click here to view.

Bridging the World

WFEL have applied their expertise to the design and construction of a demountable ski jump for the Joint Strike Fighter programme and were recently awarded a contract to supply an additional MGB for the British Army and associated repair services.

MGB was increased to Class 70 at some reduction in lifespan with the introduction of the heavier Challenger tank in the eighties.

Operations

Soldiers from 73 Armoured Engineer Squadron 21 Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers construct a 5 Bay Medium Girder Over Bridge over a tributary of the river Euphrates near the village of Al Latifiyah as the Black watch extend their operations north of the Euphrates and enable the the locals to cross the river in safety. It took the Engineers 21 miniutes to construct the bridge under the protection of Warriors from A Company The Black Watch

The MGB is still in service with the British Army, US Army, USMC and many more.

The video below shows 29 Armoured Engineer Squadron, part of 35 Engineer Regiment, in preparation for Afghanistan building an MGB

Click here to view the embedded video.

and in Afghanistan

Demonstrating their versatility, MGB’s have been used in Afghanistan as footbridges, joining together undecked top panels to form a narrow bridge.

MGB in Afghanistan. Now the patrol base we are building required a Medium Girder Bridge to bridge the gap over a small irrigation channel. It was about a 5-6 metre gap and without the bridge no building supplies or stores could be brought in by the 60 vehicle Combat Logistics Patrol. It also had to be sturdy enough to take some significant weight from containerised lorries. We started building it at 0530 and it took us a day to complete.

They are still widely used and there is a great example of one being used in the aftermath of the recent tsunami in Japan (anyone have a clue what they are saying?)

Click here to view the embedded video.

To summarise, the MGB was a significant step forward in military bridging, still sold today and still in wide service today, yet another testament to MEXE, WFEL and the Royal Engineers.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Introduction

An introduction to the series

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

A look at terminology and general requirements

UK Military Bridging – Early Days

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

UK Military Bridging – World War I

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Far East)

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

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

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

UK Military Bridging - World War II (Italy)

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

UK Military Bridging – Post War

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

UK Military Bridging – Iraq and Afghanistan

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Load Classification

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

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 – Equipment – (Trackway)

Bridging support equipment

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

A summary of the series

To provide assistance to bridge designers, tables of weights of commonly used equipment combinations have been compiled since the early days of military bridging. As far back as 1887, the ‘Instructions in Military Engineering’ manual listed likely weights of things as diverse as heavily laden elephants and cavalry in marching order. These allowed assumptions to be made about the safe operation of a bridge.

A follow on simplification was the concept of a bridge classification.

During WWI this was refined and loads were divided into 4 classes, light, medium, heavy and tank, with each one having a defining weight, spacing and where relevant, axle loads.

Despite this advance an improvement was sought and in 1928 the Royal Engineer Board started collating details on military loads and the increasing number and type of vehicles in service. The details were used to further categorise loads into Light (Brigade), Medium (Division), Heavy  (Corps) and Super Heavy but the fundamental problem remained, matching bridge capacity to vehicle weight as they had to be looked up in tables before allowing to cross.

This was cumbersome and time consuming and relied on every type of vehicle appearing in the tables so in 1938 the system was looked at again by the Royal Engineers Board.

The elegant and simple solution they came up with was to invent a scale, or classification, related to weight but crucially, not only weight.

Each bridge type was allocated load class number and each vehicle was also given a load class number.

Instead of looking up and cross referencing a vehicle against a bridge classification a simple comparison of load class was performed, if the numbers matched or the vehicle was less than the bridge classification then it could pass.

A spacing of 80ft was assumed at the bridge classification took into account bending moment and other factors, it was not simply a weight (this is a key distinction)

Instead of weights of vehicles, each vehicle had a class, these starting at 3 and moving up to 24 in regular intervals.

If a vehicle’s load class was smaller than the bridges load class then it could cross and to assist with the rapid cross checking a standardised series of markings was designed, both bridge and vehicle had the marking in the same colours so a driver could simply compare the bridge sign with that painted on his vehicle and make the decision whether to cross without reference to bridge commanders or complex tables.

Civilian bridges were also classified using the new scheme and it ultimately developed into a NATO standard, the Military Load Class (MLC)

The NATO system uses 16 hypothetical classes; 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 120 and 150 as defined in STANAG 2021.

The number is merely an indicator although weight plays a significant part in its definition and a vehicles and bridge/ferry/raft MLC are calculated differently. Vehicle MLC’s use weight, wheelbase, axle loading, spacing and contact area

Because wheeled vehicles tend to be longer than tracked vehicles and therefore exert differing concentration of load and bending moment on bridges often have both a wheeled and tracked MLC.

Bridging equipment MLC calculations include weight, spacing of vehicles, safety factors and dynamic effects or impacts.

The NATO MLC system also defines normal crossing conditions but allows for a reduction of safety factors in emergency or tactical conditions. It also describes a method for defining a temporary vehicle classification if none exists.

Classes

The 16 classes are defined by 16 hypothetical wheeled and 16 hypothetical tracked vehicles of various weights, sizes and axles. It must be understood that MLC is not a vehicles weight but simply a reference number.

Each hypothetical vehicle has the bending moment and shear forces calculated and plotted on a graph at 1m intervals up to 100m, assuming a single span simply supported bridge. For other conditions the curves are re-plotted.

Classification of Vehicles

Vehicle and trailer combinations form part of the 32 definitions for tracked and wheeled vehicles. The standard defines treatments for exceptions such as towing and vehicles outside of the basic 16×2 classes.

At the end of these complex calculations the MLC number is derived and rounded up to provide a safety factor.

A temporary MLC can be calculated by multiplying the vehicles mass in metric tonnes by 1.20 for a tracked vehicle and 1.25 for a wheeled vehicle.

Classification of Bridges

Different methods are used for single and multiple span military bridges, civilian bridges, rafts, ferries and floating bridges that take into account a diverse range of factors.

Normal, caution and risk classes are defined for each bridge that recognises safety factors may be eroded in wartime but these may also need more restrictions placed on crossing speeds, for example.

If anyone actually fancies a look at STANAG 2021, click here

The document provides a couple of interesting examples; the Leyland DAF 4 tonner has an MLC of 11, the Leopard 2A5 an MLC of 66 and the M3 Rig vehicle an MLC of 26.

Using the expedient method of calculating MLC, the magic number for FRES SV Scout based on an initial in service weight of 34 tonnes is 41, too large for the in service Air Portable Ferry Bridge or Class 30 trackway for example, which have an MLC of 35 and 30 respectively.

There is also a joint US, UK and German design and test code for military bridging and gap crossing equipment, click here to read, at 116 pages it demonstrates the inherent complexity of getting stuff over a gap!

From the early work and subsequent refinement in the years prior to WWII by the Royal Engineers Board a simple and robust classification system for bridges, ferries and raft is now a NATO standard.

Yet another unsung achievement

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Introduction

An introduction to the series

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

A look at terminology and general requirements

UK Military Bridging – Early Days

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

UK Military Bridging – World War I

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Far East)

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

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

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

UK Military Bridging - World War II (Italy)

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

UK Military Bridging – Post War

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

UK Military Bridging – Iraq and Afghanistan

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Load Classification

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

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 – Equipment – (Trackway)

Bridging support equipment

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

A summary of the series

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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 2 - Assemble and Launch

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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 – Introduction

An introduction to the series

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

A look at terminology and general requirements

UK Military Bridging – Early Days

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

UK Military Bridging – World War I

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Far East)

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

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

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

UK Military Bridging - World War II (Italy)

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

UK Military Bridging – Post War

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

UK Military Bridging – Iraq and Afghanistan

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Load Classification

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

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 – Equipment – (Trackway)

Bridging support equipment

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

A summary of the series

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.

In 1941 the Luftwaffe rather inconveniently dropped a large bomb on the roof of Bank tube station, completely collapsing the roof and creating a huge crater. Within 2 hours work commenced on the site and within a couple of weeks was cleared and ready for a temporary bridge. Although Wikipedia states the temporary bridge was a Bailey it was a 2 span Large Box Girder Mark II, completed in less than 5 days and built in such a way that allowed the station to be rebuilt underneath it.

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 – Introduction

An introduction to the series

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

A look at terminology and general requirements

UK Military Bridging – Early Days

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

UK Military Bridging – World War I

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Far East)

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

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

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

UK Military Bridging - World War II (Italy)

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

UK Military Bridging – Post War

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

UK Military Bridging – Iraq and Afghanistan

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Load Classification

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

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 – Equipment – (Trackway)

Bridging support equipment

UK Military Bridging – Look Back and Look Forward

A summary of the series

Clearing mines and IED’s in front of vehicle or foot patrols, called ‘Op Barma’, is usually a painstaking, dangerous and incredibly difficult task, using Vallon hand held detectors. The people who make up Op Barma teams are generally unsung but some of the bravest individual’s one could ever meet. Occasionally an opportunity exists to use more automated methods.

The Python is the replacement for the Giant Viper, in fact a mid life upgrade called Giant Viper Mid Life Upgrade (GVMLI) that replaced the motor unit and other components. Instead of the parachute system in the Giant Viper the Python uses a long strip of Velcro (honestly) to retard and straighten the hose as it deploys.

Although seemingly unsophisticated it is very effective. It is nothing more sophisticated than a 228m length of rubber hose, except the hose is filled with high explosive!

Launched using a rocket motor it deploys across the ground to be breached and when it lands the explosive filled hose detonates, initiating and destroying any mines or IED’s in its path, clearing a safe line approximately 7m wide and 180m long.

The Trojan and Titan (the world’s fastest armoured bridge layer) have been in service with the Royal Engineers for three years and are soon to be joined by the Terrier, a lighter armoured combat engineering vehicle that will replace the Combat Engineer Tractor.

Trojan Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers

The operation allowed a significant section of wadi north of Patrol Base Wahid to be cleared of IED’s, although the Python provides a breaching not clearance capability meaning that clearance teams will have to make sure the area is 100% clear. Breaching versus clearance is about the management of risk, breaching means operational tempo can be maintained at an acceptable risk.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Trojan and Python have been in theatre for a while but this is the first public airing of its undoubtedly excellent capabilities and marks an interesting change in approach, in the right location it enables rapid breaching of suspected IED/mine areas with all the operational benefits that this brings.

Armoured Combat Engineering

Combat engineering is as old a military art as any.

Combat engineers are generally known as sappers, the name derived from the common term for a trench excavated under fire, usually the fire coming from a castle or fortress although there are many different versions of the origin of the term. Whatever the origin of the term sapper, there is no doubt that in all armies the tasks carried out by sappers, that of mobility and counter mobility are essential.

D-Day was no different to any conflict past or indeed 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 airborne operations had significant Royal Engineer support but in this post we mainly look at beach operations.

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.

General Percy Hobart

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.

Demolition

Churchill 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.

Churchill AVRE

Petard Projectile (the Flying Dustbin)

Others included the Carrot and Double Onion demolition charge vehicles and the VEB or Vehicle Emplaced Banagalore torpedo for breaching large barbed wire entanglements.

Churchill Vehicle Emplaced Banaglore Torpedo

Churchill AVRE Double Onion

Gap Crossing

The Armoured Ramp Carrier (ARK) used a series of ramps to bridge gaps.

Armoured Ramp Carrier

Armoured Ramp Carrier

Assault bridges were used to breach gaps and bridge the sea walls. The Small Box Girder bridge had a span of 30ft and could carry a load of 40 tons.

Small Box Girder

Ditches were filled with bundles or fascines of brushwood or to form a step.

Churchill Fascine

Mine Clearance

Mine clearance was carried out by a number of means but the preferred method was to use rotating chain flails to detonate the mines thus clearing a path the width of the tank. The flails were mounted on the front of the tank and were called Sherman Crabs. A number of Churchill based designs using rollers and ploughs were also employed.

Churchill Jeffries Plough

Sherman Crab

Pill Box Assault

Churchill tanks equipped with flamethrowers were called Crocodiles, these towed and armoured trailer containing the fuel. Crocodiles were used primarily for clearing bunkers, a task in which they excelled and were usually employed in conjunction with the Petard equipped Churchill AVRE.

Churchill Crocodile

Route Clearance

Armoured Caterpillar D8 bulldozers were used to clear obstacles and keep the vehicle lanes open.

Armoured Bulldozer

Amphibious Assault

Sherman tanks were also converted into amphibious vehicles by the addition of a canvas skirt, propellers and other modifications. These provided vital armoured fire support in the opening phase of the beach assault although a number were lost to the heavy seas when they were launched too far from the beach. It is widely thought that as these losses were particularly heavy on Omaha beach it was this that contributed to the very high losses in that area.

Sherman DD (Duplex Drive) Tank

Soft Ground

The beach surveys had revealed the existence of large patches of clay that would not bear the weight of heavy vehicles and artillery. To overcome this the ‘bobbin’ tanks were used that laid a continuous reinforced canvas mat over the soft ground, thus spreading the load over a wider area.

Churchill AVRE Bobbin

Speaking on the subject 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.

Look at many of the armoured engineer vehicles in service today and you will the origins of their design in Hobart’s Funnies although interestingly the 79th had some capabilites not in service today. It is also of some interest why, despite Eisenhowers demonstrable enthusiasm and support for the 79th, why General Bradley insisted on using dismounted combat engineers that resulted in a slow advance and very high casualties on ‘Bloody Omaha’

Despite their armour  the soldiers of the 79th suffered very heavy losses and were without a doubt extremely brave individuals, much was achieved by them and many lives saved.

Information for this blog post was obtained from the following sources

http://www.remuseum.org.uk/campaign/rem_campaign_overlord.htm

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p-2_Constable.html

http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk

.