Eastern Command Line: North of Bury St Edmunds

Another post straight from my blog (WW2 Defences- Suffolk). Ok I know the pics are again on the small side!!

Recently back from a trip up to Yorkshire visiting family (so expect some more posts from Yorkshire!). Anyway on the way up I stopped off just north of Bury St Edmund's to take a quick look at some pillboxes on the Eastern Command Line. Not really time for a detailed search but a quick recce of the ground for reference to a future visit. That saying, still some nice pillboxes seen. Here the anti-tank obstacle is the River Lark, which the Command Line followed from Bury St Edmond's until it met the GHQ Stop Line in Camridgeshire at the River Great Ouse. The pillboxes are all of the Eastern Command CRE design - 1094, 1113 and 1116. Note the Serial No reference referred to for the pillboxes etc is the reference given in the original Engineers plans for the Command Line.



Above: River Lark - the anti-tank obstacle

A couple of the pillboxes are of interest. One has metal rods fixed above the embrasure - for what purpose I don't know and it is the only pillbox I have seen this on so far.





Above: Pillbox to design CRE 1094, Serial No N28. Note metal rods above embrasure.

Another has some of the corrugated iron sheets used for the roof shuttering still in place. The condition of the sheets is quite remarkable. I also liked the touch of using rounded brick shuttering for the weapons-shelf of the embrasures - showing a nice touch to detail by whoever constructed the pillbox! Serial No N26.






Above: Pillbox to design CRE 1113. Note corrugated iron sheet used for roof shuttering still in place and the rounded bricks used for the shuttering of the weapons-shelf.

All key crossings over the Command Line were covered with anti-tank guns. The 6pdr anti-tank gun pillbox which covers Flempton Bridge is now almost buried in spoil with a boat perched on top!





Above: Crossing over Command Line Serial No 9 (Flempton Staunch) with 6 pdr pillbox Serial No NA5 (to design CRE 1116) now covered in spoil with a boat on top!! This pillbox covered the crossing.

The final pics below show some of the other pillboxes in the area I managed to get to.

Image 1-3: Pillbox to design CRE1113 but not the AA version. It has a blast wall (instead of a low level protected entrance) which appears to have been joined to one side of the pillbox. Serial No N33a.
Image 4&5: Pillbox to design CRE1113 agian not the AA version. Corrugated Iron sheets have clearly been used for the roof shuttering. Serial No N24.
Image 5&6: Pillbox to design CRE1113 - the AA version with a central AA well. Serial No N29. Last photo shows the River lark with pillbox in distance.

Correct me if I'm wrong stopline but it's hard to tell from the pictures but as far as I can make out a CRE1094 is what is normally called an Eastern Command type and a CRE1113 is what I call a Type 22 CRE or Type 22 AA. Have you an idea what a CRE1116 might be?

According to CRE 11 Corps the three types are as follows (and all specifically designed for the Command Line):

C.R.E Colchester Drawing 1116 – to house a static 6 pounder anti-tank gun and a Bren gun. Sited to command main approaches to the line.
C.R.E Colchester Drawing 1113 – to house an infantry section with one Bren gun. A hexagonal pillbox with 3 ft 6 inch walls. These were sited along the front to command the anti-tank obstacle.
C.R.E Colchester Drawing 1094 – to house an infantry section with one Bren gun. A hexagonal pillbox with 1 ft 6 inch walls. These were sited to protect the front line of Bren gun posts from parachutist attack from the rear.

CRE 1113 would appear to have come in two forms: one with a central AA well, similar to the Type 27 and one without. All the CRE 1094's I seen to date have the central AA well.
The CRE 1116 is basically a Type 28a but with a narrower embrasure for the 6 pounder, no internal AR wall separating the infantry chamber from the gun chamber as in a type 28a and with a low level protected entrance.

Hope this helps,
Dave

Some good concrete you have there and in such good condition as well.

stop line said:

According to CRE 11 Corps the three types are as follows (and all specifically designed for the Command Line):

C.R.E Colchester Drawing 1116 – to house a static 6 pounder anti-tank gun and a Bren gun. Sited to command main approaches to the line.
C.R.E Colchester Drawing 1113 – to house an infantry section with one Bren gun. A hexagonal pillbox with 3 ft 6 inch walls. These were sited along the front to command the anti-tank obstacle.
C.R.E Colchester Drawing 1094 – to house an infantry section with one Bren gun. A hexagonal pillbox with 1 ft 6 inch walls. These were sited to protect the front line of Bren gun posts from parachutist attack from the rear.

CRE 1113 would appear to have come in two forms: one with a central AA well, similar to the Type 27 and one without. All the CRE 1094's I seen to date have the central AA well.
The CRE 1116 is basically a Type 28a but with a narrower embrasure for the 6 pounder, no internal AR wall separating the infantry chamber from the gun chamber as in a type 28a and with a low level protected entrance.

Hope this helps,
Dave

Click to expand...

That clears it up. Some of the pics make the hexagonal ones look square hence the assumption they were the Eastern Command type.

Other than the wall thickness are there any other features that distinguish them from "standard" Type 22's?

It’s basically the dimensions - they could be regarded as enlarged type 22's (I’ve never seen a shell proof type 22 but understand they exist – it would be great to compare dimensions; the bullet proof CRE1094 is larger than a type 22 anyway). The CRE 1116 could equally be referred to as a type 28a. The problem lies in the fact that no drawings as I'm aware exist for these pillboxes and I should acknowledge that it is M Osborne that first linked the surviving pillboxes on the Command Line to the types in CRE 11 Corps docs. I think I've had this discussion with folk on another forum if the boxes on the Command Line should be recognized as unique designs or as expanded type 22's. My own opinion is that they should be regarded as unique despite the lack of drawings as 11 Corps docs clearly link them with the Command Line.

stop line said:

My own opinion is that they should be regarded as unique despite the lack of drawings as 11 Corps docs clearly link them with the Command Line.

Click to expand...

I've split these types out into Type 22 CRE and Type 22 AA where possible in the edob overlay as my own opinion is that these are local variants of the type 22, assuming that the CRE drawings (if any are found) post date the original FW3 drawings.

Personally I think its the general topology of a pillbox that defines its type rather than a drawing number. If you went out and measured all the type 22's you would get a lot of variation in size and wall thickness but they are all still based on the original FW3 design just as the CRE variants are.

The 1094 is effectively a shellproof Type 22. Examples exist along the Upper Thames where they are often mistyped as type 24's as the front walls are thickened but the back wall isn't, but the wall angles are all 60 degrees so they are type 22's.

The 1113 is a slightly larger version of a bulletproof Type 22. The AA version is unique enough for its own type but I'm not sure the non AA version is.

The 1116 sounds similar enough to a standard type 28A not to split it out and again is almost certainly based on the original FW3 design anyway.

cptpies
I can see your point - when trying to categorise all the variants nationally you have to rationalize to some extent. I also accept your point that no type 22 (or any other pillbox for that matter) will have exactly the same dimensions. However with regards to these pillboxes there must have been 100's built in Essex / Suffolk along the Command Line so I would think it fair to regard them as a separate design rather than variants of type 22's or 28a's. However saying this I think your approach for a national data base is perfectly reasonable, while at the local level I have the luxury of being able to expand the detail a little!
Dave

cptpies said:

I've split these types out into Type 22 CRE and Type 22 AA where possible in the edob overlay as my own opinion is that these are local variants of the type 22, assuming that the CRE drawings (if any are found) post date the original FW3 drawings.

Personally I think its the general topology of a pillbox that defines its type rather than a drawing number. If you went out and measured all the type 22's you would get a lot of variation in size and wall thickness but they are all still based on the original FW3 design just as the CRE variants are.

The 1094 is effectively a shellproof Type 22. Examples exist along the Upper Thames where they are often mistyped as type 24's as the front walls are thickened but the back wall isn't, but the wall angles are all 60 degrees so they are type 22's.

The 1113 is a slightly larger version of a bulletproof Type 22. The AA version is unique enough for its own type but I'm not sure the non AA version is.

The 1116 sounds similar enough to a standard type 28A not to split it out and again is almost certainly based on the original FW3 design anyway.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I agree with the capn. Having said that, your thread also raises the question of how much information in addition to 'Type' about any particular PB was recorded in the documentation of the time. And also how accurate it is. You refer to the CRE number as serial numbers and I think you may be confusing these with design or drawing numbers? EDIT: On re reading the report I can see that's not the case. N 24 etc are the serial numbers and the same type of alpha numerical system used for the TSL.My mistake

In the case of the Taunton Stopline, an installation's serial number defines it's location in the stopline and is cross referenced by marked up maps. The 'Type' is defined in a separate attached schedule along with WOFO grid ref. and any remarks.

It sounds to me like you've got hold of some original information recorded by or used by whoever built these PBs which gives more specific details about them, and has their build detail referenced as drawing numbers. Is this the case and if so, is the document set complete? Missing pages could confuse the issue.

The reason that they gave the reference without a 'Type' prefix could simply be that the basic type is given in the referenced drawing along with its modifications. Based on my own profession I can easily see how this practice relates to a well organised and efficient drawing office. In order to be thorough, it's what you would do if you had the time and resources. Eastern Command may have been ahead of the game enough.

Some interesting descriptions and ways of referring to things etc crop up in the Taunton Stopline documents. The following 6 pounder gun emplacements are referred to as 'Shell proof with roof, drwg. T.L.55' Apart from the steel pedastal the two are very different, but are still referred to as the same drawing. I'm including two pics from krela's document set to show how these two emplacements were actually recorded in late October 1940.

S AT 601







M AT 609







Another interesting entry and an illustration of the language of the time describes a two pounder gun emplacement as "All these emplacements have walls 3' 6" thick and are constructed to F.W.3 drg. no.28 modified by drg, no, T.L. 62". A modified Type 28. I haven't visited these yet so I don't know what the modification is but it will be either location or task specific.

As usual, as many questions as answers. Thanks for posting stopline.

PS. I would very much like to see larger pics. At the risk of seeming patronising, would you like any assistance with this? I use Picassa to resize before uploading to Photobucket where it is also possible to resize. You give the impression that you want larger pics but don't know how to do it?? PM me if you need.