a line system that was adapted to create anti tank islands when it was realised that a highly mobile enemy force would quickly outflank the remains of a line attacking the poorly defended rear after punching through it.
The lines were still almost thrown up after the initial hasty coastal crust and were more about delaying the enemy sufficiently so a substantial force could be assembled in order to drive the enemy back rather than for pure defensive capability themselves. The aim was always get them back into the sea within three weeks or the belief was we were done for, so a purely defensive approach was unsuitable.
The ATIs were designed to create garrisons that any mobile force could not afford t leave in their rear for fear of the damage they would inflict on supply lines
If you look at the most common 22s and 24s you'll see that far from providing effective all round cover they have a clear primary forward field of fire and a weak rearward one for close defence only and they are most often part of a scheme of overlapping pillboxes and fire points with a mixture of supplementary defensive structures designed to act in synergy. I'd be tempted go so far as to say relying on effective 360 degree fields of fire was the exception rather than the rule. you even see some boxes in ATIs that have been adapted to change primary field of fire after the strategy changed.
what amazes me is the way we managed to develop a really effective strategy so quickly - poor materials a lack of resources half the kit left in france and yet we had a credible multi layered defence designed to counter all of the possible attacks vectors within a few months - remember some of the tactics were brand new and yet we had strategies for dealing with gliders, seaplanes, paratroops and the good old fashioned frontal assault adding the aux units in for good measure - it's a testament to the ingenuity of the brains in the war department.
that all said this isn't really the forum to get into a long and involved debate about the relative merits of different contemporary approaches as it's about documenting decay and looking at the way the landscape is reclaiming these structures however a quick google search will find a few places where this kind of lively debate is more than welcome (if you aren't there already)
The lines were still almost thrown up after the initial hasty coastal crust and were more about delaying the enemy sufficiently so a substantial force could be assembled in order to drive the enemy back rather than for pure defensive capability themselves. The aim was always get them back into the sea within three weeks or the belief was we were done for, so a purely defensive approach was unsuitable.
The ATIs were designed to create garrisons that any mobile force could not afford t leave in their rear for fear of the damage they would inflict on supply lines
If you look at the most common 22s and 24s you'll see that far from providing effective all round cover they have a clear primary forward field of fire and a weak rearward one for close defence only and they are most often part of a scheme of overlapping pillboxes and fire points with a mixture of supplementary defensive structures designed to act in synergy. I'd be tempted go so far as to say relying on effective 360 degree fields of fire was the exception rather than the rule. you even see some boxes in ATIs that have been adapted to change primary field of fire after the strategy changed.
what amazes me is the way we managed to develop a really effective strategy so quickly - poor materials a lack of resources half the kit left in france and yet we had a credible multi layered defence designed to counter all of the possible attacks vectors within a few months - remember some of the tactics were brand new and yet we had strategies for dealing with gliders, seaplanes, paratroops and the good old fashioned frontal assault adding the aux units in for good measure - it's a testament to the ingenuity of the brains in the war department.
that all said this isn't really the forum to get into a long and involved debate about the relative merits of different contemporary approaches as it's about documenting decay and looking at the way the landscape is reclaiming these structures however a quick google search will find a few places where this kind of lively debate is more than welcome (if you aren't there already)
