Pillbox, Horsebridge

[cptpies]

There are very few actual pure VMG emplacements. Most, like this one are local variants designed for the location and probably the weapons that were available. I've not seen anything to say a definitive type of weapon was envisaged for use in them but the pure type has a large gun table for a tripod mounted weapon which would suggest the heavy water cooled Vickers. Others have a small table or a Turnbull mount which would suggest the lighter Vickers K or even a Bren.

 

[Seahorse]

Vickers K or Bren, that just says to me the cut out was to facilitate a quick mag change.

Otherwise, IMVHO of course, greater viz would work both ways... and provide a better target for anyone shooting INTO the box. You'd certainly not have seen me standing up for a better look.

 

[cptpies]

IMVHO of course, greater viz would work both ways... and provide a better target for anyone shooting INTO the box. You'd certainly not have seen me standing up for a better look.

Absolutely, it's unusual to see embrasures this long in this type of emplacement, The Dover Squares and Rye VMG emplacements have similar long narrow embrasures. Though they afford slightly better traverse angles it's at the expense of exposure which is why they were made so narrow and why I think a cutout was needed for sighting/ mag changing. There's no anti-ricochet wall either, not a place I'd want to have seen action in.

 

[gaspirator]

Hi guys,

a few tactical notes on this pillbox: it covers the bridge that carries the A22 over the Cuckmere River, which was a stop line. There were actually two PBs; the other was on the other side of the road, but was demolished postwar.

A defence map of 1941 shows a pair of 25-pounder guns covering the bridge with ambush parties situated close by - but no PBs. However, in 1942 the boundaries of the infantry division in East Sussex changed, making their length of coastline responsibility shorter. This meant that an infantry brigade could come off the coast and sit behind in reserve, making the A22 as vital as a reinforcement route to the defenders as it would be to the invader trying to get inland. I've seen mention of orders being given for the defence of this bridge and so I believe the pillboxes are of 1942 vintage - long after construction of new PBs was prohibited except on authority not lower in rank than Brigadier. As can be seen, the area floods - so digging down was not an option and so a PB was the solution.

I would hesitate to designate this purely as a 'Vickers Gun Emplacement' though, as there is no documentary evidence (as yet) that indicates an MMG section was located here. However, it cannot be entirely ruled out.

I believe that the 'hooks' are to allow a Turnbull Mounting to be bolted in place; each embrasure has the same arrangement. Because of this, any of the main machine guns might have been used - Vickers MMG (the same as used in WW1 - http://www.pillbox.org.uk/armoury/vickers_gun.asp), Bren, Lewis etc. depending on which mounting bar was fitted. I'm not sure about the 'cutouts' - observation is quite possible, but seriously narrows the gunner's lateral field of view in a very wide embrasure.

The lack of internal anti-ricochet wall makes this design quite dangerous, as already mentioned - you can actually see straight through, even from a long distance.

 

[Seahorse]

Excellent. I love all this debate stuff.

 

[acen2006]

@gaspirator, was there any anti tank ditches put in the same area?.

Edit :- Come across this that answers question lol
' ANTI TANK DITCH 1940-1941.
Site of a Second World War anti-tank ditch shown on a 1941 German map of British defences. The defences were made in 1940-41 and were probably created by 'improving' the banks of the River Cuckmere from near Upper Dicker to Upper Horsebridge, northwest of Hailsham. '

 

[gaspirator]

Acen, I've often wondered about that DoB entry; I've not yet seen the run of German material that far inland, but there's no evidence from the Allied side found to date of the Cuckmere being artificially improved. However, I do know of some 'natural, improved' ditches in the region: see http://www.pillbox.org.uk/pillblogs/detail.asp?ID=142. I've seen a 1941 report that lists the work (excavation and revetment) done on the Ouse, Rother and the Pevensey Levels ditches, but so far nothing on the Cuckmere although I can't rule it out.

The German maps I've seen of the Rye area mark numerous stretches of 'anti-tank ditch' that don't link up or otherwise make sense. I think the Germans were apt to simply mark any stretch of ditch that they thought would be especially problematic for tanks, and not just man-made defences.

 

[cptpies]

Many thanks for the info Gaspirator. I'm in agreement with you that the Germans tended to err on the side of caution with their photo reconnaissance. A very large percentage of the DoB entries in the south East are based on German map entries which are highly suspect in nature. To give you some idea I can tell you that I've checked all the DoB sites in Google Earth and where the source is not stated as a German map you can find about 50 - 60 % on Google Earth, the rest being hidden by vegetation or demolished. Where the source is stated as German I found maybe 10% at best. Those numbers are purely subjective but I'd infer from this that most were huts and haystacks and were marked as a pillbox just in case.

 

[night crawler]

I have to admit Google earth is very good but I'd say 80% or more of the ones I took along the Thames are hidden in vegetation it's just a case of once you have found first then there is a good chance there is a second not that far away you just have to look hard to find them as I had to in a lot of cases.

 

[gaspirator]

Many thanks for the info Gaspirator. I'm in agreement with you that the Germans tended to err on the side of caution with their photo reconnaissance. A very large percentage of the DoB entries in the south East are based on German map entries which are highly suspect in nature. To give you some idea I can tell you that I've checked all the DoB sites in Google Earth and where the source is not stated as a German map you can find about 50 - 60 % on Google Earth, the rest being hidden by vegetation or demolished. Where the source is stated as German I found maybe 10% at best. Those numbers are purely subjective but I'd infer from this that most were huts and haystacks and were marked as a pillbox just in case.

Cptpies - I've just clocked your signature - if you're the guy who did the DoB Google Earth file then I need to say a massive thanks as it's been an invaluable influence on my own research!

One of the things I'm doing is cross-referencing the German data with that from Allied documents and so far I have mixed views on the Germans' accuracy. I think in some coastal areas they've mistaken seafront structures for PBs and although I know examples of where both promenade shelters and beach huts had been fortified, this was the exception rather than the rule. Further inland the Germans seem to be less distracted by such things and appear to be more accurate with what they're picking up.

 

[cptpies]

Cptpies - I've just clocked your signature - if you're the guy who did the DoB Google Earth file then I need to say a massive thanks as it's been an invaluable influence on my own research!

That's me for my sins. Glad it's been of some help.

I'd love to see what the flip side of that coin is and see how accurate we were with our photo recon of the Atlantic wall and West wall defences.