Atlantic fortresses of the Third Reich

53 191 59
Atlantic fortresses of the Third Reich

On January 19, 1944, Adolf Hitler declared 14 sections of France's Atlantic coastline, part of the so-called Atlantic Wall (German: Atlantikwall), as well as the occupied British Channel Islands, Atlantic fortresses (Atlantikfestungen). In English-language sources, they are referred to as "Atlantic pockets." Some of these fortresses, located far from the Western Front, staunchly resisted even after May 9, 1945.


Germany's Atlantic fortresses

The purpose of these fortress-ports was twofold: in the event of a landing of Western Allied troops with the aim of opening a Second Front, to prevent their replenishment and supply through these ports; and to attempt to preserve them as submarine bases, which played an important role in combat operations along the Allied communications ("fortresses" in the Bay of Biscay).



In addition, coastal batteries with high-powered guns were located within the "pockets" along the English Channel coast, capable of shelling not only enemy ships and vessels but sometimes even coastal areas of England. For example, the Lindemann battery, located near Calais and named after the commander of the battleship Bismarck, who perished with his ship, was equipped with three 40,6 cm (at that time, gun caliber in Germany was measured in centimeters, not millimeters) 40.6 cm SK C/34 guns with a range of up to 56 km. This allowed the English coastline from New Romney to the port of Ramsgate to be bombarded.


Gun of the Lindemann battery

The first to enter the battle were the German "fortresses" adjacent to the Allied landing area in the Bay of Seine (Operation Overlord), or, as it is more commonly called, in Normandy, which began on June 6, 1944. Since the German military command considered the coast between Boulogne and Dunkirk to be the most likely area for an enemy landing, the actual landing site was rather weakly fortified.


The disposition of German forces at the time of the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944.

One of the Allies' primary objectives was to capture the ports of Cherbourg and Le Havre, which would ensure reliable supplies for the landing troops.

The immediate capture of Cherbourg failed due to stubborn resistance from German units, and fighting lasted from June 6 to July 1. On June 18, American forces cut off German forces in the northern Cotentin Peninsula, and two days later, three Yankee divisions, with a total strength of 45,000, began an assault on the port city.


The American offensive on Cherbourg

The situation was exacerbated by a severe storm that raged in the Bay of Seine from June 18 to 22, destroying the Allied artificial port of Mulberry. Capturing the ports became a critical objective.

They were confronted by a lightly armed German fortress infantry division, whose average age was 36 years, sailors from coastal units and the crews of sunken ships, and workers from the Todt organization. Some of the defenders were members of the "Eastern Battalions," formed from Soviet prisoners of war who had defected to the enemy. Coastal batteries played a key role in the defense: four 240mm and eight 150mm guns.


One of Cherbourg's coastal guns

The operation was accompanied by massive, indiscriminate bombing from the sea and air, resulting in enormous losses among the "friendly" French population and negligible casualties among German troops. The city was razed to the ground.


American танк on the streets of Cherbourg, September 11, 1944

Fire from the sea was carried out by 3 battleships, 4 cruisers and 11 destroyers of the American and British fleets... During artillery During the duel, nine Allied ships were damaged, while German guns suffered minor damage. Hundreds of tons of bombs rained down on German positions from the air. For example, on June 22, more than 600 bombers participated in the raids.


The American battleship Texas under fire from German coastal batteries at Cherbourg.

Although American troops managed to capture Cherbourg after bloody battles, the Germans were able to disable or mine all port facilities and sink 110 ships in the harbor, which completely blockaded the port.


Destruction in the port of Cherbourg

American Colonel Alvin J. Viney, who was tasked with developing a plan to commission the port, wrote:

The destruction of the port of Cherbourg was a masterpiece, without a doubt the most complete, intensive and well-planned operation of its kind in stories.

Nevertheless, engineering units and ships from the American and British fleets quickly managed to clear the port waters of sunken ships and mines (by July 13, 133 mines had been cleared), although four Allied ships were lost. The first transport was unloaded in Cherbourg on July 16, although it took three months for the port to reach full capacity. By the end of the war, 2,826,740 tons of cargo and 130,210 Allied soldiers and officers had passed through it.

From September 10 to 12, the 1st British Army Corps (three British infantry divisions and a Canadian motorized rifle regiment) carried out Operation Astonia to capture the important French port of Le Havre, located on the east coast of the Bay of Seine at the mouth of the river of the same name.


Battle of Le Havre

At the start of Operation Overlord, Le Havre was home to destroyers, torpedo boats, minesweepers and patrol ships, mostly converted from civilian vessels, as well as the "miracleweaponThe Kriegsmarine had the Neger and Marder single-man torpedoes and the Linze explosive boats. These forces attempted to counter the Allied fleet, but achieved little success, suffering heavy losses.


The Marder human-controlled torpedo

In turn, several hundred British aircraft struck the port of Le Havre on June 14–15, dropping thousands of tons of bombs. 5,4-ton Tollboy bombs were used to destroy the concrete bunkers housing the torpedo boats. The consequences were catastrophic: three destroyers, nine torpedo boats, 20 minesweepers and patrol ships, 19 tugs, and many other vessels were sunk. About a thousand German sailors perished. Some of the surviving ships managed to slip through the Allied blockade, and by August 30, the port was deserted.

On September 3, Lieutenant General John Crocker, commander of the British corps, offered the city's defenders the chance to surrender, threatening a massive bombardment if they did not. Colonel Hermann-Eberhard Wildermuth, the commander of the German garrison, refused to capitulate and asked Crocker to allow the civilian population (approximately 50 Frenchmen still remained) to leave the city, but his request was refused.


Defenders of Le Havre

Massive aerial bombardment by the Royal Air Force began on September 18 and lasted until September 800. Approximately 80 tons of bombs were dropped, including a large number of incendiaries. The bombing primarily targeted not the German fortifications on the approaches to the city, but its central districts. Civilian casualties amounted to approximately 5000, while the Germans suffered between 8 and 19. 82% of buildings were destroyed, leaving 000 people homeless. Le Havre is considered the worst-damaged city in France during World War II.


Bombing of Le Havre






Le Havre after the bombing

From the sea, the British battleship Warspite and the monitor Erebus, armed with 381-mm guns, fired 4,100 tons of shells at coastal targets. They were opposed by German army and naval coastal batteries armed with 75-170-mm guns. The 170-mm guns managed to hit the Erebus twice from a range of 28 km, forcing it to return to England for repairs.


Monitor Erebus

After fierce fighting, the German garrison at Le Havre capitulated on September 12, with 11,300 men taken prisoner. The strategically important port was destroyed, the harbor and Seine estuary mined, and approximately 350 ships were sunk. The port received its first vessels only on October 2, but it did not return to full capacity until much later.


Destruction in the port of Le Havre

The next step of the Allied forces was the capture of the port fortresses on the northern coast of France from September 17 to 30: Boulogne, Calais, Saint-Malo, and Brest, including 17 coastal batteries and two single-gun 210mm railway batteries on the coast of the Strait of Pas-de-Calais. These batteries, armed with 75–406mm caliber guns and part of three naval artillery divisions (Marine Artillerie Abteilungen), almost completely blocked through-channel shipping until May 9, 1945.

The most powerful of these were the aforementioned 406mm Lindemann battery and the four-gun 380mm Todt battery (firing range up to 55 km). Despite the Allied bombing aviation (on September 20 alone, the battery was attacked by 633 bombers), Lindemann bombarded the coast of England until September 26, but was captured by the Canadians the next day.

Battery Todt proved a tough nut to crack for Canadian troops. Its assault lasted from September 17 to 29, 1944. Churchill Mk.3 and Mk.4 heavy tanks, Churchill Crocodile flamethrower tanks based on them, and AVR assault tanks armed with 305mm mortars were used. 305mm shells could penetrate concrete walls up to 3 meters thick. Despite this, the battery continued firing until September 26, when the Germans blew up the guns before retreating.


Gun of the Todt battery

This time, the Allies performed a "noble act"—at the request of the Germans, they allowed civilians in Boulogne and Calais to leave the battlefields. In addition to hundreds of bombers, the Canadian advance was supported by long-range coastal artillery from the English coast. By September 30, the Allies had captured the stretch of coast from Cherbourg to Calais, with approximately 30 Germans captured and their enemy losing approximately 1500. However, the ports were permanently disabled.


The capture of Boulogne


Allied tanks destroyed in Boulogne


The Capture of Calais

Until the end of the war, the port of Dunkirk, on the northern coast of France, remained in the hands of German troops under the command of Admiral Friedrich Frisius. It had been blockaded by Allied forces as early as early September 1944. The Germans established defensive fortifications along the perimeter of the "pocket," and minefields, including remotely controlled ones, flooded low-lying areas. Attempts by the Canadians and British to storm the city met with staunch resistance from its defenders, consisting of soldiers from the army, navy, air force, and SS, and resulted in serious losses. A further assault was abandoned, and a systematic siege was instituted. In October, the Czechoslovak Independent Armored Brigade assumed responsibility for the area.

The German garrison didn't limit itself to defense; it also carried out daring sorties. For example, on the night of September 26-27, the Germans attacked a village occupied by the British, blew up a windmill serving as an observation post, and partially captured the battalion command post, housed in a concrete bunker.

On October 4, the warring parties agreed to a 36-hour ceasefire to evacuate civilians and the German and British wounded. They also agreed to clear mines from the humanitarian corridor and subsequently install new minefields.

Occasionally, German torpedo boats and aircraft managed to deliver food and ammunition to the blockaded garrison, and on April 28 and May 2, 1945, a group of Seehund-class midget submarines managed to break through to the besieged port with supplies, and they returned with mail.

The Dunkirk garrison capitulated to the Czechoslovaks at 16:00 pm on May 9, one day after the general capitulation of the German armed forces.


Fighting for the 'festungs' on the coast of Dover

West of the Allied landing zone in Normandy, German forces continued to hold the Atlantikfestungen of Saint-Malo and Brest, where fierce and brutal fighting ensued. On one side, the fighting involved troops from the United States, Great Britain, and Free France. On the other, in addition to a hodgepodge of units from all branches of the Wehrmacht, including the Eastern Battalions, there were also sailors from the 1st Marine Division of the fascist Italian Social Republic (Mussolini's belated attempt to return to socialist ideas).


Battle of Saint-Malo

The fighting for Saint-Malo lasted from August 4 to 17, and the nearby island of Cézembre held out until September 2. The Germans used numerous ancient forts for defense (in the 16th and 17th centuries, Saint-Malo was the capital of French corsairs such as Duguay-Trouin and Surcouf; its grandiose city fortifications were built according to the designs of the famous fortification engineer Vauban). They were supported from the sea by a six-gun (captured French 194-mm guns from 1870) coastal battery from Cézembre Island. In turn, the Allies "softened" the enemy's defenses with massive bombardments. As a result, the ancient city was reduced to a pile of ruins.


Bombing of Saint Malo


American soldiers fight on the streets of Saint-Malo.

Sesembre Island, covering just 18 hectares, was staunchly defended by approximately 300 Germans and Italians under the command of Oberleutnant Richard Seuss. The Allies began shelling the island on August 9, dropping a total of 19,729 aerial bombs, including massive quantities of white phosphorus and napalm, and approximately 20,000 artillery shells.


A 194mm coastal gun on Sesambre Island, a modern photograph

Occasionally, small ships from Jersey (Channel Islands), which remained in Wehrmacht hands, managed to break through to Sescambre at night, delivering ammunition and evacuating the wounded. A hospital ship and barge were also sent to evacuate the wounded from the islands, but they were captured by the Allies. The depletion of fresh water supplies forced the island's defenders to capitulate. To this day, a significant portion of the island, littered with unexploded ordnance and mines, is fenced off with barbed wire and closed to the public.


Bombing of Sesambre Island


Napalm bomb explosion on Sesambre Island
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    6 February 2026 04: 00
    The commander of the German garrison, Colonel Hermann-Eberhard Wildermuth, refused to capitulate and asked Crocker to allow the civilian population to leave the city (there were still about 50 thousand Frenchmen left in it), but was refused.
    English nobility, huh?

    AVR assault tanks armed with 305mm mortars.
    I couldn't find any information about these. There were some with 230mm mortars and, after the war, with 165mm guns.
    1. +7
      6 February 2026 07: 55
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      There were 230 mm mortars and after the war with a 165 mm gun.
      There were British tanks - Churchill Mark III AVRE, specifically designed to combat enemy pillboxes on D-Day, but they had a 290mm caliber. There's some confusion with the numbers here. There was also a project for a German assault tank with a 305mm mortar, but it never went into production... The photo below shows that same tank. Churchill Mark III AVRE with 290 mm gun
      1. 0
        6 February 2026 08: 11
        Quote: Luminman
        There were British tanks – the Churchill Mark III AVRE, specifically designed to combat enemy pillboxes on D-Day, but they had a caliber of 290 mm. There's some confusion with the numbers here.

        And it looks like 290 mm is one of the results of such confusion.
  2. +3
    6 February 2026 04: 47
    Fortresses? No, you could certainly call them that, but essentially... The entire so-called Atlantic Wall is an illusion of security, as was confirmed on D-Day. In fact, what was happening in Germany is truly absurd and insane. For example, the construction of Valentin (a submarine assembly plant and bunker) required over 500,000 cubic meters of concrete. This plant never built a single submarine, which in 1943 was completely useless. In other words, over 500,000 cubic meters of the best concrete was wasted. One good pillbox requires 25 cubic meters of concrete (maybe less), meaning that instead of 20,000 pillboxes, they got NOTHING. It's simply incomprehensible...
    1. +3
      6 February 2026 06: 57
      Those who designed and supervised the construction of this "little factory" actually received the money...
      And probably not small ones...
      1. +1
        6 February 2026 09: 02
        Quote: hohol95
        Those who designed and supervised the construction of this "little factory" actually received the money...
        And probably not small ones...

        They probably got paid for building fortifications too. It's much easier to steal from a thousand pillboxes than from a single factory.
        1. -2
          6 February 2026 11: 17
          Quote: Puncher
          Quote: hohol95
          Those who designed and supervised the construction of this "little factory" actually received the money...
          And probably not small ones...

          They probably got paid for building fortifications too. It's much easier to steal from a thousand pillboxes than from a single factory.

          Don't attribute purely Soviet and Russian know-how to pedantic Germans. The plant was included in the military budget, which was discussed by serious people. Why not a single submarine was built is another matter; perhaps it simply wasn't commissioned, or plans changed.
          1. -2
            6 February 2026 11: 28
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            attribute to pedantic Germans

            I doubt that Todt's organization worked for the idea.
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            Why not a single boat was built is another question; perhaps it was simply never put into operation, or plans changed.

            Even if he had built it. Even without Valentin, over 100 Type 21 submarines were built, but not a single one was used. Enormous resources were wasted.
            1. 0
              6 February 2026 21: 19
              Quote: Puncher
              Quote: Panin (Michman)
              attribute to pedantic Germans

              I doubt that Todt's organization worked for the idea.
              Quote: Panin (Michman)
              Why not a single boat was built is another question; perhaps it was simply never put into operation, or plans changed.

              Even if he had built it. Even without Valentin, over 100 Type 21 submarines were built, but not a single one was used. Enormous resources were wasted.

              By 1942, due to Allied bombing, the pace of U-boat construction at German shipyards had slowed significantly. The defense of these yards (unlike forward bases) was initially not given much attention, as the shipyards were located on Germany's Baltic coast and were well covered by fighter aircraft. However, by mid-war, the established air superiority of Anglo-American aircraft led to the Baltic ports being subjected to intensive bombing.

              As a solution, German engineers proposed reforming the submarine construction process. Submarine hull sections would be manufactured at factories dispersed across Germany and then transported to well-defended coastal assembly plants for assembly and launch. This would minimize the time spent on the most vulnerable part of the process—slipway assembly. Slipway assembly was envisioned to be carried out in fortified bunkers (similar to those already used for submarine repair and maintenance at forward bases subject to frequent air raids).

              In early 1943, a plan was drawn up for a gigantic assembly plant, housed entirely within a fortified bunker. The bunker, codenamed "Valentin," was to be built on the Weser River, near Bremen, deep in Germany. It was envisioned that such a complex, connected by rail to the submarine section manufacturing plants, would be able to maintain the pace of submarine launches regardless of the situation.
              By March 1945, construction of the bunker was 90% complete, and it was expected that submarine production could begin within two months.
              On March 27, 1945, the Royal Air Force attacked the bunker area. The attack involved 135 Avro Lancaster heavy bombers, escorted by 90 fighters.
              Two 10-ton bombs were dropped, hitting the roof of the bunker and penetrating nearly four metres into the concrete before detonating.

              The explosions of giant bombs in the thickness of concrete caused a large-scale collapse of the affected sections of the bunker roof, with almost 1000 tons of debris falling into the workshops located below.
              Soon after these raids, work on the bunker was abandoned. Kriegsmarine command became convinced that the Allies possessed weapons capable of destroying even the most heavily defended concrete structures. Four weeks later, the bunker was captured by advancing British troops.
              1. 0
                8 February 2026 08: 20
                Thank you, I am familiar with the history of the issue.
                I'm talking about the stupidity going on in Hitler's head. By 1943, it should have dawned on him that the submarine war was lost and the Kriegsmarine was incapable of blockading Great Britain. Why waste resources on submarine production? Each submarine requires thousands of tons of high-grade steel, tons of copper and bronze. The best machine tools, cranes, welding machines, scarce electrodes, and megawatts of electricity are wasted. The best workers, instead of producing tanks and artillery, are busy with useless nonsense.
                1. +2
                  9 February 2026 08: 55
                  U-boats forced the Allies to spend enormous resources on patrols and convoys. This meant hundreds of escort ships and hundreds of patrol aircraft, which constantly burned fuel and required enormous resources to build and maintain. The convoy system also hampered the delivery of both raw materials and troops from England.
                  So, one submarine was economically much more expensive for the Allies than for the Reich. Even if it didn't sink anything at all, but simply made its presence known.
                  And the majority of submarines have a displacement of less than 1000 tons. So there's no question of
                  Each submarine contains thousands of tons of high-grade steel, tons of copper and bronze.
                  and there is no speech.
                  1. 0
                    9 February 2026 09: 22
                    Quote: Single-n
                    These are hundreds of escort ships and hundreds of patrol aircraft.

                    Of which the Allies had plenty. Your thesis would be valid if the organization of convoys had affected the capabilities of the US and Great Britain, but in reality, this was not the case. They even had enough resources to change the direction from Italy and the Balkans to France, which required a drastic change in logistics.
                    Quote: Single-n
                    the bulk of submarines have a displacement of less than 1000 tons

                    What difference does a difference of even 300 tons make? Nothing. 123 Type 21 submarines that never went to sea are insignificant?
                    1. +1
                      9 February 2026 09: 53
                      Apparently it wasn't enough
                      During World War II, the United States built 354 small and 63 large anti-submarine ships.

                      During World War II, the British built 136 "regular" destroyers. They also built 86 Hunt-class escort destroyers.
                    2. +1
                      9 February 2026 10: 06
                      And about the losses of the allies despite the monstrous superiority of forces
                      The results of 1943 were a complete disappointment for the German leadership – only 2,5 million tons of sunk cargo.

                      In 1944, the tonnage of ships sunk by U-boats amounted to "only" 765,000 gross registered tons.

                      This was when the Allies already had absolute dominance at sea. Do you think tanks would have fared any better?
                      1. 0
                        9 February 2026 11: 17
                        Quote: Single-n
                        Do you think tanks would have done better?

                        I think so. One of the main reasons for tank and self-propelled gun losses was the impossibility of evacuating them after a breakdown. And breakdowns occurred because they had to be frequently redeployed along the front. So, they'd redeploy a company of Tiger tanks, but at best only half of them arrived; the rest were broken down. Karius himself noted that his company fought mostly with half its complement, while the rest were constantly undergoing repairs. And they were catastrophically short of artillery.
                        This doesn't mean they would have engaged in trench warfare as they wished, but in any case, tank production was clearly the priority. And wasting thousands of tons of fuel on submarines was already absurd in 1943.
                      2. +1
                        9 February 2026 12: 26
                        Here's the thing. These tanks simply wouldn't have made it anywhere. If they had control of the sea, the Allies would have assembled their air group in England sooner, and the decimation of the Reich's industrial base would have begun sooner. And this entire tank armada simply wouldn't have made it anywhere without fuel. Or over bombed-out bridges.
                      3. 0
                        9 February 2026 19: 37
                        Quote: Single-n
                        The Allies would have assembled their air group in England earlier

                        How fast you are. And how could it have been assembled earlier, without either aircraft or trained crews? Before 1943, the US Air Force couldn't have done so because it didn't have the required number of trained crews or aircraft; they had to divide them between the two fronts.
                      4. +1
                        22 February 2026 06: 05
                        The first air raid on targets in Europe, in France, was carried out by American bombers on July 4, 1942.
                      5. 0
                        22 February 2026 08: 12
                        Quote: Grencer81
                        The first air raid on targets in Europe, in France, was carried out by American bombers on July 4, 1942.

                        Mass bombing began in 43.
          2. +2
            6 February 2026 11: 54
            These pedants prevented the implementation of a program for the production of standard models of vehicles for the Wehrmacht!
            Each "auto company" molded its own model lines and strongly resisted the introduction of uniform standard components into their cars.
            Pedants...
          3. +2
            6 February 2026 17: 30
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            There is no need to attribute purely Soviet and Russian know-how to pedantic Germans.

            Are we talking about the same Germans who in 1942 were going to privatize the Peenemünde rocket range? wink
            “Colonel,” Hettlage began, “I invited you to discuss the best way to transform an army institution in Peenemuende into a private joint-stock company.”
            It struck me like a thunderbolt. I immediately realized that, as a result of Degenkolb's work, the battle for Peenemünde had entered a new and decisive phase. <...> No one knew anything for certain, but they suspected that our work held great promise. Now they felt the time had come to lay their hands on Peenemünde. The creation of the A-4, which could usher in a new technological era, could not under any circumstances remain in the hands of an army institution. It had to acquire a different brand name. Fame and profit hung in the balance.

            - We will transform Peenemuende into a limited liability company. Currently, the entire capital of the company remains in the hands of the state. The company itself will be managed by a large concern, which will take on the role of a trustee - for example, General Electric, Siemens, Lorenz or Rheinmetall - and then, after the amortization of the invested capital, the company will become the property of the company.
            “Are you up to date,” I asked innocently, “that the value of Peenemünde, including all the money already spent, amounts to several hundred million marks?” And it is unlikely that such costs can cause a temptation in industry.
            “We have already held a tender,” Hettlage explained, “and we can split the capital into assets of one and two million.”
            © Walter Dornberger
            The situation was made especially piquant by the fact that the author of the privatization idea, Hettlage, was a government official, head of the department for financial and organizational problems of the German military industry.
  3. +2
    6 February 2026 05: 06
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    The commander of the German garrison, Colonel Hermann-Eberhard Wildermuth, refused to capitulate and asked Crocker to allow the civilian population to leave the city (there were still about 50 thousand Frenchmen left in it), but was refused.
    English nobility, huh?

    AVR assault tanks armed with 305mm mortars.
    I couldn't find any information about these. There were some with 230mm mortars and, after the war, with 165mm guns.

    1. It's also incredibly stupid. The presence of civilians, under any circumstances, significantly complicates military operations;
    2. I haven’t heard about an assault tank with a 12" mortar either.
    1. 0
      6 February 2026 06: 59
      1. It's also incredibly stupid. The presence of civilians, under any circumstances, significantly complicates military operations;

      In France or any other Western European country, the Teutons still played at being noble...
    2. -1
      6 February 2026 07: 11
      They were based on a Tiger tank and fired rocket-propelled projectiles.
      1. +5
        6 February 2026 07: 42
        You are confusing the Teutonic "SturmTiger" and the British AVRE.
        The article discusses the British AVRE.
  4. +3
    6 February 2026 07: 06
    Assault tank AVRE - as Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. 
    Armament -
    This system has several names. In one case, it's called Mortar, Recoiling Spigot, Mk.I & Mk.II, but in the same manual, it's often simply called Petard. The official caliber was 29 mm, but this refers to the caliber of the expelling charge. In reality, the caliber was 231 (230,6) mm. This difference in caliber is normal for over-caliber mortars. In this case, the mortar shell flies quite well through a short barrel. What you call this thing is up to you. In terms of operation, it's similar to the British tank smoke mortars, which were made from old rifles.
    The mine, or bomb, depending on your preference, turned out to be quite heavy. It weighed 18 kilograms, 12 of which were explosives. The loaded mine occupied almost the entire length of the barrel, yet had a very short range—up to 210 meters, usually less in reality. To load such a mine, a special design had to be constructed whereby the barrel was lifted upward, and the loader inserted the mine from below, through a hatch in the control compartment. A purely British system, it's unclear how, but it worked.

    https://dzen.ru/a/ZmKyOZnkRgSXFXjj?ysclid=mlad0rvd66976416724
    1. +3
      6 February 2026 08: 12
      Quote: hohol95
      Officially the caliber was stated as 29 mm, but this is the caliber of the expelling charge.

      That's where the 290 mm came from...
  5. +1
    6 February 2026 09: 13
    For example, the Lindemann battery located near Calais, named in honor of the commander of the battleship Bismarck, who perished with his ship.

    A single torpedo from a torpedo bomber decided the fate of the battleship on its very first voyage...

    They built and built battleships at the admirals' demand, but it turned out to be a dud; they didn't help at all. It would have been better to build even more aircraft... and aircraft carriers instead of battleships and cruisers. The Allies were only able to land after a massive air strike.
    For some reason, admirals want large but useless ships, while aviation demonstrated its complete superiority over the navy in World War II.
    1. -1
      6 February 2026 11: 19
      Quote: Konnick
      For example, the Lindemann battery located near Calais, named in honor of the commander of the battleship Bismarck, who perished with his ship.

      A single torpedo from a torpedo bomber decided the fate of the battleship on its very first voyage...

      They built and built battleships at the admirals' demand, but it turned out to be a dud; they didn't help at all. It would have been better to build even more aircraft... and aircraft carriers instead of battleships and cruisers. The Allies were only able to land after a massive air strike.
      For some reason, admirals want large but useless ships, while aviation demonstrated its complete superiority over the navy in World War II.

      Because at the beginning of the war, aviation had not yet demonstrated anything.
    2. 0
      6 February 2026 12: 02
      In 1939, the British began producing the A13 cruiser tank.
      With 14mm armor.
      What for?
      1. +1
        6 February 2026 17: 42
        Quote: hohol95
        In 1939, the British began producing the A13 cruiser tank.
        With 14mm armor.

        Yeah... and paired with it is an infantry tank with 60mm armor, armed with one machine gun. laughing
        There can be only one answer: British, sir....

        Moreover, the hallucinogenic fog from the Grimpen Mires in the British design bureaus did not clear further - in 1943, the Limey was tested as a heavy tank sausage TOG II*.

        There was also a 36-ton machine-gun tank and a tank destroyer with guns in sponsons.
    3. +2
      6 February 2026 14: 14
      Quote: Konnick
      For some reason, admirals want large but useless ships, while aviation demonstrated its complete superiority over the navy in World War II.
      Because at the time the order was placed, only a battleship could handle a battleship. When the Japanese demonstrated that this was not the case, everyone (except England, which needed to somehow maintain its image as a great naval power and couldn't come up with anything other than the Avangard and its second-hand wares) shut down battleship production and dismantled them on the slipways (Montana, for example).
    4. 0
      6 February 2026 15: 09
      This is known now, but back then it wasn’t obvious, and conclusions could only be drawn after the end of the war itself, based on the results
    5. 0
      7 February 2026 11: 55
      Quote: Konnick
      A single torpedo from a torpedo bomber decided the fate of the battleship on its very first voyage...

      Sheer bad luck ...

      Quote: Konnick
      For some reason, admirals want large but useless ships, while aviation demonstrated its complete superiority over the navy in World War II.

      Because it's good to be smart after 90 years... wink
    6. 0
      22 February 2026 06: 07
      One random torpedo from a torpedo bomber...
  6. -1
    6 February 2026 09: 48
    The Allies had an overwhelming advantage in everything, especially in aviation, and the Nazis were doomed (thanks to the Eastern Front).

    It's noteworthy that a third of the fortresses, after the first failed assault attempts, were simply blockaded for the rest of the war. These included the important ports of Dunkirk and La Rochelle.

    They took care of the soldiers.

    Why did they storm Breslau, Danzig, Courland, and the Samland Peninsula, which were blockaded in the rear?
    1. +1
      6 February 2026 11: 59
      Did the Red Army have extra forces to block the "objects" you listed?
      1. 0
        6 February 2026 12: 35
        You know that Breslau and Courland surrendered before and after May 9th and they were stormed continuously, i.e. the forces were there and were ground down. Why?

        and for the assault on the DUR, instead of an offensive to the West, forces were found, the losses there were 10 thousand killed and 10 thousand wounded, dozens of tanks, 800 guns could hold 25 thousand Germans in a blockade...
        1. 0
          6 February 2026 13: 48
          Why did General D. Shcherbachev storm Przemysl head-on on October 5-7, 1914?
          And how did these assaults end?
          1. 0
            6 February 2026 15: 04
            Quote: hohol95
            Why did General D. Shcherbachev storm Przemysl head-on on October 5-7, 1914?

            nothing even remotely resembling the completely doomed Breslau, Courland and Dagzig, etc., in the rear.

            What was the threat of Courland that led to it being stormed so many times before May 23?
            1. +1
              6 February 2026 18: 13
              Couldn't you get around it?
              Surround and starve instead of frontal attacks?
              1. -2
                6 February 2026 21: 30
                Quote: hohol95
                Couldn't you get around it?
                Surround and starve instead of frontal attacks?

                Why did it take Bakhmut two years?
                1. +1
                  6 February 2026 22: 07
                  With such questions to the General Staff...
              2. 0
                7 February 2026 14: 15
                Quote: hohol95
                Couldn't you get around it?
                Surround and starve instead of frontal attacks?

                surrounded, but the Austrians lifted the blockade.

                Nothing like Courland.
                1. 0
                  22 February 2026 06: 09
                  What was the size of the troop group in Courland? And all of this in the rear?
          2. -2
            6 February 2026 21: 39
            Quote: hohol95
            Why did General D. Shcherbachev storm Przemysl head-on on October 5-7, 1914?

            Reconnaissance has detected signs of an enemy advance. The 3rd and 8th Armies (8 corps) are tasked with holding an area of ​​over 200 miles, unable to maneuver, as they are tied down by the blockade's cover. The fall of Przemysl not only restores freedom of maneuver but also provides an opportunity to commit the Siege Army's troops (the 5th Infantry and Cavalry Divisions) to field operations. Therefore, the Commander of the Galician Group decides to expedite the fall of the fortress, estimating that this operation can be completed in 4-5 days before the enemy armies arrive. The Commander-in-Chief of the Supreme Command approved this decision.
            1. 0
              6 February 2026 22: 08
              Did the "acceleration" help?
              They took the fortress with a frontal attack and a hussar charge?
  7. +1
    6 February 2026 13: 36
    As for the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man), despite their powerful fortifications, during the Normandy landings they hardly fired a single shot from their fortified batteries; their only contribution was to prevent landing ships and battleships from approaching the islands themselves.
  8. 0
    6 February 2026 14: 11
    In the photo "Destruction in the Port of Cherbourg," is that a train car full of mines? How come they didn't detonate during the bombing? And if they had, all that would have been left there would have been dust from the port.
    1. 0
      6 February 2026 15: 45
      STUG III (Victor), sir, do you think it's possible the Germans transported empty contact naval mine casings by rail? The explosive mines were loaded in Cherbourg...
  9. 0
    6 February 2026 15: 06
    The range of 406 mm and 381 mm is unrealistic, and at such a distance the effectiveness cannot be determined, the performance characteristics are questionable
    1. 0
      7 February 2026 11: 59
      Quote: Ban Zai
      The range of 406 mm and 381 mm is unrealistic, and at such a distance the effectiveness cannot be determined, the performance characteristics are questionable

      If it is possible to "hover" a spotter aircraft in the target area, then hitting the target is quite possible.
      If not, nobody has cancelled shooting "at squares": maps and geography do not change quickly...
      1. 0
        7 February 2026 20: 13
        Given the geographic location, they fired at squares, and I'm probably familiar with all the methods, as I'm a graduate of the artillery and engineering school. But only Vika can match the range, although even Dora fired at a shorter distance. Who's lying?
        1. 0
          8 February 2026 12: 36
          Quote: Ban Zai
          who is lying?

          Nobody... :)
          Check out NavWeaps for data on coastal guns converted from naval guns.
          40.6 cm SK C/34 - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_16-52_skc34.php
          и
          38 cm SK C/34 - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

          The coastal gun mounts have had their elevation angle increased, and reinforced propellant charges and lighter projectiles have been introduced.
          1. 0
            9 February 2026 02: 58
            In English, I looked it up and found the necessary parameters in the performance specifications, thank you. And yes, all the calculations are in the tables that specify all the minimum parameters necessary for designing classic artillery systems, based on the Requirements. I was once familiar with this firsthand 😁
    2. 0
      22 February 2026 06: 10
      Keeping the narrowest part of the strait under control is enough.
  10. 0
    11 February 2026 08: 28
    "...Civilian losses amounted to about 5000 people, while the Germans lost between 8 and 19 people. 82% of the buildings were destroyed" - the Americans are still acting like this. Nothing changes.
  11. 0
    13 February 2026 21: 26
    I've been there. A vast "sea," where the water is colder than the Volga when you enter, and an accessible shore with a few mountainous elevations. And rusty guns are present. In my opinion, everything is accessible with proper planning by a competent officer. I admit much has been lost, but what I saw was so-so. And remembering how the US stormed an island in the complete absence of Japanese forces... Echoes of war...
  12. 0
    13 February 2026 21: 33
    One of the landmarks is the lighthouse. It's not operational. It's a famous building in France.