Fortress building – fixed inland defences.

[Bernard Woolley]

Fortress building – fixed inland defences.

Introduction.
Building fixed defences to protect against attack is an activity almost as old as humanity itself. Early human settlements were protected by walls, or built on artificial islands (e.g., Crannogs). These efforts would eventually evolve into walled cities, great stone castles, sophisticated fortress systems and eventually defensive systems that ran for hundreds of kilometres, such as the Maginot Line and West Wall.
These massive constructions of concrete and steel were largely rendered obsolete by nuclear weapons and Precision Guided Munitions. However, many of the bunkers of the Maginot Line, for example, would be repurposed as hardened command facilities for the Cold War era.

It would be a mistake, however, to write off fixed defences as being obsolete by the Third World War. While they would not be of the scale of those from previous World Wars and many would be of an improvised nature, fixed defences would have a place in a modern war.


NATO countries.


Austria
[NOTE 1]

Austria had an extensive system of fortifications both along its eastern borders and where chokepoints would restrict an enemy’s advance, such as on the plains to the south and east of Vienna. Defences could be found positioned in strategically important locations like the Wurzenpass and Bruck an der Leitha.
Austrian Army Sperrkompanien made extensive use of tank turrets fixed to bunkers. The tank turrets would serve as a focal point for anti-tank defences, supported by infantry platoons, who would have their own steel reinforced concrete shelters. Flusssperrkompanien, which were used to prevent the crossing of the rivers Danube and Enns, also made extensive use of tank turrets. These fixed fortifications had artillery support from Artilleriebatterie ortsfest equipped with 155mm M2 guns in fixed positions.

By 2005 most of the tank turret bunkers used Centurion turrets armed with the L7 105mm gun. However, some M47 turrets armed with 90mm guns were still operational. Older tank turret bunkers fitted with T-34/85 and Charioteer turrets were still in place in many locations but were generally used as decoys. Although, there are some accounts of older turrets being reactivated shortly before the Soviet invasion. Tank turrets were fitted with additional armour and generally hidden, e.g., within wooden huts. [NOTE 2]

When the Soviet-led invasion came, Austria’s system of fortifications gave a good account of themselves, despite the fact that via espionage the Soviets had been able to map most of them. The border defences held up the invasion by several crucial days, allowing the field army time to prepare. The interior fortifications would also time and time again slow the Soviet advance, allowing the field army to retreat to a new position and also buying time for NATO reinforcements to arrive.

While in time Soviet and Hungarian troops would overrun the fixed defences that blocked their advance, there were a handful of positions, generally tank turret bunkers, still holding out by D+30. Fixed defences also continued to support the defence conducted by what was by the same date designated as the NATO Austrian Army Group. There were also tales that Austrian ‘stay-behind’ troops made use of abandoned bunkers and on a few occasions reactivated tank turret bunkers as part of ‘hit and run’ attacks.


Belgium

While Belgium had maintained significant fixed defences before both previous World Wars, these had been long abandoned by 2005. That did not mean that the Belgian Armed Forces did not use some sort of fortifications.

Field Army: 1st Belgian Corps made extensive use of field fortifications, digging slit trenches, foxholes, buried command posts etc, as well as improving hull-down positions for armed vehicles. The Belgian Army also fortified all urban areas within its sector, reinforcing houses and other buildings, as well as digging the usual field fortifications and creating roadblocks to channel enemy forces into ‘killing grounds’.
During the ‘Pause’ the Belgian Army constructed reinforced concrete pillboxes, linked by communication trenches for its forward troops. Concrete ‘dragon’s teeth’, barbed wire and minefields were laid in front of these positions.

Interior Forces: During the Transition To War Belgium’s Interior Forces fortified military bases and various other ‘Key Points’. That generally meant building ‘sangar’ type structures from sandbags, installing concrete blocks, including the type used as road dividers and laying barbed wires. Where it was possible, trenches, gun pits and foxholes were dug for the defenders.


Canada

Canada does contain a wealth of forts, most of these are historic structures and none served as defensive fortifications. Even if some had become modern Canadian Forces Bases.

Field Army: As a formation assigned to SOUTHAG reserve, 1st Canadian Division did not construct significant field fortifications. However, as normal practice, soldiers did dig slit-trenches, foxholes etc whenever they were in any place for any length of time. On a number of occasions, troops from the division took over field fortifications from other formations and as most troops did, improved them whenever time was available.
Things changed during the ‘Pause’ with the Canadian led Commonwealth Corps holding a significant sector in western Czechoslovakia. Defences started off as improvised field fortifications. Over time ‘dragon’s teeth’, concrete pillboxes, mines and barbed wire etc. were added.

Home Defences: Like other NATO nations, during the mobilisation period, the Canadian Armed Forces fortified its military bases, Key Points, and critical national infrastructure.


Denmark

Denmark abandoned its fixed defences after the First World War, other than some coastal defences, which are outside this fact-file.

Field Army: The fighting the Jutland Division was involved in was generally too mobile for its troops to construct more than basic field fortifications. The forces protecting Zealand and Bornholm constructed more extensive defences, although these were overrun after giving a good account of themselves. In some cases, the Soviets occupied some defences built by Danish troops and used them during the liberation of Zealand, meaning some positions were fought over at least twice.
Danish troops would take their turn manning fortifications along the line of the Kiel – Lübeck Salient during the ‘Pause’.

Home Defences: Military bases, Key Points and other critical infrastructure was fortified. Although, in the case of locations on Zealand and Bornholm, these defences were tested in battle, rather than just being used to protect against attack by Spetsnaz, or internal sabotage.


Finland
[NOTE 1]

Since she shared a long border with the Soviet Union, a country which had invaded twice within living memory, it was no surprise that Finland maintained a system of defences. These existed both along the border with the USSR and in the interior of the country, where they aimed to slow down and channel the Soviet invader. It should be noted that while these positions were named as ‘lines’ there was not a continuous ‘Maginot’ type of line. But instead, groups of mutually supporting positions that took advantage of geography where they could. They were also not a single ‘line’, but defensive positions in depth. Just because an enemy might fight their way past one set of bunkers, or pillboxes did not mean that they had penetrated the line as a whole.

Defensive Lines:
Salpa Line (Suomen Salpa) – a 1,200-kilometre line that once stretched from the Gulf of Finland to Petsamo (now Pechenga). The line was built between 1940 and 1944, though it did not see any action. While much of the line was abandoned, or became museums, the Finnish Army continued to maintain some of the various bunkers, pillboxes, anti-tank ditches and obstacles, dugouts etc. When the Soviet invasion came, the northern part of the Salpa Line was penetrated rapidly. To be fair to it, the Finns had ceased maintaining most of the line in the north, instead planning to fight a mobile ‘guerilla’ type war against an invader. In the south, where the line had continued to be maintained and improved, the line held for five vital days, before it was abandoned, and the Finnish Army began a fighting retreat to the west.

Helsinki Defence Lines – While there were a number of minor defensive positions and improvised field fortifications to the west of the Salpa Line, there were no pre-war fortifications until the Helsinki Defence Lines, which were intended to act as Stop Lines. The furthest east of these positions was the Porvoo Defence Position, which ran between Porvoo and just to the north of Lahti. It served as an extension to the main defence lines, meeting the Outer Helsinki Defence Line near Meijerinpelto. The southern part of the latter line largely followed the river Svartån. The outer line was more heavily fortified than the Porvoo position, having a larger concentration of fortifications. The Middle Helsinki Defence Line used the line of the river Sipoonjoki and was as heavily fortified as the outer line. The Inner Helsinki Defence Line was in the outskirts of the capital itself, largely following the route of National Route 103 and the E75, before curving back near Karava. Should that line be breached, the Finns planned to carry on the fight within Helsinki itself.
As the defence lines were anchored in the south by the Gulf of Finland, they were integrated with Finnish coastal defences. For example, the southern ends were protected by 100 56 TK turrets and positions for anti-ship missile batteries. Turrets from withdrawn T-54 and Charioteers were also used further inland to strengthen the defence lines. The defence lines were partially manned by reservists but were designed to also be used by the main field army and thus contained prepared positions for armoured vehicles and artillery.
While Soviet forces were able to breach the Porvoo Defence Position, it held long enough for the first Swedish reinforcements to arrive. This meant that efforts to breach the Outer Helsinki Defence Line failed.

Home Defences: Finland extensively fortified military bases and other ‘Key Points’, both to protect them from sabotage and attack by Spetsnaz, but also to allow them to be used as ‘defensive nodes’ in urban combat.


France

France built what is probably today the most famous series of fortifications, the Maginot Line. A discussion of the line is outside this work, however, some of the larger forts were repurposed into nuclear command bunkers.

Field Army: French Army forces in West Germany constructed extensive improvised field fortifications which were used in defence against the Warsaw Pact invasion. During the ‘Pause’, the French would extensively fortify the sectors of the front their troops held.

Home Defences: In line with other NATO members, France constructed defences to protect military bases, government buildings and various other key points. The French Army Regional Forces would construct and man these defences. In some places using obsolescent armoured vehicles, such older variants of the AMX-30 tank, as semi-mobile pillboxes.


Germany, Federal Republic


West Germany sat alongside some of the most extensive fortifications built in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, yet it refrained from building a response. While several organisations patrolled the western side of the Inner German Border, there were only simple marker posts.
The concept of fixed defences was basically exchanged for the system of prepared obstacles, of which there were more than 8,000 across the whole of the FRG, every single one located at a choke point, the rationale being that the resulting accumulation of vehicles and personnel could and would then be attacked by artillery and air power.

Field Army: The Heer was very assiduous in constructing field fortifications, being typically efficient and thorough. During the ‘Pause’ the Bundeswehr engineer corps would join its NATO allies in constructing more permanent field fortifications. Steel reinforced concrete would begin to replace wood and corrugated iron as pillboxes and bunkers sprouted along the sectors held by West German troops.

Home Defences: Like Demark, there was some crossover between defences built to protect rear-areas and important facilities, e.g., the Regierungsbunker, and defences built for combat against the enemy’s field army.


Greece

Greece had some of the strongest fixed fortifications of any NATO member. Defensive positions, many of which reused those built for the ‘Metaxas Line’. [NOTE 3]

Defensive Lines: As observed, the main Greek border defences were based on the old ‘Metaxas Line’. The core of the line was a number of fort complexes, such as Forts Istibey, Roupel and Lisse. By 2005 these were generally used as command centres and concentration points, rather than fighting positions. Newer positions sited to cover vulnerable positions had by and large taken their place. The main difference between them and earlier structures being that modern ones were built with NBC protection. The existing line had also been extended to the west to cover the border with Yugoslavia and to the east until it reached the Turkish border in Thrace. A weaker series of defensive positions was built along the Albanian border. A defensive line protecting the eastern city of Alexanropolis was also maintained as a fall-back position.
The defensive positions made extensive use of tank turrets mounted on concrete shelters. These were generally M48 and AMX-30 turrets, though M47 turrets could be found in some places. Some older tank turret bunkers dating back to the immediate postwar era, mounted M3 Grant, and M4 Sherman turrets, which had their main guns removed and replaced with machine-guns. However, these, where they survived, were generally used as decoys. The tank turrets were supported by positions for infantry and artillery. Protected positions for AFVs and infantry were also constructed for the field army, both to serve as fighting positions, but also as locations from where counter attacks could be launched.

Metaxas Line - Bulgarian Border
In the west, the new Metaxas Line was concentrated around two positions - the Roupel Pass and the Vathytopos/Kato Nevrokopi area.
Greek positions to the front of the Roupel Pass and facing the Bulgarian borders were focussed on channelling any attacker into the pass itself - not a difficult task when facing an extremely mechanised foe with little leg infantry trained for assaulting prepared positions in mountainous terrain. The winding Roupel Pass itself is bisected by the Struma River, and measures nearly eight kilometres, as the crow flies. Even before Greek engineers set out mines and dragon's teeth and dug anti-tank trenches, the prepared positions within the pass were formidable. To any attacker aware of their true scope, the immortal words “Into the valley of Death. Rode the six hundred.” would not have been an inapt summation of the challenge.

Ionian Line - Albanian border
In contrast with the Metaxas Line along the Bulgarian border, the Ionian Line along the border with Albania was focussed less on defending against a mechanised invasion, and focussed more on impeding the mass flow of refugees in the event of an economic collapse in Albania. To be sure, hardened artillery positions and vehicle defilade positions were built at key points. But in general, the Ionian Line was more fences and barbed wire, with the occasional dragon's teeth and a few tank turrets. The forward infantry positions largely resembled the guard posts found along the Korean DMZ - platoon-sized observation/strong points - more than the concrete fortresses found further to the east.

Voras Line - Yugoslav border
By the 1990s, Greek concerns along the Yugoslav border were one part concern about the strife in Bosnia spreading top the rest of Yugoslavia, and one part concern that a Warsaw Pact invasion could cut through Yugoslavia in an attempt to flank the Metaxas Line positions and the creme of Greek forces. Thus the initial positions resembled those of the Ionian Line as an immediate response to be seen as “doing something”. As finances and resources allowed, a second wave of construction went back to harden the Line - starting with the areas closest to the intersection of the Bulgarian-Greek-Yugsolavian borders and slowly moving westward. The hardening program proceeded in fits and spurts, and the results were . . . inconsistent.

In the main the lines would be manned by older reservists in the thirties and early forties, rather than younger conscripts. The latter being concentrated in the field army.

While the defensive positions were well constructed and sited for the most part, they did have a weakness towards the end of the line in Greek Thrace. Rather than face north towards Bulgaria, many of them faced east towards Turkey. Which meant they were badly placed to face the attack when it came. However, in general the Greek border defences stood up very well and it was not until D+23 that significant breakthroughs were achieved in two sectors. By this time the defences had done their job of delaying the enemy and inflicting serious casualties on his forces. Most of the soldiers from fortress sectors that became untenable were evacuated, along with much of their equipment. Allowing them to fight another day as part of the Field Army.

Field Army & Home Defences – In connection with the defensive lines manned by Fortress Troops, prepared positions had also been constructed for use by the Field Army. In many places these linked up with the defensive lines, allowing mobile forces to fill gaps, or mount counterattacks. In Greece there was a crossover, especially in the north and east of the country between fortifications built for Home Defence and those used to protect against an enemy army.


Iceland

What fortifications did exist in Iceland were of an improvised nature and had been constructed, in the main, by the American manned Iceland Defense Force. The Icelandic Coast Guard did construct some defences to protect important infrastructure. These were manned by coast guard and police personnel.


Ireland, Republic of

[NOTE 1]

The Republic of Ireland did not have any extant defensive lines or fortifications. Even those constructed along the border with Northern Ireland as part of the response to ‘The Troubles’ had, in general, been dismantled by 2005. The Irish Defence Forces would construct fortifications to protect military bases and important civil infrastructure after Soviet attacks on the country. The Irish Army would also build field fortifications in West Germany and Austria.


Italy

Italy has maintained fixed border defences along its northern and eastern land borders, dating back to at least 1870. With some pre-dating the founding of the modern nation. Many of these were lost post-1945, while others, such as the fortifications along the French border, were abandoned. However, with the threat from the Warsaw Pact, new defences were built along the borders with Yugoslavia and Austria, and old ones renovated. All of this, even though both of those countries were neutral and in the case of Austria, part of the same economic trading bloc. Italian defence planners were under no illusions regarding the ability of the Yugoslavs, or Austrians to keep hostile troops away from Italy’s borders.

Defensive Lines – The post-war Italian border defences ran from the Piz Lat mountain area to the mouth of the Natisone and as far back as the left-bank of the river Tagliamento. The mountain defences included two hundred permanently manned positions, while others were held in a state of readiness. Construction of the fortifications was largely funded via NATO’s Mutual Defence Aid Programme and used a mix of brand-new structures and those that had been built as part of the Vallo Alpino series of fortifications.
As well as pillboxes, bunkers and artillery positions, the main Italian defensive lines made extensive use of tank fortifications. These fell into two basic types: the first was a concrete pit into which a tank, minus its engine, was lowered; these fortifications included a generator, a shelter for the crew and storage for ammunition. The second type was a reinforced concrete emplacement, on which a tank turret was mounted. That version also had a shelter for the crew, a generator and ammunition storage. Both types were positioned to cover roads, motorways, and bridges, and were supported by command bunkers, Observation Posts on higher ground and armoured cupolas mounting machine guns. As built, these fortifications used Sherman Fireflies and M26 Pershings, which remained in service into the mid-1990s. A modernisation scheme saw the Firefly and Pershing tanks and turrets replaced by M60A1 and Leopard 1 tanks, or turrets. Although, where it was necessary to build a new bunker pit, the original was left in place as a decoy. [NOTE 4]

Field Army & Home Defences – In connection with the defensive lines manned by Fortress Troops, prepared positions had also been constructed for use by the Field Army. Some of these were sited so that they supported fixed positions and could, if necessary, be used to plug any gaps and stop penetrations of the defensive lines. In line with other NATO members, Italy fortified military bases and other important national infrastructure.


Luxembourg.

Luxembourg did have minor fortifications in the past, the pre-Second World War Schuster Line being the last. In the field the Luxembourg Army constructed fortifications and also assisted in fortifying important facilities in the country itself.


Netherlands

The last military fortifications to be built by the Dutch to guard against invasion was the Ijssel Line. That line was abandoned in 1968 when NATO changed its defensive strategy. [NOTE 5]

Field Army – 1 (NL) Corps built field fortifications along its sector of the front and to protect troops in rear areas. During the ‘Pause’, Dutch troops would construct increasingly strong positions along their sector. Over time adding such structures as pillboxes, anti-tank ditches and ‘dragon’s teeth’.

Home Defences – Troops from the National Territorial Command constructed and manned defences within the Netherlands itself. While some structures from previous defence lines, such as the Ijssel and Water Lines were renovated and reoccupied, this only occurred when these structures were sited to protect things like bridges, dams, and dykes.


Norway

Norway maintained extensive defensive positions, which were manned both by its field army and fortress battalions of Territorial Defence Commands. Allied troops, including American marines, British paratroops and Canadian infantry would also man defensive positions.

Defence Positions – Rather than maintain defence lines, Norway built defensive positions intended to provide all round defence. While some minor defensive positions existed in Finnmark, intended to delay any Soviet advance, the main Norwegian defensive position, known as ‘Fortress Norway’, or the ‘Frøya Fortified Defensive Positions’, was in northern Troms, at the narrowest part of the country. Consisting of a network of pillboxes, bunkers, buried command posts, artillery positions and protected pre-surveyed positions for armoured vehicles, Norway had been adding to ‘Frøya’ since the 1950s. That meant that there were far more positions than could be manned, even with the addition of Allied troops. Which allowed NATO forces to play a ‘shell-game’, making it hard for the Soviets to know what positions were manned and which were not. The ‘Frøya’ was bookended on its seaward flank by coastal forts, whose guns could fire inland, as well as out to sea.
‘Frøya’ proved to be too strong a position for the Soviet 6th Army to take, even when additional Soviet forces advancing out of the ‘Finnish Wedge’ attacked its right flank. Soviet troops would end up thoroughly enmeshed in the position, like Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Meaning that the 6th Army was in a poor position to respond to Operation ‘FISH-HOOK’. In the end, most of the army would be destroyed as NATO forces mounted a counterattack from the secure base of ‘Frøya’ on their way to link up with the ‘FISH-HOOK’ forces.

Home Defences – Military bases and other critical infrastructure was fortified and protected by troops from the various Territorial Defence Commands and the Home Guard. Amongst these defences were turrets taken from obsolete M24 Chaffee tanks and M8 Greyhound armoured cars, which were used to protect airfields. From the mid-1990s, these fixed positions were supplemented by old M48A5 tanks, which were used in a semi-mobile role. Additional armour fitted to the Pattons did impact on their performance, but for their intended role it was not considered a significant problem.


Portugal

In times past, Portugal had fixed defences along its borders with Spain and most famously the Lines of Torres Vedras. However, by 2005, with Spain an ally in NATO and a fellow member of the EU, such defences were no longer necessary.

Field Army – The Portuguese Army would, as a matter of course, construct field fortifications when static. During the ‘Pause’, Portuguese forces in Austria would take their turn to man defensive positions.

Home Defences – Various improvised fortifications were built during the Transition to War to protect military bases and important facilities in Portugal.


Spain

Like its Iberian neighbour, Spain was also a country with a legacy of fortification. Indeed, much of the Peninsular War had been punctuated by sieges and the capture of fortifications. However, Spain was the last country in Western Europe to build a fortified line – Linea P, which was built in the Pyrenees south of the border with France. Started towards the end of the Second World War, the line would be completed post-war. By 2005, like other fortifications in Spain, it would be defunct.

Field Army – The Spanish Army constructed extensive field fortifications and would man a sector of the fortifications constructed in eastern Austria. A Spanish division would also take its turn to man defences in Thrace.

Home Defences – As per other NATO members.


Sweden

[NOTE 1]

The most recent Swedish fixed defences had been the Skåne Line (also known as the Per Albin Line). While some of the defences of this line were still in use in 2005, as coastal defences, they lie outside the scope of this work.

Field Army – The Swedish Army, like others, built field fortifications when in action. The contingent sent to southern Finland would also help to man the defensive lines protecting Helsinki.

Home Defences – As per other NATO members.


Turkey

Like its neighbour Greece, Turkey built some of the strongest and most extensive fixed fortifications. Most of these were in Turkish Thrace, facing Bulgaria and to a lesser extent, Greece.

Defensive Lines & Positions – Turkish defences in Thrace were similar to those in Greece, making extensive use of pillboxes, bunkers, protected tank, and artillery positions etc. Again, like their neighbour, the defences made extensive use of tank turrets on bunkers and tanks buried in concrete pits. Most of these employed M47 and M48 tanks as the basis, with most being armed with a 105mm gun, although older tanks, including M24 and M4 Shermans existed in some places.
The border defences in Thrace ran from just to the north of Edirne to the vicinity of Igneada on the Black Sea. Most settlements to the south of this line, such as Edirne, had at least one ring of defences to allow them to act as nodal points to block, or slow down an enemy’s advance. The next line of defences in Thrace was known as the Çerkezköy Line, ran from Marmara Ereğlisi through Çerkezköy itself to the Black Sea via Saray. The final line of defences before Istanbul itself was the so-called Çatalca Position. Both of these lines made extensive use of the geography to channel an enemy into killing grounds. As these positions were intended to be used by the field army, there were fewer fixed positions, with most that did exist being used as nodal points to anchor defences that would be dug once war had broken out.
Turkey’s eastern and southern borders were not as extensively fortified. With geography itself serving as a very effective defence. However, towns and cities did have rings of defences that would be manned by local reservists.

Home Defences – As per other NATO members.


United Kingdom

In the past the UK has constructed defensive lines and fortifications, notably during both the First and Second World War. Many of the pillboxes, concrete anti-tank blocks, ‘Dragon’s Teeth’ etc. can still be seen. By the 21st Century, however, there were no operational fortifications of this type in Britain.

Field Army – If the British Army was good at least one thing, it was digging defences. The British Army Of the Rhine maintained extensive defensive stores to allow the construction of fortifications and to allow the strengthening of buildings to allow them to be used as fighting positions. Reinforcements from the UK would bring further such stores with them, and they would be used to build very strong defences that would assist 1 (Br) Corps greatly in its defence and subsequent counterattack. During the ‘Pause’, British troops would construct extensive fortifications, including pillboxes, bunkers, concrete blocks, trenches, barbed wire etc.

Home Defences – With the threat of terrorism, British military bases were already well protected, including by the ubiquitous ‘Yarnold Sangar’. The declaration of Ground Defence Areas meant that additional defensive structures were built outside the perimeter of bases and critical infrastructure. In many places additional ‘Yarnold Sangars’ were installed, along with sandbagged positions. Moreover, where they existed and were in good condition, First and Second World War pillboxes were reconditioned and manned. While Britain did not make use of tank turrets, it did use up-armoured turrets from Ferret armoured cars, armed with a single GPMG, to protect some airfields. Some facilities were also protected by Chieftain and Challenger 1 tanks used in a semi-static role. [NOTE 6]


United States of America

The USA has not needed to build defensive fortifications, other than coastal defences for many generations. At least within the Continental USA. In Alaska and elsewhere, it was another story.

Field Army – When on operations the US Army would, as a matter of course, dig-in and build field fortifications. In some places it would occupy and fight from defensive positions built by its allies. It would later during the ‘Pause’ build fixed defences in its sectors of the front.

Alaska and the Aleutians – With their close location to the USSR, it would be expected that fortifications would have been built here. In practice they were limited to extemporised sandbagged positions and concrete highway dividers at checkpoints. After the Soviet raids, US Army Alaska began an extensive programme of building fortifications, including pillboxes similar to the British ‘Yarnold Sangar’.

Home Defences – When fortifying bases and critical infrastructure, the USA took a leaf out of Britain’s book. Correctly identifying that the threat would come from ‘terrorism’ and sabotage. As in Alaska, ‘Yarnold Sangar’ type pillboxes were extensively used.

*

1) Not NATO members at the outbreak of hostilities.

2) The Charioteer turrets that were operational had been re-armed with the 105mm L7 gun.

3) See link. A good description of Greek defences can be found in Kaufmann, J.E and Jurga, R.M, ‘Fortress Europe – European Fortifications of World War II’ (London 1999), ps.302-327.

4) A good description of Italian tank fortifications can be found in Short, Neil, ‘Tank Turret Fortifications’, (Ramsbury 2006), ps.181-185.

5) See Short, ps.185-191 and link for details: IJssel Line.

6) The ‘Yarnold Sangar’ was named after Squadron Leader Jed Yarnold of the RAF Regiment, who came up with the idea for them. See link for more - www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/yarnold-sangar/
For the Ferret turrets see Short, ps.203-204.

[Bernard Woolley]

Soviet and Warsaw Pact Countries

TO BE ADDED

[Bernard Woolley]

Other Allied Countries & Neutrals.

TO BE ADDED

[Bernard Woolley]

Highlights of the New Border
A NATO Guide (Brussels August 2005).
SECRET

The Kiel - Lübeck Salient
The Salient is the largest area of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) still under enemy occupation. The Deutsche Demokratische Republik (commonly known as 'East Germany) has illegally annexed the territory of the salient. Something that is not recognised by any NATO, or allied government. Several neutral governments have also spoken out against the attempt to incorporate the area into the DDR.
The attached maps show the approximate path that the front-line of the Salient takes between the two cities.

Northern End
The Kiel Canal essentially marks the northern end of the Salient, where it is also at its narrowest. NATO forces hold the northern bank as far as the area Altwittenbek, where the front-line crosses the canal itself. Two pontoon bridges link NATO forces holding both banks. The front-line continues south cutting in front of Ottendorf, and running between Melsdorf and the outer edge of Kiel itself. The distance between the NATO and Warsaw Pact front-lines varies, often depending on the terrain. At its closest the two front-lines come within around a kilometre of each other.

Central Sector
The area around Wankendorf and Bornhöved marks roughly the half-way point of the Salient. Most of Wankendorf is under Warsaw Pact occupation, while Bornhöved sits on western side. Both municipalities have suffered significant damage, and few buildings are considered habitable.

Southern End
The Salient curves around Lübeck approximately following the autobahn, before the front-line crosses the old Inner-German border just north of the Ratzenburger See (see accompanying map).

Defences and manning them.
What started as slit-trenches, fox-holes and shell-scrapes have become sophisticated lines of trenches, including various fortifications, such as steel-reinforced concrete bunkers, pillboxes etc. Barbed wire and concrete 'dragon's teeth' have filled the 'No-Man's Land' between both armies. NATO armies have chosen to generally use light infantry to man the fixed defensive positions, with mechanised and armoured forces held in reserve, ready to respond to any penetration of our defences, or to exploit a breakthrough, or break in to the enemy's. The ongoing peace-talks will hopefully mean that these remain only as preparations.



The Magdeburg Bulge.
A major city in the DDR, Magdeburg sits astride the Elbe River. In the last few days before the cease-fire, 1 (British) Corps had been given the objective of reaching the Elbe, and establishing bridgeheads over the river. However, the corps had also been ordered not to engage in any major urban operations. The result of those orders were that while British forces reached the Elbe to the north and south of the city, they halted before reaching the outskirts of Magdeburg itself. The corps commander did intend to force a crossing of the river and threaten the city from the east, hopefully forcing a Warsaw Pact withdrawal. However, the Soviet request for a cease-fire rendered that plan moot. The planned eastern bridgeheads were not established, and in the southern part of the Bulge, Warsaw Pact forces retained some territory on the western side of the river. British forces would advance to just over a kilometre in places from the boundary of Magdeburg, before digging in (see accompanying map).

Warsaw Pact Defences
From ground observation and aerial reconnaissance, the Warsaw Pact garrison of the city is a rather heterogenous force. Soviet motor rifle troops of approximately regimental strength equipped with the BTR-90 and T-90 have been observed. However, the majority of the defenders appear to be reserve units of the Nationale Volksarmee (NVA), equipped with older vehicles. East German forces also include Hundertschaften and Schwere Hundertschaft of the Kampfgruppen der Arbeiterklasse, comprising around two battalions in strength. It is believed that additional personnel from the male population have been mobilised to join the KdA, or join new units led by personnel from the Volkspolizei. The Warsaw Pact have extensively fortified the Bulge with trenches, bunkers, barbed wire and 'dragon's teeth'.

NATO Forces
British and some Irish troops exclusively man the NATO positions in front and to the north and south of Magdeburg. Defences matching those of the Warsaw Pact have been constructed and continue to be improved. Soldiers from light-infantry and wheeled mechanised battalions man the positions, with the main armoured strength of 1 (Br) Corps being held just to the west.

[Bernard Woolley]

Maps

[Bernard Woolley]

SPACE RESERVED

[Eaglenine2]

Eh the link for the Yarnold Sanger isn't correct?

[Bernard Woolley]

Looks like they updated it.