Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:40 am
Now, for the second part:
I do believe that it was probably a Flak tower. Not of course, like the ones documented in those links I provided above.
But, the caption of the photo that Ryan has posted, indicates that it [Flak / water tower] is located in the vicinity or / at an airfield.
Given the flat nature of the land visible, this tower would make for a vantage observation point, and who knows, maybe even a couple of MGs. That would make it a Flak tower. Not all the flak came from 88s and such; at low level, even infantry rifle fire would add to the Flak, right?
Also, keeping in consideration that radar was in its infancy, and not every airfield or region was covered by radar, gives more weight to my belief that, if not a Flak tower per se, still a legitimate target during war.
Rules of engagement were of course, different then, that then are now. Otherwise, we would not have seen Dresden or Tokio firebombing happen.
Interesting discussion, though.
Saludos,
Tulio
I do believe that it was probably a Flak tower. Not of course, like the ones documented in those links I provided above.
But, the caption of the photo that Ryan has posted, indicates that it [Flak / water tower] is located in the vicinity or / at an airfield.
Given the flat nature of the land visible, this tower would make for a vantage observation point, and who knows, maybe even a couple of MGs. That would make it a Flak tower. Not all the flak came from 88s and such; at low level, even infantry rifle fire would add to the Flak, right?
Also, keeping in consideration that radar was in its infancy, and not every airfield or region was covered by radar, gives more weight to my belief that, if not a Flak tower per se, still a legitimate target during war.
Rules of engagement were of course, different then, that then are now. Otherwise, we would not have seen Dresden or Tokio firebombing happen.
Interesting discussion, though.
Saludos,
Tulio
Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:28 am
http://warrelics.eu/forum/after-battle/flak-towers-vienna-2127/
Here are some examples in Germany. They look different than the one in France. It appears in my opinion they were used for better visibility.
Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:07 am
Indeed, an interesting discussion, one to get the brain going, IMHO.
FWIW, I don't think there's any argument it's a legitimate target, I just don't see any evidence it's a piece of enemy equipment beyond the level of infrastructure.
There are examples of many similar designs in the previous links which are dedicated water towers in the right area - no exact match, but close.
There's been no examples shown of a dedicated Flak tower of a similar design - the Berlin, Vienna etc. (the pics you've cited, A2C were shown on page 1 of the thread, and Vienna's in Austria, not Germany, but nevermind) examples are completely different - MUCH bigger, 'bombproof' (which is why they're still around) and with clear firing platforms, defending a permanent city, not an airfield or military instillation.
Anyone cares to find an example of a flak tower of this design with any gun or a radar or sausage-safe on it, I'll be delighted to change my view on the evidence...
Just touching on the courage issue, hopefully for one last time. No one, AFAIK here is questioning the courage of these fighter pilots. As Brad rightly pointed out, we don't know what happened before or after, and as brucev's mentioned water towers were specifically given as targets in this period. However, compared to the rest of the job a fighter pilot was undertaking in June '44, I don't think it's unreasonable to say they'd probably think this would be a bit of relatively light-relief target practice for them.
As to it being on an airfield, if it were, in wartime, I very much doubt it would be painted that light colour, acting as a beacon for miles (A certain coastal RAF station was easily located from way across the North Sea because of its watertower in the 1970s.) In other words I'd give more weight to the colour than the photo caption.
If it was on an airfield, rather than near, I'd expect to see more fencing or perimeter evidence to keep the Resistance out. However if it were a pre- war local irrigation water tower it would look like that - from what we can see. OTOH, the opposite view might be very revealing.
Interesting. It's a maxim in evidence analysis that because something could be the case isn't proof that it is. It could be, indeed. As all the evidence we have to it being a flak tower is the caption, a secondary source, not primary - therefore at the least, 'case not proven'. I'm happy to go further and say it's probably an innocent water tower having a bad day and more fuss made of a good pic by the caption writer.
I still don't see enough reason to post someone up there with an inadequate field of fire and inadequate armament to make a difference.
Incidentally, something in the back on my mind on this - In W.W.I observation balloons were used by both sides, and a major (challenging target) to attack. Although unarmed, they were often surrounded by 'archie' (Ack ack) batteries, and with predicable paths only available to attack a balloon, an easy shot and higher level of danger for the attacking pilot.
But they were also used as bait, with a Staffel of fighters up sun, or, more interestingly (and this is anecdotal in 'Biggles') fitted with an explosive charge and dummy in the basket instead of an observer - to take down an attacking fighter.
As well as the guts we've been discussing, a good fighter pilot needed a suspicious mind for traps and quick thinking analysis of apparently simple situations.
Guts and brains...
FWIW, I don't think there's any argument it's a legitimate target, I just don't see any evidence it's a piece of enemy equipment beyond the level of infrastructure.
There are examples of many similar designs in the previous links which are dedicated water towers in the right area - no exact match, but close.
There's been no examples shown of a dedicated Flak tower of a similar design - the Berlin, Vienna etc. (the pics you've cited, A2C were shown on page 1 of the thread, and Vienna's in Austria, not Germany, but nevermind) examples are completely different - MUCH bigger, 'bombproof' (which is why they're still around) and with clear firing platforms, defending a permanent city, not an airfield or military instillation.
Anyone cares to find an example of a flak tower of this design with any gun or a radar or sausage-safe on it, I'll be delighted to change my view on the evidence...
Just touching on the courage issue, hopefully for one last time. No one, AFAIK here is questioning the courage of these fighter pilots. As Brad rightly pointed out, we don't know what happened before or after, and as brucev's mentioned water towers were specifically given as targets in this period. However, compared to the rest of the job a fighter pilot was undertaking in June '44, I don't think it's unreasonable to say they'd probably think this would be a bit of relatively light-relief target practice for them.
As to it being on an airfield, if it were, in wartime, I very much doubt it would be painted that light colour, acting as a beacon for miles (A certain coastal RAF station was easily located from way across the North Sea because of its watertower in the 1970s.) In other words I'd give more weight to the colour than the photo caption.
If it was on an airfield, rather than near, I'd expect to see more fencing or perimeter evidence to keep the Resistance out. However if it were a pre- war local irrigation water tower it would look like that - from what we can see. OTOH, the opposite view might be very revealing.
Given the flat nature of the land visible, this tower would make for a vantage observation point, and who knows, maybe even a couple of MGs. That would make it a Flak tower. Not all the flak came from 88s and such; at low level, even infantry rifle fire would add to the Flak, right?
Interesting. It's a maxim in evidence analysis that because something could be the case isn't proof that it is. It could be, indeed. As all the evidence we have to it being a flak tower is the caption, a secondary source, not primary - therefore at the least, 'case not proven'. I'm happy to go further and say it's probably an innocent water tower having a bad day and more fuss made of a good pic by the caption writer.
I still don't see enough reason to post someone up there with an inadequate field of fire and inadequate armament to make a difference.
Incidentally, something in the back on my mind on this - In W.W.I observation balloons were used by both sides, and a major (challenging target) to attack. Although unarmed, they were often surrounded by 'archie' (Ack ack) batteries, and with predicable paths only available to attack a balloon, an easy shot and higher level of danger for the attacking pilot.
But they were also used as bait, with a Staffel of fighters up sun, or, more interestingly (and this is anecdotal in 'Biggles') fitted with an explosive charge and dummy in the basket instead of an observer - to take down an attacking fighter.
As well as the guts we've been discussing, a good fighter pilot needed a suspicious mind for traps and quick thinking analysis of apparently simple situations.
Guts and brains...
Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:43 am
Wow,all this for one photo.
Still a amazing shot if it was a flak tower,water tower I don't know I was not there .
But if I was going to make a flak tower I would make it look like a water tower.
Why is there a fence around it if it was a water tower?
Oh well not that big of a deal anyway.
Rick
Still a amazing shot if it was a flak tower,water tower I don't know I was not there .
But if I was going to make a flak tower I would make it look like a water tower.
Why is there a fence around it if it was a water tower?
Oh well not that big of a deal anyway.
Rick
Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:59 pm
Hi Gang,
Just my .02 cents, I live in germany, that is for sure a water tower, they are all over western europe. Having said that, any high structure could have had a pair of twin MG34's mounted in them not only to guard against aircraft but also to control the local roads and act as a lookout point for suspicious activity especially in an occupied country.
Many such buildings had large holes knocked in the roof to provide a firing point. My guess is that, for the benefit of the doubt that this was such a improvised site. The hole would have been facing west towards any anticipated attackers. So, if any time allowed it would have been strafed from behind.
If I recall correctly after an escort mission fighters were released to go low level strafing, this would have put the Jugs on the deck and heading west while the gunners would have have been facing to the west as well.
Everybody just play nice now, Ya hear?
Just my .02 cents, I live in germany, that is for sure a water tower, they are all over western europe. Having said that, any high structure could have had a pair of twin MG34's mounted in them not only to guard against aircraft but also to control the local roads and act as a lookout point for suspicious activity especially in an occupied country.
Many such buildings had large holes knocked in the roof to provide a firing point. My guess is that, for the benefit of the doubt that this was such a improvised site. The hole would have been facing west towards any anticipated attackers. So, if any time allowed it would have been strafed from behind.
If I recall correctly after an escort mission fighters were released to go low level strafing, this would have put the Jugs on the deck and heading west while the gunners would have have been facing to the west as well.
Everybody just play nice now, Ya hear?
Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:01 am
That's a good point Enemy Ace,
It's good to hear a local perspective and what you say makes sense.
Tschuss,
David
It's good to hear a local perspective and what you say makes sense.
Tschuss,
David
Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:02 am
Wow! A nice bit of WIX CSI there.
Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:02 pm
Quote:
Given the flat nature of the land visible, this tower would make for a vantage observation point, and who knows, maybe even a couple of MGs. That would make it a Flak tower. Not all the flak came from 88s and such; at low level, even infantry rifle fire would add to the Flak, right?
Interesting. It's a maxim in evidence analysis that because something could be the case isn't proof that it is. It could be, indeed. As all the evidence we have to it being a flak tower is the caption, a secondary source, not primary - therefore at the least, 'case not proven'. I'm happy to go further and say it's probably an innocent water tower having a bad day and more fuss made of a good pic by the caption writer.
Theory of Groups tells me, that all the possibilites are part of the group, even the nothing happening there possibility. So, including the possibility of something happening there [e.g., a couple of MGs] is also valid.
Saludos,
Tulio
Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:27 am
Tulio wrote:Theory of Groups tells me, that all the possibilites are part of the group, even the nothing happening there possibility. So, including the possibility of something happening there [e.g., a couple of MGs] is also valid.
As you quote, I didn't say it was 'impossible' - just improbable, and currently without primary evidence. Don't put your shirt on the flak-tower theory.
To put that in context: I presume you'd rather the doctor treats you for what you know you have, due to the symptoms you do have, rather than what you might have - and that there are no symptoms for...
The evidence it is a water tower is overwhelming. There's no direct evidence of it being adapted for flak, despite many creative suggestions. Observation from a white tower over a cabbage fields might make it into a whermacht field manual, but I don't think so.
Can't see much point in taking this further, however, a challenge. I'd be interested in any solid evidence that this kind of water tower as used as a flak tower. Photos et al.
Regards,
Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:09 am
Agreed. I did not say impossible either, just that the possibility of it happenign cannot be excluded.
After all, we have gone four pages of discussion on a photo that only shows me an 180 degree view of a round structure.
And yup, we are beginning to repeat our points, so this is it for me.
Thank you for the illustrative points you and others here have made.
Saludos,
Tulio
After all, we have gone four pages of discussion on a photo that only shows me an 180 degree view of a round structure.
And yup, we are beginning to repeat our points, so this is it for me.
Thank you for the illustrative points you and others here have made.
Saludos,
Tulio
Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:31 am
Tulio wrote:After all, we have gone four pages of discussion on a photo that only shows me an 180 degree view of a round structure.
And yup, we are beginning to repeat our points, so this is it for me.
Looks like we are going in circles because we can't go in a circle...
But seriously, I would be interested for any pictures of flack-converted water towers. The floor is open...
Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:26 am
JDK wrote:Tulio wrote:After all, we have gone four pages of discussion on a photo that only shows me an 180 degree view of a round structure.
And yup, we are beginning to repeat our points, so this is it for me.
Famous last words.....
And with apologies for the Looooooooong URLs..
Doing some quick web searches, I came across a video that seems to contain the strafing P-47 as seen on the first posting on this thread:
http://rareaviation.com/store/images/pi ... 4%26um%3D1
And I also found some Flak Towers that are a little different from the massive Flak Towers already described above in this thread.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... laktwr.jpg
Flieger abwehr kanonen turm:
http://www.kultfeinwerk.de/userfiles/im ... ck7BOP.JPG
http://www.bomberhistory.co.uk/Canal%25 ... n%26sa%3DG
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... n%26sa%3DG
I have not found anything yet, regarding smaller towers, or the possible -or impossible if you will- use of water towers for air defense purposes.
Saludos,
Tulio
Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:56 am
my 2 cts :
-this is definitely a water tower, I'm french and used to see these in the landscape.
-I used to visit one wich was quite the same shape : you can't install AA guns on the roof of it : perhaps just an observer who wouldn't have any protection...
-In a french book, this pic is captioned as being taken on the Chartres Airfield. this could explain the strafing of this inoffensive water tower : I think the pilots have to shoot "everything they see" on this kind of target ?
-this is definitely a water tower, I'm french and used to see these in the landscape.
-I used to visit one wich was quite the same shape : you can't install AA guns on the roof of it : perhaps just an observer who wouldn't have any protection...
-In a french book, this pic is captioned as being taken on the Chartres Airfield. this could explain the strafing of this inoffensive water tower : I think the pilots have to shoot "everything they see" on this kind of target ?
Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:54 pm
Merci!!!
Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:56 pm
the330thbg wrote:Water tower.
They still have those in Northern France and through-out.
No doubt it tooks GUTS, no doubt.., but hey.. while you are up there and basically CONTROL the air.,. why not have some fun and shoot at stuff if you want to!
For all we know they were briefed that anything that looks like a duck is a duck.. et al.., water tower, flak tower.., WTF.., shoot first and ask questions later!
Exactly!