GUTS!!

[airnutz]

P-47C 78th FG going after a flak tower 1943

my 2 cts :

-this is definitely a water tower, I'm french and used to see these in the landscape.

I agree FAFG, for the past 4 days I've viewed hundreds of French chateau d'eau and have seen a few still
existing with this style of coppola atop it. I've also looked for German Flakturme designed in this style and
haven't found any..yet.

For those who need to translate type the address into the google translate, etc...
http://chateau.deau.free.fr/Themes/Theme.htm

www.watertowers.de/Link2_engl.htm

-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...

I'd like to see the one you used to visit..I've yet to find on in the "hourglass shape" in that size of tower.
I've seen quite a few smaller ones. Where was "yours"?

I'm afraid I disagree with your conclusion. From what I understand of these water tower designs, there is ample
room to have 20mm, 40mm, or possibly Pak 40 in place. A military commander would be a fool to discard such
"a piece of high ground" as an elemental aid used in control of the area.

-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 ?

Given this statement, I'm even more convinced some sort of weaponry would be in place for protection of the
aerodrome, as well as, control of the local roadways leading to the base.


Again we have only 1/2 of the picture in Jacks photo. There is a curious feature in the original photo which has me
scratching my head. Unless this is a unique feature to this tower...the sections at the roofline..which appear to
be "observation ports", would not be possible in the ordinary scheme of design because they appear in the area of
commonly occupied by the shoulder of the steel lid of the tank. Notching that area would be quite a job(but I
wouldn't put it past the Germans), OR the top of the walls supporting the conical roof have been raised and the
dome of the water tank is lower than commonly observed in relation to the roofline. Just some thoughts...

[airnutz]

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...

It doesn't have to be designed for that purpose...adaptation would qualify it as a Flak tower. Because a house or a
high-rise building contains a Flak position, it does not cease to be a house or high-rise, but it does become a Flak tower.

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

Oh really? I thought you saw the photo below that Ryan posted? Looks pretty "lightly complected" to me?


Allegedly (according to the caption) this is another "Flak Tower" on an airfield. Also note the aircraft (Ryan quote)

If it was on an airfield, rather than near, I'd expect to see more fencing or perimeter evidence to keep the Resistance out.

Given the limitation of a single photo..you expect a lot. There's no way without further evidence to determine
what the base perimeter was in 1944. Being an airfield the water tower would, of course, be protected by the
usual and prolific 16'-18' tall Flak towers outfitted with multiple 20mm and 40mm cannon, among other defenses.

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.

Again, we are aware of 1/2 of the structure. There's more than adequate room between the water tank and
the void of the roof interior to make something of it.

Since the photo Jack posted was shot in spring of 1944, I'd say the French Resistance had plenty of time to
determine whether the Germans had armed the water tower...maybe that's where military intelligence
people got the idea?

A final point, I cannot imagine a base defense
commander, worth his salt, would ignore such a superior gun platform amongst the flatlanders and the security
it would provide in controlling what what approached the airfield... by road, overland or air. He would also
take pains to maintain the illusion that the structure was a water tower. No gun barrels sticking out, but maybe
parts of the roof lifted etc. to give 'em some maneuver room. They had years to prepare the Atlantic Wall and
supporting inland defences..I can't imagine they would be slipshod in their preparation and use this structure as
a simple water tower.

Last edited by airnutz on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[the330thbg]

Last edited by the330thbg on Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.

[Randy Haskin]

Okay, it's time for some reality here.

It's a water tower. So what?

Are we debating because that's what the caption says, and we're trying to make sure we accurately describe what is occurring in the photo?

Or, are we debating the validity of some Jugs strafing what might be a water tower instead of a "flak tower"? Are people concerned that USAAF pilots would be strafing an innocent water tower??

I happen to think it's the latter.

The fact of the matter is this: You CANNOT evaluate WWII combat actions using 21st century "western" moral standards.

Although I'm sure that GIs weren't out there indiscriminately killing and destroying whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, you have to remember that the 1940s was a VERY different time in the history of warfare. This was a time that mass bombing of CIVILIANS was considered a valid tactic (although, of course, there was much debate about its success).

This photo was taken in occupied Europe in a time when the enemy of the American government was present and engaged in actual combat. In this time and in this place, virtually anything might have a valid combat use. A water tower that is used to irrigate crops (that provide food for an occupying Army) or is used to provide drinking water (for an occupied Army) would be a perfectly valid, legal, and legitimate target to strafe. If it were located on an enemy airfield where troops were actually located, then that makes it even better.

Today we have a very different take on what is considered a valid military target. Realize that every bit of combat that the US military has engaged in over the last two decades has been very limited warfare that specifically does NOT target national infrastructure or civilian/noncombatant populous. Today we as the "western world" are preconditioned to despise any military action that intentionally or unintentionally does damage to things and people that are not specifically combat forces that could be an actual threat.

The current extent of this thought process is very much a product of the late 20th century.

Trying to go back and retroactively evaluate actions in combat using current moral standards is just not fair -- those guys were doing the absolute best they could based on what they believed in at the time.

It's a water tower. It's being strafed. At the time, it was a perfectly legitimate target. So what?

[the330thbg]

Good F-n Grief!!!



As stated before.,. they were most likely briefed about 'flak towers' so they saw a tower (if it looks like a duck) so they thought.., 'flak tower'.., so they gunned the crap out of it..,


SO THE _ _ _ _ WHAT???!!!

at least;
No. 1 they hit their mark
No. 2 they did not crash into it..,

or vice versa.., it is war., stuff goes on in war that not everyone should or would want to know about.



How many fuel trucks/cargo trucks in Iraq do you think we spent valuable ordnance on when we thought they were 'SCUD LAUNCHERS' ?


A LOT!!!!!!!!!

So in 60 years..,this debate is going to surface again but with A-10's and a milk truck.., with the caption.., SCUD BITES DUST!!!

[Django]

Okay, it's time for some reality here...

*applause*

[fotobass]

It's a water tower. It's being strafed. At the time, it was a perfectly legitimate target. So what?

Randy wins.

Also, anyone wanna guess how much of that tower would be left if Randy got a crack at it with his current equipment?


(runs to Google up image using 'small pile of pebbles' as search parameters)

[Randy Haskin]

It would be fully intact, because today we wouldn't be allowed to target "civilian" infrastructure.

[fotobass]

Ahh, but killing that attempt at humor of mine was apparently acceptable...

*sigh*

[Randy Haskin]

heh, valid point

[Tulio]

my 2 cts :

-this is definitely a water tower, I'm french and used to see these in the landscape.

I agree FAFG, for the past 4 days I've viewed hundreds of French chateau d'eau and have seen a few still
existing with this style of coppola atop it. I've also looked for German Flakturme designed in this style and
haven't found any..yet.

Again, I am not saying that it is definitely a "flak" tower, or that it is not.

Let's keep in mind, that you are seeing the towers they way they look nowaday, not the the way the could possibly have been used [if at all] back during the 1944-45 time frame.

I too, have been looking for any mention or images of a water tower used for any kind of FLAK activity [observation, coordination or actual weapons use] without any good results so far.

Saludos,


Tulio

Last edited by Tulio on Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

[ktst97]

Uncle Sam treated me to 26 months in north-eastern France in the early '60s. I do not recall ever seeing a water tower that looked like the photo. But, I do not recall ever seeing any water towers, possibly because at that time I was so enthralled with women, airplanes, women, race cars, and women.

[Robbie Roberts]

But seriously, I would be interested for any pictures of flack-converted water towers. The floor is open...

GREAT! Now the "Flak Tower" is shooting DOWN through the open floor!!!

Robbie