Mystery Luftwaffe hangar structure

[alt-92]

1 hour ago, Jochen Barett said:

But I do not know if "taste" was all that important in those days ...

This early on in the war, they're still in their honeymoon period, and using 'grandiose' architecture to impress the population is still a thing.

Besides that, the use of concrete is rather widespread in for instance roadbuilding. As of twelve years ago, the original concrete-slab road surface was still in use on what was the road between the town center of Hilversum* and the airfield nearby (Loosdrecht).  It's even called Neuweg** 

 

*Hilversum being the location for the HQ for the Wehrmacht in the Netherlands as well as it still is today the national broadcasting center.
**although that's purely coincidental - part of the road itself dates from mid-19th century. 

[Alex Gordon]

Let's look at what's there.We have one section of a 40+ metre wide open span heavy cast concrete structure.

 

It looks like it was shuttered and cast in position.The sag we can see in the Historical Fighters photo is either due to the demolition attempt or the shuttering moved during casting.

 

The width was derived from the Measure Distance option on Google Maps.40 metres would be enough to take a Heinkel 177 which was introduced into service in 1942.

 

If the sag in the top beam was a product of defective workmanship it would have been demolished (and no doubt somebody shot) if there was time or it was left to stand while someone worked out what to do with it.

 

Why it was so heavy a structure is a mystery,was concrete cheaper and more readily available than steel.The Deisel hangar on site was a prefabricated structure cast off site,positioned by crane and clad with other materials.

 

I'm going to guess that it was going to be a hangar built to take any of the Luftwaffe inventory.

[mhaselden]

Bear in mind that steel was a strategic wartime resource used for manufacturing all sorts of armaments...concrete not so much.  

[tempestfan]

4 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

 

 

https://historicalfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/afb_2.jpg

 

The skeleton hangar is the seen at the top of the drawing, if you exted 'dispersal' in 'west dispersal area' you would hit it.

 

The text describes the skeleton hangar as a 'T-hangar'. But that doesn't appear to a German designation, I cannot find anything using that as a search term.

 

 

Oddly, the map simply shows it only as a semi-circle, just like the others around. May the "T-Hangar" simply be a description of its shape? If I'm not mistaken, I have located it on the recce photo, just to the left of the lowest of the brown stains in the upper right quadrant, at the western end of the dispersal taxiway system. The extension on the western wall giving it some farmhouse shape from above would be for the rear fuselage and tail, I guess? It can be barely 10m deep, so would need something added to use it for a large plane.

3 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

Whether the Tempest photo shows the same hangar, that's a tough one! The roof has the same slightly concave shape. But I cannot really match it with the map (link) of that corner of the airbase.

 

Rob

I don't think the structure in the background shows the same building, as that behind the Tempests lacks those curious trapezoidal extensions at the ends - I wonder what their purpose was? I have no idea of concrete building statics, but the only purpose I could think of would be to more evenly distribute the load on the roof beams on the entire height of the pillars.

 

Fascinating stuff, really. But if it was for a Condor, then why only a single one? While I think they usually operated singly or in pairs at best, having just one on station would be a bit odd?

[tempestfan]

3 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

Bear in mind that steel was a strategic wartime resource used for manufacturing all sorts of armaments...concrete not so much.  

That concrete structure would require a lot of steel reinforcement, I think. Besides, at the time they started building the Atlantikwall I think, which also required a lot of concrete and steel.

I am also not really convinced that the top actually is concave, that may well be an optical illusion caused by the lens, the angle of the picture and the foreshortened legs on one side.

[alt-92]

Volkel was originally a Nachtlandeplatz - an airstrip for nightfighters - and later upsized to a full Fliegerhorst for various fighter and bomber units.

 

II Gruppe / JagdGeschwader 26 (6 – 15 -08- 1943) Messerschmitt Bf 109

II Gruppe / JG 3 (14 – 25 -12 -1943) Messerschmitt Bf 109

I Gruppe & II Gruppe / KampfGeschwader 6 (29-08 1944 – 21-09-1944) Junkers Ju 88 

III Gruppe / JG 1 Messerschmitt Bf 109

 

The occasional co-located 262's from KG51 were spread over Eindhoven and Volkel but only for a very short time, and apparently an Arado 234 made a guest appearance in the last days of German operations in September 1944.

[Crimea River]

All very interesting reading. The only thing I can add at this point is that close inspection of the aerial photo posted earlier shows the structure supporting a pitched roof with the ridge parallel to the long axis of the structure. This should remove all doubt about the sag being intended and more likely due to the demolition attempt.

 

The building extension on the west side also has a pitched roof and it would seem plausible that the purpose if this section was to house the rear fuselage and tail planes of a larger aircraft.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Crimea River

[alt-92]

According to the HVV - Historical Flight Volkel website, at least two hangars were equipped with an attached heating building. 

 

Perhaps it is good to know that during the entire war period, the winters were exceptionally cold - there were three consecutive years from 1940 onwards where the traditional 'Elfstedentocht'  (200Km ice skating race) would be held.

Volkel, being more inland and exposed would have been pretty unpleasant without heating.

[Rob de Bie]

I will follow Alex's idea to summarise.

 

First the position. I rotated the map so north is .. uh.. to the north, and circled the skeleton hangar in red in the west dispersal area. Circled in green in the south-east dispersal area are the other remaining hangar (the Deisel 8-beam one) and with smaller circles two 4-beam Deisel hangars of which small remains are still present.

 

 

 

I did the same on the aerial photos, where I circled all 'T-hangars'. I count nine, as reported here, but two of them don't have the back extension (both in the north-east dispersal area). I too think that 'T-hangar' is just a description of the plan view, not a German designation. I measured the one under investigation, and found an overall width of 53-54 meters, a depth of 17 meters, and an extension of 13 meters, making 30 meters total. I also circled the only two aircraft that spotted so far, in green in the first picture.

 

 

 

 

Next, I used one of the 'Alamy' photos to draw a rough ghost version of what that hangar should have looked like. It doesn't look like a farm to me at all, it is way too large for that.

 

 

Then about the sag in the beam, another 'Alamy' photo shows it well I think:

 

 

Then the use of steel reinforcement. Some photos that I took in 2016 show lots of rebar in the top beam and the pillar. The rebar in the second photo is bent from the blasting.

 

 

 

And I want to  a big thanks to all that have responded so far. I don't I've ever started such a lively thread 🙂

 

Rob

Edited August 10, 2021 by Rob de Bie

[mhaselden]

I think the whole "camouflaged to look like a farm" is bogus.  There's no way that dispersal layout could ever be confused for an actual layout of multiple farm buildings.  It's clearly an airfield and those are clearly structures that support aircraft-related activity.  

 

As to the steel question, yes there would be a lot of steel in the concrete structure but I suspect, volume for volume, it would be less than an entire hangar made out of the stuff.  Plus a concrete structure like that can be made very quickly based on a standard pattern, hence easier to erect...and, arguably, lower maintenance.  

[alt-92]

I wouldn't discard the 'make it look like a farm' option out of hand  
Knowing that region, there are plenty of large agricultural structures, especially in the southern part of the Netherlands.
 

 

Also: the famous 'Blaskowitz' bunker near here was basically a set of concrete bunkers with villas built on top. 

 

[GiampieroSilvestri]

In my opinion with the bent "roof" it is a foundation for something technical like a radar position or Flakscheinwerfer.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

[alt-92]

4 minutes ago, GiampieroSilvestri said:

radar position or Flakscheinwerfer.

Those were not located directly on the airfield premises. Let alone on top of a hangar.

[Rob de Bie]

At last I found a picture (here) of a Luftwaffe hangar that would fit roughly. It has a sag too, or am I seeing things?

 

 

Rob

 

[GiampieroSilvestri]

1 minute ago, alt-92 said:

Those were not located directly on the airfield premises. Let alone on top of a hangar.

I do not think that this was intended as hangar.A technical installation like a Motorprüfstand or radar postion is more plausible for me.A Bordwaffentestanlage is also possible.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

[mhaselden]

17 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

I wouldn't discard the 'make it look like a farm' option out of hand  
Knowing that region, there are plenty of large agricultural structures, especially in the southern part of the Netherlands.
 

 

Also: the famous 'Blaskowitz' bunker near here was basically a set of concrete bunkers with villas built on top. 

 

 

I would agree if this was an individual structure with smaller surrounding structures and a road network that looked like a farm.  This entire area looks like an airfield dispersal and no amount of painting the structures to look like a barn (or anything else) would fool even an inexperienced imagery analyst.  

[alt-92]

That's like saying the above-posted picture doesn't exist  

I have extant examples of exactly such 'camouflaged' constructions a couple of miles from here. 

[Creepy Pete]

7 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

no amount of painting the structures to look like a barn (or anything else) would fool even an inexperienced imagery analyst.  

Maybe not to some imagery specialist back home in England, but for the pilot of the Mosquito or Mitchell buzzing the airfield looking for targets, it just might, for a few seconds. And that could be enough to survive another raid.

[Creepy Pete]

More examples of German camouflage attempts in the Oostende region. They were really creative.

 

 

[Creepy Pete]

And at Melsbroek:

 

[mhaselden]

8 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

That's like saying the above-posted picture doesn't exist  

I have extant examples of exactly such 'camouflaged' constructions a couple of miles from here. 

 

I'm not denying that such examples exist.  It all depends on the location, layout, and how well the rest of the airfield is camouflaged.  The aerial image shown is clearly an aircraft dispersal and the regular, identical, shapes of the buildings make it impossible for it to be anything other than an airfield.  Imagery analysis isn't just about the object itself but also its surroundings and associated features.  While clearly the Germans attempted to disguise these structures, the benefit of such measures on the airfield in question would be absolutely useless.  

 

 

11 minutes ago, Creepy Pete said:

Maybe not to some imagery specialist back home in England, but for the pilot of the Mosquito or Mitchell buzzing the airfield looking for targets, it just might, for a few seconds. And that could be enough to survive another raid.

 

Approaching a target like this at 100 feet and over 350 kts means you probably won't even see the "camouflage".  All you'll see is the layout of the environment and the general shape of the building.  Back when Pontius was a pilot, my squadron was doing forward air controller training with some Hereford Hooligans.  They kept calling in features like trees or small buildings that simply couldn't be discerned by a pilot coming in at low level and high speed.  We invited the team to the squadron to take them flying and show them what the world looked like at 100ft and 540kts...they soon learned how big the features needed to be for the pilots to see them.  The quality of the FAC service improved drastically after that visit.  

[mhaselden]

4 minutes ago, Creepy Pete said:

And at Melsbroek:

 

 

And you'll note I said the disguising of a hangar to look like a farm was unlikely.  Farms have some fairly common, distinctive features.  Once again, that airfield could never, EVER be mistaken by anyone for a farm.  The taxiway layout alone stands out like a dog's proverbials.  

[Creepy Pete]

Fine

[GiampieroSilvestri]

I sent a request to the editor of German magazine Jet&Prop if he or one of his authors know what the construction could be.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

[Max Headroom]

This is an interesting thread. I know absolutely nothing about this but from what I see, this is a big, solid structure. It’s either to lift something heavy, or to withstand a very big explosion. If the latter, then surely it would also have thick walls, so I’m veering towards some sort of lifting gantry. That’s not not to say that it could have had some sort of camouflage covering.
 

Next thing would be to measure the span length and widthways and then to compare that to whatever the Luftwaffe had at the time. Is there/was there a hard standing next to it leading to a taxiway or whatever?

Are there any signs of lifting gear or places where they would have been fitted?

Is the floor of the structure flat, or are there trenches or pits?
 

Finally, what would they lift? Seems a bit over engineered to lift out an engine. It looks like it’s big enough to sling a whole aircraft. But what and why?

 

All very intriguing!

 

Trevor