The Stp Kermorvan (Le Conquet—FR)

DOI: 10.4236/ad.2020.83013   PDF   HTML   XML   68 Downloads   158 Views  

Abstract

The segments of the Atlantic Wall in different countries have been the subject of many publications of various authors. Examples of remains of Atlantic Wall segments, at about seventy years from the WWII end, in the Finistère (FR) at the Keremma dunes, Audierne Bay, Goulven Bay, Aber Wrach, Camaret sur Mer, Cleus Foz, Saint-Pabu and other places have already been proposed to the attention of the readers. The Stp Kermorvan, subject of this article, represents a further interesting example of them, which in addition illustrates its interactions with very ancient structures and pre-existing defensive structures. It did not use said ancient structures, but destroyed some of them for its defense exigencies, and did not adapt existing defensive structures to its new defense requirements but re-use them mainly for logistics and personnel lodgment.

Share and Cite:

Tomezzoli, G. (2020) The Stp Kermorvan (Le Conquet—FR). Archaeological Discovery, 8, 228-244. doi: 10.4236/ad.2020.83013.

1. Introduction

In past publications, Atlantic Wall segments, at seventy years from the WWII end, in the Finistère at the Keremma dunes (Tomezzoli, 2006), Audierne Bay (Tomezzoli & Marzin, 2015), Goulven Bay (Tomezzoli, 2016), Aber Wrach (Tomezzoli, 2017a), Camaret sur Mer (Tomezzoli, 2017b), Cleus Foz (Tomezzoli, 2017c), Saint-Pabu (Tomezzoli & Colliou, 2017) and other places have been analysed in details. The Stp Kermorvan represents a further interesting example of them.

2. Archaeological Environment

Very many publications dealt with the Kermorvan megaliths. A publication (Sparfel & Pailler, 2010) reported on the Peninsula: six menhirs, five lying stones, one cromlech, three tumulus or cairns, two dolmens with corridor, two covered alleys and one dolmen (Figure 1). Another publication (du Chatellier, 1903a) mentions one megalithic enclosure north to the Porz Pabu isthmus and two parallel megalithic enclosures south of the isthmus. A small Bronze Age necropolis was at the north of the Blanc Sablons isthmus, a funerary case near the menhirs at Fort de Kermorvan and a tumulus was over a small Celtic tomb. Other publications (du Chatellier, 1903b) (Devoir, 1913) (Devoir, 1920) (de Freminville, 1832) report different numbers of megaliths (Figure 1, Figure 2). Over the centuries and during the WWII, some of them were degraded or destroyed (Sparfel & Pailler, 2010). Nowadays, many of them are covered by vegetation and no longer identifiable, only the menhir near the cromlech and few other megaliths remain visible (Figure 1, Figure 2).

During the XVII - XIX cen., the defense of Le Conquet area was sustained by coastal batteries, entrenchments, redoubts, crenellated guardhouses (Figure 1) and mobile troops. The Fort (Redoute 1849) and Batterie de Quinze were at the north side of Blanc Sablons beach. Five batteries were positioned along Blanc Sablons together with Fort St. Louis (Redoute Vaubain) (48˚22'9.87''N, 4˚45'34.76''W, height 29.3 m), Redoute Interme-diare (48˚21'58.22''N, 4˚45’46.35''W, h. 34.43 m) and Redoute Blanc Sablons with Batterie de Treize (48˚21'54.89''N, 4˚46'3.42''W, h. 21.39). Two batteries were at Fort de Kermorvan and two other at Fort de l’Îlette (Figure 1, Figure 2). The batteries were formed by eight guns in barbette, i.e. on a platform behind a mound or parapet. The personnel were lodged in the redoubts and/or guardhouses nearby. The redoubts were built at the end of the XVII cen. and modernized in the XIX cen. The Fort

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Archaeological environment: (a) Kermorvan Peninsula: ! menhir; ~ lying stone; o cromlech; * tumulus, cairn; x dolmen with corridor; = covered alley; # dolmen; B Blanc Sablons beach and isthmus; C Le Conquet; L Fort de Kermorvan; I Fort de l’Îlette; P Porz Pabu isthmus; R Ria. C0317-0321_1952_CDP3774_0606, n˚606, 1/5169, Argentique, 27/04/1952; (b) Blanc Sablons: ! menhir; * tumulus; = covered alley; 1 beach; 2 Fort St. Louis (Redoute Vaubain); 3 Redoute intermediare; 4 Redoute Blanc Sablons and Batterie de Treize. C0417-0081_1969_F0317-0417_0016, n˚16, 1/24793, Argentique, 16/07/1969.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 2. Archaeological Environment—(a) menhir near the cromlech; (b) menhir near the access road; (c) Fort St. Louis, front view; (d) Fort St. Louis, rear view; (e) Redoute de Blanc Sablons, on the left main entrance, on the right barrack entrances; (f) Redoute de Blanc Sablons—rear view.

and Batterie de Quinze were built in 1849. The Fort de l’Îlette crenellated guardhouse was a 2nd type, mod. 1846 for 40 soldiers with two brattices per side, commissioned in 1847. Its two batteries supported the fire of the batteries at Blanc Sablons and Fort de Kermorvan. The Fort de Kermorvan crenellated guardhouse was a 3rd type, mod. 1846 with two brattices per side commissioned in 1849 together with the lighthouse. Its two batteries defended Le Conquet and supported the fire of Fort de l’Îlette. Fort St. Louis was built in 1850 for 60 soldiers (Lécuillier, 2004a) (Lécuillier, 2004b). The Fort de Kermorvan and Fort de l’Îlette crenelated guardhouses were built as part of the 1846-1862 French coastal protection program as the Petit Gouin 2nd type, mod. 1846 crenelated guardhouse of 1859 (Tomezzoli, 2017b). Nowadays, all the batteries of Blanc Sablons are no longer identifiable, but the redoubts are in good preservation state and the forts de Kermorvan and de l’Îlette preserve their crenelated guardhouses and battery platforms.

3. History

The support point (Stützpunkt-Stp) Kermorvan superposed itself on the variety of structures described above. The Organization Todt (OT), from 1942, was in charge of its construction. It was part of the defensive group St. Renan and was formed by the resistance nests (Widerstandnest-Wn) Re104 - Re119 composed in total by 16 bunkers operated by infantry and artillery companies (Floch, 2012).

The German 257th Infantry Division back from the east front was at rest in the Finistère from September 1942 to April 1943. The headquarter of the 1st Battalion (unit 30 241A) of its 477th Infantry Regiment, commanded by major Glaser, arrived at Conquet on December 1942 together with the 3rd Company (unit 30 241D), both from Lannion. The Company commander assumed the direction of the Conquet Kommandantur. The 1st Battalion moved in reserve to St. Renan on 4th February 1943 replaced, on the same day, by the 2nd Battalion. The headquarters of the 2nd Battalion (unit 34 616A) and the 5th Company (unit 34 616B) of lieutenant Baumann were at Conquet up to April 1943. The headquarter of the 4th Group (unit 38 503A) of its 257th Artillery Regiment was at Conquet from January to April 1943. Its three Group batteries were in the sectors of Plouarzel and Plouzané.

The 113th Infantry Division, annihilated at Stalingrad in February 1943, was reconstituted in the Finistère. The headquarters of the 1st Battalion (unit 32 244A) and the 1st Company (unit 32 244B) of its 268th Infantry Regiment were at Conquet up to June 1943, before to leave for Plounéour-Menez. The headquarter of the 2nd Group (unit 38 909A) of its 87th Artillery Regiment was at Conquet. Its three Group batteries were in the sectors of Ploumoguer and Plouzané.

The 343th Infantry Division, formed on 1st October 1942 as coastal surveillance division for the North Britain, on June 1943 was charged of the sector from Plouescat to Telgruc. The headquarter of the 3rd Battalion (unit 47 943A) of its 852nd Infantry Regiment was at the Beauséjour summer camp in Conquet. One section of the Battalion held the resistance nest Wn59 at Pors Liogan near Lochrist. The 4th battery (unit 44 276B) of its 343rd Artillery Regiment, coming from Ploumoguer, was at Conquet from 22 January to July 1944, before to leave for Portzic. The 9th Company (unit 44 276B) and the 3rd Company (unit 06 460S) of the 1st Battalion of the 25th Fortress Troops (Festungs-Stamm-Truppen), subordinate to the Brest Defence Command, were present up to the Conquet liberation.

General Ramcke, commander of the Festung Brest, entrusted colonel Fürst, commander of the 899th Regiment of the 266th Division, of the defence of the Conquet pocket. The Regiment was attacked and partially destroyed on 7th-8th August 1944 by the US Army in the sector of Pluvien. Colonel Fürst and an unknown number of German soldiers succeeded in joining the German lines and participated in the Conquet defense. The joint action of the US Army and the FFI (Forces Françaises de l’Interieur) of St. Renan on 9th September 1944 contributed to the rendition of colonel Fürst at his Kerveur en Plougonvelin headquarter near Pointe St. Mathieu.

The 10th September 1944, three hundred German soldiers of Stp Kermorvan and one hundred of Pointe d’Ilien laid down their weapons. The same day Le Conquet was liberated.

Sixteen German soldiers were killed at Conquet during the Occupation, of which four in August and four in September 1944 during the Liberation combats (Floch, 2012).

The German Prisoners of War (POWs) life conditions were miserable. Inspectors from 1945-1946 noticed flagrant breaches of the Geneva Convention. After his inspection on 16th August 1946, Mr. Courvoisier of the Red Cross International Committee denounced in his report the deplorable treatment of the POWs: food was insufficient and the clothes ragged. POWs starved, lacked hygiene and the work time lasted from 7h to 18h. Infirmaries were often absent and the mortality rate elevated. The POWs were assigned and often exchanged among different camps and commands. On August 1946, the Conquet command comprised 45 POWs employed in demining operations and four of them died during demining (Floch, 2009) (Floch, 2012).

4. The Visits

The Stp Kermorvan structures positions are shown in Figure 3.

A study (Lécuillier, 2004c) identified the following bunkers: 2 × R505 (anti-tank gun bunker), 1 × R515 (machine gun bunker with forward apron), 2 × R601 (anti-tank bunker with roof canopy), 1 × R622 (two groups bunker), 3 × R628 (one group bunker with forward apron), 1 × R635 (two groups bunker with forward apron), 1 × R634 (six embrasures turret bunker), 1 × R638 (small dressing bunker) and 2 × R648 (single embrasure turret bunker).

Another study (Atlantic Wall CO UK, 2018), with images of 03 December 2009, identifies the following Kermorvan Wns, their bunkers and armament:

Re104 nord est—1 × R505. 1 × 3.7 cm Pak 35/36.

Re105 nord est—1 × R634. 1 × Unterstand. 1 × Vf58c.

Re106 nord ouest—1 × R628. 1 × Vf58c. 1 × Stolen.

Re107 nord—2 × R601. 2 × 7.5 cm Pak 97(f).

Re108 nord—1 × R648.

Re109 nord—1 × Vf58c. 1 × Unterstand.

Re110 nord, fortin de L’llette—1 × Casernment.

Re111—1 × R515. 1 × Vf58c.

Figure 3. Stp Kermorvan—bunkers, mine fields (Pinczon du Sel, 1947-1948) and approximate locations of Wn Re104 - Re119.

Re112 ouest Werk “Koln”—2 × SK/Schartenstand. 2 × 7.5 cm K.M.97(f). 1 × Stolen.

Re113 sud—1 × R505. 1 × unterstand. 1 × Vf58c. 1 × 3.7 cm Pak 35/36.

Re114 sud—SK/MG Schartenstand. 1 × R628. 1 × Vf58c.

Re115 sud-est—1 × R634. 1 × Vf58c.

Re116 est—1 SK/Doppel M.G. Schartenstand. 1 × R635. 1 × Stolen.

Re117 centre—1 × R621. 2 × Vf58c.

Re118 centre—1 × 638.

Re119 centre—1 × R628. 2 × Vf58c. 1 × Stolen.

This study permitted to roughly estimate the position of the Kermorvan Wns (Figure 3).

The visits took place on 02 January 2012 and 15 May 2017. The Stp Kermorvan identified components were the following.

A bunker (48˚21'49.92''N, 4˚46'37.39''W, height 19.31 m) (43) (Figure 4) completely covered by vegetation and crossed by the Kermorvan coastal road. The southern-part let only visible an entrance room, obstructed by recent concrete bricks. The room ceiling and walls preserved the original formwork boards imprints, typical of the German masonry, the original white painting disfigured by contemporary graffiti and rusted hammered supports. Because of the vegetation coverage, its type and preservation state remained unknown. The northern part was completely covered by vegetation and no feature was recognizable.

An R505 (48˚21'41.94''N, 4˚47'6.15''W, h. 10.94 m) (52) (Figure 5) for PAK gun in the cliff. Its façade was rather damaged by heavy projectile impacts and disfigured by contemporary graffiti. The Ero Vili pebbles (Tomezzoli & Marzin, 2015) were clearly visible on the damaged parts. The front side 485P2 metal plate and the rear side 447P01 armoured door of the combat room were removed. The combat room preserved a semicircular concrete support having a semi-circular and a semi-cylindrical recess, and a severely rusted arched bar. The combat room was damaged by the removal of the 485P2 but preserved its original white painting with graffiti. The covered entrance preserved the close combat room embrasure with splinter guards and its original orange painting. The entrances were closed by recent metallic gates letting visible the good preservation state of corridors and internal rooms preserving their original white painting and rusted ceilings.

The Fort de Kermorvan, Re 112 (48˚21'44.53''N, 4˚47'20.11''W, h. 20.12 m) or Köln Werke, in a military area and consequently not accessible ( Figure 6 ). However, it was possible to recognize that to the existing well preserved structures, a southern bunker (48˚21'45.72''N, 4˚47'18.91''W, h. 13.54 m) (65) and a northern bunker (48˚21'44.23''N, 4˚47'18.85''W, h. 10.87 m) (64) were added. The southern bunker was in good preservation state with minor concrete failures on the façade and the splinter guards of the combat room front opening, letting visible rusted concrete reinforced rods. The northern bunker was in good preservation state and the façade let visible the successive concrete pours. An electric distribution cabin, built in local stones, comprising three circular apertures, similar to that of Camp Todt at Tréguennec (Tomezzoli & Marzin, 2015), stood on the northern façade of the crenellated guardhouse.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4. Bunker (43)—(a) general view; (b) southern part covered by vegetation; (c) entrance obstructed by concrete bricks; (d) entrance room.

A trench (48˚21'39.38''N, 4˚47'7.32''W, h. 27.49 m) ( Figure 7 ) partially covered by vegetation, connecting a R628 bunker (53), a Vf58c tobruk (62) and a concrete corridor to a 2nd bunker (61). The R628 entrance was closed by a recent metallic gate letting visible a descent ladder and the original white wall painting. The 2nd bunker entrance was closed by a wall and a recent metallic gate, so that the interior was not visible. The tobruk was accessible. Its weapon room was slightly damaged by minor concrete failures letting visible rusted concrete reinforced rods. It preserved two shelves and its original wall white painting. The floor plat

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 5. R505 (52)—(a) access; (b) access ladder; (c) covered entrance, on the left rear opening of the combat room with supports for the armored door 447P01, in the middle embrasure of the close combat room with splinter guards, on the right entrance, on the top the rusted ceiling; (d) rusted arched bar in the combat room; (e) 485P2 plate, in the middle rectangular openings, on the right rectangular slit; (f) damaged façade, front opening of the combat room with PAK 36 concrete support, and rusted support bolts for 485P2 plate.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Fort de Kermorvan, Re112—(a) southern side view, 3rd type, mod. 1846 crenellated guardhouse, southern bunker (65), lighthouse; (b) northern side view, crenellated guardhouse with leaning electric distribution cabin, northern bunker (64), lighthouse.

form for elevating the soldier outside its circular opening was removed and the opening was closed by a metallic, beige painted cover having minutes joints irregularly distributed and a 30 cm circular opening closed by a cover with a joint.

A western R601 (48˚22'1.02''N, 4˚47'5.77''W, h. 18.78 m) ( Figure 8 , Figure 9 ) for PAK gun. The rectangular PAK gun garage was accessible. Its west side was covered by vegetation. Its front side was in good preservation state letting visible the niche for the PAK gun mouth. Its east side was in good preservation state letting visible at its top four rusted support bolts for the removed 7P7 coverage plate/s. Its floor, covered by terrain, let visible, near the east side, the access manhole to the ammunition room covered by a recent concrete slab. The entrance was closed by a recent metallic gate letting visible a descent ladder, an embrasure of a close combat room, the original wall white and orange painting and the rusted ceiling. The rest of the western R601 and the concrete gun firing place in front of it were covered by grass and vegetation.

An eastern R601 (48˚22'1.74''N, 4˚47'3.96''W, h. 18.76 m) (Figures 8-10) for PAK gun. The rectangular PAK gun garage was accessible. Its west and front sides were covered by vegetation. Its east side was in good preservation state letting visible at its top four rusted support bolts for the removed 7P7 coverage plate/s. Its floor, covered by terrain, let visible, near the east side, the access manhole to the ammunition room covered by a recent concrete slab. The entrance was closed by a recent metallic gate letting visible a descent ladder, an embrasure of a close combat room, the original white and orange painting of the walls and the rusted ceiling. The nice conical shape of the observation post was visible. The rest of the western R601 and the concrete gun firing place in front of it were covered by grass and vegetation.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 7. trench—(a) access; (b) R628 (53) entrance; (c) entrance of the 2nd bunker (61); (d) tobruk (62) access; (e) tobruk weapon room; (f) trench exit corridor.

Figure 8. Porz Pabu isthmus—western R601on the left, eastern R601on the right.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 9. Western R601—(a) PAK garage; (b) entrance; (c) close combat room embrasure; (d) R601 plan: 1 gaslock, 3 crew room, 4 ammunition room, 6 observation post, 29 store room, 31 PAK garage (Rudi, 1988).

A one room house (48˚22'1.44''N, 4˚47'11.82''W, h. 14.76 m) (Figure 11) 3 × 6.5 m on the side of a pathway, oriented east-west and leaning against the rocks. The walls were formed externally by superposed local stones tied together by concrete. The original formwork board imprints on the room walls, typical of the German masonry, were clearly visible. The entrance was on the South wall and a small window 60 × 40 cm was on the east wall. The ceiling and the entrance door disappeared. A concrete hut, about 1.5 m high, having an entrance and a cylindrical hole stood against the west wall.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 10. Eastern R601—(a) coverage and observation post, upper left Blanc Sablons; (b) PAK garage with covered access manhole to the ammunition room; (c) close combat embrasure; (d) access to the observation post; (e) observation post; (f) obstructed opening.

An R515 (48˚22'0.97''N, 4˚47'12.62''W, h. 13.51 m) (52) (Figure 12) for machine gun in the cliff near the one room house and the tobruk. Its whole façade was damaged by heavy projectile impacts. The Ero Vili pebbles (Tomezzoli & Marzin, 2015) were clearly visible on the whole façade. The combat room was damaged by the removal of the front plate but preserved its original white painting and contemporary graffiti. The entrances were closed by recent metallic gates letting visible the good preservation state of corridors and internal rooms, which preserved their original white painting and rusted ceilings. The metallic collar of the periscope hole was visible on the coverage and a trench from R515 to the tobruk was still visible.

The Fort de l’Îlette, Re110 (48˚22'9.33''N, 4˚47'14.2''W, h. 18.43 m) (83) (Figure 13) which did not hosted bunkers. Its crenellated guardhouse, walls and battery platforms were in good preservation state.

A tobruk (48˚22'5.23''N, 4˚47'9.34''W, h. 20.75 m) (82) covered by the vegetation (Figure 14). The aperture of the weapon room appeared in good preservation state.

A tobruk (48˚21'59.79''N, 4˚47'3.07''W, h. 14.43 m) (71) covered by the vegetation (Figure 14). The aperture of the weapon room appeared in good preservation state.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 11. tobruk Vf58c—(a) west side; (b) weapon room; (c) east side.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 12. (a) one room house; (b) R515 and tobruk; (c) R515 plan: 3 crew room, 4 ammunition room; 5 machine gun combat room; (d) access ladder; (e) combat room front opening, (f) combat room rear side and entrance.

Figure 13. Fort de l’Îlette (83), Re110 on the foreground crenellated guardhouse, on the background Blanc Sablons.

(a) (b)

Figure 14. (a) tobruk (82), in the foreground Fort de l’Îlette; (b) tobruk (71) in the foreground western and eastern R601.

5. Discussion

The quite high concentration of megaliths at Kermorvan and Blanc Sablons suggest that here, in the antiquity, for some reason, was a ceremonial and burial center. The cromlech identifies the ceremonial, assembly place and the dolmens the burial places. The meaning and the location purposes of the menhirs remain a mystery. The precise datation of said megaliths is unknown, although it is normally assumed that, in general, they were manufactured in the period 5000 - 4000 BC or 3000 - 1800 BC.

The enlargement of Figure 1(a) reveals remains of walls with possible turrets following some paths and crossing the Kermorvan Peninsula. They were not observed because of their degradation and coverage of vegetation. Their manufacturers and datation are unknown.

The forts, redoubts and batteries at Kermorvan Peninsula and Blanc Sablons had not only the purpose of protecting Le Conquet and interdict the access to the Ria, but also to bar the way to Brest and its military port to an army landed at Blanc Sablons.

The Stp Kermorvan with its Wns reveals the similar concept of protecting the Festung Brest, its U-Boote submarine base and military port against an allied army landed at Blanc Sablons.

The Fort de l’Îlette and Fort de Kermorvan crenellated guardhouses hosted the personnel in service at Re 110 and Re 112, ammunitions and materials, although the first was regularly separated from the Kermorvan Peninsula by tides. Other parts of the personnel were lodged in the bunkers, barracks and in Le Conquet. The Blanc Sablons redoubts hosted too personnel and materials.

The lighthouse was used as observation place.

The bunkers (43, 64 - 65) were SK (Sonderkonstrution) type. The entrance room (Figure 4) observed in bunker (43) rule out a possible R635 type reported by some publications.

The R505 (52) was facing Le Conquet for defending or bombarding it. It hosted one officer, five soldiers and one Skoda 3.7 cm PAK 36 gun placed behind the plate 485P2 of 4.5 m long, 3.01 m wide and 20 cm thick. The gun ammunitions were stored in a room inside the R505. The carriage wheels, the frontal protection and the gun barrel were disassembled from the gun carriage. The gun barrel and the gun carriage were introduced in the combat room through the rear side 447P01 armoured door. The carriage was secured to a metallic support mounted on the semi-circular and semi-cylindrical recesses of the concrete support and the carriage legs were extended and secured to the arched bar. The gun barrel was introduced in the lower opening of the rectangular 485P2 openings and secured to the carriage. The gun field fire was 60˚ in azimuth and ±10˚ in height. The gun servants controlled the surroundings and aimed the gun using the other 485P2 opening and through the rectangular slit. It is also possible that the servants received aiming instructions from observers outside the R505.

The bunkers connected by the trench were personnel lodgements but might be used also as protected relay commandment place in case of attack. The beige cover of the tobruk had an unknown purpose.

The Fort de Kermorvan southern (65) and a northern (64) bunker were SK type. Because of their large combat room front aperture, the splinter guards and the absence of support bolts for a protective metallic plate, as in the R505, each hosted a bigger 7.5 PAK 97/38 (Atlantic Wall CO UK, 2018). Their combat rooms were connected by an internal tunnel carved into the rock. The electric distribution cabin was probably of French construction for powering the lighthouse and the crenelated guardhouse.

The traces of the original formwork boards imprints on the room, suggest that the one room house was built contemporary with the constructions of the bunkers for lodging the personnel servicing the nearby tobruks. The small window on the east wall served as surveillance of the pathway to the R515 and the hut leaning to the house lodged one or more dogs.

The concrete gun firing places in front of the western and eastern R 601 allowed the two PAK guns to direct the fire toward troupes advancing on the Kermorvan Peninsula from the Grand Sablons isthmus and so protecting the Wn 104-107, 110 (Figure 3) in which the last resistance would have took place.

The fire of the Kermorvan Wns could have been supported by the fire of the 6 km away Graf Spee battery with its four 280 mm, 20 km in range guns as in the case of the Stps of the Goulven Bay (Tomezzoli, 2016).

A supplementary protection was offered by the mine fields interpenetrated between the bunkers (Figure 3). Their large extensions explain the presence on August 1946 at Le Conquet of a command comprising 45 POWs employed in demining operations.

Surprisingly, no radar was installed at Stp Kermorvan.

An estimation of the number of officers and soldiers in service at Stp Kermorvan is difficult, however, taking into consideration the number of bunkers and the crenellated guard houses, it can be roughly estimated between 300 and 400.

6. Conclusion

The information collected, the ancient air reconnaissance images and the visit allowed to clarify many aspects of Stp Kermorvan. Only 11 of the total of 16 bunkers have been identified mainly because of the grass and vegetation that covered the other five. Only two of the identified bunkers showed relevant damages due to combats, the other was in good preservation state. The Protected Natural Site of the Kermorvan Peninsula ensures for the moment and in the near future the protection of the Stp Kermorvan structures against the risk of Le Conquet urbanization expansion. However, it is regrettable that no initiative has been taken to valorise this part of the historical Finistère heritage.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Mr. Fleuridas P. for the discussions concerning the R505 technical features and his consent to publish the R505 plan of the Appendix.

Appendix. R505 Bunker Plan (Courtesy Fleuridas P.)

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] Atlantic Wall CO UK (2018). StP Kermorvan. StP Re104 to Re119, K.V. Gruppe Saint-Renan, Brittany.
http://www.atlantikwall.co.uk/atlantikwall/fbre_stp_kermorvan.php
[2] de Freminville, C.-P. (1832). Antiquités de Bretagne, Finistère. Lefournier et Deperiers librairies. Brest.
[3] Devoir, A. (1913). Première Contribution à l’Inventaire des Monuments Mégalithiques du Finistère. BSAF, 40, 43-46.
[4] Devoir, A. (1920). Notes d’Archéologie Préhistorique. La Pensée Bretonne, No. 39.
[5] du Chatellier, P. (1903a). La pointe de Kermorvan en Ploumoguer, ses Monuments, Pierres à Cupole. BSAF, 30, 90-95.
[6] du Chatellier, P. (1903b). Les Monuments Mégalithiques de la pointe de Kermorvan en Ploumoguer. Bulletin Monumental Année, 67, 232-239.
https://doi.org/10.3406/bulmo.1903.11346
[7] Floch, A. (2009). L’Occupation Allemande dans le Finistère et dans une partie du Morbihan et des Côtes-D’Armor (1940-1944). Localisation et Poste aux Armées. Cloitre Imprimeurs. St. Thonan. Finistère.
[8] Floch, A. (2012). L’Occupation Allemande dans les 162 Communes du Nord Finistère (1940-1944). Cloitre Imprimeurs. St. Thonan. Finistère.
[9] Lécuillier, G. (2004a). Défense des côtes bretonnes: Fortifications du Conquet et de l’anse des Blancs Sablons. Association Pour l’Inventaire de Bretagne.
https://fortifications-neuf-brisach.blogspot.com/2018/01/defense-des-cotes-bretonnes.html
[10] Lécuillier, G. (2004b). Redoute, année “1850” dit “Fort St.-Louis” (Le Conquet). Association Pour l’Inventaire de Bretagne. Dossier IA29001761.
http://patrimoine.bzh/gertrude-diffusion/dossier/redoute-annee-1850-
dit-fort-St.-louis-le-conquet/5b60ad99-9466-46ee-970e-1361a1f36010
[11] Lécuillier, G. (2004c). Ensemble fortifié (Stützpunkt “Kermorvan”) (Re 104-119), Presqu’île de Kermorvan (Le Conquet). Association Pour l’Inventaire de Bretagne. Dossier IA29001761.
http://patrimoine.bzh/gertrude-diffusion/dossier/ensemble-fortifie-
stutzpunkt-kermorvan-re-104-119/5c4a6fdb-f216-4846-9f01-34eb46632c39
[12] Pinczon du Sel (1947-1948). Rapport. Le Mur de l’Atlantique la Cote de la Manche et de l’Atlantique du Mont Saint-Michel à Laita (Livre IV, Plan_no. 105). Brest: Service Historique de la Marine.
[13] Rudi, R. (1988). Typologie du Mur de l’Atlantique. Amsterdam: Beetsterzwaag. NUGI 923.
[14] Sparfel, Y., & Pailler, Y. (2010). Les Mégalithes de l’Arrondissment de Brest. Inventaire et Essay de Synthese. Centre Regional d’Archéologie d’Alet. Institut Culturel de Bretagne. Skol Uhel Ar Vro.
[15] Tomezzoli, G., & Marzin, Y. (2015). The Ero Vili and the Atlantic Wall. Advances in Anthropology, 5, 183-204.
https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2015.54018
[16] Tomezzoli, G. (2006). Die deutschen Befestingungen in den Dünen von Kéréma/Ker Emma. DAWA Nachrichten, 48, 56-66.
[17] Tomezzoli, G. T., & Colliou, S. (2017). The WW II Saint-Pabu German Radar Camp and the Stützpunkte Re 03, Re 04. Archaeological Discovery, 5, 142-162.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2017.53009
[18] Tomezzoli, G. T. (2016). The German Defence System of the Grève de Goulven (Finistère FR) during the World War II. Archaeological Discovery, 4, 170-199.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2016.44012
[19] Tomezzoli, G. T. (2017a). The German Radar Surveillance around the Aber Wrach during the WW II. Archaeological Discovery, 5, 22-41.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2017.51002
[20] Tomezzoli, G. T. (2017b). The WW II German Coastal Artillery Battery H.K.B. 1274/StP C 342 at Camaret sur Mer (Finistère FR). Archaeological Discovery, 5, 116-141.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2017.53008
[21] Tomezzoli, G. T. (2017c). The WWII German Heavy Artillery Battery AV 67 of CleusFoz (Finistère FR). Archaeological Discovery, 5, 61-78.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2017.52004

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.