German bridging apparatus...SBG on stilts.

[sapper740]

I have several pictures of an German expedient type bridging that I'm not entirely familiar with. It's not the common floating treadway that we're used to seeing. The best I can come with to describe it is Small Box Girder bridging on stilts. The pictures smack of trials as both the PzKpfw 38(t) and the PzKpfw IV neither look war weary nor are they cluttered with the usual kit of an operational area, further, the PzKpfw IV has the L24 main gun suggesting this was early in the war while trials of various bridging techniques may have been ongoing. The stilts don't look very sturdy, while they are handling the 22 tons of Panzer IV well enough, this set up wouldn't have handled the weight and width of the V's and VI's yet to come.

[charlie fitton]

I'm comforted to see that the drivers are standing, and prepared to bail....

[Noel Burgess]

Dont know for sure but it could be this:

Kastentrager-Gerat : German copy of SBG!

"In the mid 1930's the German Army copied the design of the SBG almost exactly, calling their bridge the Kastentrager-Gerat, literally the bow girder equipment. The K-Gerat used the same panel length as the SBG, but slightly ammended the bracing details. A 1943 article in the German magazine Military Engineer describes the bridge being used on the Russian front in conjunction with pontoons and goes on to say that 'the bridge has given good service and is similar to bridges used in enemy armies'. Its use prompted an instruction in a Royal Engineers Training Memorandum of the same year to the effect that, although the SBG MkIII was by then obsolete in the British Army, training with SBG should occasionally continue to enable units to utilize captured enemy equipment" (One More River to Cross, Col. JH Joiner)

This was posted by David Pottter in the "Military Bridging" thread (post#136)
Noel

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by charlie fitton

I'm comforted to see that the drivers are standing, and prepared to bail....

They do look somewhat tentative don't they?

CHIMO! Derek.

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Noel Burgess

Dont know for sure but it could be this:



This was posted by David Pottter in the "Military Bridging" thread (post#136)
Noel

Yes, This is quite likely the same bridging referred to in that thread, although wouldn't Kastentrager refer to the trailer that the pontoon was carried on as opposed to the bridge itself? Or is that a schlepper? My German isn't very gut. Anyway, the question of greatest interest to me is their method of construction. How did the Germans install the stilts/pilings? Are they pounded into the silt or resting on large feet on the river bottom and what piece of kit was used to put them there. There must have been a crane or pile driver of some sort, one of which I'm unfamiliar with. The height of the bridge sections above the water suggests they were floated into place on pontoons, either inflatable or rigid hulled and then attached to the stilts.

CHIMO! Derek.

[Snowtractor]

I just watched a show on bridging equip. and the Canadian army is looking at a Hemitt launched post supported bridge currently being developed. The vertical posts have large feet on the bottom to spread the weight over a large area. I wouild think that German ones do also.
The Canadian system can bridge any length with additional spans added and it was only a couple of guys and very little physical labour. Very cool.
Sean

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Snowtractor

I just watched a show on bridging equip. and the Canadian army is looking at a Hemitt launched post supported bridge currently being developed. The vertical posts have large feet on the bottom to spread the weight over a large area. I wouild think that German ones do also.
The Canadian system can bridge any length with additional spans added and it was only a couple of guys and very little physical labour. Very cool.
Sean

Sounds like a case of "What was once old is new again" to me. This method of bridging looks to have a couple of advantages over pontoon bridging, one of which was to allow floating debris to pass beneath the bridge instead of piling up against the pontoons. There must have been a huge strain on the pontoons especially during Spring run-off which must have had to been monitored constantly for fear of losing the bridge. I have a R.C.E. picture clearly showing the large anchors used to hold the pontoons in place. Of course, the spindly stilits would have been susceptible to suffering a direct hit from a large floating tree. The water in the pictures looks quite still so maybe this system was considered only for ponds, lakes, and swamps.



CHIMO! Derek.

[Snowtractor]

The current model under construction did have limits of depth and bottom material. The Hemitt could run back , get another section, back on to the completed section and deploy another link. They said that the bridge could be as long as you wanted. It also had very heavy capacity in about 1/3 the time of conventional bridge. Very cool.
Sean

[Snowtractor]

http://milifax2003.tripod.com/milita...ng_part_2.html

neat


http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/dai...2007/#clip6892
this is the clip with the new bridge on it