Point du Hoc Battlefield Monument Project

Historic Resources Imaging Laboratory

Texas A&M University

Preliminary Report:

The June 12 to July 2, 2004 Field Season

Team Co-Principle Investigators

Dr. James Bradford, Associate Professor of History.

Dr. Richard Burt, Assistant Professor of Construction Science

Dr. Bruce Dickson, Professor of Archeology

Dr. Mark Everett, Professor of Geology and Geophysics

Prof. Robert Warden, Associate Professor of Architecture

Prof. David Woodcock, Professor of Architecture, Director of HRIL

Introduction

The Assault on Point du Hoc on June 6, 1944, Col. James Earl Rudder led elements of the U. S. Army’s 2^nd Battalion to victory in one of the greatest feats of the Normandy invasion: the perilous assault on the German gun emplacements at Point du Hoc. The site of Point du Hoc is located between Omaha and Utah beaches at the tip of a sheer chalk promontory that towers more than 100 feet above a narrow, rock strewn beach. The Germans considered the battery site there to be unassailable but, near dawn on D-Day, the Rangers scaled the cliff and killed or captured the garrison. Yet, in one of the great ironies of the invasion, the Rangers found that the artillery pieces thought to be in place at Point du Hoc were gone. Fortunately, a Ranger patrol located these missing guns arrayed in firing position in a field some distance beyond the site near the village of Cricqueville-en-Bessin. By placing thermite grenades in the firing mechanisms, the Rangers effectively rendered these guns inoperable and, by doing so, accomplished their mission. Their ordeal was far from over, however. The Germans regrouped and subjected them to a series of brutal and tenacious counterattacks. The Rangers held out, of course, but their victory came at a high price.

In the years following the close of World War II, the French government designated Point du Hoc a “Class A Historic Site” in commemoration of the extraordinary military feat that occurred there. Subsequently, responsibility for care of the battlefield was transferred to the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Project Questions

Our interest in Pointe du Hoc is multifaceted. As members of the Texas A&M faculty we feel a special connection with Pointe du Hoc through Earl Rudder’s brave and important involvement with Pointe du Hoc and his significant tenure as President of Texas A&M. It seems only fitting that Texas A&M would undertake a project on behalf of General Rudder.

But Pointe du Hoc doesn’t derive its significance as a WWII site solely from Earl Rudder. Long before Earl Rudder was famous for his leadership on D-Day and his presidency at Texas A&M, Pointe du Hoc was understood by the Germans as one of the most strategically important sites of the Atlantic Wall. The value the Germans placed in the strategic advantage of Pointe du Hoc fueled the drive to provide the labor and resources to construct a modern fortified city, impenetrable from the land and sea.

It is this strategic value and its subsequent realization through the construction of bunkers, gun emplacements, trenches, and tunnels that forced an Allied counter strategy bordering on the impossible. Each of these ideals – the German Fortress and the Allied “Impossible Mission” were the products of real human tales. Though significant points of the overall story are well known – the creation of the “city”, the movement of the guns, the difficult ascent of the cliffs, and the eventual Allied success – many of the important details that contributed to the development of the well-known story remain hidden.

The truth in these details can be queried through a series of questions:

1. What was built on the site of Pointe du Hoc and for what purposes?

2. Was Pointe du Hoc unique in its fortification strategy? What does it share with other German fortification strategies?
3. Which constructed objects are no longer present?
4. How accurate was the Allied intelligence about the German defenses constructed on the site?
5. What was the effect of the allied bombing and shelling strategy on both the German defenses and the Ranger attack?
6. Exactly how did D-day unfold for the Rangers, the Allied support and the Germans?
7. To where exactly were the 155mm guns relocated?
8. What is the present state of the constructions on site?
9. What is the present state of the artillery and bomb craters and how have they changed since D-Day?
10. What is the present state of visitation on the site and how should the experience be strengthened?
11. What is the history of erosion of the cliffs?

These questions require information of many forms. To gather that information and analyze it properly a diverse team composed of many disciplines must work closely together.

Mark Everett from Geology and Geophysics is using non invasive tools such as 3D interpretation of GPR, magnetics, and electromagnetic induction to test our suppositions about the existence and nature of subsurface structures. The information gathered by his team will be closely integrated with Bruce Dickson from Archeology to provide definitive answers to many of our questions. Pointe du Hoc also provides an excellent laboratory for investigating new techniques with geophysical imaging due to the history of the soil type and its disturbance from construction and bombing.

Bruce Dickson from Archeology will take information from Mark’s team together with personal observation and determine the best places for archeological trenches. These trenches will bring first-hand observation to our suppositions about the intentions and operations of these structures, provide information about the state of the structure on D-Day and yield possible yield valuable information about how the battle unfolded. Archeology is necessary not only for testing hypotheses but also for generating new discoveries for questions yet asked.

Richard Burt from the Department of Construction Science will gather information about the construction of the “city” from archive aerial photographs and photogrammetry. The aerial photographs taken prior to D-Day will aid in the determination of stages and processes of construction and the state of construction when Allied bombing commenced in the Spring of 1944. Aerial photographs taken after D-Day will help determine the effects of the bombing and shelling on the site and its structures. Photogrammetry will aid in determining details of construction and details of the battle by revealing the nature of artillery damage to various structures.

Robert Warden from the Department of Architecture will oversee both the detailed measurements of individual buildings and the overall documentation of all site elements. The relationships between buildings on the site will aid in understanding the unfolding of the story on D-Day, the effects of the bombing and shelling on the Germans and the Rangers, and the understanding of the role each building played. The detailed documentation of each structure will be linked with aerial photos and archeological data to help tell the story of each structure from construction to destruction.

James Bradford from the Department of History will play a significant role by tying together the field data, our research questions, and existing histories of the site. Burt and Bradford have been continually collecting archival material from a variety of sources. Initial searches have focused on the Public Record Office at Kew in London which holds many of the wartime records of the allies. Copies of documents detailing the bombing missions carried out on Pointe du Hoc have been obtained and a narrative of the bombing activities is being prepared. Future archival research will focus on obtaining copies of aerial reconnaissance photographs from Keele University in England.

As a consequence of these investigations but no less important is the fact that the information gathered and presented through 3D models and drawings will create an accurate record of the state of the buildings and the terrain as they exist in 2004. Later generations will be able to see how the site has changed over the years but more importantly this information will be invaluable for fashioning a preservation plan to ensure that the memory of Pointe du Hoc remains alive.

Summer 2004 Documentation

For three weeks in June 2004 Richard Burt, Bruce Dickson, Mark Everett and Robert Warden together with 12 graduate students from Architecture, Geology and Geophysics, Construction Science, and Archeology began the task of gathering the information necessary to answer the questions mentioned above. The effort for this period broke down as follows:

Much of the student work was focused on getting very accurate measurements of some of the important buildings. These measurements are the basis for creating 2D drawings of the buildings in the present condition. We focused on 6 structures for this brief period of time, which amounts to about 24 drawings.

The Observation Post

Our intent is to create both 2D and 3D products for this structure since its existence is in peril. Figure 1 shows the Observation Post in close proximity to the cliff face. This area has suffered severe erosion in recent years and is currently not accessible to the general public. We gathered enough information both by hand and through photogrammetry to complete these products. Richard Burt spent much of his time gathering the appropriate images to complete the photogrammetric model.

Figure 1 Observation Post from the English Channel

Figure 2 indicates an example of the field drawings created to organize the dimensional information for the plan. Figure 3 shows the drawing for the longitudinal section.

Figure 2 Observation Post Plan

Figure 3 Observation Post Section

Figures 4 and 5 show some of the modeling that has resulted from the photgrammetric data gathered. This is done by marking the same point on the building on at least three images taken from different positions, and then when a sufficient number of points have been marked on the images, computer software is able to locate the three dimensional position of the cameras. Once the camera positions are located, a series of mathematical calculations will locate the position of all marked points. These points are used to create a virtual model of the building that appears as a three-dimensional image on a computer screen.

Figure 4 Observation Post 3D Model from SW

Figure 5 Observation Post 3D Model from NE

Anti-aircraft East (Colonel Rudder’s Command Post)

The eastern Antiaircraft bunker and gun emplacement is important as a marker for the Rangers’ command post (Figure 6). It is also important for its proximity to the ever eroding cliff and currently is one of the first glimpses tourists have of the site.

Figure 6 Anti-aircraft East from the English Channel

Figure 7 shows the upper level field plan. Figure 8 shows some of the students developing that plan. Figure 9 shows the transverse section through the bunker. We will produce 2 plans, 2 sections and interior elevations.

Figure 7 Anti-aircraft Upper Level Plan

Figure 8 Students at Anti-aircraft East

Figure 9 Transverse Section through the Anti-aircraft East Bunker

Gun Emplacement 3

All of the gun emplacements are important to the site and each has its own story, but Gun Emplacement 3 (figure 10) seems to have added relevance because it is relatively complete and has easy access for most tourists.

Figure 10 Gun Emplacement 3

Figure 11 shows one field drawing of the plan and figure 12 shows students working on this drawing.

Figure 11 Plan of Gun Emplacement 3

Figure 12 Students working at Gun Emplacement 3

Casemate 4

Casemate 4 (Figure 13) is a covered concrete structure that was intended as a replacement for open Gun Emplacement 4. This is a significant structure on the site for tourists due to the view it provides from stairs covering its roof and its centrality to the site. It probably gets more attention from tourists than any other building on site.

Figure 13 Casemate 4

Figure 14 shows the field drawing of its plan. Figure 15 shows the longitudinal section. Figure 16 shows students engaged in measurement.

Figure 14 Plan of Casemate 4

Figure 15 Longitudinal Section of Casemate 4

Figure 16 Students working in Casemate 4

Gun Emplacement 6

Gun Emplacement 6 (Figure 17) is located on the west side of the site. It is far enough from the “major” elements of the site to be almost ignored by most tourists. It has special interest though because of its proximity to what is thought to be the ammunition bunker.

Figure 17 Gun Emplacement 6

Figure 18 shows the plan and Figure19 shows students working on Gun Emplacement 6. The remains of the Ammunition Bunker can be seen in the foreground.

Figure 18 Plan of Gun Emplacement 6

Figure 19 Students working on Gun Emplacement 6

Anti-aircraft West

Anti-aircraft West (figure 20) is the other anti-aircraft gun emplacement and bunker that flanks the site. It is important for many reasons but for the first year documentation, it will provide fill-in information that is not apparent from Anti-aircraft East. It also serves to set the boundaries of the overall site.

Figure 20 Anti-aircraft West

Figure 21 shows the plan and Figure 22 shows students working inside the bunker.

Figure 21 Plan of Anti-aircraft West

Figure 22 Students working in Anti-aircraft West

Site Plan

Though site plans were created in 1984 (ABMC) and 2002, these plans were created for purposes different from ours. We need to produce a very detailed site plan of existing conditions into which the detailed drawing of the buildings can fit so we can better determine the relationships between them. Site information will include surface constructions such as casemates and gun emplacements and shell craters created from aerial and naval bombardment. We also must note important archeological information and subsurface structures. Gathering the site information will likely take us through 2005 so the plan resulting from this years work will not be complete.

Figure 23 Field drawing of site

A field drawing was made of the site (figure 23) to help mark locations of significant features with the total station. Once the new site plan is created information about site constructions can be cross-referenced with 1944 Ranger Map (figure 24) to signify the quality of their pre D-Day intelligence.

Figure 24 AutoCAD drawing of the 1944 Ranger Map

Geophysical and Archeological Explorations

Archeological work was primarily observation and coordination with the other disciplines in preparation for future efforts. A significant goal is to locate and verify through physical and visual evidence the trench system established by the Germans and the location to where the 155mm guns were moved. The method used was to perform archeological site observation in order to narrow the scope of investigation for the geophysical investigation. The results of the geophysical information will help determine locations for proposed physical archeology for summer of 2005.

The types of geophysical data acquired at the site are indicative of certain subsurface physical properties. The ground-penetrating radar (GPR) signals respond most strongly to spatial variations in moisture content, which in the context of the Point du Hoc site reflects mainly buried concrete and hidden void spaces. The magnetometer data responds to iron, or natural soil magnetite content, and will indicate, for example, concrete reinforcing bars, ordnance fragments, or soil in-fill. The electromagnetic induction (EMI) measurements are diagnostic of subsurface electrical conductivity, which is very high in the presence of both ferrous and non-ferrous metal.

The GPR, magnetometer, and EMI systems were used for both lateral reconnaissance mapping and for sounding of the subsurface to depths of 0.0-3.0 meters below the surface. Co-registered GPR and magnetics data have revealed buried voids and reinforced concrete structures. Generally, the GPR and magnetics work synergistically as reinforced concrete possesses both a radar and a magnetic signature. The EMI measurements have revealed unambiguous signs of metal fragments in the bomb craters and complex buried metal structures.

The Point du Hoc site is challenging from a geophysical perspective due to the fact that the current landscape is the integral of various human disturbances that have modified the geological subsurface over time: pre-World War II farming; the German fortification construction; the Allied bombing campaign; the battle itself; the site modification associated with cleanup and recovery from the battle; the tourist impact; and sixty years of soil weathering, consolidation, and corrosion.

Location of the German Trench System

The Command Post, gun emplacements and bunkers at Point du Hoc were evidently connected to one another by a series of open trenches and concrete-covered passageways.

In order to locate surface evidence of the covered and open German trenches, it was necessary to undertake a preliminary surface examination of site topography. Such surface examination, called “pedestrian site reconnaissance” in archaeology, is standard field practice in the discipline.

The first step in our surface reconnaissance was to examine the maps and aerial photographs of the site. Copies of these original maps and photographs were then taken into the field to aid in the location of the trenches. Unfortunately, for two reasons, these data proved to be of only limited utility. First, the Germans had evidently been successful in obscuring the location of many of their concrete covered trenches from aerial reconnaissance simply by covering them with thick layers of earth. Second, the extraordinary aerial and naval bombardment that the site received on D-Day and before appears to have obliterated many of the trenches and altered the original topography and structure of the site beyond immediate recognition. We therefore employed the following strategy for locating the German trenches at Point du Hoc by means of the following pedestrian site survey procedures:

· Walked a series of more formally oriented pedestrian transects along east-to-west and north-to-south axes across the site searching for linear depression in the earth or other suggestions of subsurface features. Of course, the numerous shell craters, concrete slabs and damaged structures on the site made strict maintenance of the orientation of these transect lines difficult.

· Located and examined all the points of covered ingress and egress in the concrete structures such as bunkers and gun emplacements. In doing so, he sought at the same time to determine how these entranceways were connected to the over all trench system.

· Assigned numbers to all of the surface features and covered entrances ways found in this manner, photographed them, and had their locations plotted on the project topographic map using the Total Station.

· Generated a series of hypotheses about the morphology of the German trench system based on the nature and locations of the surface features and covered entranceways he had located.

Following these procedures four locations were selected for exploration with geophysical subsurface detection tools. Four such locations were selected:

· BK1, an exposed area of cement paving that may represent the roof of a covered trench (Figure 25)

Figure 25 Students working on BK1

· CT5-CT6 (figure 26) , a low flat area that may house a second covered trench that runs approximately west to east across the middle of the site just north of and parallel to a low, linear mound of earth

Figure 26 CT5 – CT6 a possible covered trench

· C14 (figure 27) a U-shaped pattern of exposed earth and dead vegetation that may be part of a narrow gauge track system said to have been used for moving ammunition at the site

Figure 27 Students investigating C14

· CT9-CT10, a long, linear mound that runs north to south from the middle to the southern end of the site and may contain a steel conduit and telephone line

The data obtained from these four locations by means of 100 MHz ground penetrating radar, Cs-vapor magnetometry and time-domain electromagnetic induction (metal detection) are suggestive. However, “ground truth” needs to be obtained for these results by archaeological means.

In sum, the archaeological and geophysical data gathered in the Phase II surface reconnaissance will allow us to assemble a preliminary reconstruction of the German trench system. At the current stage of our knowledge, the location and orientation of the various covered entranceways should prove to be key to this reconstruction. After these entranceways are plotted on the master topographic map of the site, we can begin to generate hypotheses about the location and orientation of the covered trenches to which were connected to them. We can then test these hypotheses in Phase III through a combination of geophysical prospecting and archaeological excavation during our forthcoming fieldwork in Phase III. This work should allow us to complete the reconstruction of the trench system.

Location of the Hidden Artillery Park

Finding the precise location of the place where the 155-mm. guns from Point du Hoc had been moved before D-Day turned out to be both a technical problem and a problem of human memory. The people of the tiny village of Cricqueville just south of Point du Hoc know the former location of these guns in a general way. This location is not on property under the management of American Battle Monuments Commission. However, Mr. Gene Dellinger, Director of Normandy American National Cemetery and Memorial at St. Laurent, arranged for our team to meet the Mayor of the Cricqueville, Mr. Ledevin. Mayor Ledevin very kindly allowed us to copy an old aerial photograph of the coastal region from Point to Hoc to Cricqueville in the town’s possession and arranged for our access to the farm of the Pain family where local memory places the guns on D-Day. Using the aerial photograph as our template, we assigned numbers to the fields encompassing the location of the hidden German battery.

Mayor Ledevin accompanied us to the Pain farm in order to show us the presumed location of the guns first hand. It was the Mayor’s opinion that the guns were situated near the corner of the field. Two potential locations for the guns were identified for metal detection. Metal detectors were the tool of choice since historical accounts say the rangers dismantled the guns through the use of thermite grenades which would have left molten metal on the ground. Also the location of the battle in the field would be marked with rifle shell casings which would make an attractive target for the detectors.

Figure 28 Metal Detection at Pain Farm

The results of this metal detection work is encouraging in one sense as some of these metal objects may allow us to conclude that this field was indeed formerly used as an artillery park, was the scene of a battle or was, at least, a German military encampment. However, the large number of anomalies that we encountered also makes it likely that, in the course of excavating them, we will encounter a large number of false alarms.

In sum, our brief reconnaissance work on the Pain farm indicates that the use of a metal detector there will make it possible for us to locate patterns of artifacts that might mark the location of the cannons that were moved from Point du Hoc before D-Day. However, in the absence of the excavation of these magnetic anomalies, we can make no claim that we have at this time collected material evidence as to the location of these elusive guns.

Summer, 2005

The next phase of our project is scheduled to take place during the summer of 2005. In light of the results of work accomplished during 2004, we have set six goals for this third phase of our project. These goals include:

· To continue the measurement and documentation of the German structures on the site. This would include measurement of the Gun Emplacements 1and 2, Casemate 5 and several of the underground Bunkers.

· To conduct controlled archaeological excavations to determine the depth and nature of the footings beneath each of the major types of German buildings recognized at the site.

· To continue the geophysical mapping of the site using ground penetrating radar, magnetometry and metal detection while paying particular attention to the location of possible unexploded ordnance on site.

· To excavate at least four key locations in the German covered trench system identified by archaeological and geophysical means during Phase II. The four locations include: BK1, CT5-CT6, CT9-CT10, and CT14. We intend to accomplish this excavation work using hand archaeological techniques supplemented by limited earth moving equipment.

· To test additional hypotheses about the location of the German trenches generated from the analysis of data collected in 2004.

· To conduct a systematic metal detector survey of fields on the Pain farm, to map the located anomalies with a Total Station and excavated each one. Metal objects of the relevant age and function plotted and excavated in this manner would be collected and recorded. These materials would then be taken to Texas A&M University where they would be cleaned and preserved in the Conservation Laboratory of the TAMU Department of Anthropology. Following their conservation, these materials would analyzed, dated, photographed and recorded. They would then be returned to France for ultimate disposition and display.