DOCSLIB.ORG

(Jfob) Force Protection Handbook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL DRAFT EDITION EXPIRES 1 MARCH 2007 JOINT FORWARD OPERATIONS BASE (JFOB) FORCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK NOVEMBER 2005 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Distribution Restriction Statement on inside Front Cover JOINT FORWARD OPERATIONS BASE (JFOB) FORCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution is authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only to protect technical or operational information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other means. This protection applies to publications required solely for official use and to those containing valuable technical or operational information. This determination was made 15 November 2005. Other requests for this document will be referred to the Survivability Engineering Branch (GS-V), Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199. DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document. Command and Control and the Base Defense System JFOB Force Protection Planning Process JFOB Threat Analysis Risk Assessment JFOB Site Selection and Layout Perimeter Security Internal Security Protective Construction Incident Response and Consequence Management Communications Principal Critical Infrastructure Assurance Measures Resourcing-Funds and Contracting Training and Exercises Plans for Force Protection Acronyms / Tools JFOB Force Protection Program Assessment Benchmarks FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY i FOREWORD Lessons learned during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) revealed that forward operations bases face an increased threat posed by asymmetric forces. Consequently, the Director, Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) authorized a Joint Forward Operations Base (JFOB) Quick Reaction Test (QRT). This QRT, under the guidance of Army Test and Evaluation Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Deputy Directorate for Antiterrorism and Homeland Defense (J-34) developed this JFOB Handbook with significant assistance from U.S. Central Command. The aim of this handbook is to describe those tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) and best practices suited to counter the rocket, artillery, mortar (RAM), and improvised explosive device (IED) threats to JFOBs in Iraq. The objective is to reduce the casualty rate during combat operations. This handbook provides a quick-reference guide for a systematic approach to planning, developing, and improving JFOB defensive capabilities. The handbook is linked to the current evolution of forward operations bases by design and can be located on the Joint Staff Antiterrorism Enterprise Portal (ATEP) for access by users. The handbook is also available on CD and limited hard copy. The JFOB Handbook is designed to be a quick look reference and is broken into major subject areas to facilitate use. The series of chapters is listed on the back of the book with a corresponding black tab by each title. The pages are striped with the corresponding tab at the appropriate level to allow the reader to quickly turn to the desired section of the handbook without wading through a series of appendixes. ii FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PREFACE Scope This publication addresses force protection (FP) at joint forward operations bases (JFOBs) in the Iraq theater of operations. The focus is on defense against rockets, artillery, and mortars (RAMs) and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs). It describes how adversary and friendly courses of action (COAs) are evaluated and implemented to support the JFOB commander’s decision making process. This publication is geared primarily towards engineer and FP specialists to assist with operational level FP planning. It also addresses “best practices” for defeating RAMs and VBIEDs. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As a result of a Quick Reaction Test program, a series of best practices for JFOB defense emerged from current doctrine, joint tactics, techniques and procedures (JTTPs), and current practices in theater. It provides recommendations for the exercise of FP by combatant commanders and other JFOB commanders for JFOB defense. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of commanders from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner inconsistent with established plans and operations. Application This publication is a compilation of the latest Joint and Service doctrine. It includes tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) available from the Combined Force Land Component Command (CFLCC) and Multinational Corps-Iraq (MNC-I) units that have been or are currently serving in the Iraq theater of operations. It also contains the best validated blast mitigation materials and designs from various Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories. The guidance in this publication is not necessarily authoritative. However, many of the practices that result from this OSD QRT may be incorporated into future doctrine or TTPs. The contents of Service publications will take precedence for the activities of joint forces unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance. Commanders of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or coalition) military command should follow multinational doctrine and procedures ratified by the United States. For doctrine and procedures not ratified by the United States, commanders should evaluate and follow the multinational command’s doctrine and procedures, where applicable. JAMES R. ROWAN Colonel, U.S. Army JFOB QRT Test Director FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The JFOB Quick Reaction Test Director wishes to acknowledge the following organizations for providing exceptional support to process of development, printing, and distribution of the JFOB Force Protection Handbook Final Draft: • Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Test and Evaluation, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311 • Joint Staff, J3 Deputy Director for Antiterrorism, Homeland Defense (DDAT/HD), Pentagon, NMCC, MB 917, Washington, DC 20318 • Joint Security Directorate, US Central Command, (CENTCOM), 7115 South Boundary Blvd., MacDill AFB, FL 33621 • Headquarters, US Marine Corps, Security Division, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20380 • Headquarters, Department of the Army, G357, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20300 • 3rd US Army, Fort McPherson, GA/Camp Doha, Kuwait • Multinational Corps Iraq, Camp Victory, Iraq • Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), 4501 Ford Avenue, Park Center, Alexandria, VA 22311 • Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Task Force, 400 Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 • US Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 • 1st Cavalry Division, Building 28000, Fort Hood, TX 76544 • 412th Engineer Command, 1265 Porters Chapel Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 • MANSCEN, Building 971, Parker Hall, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473 • US Army Corps of Engineers G3 Operations, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20014 • Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 • 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg, NC 28310 • 420th Engineer Brigade, Bryan, TX 77803 • US Army Rapid Equipping Force, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 • US Air Force Force Protection Battlelab, Lackland Air Force Base, TX 78236 • US Army Corps of Engineers, Protective Design Center, Omaha, NE 68102 iv FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTENTS Page Foreword......................................................................................................... ii Preface............................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements......................................................................................... iv Chapter 1: Command and Control and the Base Defense System Introduction......................................................................................... 1-1 Types of JFOBs................................................................................... 1-2 JFOB Command and Control.............................................................. 1-3 Functions of JFOBs............................................................................. 1-5 Conclusion........................................................................................... 1-8 Resources............................................................................................. 1-8 References........................................................................................... 1-9 Chapter 2: JFOB Force Protection Planning Process Introduction......................................................................................... 2-1 Pre-deployment................................................................................... 2-2 FP Considerations for JFOB Master Plan........................................... 2-5 Deployment......................................................................................... 2-9 Redeployment...................................................................................... 2-10 Resources............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Star Fort, September, 1814

    The Star Fort, September, 1814

    D-JLJ- UNITED STATES DEPARTHEI'irrr OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE BALTIMORE 30, MARYLAND \\St ARtftlOlOGY The .Star Fort, September, 1814 Prepared by: Dr. W. Richard Walsh Contract Historian · Georgetown University Georgetown, D.C. November, 1958 r~ , .. I . ,. .. - •• '' I• ,•' --:• ' . '·· ~ -,, .. ., . · .· .. :· .·. • , :: .:'~ .: :/ F.1 _r1 .. .J '~ l. \ '. \~ IJ li :i. /:i1('fl ---. \J .. •• 1 : ... .. .. .. ,,.. - l ~ j Table of Contents Page Frontispiece ••••••••••••••• • • • • ii I. Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 II. The Star Fort, September 12-14, 1814 • • • • • • • 7 24 III. Conclusions. • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 • • • • • • ._: I f ,\ .. i ) ~ ',...___/ Errata p .. 2, line 60 '0 indiaten should read '0 indicate.io p. 3, line 4o "war-fare" should read 10 warfareo 18 p. a, line 8. "amatuer" should read "amateur.~ p .. 7, fn. 1, line 5. "principle" should read ~principal." p. 9, line 12. "wa.tteries" should read "batteries. ~ p. 10, · line 10. Delete "which." p .. 10, line 11. "patforms" should read "platforms." p. 10, line 17. "Descius" should read "Decius." p. 13, fn. \:1 9 line 5. "Jessup" should read "Jesupn in this and all subsequent mention of the name. o. 19, line 16~ "orciinarilly" should read "ordinarily .. '° p. 26, line 5. "Carrol" should read "Carroll." p. 26, line 7. "confederates" should read "Confederates." .a- -. ( ... ~ "'·. / I Introduction In 1776, Baltimore prepared itself for. attack by the British~ Already apprehensive because of threats from the sea by His Majesty's vessel, the Otter, the Committee of Safety choose Whetstone Point as the best fortifiable site against enemy destruction to the Baltimore harbor. A fort of sorts was therefore erected, but because the threat of a general naval attack never materialized and the actual fight­ ing of the war of the Revolution by-passed Baltimoreans, a well armed Fort vVhetstone was not accomplished.
  • Fortification Renaissance: the Roman Origins of the Trace Italienne

    Fortification Renaissance: the Roman Origins of the Trace Italienne

    FORTIFICATION RENAISSANCE: THE ROMAN ORIGINS OF THE TRACE ITALIENNE Robert T. Vigus Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2013 APPROVED: Guy Chet, Committee Co-Chair Christopher Fuhrmann, Committee Co-Chair Walter Roberts, Committee Member Richard B. McCaslin, Chair of the Department of History Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Vigus, Robert T. Fortification Renaissance: The Roman Origins of the Trace Italienne. Master of Arts (History), May 2013, pp.71, 35 illustrations, bibliography, 67 titles. The Military Revolution thesis posited by Michael Roberts and expanded upon by Geoffrey Parker places the trace italienne style of fortification of the early modern period as something that is a novel creation, borne out of the minds of Renaissance geniuses. Research shows, however, that the key component of the trace italienne, the angled bastion, has its roots in Greek and Roman writing, and in extant constructions by Roman and Byzantine engineers. The angled bastion of the trace italienne was yet another aspect of the resurgent Greek and Roman culture characteristic of the Renaissance along with the traditions of medicine, mathematics, and science. The writings of the ancients were bolstered by physical examples located in important trading and pilgrimage routes. Furthermore, the geometric layout of the trace italienne stems from Ottoman fortifications that preceded it by at least two hundred years. The Renaissance geniuses combined ancient bastion designs with eastern geometry to match a burgeoning threat in the rising power of the siege cannon. Copyright 2013 by Robert T. Vigus ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and encouragement of many people.
  • Motte and Bailey Castles

    Motte and Bailey Castles

    Motte and Bailey Castles What Is a Motte and Bailey Castle? The motte: This was a __________ with a tower (or ‘keep’) built on ________. The bailey: This was where the soldiers, ___________ and animals lived. It had a _____________ fence around it. The keep: This was the tower or ___________. The moat: This was a deep _________ filled with water. Label the picture below, using the bold words above. Who Built Motte and Bailey Castles? Motte and bailey castles were built in____________ by the Normans (people who _________ from France). What Else Was in a Motte and Bailey Castle? • bakeries • barracks (buildings for soldiers) • ___________ • ___________ for horses Word Bank Ireland stables wooden hill kitchens ditch castle top servants came Motte and Bailey Castles Answers What Is a Motte and Bailey Castle? The motte: This was a hill with a tower (or ‘keep’) built on top. The bailey: This was where the soldiers, servants and animals lived. It had a wooden fence around it. The keep: This was the tower or castle. The moat: This was a deep ditch filled with water. Label the picture below, using the bold words above. keep motte bailey moat Who Built Motte and Bailey Castles? Motte and bailey castles were built inIreland by the Normans (people who came from France). What Else Was in a Motte and Bailey Castle? • bakeries • barracks (buildings for soldiers) • kitchens • stables for horses Word Bank Ireland stables wooden hill kitchens ditch castle top servants came Page 1 of 1 Motte and Bailey Castles What Is a Motte and Bailey Castle? The motte was a _______ hill, which would normally be man-made.
  • Introduction to Wildland Fire Suppression for Michigan Fire Departments

    Introduction to Wildland Fire Suppression for Michigan Fire Departments

    Introduction to Wildland Fire Suppression for Michigan Fire Departments STUDENT WORKBOOK 1ST Edition – 2002 MDNR NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT Equal Rights for Natural Resource Users The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write: Human Resources Michigan Department Of Natural Resources PO BOX 30028 Lansing MI 48909-7528 Or Michigan Department Of Civil Rights Or Office For Diversity And Civil Rights State Of Michigan Plaza Building US Fish And Wildlife Service 1200 6th Street 4040 North Fairfax Drive Detroit MI 48226 Arlington Va 22203 For information on or assistance with this publication, contact the Michigan Department Of Natural Resources, Forest, Mineral, & Fire Management Division, PO Box 30452, Lansing MI 48909-7952. Printed By Authority of Part 515, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (1994 PA 451) Total Number Of Copies Printed: 1500 Total Cost: $3549.17 Cost Per Copy:$2.36 Michigan Department of Natural Resources "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR SAFE PRACTICES" * Firefighter safety comes first on every fire, every time. * The 10 Standard Fire Orders are firm. We don't break them; we don't bend them.
  • MCWP 3-11.2 Chapter 5: Defensive Combat

    MCWP 3-11.2 Chapter 5: Defensive Combat

    MCRP 3-11.2, Marine Rifle Squad (DRAFT) 1 2 3 Chapter 5 4 5 Defensive Combat 6 7 Section I. General 8 9 5101. Purpose 10 11 The purpose of defensive action is to develop more favorable conditions for offensive action, to 12 economize forces to allow the concentration of force elsewhere and retain or control terrain, and 13 gain time. The rifle squad should have an ambush mentality in which they seek to surprise and 14 trap the enemy in away that sets him up for the decisive counter-attack. 15 16 5102. Mission 17 18 The mission of the infantry in the defense is, with the support of other arms, to delay / harass the 19 enemy by fire as he approaches the battle position, to repel his assault by close combat if he 20 reaches the battle position, and to destroy him by counterattack. For the rifle squad, this mission 21 can be divided into three parts: 22 23 a. To delay or suppress the enemy by fire once he comes into small arms range of the squad's 24 fighting position. Depending on the mission, the enemy is delay or taken under fire as far forward 25 of the squad's fighting position as possible. The closer the enemy comes to the squad's fighting 26 position, the more friendly casualties he will inflict. Another technique is to deliver massed 27 surprise fires by withholding fires until the enemy can be surprised and trapped e.g. ambush. 28 29 b. If the enemy continues to press the attack to the point where he launches an assault, the squad 30 repels this assault by continuing to deliver fire as part of their unit's final protective fires and, if 31 necessary, by hand-to-hand combat.
  • The Motte and Bailey Castle at Aldford by Bevis Sale and Rich Turner

    The Motte and Bailey Castle at Aldford by Bevis Sale and Rich Turner

    The Motte and Bailey Castle at Aldford by Bevis Sale and Rich Turner This substantial set of earthworks is the best surviving example of a Norman Castle in Cheshire. Though large in size, they are typical of the many motte and bailey castles which survived throughout England and Wales. There original aim was to provide protection for the new Norman landlords who had taken over the Saxon manors. They continued to be built well into the 12' century and especially during periods of civil unrest which racked England during this period. When plotted on a distribution map they also seem to have another function. There is a great concentration of these castles throughout the Welsh Marches from Cheshire down to Gloucestershire which provided a well defended informal frontier between England and Wales (Renn, 1968). Husain (1973) has gone further and suggested that the castles at Shotwick Park, Trueman's Hill Hawarden, Dodleston, Pulford and Aldford were built as an outer defense to Chester, but without accurate dates of construction it is difficult to defend this argument. The two jrincipal earthworks at Aldford, the motte and the bailey will be described separately. The motte contains a very large &ea for a non-royal castle (1280 sq.m). The motte top is sub-rectangular and almost flat, except for mounds of rubble in the south-eastern and north-eastern comers. The motte was formerly tree covered and shallow pits where stumps were removed are just visible and there is one irregular pit showing sandstone rubble. Therefore it seems unlikely that there was not a central tower or donjon to the motte as its collapse or foundations would have left a raised entre'.
  • From Archaeology to Interpretation at Charles Towne Stanley South University of South Carolina - Columbia, Stansouth@Sc.Edu

    From Archaeology to Interpretation at Charles Towne Stanley South University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected]

    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Faculty & Staff ubP lications Institute of 1989 From Archaeology to Interpretation at Charles Towne Stanley South University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sciaa_staffpub Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in Anthropological Studies, Volume 9, 1989, pages 157-168. http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 1989 by The outhS Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology This Article is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty & Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chapter 8 FROM ARCHAEOLOGY TO INTERPRETATION AT CHARLES TOWNE Stanley South IN1RODUCTION primarily a visual documentation of the process we In a volume dedicated to Bob Stephenson, it is went through at Charles Towne in translating the 1670- appropriate that my chapter focus on the work at 1680 period ruchaeological features into the interpre­ Charles Towne Landing since it was at that site in 1968 tive defensive ditches, embankments, embrasures, and that I began my relationship with him. It is also appro­ palisades that visitors to the site have been seeing and priate that a statement on Charles Towne be presented wondering about for the past 15 years. This process of here because that site has had a seminal influence on all historic site development continues to be carried out on my work to follow, with 13 articles, monographs, and historic sites from archaeology to interpretive exhibit books resulting from the nine months of fieldwork I as more such sites are explored and interpreted to the carried out on the site in 1969 (South 1969a, 1969b, public.
  • Glossary of Terms

    Glossary of Terms

    www.nysmm.org Glossary of Terms Some definitions have links to images. ABATIS: Barricade of felled trees with their branches towards the attack and sharpened (primitive version of "barbed wire"). ARROW SLITS: Narrow openings in a wall through which defenders can fire arrows. (also called loopholes) ARTILLERY: An excellent GLOSSARY for Civil War era (and other) Artillery terminologies can be found at civilwarartillery.com/main.htm (Link will open new window.) BAILEY: The walled enclosure or the outer courtyard of a castle. (Ward, Parade) BANQUETTE: The step of earth within the parapet, sufficiently high to enable standing defenders to fire over the crest of the parapet with ease. BARBICAN: Outworks, especially in front of a gate. A heavily fortified gate or tower. BARTIZAN (BARTISAN): Scottish term, projecting corner turret. A small overhanging turret on a tower s battlement. BASTION: A projection from a fortification arranged to give a wider range of fire or to allow firing along the main walls. Usually at the intersection of two walls. BATTER: Inclined face of a wall (Talus). BATTERED: May be used to describe crenellations. BATTERY: A section of guns, a named part of the main fortifications or a separate outer works position (e.g.. North Battery, Water Battery). BATTLEMENTS: The notched top (crenellated parapet) of a defensive wall, with open spaces (crenels) for firing weapons. BEAKED PROJECTION: see EN BEC. BELVEDERE: A pavilion or raised turret. BLOCKHOUSE: Usually a two story wood building with an overhanging second floor and rifle loops and could also have cannon ports (embrasures). Some three story versions. Some with corner projections similar to bastions.
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water

    Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water

    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 4 Effects of Fire on Soil and Water September 2005 Abstract _____________________________________ Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. This state-of-knowledge review about the effects of fire on soils and water can assist land and fire managers with information on the physical, chemical, and biological effects of fire needed to successfully conduct ecosystem management, and effectively inform others about the role and impacts of wildland fire. Chapter topics include the soil resource, soil physical properties and fire, soil chemistry effects, soil biology responses, the hydrologic cycle and water resources, water quality, aquatic biology, fire effects on wetland and riparian systems, fire effects models, and watershed rehabilitation. Keywords: ecosystem, fire effects, fire regime, fire severity, soil, water, watersheds, rehabilitation, soil properties, hydrology, hydrologic cycle, soil chemistry, soil biology, fire effects models The larger bold check-mark boxes indicate the volumes in “The Rainbow Series” currently published. To order, check any box or boxes below, fill in the address form, and send to the mailing address listed below. Or send your order and your address in mailing label form to one of the other listed media. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna.
  • Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications War Department (USA)

    Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications War Department (USA)

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DOD Military Intelligence U.S. Department of Defense 1-1946 Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications War Department (USA) Robert L. Bolin , Depositor University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dodmilintel War Department (USA) and Bolin, Robert L. , Depositor, "Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications" (1946). DOD Military Intelligence. 27. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dodmilintel/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Defense at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in DOD Military Intelligence by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Technical Manual, TM 30-430 Handbook on USSR Military Forces Chapter VI Fortifications Robert L. Bolin, Depositor University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Technical Manual, TM 30-430, Chapter VI 1 January 1946 Handbook on USSR Military Forces Chapter VI Fortifications War Department Washington, DC Comments The copy digitized was borrowed from the Marshall Center Research Library, APO, AE 09053-4502. Abstract TM 30-340, Handbook on USSR Military Forces, was “published in installments to expedite dissemination to the field.” TM30-430, Chapter VI, 1 January 1946, “Fortifications,” is a detailed discussion of earthworks and structures used for defensive purposes. This chapter is illustrated with numerous drawings, diagrams, and charts. This manual is listed in WorldCat under Accession Number: OCLC: 19989681 1 Jan 46 TM 30-430 CHAPTER VI FORTIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Figure Section I.
  • Exploratory Archeology at Holmes' Fort, the Blockhouse, and Jail Redoubt at Ninety Six Stanley South University of South Carolina - Columbia, Stansouth@Sc.Edu

    Exploratory Archeology at Holmes' Fort, the Blockhouse, and Jail Redoubt at Ninety Six Stanley South University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected]

    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Faculty & Staff ubP lications Institute of 8-1971 Exploratory Archeology at Holmes' Fort, the Blockhouse, and Jail Redoubt at Ninety Six Stanley South University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sciaa_staffpub Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1970, Volume 5, 1971, pages 35-50. http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 1971 by The outhS Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology This Article is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty & Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r 2 EXPLORATORY ARCHEOLOGY AT r HOLMES' FORT, THE BLOCKHOUSE, AND JAIL REDOUBT AT NINETY SIX Stanley South r Historical Perspective In May 1780, Charleston fell to the British under Sir Henry Clinton, r and Lord Cornwallis was assigned the task of ending the rebellion in South Carolina. Particular attention was focused on the South Carolina militia under Brigadier General Andrew Williamson, and a march was made toward the village of Ninety Six by Lieutenant Colonel Nisbet Balfour, r senior field commander under Cornwallis (Bass 1962:2). Before he reached Ninety Six, however, General Williamson surrendered his force to the British with no resistence, and three days later Andrew Pickens did the r same. On June 22, 1780, Balfour reached Ninety Six and made the settle­ ment the headquarters for the British in the Back Country.
  • The Fortifications of Magdeburg

    The Fortifications of Magdeburg

    210 5.2 210 297 A contribution to the Monument Preservation Plan THE FORTIFICATIONS OF MAGDEBURG The building and subterranean passage of Zwischenwerk IVa (built in 1890) in the Harsdorfer Strasse, used by Magdeburg’s Landegard e.V. association from 1922 on (so-called “Fort Landegard”, which included a children’s home, a garden, and a home economy school), when another story was added to the casemate, transformed into a Waldschule (forest school) in 1925, converted into a recuperation home for women suffering from tuberculosis in 1930, and presently used by the Öko-Zentrum und Institut Magdeburg Sachsen-Anhalt e.V. - ÖZIM 108 2020 3 A contribution text to the Monument Preservation Plan THE FORTIFICATIONS OF MAGDEBURG Published by Stadtplanungsamt Magdeburg Text by Sabine Ullrich, cultcontext based on Monument Preservation Plan: The Fortifications of Magdeburg, compiled by Katja Trippler with the kind assistance of Dr. Bernhard Mai Photographs by Jill Luise Muessig and Hans-Wulf Kunze Front Cover The covered way of the counterscarp casemate in Ravelin II 4 CONTENTS :: CONTENTS View behind the crenellated wall in front of the Lukasklause, the canon is a replica of an original from 1669 in the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin 5 CONTENTS :: CONTENTS CONTENTS PREFACES ...................................................................................................... 7 1. INTRODUCTION Magdeburg: the quintessential fortress city .............................................. 11 2. MONUMENT PRESERVATION PLAN Analysis – Information –