ecent anniversaries meanthat the events of 70 yearsago have been re-imagined

in the national psyche.Who but theBritish could commemorate tosuch a degree the disastrous retreatto Dunkirk and the miraculoussalvation of ‘our’ army? However,Churchill was acutely aware thatwars are ‘not won by evacuations’,and that at the beginning of June1940 the fate of Britain was inthe balance. In the period beforeFighter Command was fullytested, and the Battle of Britainfought and won, and when somuch heavy equipment had beenleft in France, the prospect ofinvasion was, contemporariesthought, very real. In order tooffset the lack of tanks and vehiclesto prosecute mobile warfare andto combat the free flowingGerman tactics of Blitzkrieg, aseries of stop lines and fortifiedtowns were created using pillboxesas a major part of the defensiveworks. Such is their durabilitythat 70 years on their unsightlyforms dot the countryside in,sometimes, surprising numbers.One such stop line was theGeneral Head Quarters (GHQ)Line which bisected Essex. Fromthe Thames estuary in the southto Saffron Walden in the north-west, it ran around Chelmsford,through Springfield, Broomfieldand on to Little and Great Walthamand beyond.This article will con-sider the surviving pillboxes forjust a small part of the line as itfollows the banks of the RiverChelmer north of Chelmsford(Plate 1).

The dictionary definition of apillbox is 'a small enclosed, partlyunderground, concrete fort usedas an outpost'.1 While they are rel-atively small and concrete they arenot necessarily submerged in theground to any degree or used just

as an outpost.Their use in theSecond World War was prolific andmany of us will be familiar withtheir presence in the landscapeand will have some understandingof their function.Appreciation ofthe historical value of pillboxeshas increased gradually especiallysince Henry Wills wrote his pio-neering work on them in 1985.2

Far from being seen as eyesores inthe landscape, which to a certaindegree they are, they are nowappreciated as rightfully takingtheir place in a long line of forti-fications stretching back intopre-history.3

Second World War defences asa whole have been surveyednationally through the Councilfor British Archaeology's Defenceof Britain Project. Running from1995 to 2002 it recorded almost20,000 military sites in the UK.More recently, the excellentDefence of East Sussex Project 'aimsto record the anti-invasion defencesof East Sussex using a combinationof documentary sources, field-work and oral evidence', a modelfor us all.4 Whilst there is noequivalent of these specific projectsin Essex we are in the fortunateposition of having Essex CountyCouncil's Unlocking Essex's PastSites and Monuments Record(SMR) database which is aninvaluable tool when looking forpillboxes and other defensivestructures.5 Finally the county hasbeen well served by local authoritiesfunding specific projects to recordpillboxes and defensive structures

in their own areas with subsequentreports by Fred Nash.6 This articleattempts to build on existingresearch as well as encouragingothers to get out and about tolook at the defences in theirown locality.7

Perhaps because of the numberof pillboxes built during 1940-41,estimated at upwards of 18,000,8

it could be assumed that they werevery much a product of their time.However pillbox origins have beentraced back to pre-history and theiruse in more recent nineteenth andearly twentieth century conflictshas been recorded.9 Widespreaduse on the Western Front, as wellas surviving First World Warexamples in Britain attest to theuniversality of these hardenedconcrete defences. So much sothat during the 1920s and 30s theFrench and Germans adoptedtheir use so fully that the Maginotand Siegfried Lines were the cuttingedge of defensive systems.TheBritish Army was well acquaintedwith pillboxes during its stay inFrance, over the winter of 1939-40, preparing defensive positionsand constructing 400 or so ofthem before the German attackon May 10th.10 When the armyshook itself down after Dunkirk itwas quickly realised that withvery few tanks, artillery pieces orautomatic weapons it would behard pressed to resist a Germaninvasion. General Sir EdmundIronside, Commander-in-ChiefHome Forces devised a scheme ofdefence to slow down any German

Pillboxes of the GHQ Line in mid-Essex:

The defence of Croxton's andBroomfield Mills

byNeil Wiffen

EssexJOURNAL 57

R

Plate 1. A good example of a surving FW3/24 pillbox(SMR 10865) on the GHQ Line.

(All photos N.Wiffen, 22/08/2010.)

forces that attempted to invadeBritain.11 This was based on acoastal 'crust' of defences whileinland there were further 'stop-lines', anchored by defended townsand villages, which would preventthe very mobile German forcesfrom racing all over the country,and allow the limited Britishmechanised mobile reserve forcesthe time to position themselvesto undertake a counter-attack.Stop-lines were based along riversand natural obstacles or railway

embankments with pillboxes andanti-tank defences built tostrengthen them.The GHQ Linewas a stop-line which was designedto protect London and the mid-land industrial heart of Britainfrom being directly over-run.

The plan to construct thesedefences was published on 25thJune 1940 when the Home ForcesOperation Instruction No.3 wasissued.12 However, work ondefences, in at least some areas,was already in hand.The civil

engineer I.D. Greeves recalls how'On the morning of 18 June1940, a meeting was arranged atthe Esplanade Hotel, Seaford [EastSussex], between representativesof the military and contractors.The bare outlines of the proposeddefences were discussed'.13

However as early as 29th Junethere were concerns about thenature of the plan Ironside wasputting forward.14 By 19th Julysuch was the change of mood inthe country that Ironside resignedand was replaced by General AlanBrooke, who had fought inFrance in May and was well awareof how effective the Germanarmy was.15 He was concernedthat all available units should bestationed as near to the coast aswas practical in order to be ableto counter-attack quickly whenan invasion force was at itsweakest.To him the idea of lineardefences far away for the cost wasa waste of time and effort.At thebeginning of August a halt wascalled to building the GHQ Line,except for those works alreadystarted which were to be finished.It had advanced so far in the southand east of the country that bythe end of the month it wasessentially complete.Work inSussex carried on into November.16

The following year work continuedon fortifying villages and townsinto anti-tank islands in a series offortified 'nodal' points, the emphasisbeing placed on countering aninvasion with mobile forces.Limited work on constructinghardened defences continuedinto 1942.17

The study area for this article(Map 1), runs for approximately 3kilometres from the southernboundary of Broomfield to justnorth of Croxton's Mill in LittleWaltham. Included is an interestingpoint in the defences - the end ofthe anti-tank ditch that ran fromthe River Thames to Chelmsford.This man-made ditch was theequivalent of a river where therewas no river to act as an obstacle.It terminated when it met theRiver Chelmer at a point wherethe river formed the parishboundary between Springfield

EssexJOURNAL 58

Pillboxes of the GHQ Line in mid-EssexSites & Monuments Recordnumber and map reference

Pillbox type

SMR 10859,TL709122 Eastern Command type (ECT)

SMR 10860,TL706121 FW3/22. (Destroyed)

SMR 10861,TL708121 ECT

SMR 10862,TL711118 FW3/24

SMR 10863,TL711115 ECT

SMR 10864,TL71011 FW3/28a

SMR 10865,TL712112 FW3/24

SMR 10866,TL712111 FW3/24

SMR 10867,TL709111 FW3/24? (Destroyed)

SMR 10868,TL713109 FW3/24

SMR 10869,TL709108 FW3/24 (Destroyed)

SMR 10870,TL713103 ECT (Bespoke)

SMR 10871,TL713101 ECT

SMR 10872,TL713100 FW3/28a

SMR 10873,TL713099 ECT

SMR 10874,TL715094 FW3/24

SMR 10875,TL714092 FW3/24

SMR 10876,TL712090 FW3/24

SMR 10138,TL715089 FW3/24

SMR 10140,TL716088 ECT

Table 1. Pillboxes discussed in article.(For clarity only the last three digits of the SMR reference areused in the main text of the article to identify the pillboxes.)

and Broomfield (TL715091).18

In the event of a successfulGerman invasion on the eastcoast, the River Chelmer wouldhave performed the function of amoat, slowing an invading armyfrom advancing on London andfurther inland. Pillboxes wereconstructed to strengthen thedefences and are the most obvioussurviving feature of the GHQLine. However, on their own theywere of limited use for once inside,their defenders would have hadvery little vision to the outsideworld.The pillboxes would havebeen supported by barbed wireobstacles and extensive fielddefences, such as slit-trenches andfoxholes, whilst existing hedges,ditches and buildings would havealso been put to good use bydefending infantry.

The most vulnerable points toattack on the river were bridges,especially those bridges strongenough to support the weight oftanks. It is easy today to forget, aswe easily motor through thecounty, that even as recently as 30years ago many of the bridges thatwe take for granted did not existand that river crossings were fewerand further apart than we are nowaccustomed to. In 1940 the onlyway for vehicles to easily cross theRiver Chelmer immediately tothe north of Chelmsford was thebridge at Broomfield Mill andthe Winckford Bridge in LittleWaltham.There were smaller footbridges at Croxton's Mill and justto the south of Little Waltham atthe site of a former mill. It is thislandscape into which pillboxeswere constructed to best defendagainst a crossing of the RiverChelmer.

Designs for these pillboxeswere issued by the Fortificationand Works department of the WarOffice (DFW 3). Osborne statesthat 'they were simply a suite ofdrawings from which both RE[Royal Engineer] officers in thefield and building contractorscould draw, in order to produceeffective hardened defences whichhad been given the official seal ofapproval'.19Various other commandsthroughout the UK also issued

designs for pillboxes and theEastern Command Type (ECT) isan example of a local design.20

Surviving pillboxes in the studyarea all appear to be 'shell-proof',with walls that are 25-54inchesthick as opposed to thinner 'bullet-proof' versions.21 A comparablesection of the defences of GHQLine at Hartford End in GreatWaltham has been recorded indetail by William Foot.22 Hedescribes the defences by theformer Ridley's brewery with'heavier pillboxes [FW3/24s] atthe front edge of the defences bythe anti-tank obstacle of the river,with lighter defence positions[FW3/22s] to the rear coveringthe ground in between withinterlocking machine-gun fire'.By 'lighter' Foot may mean thatthe FW3/22 pillboxes would havehoused fewer men (six as opposedto eight in a FW3/24) with fewerautomatic or heavy weapons,23

rather than the pillboxes beingthinner walled. Of course thiswould need to be confirmed. Itwill be interesting to see if thedefensive layout in Broomfieldmirrors that a few miles to thenorth-west.

Taken as a whole there are 17surviving pillboxes within the studyarea, with a further three, nowdestroyed, known from the SMR.24

As can be seen from Table 1 thereare four types of pillbox (Fig. 1)present in the study area of whichthere are the following numbers:

FW3/22 1FW3/24 10FW3/28a 2ECT 7

Map 1 plots the 20 pillboxessituated within the study area.Ignoring the solitary FW3/22pillbox (SMR 860) and assumingthat the now destroyed pillboxesat Butler's Farm (SMR 867 &869) were FW3/24s, then thereare only three types of pillboxused, two if we ignore the specificuse of the anti-tank FW3/28a(Plate 2).25 Left with ten FW3/24and seven ECT pillboxes it can beseen that there is no discerniblecoherent pattern of use along thesample length of the GHQ Line.There is a cluster of FW3/24sat the southern end where theanti-tank line joined the riverand this feature seems to havebeen defended in Springfield bya solitary line of ECTs facing theanti-tank ditch as it ran from therailway to the Chelmer.26 Thepillbox (SMR 140) on Lawn Laneis an ECT and overlooks the anti-tank ditch and Chelmer and it isreinforced by a FW3/24 to thewest. From here, in Broomfield,there is a cluster of four of thesetypes before a change.There is alarge gap between these, to the

EssexJOURNAL 59

Pillboxes of the GHQ Line in mid-Essex

Plate 2.The FW3/28a 2 pounderanti-tank pillbox to the south ofBroomfield Mill (SMR 10872).

Inset, a detail of a ‘crenellations’and an interior view of a loop-hole

for a Bren LMG.

KeyFW3/22FW3/24FW3/28aECTSMR ref. no.of pillboxSMR ref. no.of pillbox notin study area

10859

10858

10857

10860

10861

10862

10863

10864

108651086610867

1086810869

10871

10870

10872

10873

10875

10874

108761013810861

10141

10142

Approximate position ofthe anti-tank ditch

10858

10876Rose Lawn Farm

‘cluster’

Broomfield Mill‘cluster’

Butler’s Farm/Croxton’s Mill

‘cluster’

Little Waltham Map 1. Map to show the distribution, type and SMR reference numberof pillboxes in the study area and those immediately adjacent.

Base map, OS Sheets TL70NW & TL71SW, 1:10,560, 1955.(Reproduced by courtesy of the Essex Record Office.)

double line of pillboxes is veryreminiscent of the example atHartford End, except that all thepillboxes here appear to havebeen the FW3/24 type.Why adouble line here when only asingle line of ECTs overlooks theanti-tank ditch in Springfield?Again, perhaps one scheme wasmore advanced before a halt towork was called? Another FW3/28a(SMR 864) (Cover illustration)pillbox overlooks the vulnerablecrossing point at Croxton's Mill,which was itself defended locallyby an ECT pillbox (SMR 863).To the north there is one FW3/24(SMR 862) before two furtherECTs (SMR 859 & 861) backedby the solitary, now destroyed,FW3/22 (SMR 860).Althoughthis is the only example in thissmall study area it is the first ofthree built to the west of the roadfrom Broomfield to Little Waltham.

Whilst there appears to be nooverall plan within the study areaI believe that a pattern emerges.The most obvious are the defencesof the major crossing points of theriver.An anti-tank pillbox supportedby others at Broomfield andCroxton's mills, as well as at LittleWaltham (SMR 858) and also atHartford End. 27 These examplesaside, if it is assumed that thepattern of building the GHQLine in Essex was similar to thatin East Sussex, then a variety ofbuilders, and possibly RoyalEngineer or Pioneer units, wouldhave been allocated certain typesand numbers of pillboxes to con-struct.28 It is quite possible that ifthis were the case then the sametype of pillbox would have beenbuilt by the same team of menwith several groups of menworking up and down the valley.This could explain why there arecertain types of pillbox clusteredtogether.Those ECTs overlookingthe anti-tank ditch in Springfield;the three FW3/24s in the southof Broomfield; the three pillboxesto the south of Broomfield Mill,especially as they all share thesame 'crenellations' (perhaps thework of an enterprising andimaginative builder or RoyalEngineers officer?) The double

rear of Rose Lawn farm, beforethe next cluster. Might this gaphave been covered by the fortifi-cation of existing farm buildings,which on slightly higher groundwould have had a commandingfield of fire over the river andadjacent pillboxes (SMR 873 &874)? Perhaps an obvious solution,especially if there were doubtsover continuing building pillboxesas the summer of 1940 wore on.

Broomfield Mill, the firstmajor river crossing upstreamfrom Chelmsford was defendedby the next cluster of pillboxes;one FW3/28a anti-tank pillboxsupported by two ECTs, with athird bespoke version built intothe mill's garden wall to the north.The three pillboxes to the south(SMR 871, 872 & 873) all appearto survive in very good condition,including their 'crenellations' -lumps of concrete on their roof-lines to help break up their regularsquare lines and aid camouflage(Plate 2). Possibly these were thework of one work gang as they allshare this particular feature.

From the mill there is somedistance which is not covered bypillboxes before a double line ofFW3/24 pillboxes is encountered.This gap, as that at Rose Lawnfarm, seems an obvious choice forat least one further pillbox tocomplete the defences. Perhapsan example of the order at thebeginning of August 1940 bring-ing a halt to new works? This

line of pillboxes behind Butler'sFarm also fits this picture verywell with a further section uparound Little Waltham busilydefending this important crossingpoint of the Chelmer. If onelooks further north to Langley's,in Great Waltham, there wasmuch building going on herewith at least another ten pillboxesalong a very short stretch of river.Gaps inbetween the clusters mayrepresent work that was neverstarted, before the order endingconstruction of new works wasissued, or that they were filledby the fortification of existingbuildings?

Within the 20 pillboxes of thestudy area there are some interestingexamples of variation of designand camouflage.The pillbox builtinto the garden wall at BroomfieldMill (SMR 870) is described asbeing a purpose built ECT in theshape of an 'irregular diamond',demonstrating the ingenuityinvolved in planning thesedefences. Building this pillboxinto the red-brick garden wallwould have also camouflaged it.The wall in this case was thecamouflage but in two otherexamples the builders had towork a little harder.The pillboxat Croxton's Mill (SMR 863)was disguised as a small woodencottage with a tiled roof whilstan ECT (SMR 859) (Plate 3) isreported to have been disguisedas a thatched cottage, again inthe interests of camouflage.

This highlights the importanceof the SMR for without it wewould have only been left withthe concrete remains of the pill-boxes, having lost the thatch andthe tiles and other temporarycamouflage to time and theelements.These different waysof camouflaging pillboxes arenot restricted to this study area,Henry Wills has many examplesof disguised pillboxes, but it isinteresting to see their presencehere.29 It is also pertinent to con-sider those temporary ways ofcamouflaging which would havedisappeared in a matter of daysperhaps.A very simple way ofdisguising a pillbox would have

been to 'paint' it with liquid mudwhich would not have survivedthe next rain showers.The lumpsof concrete on the pillboxesaround Broomfield Mill wouldhave helped to have broken uptheir outlines but so would havefoliage, logs or netting.While wemay see a pillbox isolated in themiddle of a field we must considerthat it may not have always beenthe case.An old map or aerialphoto could show the long losthedgerow that the pillbox wasbuilt into. Once this was removedthe main element of camouflagewas also removed. Picture this andall those temporary trenches andearthworks that would have beendug to support the pillbox and amuch more complex defensivelandscape can be envisaged.

As the prospect of invasionreceded in 1940, especially soafter the German invasion ofRussia the following summer,pillboxes still had a function toperform.They were relegated tobe manned by members of theHome Guard who becameresponsible for their upkeep.It is still remembered how theSpringfield Home Guard under-took at least one night-timeexercise to attack Broomfield Millwhich was defended by theBroomfield Home Guard.30 Oneassumes that the pillboxes we havediscussed (SMR 870, 871, 872 &873) were used for what theywere originally planned for ifonly in a training capacity.

To fully understand the patternof pillboxes we have discussed,further research is desirable. Itmay be possible to discover inthe war diaries of the army unitsstationed in the area during theconstruction of the pillboxesmore about the whole exercise.Were small numbers of pillboxesconstructed by the same teamsas I have suggested? Were moreplanned but never built? Hadsome existing buildings beenidentified for fortifying? Thisstudy of a small section of theGHQ Line is an initial explo-ration of some of it’s features.Further study may increase ourunderstanding of the bigger

EssexJOURNAL 61

Pillboxes of the GHQ Line in mid-Essex

1m

FW3/28a2 pounder anti-tank gun,

3 LMGs - 10 men

Fig. 1. Approximate floorplans, and garrison, of the

pillboxes presentin the study area.

(Based onOsborne and Wills.)

FW3/225 LMGs, 1 Rifle, - 6 men

FW3/245 LMGs, 2 Rifles, - 8 men

ECT, enlarged FW3/26, 4 LMGs,- 5 men

Approx.

picture.Whilst it complementssome of the studies alreadyundertaken it would probably beworthwhile to enlarge the studyarea to see how representative itactually is. Perhaps a fuller county-wide study of the remains of theGHQ Line would be appositenow we are 70 years on fromwhen it was built. I also hope thatthis article will encourage othersto go out and discover their localpillboxes. Do similar patterns existin other areas as tentatively discussedhere? However, some sites willbe inaccessible, completelycamouflaged and existing only asa 'bulge' in a Blackthorn hedge(SMR 876), while others willshow signs of occupation withthe detritus of old mattresses andfood and drink cans (SMR 864 &872).Whatever we think of them,pillboxes are worthy subjects forstudy even if we are still beginningto fully understand them andtheir place in the landscape.

References1. http://oxforddictionaries.com,

(10/10/2010).2. H.Wills, Pillboxes:A Study of U.K.

Defences 1940, (1985).3. M. Osborne, Pillboxes of Britain &

Ireland, (Stroud, 2008).4. http://www.britarch.ac.uk/cba/

rojects/dob &http://www.pillbox.org.uk,(19/10/10).

5. http://unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk, (19/10/10).

6. Such as, F. Nash, World War Twodefences in Essex: interim report,(Chelmsford, 1998) and, to namebut a few, Survey of World War TwoDefences in the Boroughs of:Brentwood (1999),Southend-on-Sea (2001) &Colchester (2007).

7. Please respect private propertyand seek permission fromlandowners if you would like toexamine at close quarters pillboxesthat are not adjacent to publicrights of way. In this study area afootpath ran for most of its lengthenabling me to visit seven of thepillboxes discussed.

8. Osborne, p.75.9. Ibid, pp.13-40.10. Ibid, p.11. J.C. Cairns, ‘Ironside, (William)

Edmund, first Baron Ironside(1880–1959)’, Oxford Dictionary ofNational Biography, OxfordUniversity Press, 2004; onlineedn, Oct 2007http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34113, (05/10/2010);C.Alexander, IronsidesLine,(Storrington, 1999), pp.15-23.

12. Ibid, p.15.13. I.D. Greeves, 'The Construction

of the GHQ Stop-Line: Eridgeto Newhave, June-November1940', Fortress, XVI, (1993), p.53.

14. Alexander, pp.15 & 29.15. D.W. Fraser., ‘Brooke,Alan Francis,

first Viscount (1883–1963)’, revOxford Dictionary of NationalBiography, Oxford UniversityPress, 2004 ;online edn, Jan 2008http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32091, (05/10/2010);Alexander, pp.29-30.

16. Greeves, p.61.17. Alexander, pp.31-32.

18. This ditch was 6 metres wide by2.5-3.7 metres deep. S.Tyler &H. Major, The Early Anglo-SaxonCemetery and Later Saxon Settlementat Springfield Lyons, Essex,(Chelmsford, 2005), p.2. I amgrateful to Mrs Gail Sanders forthis reference.

19. Osborne, p.91.20. Ibid.21. The SMR refers to them as

'thick-walled' which, I assume,means shell-proof and thereforethe terms are interchangeable.

22. The very scarce Beaches, fields,streets, and hills... : the anti-invasionlandscapes of England, 1940, (York,2006), pp.416-425 and the moreeasily available The Battlefields ThatNearly Were: Defended England1940, (Stroud, 2007), pp140-149.

23. Alexander, pp.93-94.24. The pillboxes described in this

article are all recorded on EssexCounty Council's Sites andMonuments Record (SMR).

25. There appears to be no examplesin the immediate vicinity of themore complex FW3/27 typewith an anti-aircraft mounting asexists in the Hartford End case-study. Is this an example of adifferent workforce with differingskill levels or instructions fromthose working downstream?Foot, Battlefields, p.142.

26. Most of these were demolished tomake way for the housing estateso it is difficult to be precise butentries on the SMR suggest thisto be the case.

27. Foot, Battlefields, p. 145.28. Greeves, pp.54-55.29. Wills, pp.58-64.30. My late Grandfather, Redvers

Wiffen, was a member of theBroomfield Home Guard and herecounted this story to my Dad,Michael Wiffen.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the veryhelpful staff of Broomfield Librarywho have been invaluable insourcing books and articles forthis project. I would also like tothank Dr Sarah Honour for hercomments on the draft of thisarticle.

The AuthorNeil Wiffen lives in Broomfieldand has long been interested inthe history of the Second WorldWar. He is Hon. Ed. of theEssex Journal.

EssexJOURNAL 62

Pillboxes of the GHQ Line in mid-Essex

Plate 3.The ECT pillbox (SMR10859), once disguised as a cottage.

Inset, a detail of the loop-hole in thedetached ‘blast wall’ to it’s rear

(right-hand side of main photo).