[TEPaul]

Since we've had so much discussion for so long about the differences in the "look" of various bunkers I thought I'd try to find out as much as possible about Paddy Cole, the bunkerman from Ireland, imported to California by MacKenzie and apparently credited with the final shaping and detail work at Cypress Point.

Most of the bunker work of MacDonald & Co., the bunker contractor from Maryland who has been and is working on so many famous classic courses recently has been described as having a "look" that's "puffy and upholstered". I suppose the reason for that is because MacDonald & Co does the "shaping" of their bunker surrounds by machinery.

Cypress Point's bunkering on opening of the golf course were without doubt the most beautiful I've ever seen. I suppose the basic shapes and style of them would be described as "MacKenzie". But the detail of them seems so much more natural as they appear to "flow" into their surrounds in an extremely "low profile" way that I would describe as "flatter" vs that "puffy and upholstered" look of MacDonald's bunkering.

It may seem logical that Cypress's bunkers would look this way as it appears the bunkers were contructed on the natural sand of Cypress's site. The constructors of the bunkering at Cypress may have just laid a mix of soil and grass around  defined areas (bunker shapes) of sand, in fact.

Who knows what else Paddy Cole and the crew that was with him at Cypress (and maybe some other courses in California) did? Who knows what he or they did in Europe and which other architects they worked with? Colt and Alison? And lastly, was the amazingly beautiful "look" of the bunkering at Cypress a "site specific" look, a "MacKenzie" look or something that Paddy Cole and the crew that worked with him developed on their own?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I think you might get an arguement from Jack Fleming another Irish import. I spoke to Fleming's son several years ago and he claimed his father was responsible for CP -- after talking to him you would've thought MacKenzie was only along for the ride. But that is a common characteristic of many MacKenzie associates - they often come away thinking they were the genius.

From what I understand Fleming hooked up with MacKenzie in England. I believe MacKenzie's brother may have run a construction company, or maybe MacKenzie formed a contruction company among his laborers and put his brother in charge - I'm not sure. But some of these guys eventually came over to California, and Cole may have been part of that group. I don't think MacKenzie and Colt intermingled much, so I think it is unlikely he worked for Colt.

They did form another construction company in the US, I think it was called the American Construction Company and Robert Hunter was its cheif executive. I'm not sure what other architects they may have worked for, I do know they carried out the redesign of Pebble Beach for Egan, Hunter and company. And it shows in the photos.

I'm sure that those Irishmen had their own distinctive flair, but they followed a general MacKenzie syle that is seen in his Australian work, in his Maxwell work and in his Wendell Miller work.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

The extreme similarity of the bunkering at Pebble done by The American Construction Company (run by Robert Hunter's son Robert Jr.) would seem to be the key to the look of the type of bunkering I'm describing at Cypress and also done at Pebble with Egan (and Hunter and Lapham) in preparation for the 1929 Amateur at Pebble.

Those who were obviously part of that construction company must have been the men mentioned in GeoffShac's Cypress book, Dan Gormley and his first cousin, Jack Fleming (primarily supervisors) with the preliminary earthwork credited to Michael McDonagh and the bunker shaping and detail work on them credited to Paddy Cole.

It would be interesting to put together a photo analysis of any of the courses The American Construction Co worked on to compare the bunkering to determine if this particular style and "look" was that of The American Construction Co and those that worked for it, including all those just mentioned.

It appears that construction work was going on simultaneously at Cypress and Pebble (in preparation for the US Amateur) and obviously the same people were involved from The American Construction Co (as well as some of the same architects).

Some of the photos of this work are absolutely amazing in their "low profile" melding of bunkering into surrounds and even greens!! I've never seen anything remotely like it for beauty and almost a natural delicateness! The bunkering greenside on the 9th hole at Cypress, and even better is the left greenside bunkering on #3 Cypress. But the best example by far is #7 Pebble! It looks like the transition from bunker to green is less than an inch!!

Frankly, this particular style and "look", although incredibly beautiful just doesn't look to me like one that could last long at all! It looks like something that would inevitably be ravaged by wind and weather or even the natural evolution as a result of the play of the golfer. The entire "look" appears to be one that might have been a real ongoing maintenance problem and according to the story behind the demise of Egan's famous "imitation sand dunes" at Pebble, particularly #17 Pebble that was later changed, was one of ongoing maintenance problems!

It might also explain the correspondence between MacKenzie and Morse as MacKenzie complained bitterly to Morse to do something to stop the obstructionist tactics of Pebble's greenskeeper toward construction techniques and also that the same tactics would not happen at MPCC.

Probably the greenkeeper could see what a nightmare it might be to maintain! Whether it was or not is interesting but it sure is without doubt the most beautiful bunkering of that general style of anything I've ever seen. Just the overall style and "look" of the architecture generally is the most beautiful I've ever seen. Again, as I said months before, it had such a natural look but also one that appeared almost "fragile" or "delicate"!

Basically it makes the so-called "Monterey School" of architecture the most amazing I've ever seen! I suspect the detail of that "look" may have been the work of The American Construction Co as much as anyone!

[Tom Doak]

Tom P:  I think it would be fair to say that talented shapers like Paddy Cole, taught by MacKenzie and Jack Fleming, made Chandler Egan's work at Pebble much better than it might have been.

But, since they apparently never built anything else that looked like that, it's probably also fair to say that Chandler Egan had some interesting ideas and sent them in some different directions.

The best work is always a synergy between architect, construction crew, and property.  But in assigning credit, if the crew learned their trade under the architect's guidance, it's harder to give them as much of the credit.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

The 1929 Cypress/Pebble bunker look, particularly the greenside bunker look, is like nothing I've ever seen before. As I said it almost looks too delicate to last long or be long-term maintainable, even though it is unbelievable beautiful. What do you think about that especially after looking at the photos of Pebble's #7 green on p.180 of GeoffShac's "Golden Age of Golf Design"?

That green looks like it was almost pasted onto the sand and the narrow bunker sand/grassy mound/then bunker sand design on the right of the green is the most amazing thing I've ever seen.

I think I'll start a new topic on how they played out of those bunkers although I can clearly see a golfer on the left blasting out bigtime--obviously pre SW too.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Repsonsiblity for the new Pebble Beach was given to the trio -- Roger Lapham (of Cypress Point), Chandler Egan, and Robert Hunter. Lapham was the chairman, Egan and Hunter were his advisers. Egan was placed to actively supervise the work which was by done by Joe Mayo the super at PB (Amer. Constr. Co. were the contractors). It is interesting to read Egan's description of the completed work and specifically what he said about the dune-like bunker work at #4, #6, #7 and #10, "Joe Mayo and I had never seen this type of bunkering done before but we had faith in the idea and after a few experiments achieved a result that we hope will continue to be as good as it seems at this writing."

I've always gotten the impression that the idea was either Hunter's or MacKenzie's. In reality ACC was an extension of MacKenzie (or MacKenzie and Hunter). MacKenzie and Egan were either partners (perhaps silent) at the time of PB or about to become parners (it is noteworthy that MacKenzie had a image of the 7th green at Pebble Beach on the cover of his brochure). As Egan said he nad never seen anything like it before and he never designed anything similar to it afterward - he and Mayo designed nine at Pacific Grove with extremely simple bunkering a few years later.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

That's great stuff you just produced! That's the kind of research I really like! That's the kind of research one can really begin to read between the lines and start to make a few rational and potentially accurate assumptions based in interesting research.

This American Construction Company and those that were part of it--architects, supervisors and on the job workers is starting to look like the entity that produced one of the most amazing architectural looks and designs and a style that, I, for one, have every seen! The best of the so-called "Monterey School" very well may have been about as good as it ever got!

But the next question and one that eerily seems evident in Egan's remarks: "Was it really made to last???"

To me it looks so beautiful but again, it looks and seems so fragile and almost delicate in its detail!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The common story is those bunkers were difficult to maintain and for that reason they were converted into more conventional bunkers. But were they actuallly difficult to maintain and fragile? If so exactly why, they look pretty haphazard and easily malleable to me? I have not discovered exactly when they were altered and why. Was is it a result of the Depression? Why didn't Cypress Point and Pine Valley's similar bunkers fall prey to a similar fate? Did Joe Mayo, the Super at PB (and as we have learned recently from Bob Huntley had a feud with MacKenzie), have anything to do with the change?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

To me, most definitely the correspondence between MacKenzie and Morse about Mayo had everything to do with maintenance! I don't really see Mayo as being some sort of latent architectural competitor with MacKenzie, Egan and Hunter et al and also the American Construction Co.

Mayo's purview and job was maintenance! Any greenskeeper will have feelings about what it will take to maintain something and the expectation of him to do that.

What you quoted there from Egan would definitely indicate to me that the bunkering and the architecture relating to it may have been somewhat "fragile" or let's say difficult to maintain that "look" long term.

Just look at that #7 green and the massive amounts of sand surrounding it in close low profile proximity! My God there isn't even a fringe or collar on that green--it just transitions directly into sand at the exact same grade. I could see player sand splash all over that green, and maybe even wind and weather playing havoc with that look.

Compare that to early Pine Valley and it's nowhere near the same thing! Frankly even the bunkering on some of the holes at PVGC could not be maintained long term the way it was designed and built--best examples bunkering fronting #2 & #18!

There is something eerily foreboding in that quote you produced of Egan--he didn't say it but you can feel the concern he might have had--and it appears his concerns came true! It sure was beautiful and cool looking architecture though!

Did first MacKenzie (who appears to have been outflanked and bypassed at Pebble) and then Egan, Hunter, Lapham and the American Construction Co. build some beautiful "sand castles" in effect that could not last at both Cypress and particularly Pebble? From what I can see in those photos and also read (between the lines from Egan and maybe Mayo) they might have.

It probably meant a good deal of difference exactly where they did it though and the most dangerous examples appear to be #7 & #17 Pebble!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I read the fued between Mayo and MacKenzie differently. It appears to me it was a result of MacKenzie criticism of Mayo's construction work at Pebble Beach and Monterey Peninsula, and his tendency to use plastisine models. MacKenzie felt Mayo lacked the ability to understand the importance melding the bunker with the surrounds naturally. I have not seen anything from Mayo - so I'm not sure what his maintenance philophies might have been.

I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment of the greens being the same grade as the sand, it may be an optical illusion. In the official history of PB the numerous old photos of #4, #7 and the rest the greens appear to be raised above the sand. I think players would and contiue to splash sand all over the greens.

Weren't #2 and #18 at PVGC altered many years after the course was built and weren't both due to the steep slope?

I wouldn't consider the bunkers of CPC sand castles. Did they evolve and change? Yes, but I'm sure MacKenzie and Hunter-both of whom understood the evolving nature of dunes-expected them to change naturally and gracefully. As opposed to PB where there was conscious effort to remodel those bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'll try to do some more research on Pebble with GeoffShac next week or so but some of the photos I'm looking at would seem to spell trouble maintenance-wise to me.

What do you suppose Egan was alluding to in that quote? And what does it mean that Mayo was doing the work when Egan's quote says; "Mayo and I had never seen bunkers like that....

That sounds like someone else was doing both the design, the look, and the work---likely American construction Co. Or were they showing Mayo and his staff how to build them? I doubt that! Also Egan's quote has to mean that the work at Pebble must have preceded Cypress because the bunkering on both courses looks remarkable similar in the photos I'm looking at.

Maybe when I say "fragile" and "delicate" those aren't really the right terms, but I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. I really wish I could just grab a handful of some of that sand in those bunkers because if it was fine and relatively loose instead of very hard packed I can hardly see how it could not become a problem with wind and weather effecting it.

Some of the natural dunes at Cypress (and those fairly close to some greens) are in fact natural dunes period. I grew up near dunes like that and the weather can blow them and their sand all the hell over the place. If the same thing even remotely happened on either of those two courses it would explain to me why they were changed no matter how beautiful or cool they may have been!

As to whether MacKenzie, Hunter or Egan really knew how they might evolve or change--that might be very debatable!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I agree with your take on Egan's comments. It sounds to me like it was someone else's idea -- my guess would be Hunter, or maybe Hunter & MacKenzie.

Cypress Point proceeded the Pebble Beach work. MacKenzie was on to Pasatiempo at the time of the Pebble Beach redesign or possbily just after it. Maybe the difference might be Egan had not seen artifical dunes created before where none existed.

As far the actual nature of those dune-bunkers and their sturdiness, there are a number of excellent photos in Neil Hotelling's official history of Pebble Beach including a photo taken from low flying airplane of the 6th and 7th green during the 1929 Amateur. Jones and Neville are playing with a decent gallery ringing the 6th green, about 40 people standing on/in one of those massive dune-like bunkers the wraps around the green. So maybe they were sturdier then a typical dune.

I don't know if Hunter or MacKenzie knew their bunkers would evolve over the years, but they were both aware of the natural tendencies of dunes and both had opinions on the best ways to stabilize them. I'd be curious to know exactly when those PB dune-bunkers were removed.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I would like to know about the removal of Egan's "imitation sand dunes" too (not a particularly good description of them, in my opinion) but not so much when but why!

Most people may not understand why we might be so fascinated in this specific subject but I'm sure you do! Certainly not the least of it is they were just amazing looking in a natural sense! Some of the most extraordinary golf architecture I've ever seen!!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Knowing sand dunes and knowing the 6th and 7th at PB, I would say that any such construction would have to have been made out of quick-setting concrete to have a half-life of more than one season.

What was Egan thinking?!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Playing as much as you have in Scotland (amongst true dunes) I'm sure you do know sand dunes on golf courses. Have you ever seen them play havoc with a golf course,   (and it's architecture), or the result of it due to wind, rain and storm?

It would be interesting to compare the removal of the "imitation sand dunes" at Pebble (particularly #7 & #17) with photographs of Cypress, say ten years after it's opening and what may have changed with the originally constructed bunkering on that course either due to natural evolution, actual removal of some bunkering or possibly vegetation growth to stabilize some of the bunkering and natural sand areas. I looked very closely through GeoffShac's "Cypress" book to try to imagine which holes had that kind of bunkering and where on the course it might be most vulnerable. The 12-14 stretch looks like a likely candidate but the amazingly natural and cool #9 looks quite fragile too!

I suppose the larger question just may be the one Rich just asked; "What was Egan thinking?" (What were any of them thinking?) Again the bunkering on both courses was extremely beautiful but was it the type that was prone to becoming ravaged by weather, at least, and consequently a maintenance nightmare? The next question is what were the problems that MacKenzie seemed to be having with Mayo that prompted him to write such a letter to Morse (which Bob Huntley kindly supplied copies of)?

And next it does appear that MacKenzie was replaced by Egan, Hunter and Lapham on the redesign at Pebble. Why was that exactly? Was that Morse's response to MacKenzie's letter?

If the difficulty of maintaining that kind of bunkering did have something to do with Mayo and MacKenzie's problems, it would be a bit odd because they were done anyway by Egan, Hunter and Lapham (with The American Construction Co.).

I remember GeoffShac mentioning either in one of his books or in person that MacKenzie was replaced at Pebble but I can't remember if he explained why or even knew why.

I'm not asking these questions for no particular reason either. It would be interesting to know what happened to those beautiful bunkers, when and why from an historical perspective, at least, but there certainly would be a more current reason. What if someone advocated restoring them today? They would have to really understand the reasons they were removed in the first place, or how "maintainable" they once were. Even a club with tons of money would need to understand the history of them so as not to repeat a problem.

One thing that is undeniable is that Mother Nature hasn't changed!

[TEPaul]

There may be an even larger question here about particular bunkering (or other golf architectural features). It's not just the one we talk about here from a golfer's perspective or from a golf architectural analyst's perspective relating to particular architects' styles and "looks" and how unique and beautiful those particular styles are and how those "styles" should be preserved or restored.

And architecture, whether building architecture or golf course architecture, generally does have "mathematical construction formulae" that must be followed and adhered to to be lasting and maintainable. A roof, for instance, very much has a mathematical construction formula relating to weight, size and shape, just as a bridge does. Would not the same be true for golf course architecture and certainly bunkering, for instance?

I think so! I can't forget Gil Hanse mentioning not long ago how Bill Kittleman had taught him or explained to him what he believed to be the actual natural formulae of bunker formation! How it too related to size, weight, length, height etc probably not that much unlike a roof or even a bridge!

We're fascinated, of course, by how some of the early architects were intent on mimicing nature in their designs, and certainly their bunkering. Some of these men like MacDonald and MacKenzie were obviously disgusted with the look of the early and crude "geometric" golf courses and their features of very early 20th century America and tried hard create golf features, golf "lines" and architecture generally that mimiced and melded with all the things of nature!

I think it was MacKenzie (or one from his basic school) who said a bunker, it's edges etc, should look as if wind and water had formed it by actually tearing sod from the earth! They seemed so intent on truly mimicing the look of nature and hoped to disguise their own hands in the look of the architectural features they created.

And again, the bunkering at Pebble and Cypress back then was without doubt some of the most beautiful I've ever seen in the look and shape of what nature is and can be.

So wouldn't it just be the supreme irony, if after going to all that thought and creativeness the one thing that was bound to never allow it to last was Mother Nature herself. To me, if that's true of the bunkering of MacKenzie, Egan, Hunter et al, at Cypress and Pebble, for instance,  it really is the supreme irony in an aspect of golf course architecture!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I spoke with Neil Hotelling the official Pebble Beach historian and he said those bunkers were converted over an extended time. And in the 50's they made consious effort to define there outline and turn them into more conventional bunkers which makes sense considering the style of the time. The photos of those bunkers in his PB history look like naturalized waste bunkers. Caddies stand in them, competitiors and galleries stand in them. Paths from green to tee are through them. I think they may have been a problem as very difficult hazards as much as a maintenance problem - uncoventional shots out of firm sandy dirt with growth here and there.

I also asked him about why Egan was chosen instead of MacKenzie. I had thought it may have had something to do with Hollins leaving the Pebble Beach Company and developing Pasatiempo which was in reality in competition, and MacKenzie's inolvement. He didn't think that was the case. But that USGA - who commisioned the changes - was very comfortable with Egan a former champion and probably the great west coast amatuer. But who ever was given credit he is convinced that MacKenzie was the genius behind the project, leading both Egan and Hunter. In fact he has uncovered a number of articles written by Egan contemporanious to the project where he describes walking the course and consulting with MacKenzie.

[TEPaul]

It seems quite clear from rereading the correspondence between MacKenzie and Morse in 1932 that MacKenzie and Mayo must have had a real misunderstand early into MacKenzie's redesign at Pebble (which apparently included only two holes!). The misunderstanding was that MacKenzie was critical of Mayo's construction work and admitted it to Morse, saying he'd continue to be critical of Mayo's work until Mayo did it the way he wanted it done!

Morse must have resolved the Pebble problem by covering for Mayo against MacKenzie with the new team of Egan, Hunter and Lapham. It seems reading between the lines that Morse never intended to sacrifice Mayo because MacKenzie was critical of him. It appears Morse sarificed MacKenzie at Pebble instead, or seriously buffered him.

There's a little tidbit in that correspondence that's probably instructive. MacKenzie apparently hated the use of plastiscene hole models and certainly didn't mind telling Morse that in the correspondence and that he'd hated the use of them for almost twenty years.

And he remarked to Morse that he very much objected to Mayo's use of plasticene models. But there's that photo of Egan musing over a plasticene model in 1928 on Pebble Beach--which had to follow Mackenzie's initial work at Pebble.

But Egan also mentioned that both he and Mayo were not very sure of those bunkers at Pebble although at the moment they seemed to be OK.

"Joe Mayo and I had never seen this type of bunkering done before but we had faith in the idea and after a few experiments acheived a result that we hope will continue to be as good as it seems at this writing."  Chandler Egan, referring to the "imitation sand dunes!"

Had never seen that type of bunkering before? Well, who proposed or designed them then? MacKenzie, Hunter, or someone in the American Construction Co? Maybe even Marion Hollins did since she worked for Morse's Del Monte Properties and had been central at Cypress!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
MacKenzie's first redesign of PB (8 and 13) was in 1926 prior to his trip to Australia. When he returned he designed CPC. In 1928 the USGA chose Lapham (VP of the USGA), who chose Egan and Hunter to upgrade the course. Based on Egan's writings about MacKenzie's active consultatons and the eventual style, Hotelling concludes MacKenzie was responsible. His prior committment at Pasatiempo may have also been a factor. I wouldn't read too much into the letter four years later about Mayo having any thing to do with MacK or Egan's choice in 1928. I suspect the criticism of Mayo came during 1928 (Egan studying Mayo's model) and when Egan speeks of he and Mayo never seeing anything like that, I'd guess it was MacK's idea. Hollins was at Pasatiempo in 1928. Hotelling brought up an excellent point that Egan and Hunter were both MacKenzie's partners and American Contruction were all MacKenzie hands - it made sense to me.

[Neil_Crafter]

. But who ever was given credit he is convinced that MacKenzie was the genius behind the project, leading both Egan and Hunter. In fact he has uncovered a number of articles written by Egan contemporanious to the project where he describes walking the course and consulting with MacKenzie.

Tom, I know this a long dead and buried thread, but just wondering if you ever got those articles from Neal Hotelling?

[TEPaul]

Neil:

Interesting timing on your question in the post just above. As Pebble Beach is holding the 2010 US Open, the USGA Architecture Archive has been speaking with Neil Hoteling and will really start speaking with him beginning next week after the current tournament is over to hopefully collect into the new on-line USGA Architecture Archive any and all material available from Pebble on architectural matters throughout the course's history and evolution. This particular bunker construction and evolution question on this thread (going back eight years) seems to be an interesting one ripe for greater development and explanation.

[TEPaul]

Neil:

Interesting timing on your question in the post just above. As Pebble Beach is holding the 2010 US Open, the USGA Architecture Archive has been speaking with Neil Hoteling and will really start speaking with him beginning next week after the current tournament is over to hopefully collect into the new on-line USGA Architecture Archive any and all material available from Pebble on architectural matters throughout the course's history and evolution. This particular bunker construction and evolution question on this thread (going back eight years) seems to be an interesting one ripe for greater development and explanation.

The question of the development of various types and styles of bunkering would also seem to meld well with recent questions of whether Hugh Wilson's seemingly unique and revolutionary inland clay-loam soil bunkers at Merion East a good decade of more before CPC were a first on that type of soil structure in America (or anywhere) which was pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum "site soil-wise" to the hugely sandy CPC site and others like it such as NGLA or Pine Valley.

[TEPaul]

Neil:

Here's an interesting question I have not seen an answer to. In Mackenzie's Nov. 1928 article in The Fairway, he mentions; "He (Hunter) took the trouble to obtain from Britain two excellent foremen, Dan Gormley and Jack Fleming, who had years of training in the construction of golf courses designed by me."

I wonder what courses those were.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Fleming was born in Tuam, Co. Galway.  He started as a laborer on one of MacKenzie's English courses, and moved up to construction foreman for Charles MacKenzie's construction company in 1920, so he probably had a hand in many of MacKenzie's courses in England during 1920-24.  In 1924-27 he was the supervisor for Dr. MacKenzie's work in Ireland, including Cork, before coming to America at MacKenzie's suggestion.

If Fleming were working in the modern era, he would probably be someone's design associate, and get a reasonable share of credit for his contributions.  Paddy Cole, on the other hand, was probably just a guy on the crew who happened to be good at finishing bunkers.  A comparable guy from one of my projects would be Kyle Franz or George Waters or Jonathan Reisetter.  They make an important contribution, but realistically they would be the fourth or fifth or sixth guy listed on the credit roll at the end of the project.

Some of their great work in Monterey was simply a matter of being in the right place.  It is a magnificent setting for golf and you would hope that most people would have been inspired to create a new look for their bunkers.  In fact, did you ever get out to see the holes in the iceplant and dunes at Pacific Grove?  That is some of the best-looking work I've ever seen -- it beats Paddy Cole -- and it was most likely done by a civil servant.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Thank you; an excellent and detailed answer on the earlier careers of some of those American Construction Company Irish guys out on the Left Coast with the "Monterrey School." Did you know that most all of them doubled as Sinn Fein spies over here to find out the latest in munitions and arms and such to use back in the old country against "The English?" They all pretty much worked for Michael Collins who was reputed to be one of the best bunker makers of all time----his technique involved some pretty powerful explosives. His bunker style was called the "crater look" and it was generally very large in scale, and they say it worked best on clay-loam soil. If the technique was used on sandy soil like CPC sometimes the crater bunkers might turn out to be in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 thousand SF, and it took like years to get the sand outta everyone's hair and skin and such.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()