Identification of Remnants of World War Ii Air Campaign for Spatial Management Using Geophysical Methods (KoźLe Basin, Southern Poland)

Waga, Jan M.; Sendobry, Kazimierz; Jochymczyk, Krzysztof; Pierwoła, Jolanta; Grabiec, Mariusz; Szypuła, Bartłomiej; Dolejš, Martin; Fajer, Maria

doi:10.14746/quageo-2026-0004

Figures & Tables

Bomb fragments collected from construction site excavations. Exhibits owned by the “Blechhammer 1944” Museum of the Silesian Battle for Fuel in Kędzierzyn-Koźle. (photo: J.M. Waga).

A – Location of the study area; B – Synthetic geological cross-section of the study area: a – experimental areas, b – pre-Vistulian sands and gravels, c – massive silts and clays, d – glacial tills with erratic boulders, e – Vistulian sands and gravels, locally organic silts and peats in valleys, f – boulder horizon, locally with erratic boulders, g – “black oaks”, h – water table, i – zones prone to UXB risks.

A – Glacitectonically disturbed series of marginal sediments with massive silts at experimental area 1; B – Erratic boulder resting on silt, removed from a shallow excavation in experimental area 3 (photo: J.M. Waga).

A – Ground scanning with a proton magnetometer in the vicinity of a flooded UXB intake crater (in the foreground); B – Ground scanning with a Geonics EM31-MK2 conductivity meter; C – Ground profiling in difficult forest terrain using the Mala RAMAC X3M GPR (photo: J.M. Waga).

Electrical resistivity tomography using ABEM’s LUND Imaging System (photo: J.M. Waga).

Characteristics of methods used to locate UXBs (in SWOT terms).

Examples of surface finds identified using the proton magnetometer: A – tail base plug of 500 lb bomb with tail fuse fragments and a peg made of steel pipe lying on the concrete base of a 75mm Flak 97 gun that was part of Schwere Heimat-Flak-Batterie 212/VIII Alt Cosel; next to those, an orange stake marking a future development project (photo: J.M. Waga); B – fragments of bombs, of a power line and possibly of a B-24 plane (photo: B. Szypuła); C – Rock fragment with ferromagnetic properties (photo: J.M. Waga).

Conductivity profiles from measurements performed using the Geonics EM31-MK2 instrument. Serie 1 – apparent conductivity, Series 2 – magnetic component – in-phase. Anomalies indicating: A – the presence of a steel pipe from a former water pipeline; B – presence of shrapnels in a buried crater after a detonated bomb; C – the potential presence of UXB; D – likely drift channel trace (anomaly indicated by a red arrow) located between the UXB inlet crater and its location.

Layered map generated from CMD-Explorer conductivity meter readings with a potential UXB identified (location marked with a square).

Fig. 10.

GPR profiling in a forest area: 1 – UXB fall site remodeled by later earthworks, 2 – subsurface object zones, 11–20 – profile lines.

Fig. 11.

Experimental area 3: A – diagram presenting electrical resistivity tomography results obtained in a wetland; B – profiles lines ECM1, GPR, ER and two concentrations of PM signal occurrence (red circles). Large yellow circles – probable remnants of the UXB fall. The profile described as ECM1 is shown in Fig. 8B.

Authors in the vicinity of a crater formed as a result of a spontaneous UXB explosion in late 2021/early 2022 (photo: J.M. Waga).

Methods and equipment used in the study_

Abbrev.	Technology	Device	Manufacturer	Depth (m)
MAD	Magnetic anomaly detection	Pioneer VLF	Bounty Hunter	0–0.65
PM	Proton magnetometry	Maggie magnetometer	Schonstedt	0–5.5
ECM1	Electromagnetic conductivity	EM31-MK2 meter	Geonics	0–6.0
ECM2	Electromagnetic conductivity	CMD Explorer meter	GF Instruments	0–6.7
GPR	Ground penetration radar	Pro Ex RAMAC X3M	MALÅ	0–4.8 or 0–11.5 (recording range 97.94 or 229.62 ns depending on the antenna used)
ER	Electrical resistivity	ABEM Terrameter SAS 4000 with ABEM LUND Imaging System	ABEM Instrument	0–7.2 or 0–14.4 (recording range depending on the electrode spacing: 1 or 2 m)

Areas and lengths of the profiles investigated by different geophysical methods_

Experimental areas	MAD [m²]	PM [m²]	ECM1 [m² or *m]	ECM2 [m²]	GPR [m]	ER [m]
1a	3800	3800	600	800	–	–
2a	10000	10000	400	–	1120	80
3a	3150	3150	240	–	290	40
3b	2250	2250	–	–	370	–
3c	12000	12000	*40	–	370	–
3d	4300	4300	960	–	–	–
4a	1500	1500	*52	–	–	–
4b	1800	1800	*74	–	–	–
4c	3050	3050	*69	–	–	–
4d	950	950	*65	–	–	–
4e	2200	2200	–	–	–	–
Total	45000	45000	2200 + *300	800	2150	120

Identification of Remnants of World War Ii Air Campaign for Spatial Management Using Geophysical Methods (KoźLe Basin, Southern Poland)

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

Methods and equipment used in the study_

Areas and lengths of the profiles investigated by different geophysical methods_

Paradigm

My account