Jump to content

Battle for St. Lo


Recommended Posts

I've always been curious as to why no one took on the task of making a proper St. Lo. map. Although I can understand why no one wants to take it on, it would be quite the undertaking. By the time the Americans got to the town, it was pulverized. Modeling the complete destruction of the town in CM would be a very time consuming task. Hopefully however someone does take on the task of making it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the important fighting took place outside of the city with not much happening inside. Although there were a dramatic incident or two, it was basically just a matter of moving in and occupying the town at that stage. The fighting that took place before that could happen though was often brutal and bloody.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Americans entered St Lo sometime around 1800 hours on July 18 and the Germans retreated from the town that night and the early morning hours of the 19th.  While there was some fighting on the eastern outskirts of town on the 18th the extensive rubble in the town was caused by Allied bombing not by ground fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

On the subject of the Battle of St. Lo, this is the article that peck my interested.

"The United States Army Center of Military History, Breakout And Pursuit"  Chapter VIII. The battle was more about the high ground around St. Lo. Like hill 192 and 122. It seemed to me that who own these hills owned the surrounding area. It was a bloody battle.

Thanks,

Ed 

Edited by edl123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Battle of St Lo is really a campaign as you noted to take the high ground and prepare for the breakout.  LongLeftFlank and Broadsword were both working on maps for the area.  Broadsword and I also fought a mini campaign which accounts for my SIG on the 352 ID.  As to making the St Lo map itself, it just doesn't lend itself to CM all that well.  I considered it for a while and felt 1. there was no way to do it justice and 2. there really wasn't much fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there wasn't a whole lot of fighting in the town itself, but I always thought it would be cool to have a master map that covered the St Lo area. Oh well, maybe this thread will inspire some scenario designers to make one, or more scenarios based around the St Lo campaign. One can hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, edl123 said:

The battle was more about the high ground around St. Lo. Like hill 192 and 122. It seemed to me that who own these hills owned the surrounding area. It was a bloody battle.

Exactly. And the thing that made it so bad was that the Germans had registered their artillery on the relevant heights. When the Americans moved onto them they got slaughtered.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Don't forget the right bank of the Vire: Le Carillon/La Meauffe and the poor bloody 137th Infantry (and KG Kentner). Someday I will get back to that one. I am still seeking for the regimental history. Looks like surviving copies are all in Kansas.

Edited by LongLeftFlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you do, LLF!

Even so, my master map and yours cover a good deal of the Saint-Lo campaign area already.

I've shelved CMx2 until BFC gets around to fixing the tac AI that I feel they broke when they released version 4.0 (infantry fleeing unrealistically from perfectly good fortification objects like foxholes, trenches, etc.) I pop in here occasionally to see if there's any sign of a fix, but haven't seen anything to give me hope. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a map of Gaucherie a looooong time ago on GaJ's. Not sure if it made the move or not. I also had a scenario somewhere that depicted the brief, but sharp action there . The 113th Cavalry Group fought dismounted into the town- an audacious and risky move to leave the M18's and mounted MG's behind, but the terrain necessitated such moves.

The 113th was my grandfather's unit (a Captain by wars end). There was a unit history published towards the end of the war called "The Saga of the Red Horse" (in part here):

http://www.redhorse.nl/The_Saga_of_the_Red_Horse.htm

I had always intended on making a campaign based on the 113th, but have yet to have time to do it. I'm sure my grandfather would have been fascinated by the map making aspect in particular (as I am).

A general overview of St. Lo fighting here for aspiring scenario makers:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/100/100-13/CMH_Pub_100-13.pdf

There's also the book "Dying for St. Lo", which as I recall is a good overview of the German angle on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One particularly good thing about the Saint-Lo campaign and hedgerow fighting: 

The compartmentalized nature of the combat in that terrain makes it particularly well-suited to CMBN, since it lends itself easily to smaller maps and smaller-unit actions.

When I made my map for the British sector at Fontenoy-Le-Pesnel, visibility extended all across a brigade front. So it would have been unrealistic to restrict the map and battle scale to some smaller sub-unit in such an open area.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2017 at 4:59 AM, Broadsword56 said:

Hope you do, LLF!

Even so, my master map and yours cover a good deal of the Saint-Lo campaign area already.

I've shelved CMx2 until BFC gets around to fixing the tac AI that I feel they broke when they released version 4.0 (infantry fleeing unrealistically from perfectly good fortification objects like foxholes, trenches, etc.) I pop in here occasionally to see if there's any sign of a fix, but haven't seen anything to give me hope. :-(

Yes, the root cause seems clear enough to me (although it's also possible I am wrong): fortifications are immobile vehicles and their occupants are 'passengers'. Also explains why entrenched infantry are so much easier to spot in concealment terrain.

So whatever 4.0 tweak BFC did to make crews more prone to bail when hit by heavy HE has also made infantry prone to bail out of perfectly good fortifications and rout pell mell for cover like a crew. Please fix or sumfink.... 

PS: good to hear from you. Been a while! 

Edited by LongLeftFlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've since heard through the grapevine that BFC are actively working on a fix -- it's just not clear when we might see it.

In the meantime, I'm thinking there might be a way I could still enjoy CMx2 while waiting if I play something involving more meeting engagements and mobile forces -- I'm following the efforts of the players making content for an Arracourt pack, for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, slap me down if I'm wrong (I'm not a proud man lol) but I think that our beloved 'earth pimples' are just more of the same, basically an OT vehicle with a low-to-the-ground silhouette. BFC knew they needed a FoW replacement for the CMSF trenches/prefab mass graves for the WWII series, and this was the quickest hack. I have no doubt it's on the list for eventual improvement, no worries, but the infantry bailing out of them with a near miss is a little more urgent fix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Broadsword56 said:

LLF, I'm sure an eventual fix to the tac AI behavior in fortifications would also make possible your awesome Dien Bien Phu mod -- which I was sorely disappointed to see shelved. But you were right to shelve it if the game's limitations make a realistic battle of that type impossible. 

Yup, I now have about 300 photos of all the French emplacements at Eliane 2 (A1); a double row of 5' deep slit trenches and 2 man bunkers encircling the hill, with an underground command post up top (the one that got sapped by 304th dac cong) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Broadsword56 said:

I've since heard through the grapevine that BFC are actively working on a fix -- it's just not clear when we might see it.

This is really good to hear. Even though it may be a while, I'm glad that a fix is on their radar for the wonky 4.0 behavior. Thanks for the small bit of info!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...