Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Just wondering: How do we represent small creeks and streams that are crossable by vehicles? Can't use "MARSH" either if you want vehicles to be able to cross it. Perhaps "BRUSH"..."SCATTERED TREES"? Even with this 'work-around'...Why can't vehicles cross "FORDS"? Maybe two types of "FORDS"? Thoughts? ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacAuliff Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Because it wasn't done in real action. The goal of each major operation in WWII seemed to be to secure bridges. Most of the streams, canals, rivers in Western Europe are slow flowing, deep waters. In case of small rivers the banks are steep or marshy. Do remember the story of Peiper, trapped at the village of La Gleize (Ardennes), just because he couldn't find a way to cross his armor the Ambleve (and that's only a small river, maybe 20-30 m wide and with several fords). However he could get his men out of the cauldron by wading the river Salm, but he did have to leave his armor behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Streams and creeks? 2-5 yards across and less than a couple feet deep??? ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Streams and creeks? 2-5 yards across and less than a couple feet deep??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would such affect the tactical situation enough to warrant inclusion as a new terrain type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Due to the tile size, CM really can't represent features only a couple meters across. A creek or stream small enough to be easily crossed by a vehicle is probably small enough to be safely ignored from a gameplay standpoint. If the banks were steep enough to provide some cover, the vehicle probably couldn't cross in the first place. If you want a shallow depression that doesn't hinder vehicles, I'd suggest playing with the elevations slightly to create a shallow ditch effect. Not what you're looking for aesthetically, I suppose, but probably about as close as you can come. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 As MacAuliff stated, the problem with most rivers, creeks, and canals in the ETO was that they had steep banks impassable to vehicals and the adjacent ground was often soft going. Part of many bridging operations involved preparation of approaches. In this vein, it would be nice to give the British the bridge-laying engineering vehicle based on the Valentine tank. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Well, I was thinking that they could possibly provide enought of a depression for hull down. They could also have an increased bog chance and slow down all types of movement (perhaps still prohib. for trucks?) And, YES, IMO in a company/bat. sized engagement a creek 2-3 or 5m across COULD make a big difference. BUT, back to my orginal post: What is the best way (In your opinion) to model these now? Brush? Scattered Trees? I am leaning toward Brush myself. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Imperator Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>What is the best way (In your opinion) to model these now? Brush? Scattered Trees?</BLOCKQUOTE> What's wrong with hedge or wall? Provides some limited cover/concealment to infantry, slow movement over it (especially for vehicles), and doesn't fill a full tile. Granted, tanks aren't as likely to get bogged as they would in a stream, but it works reasonably well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 I think that brush is reasonable, but from my observation of most creeks and streams here in the midwest US, scattered trees would be just as common if not more so. Hey!!! I can't believe that it finally occured to me that I could do a map of my parent's farm (narrow valley, with moderate ridges rising up on either side). All of the ridgetops are heavily wooded, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 I must say that I'm a little disappointed that fords don't let vehicles ford (this reduces my "satisfaction factor" with CM from 101% to 99.9999%). After all most military vehicles (I'm not talking about Maus or JagdTiger) have enhanced cross country capability compared to civilian traffic and in rural Europe in the 1940's fords were the norm (apart from major highways). So now if I want to retain the eye candy of a continuously flowing river I need to build a road bridge in the middle of nowhere or break up the river with "scattered trees" (my preferred choice over "brush" as it gives some chance of vehicle immobilisation). Any chance we may see vehicle trafficable fords in ver 1.x? I presume that they will be required before Barbarossa as bridges were even rarer in the east! But overall if this is all I have to bleat about - Well done! ------------------ Regards, Mark:-{) Anxiously awaiting the G4 PowerBook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 Oh, come on people. Why bother to call it a ford if it's not a ford? So the stream is impassable and has steep banks. No one's talking about the stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 I have an actual photo of an SS PZ fording a river and another of an american tank wasted in one ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 Test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 I seem to recall a story (can't remember the source as hard as I may try) about a British unit using a small stream in 1940 as an evacuation route to the coast. Their other option was to cross an open valley in full view of a German regiment. The stream had steep sides, but a rocky bottom and tree cover, so it provided the ideal escape route. Do any Grogs out there recall exactly where/when this happened? This would make for a cool scenario, BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 Surely there are rocky areas in Europe where bogging isn't always an issue. Streams can vary considerably along their leangth, and it seems quite possible that where rocky conditions exist a ford that could support even a tank could be found. Troops performing delaying missions can be in a hurry to blow the bridge and put some territory between them and those guys hot on their trail. Even if they knew about the ford two km down the river, they could hope that finding it might take long enough for their own safety and not have to risk necks in mining it. On the otherhand veteran engineers might wink at the risk and grin at the thought of leaving a few surprises at the ford. It does not seem it would take too long to mine a bottleneck. I wish our engineers could do a hasty patch of mines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 Well...I am thinking that perhaps just exchanging one of the normal "STREAM" tiles with a "BRUSH" or "SCATTERED TREES" tile should to the trick. Then the 'real' "FORDS" would represent infantry only fords. I don't think we NEED any new tiles for this. There are 101 other higher priorities IMHO (like CM2, CM3, CM4...) ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 MacAuliff wrote: Because it wasn't done in real action. Sometimes it was. Not often, but when necessary and terrain permitted. A case example: The Finnish attack over Tuulosjoki river in September 1941. One or two T-26 companies crossed the river via several fords. The river would be one or two (or perhaps even three) CM terrain tiles wide at the point, I'm not certain. The commander of the point platoon crossed the river on foot probing the way with a long pole. One T-26 (I think it was a twin-turreted MG version m. 1931) lost a track after hitting a sumberged rock and its crew spent half an hour in the icy waters before they managed to get it back on. Other tanks crossed the river without significant problems, though the banks were quite steep. The Finnish pre-attack artillery bombardment had caused such a great havoc among the Soviet defenders that they couldn't offer any serious resistance on the river banks. They had several 45 mm AT guns positioned in the area, but they didn't open fire. Possibly their crews had fled. Later when the point units had crossed the river also the heavy T-28 platoon forded it, but at that time the front line was already at least one kilometer away. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMcGuire Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99: bump.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We just had this discussion over in Tips: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000635 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itchy Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 I don't really have anything constructive to add, just that I have colour footage of Shermans amd Pershings crossing a 3' deep river laden with troops. The troops that had already made it across spread rubble over the muddy banks to help prevent the armour bogging down. Info courtesey of the History channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 I agree with those that would like to have vehicles ford rivers or streams. My personal experience is that tracked vehicles would do better due to the low PSI (relative to their weight) they would exhibit on the bottom. Plus as the ford is used more and more the bottom would get torn and loosened up eliminating it's passage. Trucks equipped with winches could pull the lighter stuff across if anchored to a tree, but all this would probably happen after the main battle! I know I got off topic a bit, so in answer, I'd use scattered trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MacAuliff: Because it wasn't done in real action. The goal of each major operation in WWII seemed to be to secure bridges. Most of the streams, canals, rivers in Western Europe are slow flowing, deep waters. In case of small rivers the banks are steep or marshy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The fact is, it was done in real action. A ford is not just a shallow section of the river. It is an area, usually where a road crosses the river, that has been improved by man to help people and vehicles cross rivers. Usually it is made wide and shallow and the bed of the river is strengthened in some way to aid in crossing. I've seen fords with concrete linings. I've crossed fords in my car which means that any vehicle in CM can easily do the same. One of the reasons the Jeep was chosen by the Army is because of it's fording capabilities. Most tanks can go through 3 feet of water, bigger tanks even more. There is a already a thread about this in the TIPS AND TRICKS Forum. Read it, it may provide some info and shed some light as to what Fords really are and how vehicles can navigate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: The fact is, it was done in real action. A ford is not just a shallow section of the river. It is an area, usually where a road crosses the river, that has been improved by man to help people and vehicles cross rivers. Usually it is made wide and shallow and the bed of the river is strengthened in some way to aid in crossing. I've seen fords with concrete linings. I've crossed fords in my car which means that any vehicle in CM can easily do the same. One of the reasons the Jeep was chosen by the Army is because of it's fording capabilities. Most tanks can go through 3 feet of water, bigger tanks even more. There is a already a thread about this in the TIPS AND TRICKS Forum. Read it, it may provide some info and shed some light as to what Fords really are and how vehicles can navigate them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DOH! I forgot about the "little" ford In Yorktown Va I crossed while puttin on my Harley! It was concrete bottomed with about 3" of water runnin. Hmmm...forgot about that one. Guess I'll have to re-think fords a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 A ford could also be a road (dirt or paved)or bridge which is flooded. Typical low-water crossing in rainy season. Would be slow with risk of bogging, but most vehicles should be able to attempt it. IIRC the tiger was unique among german tanks in that it had built-in deep-wading capabilities. Maybe a 2nd type of ford could be added to future cm's, 'vehicle-crossable'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted April 29, 2001 Share Posted April 29, 2001 If anyone questions the ability of tanks to ford small rivers, the early tiger could go through 13-14 feet of water. Also www.panzerlexikon.de has an old video clip of a panzer II driving through a river up to its turret. Theres also footage of a PzIV i think going across a ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts