Fascine Reprise

[JonS]

A recent thread about Commonwealth engineering techniques sputtered out when an American had a poster driven from the forum and the thread locked.

Anyway, since then I've come across an interesting, and relevant snippet regarding the use of fascines:

"Overnight there were massive movements of troops and tanks ... the 79th Armoured Division, that special British division equipped with various "funnies," including the tanks carrying fascines (enormous bundles of densely packed tree branches) meant to be dropped into the laison river at shallow spots to provide causeways for tanks and recce cars..."

"The Guns of Normandy", George C Blackburn, P403

"Overnight" refers to the night of 13/14 August, and the preperations were for the opening of Operation Tractable.

My reading of this passage is that the fascines were (sometimes) placed side-by-side in order to span larger obstacles ("causeways").

YMMV

Regards

JonS

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

My reading of this passage is that the fascines were (sometimes) placed side-by-side in order to span larger obstacles ("causeways").<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon, I think the function was never in question. The employment on the CMBO battlefield was. Unfortunately when that was pointed out, instead of looking for evidence, the poster driven away decided to attack even me for being anti-British. *shrug*

From the Blackburn quote, I would say it is pretty clear that it was not used under battle-conditions there - 'overnight' being the clue for me.

As you say YMMV.

[JonS]

Andreas,

Maybe I didn't put enough of the quote in place - the actions overnight were the arranging of all the assault units, prior to the attack beginning at around midday on the 14th (after an unfortunate short-bombing incident).

What I found interesting was using multiple fascines to build causeways to span larger gaps (in this case a river) rather than just a single fascine for small streams or tank ditches. Its the first time I'd come across reference to them being used in this way.

Jon

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Andreas,

Maybe I didn't put enough of the quote in place - the actions overnight were the arranging of all the assault units, prior to the attack beginning at around midday on the 14th (after an unfortunate short-bombing incident).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon, calling that an 'unfortunate short-bombing incident' is a great use of Commonwealth understatement...

I dig out my sources on Tractable and 79th AD to see what I can find there when I have the time.

[Michael Dorosh]

Blackburn is NOT a primary reference when it comes to that kind of stuff, guys. He's aces when he's talking about artillery - but you know as well as I do he looked up the overall history stuff some 50 years after the war ended.

So the question is - what sources did HE use when he wrote that?

Perhaps there is a reason you've never seen it referenced elsewhere?

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JonS]

Good point Michael - I meant to put a caveat in about Blackburn being a gunner, not a sapper.

Something to think about though: We often find fascinating in others work what they find mundane. What I mean is that a gunner observing the engineers doing something might be more likely to pick out and comment on unusual (or even commonplace) details that the sappers wouldn't feel worth noting.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Good point Michael - I meant to put a caveat in about Blackburn being a gunner, not a sapper.

Something to think about though: We often find fascinating in others work what they find mundane. What I mean is that a gunner observing the engineers doing something might be more likely to pick out and comment on unusual (or even commonplace) details that the sappers wouldn't feel worth noting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an excellent point in turn. Definitely worth pondering. I've said it before - most WW II histories written in the 10 years after the war were by professional soldiers who took it for granted their readers were also soldiers, or had an intimate knowledge of the organization, jargon, etc., of the times. Very likely why you don't find reference to the use of fascines anywhere else. Many writers at the time would have assumed the engineers were writing their own history.

Blackburn comes along, 60 years later, and takes the time to explain to us what everything is and how its done. Be nice to find a similar book by a sapper, eh?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Good point Michael - I meant to put a caveat in about Blackburn being a gunner, not a sapper.

Something to think about though: We often find fascinating in others work what they find mundane. What I mean is that a gunner observing the engineers doing something might be more likely to pick out and comment on unusual (or even commonplace) details that the sappers wouldn't feel worth noting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is indeed correct - nice point about anthropological research there Jon.

[Michael Dorosh]

I forgot to mention - the stuff that Blackburn notes - ie the fascines - really seems to me at first glance to be a detail he picked out of a second hand history elsewhere. Now, if we knew which one, it would be a big help.

It is indeed possible he referenced his diary, though, for the reasons you describe Jon - ie at the time he found it fascinating and recorded it for posterity.

Did you know that Blackburn authored a history of the 4th Field Regiment that was published in (I believe) 1945? So he was definitely either taking notes at the time, or was intimately involved with some else's notes shortly after the war.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

A recent thread about Commonwealth engineering techniques sputtered out when an American had a poster driven from the forum and the thread locked.

Regards

JonS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I do not think Madmatt drove way a poster, he just banned two Australian posters who had gotten out of control then locked the threads they had side tracked and destroyed already in order to cool the whole situation down. They have since warned a third member of that trio (well, we are not sure how people people had how many accounts) for throwing a bomb over that thread at Spook. The posters if anything drove themselves away with there behavior. Matt just made it official.

As for the fascine disucssion, Blackburn is an interesting secondary source for extended use of the devices, but he does not really help us in our quest for defining times and employments of the fascine carriers during regular battles (assuming that the shore battles are out of our reach because we cannot simulate them).

The real questions that we will face is how common was it to carry a fascine into battle (recognizing that they would blow the bundle by SOP when coming under fire because it was a hazard) did the carriers operate on their own attached to other units (some evidence indicated they often were used with a dozen other Avre and funnies as support because of how difficult their job was), which is difficult to simulate in the game because 3000 poinst are would need to be spent just on funnies, and the question still remains if the fascine would be better simulated as already dropped in place to avoid an endless relatively boring "engineering battle."

Of course, the nights preperation is not such a big deal, but it does imply that these weapons may not have been flung about the way a tank or infantry unit could.

This does not count out the fascine carrier. It just means more thinking needs to be done on it, and a much higher caliber of thinking needs to be done than was present in the last thread. That thinking needs to be attached with a greater attempt to develop good sources of information, and with an attempt to figure out how the modified post CM:BB engine would handle them. Also recognize that to some extent they will have to be abstracted, and this abstraction will come under a huge amount of fire from the same group that killed the last thread -- because the fact is much of the engineer battle will fail the scope test of my seven point test presented earlier and amplified by others later.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I forgot to mention - the stuff that Blackburn notes - ie the fascines - really seems to me at first glance to be a detail he picked out of a second hand history elsewhere. Now, if we knew which one, it would be a big help.

It is indeed possible he referenced his diary, though, for the reasons you describe Jon - ie at the time he found it fascinating and recorded it for posterity.

Did you know that Blackburn authored a history of the 4th Field Regiment that was published in (I believe) 1945? So he was definitely either taking notes at the time, or was intimately involved with some else's notes shortly after the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an excellent point Mike. I assume that Blackburn is a secondary and am looking into his primary source, which may require ordering by Germanboy from the Ministry of Records in England. However, Blackburn is no slouch with science, so he could actually be cross referencing, or even better, triangulating from his notes, anothers notes, and maybe discussions with soldiers. This would be very nice, and most historians wish they had this sort of data on all sorts of work.

[Michael Dorosh]

Here's a red herring for you - SOP when transporting troops in the field currently is that you have to have the safety strap on the back of the truck and the driver must be troop qualified (indicated on his driver's permit). Quite often, these SOPs are ignored.

SOPs are laid down for reasons; in training they are supposed to followed rigorously so that in action, troops will act instinctively.

Nonetheless, many SOPs do go out the window, too, in action. Slapdragon, you make a good point, in this thread and the other, that more research is needed. I agreed with you that the training film was not necessarily a decent reference for how things were done (or how fast).

But I am similarly unconvinced that just because the SOPs said to blow the fascines the instant you came under fire, that it was always done that way. A lot of weird things happen under fire, as you know, and unforunately - as always - we need to cast our net farther than just training videos, instructional manuals, or in this case, the memoirs of a gunner.

I think we can all agree on that much, at least. I regret I have nothing further to directly contribute at this point in time to this discussion.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Here's a red herring for you - SOP when transporting troops in the field currently is that you have to have the safety strap on the back of the truck and the driver must be troop qualified (indicated on his driver's permit). Quite often, these SOPs are ignored.

SOPs are laid down for reasons; in training they are supposed to followed rigorously so that in action, troops will act instinctively.

Nonetheless, many SOPs do go out the window, too, in action. Slapdragon, you make a good point, in this thread and the other, that more research is needed. I agreed with you that the training film was not necessarily a decent reference for how things were done (or how fast).

But I am similarly unconvinced that just because the SOPs said to blow the fascines the instant you came under fire, that it was always done that way. A lot of weird things happen under fire, as you know, and unforunately - as always - we need to cast our net farther than just training videos, instructional manuals, or in this case, the memoirs of a gunner.

I think we can all agree on that much, at least. I regret I have nothing further to directly contribute at this point in time to this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the SOP is not a good indicator of anything, just that this was what was trained. In fact, blowing the fascine would actually be moral based, so a more steady crew might say screw SOP and keep the fascine. This is why more research is needed.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you know that Blackburn authored a history of the 4th Field Regiment that was published in (I believe) 1945? So he was definitely either taking notes at the time, or was intimately involved with some else's notes shortly after the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blackburn makes extensive comments about writing this history in the intro to "Guns of Normandy".

I think Blackburn's combination of personal experience, writing official histories, post war career as a writer, and the research he has put into the "Guns" trilogy make them very credible, even when not talking specifically about gunnery.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Jon, I think the function was never in question. The employment on the CMBO battlefield was. Unfortunately when that was pointed out, instead of looking for evidence, the poster driven away decided to attack even me for being anti-British. *shrug*

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I was under the impression he attacked Slappy for anglophobia, not you, Germanboy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

From the Blackburn quote, I would say it is pretty clear that it was not used under battle-conditions there - 'overnight' being the clue for me.

As you say YMMV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to reread it again, then. Blackburn obviously is referring to the movement of troops up to the startline, not the battle, itself. He makes no reference in that passage to when they were used, just that they were present and what their purposes was intended for.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

unny, I was under the impression he attacked Slappy for anglophobia, not you, Germanboy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, give it a rest. Matt has asked all of us to take a more civil tone in no uncertian terms, and we should each respect his desire to maintain peace. Flailing up a flame war is definately not what Matt meant, and will only result in more bannings.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

As for the fascine disucssion, Blackburn is an interesting secondary source for extended use of the devices, but he does not really help us in our quest for defining times and employments of the fascine carriers during regular battles... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I wasn't realy addressing the time-to-use question. I was more interested in the observation that they could be used to span obstacles larger the the minimum resolution that CM has.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... which is difficult to simulate in the game because 3000 poinst are would need to be spent just on funnies, and the question still remains if the fascine would be better simulated as already dropped in place to avoid an endless relatively boring "engineering battle."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't apply to pre-made scenarios. You seem to have a fixation with QBs ... IMHO the engineer battle could quite easily be dropped from consideration in QBs. However, having the tools to simulate it well in a well designed, pre-built, scenario is desirable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, the nights preperation is not such a big deal, but it does imply that these weapons may not have been flung about the way a tank or infantry unit could.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, in the full quote the following units are directly referenced: 3rd Canadian Inf Div, 2nd Canadian Armd Bde, 4th Canadian Armd Div, Polish Armd Div, and the 79th Armd Div. Other units are implied but not named. The night was used for shuffling units around and marshalling them prior to the attack. Presumably there may have been patrolling, recon, and other forms of preparation going on, but that is not mentioned.

Regards

Jon

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

This doesn't apply to pre-made scenarios. You seem to have a fixation with QBs ... IMHO the engineer battle could quite easily be dropped from consideration in QBS. However, having the tools to simulate it well in a well designed, pre-built, scenario is desirable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This in fact may be an excellent suggestion. Assuming that the engineering battle can be simulated in the engine, assuming that QBs are not where it would happen, but instead be a useful adjunct for operations or designed scenarios would be a good limitation. This would also reduce some of the questions concerning length of setup.

We may still want to consider having various engineering assets available for setup both in QBs and in scenarios. Here I mean a fascine bundle or a bailey bridge, or an Ark bridge that could be dropped into place during set up, or a "swept mine" area that would represent attack lanes already created. This would be in addition to any funnies our research finds fit into the battle scheme.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

First, I do not think Madmatt drove way a poster, he just banned two Australian posters who had gotten out of control then locked the threads they had side tracked and destroyed already in order to cool the whole situation down. They have since warned a third member of that trio (well, we are not sure how people people had how many accounts) for throwing a bomb over that thread at Spook. The posters if anything drove themselves away with there behavior. Matt just made it official.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My, its interesting how observers have a different viewpoint on matters, Slappy?

I'd suggest that you worked very hard to drive them off the board, myself but who am I? I'm just a hick Australian from downunder whose been judged by you as "unreliable" merely 'cause your hicktown college can't get my hicktown university's library copy of my thesis.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for the fascine disucssion, Blackburn is an interesting secondary source for extended use of the devices, but he does not really help us in our quest for defining times and employments of the fascine carriers during regular battles (assuming that the shore battles are out of our reach because we cannot simulate them).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whereas I have quoted extensively from a primary source, Slappy. The training pam which I quoted makes the note that the time to deploy the fascine depended upon the approach to the obstacle and the width of the obstacle (ie if more than one was required). It notes the actual deployment of a single fascine is under one minute.

Sounds very similar to what Kim stated about his training film. I take it you do not consider film a primary source, Slappy?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The real questions that we will face is how common was it to carry a fascine into battle (recognizing that they would blow the bundle by SOP when coming under fire because it was a hazard)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB]

Would they? My source makes no such reference and the reference you provided talked about "bobbins" not fascines, Slappy. Two very different pieces of equipment. Until you make it clear which you were talking about I think you're talking bull****.

Oh, and BTW, exactly how would the AVRE carrying the fascine know it was under fire?

Afterall, the view out of an AVRE with a fascine is extremely limited. Only the driver and his coie can see forward (and that is limited) and the commander is limited to vision to the sides and rear.

If it was then left to the detechment commander to determine if the carrier needed to drop the bundle, then I'd suggest he'd decide if it was needed to be dropped, not SOP's.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB]

did the carriers operate on their own attached to other units (some evidence indicated they often were used with a dozen other Avre and funnies as support because of how difficult their job was), which is difficult to simulate in the game because 3000 poinst are would need to be spent just on funnies, and the question still remains if the fascine would be better simulated as already dropped in place to avoid an endless relatively boring "engineering battle."

[QB]

Boring to you, is not boring to the next person, Slappy.

As to how they operated, my understanding is that they were simply another option for the AVRE - you get an AVRE, you get the option for it to carry a fascine. In game terms this could simply mean a slight extra cost to be added to the standard for an AVRE.

As it is, the game allows vehicles to be purchased individually, rather than in their minimum tactical units, so I see no problems with individual fascine equipped AVRE's being purchased.

[QUIT][QB]

Of course, the nights preperation is not such a big deal, but it does imply that these weapons may not have been flung about the way a tank or infantry unit could.

[/QUIT]

You're betraying your military inexperience, yet again, Slappy if you believe that. Armoured and Infantry units do not quite get "flung around" in real life.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Brian, give it a rest. Matt has asked all of us to take a more civil tone in no uncertian terms, and we should each respect his desire to maintain peace. Flailing up a flame war is definately not what Matt meant, and will only result in more bannings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be so, Slappy but I'll run the risk.

Personally, I find your patronising tone, your unfailing efforts to erect strawmen and your efforts to be a prig, rather annoying.

Inside your posts are sometimes some good points. Unfortunately they are all too often obscured by the bull**** you put around them.

Stop treating the board as your private possesion and assuming that you are the font of all wisdom, Slappy and you might find people treat you a great deal better.

[Michael Dorosh]

Brian, I've never found Slapdragon to be patronizing or insulting. Unlike your last two posts. Please either contribute to the discussion, or take this personal matter to email - but it doesn't belong on the board. It may not belong to Slapdragon, but it belongs to you just as little.

It's unfortunate that people take offence when professional historians try to reason things out and learn from each other. Brian, if you are unversed in the ways of historians, we apologize, but ranting and raving won't help your understanding any.

Contributing constructively means presenting some fact or argument and backing it up - not namecalling or complaining about the manner in which something is presented.

If you think Slapdragon or anyone else is lacking in manners, then my suggestion is to demonstrate you're better by acting better. And if Slapdragon, or anyone else, presents information in a way as to make you angry, approach them off-forum, or at the very least ignore them.

This was a pretty constructive conversation up until the name-calling began (again). I hope it doesn't devolve further.

[Slapdragon]

Mike, Jon, and Andreas,

Assuming that this thread will soon be locked up for obvious reasons, may I make a suggestion. Blackburn points us in a good direction, but we need to tackle the issue with a more serious set of primary source.

When I am interested in an American unit, I can sometimes visit NARA, the US Archives, and order the battalion record books from that unit to get some serious insight. The question is, can Andreas or Mike get commonwealth combat engineering battalion log books from English or Canadian archives? Especially if we could find the 79th AD books for its battalions and lock down some particulars on how the devices were used, it would be a great primary source.

If so, may I suggest that if this topic is banned, we move off forum with it (since it is obviously too hot to discuss publically) and then after we get some better data Jon can try to start the discussion again on the board. Most of our avenues clearly come up with a lack of good data.

[Michael Dorosh]

Slapdragon, et al - my publisher visits the National Archives in Ottawa on a regular basis. I also know some Canadian military engineering types. Email me with specific wants and I will post on my own forum, and perhaps my publisher can check the archives as well.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

That may be so, Slappy but I'll run the risk.

Personally, I find your patronising tone, your unfailing efforts to erect strawmen and your efforts to be a prig, rather annoying.

Inside your posts are sometimes some good points. Unfortunately they are all too often obscured by the bull**** you put around them.

Stop treating the board as your private possesion and assuming that you are the font of all wisdom, Slappy and you might find people treat you a great deal better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For now though, just to help BTS out, climb down. You can always attack Spook and I in a couple of months, but BTS is very sensitive right now and we owe it to them to just chill out.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Slapdragon, et al - my publisher visits the National Archives in Ottawa on a regular basis. I also know some Canadian military engineering types. Email me with specific wants and I will post on my own forum, and perhaps my publisher can check the archives as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike,

I want copies of the combat engineering battalion diaries kept by Canadian CE units assigned to the front (I need your help to develop numbers). Perhaps only one or two battalions would do for a start. I am not even sure if they still exist, but in the US you can get this in person merely by finding the units record docut and looking for the daily reports, and photocopying is something like 5 cents a page.

These would help us develop a better understanding of how the engineering battle was fought, even if the units did not use funnies. Sometimes they can be really boring, like x men got the clap, camped at x position, etc, but sometimes you get real nuggets of gold.