Jump to content

Fascine Reprise


JonS

Recommended Posts

[QB]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.

{/QB]

I got lost in the thread and I don't know where the above quote was taken from but I wish to comment.

AVRE commanders habitually sat on the fascines ! This was particularly true of the approach march from the FUP to the Start Line (fascines were loaded as late as possible because of the lack of visibility - ie the FUP).

When they came under fire they could retire to behind it (and stand watching over the top - most fire would have been from the front 90 degrees or so..). When they were sure that the driver could see his "target" they could retire to the turret to "fire" the bolts.

There was a periscope designed for the commander but apparently disliked because of lack of field of view, vibration and ease of loss or damage.

Casualties were not noted as being any more servere with AVRE commanders compared to the general populace (of tank commanders) so it must have been no more dangerous....

I note that Churchill crew casualties overall were much less by proportion than Sheram/Cruiser tank crew casulaties. It was slow(er) but tougher and did not burn as easily (even compared to wet stowage versions of the Shermans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 334
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My 2 cents. I just wanted to capture this para to ensure it wasn't lost amongst all the other noise. To me, having "fascine bundles" as a purchase item makes sense. Placement of these within a friendly set-up area would replicate the preparation of routes into and through the FUP and Start Line (areas that are usually "secured" prior to an operation) in the case of Attack and Assult operations. I realize that there is more being discussed here but this is a good start and one that may not be dificult to do.

Over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done, Rifle1860. You grabbed the exact paragraph of Slap's just before I did, and made comparable points to what I was thinking. Talk about intuition! ;)

Of course, as Andreas had pointed out in an earlier thread, the present limits to CMBO's terrain options are such that speciality bridge-laying or defile-plugging vehicles would not be relevant to that specific game. But hopefully for the CM II engine when we "return" to the Western Front someday, terrain features such as to include steep gullys and anti-tank ditches will increase the significance for speciality engineering. (At that time, I hope to also see expanded treatment of mine-clearing & linear obstacle removal, either by speciality vehicles or foot units.)

And "resolving" engineering actions between battles of a CM operation is one viable abstraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

[QB]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.

I got lost in the thread and I don't know where the above quote was taken from but I wish to comment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was mine.

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

AVRE commanders habitually sat on the fascines ! This was particularly true of the approach march from the FUP to the Start Line (fascines were loaded as late as possible because of the lack of visibility - ie the FUP).

When they came under fire they could retire to behind it (and stand watching over the top - most fire would have been from the front 90 degrees or so..). When they were sure that the driver could see his "target" they could retire to the turret to "fire" the bolts.

There was a periscope designed for the commander but apparently disliked because of lack of field of view, vibration and ease of loss or damage.

Casualties were not noted as being any more servere with AVRE commanders compared to the general populace (of tank commanders) so it must have been no more dangerous....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good point. However, they were forced to sit on top of/stand behind the fascine bundle purely because the vision was so bad. I also suspect that when artillery/mortars started dropping, the command retired to his turret very quickly indeed!

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

I note that Churchill crew casualties overall were much less by proportion than Sheram/Cruiser tank crew casulaties. It was slow(er) but tougher and did not burn as easily (even compared to wet stowage versions of the Shermans).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've mentioned that in another thread as well. Churchills suffered the lowest casaulty rate for any Allied tank in NW Europe, according to Fletcher's book "Mr.Churchill's Tank".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that despite the number of tank casualties suffered at Dieppe, they were all a result of abandonment or immobilization - not one single Churchill was penetrated by enemy fire (the Germans only having 50mm ATGs on the promenade).

Crew casualties seem to have occurred only when the crews were exposed (such as Johnny Andrews, the CO of the Calgary Regiment) or after bailing out.

It does beg the question - how many non-specialist Churchill tanks were commonly used in frontline action? Bouchery reports only 3 brigades of Churchills were used in NWE as opposed to 8 British armoured brigades equipped with Shermans or Cromwells, and two Canadian brigades (four, when I Canadian Corps arrived in theatre in Feb-Mar 45) plus Polish armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It does beg the question - how many non-specialist Churchill tanks were commonly used in frontline action? Bouchery reports only 3 brigades of Churchills were used in NWE as opposed to 8 British armoured brigades equipped with Shermans or Cromwells, and two Canadian brigades (four, when I Canadian Corps arrived in theatre in Feb-Mar 45) plus Polish armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Used or "on strength"?

The webpage that Kim first posted and which I quoted from in the earlier thread, here contains details of unit strengths for June 1944 (I presume start of June, rather than end), whilst the two other companion pages at the same site here and here cover the dates for December'44 and June'45. They supply units and strengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It's interesting to note that despite the number of tank casualties suffered at Dieppe, they were all a result of abandonment or immobilization - not one single Churchill was penetrated by enemy fire (the Germans only having 50mm ATGs on the promenade).

Crew casualties seem to have occurred only when the crews were exposed (such as Johnny Andrews, the CO of the Calgary Regiment) or after bailing out.

It does beg the question - how many non-specialist Churchill tanks were commonly used in frontline action? Bouchery reports only 3 brigades of Churchills were used in NWE as opposed to 8 British armoured brigades equipped with Shermans or Cromwells, and two Canadian brigades (four, when I Canadian Corps arrived in theatre in Feb-Mar 45) plus Polish armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike,

Abandonment was, according to "Dieppe 1942" by Whitehead, often due to bogging in shelled ground. Penetration may not occur, but lob enough HE and a long, heavy tank, and it gets mired in, flipped over, or otherwise wrecked. There was no solution found for this during the war -- execpt don't let your tanks get shelled in a closed space. The funnies never could truly solve the shelled ground problem, except on the edges, when the shells were actually coming in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Mike,

Abandonment was, according to "Dieppe 1942" by Whitehead, often due to bogging in shelled ground. Penetration may not occur, but lob enough HE and a long, heavy tank, and it gets mired in, flipped over, or otherwise wrecked. There was no solution found for this during the war -- execpt don't let your tanks get shelled in a closed space.

No tank was immune to shelling in areas where they could no deploy. Usually though it was not "miring" (except for possibly large marshes of the "OST" Front) but rather destruction or obstruction of the escape routes which meant that they would then receive a due saturation ("Fire for Effect").

Any tank could be "flipped" or destroyed by a direct hit if the explosion was large enough.

Dieppe showed one of the failings of the Churchill - tracks that could not stand up to pebble beaches (hence the "Bobbin" series). They had problems on ice (slipping), mud (build up under track guards) and with other conditions BUT they were very good at standing up to the "shot and shell" and they did perform well when called upon (eg from “Longstop” to the Reichwald).

The funnies never could truly solve the shelled ground problem, except on the edges, when the shells were actually coming in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

???

The funnies were there to make sure that obstacles did not create the "choke points" and to make sure that when assaulting a position that the attacker could take the maximum advantage of the ground. One of the priciples of the defence is to maximise his potential through use of the natural and created features. If you can circumvent this through bridging/destroying/carpeting/flailing/etc your way through the obstacles.....

By these means (the funnies) the maximum firepower could be brought to bear on enemy position (while in themselves being comparatively weak in firepower they were "force multipliers" to use the modern parlance).

You must remeber that one of the reasons for the funnies was the inability of the UK to absorb large casualties beacuse they did not have the manpower reserves or the morale to face another WWI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another thought on the Fascines:

If they were modelled, how would people think they should be reated in terms of inflammability? Reason I ask is Moulton's 'The battle for Antwerp', in which he describes the landing of the AVREs at Walcheren. The LTCs were badly shot up by the shore batteries, and one had to return with an AVRE with a burning Fascine set on board. Ouch. The account is of course proof of an attempt to use the Fascine in a CMBO type battle (the landing on Walcheren), but a failed one.

So, question is how you treat that? If they are likely to start burning because of being fired at (presumably HE, maybe tracer MG), they may not be much use in an area where people fire at you - obviously.

I promise I will go and look up more references later this week, when I have some more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Here's another thought on the Fascines:

If they were modelled, how would people think they should be reated in terms of inflammability? Reason I ask is Moulton's 'The battle for Antwerp', in which he describes the landing of the AVREs at Walcheren. The LTCs were badly shot up by the shore batteries, and one had to return with an AVRE with a burning Fascine set on board. Ouch. The account is of course proof of an attempt to use the Fascine in a CMBO type battle (the landing on Walcheren), but a failed one.

So, question is how you treat that? If they are likely to start burning because of being fired at (presumably HE, maybe tracer MG), they may not be much use in an area where people fire at you - obviously.

I promise I will go and look up more references later this week, when I have some more time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The engineering books I quoted and got details for Argie in the last lamented thread said the Fascines and bobbins where extremely dangerous to carry under fire and were equipped with firing bolts to blow off the load if the tank came under fire. Why the tank in your example did not blow them, I am not sure.

I would assume that we would have a non penetrating flame kill possibility with the fascines, less chance with the bobbin, and a chance of crew abandonment from their flaming tank (very similar to getting struck with a flame thrower) however these are logical rather than historical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Why the tank in your example did not blow them, I am not sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh but that one is easy - it was still on the vessel. I guess the last thing they would want is an AVRE shooting burning Fascine pieces all over a ship full of tanks, ammo, gasoline, that is under heavy fire by a German shore battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I have finally retrieved my copy of 'Churchill's secret weapons', which in fairness is not the be-all and end-all to the 79th History by any means. There are references (casual flicking brought two to light) of fascines and bridges being deployed under fire, but it is never clear what kind of fire that was. In one of the excerpts it is clear that the site was previously surveyed, but was still under fire. In another, an SPG (Stug?) roamed the opposite side of the obstacle. So, another step on bringing the evidence to light - regarding significance though, I would still say that flails are the most important addition in terms of the missing pioneer/engineer additions. By a considerable margin.

Astonia BTW does not seem to have been an operation where fascines were deployed under fire. The picture you talked about - does it have some flatfeet prone in the left foreground, and a row of three or four tanks, one an AVRE w/bridge in the background?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Bailey bridges were/are "the envy of the civilised world" in terms of quick to erect, semi-permanent bridging, what would be the point of fooling about with facsines, bobbins, and the rest of the funnies if they weren't intended to be used under fire? And why base them on armoured vehicles? (Ok, ready availability and weight - as in counterweight - might have something to do with that last point.)

It seems to me that in all the to-ing and fro-ing about these vehicles we're overlooking the obvious. A fascine bundle is a quick-and-dirty, very temporary, way of getting vehicles across ditches and rivers. Same thing for bobbins and arks. Furthermore, a fascine bundle has little intrinsic worth - collecting together a bundle of branches, etc, is something that could be done easily enough, in any location (well, in NWE and Italy anyway), to consider them utterly expendable - there is no drain on industry, shipping or manpower to consider. So, why would they not be used under fire?

Then again, maybe it's just a question of timing regarding just when - in a battle - they were used. Which I suppose is what this thread has become about. Gah - now I'm talking myself into circles :confused:

Regards

Jon

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon - my understanding is that the Bailey Bridge took several hours to construct, and you needed troops on both sides of the river to do it.

I thought fascines were more than just bundles of locally collected wood - but were more on the order of cut and formed lumber (sort of like the stuff you see in snow fences).

Am open to correction, as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right - the Bailey did take hours to erect, but that's still quick compared to the months it takes civvy contractors to do something similar ;)

And there are other ways of getting troops across a river - wading, boats, rafts, etc. All of which were in existance before the funnies were developed.

The pictures of fascines that I've seen had led me to believe that they were little more than straight-ish branches and young trees, cut to approximately the same length and tied into a bundle so they more or less retained their shape when droped in a hole. Some work would be required, certainly, but no more than an engineer regiment would be capable of with its own resources.

IMHO of course smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Right - the Bailey did take hours to erect, but that's still quick compared to the months it takes civvy contractors to do something similar ;)

And there are other ways of getting troops across a river - wading, boats, rafts, etc. All of which were in existance before the funnies were developed.

The pictures of fascines that I've seen had led me to believe that they were little more than straight-ish branches and young trees, cut to approximately the same length and tied into a bundle so they more or less retained their shape when droped in a hole. Some work would be required, certainly, but no more than an engineer regiment would be capable of with its own resources.

IMHO of course smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The advantage of the fascine compared to the ark is that it would not require more than a cursory ground survey, just make sure it is needed and choose a route to lay it. Of course a bundle of sticks is not going to last forever, but it does not have to.

The Ark needs more serious setup because it requires a survey, and it requires setting in and anchoring unless the ground condition is perfect.

No way, as Argie pointed out, is a bailey going up under any sort of fire, or the fire is going to delay you and waste a huge number of men. At best, from a bridge embankment, it will take maybe 6 hours (from Cornelius Ryan) to stretch a full bridge and a considerable amount of rolling stock to deliver it. At worst, with no foundation, no bridge can go up. For all intents and purposes, the bridge wont grow any during the game, and you will have an awful large number of units standing around or having to have AI assigned action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Given that Bailey bridges were/are "the envy of the civilised world" in terms of quick to erect, semi-permanent bridging, what would be the point of fooling about with facsines, bobbins, and the rest of the funnies if they weren't intended to be used under fire? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why were fascines used at all when there are the Bailey bridges ? - Maybe because it is a little awkward to erect a Bailey bridge just to cross a small AT ditch?

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to whether you need troops on the far shore to build a Bailey bridge the answer is yes and no. Yes if the current or wind was great enough and no if not. I was involved in building several of these and it took us the biggest part of a day to do it but then again we weren't in a hurry. Well, other than the officers wanting it up quick but course they weren't the ones busting their asses either. Had there been the need to hurry we could have done it somewhat faster I suppose. Another factor of course is how wide the river is as to how fast it would take. You also don't just put one up anywhere. Vehicles have to be able to get to it. And whoever designed the thing should be shot dead. I know it was some British guy but he still should have been shot. That crap is heavy heavy heavy. But yeah it is an amazing idea and design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

In regards to whether you need troops on the far shore to build a Bailey bridge the answer is yes and no. Yes if the current or wind was great enough and no if not. I was involved in building several of these and it took us the biggest part of a day to do it but then again we weren't in a hurry. Well, other than the officers wanting it up quick but course they weren't the ones busting their asses either. Had there been the need to hurry we could have done it somewhat faster I suppose. Another factor of course is how wide the river is as to how fast it would take. You also don't just put one up anywhere. Vehicles have to be able to get to it. And whoever designed the thing should be shot dead. I know it was some British guy but he still should have been shot. That crap is heavy heavy heavy. But yeah it is an amazing idea and design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever done a double/double? One of those in which you have to guide the upper external panel charged in your back,standing over the edges of the two lower panels and with 5 guys pushing it without other consideration than take away their own charge? :eek:

For non sappers here, each panel weights 262 kgs. :rolleyes:

But anyway, is quite a good piece of engineering, not bested until the development of the Ribbon Bridge for the Soviets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jon - my understanding is that the Bailey Bridge took several hours to construct, and you needed troops on both sides of the river to do it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. As Kim pointed out, there were alternative methods developed and used to allow a bridge to assembled off-site and then pushed into place.

Where the Engineers were required on the opposite bank was to prepare the approach down to the river, not necessarily in the construction itself of the bridge.

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

I thought fascines were more than just bundles of locally collected wood - but were more on the order of cut and formed lumber (sort of like the stuff you see in snow fences).

Am open to correction, as always.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fascines were, as I understand it, made from local materials but not necessarily locally collected wood but rather locally collected timber of a particular size and shape. In addition, if it was known they were to be used in a wet ditch/stream, they were usually bound around sections of piping, to allow the water to flow through the fascines, rather than under them, thereby preventing them forming a dam and being washed away. This is according to the 1945 British Army training pam, which I have in my possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I'll repeat this since it seems to have been missed - did the Bailey bridge not require troops on both sides of the water obstacle in order to properly emplace it - as opposed to the other expedients discussed in this thread, which could be emplaced through the efforts of a single AFV and crew?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael,

You are comparing apples to oranges here. A Bailey bridge is a "Line of Communication Bridge" designed to be built to ensure follow on logistics can in fact be pushed up to the front. If I recall, a few times they were built "under fire" as an assault bridge but the cost was very high and slow going.

The Fascine, is an assault "gap crossing" mechanism, designed to be employed under fire (well within scope of CM btw). Now as to it's success, well I can only point out that they (fascines) are still in use today.

As it has been noted a Bailey and it's son, MGB, take hrs to erect under the best of conditions. I have personally done AT ditching drills where the ditch is in the middle of a tac 400m deep minefield. We got our time from first strike to having a hole in the enemy wire in about 7 mins, which was slow (they used to do it in 4 in Germany) but we were just trying it out for the first time.

In short fascines could be incorporated into the game but one would have to provide AT ditches first. The Engineer battle in CM is in serious need of re-working to bring it anywhere near reality, so my hope of seeing "assault breaching" is pretty small until at least the CM II engine. On the other side, just about every wargame out there short plays the Engineer aspect in favour of play balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Michael,

You are comparing apples to oranges here. A Bailey bridge is a "Line of Communication Bridge" designed to be built to ensure follow on logistics can in fact be pushed up to the front. If I recall, a few times they were built "under fire" as an assault bridge but the cost was very high and slow going.

The Fascine, is an assault "gap crossing" mechanism, designed to be employed under fire (well within scope of CM btw). Now as to it's success, well I can only point out that they (fascines) are still in use today.

As it has been noted a Bailey and it's son, MGB, take hrs to erect under the best of conditions. I have personally done AT ditching drills where the ditch is in the middle of a tac 400m deep minefield. We got our time from first strike to having a hole in the enemy wire in about 7 mins, which was slow (they used to do it in 4 in Germany) but we were just trying it out for the first time.

In short fascines could be incorporated into the game but one would have to provide AT ditches first. The Engineer battle in CM is in serious need of re-working to bring it anywhere near reality, so my hope of seeing "assault breaching" is pretty small until at least the CM II engine. On the other side, just about every wargame out there short plays the Engineer aspect in favour of play balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike is bringing this up from an earlier proposal that Bailey bridges were common used at the front and well within the scope of the CM battle. Bailey Bridging, at least tactical use of it, has been pretty well discredited as part of the standard CM action, except that such a bridge could possible show up as a map peice or in an operation. It still crops its head up even though most times to build are 6 hours and up, and attempts to use it at Rapido resulted in several days of heavy casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...