Simulating hedgerow fighting

[kensal]

I suppose many on here have read some of the US Army military history sources at http://www.history.army.mil/. There are some very vivid accounts of small unit actions there particularly of the initial days of the US parachute operations in the Cotentin, which show how effectively very well trained, armed and motivated infantry forces can operate against less well organised and trained opposition.

The accounts of the hedgerow fighting subsequently towards St Lo contains one account, said to be from a frontline infantry officer, that sets out the particular difficulties of attacking through hedgerow country, as follows http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/st-lo_3.htm

"There were just three ways that our infantry could get through the hedgerow country. They could walk down the road, which always makes the leading men feel practically naked (and they are). They could attempt to get through gaps in the corners of the hedgerows and crawl up along the row leading forward or rush through in a group and spread out in the field beyond. This was not a popular method. In the first place often there were no gaps just when you wanted one most, and in the second place the Germans knew about them before we did and were usually prepared with machine-gun and machine-pistol reception committees. The third method was to rush a skirmish line over a hedgerow and then across the field. This could have been a fair method if there had been no hedgerows.

Usually we could not get through the hedge without hacking a way through. This of course took time, and a German machine gun can fire a lot of rounds in a very short time. Sometimes the hedges themselves were not thick. But it still took time for the infantryman to climb up the bank and scramble over, during which time he was a luscious target, and when he got over the Germans knew exactly where he was. All in all it was very discouraging to the men who had to go first. The farther to the rear one got the easier it all seemed.

Of course the Germans did not defend every hedgerow, but no one knew without stepping out into the spotlight which ones he did defend.

It was difficult to gain fire superiority when it was most needed. In the first place machine guns were almost useless in the attack because about the only way they could be used was to fire from the hip. If you set them up before the advance started, they had no field of fire and could not shoot the enemy. If you carried them along until you met the enemy, still the only way to get them in position was to set them up on top of a hedgerow bank. That was not good because the German was in the next bank and got you before you set the gun down. Anyway, it had to be laid on the bank, no tripod, just a gun barrel lying unevenly on its stomach. On the other hand the Germans could dig their guns into the banks in advance, camouflage them, and be all set to cover the roads, trails, and other bottlenecks our men had to use.

The artillery was the major fire support weapon. But it suffered certain handicaps. In the first place it had to be adjusted from the front line by forward observers. These sometimes had difficulty knowing just where they were, and the trees frequently delayed adjustment because of the short vision. If you found the enemy in the next hedgerow he was frequently less than 100 yards from you, and that was too close for artillery fire, particularly since short rounds would probably burst in the trees over your men in your own hedgerow. If the enemy was two or more hedgerows ahead of you, that wasn't so good either, because the mere delay in getting to him through that last hedgerow just in front of him gave him time to rise up and smite you after the artillery lifted. The mortars were effective providing you knew just what to shoot at and where it was, but the infantryman still had the delay and exposure of getting through the last hedgerow.

The Germans, being on the defensive, profited by these minor items of the terrain. They could dig in, site their weapons to cover the approaches, and prepare tunnels and other covered exits for themselves. Then when our men appeared, laboriously working their way forward, the Germans could knock off the first one or two, cause the others to duck down behind the bank, and then call for his own mortar support. The German mortars were very, very efficient. By the time our men were ready to go after him, the German and his men and guns had obligingly retired to the next stop. If our men had rushed him instead of ducking down behind the bank, his machine gun or machine pistol would knock a number off. For our infantrymen, it was what you might call in baseball parlance, a fielder's choice. No man was very enthusiastic about it. But back in the dugout I have often heard the remark in tones of contempt and anger: "Why don't they get up and go?"

The tanks are no better off. They have two choices. They can go down the roads, which in this case were just mud lanes, often too narrow for a tank, often sunk four to six feet below the adjacent banks, and generally deep in mud. The Class 4 roads were decent in spots, but only for one-way traffic, with few exits to the adjacent fields. An armored outfit, whether it is a platoon or an armored army, attacking along a single road attacks on a front of one tank. The rest of the tanks are just roadblocks trailing along behind. When the first tank runs into a mine or an 88 or 75 shell, it always stops, and it usually burns up. And it efficiently blocks the road so the majestic column of roaring tanks comes to an ignominious stop.

The next step is to try to find out where the enemy gun or tank is, and wheel up a tank or so to shoot at him. The only trouble is, that probably only the men in the first tank saw his gun ash, and they aren't talking any more. The tanks trying to get into position to do some shooting are easily seen and get shot before they can do much about it. I have seen it happen. In the hedgerows it is almost impossible to get firing positions in the front row, and in the rear you can't see the enemy anyway so no one bothers. Usually the tanks waited for the infantry to do something about it.

Instead of charging valiantly down the road, the tanks may try to bull their way through the hedgerows. This is very slow and gives the enemy time to get his tanks or guns where they can do the most good. Then he just waits. And in the solution, there is always a minor and local problem to be solved, a problem which caused a certain amount of irritation, and that is, who is going over the hedgerow first, the infantry or the tank? It is surprising how self-effacing most men can be in such situations.

Anyone who actually fought in the hedgerows realizes that at best the going was necessarily slow, and that a skillful, defending force could cause great delay and heavy losses to an attacking force many times stronger. This, because the attacker can't use his fire power effectively and because he can't advance rapidly except on the road where he is quickly stopped at some convenient spot.

There were a number of other factors which contributed to the difficulties of fighting through the hedgerows. The area was merely a succession of small enclosed pastures with a few orchards, likewise enclosed by hedgerows. Seldom could one see clearly beyond the confine of the field. It was difficult to keep physical contact with adjacent squads, platoons, or larger units. It was difficult to determine exactly where one was. Unlike conditions in open country, flanks could not be protected by fields of fire. All these contributed to the difficulties of control and caused a feeling of isolation on the part of small units. All this meant that the front-line troops thought their neighbors were nowhere around. They could not see them, they were not in the adjacent field, therefore they were behind. Often this feeling of being out on a limb would cause the leading elements to halt and wait for the tank units to come up (and sometimes these were ahead).

German counterattacks in the hedgerows failed largely for the same reasons our own advance was slowed. Any attack quickly loses its momentum, and then because of our artillery and fighter bombers the Germans would suffer disastrous loss. In fact we found that generally the best way to beat the Germans was to get them to counterattack- provided we had prepared to meet them."

The purpose of posting all of this is simply to ask whether the modelling in CMBN fully reflects the dangers and difficulties in performing offensive operations in the heavy hedgerow country faced by the Americans (and in this respect I think on the whole the British forces operated in less closely confined terrain to the west of St Lo and around Caen, although the terrain they operated involved its own particular challenges).

Personally I think not - my view is that a more accurate modelling would provide for, in respect of the average quality forces,:

- less control over forces in contact or close to contact with the enemy

- more proneness of forces to simply hunker down and decline to act offensively

- less ability to spot save in their most immediate locality

- higher casualties for forces exposing themselves to enemy defensive fire in order to get into firing positions themselves

- less ability to deploy all forces into firing positions

- laying on artillery may be rather too simple

I understand that the designers have to create a system which allows for balanced play and which compresses what in reality may have amounted to several hours of real time into one or two hours of game time. However despite that the account above does give a real sense of the difficulties in getting anyone to move forward offensively and effectively in such a claustrophobic environment.

What do others think?

[Broadsword56]

I think the kind of warfare your quote describes is very recognizable to any of us who have played CMBN in historically accurate conditions -- that last bit is important because if you take 100% fit units with elite experience, high morale and +2 leadership, buy them weapons they rarely would have had, and play with "balanced" sides on a fictional map not based on any actual place in Normandy... you've got a totally different game experience. Not a worse one, mind you -- just very different. Historical setups aren't always fun as a game. But I think they will show you what the real-world troops faced in the bocage.

The only glaring omission, I think, is the game's inability to let the Germans create a true bocage defense -- digging and tunneling right into the hedgerows as they did. We can't camouflage AT guns and defensive works realistically either, so if anything the real-life Americans probably had a much harder time than we do in making successful attacks.

[ThePhantom]

I’m very interested in this subject. I’m making a tactical decision scenario based on this. The US force will be challenged to take two different approaches to reach the objective.

Of course, it’s going to be difficult. However, one aspect we often over look is the German side. Their communication must have been extremely difficult. Units had to be in the right spot at the right time, all the time.

When I was designing the hedgerows, with the German defenders, I realized a problem they must have experienced. Flanks can easily be exposed if a supporting unit routes to the right or left of a strong defensive position. The main reason is the bocage fields make it impossible to establish a solid defensive line. Yes the bocage favors the defender. However, this advantage only favors the defender in an ambush condition. Once the German position was located and fixed, I believe the advantage changed over to the Americans.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I agree that most of those effects could be had by adjusting unit moral and experience.

The only glaring omission, I think, is the game's inability to let the Germans create a true bocage defense -- digging and tunneling right into the hedgerows as they did. We can't camouflage AT guns and defensive works realistically either, so if anything the real-life Americans probably had a much harder time than we do in making successful attacks.

That, plus the ability of infantry and armor to march or drive up to any line of bocage and fire through it without any preparation. This tends to make bocage more equally useful as cover for both attacker and defender than in reality.

Also, the deadliness of artillery/mortar fire in CMx2 means enemy units can usually be destroyed or routed by indirect fire alone. The above account and many others suggest that was rarely achieved.

[womble]

Certainly the difficulty of setting up weapons with stands to fire directly at the "next hedgerow" is only tangentially modelled. I generally find that there's no real problem at all getting the MGs working, and 60mm with direct lay is lethal; there was a film linked somewhere here recently that had a 60mm firing from what looked like a "hasty" position, and there is no way on this green earth that the second round would have gone anywhere near where the first one went, without some serious re-positioning of the bipod which was bounced right out of its placing - in-game FFE rates would have knocked the thing right over after the second or third round.

This is the vid:

- the mortar rattling around is at 2:22

[Holman]

Don't forget the historical soldiers' inability to look at terrain above view level "1".

[Ultradave]

Don't forget the historical soldiers' inability to look at terrain above view level "1".

There was one scenario in CM:BO where you had an airborne unit (forget the size - Co(-) or Plt(+). You were supposed to play though by just going unit to unit on elevation 1, and somehow manage to attack an objective. It was very hard and very disorienting.

[umlaut]

We can't camouflage AT guns and defensive works realistically either

I have recently attempted to do a bit about that - at least visually. See link in my sig line.

More on topic:

Very interesting read, kensal. Actually, what struck me when reading the account was how much this correlated with my own experience of fight hedge row battle in CM:BN. Yes, it is undoubtedly easier to beat a german defender in the game than in real life. But this is a game, so it shouldn´t be too frustrating to play (actually people tend to complain that my scenarios are too hard. So maybe you should try them - allthough they aren´t typical bocage battles )

[Rocky Balboa]

BF has always attempted to model the mechanics of combat rather than trying to cater to one persons view of what it was like for them as this has a tendency to be very subjective. The feeling of isolation that was present in the hedgerows of Normandy cannot fully be experienced because the player will always have a Gods eye view of the battlefield.

With that said I do think that there is much improvement in the area of FOW that can be accomplished. I personally would like to see a play mode that would extend the FOW mechanic to terrain completely obscuring the map from the player and only revealing the terrain that his units can see. I think this would go a long way in giving the player/commander that feeling of isolation especially when fighting in the hedgerows.

This would also solve the problem with trenches and foxholes allowing them to be part of the terrain and still maintain FOW.

[Childress]

The only glaring omission, I think, is the game's inability to let the Germans create a true bocage defense -- digging and tunneling right into the hedgerows as they did. We can't camouflage AT guns and defensive works realistically either, so if anything the real-life Americans probably had a much harder time than we do in making successful attacks.

AT guns are considered camo'd if they don't move after setup, no? The more punitive suppression parameters promised in 2.01 may redress various situations like bocage operations in favor of the defending side but it's doubtful BF will come out with new on map works. But that's speculation.

[SteveP]

IMHO, it is possible to design scenarios that give the player a pretty good idea what hedgerow fighting was really like (e.g., check out my Bocage aux Foilles scenario). However, scenarios like that tend to attract a barrage of complaints (including the view that they aren't realistic ). I think that if BFC were to improve the defensive capabilities associated with hedgerow terrain, this would not be well-received by players generally. What we have is probably as much as we can expect.

[Macisle]

IMHO, it is possible to design scenarios that give the player a pretty good idea what hedgerow fighting was really like (e.g., check out my Bocage aux Foilles scenario). However, scenarios like that tend to attract a barrage of complaints (including the view that they aren't realistic ). I think that if BFC were to improve the defensive capabilities associated with hedgerow terrain, this would not be well-received by players generally. What we have is probably as much as we can expect.

I think, as SteveP pointed out, that a lot of the answer to this problem lies in the realm of scenario design. The bocage maps that come with the game are designed to give players a general feel for the tactical problems of bocage, while not restricting options to the point of frustration for those who don't totally grok (or much like) bocage fighting. And, at least as important, the stock maps are a balance of designer time ROI. Doing very accurate bocage maps is VERY time intensive.

I'm seeing this first hand just this week, as I've started my first map (that I intend to finish and post to the repository as a H2H-only map). I chose a place in Normandy (near Carentan) via Google Map that looks like it hasn't changed much since the war and which looks doable time-wise. I'm attempting to make it dead-accurate to the meter, as much as possible (really just for the sake of experiment). It will be 768x1008 meters.

However, not all problems are a question of map design choices. There are game-engine related challenges that could/should be looked at for future improvement.

The first thing that jumps out at the map designer who is trying to do an accurate Normandy bocage map is this: 8x8 tiles are a biatch! It's VERY hard to get accurately tight spaces. Until 4x4 (will we ever get 1x1?) comes along, the best fix for this would be to allow the designer to place walls/hedges/bocage/whatever at the edges of the tile, as well as the center (or if possible, let the designer place everything like with flavor objects ala micro-placement in a tile). This would allow for accurately tight spaces and also give the designer the ability to make things look more like Normandy (for example, a narrow road with bocage on one side and a wooden fence on the other, each right next to the road). This would be a HUGE help.

The next big problem comes with the number of terrain types available. When looking at real bocage country at street-level, it immediately becomes apparent that the look of bocage varies, while the likely effect on combat would not. As map makers, we currently have one type of terrain--full bocage--to fill that role. As it stands, that model represents the most extreme bocage in terms of height and "bloom." This make for ugly maps if used too much (and probably frame-rate hits). However, it is the only terrain type that has the correct effects on LOS, movement, and destructability. So, we face a dilemna: make ugly maps that function pretty realistically or make good-looking maps that allow an unrealistic ease of movement and spotting.

A good answer to this would be to add additional full bocage types that function the same, but look different (shorter, less bloom, manicured, etc.). This could be just like crop 1, crop 2, crop 3.

Another big problem in terms of aesthetics is the look and variety of hedges and low bocage. To be blunt, they are ugly and repetitive. We REALLY need manicured hedge and low bocage types. Both in period and current pics, this stuff is everywhere and to have truly accurate and good-looking maps (relative to how good the vehicles, soldiers and equipment look), we need them. Again, they could function as now, but with a larger variety of models and textures ala crop 1, crop 2, etc.

Lastly...roads. I put it last, because it's probably the hardest thing to improve, However, it's currently impossible to capture the gentle flow of real-world roads. You've got good-looking straight, okay-looking full-on turn and straight, or WTF is that! This may be a question of getting under 8x8 tiles, but as it stands, it's tough to look at those beautiful, gently bending roads in Google street-level Normandy and then try to create that in CMBN.

So, to sum it up, realistic bocage fighting in CMBN is probably quite possible, if the designer chooses to make it the focus of the design. And, when achieved, many players may not actually like it (did the Allies enjoy it?). However, the current state of the game does have areas that would greatly benefit from some engine/content upgrading. This would allow designers to more easily (which means more maps!) produce maps that are both more realistic in terms of functionality and much more pleasing in terms of aesthetics.

[JonS]

You're on your first map - good on you for getting stuck in. And you should expect to learn a lot as you progress from this to other maps. I understand your frustrations with the editor, and I think that with experience you'll come to realise that it's a lot more flexible and powerfull than it appears at first.

For example: You can add vegetation (trees and bushes) to bocage to vary it's aesthetics and functionality.

For example: you can place parallel walls (or bocage) in adjacent tiles to produce very narrow lanes. although be aware that while vehicles will happily move along || and = lanes, narrow // or \\ lanes are impassable to vehicles.

IMO, don't bother trying to get your CM map to fit the google map, to the metre. You won't, and you'll just end up wasting time and getting frustrated. Use G-maps (or whatever) as a start point and a guide, and aim to create a map that looks natural in CM. Not a CM map that looks exactly like G-Maps. No one is going to open your map and compare it to G-Maps then complain that you've moved a farmhouse 32 metres to the left, or moved a bocage line 4m to the right because they have to be in the centre of tiles rather than on the edges, to accomodate the CM editor. Honestly, they probably aren't even going to notice!

Aim to create a CM map where you can easily imagine people actually living and working in that environment, and I'll bet you'll have created a aesthetically pleasing map that is also fun to fight on.

[Macisle]

Thanks, JonS.

This isn't my first map work--just the first one I intend to finish and publish. In prior experimentation, I discovered the techniques and issues you mentioned (but thanks for posting them, others may not have found them yet!).

Of course, you're completely correct about CM map design philosophy. When I say I want to get as close as possible to the square meter of the Google map, "as close as possible" may not actually be too close! He-he.

But for the purposes of this experiment, I want to push the limits of reason as it were. For any future maps, I would go with your (uh, the SMART) approach!

[Macisle]

Oh forgot...

I am using the technique of varying the look of bocage by mixing in other foliage. Still, having other bocage models (ala crop 1, crop 2) would speed up the process of making good-looking maps and likely reduce frame rate hits from so a large amount of full-on bocage (max height and volume of bocage model).

On the use of two adjacent bocage/hedge/wall tiles for narrow roads...

I grokked this right away (on my true first map attempt--a super-accurate Villers-Bocage--which I abandoned due to the amount of work it would have required), but other problems creep in (like the vehicle issue). Being able to place things on the tile edge would be a super addition to the game.

My map, when finished will certainly be for those of a certain taste. Maybe I'll call it, "Did you remember to pack the demo charges, private Hicks?"

[Macisle]

Am giving up on hyper-accuracy and going with the smart approach:

trying to make a good CM map "based" on a real-world map.

-Should still be pretty accurate and representative of "hedgerow hell."

[SlowMotion]

Good idea. CMx2 does not allow you to have all those small angle road turns and object rotations that real world maps are full of.

and a wish from player: elevations is one area where you can ignore real map - totally flat maps are boring to play.

[Macisle]

I agree on flat maps being boring. This definitely won't fall into that category. In fact, with regards to scale and elevations, this is going to be a very accurate map indeed. Roads are looking rather accurate, too. The biggest liberties will have to be taken with buildings.

I'm excited about this and think it will be a worthwhile experiment. Patterning things so closely, and to scale, on a real map (and using street level to check elevations from key positions) is producing a map with lots of juicy possibilities that I would never have thought of on my own.

The key road junction (which will be the or part of the main objective) cuts the map East/West in a perpendicular fashion across the main road going North/South. Interestingly, the East/West road is very flat and straight, but immediately after you cross it going south, it dips down in such a way as to create an interesting land feature and potential combat dynamic.

Being able to look at Google street level and see essentially the same view in game is pretty darn cool! I'm going to set up a flickr account over the weekend so I can post large pics. Then, I'll post periodic updates as the map evolves.

It will be very interesting to see how such a realistic map works with the game engine. I've done a few small firefight tests and so far, it's looking GOOD from a realism perspective. Lots of players may hate it, but for the hardcores who also like bocage fighting, I think it's gonna' be great.

With a German defender stocked up on arty, TRPs, SMG teams and extra ammo, it's gonna' be a nightmare for the attacker. But with a rhino or two, breach teams, plenty of arty and extra ammo, it's gonna be a thrill for the attacker, too.

Anyhoo...I'll post some early-work-stage pics by Monday.

[Macisle]

It's prolly quite hard to see, but here's the real-world map I'm using. It's 768 x 1008 meters. When I post over the weekend, I'll include a larger copy.

To post it just now, I had to rotate it 90 degrees and cut some from both top and bottom (so it is not 768x1008 as seen here). There are no hills, but there is a lot of minor elevation variation. And, bocage lines all the roads and many of the fields and house lots.

[JonS]

Assuming this is in France ... do you know about the 1946 aerial photo set, and the 1:50k Topo maps? Both make excellent underlays in the editor.

[Macisle]

I know of these two sites:

http://aerial.rcahms.gov.uk/worldwide/?PHPSESSID=jg41gmegnin9qf2jpeh3gi1v63

http://www.wwii-photos-maps.com/

I think I may have come across the topo map site before, but have lost the link. Can you post the links you're speaking of?

The location of my map is in Normandy. To find it, google map search "carentan, france" and then zoom in a click. Look east of Carentan for Banville and Catz. That area is the map I'm working from.

I just saw on wikiP that Carentan was the site of a battle (June 10-15, 1944) between US 101 Airborne and a mix of German para, Ost and SS (saw a link to an episode of Band of Brothers on Carentan, but didn't follow it). However, I'm not trying to recreate a specific action with this map. Rather, I'm trying to present a "typical" Normandy bocage area with a typical objective, faithfully done so as to be used by players for whatever they want to do with it.

My criteria for choosing is as follows:

-A doable size and interesting mix of buildings and country that could have existed just like it looks now, in 1944.

-An area that presents a typical bocage setting with a typical objective. In this case, the main objective will be the second crossroads going south down the (only) north/south road. The Allied attacker must go directly south to the objective from northern map edge. The German defender's setup area covers almost all the map, beginning just south of the Allied attacker's setup area).

So, we have the classic situation: a crossroads to take with the only road access through a single, bocage-lined road that is easily ambushed and bottlenecked, with the surrounding country offering its typical mix of terrain and resulting problems and opportunities.

--The map has to offer enough buildings to give variety and create tactical points of interest that will impact battlefield dynamics--but not so many as to dominate the battle and to be too time-intensive for map-making.

--The map has to have enough good google street-level views to allow the designer to get a good feel for what the landscape is like to the man on the ground.

Street-level views are proving to be key. For choosing materials/terrain types, but most importantly, for really getting a feel for LOS dynamics. Overhead views and topo can give a good general idea, but when viewing at street-level, things really crystallize.

Okay, now I gotta' get that flickr account set up...

[Macisle]

Okay, here are the first images. This is only the first couple of days of work, so things are still very skeletal.

The overall map:

Live vs. Memorex. Note the distance bar on the google images vs. the number of 8x8 tiles in the map editor.

Another 2-up view, using the 3D preview:

Looking north from the northern crossroads (same location as above):

And finally, a view looking south and east of the southern crossroads, the main map objective (currently):

[Broadsword56]

Wonderful!

One tip: When you get into the fine detailing, don't forget to liberally apply weeds and brush along fencelines, bocage, roadsides, edges of fields, etc. People sometimes overlook this and the maps come out looking too clean and manicured.

[Macisle]

Thanks, Broadsword56!

Will-do on the foliage touches. Please don't hesitate to give me tips and constructive criticism as this project goes forward.

I can already see I might need to adjust the northern crossroad elevation up a bit going north...

[JasonC]

Getting the terrain right it all to the good, and the work shown looks great.

But a previous poster noted that the terrain "seems" to favor the defenders only until the defense is located, and then favors the attacker. He left out, "by offering multiple covered routes of approach and ways to flank the defenders", but that can be read into his comments.

Leaving aside the issue of uber mortars making it rather too easy for a US platoon with a few 60mms to neutralize even a strong defensive position rather too quickly, I think the main problem causing this perception in the game is poor construction of the defensive schemes.

They are above all way too predictable. Oh, some prominent farm buildings near a crossroads, guess where the defense will be? Or they rely on hoped-for ambushes in one field or along one preferred avenue of approach, and just do nothing if the attacker doesn't come that way.

To help start a discussion of this, I offer the following defensive scheme for the terrain Macisle shows. The main idea being to avoid the built up area around the crossroads, and instead make it the focus of an "artillery trap", consisting of a wide area registered for 105mm fire, off board. Then the registration is flanked by minefields, serving to canalize approach into that trap.

The defenders are a single infantry company, with 3 platoons, an HMG platoon, mortar platoon or section, and an HQ element acting as a 4th platoon (probably with a couple of attached squads or HMG teams etc).

Everyone avoids the crossroads area itself, as an artillery magnet, and because the idea is to entice the attackers into that area and then plaster it with the defender's own barrage.

2nd Platoon is given a position off on the right flank (German, defender's orientation), in what looks like a completely open field. The front and left edges of that field would be lined with trenches, giving observation of the road at point blank, and a bit farther to the crossroads itself and just beyond it, by one squad-LMG team.

The whole forward exit from the artillery registration on that side is behind wire belts, which are situated behind hedgerows, and observed. The attackers can get into the field beyond but not out of it, that is the idea. This also creates a covered route "a field back" for this 2nd platoon to move to the rear HQ positions and act as a reserve, if that side is not pressed. Alternately, they can move along the road into the crossroads area to follow up the registration barrage, if the attackers evacuate the area in response.

On the left, 1st platoon is the forward element, in a wooded area rather than buildings, with their entire front a sea of mines, which they cover by fire. They can direct flanking fire (or, later, a counterattack) into the road out of the crossroads area toward the main HQ (rear) position. If there is no pressure on the German left, they can withdraw through the wheatfields to that reserve position.

The HMG platoon covers the wheat on the German left against any wide flanking movement, using building height to see over the wheat. Their fires pick up where 1st platoon's fires leave off. The last "safe" field beyond their respective observation and clear of mines, the "stepping off" field for any wide turning movement to the German left, is registered for the company's own 81mm mortars (indirect, TRPed).

The last line platoon defends the direct route down the road from the crossroads position into the German main position. It also needs at least one LMG team with line of sight to the crossroads proper, reaching across it and crossing its fire with the same element from 2nd platoon. If the attackers don't come straight down that road, this is the maneuver reserve. If they walk into the artillery registration "trap", then they would first "stopper" any direct exit while the barrage falls, and if feasible counterattack up the road in its wake.

The HQ position backstops that platoon and also covers the fields to the German right rear. The mortar position is out behind the buildings sheltering this HQ position. The HQ position itself is also a fall back, "second stand", position, for the main body.

If typical defenses were set up and operated in this manner or anything like it, I think people would find the terrain less welcoming to attackers.