Post-Divorce Divorced Dude's Efforts

[mjkerner]

I am waiting on a few folks who promised to play it.

Meanwhile I have been feverishly doing some tweaks based on initial feedback and would appreciate a couple more opinions.

I am having fun playing it. Gritty trench action. Sharpen up your shovels!

PM me if you'd like to give it a try.

I resemble that remark!

I'll finish tomorrow, I promise. (again)

[Der Alte Fritz]

Remember that WW2 trenches are not at all like WW1 trenches. The latter are wide - two man across, very deep 9-12 feet or so with a firing step or ladders to provide fighting positions and machine guns in purpose built emplacements, most of which were armoured. Communications trenches were narrower to avoid enfilade shots and often were shallower except at the front line where they could be very deep indeed to escape artillery fire.

During WW2 a different approach was used and you can see real life examples in videos such as Mannen gegen Panzer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8thWxRiALM

These trenches were around 5 feet deep, so that when standing the occupant was able to fire and they were very narrow, most would only allow you to move sideways with one shoulder turned back. There were specific fighting positions, mg positions, etc, a little further back there is a connecting trench which may be a little deeper containing shelter bunkers.

The placing of trenches is important as the ideal was to have them on a reverse slope around 250m from the crest line, so that the trenches were sheltered from direct fire and observation but had sufficient time to engage the enemy with high rates of MG fire. The defence was based around stopping the infantry with artillery fire and then with MG fire, the riflemen were there to support these two elements. Squad sized units were placed at intervals along the line in strong points which contained more bunkers and trenches and were surrounded by wire and mines. The intervals between squad positions did not contain any troops and might be as large as 500m, the idea being that MG fire from the strong points would stop any enemy. The continuous trench line was provided to conceal the strong points and to allow troops to counter attack sideways against any breakthroughs or to go tank hunting under cover.

In terms of the overall defence position, the first belt of defence or HKL consisted of 2 or 3 trench lines each separated by 200-500m but connected by communication trenches, with the living area in the third trench. The HKL (Hauptkampflinie)(Main Battle Line) would be 500-600m deep. The HKL may be screened by an outpost line of individual positions or line of foxholes but these were usually lost prior to an attack. Behind the HKL was the HKF (Hauptkampffeld)(Main Battle Field) an area about 1000-1500m of open terrain which was covered by bunkers, command posts, short stretches of trench. This was the counter attack zone, where reinforcements were expected to fight a mobile battle to recover the HKL, using the positions here to provide a jumping off point. Counter attack forces could range from squads right up to companies. Also in this area you found Infantry Guns and AT guns which engaged the enemy at around 500m range as they crossed the crest line in front of the HKL. AT guns were too valuable to place in the front line and the artillery was supposed to stop the enemy infantry and then the infantry would kill enemy tanks by close assault when they crossed the trench line while the AT guns acted as a stop gap against breakthroughs down likely avenues of advance and would be grouped together from 4-10 guns to provide a kill zone against mass tanks. Mobile AT guns would be used to counter breakthroughs in other areas.

Behind the HKF was the Barbara Line or 'B' Stellung which was a continuous trench with MG positions which represented the counter attack forces holding position and the artillery defence line (hence the Barbara name as St Barbara is the patron saint of artillerymen). Behind this was a zone of 1-2000m in which you had more command posts, artillery positions and the forward supply units under cover.

So the First Belt was 4000m deep (600m of HKL, 1500m of HKL and 2000m of artillery) and would be separated from the Second Belt by 4000m. The idea was that the HKL of the Second Belt would be out of artillery range of the enemy artillery (8000m behind German front line plus 2000m to allow enemy artillery behind their own front line plus 500m gap between the opposing lines equals 10,500m ie greater than a 105mm howitzer fires). So an attacking enemy would be required to MOVE their main body of artillery before attacking the Second Belt. The Second Belt was usually occupied by the counter attack division usually a Panzer Division or the Divisional Reserve - the Fusilier Battalion.

Behind this in outline only (ie one trench and obstacles) was the Third Belt, ready to be enlarged once the First Belt was lost or to be used in an emergency.

There is a good article here about fortifications in general:

http://www.allworldwars.com/German%20Field%20Fortifications%20on%20the%20Eastern%20Front.html

The source is a Soviet field engineers document based on captured positions at the the end of the war.

The continuous line type of field fortification was put in place from 1943 onwards and represented a shift from mobile or elastic defence to positional defence (stellungskrieg). Contary to popular belief this was official doctrine pre-war as the Stellungskrieg manual was published in 1936. The idea was that it was possible to switch from one to the other easily and Stellungskrieg represented a pause between mobile phases. The positions of Stellungskreig were developed from the fighting positions of mobile warfare, just developed and connected to a great extent.

We see this set up in August 1943 following Kursk at the start of Operation Rumyantsev. Manstein had ordered his infantry divisions like 168.ID to fall back to field positions 5km infront of the old front line and adopt mobile warfare. His intention was that the ID would fall back to their old front line and adopt stellungskreig on a fixed line of defence (the old front line which they had occupied from March 1943 until July 1943) which was being improved. The 6 and 7.PD were in this area and launched their futile counter attacks from these old positions.

[PanzerMike]

Good post Alte Fritz.

I watched the Manner gegen Panzer clip on youtube. Had not seen that one before. Thanks for the link. But is does look quite a lot like Bunkers Burning, don't you think?

I have always felt that the trenches do not provide enough protection. Now I know this film is staged and produced for educational purposes, but one would think that tanks would have a hard time inflicting casualties on infantry that keep their heads down and only occasionally pop up to fire their weapon. Only a direct hit by a HE shell or being hit by bullets when you briefly pop up would do you harm.

This is not really well represented in the abstracted trenches in CM, IMHO.

[kohlenklau]

Der Alte Fritz,

Using the editor tools, I cannot make the exact WW2 trenches described in the link.

So, my scenario must be considered fictional. A hybrid based on what the editor can do and WW1/WW2 trench concepts, historical mixed with some Hollywood perhaps.

But it plays out fun I think.

[sburke]

But it plays out fun I think.

Most definitely so sir.

One of the most difficult tasks for BF in making CM is the TAC AI pathing and placement. It shows up in a whole lot of places and there are at least 3 different items in other posts/threads related to that subject right now. Then you get into what is actually possible in the map editor.

It will get better over time, but the sheer difficulty of making it do what you want it to do and not become hopelessly bogged down means it will take time. We have and will continue to see improvement, but it is more than likely there will always be situations where we have to make concessions to what is possible versus desired. I think you have done an excellent job in that regard. I know I had a lot of fun with this one and will give it another go at some point soon.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Der Alte Fritz,

Using the editor tools, I cannot make the exact WW2 trenches described in the link.

So, my scenario must be considered fictional. A hybrid based on what the editor can do and WW1/WW2 trench concepts, historical mixed with some Hollywood perhaps.

But it plays out fun I think.

Of course you have to work within the constraints set by the game developers but there are things that can be done to get the best out of the game. As you can see from the film, the real life trenches have no inherent strength in them, they gain most of their benefit from concealment.

First thing is line of sight - placing trenches a couple of hundred meters behind a crest line means that far fewer enemy will be shooting at them in the first place.

Dropping the trench down 1 level should reduce the effectiveness of artillery. Does it make any difference if troops are using the Hide command to their vulnerability?

Lots of shelter bunkers - can these be dropped down 1 or 2 levels to make them more survivable?

Zeroing out the cost of the trenches and then having a lot of them. Artillery is very cheap now in CMx2 compared to CMx1 or CMBN or CMFI and relatively plentiful, so on the victory points side of things, the Germans can come off worse because once a trench is spotted it can be plastered by artillery. So if you use the victory conditions to make fortifications equally cheap, the defending infantry can literally "hide" in a large network of otherwise useless/free trenches. Take this idea one step further and have a trench line running across the map at zero cost and then add in a strong-point or two with extra trenches, shelter bunkers, more wire, mines, etc as your infantry fighting position.

Not sure yet but the way the trenches are used may help. There is a tendency to think - great! a trench I can run down this completely sheltered from fire. Using the HIDE command linked with a COVER ARC and moving about the trench system at SLOW seems a better way of behaving.

Cannot wait to give your scenario a try once it comes out.

Really like the aerial photograph on your scenario title screen - where did you get it?

[kohlenklau]

PM me if you want to give it a try now.

I would appreciate your inputs.

That trench photo I found from a google search for "German world war 2 east front trenches".

It was one of the first dozen results from this source.

https://www.ww2incolor.com/german/UBiB_331_4.html

"German trench system near Bjelgorod/Russia photographed by a soviet reconnaisance aircraft."

[Der Alte Fritz]

I have been running a test scenario with various style of trenches:

1) used ordinary trench on flat terrain as baseline with a German platoon in 200m of trenches under fire from a Soviet Rifle Company complete with support weapons.

2) tried trench line in ditch -1 level down. Troops can fire are spotted when at rest but can conceal themselves by HIDE and SLOW commands

2) Tried trench in ditch -2 level down. Troops are fully protected and can MOVE and stay at rest and not expose themselves. This is also the depth of a wooden shelter or MG bunker. Troops are much more protected against artillery at this depth but in order to fire have to climb out of the trench and lose all protection.

3) Tried a +1 berm alongside the -1 ditch but it gave the same results as a -2 ditch and troops were more exposed to artillery fire behind them

4) Complex trenches are difficult to build a +2 ditch beside a +1 ditch would be great but only in straight lines. Likewise foxholes and sandbag walls beside trenches lose much of your advantage.

So the best plan I have come up with so far is:

a) limit line of sight to trench lines. Put a small ridge in front of your trench at 2-400m and put lateral ridges so that individual squads or platoons are not over whelmed by a long line of enemy fire.

use a trench -2 deep and then have fighting positions coming off this at -1 level

c) have other wide sections of -2 trench coming off the main one with bunkers along the side for headquarters, mortars etc.

d) use bunkers in the trenches as MG positions but dig them in -1 level and use terrain to key hole them.

e) use enfilading positions rather than ones that fire straight ahead.

The real key is to use terrain to obscure LOS to the trenches so that they do not get overwhelmed by superior fire power and then use deep ditches as artillery shelters and move between trenches at SLOW or use HIDE and a COVERED ARC.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Built a small test scenario with an area of locked level 20 tiles with a -2 ditch with a trench in the bottom in a series of 'V's. Used short straight sections or diagonals with a -1 ditch beside it with a two trench section as fighting positions.

This seems to be the optimal balance between artillery protection and having a useful place to fight from.

However I built shelter bunkers into the -2 ditch and thought I could build MG bunkers into the -1 trench but got caught by the "sinking effect" and none of them had LOS out of the trench. Might try placing them behind the -2 trench and this might give them a limited short range LOS???? This is a bug that BF are supposed to be fixing.

[kohlenklau]

I will look it over in detail and play around with the recommendation you came up with.

Thanks.