Bocage, bocage defenses and CMx2

[Lt Bull]

Hi,

 

I know this topic has been perhaps discussed quite a bit on these forums.  Many threads can be found on how well/poorly CMx2 models realistic bocage terrain combat typical of France 1944..

 

Here are a few:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/100779-the-unofficial-bocage-defense-thread/ (I probably could have tacked this post to that thread)

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/114392-new-bocage-for-normandy/

 

You see threads like this http://community.battlefront.com/topic/98423-fortifying-bocage-possible-let-me-show-you-a-trick/ tryingto address the "deficiency" in the CMx2 engine of depicting "dug-in bocage defenders/fortifications":  Apparently there is a perception among many players that it is an unfortunate limitation that CMx2 does not readily allow slit trenches/foxholes to be placed on one side of a hedgerow so that the defenders in them can readily trace LOS/LOF through the hedgerow to engage enemy on the otherside just like they could if they were normally positioned against the hedgerow without any entrenchment.

 

I think many players consider it a flaw in CMx2 to not allow entrenchments to be placed in bocage terrain so that it allows the dug in defenders to engage targets on the other side like this:

 

 

This is basically a fight in place entrenched position behind bocage.  Personally I too had this perception and I now realise that it was primarily based on playing the first ever Close Combat which featured exactly this type of concept.

 

I had reason to consider all this when addressing how foxholes, trenches and sandbags are/can be used tactically used in CMx2 in bocage style terrain in this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118866-tactical-use-of-foxholes-sandbags-and-trenches-cmx2/.  I also discussed a bocage map with the scenario/map maker who said  he wanted ti see how accurately CMBN models bocage fighting but it became apparent pretty quickly that the kind of dug-in fortifications that were used by the Germans so effectively in bocage terrain could not really be applied in CMx2.

 

Foxholes/slit trenches and boacge did of course co-exist together in Normandy 1944 but after some research and consideration, I think many of us may actually have the wrong perception (as exemplified above) as to exactly how they were actually used and implemented and subsequently how we expect to use them in CM.

 

First lets get some "official" references to bocage and entrenchments in France 1944.

 

These excerpts are from "Busting the Bocage: American Combined Arms Operations in France, 16 June-31 July 1944" (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA211817)

 

"The Germans employed their direct-fire weapons to trap American infantrymen in a deadly hail of cross fire and grazing fires coming from all sides. Machine guns were the primary weapons
of the German defense. At the opposite corners of each field, the Germans emplaced heavy machine guns in positions dug into the earthen embankments of the hedgerows."

 

"The Germans also implemented other measures to improve their scheme of hedgerow defenses. They habitually dug slit trenches into the hedgerow embankments to protect themselves during American artillery and mortar barrages. Furthermore, German commanders linked together their defensive positions with wire communications that allowed them to coordinate the defense of their sector."

 

That is all that is really said about entrenchments in that paper and none of this refers to Germans actually using entrenchments to actually fight in from behind the bocage.  Shelter from the ever present artillery and mortar barrages appears to be the primary function and reason for their existence.  

 

Surprisingly I have not been able to find too may photos of actual 1944 France bocage entrenchments or "bunkers" either.  Here is one, though it simply is not just a slit trench/foxhole. It's actually is occupied by US troops (with very odd camo pattern).

 

 

If anyone has any specific accounts that seem to indicate the use of bocage entrenchments used as actual fighting positions post them here for discussion.  I know there may be many references of first hand accounts that might loosely refer to tough "dug in defenders" in the context of boacge fighting in 1944.  It is clear that it might give the impression that the defenders were actually occupying entrenchments (fighting in place) when defending.  It seems more likely a reference to the entrenchments that were dug around the bocage which provided shelter during arty barrages as already outlined.

 

I know that the hedgerows in France varied in size and shape in both height and width.  There is an image floating around that claims to capture what a "typical" hedgerow looked like.  It is referenced here: http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/

 

 

I thought it might be useful to illustrate my interpretation of what I think the majority of accounts of "dug in bocage defenders" actually were referring to.

 

From what we understand most of the bocage fighting occurred with one side taking up a crouched or standing positon up against the bocage on one side, firing over or through gaps in the bocage against an enemy some distance away on the opposite side of the bocage.  The natural cover and concealment offered to units in this deployment is evident.  Primarily, it makes disengaging from combat very easy should things get nasty.  Step away from the bocage and you almost immediately break the LOS/LOF the enemy may have on you allowing easy redeployment elsewhere along the bocage or even just complete withdrawal back to another position.

 

This would be the default type of engagement in seen in the 1944 bocage battles and CM seems to model this quite well.

 

If the order was to hold position and the enemy start dropping in an arty barrage, given there was no other nearby cover against artillery fire, I am sure many soldiers would have sought what natural protection they could get by lying flat in this ditch.

 

Lets now consider what a defender might do if they had the time to improve their defensive position along the bocage.  Given that artillery/mortar attack was probably the biggest threat facing German infantry in the bocage, it makes sense to think that they would probably first look at ways of improving their suitability against such attacks.  It seems apparent that the ditch that was already typically there was probably a good start for digging a slit trench/foxhole to shelter from artillery attack as some of the work had already been done.  You could argue that perhaps it would be/was better to simply retreat away from the bocage line all together and seek cover elsewhere. This may have been true in at least some instances where it was practical, but I am sure there were many situations where this was not only impractical but not expected by the COs.  Either way, a shelter against artillery that was literally located on the battle line was makes sense.  Of course in all cases the type of ground/soil that is being dug certainly may have been a prohibitive in some cases (too hard, roots, rocks etc) and in  some cases very easy to dig.  With a drainage ditch however you would at least think it would be somewhat softer beneath it compared to anywhere else.

 

So if we assume that was the case, then I imagine that something like this was actually what was happening  in the majority of accounts (80-90%?) you might hear that loosely refer to "German defenders dug in to the bocage":

 

 

This is not a defend in place position.  It was shelter against artillery. Typically the deeper the defender dug, the safer the shelter, it was all based on how much time was available to do so, but I think this would have been as basic as it got. This type of position could even be readily prepared even if the enemy already had LOS/LOF on the bocage itself. It still left the defender an option to withdraw from the position and still benefit from the cover afforded to them by the fact that they are on the opposite side of the bocage to the enemy.  You could imagine that in some instances troops may have tried to improve it by placing any logs or the like over the top to act as a kind of "roof"  Just by looking at this it seems a stretch to think that defenders in these trenches could/should be able to engage enemy on the other side.  Considering that the base of bocage was typically a mesh of roots, rocks and earth, just trying to bore/cutout/blast a firing slot through the 6'-10' thick bocage at essentially ground level  would have been no easy task, let alone the norm (I'm sure it was thinner in some cases).

 

Now I have heard references to more elaborate "bunker' type structures and networks in the bocage of '44, that afforded overhead protection though I don't think I have found any when I tried searching.   If they did occur, I can imagine that they were all based on expanding on what I think was the basic common entrenchment you see above.

 

Given time (something German defenders in the bocage of '44 didn't have too much of), it seems plausible that the next logical improvement that could be made to this shelter was perhaps some form of this:

 

 

This gives more of an overhead shelter from artillery fire.  I do not think digging this type of shelter out was at all easy let alone possible in some/most(?) cases.  It all depended on how deep the mesh of roots/rock extended beneath the bocage.  The photo above seems to be one of these types.

 

Given even more time to prepare (I would say perhaps a week or two or more), perhaps the next evolution of this entrenchment may have looked something like this:

 

 

The depth of course could be deeper to allow easier access through the "tunnel" that provided sheltered access to either side of the bocage but I am just illustrating the concept.  It is only when a slit trench is dug on the immediate opposite side of the bocage like this that I can realistically imagine what perhaps a defend in place dug in bocage defensive position might of looked like. You can imagine perhaps even a long trench system running along this opposite side of the bocage with perhaps a few "feeder tunnels" that safely connected them to the defensive side of the bocage to both withdraw and reinforce relatively safely.  Of course the tunnel itself would also provide shelter from any artillery attack.

 

With even more time and resources, you could imagine perhaps sandbagging the forward trench if need be or even using logs, branches and camouflage to perhaps make some kind of makeshift bunker. Perhaps this happened but again it all depended on time available, the terrain and resources available.

 

If you just dig a slit trench on the forward attacking side of the bocage without a direct avenue to withdraw to the opposite safer side of the bocage, then fighting from this position would be literally like fighting with your back up against a wall. To withdraw from or reinforce this position, the soldier would ultimately be exposed to direct fire from attackers and be required to instead pas between the opposite sides of the bocage via a break in the bocage (natural or otherwise).  I can however imagine a slit trench system on both the front and rear sides of the bocage linked by a trench that was dug at one of these breaks in the bocage.  In is worth remembering that, unlike digging on the defensive side of the bocage, digging anything on the forward side of the bocage when the enemy already have range and LOS of the bocage line would itself be a hazardous/prohibitive proposition. This reinforces perhaps why such types of entrenchment systems were probably much less common and prevalent than the original type I have illustrated.

 

I think I may of heard of instances or references to "elaborate entrenchment systems" in the bocage fighting of '44.  I would probably think it worked and evolved to be something like how I have explained.

 

So in summary, apart from perhaps these rarer, more "elaborate entrenchment systems" (which I still don't have any accurate references of or to), it appears to me that CMx2 actually is probably not really that far off in giving players the ability to simulate realistic implementation of entrenched positions in bocage,  Placing entrenchments or foxholes on the defensive side of bocage for the primary purpose of providing a local refuge against artillery and mortar fire is/was perhaps the most realistic and common role entrenchments had during the fighting in the hedgerows. If there is something lacking, it would be that you can not always place foxholes directly adjacent to a bocage because of other terrain features in proximity to the bocage.

eg.  in the case where you can't place foxholes/trench between two rows of bocage that effectively together form a lane.

 

I definitely don't think the depiction of combining both hedgerow cover, cover from an entrenched position and LOS/LOF through the hedgerow (like in the screenshot at the top and Close Combat!) is a realistic depiction of what "entrenched" bocage fighting in Normandy during 1944 was.

[Bulletpoint]

Interesting post, thanks.

 

But it seems to me that in real life, the Germans would be able to defend from the hedgerow, then quickly jump into the foxholes when they heard incoming artillery, then relatively quickly get back out again and resume firing positions after the barrage. In the game, the AI at least cannot do that.

 

Another thought: I don't see what the benefit would be from having foxholes or a slit trench running on the "hot" side of the bocage. You'd be better off just digging your trench in the middle of a field, preferably on a ridgeline. Because that way, a shell passing over you would just whiz past, but if you had a hedge behind you, it would detonate against it and you would likely be toast.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

Interesting bit of research and analysis, thanks for that.

Edited to fix auto correct.

Edited March 21, 2015 by IanL

[Lt Bull]

But it seems to me that in real life, the Germans would be able to defend from the hedgerow, then quickly jump into the foxholes when they heard incoming artillery, then relatively quickly get back out again and resume firing positions after the barrage. In the game, the AI at least cannot do that.

 

That's exactly what I am concluding however playing vs the AI is not a good measure for how realistic CMx2 can be at simulating typical bocage combat.  You need to make that evaluation when facing a competent human player.

 

 

Another thought: I don't see what the benefit would be from having foxholes or a slit trench running on the "hot" side of the bocage. You'd be better off just digging your trench in the middle of a field, preferably on a ridgeline. Because that way, a shell passing over you would just whiz past, but if you had a hedge behind you, it would detonate against it and you would likely be toast.

 

 

Well I think that assessing the benefit of having any form or foxhole/slit trench on the "hot" side of the bocage is debatable.  Just keep in mind that realistically, this type of entrenchment is the simplest case explanation for understanding any account we might hear that specifically may refer to defenders actually "fighting from within dug-in positions along the bocage".  The only real benefit I can see is that perhaps maybe in some cases the LOS/LOF from behind the hedgerows was so poor or non-existent, that it was worth just giving up the defensive benefits it provided from being behind it altogether to instead occupy an entrenchment located just in front of it, with at least a gap in the hedgerows immediately behind it serving as an important vital path for withdrawal.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Lt Bull

[Warts 'n' all]

A really interesting piece. One of the problems when reading about the fighting in Normandy is that the phrase *in the bocage" means different things to different writers, which can be a tad confusing. Some use it in the literal sense to describe the type of countryside, and the way it is used in place names such as, Villers-Bocage. Therefore there are towns, orchards, roads etc that are "in the bocage". So when reading about prepared defences, or a network of trenches "in the bocage", the author might not be describing what we as players think of as being defences amongst the hedgerows. In that instance Bulletpoint's "trench in the middle of a field" would be described as "in the bocage".

 

But setting all that to one side. The way field defences along the hedgerows work in game is handled pretty well. Although it might be helpful if we could line our foxholes up along the base of a hedgerow, rather than have them come in a clump of four in roughly a square shape. Also, Lt. Bull makes a good point about Norman hedgerows varying in size, shape, height and width. I'm not sure how well that fact is reflected in CM. One thing that should be born in mind by map designer's and us players is that the ground on one side of a hedgerow would normally be higher than on the other. And not both be of the same height as shown in the drawings that Lt Bull managed to find. In a perfect world, we would have umpteen different hedgerow types to play with rather than just three. But I think by and large, most maps in CM gave us an accurate battlefield to fight on. It is up to us to overcome the challenges of fighting on them. Posts like Lt. Bull's certainly help.

[Bulletpoint]

That's exactly what I am concluding however playing vs the AI is not a good measure for how realistic CMx2 can be at simulating typical bocage combat.  You need to make that evaluation when facing a competent human player.

 

 

My point was that since this behaviour falls into the gap between "micro" behaviour (TacAI) and "macro" behaviour (the orders issued by the player), it might be better to have one more type of bocage - fortified bocage. It would look like bocage with a couple of foxholes behind it, and the tile would provide the same cover against direct fire as regular bocage, but a bonus against artillery. You wouldn't see troops hopping in and out of the foxholes, but it would simulate that.

 

I understand your point about multiplayer, but even against a competent human opponent, the WeGo system means that you might have a full minute before you can issue the order to go to the foxholes, and you rarely have that much warning before the shells drop. In real life, it would be much more flexible and quick.

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe some day, the TacAI can be made aware of the eight action squares in the immediate vicinity of each team, so that if the team hears that shells are incoming, it will check if there is any cover nearby, and the troops will make a quick dash to throw themselves in foxholes, shell-holes, etc. This could be tied to troop quality and experience too.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[Pak40]

Maybe some day, the TacAI can be made aware of the eight action squares in the immediate vicinity of each team, so that if the team hears that shells are incoming, it will check if there is any cover nearby, and the troops will make a quick dash to throw themselves in foxholes, shell-holes, etc. This could be tied to troop quality and experience too.

 

I agree that CM should allow fox holes to be placed on a bocage AS. I don't really understand why they don't allow this -  it's possible in the editor if you place the foxholes first and then place the bocage, as LT Bull's screen shot clearly shows, so why not allow a player to place foxholes near the bocage? I think the answer is because in CM, foxholes are actually above the ground and would give the defender an advantage of both using a foxhole and bocage at the same time - this leads me to another issue, and this is important for people to understand, IRL foxholes next to bocage cannot be used simultaneously while the unit is firing over the bocage. It's one or the other. I think this is the real issue with CM because the TacAI doesn't really understand this concept. The TacAI sees the foxholes as cover yet the player may want the unit to be "out of the foxhole" so that it can defend the bocage. 

 

In order to fix all of these issues, Battlefront would need to:

1. properly model foxholes as holes in the ground as opposed to the current above ground fortification (this goes for trenches too)

2. allow foxholes to be placed under linear structure tiles such as bocage, hedges, fences, and walls

3. Develop the TacAI and/or command system that soldiers to use the foxholes when artillery is incoming and get out of them when they need to look or shoot through the bocage

 

I don't know why #1 isn't possible. Battlefront has previously explained why but I don't remember their reasoning. Surely, it must be possible because craters from artillery actually carve a hole into the ground.

 

#3 obviously would be the most complex part about this. 

Edited March 21, 2015 by Pak40

[c3k]

Or, having burrowed into the backside of the bocage, a simple hole (rifle loop) could be extended into the face of the bocage. This allows protection from artillery AND the ability to put fire upon the field.

 

Alternatively, cutting some footholds into the rear of the bocage would allow it to be used as a sort of parapet. Hide behind it, in whatever manner of foxhole you've created, and pop up as needed.

[Christian Knudsen]

For me the real question is, as a first-time scenario designer, how does one replicate the types of defences that the Germans had in the bocage?  It does not take long to dig a hole, and I have no problems in seeing riflemen digging the sort of loops that c3k describes in a few hours, tops.  These positions were very hard to see, and it seems that locating the enemy was a big problem, hence the smoke and spray tactics that evolved for assaulting these fields.

 

But in the current engine it is too easy to spot fortifications anyways.  I think addressing that issue would go a long way towards helping in general.  But to do it properly, we either need to beef up the bocage tile significantly, giving it indirect protection similar to a foxhole, while making it a bigger spotting hindrance, or we need a "fortified bocage" square that gives those benefits. 

 

Unfortunately, a special terrain tile creates the same problems as putting a foxhole under a bocage square; it means that either the defender has to have access to the map editor pre-battle, or have the defences laid out by the scenario designer.  This either constricts the H2H defender, or creates scenarios that are only meant to be played as the attacker vs. the AI.  A "bocage" fortification would be good, but it would, I suspect, be hard to code, as it would have to be able to be placed on a linear feature, unlike all other fortifications.

 

On the other hand, it would be great if we could have all sorts of fortified linear features - looped bocage, walls, and buildings would be fantastic.

 

I am experimenting with just giving the defenders more mines and TRPs, in an effort to attrit the attacker in the approach to make up for the increased fragility of the defenders relative to having more "realistic" positions from which to fight, but it is still an experiment.

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't know why #1 isn't possible. Battlefront has previously explained why but I don't remember their reasoning. Surely, it must be possible because craters from artillery actually carve a hole into the ground.

It is not possible due to fog of war considerations. Any deformations of the terrain mesh is always visible to both sides.

[Christian Knudsen]

And even then, it is really easy to see trench lines in the terrain if one knows what to look for, as they seem to deform the terrain anyways.

[Pak40]

It is not possible due to fog of war considerations. Any deformations of the terrain mesh is always visible to both sides.

 

Hmm, but there are ways around this. Not ideal, but there are ways. For example, Squad Leader and other board games have the same issues, the terrain is seen by both sides. But SL had those concealment counters which allowed a player to put either a fake unit under it or a real unit. The opposing player never knew exactly where the real units were. In CM this could simply be done by placing a lot more foxholes than you need, which is wise to do anyway.

 

Ideally enemy foxholes would be treated to similar spotting rules for enemy units. If they're spotted then they become visible to the opposing unit, otherwise they just blend into the surrounding terrain as if they were't there.

[Lt Bull]

...this is important for people to understand, IRL foxholes next to bocage cannot be used simultaneously while the unit is firing over the bocage. It's one or the other...

 

Yes, this is one of the misconceptions many of us have/had about how entrenchments in the bocage actually functioned, as I have tried to illustrate and explain.

 

Or, having burrowed into the backside of the bocage, a simple hole (rifle loop) could be extended into the face of the bocage. This allows protection from artillery AND the ability to put fire upon the field.

 

Alternatively, cutting some footholds into the rear of the bocage would allow it to be used as a sort of parapet. Hide behind it, in whatever manner of foxhole you've created, and pop up as needed.

 

You reaslise that what you are describing/suggestion is exactly the misconception about how entrenchments and bocage were actually used that I am trying to dispel?

So you think a simple hole (or loop) could be extended in to the rear face of the bocage (through 6-10ft of rock, roots and dirt) to allow exactly what you say, the ability for entrenched troops on one side of the bocage to fire through what would either be a hole or slit passing through the base of the bocage, at targets in the field on the other side of the bocage?  Please tell me your evidence or reasoning fro this extends beyond that this is how it is in Close Combat.

 

For me the real question is, as a first-time scenario designer, how does one replicate the types of defences that the Germans had in the bocage?  It does not take long to dig a hole, and I have no problems in seeing riflemen digging the sort of loops that c3k describes in a few hours, tops.  These positions were very hard to see, and it seems that locating the enemy was a big problem, hence the smoke and spray tactics that evolved for assaulting these fields.

 

I think the real question you should first be answering is what kind of defences did the Germans have in the bocage. I have already explained in detail why the types of entrenchments csk describes (functionally the same ones you can see in Close Combat) probably never even existed.  You have no problems apparently thinking that it would be easy for a typical German soldier to "carve" a hole or better, a slot, (lets assume approximately at least 1 foot in diameter or length) horizontally through 6-10 feet of rocks and roots bocage all at ground level with the entrenchment tool he was equipped with, in no more than a few hours, tops?  I would pay you the trip to France to demonstrate this yourself.

 

Where are you getting the idea that not only did this actually happen, but that it happened so frequently that to not have it modeled and readily featured in a game like CMBN would make it less of a simulator of WW2 combat?  Please, share with us your evidence for this (and don't mention Close Combat!)

[Lt Bull]

I am experimenting with just giving the defenders more mines and TRPs, in an effort to attrit the attacker in the approach to make up for the increased fragility of the defenders relative to having more "realistic" positions from which to fight, but it is still an experiment.

 

I appreciate your efforts at trying to create maps/scenarios that simulate realistic bocage defences.  Regardless of what you do, it is very important to understand whether you intend the CPU opponent to play as the defender or whether it is for a human player because both the tools you need and the outcomes are probably going to be vastly different. I think it is much more challenging trying to create a realistic bocage defence intended for the CPU opponent as opposed to one designed to be played by a human player.

 

However, I think the use of mines and TRPs for the defenders definitely going in the right direction.  Again taken from "Busting the Bocage: American Combined Arms Operations in France, 16 June-31 July 1944":

 

"The Germans also implemented other measures to improve their scheme of hedgerow defenses........Furthermore, German commanders linked together their defensive positions with wire communications that allowed them to coordinate the defense of their sector. Snipers also were an important part of the German defense. They were used to protect machine-gun positions against infiltrating Americans and to deliver harassing fire during lulls in the action. Booby traps and mines abounded within the thick vegetation of the hedgerows. Trip-wire explosives were a German favorite."

 

Unfortunately for any CPU controlled defender, you can not expect the infantry to pull back from a firing position along the bocage to nearby foxholes in the event of an artillery/mortar attack, then return to the bocage line after the artillery attack has passed.  A human player can do that.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Lt Bull

[JonS]

Good post Lt Bull.

 

"carve" a hole or better, a slot, (lets assume approximately at least 1 foot in diameter or length) horizontally through 6-10 feet of rocks and roots bocage

 

Consider also, assuming these holes/slots as a given, what the defender would actually be able to see and engage.

 

Hint: basically nothing.

 

You'd be trying to defend Normandy by peering through - and engaging targets through - drinking straws.

[Bulletpoint]

It is not possible (to have trenches carve into terrain) due to fog of war considerations. Any deformations of the terrain mesh is always visible to both sides.

So just let the game wait until the trench is spotted, then deform the mesh. Simple no?

[JonS]

Yeah, that's exactly the epiphany Battlefront have been waiting on these last ten years.

[Rokko]

Actually that would be a pretty neat solution if it could be done, but I am sure that has been considered internally already, long before CMBN was even released.

I think thats the way it is done in Operation Star, which has really pretty looking trenches imho.

[c3k]

 

 

 

You reaslise that what you are describing/suggestion is exactly the misconception about how entrenchments and bocage were actually used that I am trying to dispel?

So you think a simple hole (or loop) could be extended in to the rear face of the bocage (through 6-10ft of rock, roots and dirt) to allow exactly what you say, the ability for entrenched troops on one side of the bocage to fire through what would either be a hole or slit passing through the base of the bocage, at targets in the field on the other side of the bocage?  Please tell me your evidence or reasoning fro this extends beyond that this is how it is in Close Combat.

 

 

I think the real question you should first be answering is what kind of defences did the Germans have in the bocage. I have already explained in detail why the types of entrenchments csk describes (functionally the same ones you can see in Close Combat) probably never even existed.  You have no problems apparently thinking that it would be easy for a typical German soldier to "carve" a hole or better, a slot, (lets assume approximately at least 1 foot in diameter or length) horizontally through 6-10 feet of rocks and roots bocage all at ground level with the entrenchment tool he was equipped with, in no more than a few hours, tops?  I would pay you the trip to France to demonstrate this yourself.

 

Where are you getting the idea that not only did this actually happen, but that it happened so frequently that to not have it modeled and readily featured in a game like CMBN would make it less of a simulator of WW2 combat?  Please, share with us your evidence for this (and don't mention Close Combat!)

 

Lt. Bull,

 

Several points to your reply, which I've highlighted.

 

"Probably never even existed": Since I wasn't there, I can only rely upon the after action reports of those who were, on both sides. The type of loophole I described DID exist and were highly feared/prized, based on which side of the muzzle you were on. You probably want me cite the reports. Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to dig through my references for you.

 

"It would be easy": Really? Where or how did I intimate the level of exertion for this? You're putting words in my mouth. That's disingenuous (to be polite about it).

 

"A typical soldier": Again, you're not reading what I wrote. This is not a good reflection upon you. Where did I say that these were created by "a typical soldier", as if every man made his own?

 

"One foot in diameter through 6 to 10 feet of rocks and roots": That's your assumption. The loopholes I've read of did not even hint that it was a tunnel dug all the way through. They seem to have been part of a "bubble" created in the bocage, with the last foot being used to create the loophole. 

 

"I would pay you to demonstrate this yourself": I'll take you up on that. I want first class travel accomodations, similar hotels, and I will create these fortifications. How much will you pay? Seriously.

 

Now, to give you a chance to pull your head out of your ass, try not to impose your preconceptions on what others have written. A platoon of soldiers, with pioneer tools (you know, things like picks, mattocks, and pry bars) given a zone to fortify for several days, if not weeks, could easily create such a fortification in two corners of a bocage field. Is that what you were thinking about (because it is what I was, based on reading the histories), or did you think this was a hurried defense work?

 

Don't think about one man with a folding entrenching tool. Think of a unit of men and what they can do with some time, some tools, and the motivation to live.

 

Scalloping some handholds on the backside of the bocage, and leveling off the top so your head isn't silhouetted, is trivial.

 

It is ridiculous, and insulting, to create a strawman argument and try to make it seem as if I was saying that every man could create a personal bocage bunker with a folding shovel if he were given a brief reprieve from fighting. Do some more research. They existed.

[sburke]

Over the last two days I tore up 26 feet of sidewalk concrete and a driveway by myself while also digging down to an 8 inch depth to expose the tree roots that started this exercise and create a bed that meets city code..  I submit that your typical soldier given direction and the right tools (mentioned above by Ken) could create field fortifications.  Yes I have blisters.  I think a soldier would happily submit to having blisters to afford themselves of a good fighting position.  I will gladly come along as Ken's sidekick to prove this theory.  Please book my flight from San Francisco.

 

 

Edit - Ken you do plan to bring along the intern right?

Edited March 22, 2015 by sburke

[Christian Knudsen]

"During the period 1-10 July plans were made for-the capture of Hill 192. Aerial photos showed us that the enemy had certainly transformed the hill into a major strong point. Deep communication trenches were observed behind most of the larger hedgerows, but due to good camouflage and well concealed positions the exact location sof firing points, machine gun and mortar positions, and anti-tank positions could not be determined. We found out after the hill's capture that some german dugouts were as deep as twelve feet with underground passageways to concealed, firing positions within the hedgerows. The firing slits from these firing positions were covered by vines growing out of the hedgerows. Machine guns were located under hedgerows at junctions in order to cover all possible approaches."

 

This is from a paper written in 1947 by the CO of 1 Bn, 38 IR, 2nd Div, available at http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll2/id/429/rec/1.

 

""I snapped the turret to the left and put an HE on delay into the corner of the hedge.  It passed through the bank and exploded in the middle of a machine-gun nest.  The Jerry gun that had been pointed through a small slot on the bottom of the hedge fired no more."

 

Taken from:  Yeide, Harry.  The Infantry's Armour:  The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, 2010, Pg 165

 

There is also a great picture of a German MG position dug INTO the embankment on pg 81 of the War Department's Historical Division's St. Lo, published in 1947, and available at https://archive.org/stream/St-Lo#page/n89/mode/2up. Too lazy to try and post it, though.  Also some good ones on pgs 83-84.

 

I'm not saying that all hedgerow positions were so constructed, but certainly some were. 

 

And as for the power of the entrenching tool, I was in the infantry for over 15 years, and have dug many a hole, all too often in rocky and root-filled ground.  Given several days, I could certainly dig at a bare minimum a fire position (and living quarters, and communication trenches), in thick embankment,  As c3k mentioned, I too would be more than happy to demonstrate!

 

But again, it is sort of a moot point, as the engine will currently not allow us to co-locate fortifications and linear features.  So how do we, in the game, give hedgerow defenders the protection from small arms that they seemed to enjoy, to the degree that the winning formulas devised for cracking such defences ALL involved large amounts of HE, both direct and indirect?

[c3k]

^^^

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post those reports.

 

Lowering hackles...now.

 

A lot of non-military folks really don't understand how much work can be done by a motivated individual. The threat of death or dismemberment can really motivate.

 

Back to the game...

 

The only way to simulate this would be the map-maker creating special holes (ditch-lock) and putting vegetation and walls/bocage around them. Plus, give the defender a surfeit of foxholes/entrenchments and TRP's. Create fake strongpoints which force the attacker to expend time, energy, and firepower on them. As the Germans did, always keep a reserve to attack a flank. Create gaps in certain bocage, both for movement and keyhole firepower. Low bocage mixed with high bocage in the same feature.

 

Edited to add: the purpose of the extra strongpoints (by terrain manipulation by the designer) and excess entrenchments, are to confuse the enemy as to the location of the real defenses. If EVERY corner could be the one, he can't ignore any of them. /Edit.

 

Not every bocage field was a fortress. Certain key fields were. Design them as the defensive key, and have counterattack reserves positioned to strike the fields which approach that key field.

 

That, at least, was the desired doctrine for German defense in the bocage. They didn't always have the time to do so, especially after Cobra got under way, nor were they always in the correct position. However, professional soldiers bet their lives on their ability to read terrain and place defenses in the right position. A lot of times, the initial German defenses got it right.

 

Ken

Edited March 22, 2015 by c3k

[Christian Knudsen]

"The only way to simulate this would be the map-maker creating special holes (ditch-lock) and putting vegetation and walls/bocage around them. Plus, give the defender a surfeit of foxholes/entrenchments and TRP's. Create fake strongpoints which force the attacker to expend time, energy, and firepower on them. As the Germans did, always keep a reserve to attack a flank. Create gaps in certain bocage, both for movement and keyhole firepower. Low bocage mixed with high bocage in the same feature."

 

I agree, but unfortunately this raises the issue that I talked about earlier regarding scenario design.  I.e. you end up with puzzle-like scenarios that are designed to be played only once as Allies vs the AI, or you have to create maps that either put fortifications and gaps EVERYWHERE, allowing the defender to pick where they want to actually place the defence, or you put fortifications and gaps in places that make sense to you as the designer, and thus totally limit the scenario defender.

 

I have a depressing feeling that we will have to wait until CMx3 to see the mixing of fortifications and linear feature tiles, or else the ability for defenders to make map adjustments prior to setup.

[womble]

Wooden bunkers behind bocage. That's how you'd simulate it with the current tools available. They can see and shoot out. The bocage catches most of the bullets and they need decent sized HE (bigger than 81mm mortars or 75mm HE) to bust 'em. They're too visible, but unless you've got some 105mm to drop on them, it really doesn't matter much.