Bocage, bocage defenses and CMx2

[Lt Bull]

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.

 

Oh, that's too bad. Unfortunately the only thing that has value in this discussion in evidence, something you don't want to provide for some reason....arrogance? spite? If you can't discuss without presenting at least some evidence, perhaps find another thread.

 

"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).

 

Here...

 

Or, having burrowed into the backside of the bocage, a simple hole (rifle loop) could be extended into the face of the bocage.

 

Why did you describe it as a "simple" hole? It is not that. Do you know what the dictionary says about that adjective?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple

simple (adjective)

1.

not involved or complicated; easy to understand or do: a simple problem

"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?

 

Have you forgotten what this thread is about?  The most typical/common/expected type of entrenchment used by Germans in the bocage of '44 and how CMx2 simulates it. It is my understanding that a typical solider does dig his own entrenchment using the equipment and tools he typically has access to, making what ends up being a typical entrenchment.  If you are talking about exceptional cases (even without presenting any evidence at all), please make it clear to all that you are actually referring to the exceptions.

 

"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. 

 

Yeah, well the only assumption made that is mine is the size of the slot/hole. The thickness and composition of bocage is as per references already cited.  Not sure what the point is of bringing up these rather conservative assumptions given nothing else has been presented.  I am guessing you are suggesting something like this:

 

 

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.

 

You are unbelievable. Its your own head from your own ass that needs to be extracted. This thread really is about understanding how Germans typically used entrenchments in the bocage in 1944 and whether CM simulates it well enough.  If you want to go and talk without evidence about perhaps the handful of instances where they get a little bit more adventurous and created defenses like you have tried to describe but I have illustrated better (I would agree that the St Lo area would be where you would find them) cool, then say that you are.

 

Disingenuous, imposing, ridiculous and insulting? Nice. Just calm down and stop playing the wounded victim. Unbelievable some people.

 

Do some more research. They existed.

 

Probably around St Lo.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

Hi Christian,

 

Nice research and referfences.  If you are specifically trying to create a CM scenario/map that simulates every and all of the forms of bocage defenses no matter how common/rare they actually were (like the ones that seem to have been prevalent around Hill 192/St Lo), then I can understand that it is more difficult to do so.

 

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."

 

Yes, Hill 192/St Lo area seems to be the exception. Did it happen elsewhere?  Enough for it to be modeled in CMx2?

 

"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."

 

It does say hedge (not hedgerow or bocage).  Can't really be sure of what exactly was going on there without further information.

 

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.

 

Love that reference BTW, cool how the pages turn too! I'm not lazy, here are the photos:

 

 

From photo alone it is difficult to determine how much was dug out (vertically down or in to the hedgerow) or whether the hedgerow was thin enough anyway to punch a slit through.  Looks like it was a standing position but where is the natural ground level?

 

 

Again a bit hard to work out exactly what is going. In top photo, is that the defensive or attacking side of the hedgerow? No hedgerow is visible in the bottom photo.

 

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?

 

Not disagreeing or disputing your claims here at all.  If I would send anyone over to France to demonstrate it would be you.

 

Yes it would be cool to even have these more exotic bocage defenses in CM, even if they did just occur at Hill 192/St Lo.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Lt Bull

[sburke]

 

Not disagreeing or disputing your claims here at all.  If I would send anyone over to France to demonstrate it would be you.

 

 

Bloody favoritism!!!

[Christian Knudsen]

Lt Bull, I actually disagree with your premise that these types of "looping" was not that common, but with a couple of provisos, which I will address.

 

The amount to which a unit is "dug in" is directly a function of time spent on position.  And there were periods, especially when the Amis were busy clearing Cherbourg, that the Germans had plenty of time to improve positions, as First Army did not really turn south in any strength until the first weeks of July, giving German units almost a month to prepare positions in some cases. 

 

When a unit occupies a defensive position, there is always a priority of work that goes on.  This usually looks something like this:

1.  Deploy OPs/LPs

2.  Dig slit trenches - these are usually just big enough to lie in and still below the plane of the ground, and can be dug in a very short time.  In this case, I agree with you that it would have made sense to start with the ditches at the ends of the fields, assuming these were not waterlogged.

3.  Prepare range cards.

4.  Dig fighting trenches.

5.  Lay comms wire all over the bloody place.

6.  Begin constructing defensive obstacles according to the obstacle plan.

7.  Dig overhead protection and shelters.

8.  Dig depth/fallback positions

9.  Dig communications trenches between positions.

 

Keep in mind that this is off the top of my head, I am probably missing stuff, and things like defensive fire pre-registrations for direct and indirect fires would be started early and continue throughout, in increasing complexity as secondary killzones are covered.

 

The point I am trying to make is that the development of a position is a very planned and organized affair that is done to a timetable - for instance I expect that fighting trenches will be complete and overhead protection started no later than six hours of troops arriving on the position.  After a month, I would expect that fighting positions, obstacles, shelters and comms trenches would be extensive, which is what we see on Hill 192, and, I would expect that to be repeated in any position that was occupied for any length of time.  In fact, a competent unit should have a fully developed position, with strong fighting positions, some fallbacks, and a developing obstacle network, after only a few days on position, with this time getting shorter the further away from the enemy the unit is. 

 

So we can see that time is less of a factor than one might think.  Of course a unit might lack some sorts of defensive stores like wire and mines, which would lessen the obstacle plan.  But digging can be completed very quickly, even while manning the MLR, maintaining outposts, and conducting standard administration like eating and maybe even sleeping once in a blue moon.

 

Your main argument against "looping" and digging "into" the bocage (where possible, of course), seems to be that it was too hard, what with all the rocks and roots and such.  But there are several advantages to doing it that make the effort really worthwhile for the defender versus fighting from the top of the embankment.  First is that you have more overhead protection, thus removing the need to jump into a separate foxhole, from which you can't put fire into the adjacent field.  Second, you are much harder to spot, as you can camouflage your firing slit quite easily.  Just these two factors increase survivability quite a bit.  So why would you not, especially if you had time to do so?   It's what I would have done, and I value my skin quite highly.

 

And to those who object that the firing slit would have restricted field of view too much, this actually is a bonus.  You dig the slit just wide enough to cover the arcs of responsibility for that weapon system, and trust your flanks to your comrades.  While it is good to be able to see, whatever you can see can potentially see you too, which is why you never occupy a position that has longer lines of sight than you can engage with your own weapons systems, and why reverse slope positions are so valued.

 

Anyways, I want to stress that the level of fortification encountered was largely a function of how long the defender had to prepare, and there were plenty of occasions where the defenders did not have time to do much more than dig a few foxholes behind the embankment and then fight from the top.  But digging in does not take long at all, especially when you are motivated to stay alive, and the advantages to digging IN to the embankment far outweighed the disadvantages.