Ghost walls?

[Guest Offwhite]

Pardon me while I jump into the board feet-first...

re: hedgerows - As Fionn says, US tanks did indeed push through, once they had the prongs attached. But that wasn't until more than a month after the landings, from everything I've read (like that Ambrose title referenced by JoshK).

Also regarding walls, what exactly is their effect on LOS? I did a search on the board but didn't find previous material on this exact question. I was rather surprised that units in the Last Defense wheatfield are visible to defenders on the ground floors of the buildings across the road (the church, etc.).

[SimonFox]

I also disagree with Fionn's assessment of the frequency of underbelly exposure when crossing bocage hedges. Though he is correct in saying that a significant percentage of bocage hedges were basically inpenetrable by tanks. As correctly pointed out by Offwhite the Rhino's were developed later as a result of experience gained in the bocage. There are many accounts regarding the vulnerability of tanks when crossing them. Also as far as I know British tanks didn't employ the Rhino. For a good first hand account of tanks crossing bocage try Ken Tout or A Elson. The apprehension felt by the tank crew when this occurred are vividly described. Interestingly Tout also gives descriptions of using the holes made by german tanks in the hedges- they knew it was german because they were Tiger sized

All in all though I don't think it's necessary to simulate it though it might be nice.

[Fionn]

Umm guys, the reason that rhino prongs were developed was because Shermans (and other tanks) COULDN'T climb over the Bocage.

Go to Normandy and take a look at the bocage someday, no tank is climbing over that . Basicalyl a tank would expose its underbelly if it CLIMBED the bocage BUT seeing as no tanks could actually climb the bocage none exposed their bellies while doing so.

Rhina prongs cut the bocage at a height of 2 to 3 feet which IS climable by tanks. Tanks climbing this CUT bocage could reduce their belly armour IF they hit it at high speed and literally bounced into the air.

One other point... Get a tank and look at it's front.. For my purposes pick a non-UK tank made post-43 (since I don't want to have to explain vertical driver's step armour etc.) . Now you'll see the turret front armour, the mantlet armour the upper glacis plate and THEN guarding the bottom part of the hull and angled downwards and away from you the lower glacis plate. If a tank is climbing a little 3 foot wall at slow speed it is THIS lower glacis plate which is going to be exposed (and not the belly armour). Lower glacis plate armour is tracked in CM BTW.

Belly armour would ONLY be exposed in a very. very few situations most of which involve the tank hitting a ramp-like obstacle at such high speed that it literally leaps into the air.

So, to summarise:

1. Prior to prongs US tanks did not pass through hedgerows at all (thus no belly shots).

2. When using prongs the tank swiveled slowly from side to side cutting like a saw OR sometimes just charged into the bocage time and again ramming it (seems damned stupid to me but tank driver's can be a weird lot). In EITHER of these maneuvres the tank never pitched up sufficiently to expose it's underbelly.

3. When passing over a low wall or cut bocage at low speed lower glacis would be exposed but not underbelly.

4. When hitting a wall or bocage at 20 or more miles an hour I'm sure the tank could leap into the air, expose its underbelly for a second BUT I'm equally sure that there would be crew casualties from the rattling (end result is that while it looks great in cinefilm it wasn't the usual way of doing things in battle).

5. People are not making the necessary distinctions between passing through an engineered hole in the bocage and tank-created rough gaps. An engineered hole would be reduced significantly precisely to prevent underbelly exposure.

All in all IMO underbelly exposure is being vastly overestimated due to :

a) some people obviously thinking tanks tried to scale Bocage succesfully pre-Rhinos

people misunderstanding the speed at which rhinos cut through and went through bocage

c) the nature of the fear the books describe being misunderstood. The tanks weren't afraid of going through the gap cause their underbelly would be exposed (which it wouldn't). They were afraid because they knew every German AT weapon in that field was aimed and zeroed in at that gap and that whenever the German CO chose to initiate the ambush they'd have less than 5 seconds to get out of their tank before being probably burned alive.

Hope that clears up some of the minor misconceptions.

PS. Walls block LOS from the same elevation. If the enemy is at a higher elevation then walls won't block LOS since they can see over them. Also be VERY close but not on the walls to get protection from them.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Offwhite]

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Walls block LOS from the same elevation. If the enemy is at a higher elevation then walls won't block LOS since they can see over them. Also be VERY close but not on the walls to get protection from them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Height advantage and proximity to the wall as factors in LOS make perfect sense to me. However, that row of buildings in the LD scenario is lower than the wall and wheatfield. The red/yellow targeting lines were actually passing beneath the wall and yet were unobstructed. I realize those lines are abstracted, but I still can't envision how units on the ground floor of the buildings can see beyond the wall that is higher than they are.

Now back to that belly armor thing... I can't name any source (other than Fionn ) that definitively says "tanks regularly climbed bocage and exposed their undersides" or "tanks never climbed bocage." Can anyone else? After all, we can't just go taking everyone's posts as infallible.

PS - sorry if my attempts at UBB code don't go through; I've never messed with the stuff before.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tanks absolutely could not climb boccage. As Fionn said, this was the whole problem with them. They are a couple of meters tall, and unless we are talking Hover Tanks , there is no physical way for a tank to get over the top. In many instances the boccage was TALLER than even the tallest tank.

Contrary to popular belief, tanks had trouble going over anything greater in height than about 50cm. Velocity and tank designs make this very variable (more or less), but a rough rule of thumb is that the height of the object being driven over had to be less than half the hight of the front drive wheel (or return wheel in some cases).

As far as LOS is concerned, there is some abstraction with the spotting, but those units behind the wall, if lying prone, should be nearly totally protected from enemy fire from the bottom floor of the houses. Terrain is treated differently for spotting and cover purposes.

Steve

[Fionn]

Some of the common German tank chassis (I think it was the PZ III chassis but I haven't checked this in one of my books so don't quote me on the exact figure) had difficulty going over a 30 centimetre (that is LESS than 1 foot) vertical step.

E.g. If they came up to a 2 foot tall wall they had to go around.

Obviously as the war progresses tanks were built to handle greater vertical steps and one of the later chassis could handle a 90 cm vertical step. Still, as you can see these aren't the all-terrain wall-crushers of military myth and movie fame .

Data's great cause it simply and quickly can dispel all manner of hollywood myth which becomes entrenched in minds from repetition in movies. We've all seen tanks virtually leap tall walls but few realise that there's a big ramp on one side of the wall to make that happen since no tank could realistically do that.

Ps. Offwhite, my posts are infallible as am I hehe . JUST KIDDING (before anyone organises a lynch-mob ).

P.p.s. Not sure what exact positions the LOS is taken from etc BUT I will say that when tracin LOS TO a house you can be deceived into thinking that LOS to the 2nd storey = LOS to the 1st which simply isn't the case.

I've had several occasions where I can see into the top floor of a house but not the bottom floor.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Offwhite]

Okay, thanks for the responses. BTW, I didn't preface my original message with the usual praise for the game, but of course it all applies.

In the situation I described, I was playing the Germans who were crossing the fields. Therefore I have no idea what their actual exposure value was to the infantry in the buildings, but now that I think about it, I don't believe I lost anyone.

Fionn, about peering into the top floor of the house, every time I try it she draws the blinds. 0% exposure is a bummer...

[Fionn]

Offwhite,

That's why God gave us tank main guns and HE shells to fire through them .

If I THINK a two-story house is occupied and I'm not planning to put infantry in there myself it is going down thanks to some nice main gun HE fire

|BTW I've put infantry in the bottom floor of those houses and have only been able to see to just past the wall in the wheatfield so I'm guessing you just made a mistake with the LOS tool and drew it to the 2nd floor of the building instead of to one of the squads on the first floor.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Offwhite]

Nope, no mistake. I've seen what you're talking about with the LOS line in other situations, but this time it was the actual red and yellow "those cursed Amis are shooting at us and we're shooting back" lines. I hadn't even bothered checking LOS in the orders phase because I was so sure the wall would block it. (Yes, that's awful tactical judgment on my part.)

Anyway, when the troops started drawing fire something like 2/3 of the way across the wheatfield, I paused the movie and highlighted my various units to see where the fire was coming from ("it couldn't possibly be from those buildings, but it is!"), so - this time at least - I know what I'm talking about. I'll mark it up to experience, I guess, and hopefully be prepared for similar situations in the future.

[SimonFox]

Well I admire the certainty with which Fionn states his opinions but I cannot agree with the absolutism with which he states that tanks (without Rhinos) did not cross bocage hedges (this was written before Steve's post but applies equally). Ironically I am substantially in agreement with the notion that simulating underbelly hits is largely unecessary for CM, though it could be rather neat. But, a dogmatic statement is like a red rag to a bull for an argumentative bastard like myself. There is no doubt that they were a formidable barrier to tanks. Indeed if you had asked me several years ago I would have agreed that they were impenetrable. For example in Hastings' Overlord he states "The huge earthen walls, thickly woven with tree and brush roots, that bordered every field were impenetrable to tanks." However, subsequently I have read far too many accounts of allied tanks crossing hedgerows from tankers themselves for me to continue in this conviction. Furthermore, after rereading I can categorically state that these accounts cannot be glibly dismissed as referring to crossing via previously blasted holes. I should also state at this stage that I don't take my information from movies since I am quite capable of assimilating information in a critical way.

First of all let us define what we are talking about here. The typical bocage hedge consists of an earthen bank of generally about 1-1.2m high surmounted by thick vegetation up several meters. There was obviously considerable variation.

For your information here are a number of relevant quotations some of which have been alluded to (and not specifically addressed by you) by Offwhite and myself among others:

From the "Tanks for the Memories: an oral histroy of the 712th tank battalion (A Elson)

"I got my tank and Judd Wiley's, and we jumped over the hedgerow and went out there, and there was a German soldier down in this big foxhole, the war was over for him. We went on by, and out in front of us we flushed a few Germans out, kind of like flushing quail out of the brush. I use that analogy because of the way these Germans would jump up and run a bit and then fall down so you didn't get a good shot at them."

"We went back over a hedgerow, and as we were going over it, half of the turret hatch on Wiley's tank the turret hatches are in two pieces, and they fold down one of the halves came unlatched and hit Wiley on his fingers, it crushed them."

From unit history of the 3rd Armoured division.

"Tanks could not climb the embankments of the hedgerows without exposing their undersides to anti-tank fire."

"In July 1944, tankers began welding iron beams to the front of Sherman tanks (like a set of teeth) to overcome the hedgerow problem. The tank could then drive directly at the hedgerow and plow through the mass of earth and vegetation without exposing itself. This was known as a "Rhino" conversion or Rhino tank."

From Tank! Ken Tout

"Stony Stratford digs its tracks into the high bank and begins to climb into the dense hedge. This is the moment we have all feared in Normandy. Whoever designed the Sherman had never heard of the Bocage! These thick, impenetrable hedges are planted on high banks defended by deep ditches. Moving from one field to another, the tank presents to the enemy its underside of thin plate, tempting to whatever iron beast or demon be lurking. So Harvey balances the tank on the ridge of the bank, balances and then allows it to topple gently over until the tracks have hit the lower ground, still with a nerve-jarring bump, and we are through, in the corner of an extensive vegetable field."

That idiot Tout! He forgot to mention he was in a M4 Hovertank

From Oral Interview Transcripts at www.tankbooks.com

"They surrounded the field. They were started in the ninth century, that's how old they were. They were built up like three or four feet of dirt, and then the brambles. With a hedge, heavy, thick hedges, and this surrounded the fields. Where we had fences, they had hedgerows, they put their cows and horses in there, and they were safe. But in those hedgerows, being wide, you could crawl in there, and a lot of snipers, we were losing guys left and right that went out to go to the bathroom and they would never come back."

"The undercarriage [of the tank] became exposed when you tried to climb them, too."

"We used to, when you'd go through that area, your machine guns would hit just above the

dirt part and just rake those hedgerows to knock off these snipers."

From Citizen Soldiers S Ambrose

"A major shortcoming of the Sherman for hedgerow fighting was its unarmored underbelly, which made it particularly vulnerable to the panzerfaust when it tried to climb a hedgerow."

and

"Countless attempts were made to break through or climb over it, but the Sherman wasn't powerful enough to break through the cementlike base, and when it climbed up the embankment, at the apex it exposed its unarmoured belly to German panzerfausts"

Fionn it's all very well and useful to take a mechanistic view of things by relying on data regarding various tanks capabilities. I don't think there were too many PzIIIs in Normandy by the way but I understand what your getting at (note understanding and agreement are not synonyms). But, how then can you reconcile that point of view with clearly contradictory accounts from the real world of actual practises which were different. In anticipation let me say that dismissal as isolated instances is not adequate as it does not directly address the question, particularly in light of the large number of references which can be found. Including those which distill their information from numerous accounts ie Ambrose.

Fionn said

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. All in all IMO underbelly exposure is being vastly overestimated due to :

a) some people obviously thinking tanks tried to scale Bocage succesfully pre-Rhinos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could they have obtained such a misconception?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> people misunderstanding the speed at which rhinos

cut through and went through bocage<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this entered the equation, point a) was the main point of contention. I agree it was a relatively slow process, compared to driving over the top of course We should also add that the rhinos were not the only technique employed as outlined in a post I made a long time ago to this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) the nature of the fear the books describe being misunderstood. The tanks weren't afraid of going through the gap cause their underbelly would be exposed (which it wouldn't). They were afraid because they knew every German AT weapon in that field was aimed and zeroed in at that gap<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ask this question without a hint of sarcasm: have you read those books, the quotes seem fairly self explanatory to me ? The term underbelly seems to crop up with amazing consistency doesn't it ?

Well that's plenty for you to think about. To continue in the self-depreciating Fionn vein, heaven forbid that Tout, Forrest, Wiley and all those other guys who commanded or crewed in tanks in Normandy should contradict Mr Infallible.

[This message has been edited by SimonFox (edited 12-02-99).]

[This message has been edited by SimonFox (edited 12-02-99).]

[Fionn]

Red and yellow lines are targetting lines.

They do NOT mean that the units have LOS..

E.g. You can select an out of LOS unit as a target.

End result, just because there were red and yellow targetting lines does not mean that at that particular time your units or the enemy units had LOS to eachother.

Check out what happens when a tank moves behind a house for a few seconds.. Even though it has no LOS the targetting line still remains locked on the previous (out of LOS) target.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[JoshK]

Based only on memory (I am at work), I think that "Patton's Best : An Informal History of the 4th Armored Division" by a divisional vet named Nat something or other had simillar first-hand acounts of tanks crossing bacage. However, what was the date of entry of the 4th.

Were they involved in much pre-Cobra fighting?

[SimonFox]

The 4th armoured landed Utah Beach 11th July 1944. It was part of Middletons' VIII corps and participated in the COBRA offensive on the 25th July but I am uncertain as to their employment prior to that. Going by the time scale probably not too much.

Gee, I must have given Fionn indigestion. I did have a barrel load of more stuff to throw onto the fire but I better hold off

[Guest Offwhite]

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Red and yellow lines are targetting lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but I like my descriptor better

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They do NOT mean that the units have LOS..

E.g. You can select an out of LOS unit as a target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and I've done it several times. However, I haven't seen the AI (or a friendly unit acting without instructions) target a unit that started the turn out of its LOS, until LOS was actually acquired. Does this ever happen?

Wish I had a screenshot or three to show what was going on. I guess I will have to hotseat the scenario and try to recreate the situation to take a better look.

PS - Thanks to SimonFox and JoshK who provided some book titles. I think I'll take a trip to the library sometime soon...

[Fionn]

Think REALISM Offwhite

Would you think it realistic for the AI to target a unit it couldn't see at the beginning of the turn? I hope not

A unit can track an enemy which pops out of sight for a few seconds but the AI isn't going to be tracking hidden units.

That would be a throwback to the "radar" and "all-seeing" nature of units in other games which so ruins ambushes etc.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Simon,

The one thing you are ignoring is that hedgerows come in all shapes and sizes. Because we can simulate *all* possible heights, we chose the tallest variety. This is the type that I addressed as it is the only one relevant to CM. If you want to do the lower hedgerows when making a scenario, use a normal hedge terrain instead.

The hedgerows we have allow *NO* tank in the world, not then and not now, to drive *over*. That would require a Hovertank What Trout is talking about are smaller ones which, if done correctly in the right circumstances, could be driven over very carefully.

So again, for clarity, hedgerows (bocage) come in more than one height. We simulate the higher ones, which the Rhino attachments were designed to allow the tank to pass through. Afterall, if a tank could drive over a 10 foot hedgerow, why would they need those silly pieces of iron welded to the front?

Steve

[SimonFox]

You say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The one thing you are ignoring is that hedgerows come in all shapes and sizes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a significant percentage of bocage hedges were basically inpenetrable by tanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>generally about 1-1.2m high surmounted by thick vegetation up several meters. There was obviously considerable variation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think my comprehension of the natural variability is fairly clear.

The bocage hedge is not a homogenous structure it consists basically of an earthen bank which is seldom 10ft high surmounted by a thick hedge. It is herein that lies the confusion that arises through the use in many texts of imprecise language. The earthen bank is impenetrable to tanks without the rhino (or bulldozer, or explosives) but often (but not always) it can be gradually surmounted and the hedge pushed over. The tank does not climb the 10ft hedgerow it climbs the 3-4ft earthen bank and pushes through the 6ft of hedge on top, admittedly a difficult but not impossible process. The advantage of the Rhino is that it: (1) makes a gap for other tanks, vehicles or infantry to use; (2) does not expose the tanks underbelly and generally the tank is less vulnerable and (3) is a heck of a lot easier.

By the way the British version of the Rhino were called "hedgerow prongs".

Also on The Gamers Net, 'Wild' Bill Wilder writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Sherman, though it weighted 30 tons, could not force its way through the hedge. Instead, it would rise up above it, roll over it, and crash down on the other side. Often the turret would have to be reversed, so as not to damage the gun barrel. It would thus rise up in front on impact, exposing its thinly armored underbelly to all types of fire. This armor could even be penetrated by a heavy machine gun, and often times it was. When the tank then came to rest, its crew was riddled. Even worse, an antitank round would cremate both tank and crew; "brew it up," as the British say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe

[Guest Big Time Software]

Simon, if you think that a tank driving over a 10foot hight obstical was an exception (and a difficult one at that) rather than the rule, we agree. But if you think that any tank could do this at any time and point of its chosing, I totally disagree.

What you are describing, the crashing over of a multi foot hedgerow, is not possible unless other conditions exist to allow for this. In other words, not all spots in a hedgerow are created equal. We don't have the luxury of simulating several different types of hedgerows, nor the preparations necessary to crest them. Therefore, all CM hedgerows are penetratable by Rhino attachments or not at all.

I remember reading about soldiers filling in ditches and basically building ramps for the tank to get a good angle and height too. But again, we aren't simulating this stuff. Generally *anything* is possible if you get enough of an opportunity to overcome natural limitations, but this isn't something we could, nor should, simulate.

Steve

[Guest Charles]

I think I see what Simon is trying to say here. He is not implying that tanks could cross the bocage at any time and any place. Instead, it depends. Let me see if I can clarify...

Sherman's (or almost any WWII tank for that matter) had no trouble going through the leafy vegetation such as found in the bocage (I am ignoring the seperate problem of lack of los for purposes of this discussion). They did have trouble going through the earthen mounds that formed the base of the bocage, depending on the height of the mound. So, while the entirety of the bocage might have been 6, 7, or even 12 feet high, the mounds themselves were rarely over 3 feet tall; some being shorter, others taller. The rest of the bocage consisted of this leafy vegetation.

The main point being that the bocage did not consist of a 10 to 12 foot high inpenetrable wall of earth. In more than just a few cases, the earthen part of the bocage was low enough to be crossed by a tank.

Having said this, I agree with BTS that trying to simulate the great variety of hedgerows found in Normandy would be a major headache, if not impossible. So, for game purposes, all hedgerows must be identical. OTOH, would it be possible to place "gaps" in some of the hedgerows, simulating low spots where it might be possible to cross the bocage? Note that this would open up some interesting tactical considerations. For instance, should the Allied tank risk going through one of these gaps, knowing it would be a prime location for an ambush; or should they go around, thus wasting valuable time?

I'm not trying to be difficult, just suggesting this might be a reasonable compromise between game design limitations and reality.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS

[Moon]

Charles (and others) - have you ever seen a bocage hedgerow for real? I seriously doubt that a tank could drive through that "without a problem". It's not only leaves, there are intermingled trees, and the bushes are too thick sometimes even for a man to try to go through. These things have been growing for hundreds of years!

But of course, there is bocage and there is bocage, and density and composition varies greatly. The bocage in CM is assumed to be of medium consistency I would say, too tough for a tank without rhinos. And that's the bottom line I guess

[Fionn]

Leafy vegetation?

Whoa Charles, I think it's time for you to check out what Bocage is really like. The best way to describe it is a " virtually impenetrable thicket of intertwined branches, trunks, vines and bushes".

As Martin has said Bocage has been grown for 100s of years a a wind-break. It is virtually impenetrable to air never mind tanks. Hell it really is like asking a tank to crash through a brick wall.

The big earthen mound is a problem and so is the actual vegetation. The vegetation isn't some little thing you can easily push through.

Does anyone have some good pics of bocage on the net or something so people can see what it really is like?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Compassion]

Fionn said a while back:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well plane bullets wouldn't penetrate belly armour anyway.

They would simply damage drivetrains and other unarmoured things so missing out the belly armour for such things as planes isn't a big deal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be pedantic or to bring up old topics, but a .50 would indeed punch holes in the bottom of a Tiger... or any WWII tank. Maybe not a single one, but 8 massed, converging .50's fired from a Jug could... and did. It was a known strafing method to try and bounce rounds off of paved roads or hard pan into the underside of one of these beasts. I would invite you to read P-47 Thunderbolt at War by William Hess. Nice mix of hard data, photos and pilot anecdotes on the Jug.

Of course as far as CM goes, this is not really a topic as you would almost never see such danger close CAS as you'd have to see in a scenario, though that could give rise to a small chance of doing some damage if a big gun like a .50 or a 20mm cannon got some shots off at armor as it crested a wall or a slope...

Clay-

[This message has been edited by Compassion (edited 12-06-99).]

[Rommel]

gotta remember though, that was was probably only 4 maybe 5 feet high, any particular section of it weighing was 500-1000pounds?

formula of 60 ton vehicle hitting a (lets be generous) 2000 pound stone wall, the wall isn't gonna stand up. also the mass of the wall isn't gonna stand under the weight so realistically the tiger would just break it down, never exposing its underbelly.

[Compassion]

Well, that's true. I was thinking more of armor cresting a ridge or perhaps the chance low, wide wall (like a retaining wall or an ornamental brick wall meant to to double as a bench).

[SimonFox]

You would think that when you write something down the content of what you say would be fairly clear. Maybe the tone might not but the content yes. The chief obstacle to this discussion is the absence of people properly addressing others points.

Thanks Charles for your efforts in trying to emphasise and clarify what I was on about. Unfortunately some 'looseness' in your description of the hedge part of the bocage has been incorrectly seized upon and the rest of your post ignored Hey, if its a godamm plant and its got leaves then why can't he call it 'leafy vegetation'.

Steve,

Nowhere have I described or implied that any tank could or did surmount a 10ft high obstacle. I have reread my posts and I am mystified as to where you have obtained this misconception. This discussion started when Fionn stated (and was backed up by you) that in actually (not just in CM) that bocage hedgerows could not be crossed by tanks in order to correct the misconceptions of lesser mortals who had read of the dreaded underbelly rationale in Ambrose, Tout and many other books. From my perspective I am fairly sure based on the evidence that this is incorrect. It will be a real challenge for CM to really simulate the nature of tactical warfare in the Normandy terrain as basically no wargame has come close so far and it is a very significant portion of its timescale. Personally if you want to simulate the Normandy hedgerow as a homogeneous entity thats fine by me. I haven't had an opportunity to try it out yet but I'm sure to give my opinion when I do

The principal point I am making, and most of you seem to agree in part, is that Normandy hedgerows were neither vertically nor horizontally homogeneous and as a consequence while significant proportions were basically uncrossable by a tank a further significant portion were (as is demonstrated by the numerous accounts). Furthermore the fear of underbelly exposure when crossing them is not the figment of the imagination but a real one readily demonstrated by reference to the relevant literature and therefore in all liklehood arising out of actual circumstances. Therefore Offwhite, PeterNZ et al can't be dismissed as 'misconceptuants' (being polite) but are in fact correct. Hey, just say we don't think underbelly exposure was worth simulating, and we'll probably (mostly) say OK. If you want to simulate bocage hedges as a homogeneous structure, go ahead, even if is a dense thick 'leafy' hedge on top of an earthen bank.

Bocage country

http://members.aol.com/ThePBIinc/map.htm