Time to dig in?

[BeondTheGrave]

This may be a dumb question, but I'm currently working on a scenario right now as part of a campaign. It takes place between 60&90min after the first scenario and revolves around a US force attacking Soviet units to achieve a second phase line objective. The REDFOR in the second scenario are the remnants of what you fought in the first scenario given scant time to retreat, reposition, dig in, and rearm. I have two questions:

1) how long would it take to dig useful fox holes OR throw up some sandbags? Would a defeated force realistically be able to do that before the second blow hits? Or barbed wire?

2) Regardless of what is 'accurate,' what is a FUN! solution to the cover problem in engine? Should I just drop foxholes (I already did place a few) anyway to stiffen up the defenders a bit more? Or is there another fun solution you all have used in the past? Im open to suggestions.

Right now I have infantry occupying congested terrain, reverse slopes, tree lines, and the built up areas. But that leaves a lot of open ground. Not only that, but I feel like the defender would be very vulnerable to artillery in this scenario. Maybe thats the way it should be though? What do you all think. 

[domfluff]

1-3 hours is reasonable for basic fox holes. Wire, mines and overhead cover are something you'd add later, to improve a position you're occupying for a while.
 

Timings from this for some guidance:

http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/britisharmy1956.htm

Dispersal times:

1 Hour to deploy for defence

5 Hours to deploy and properly dig-in, which implies digging slit trenches.
If taking over a previously dug-in position, that takes 1 hour, if the position was previously an enemy position, 3 hours

If the above unit remained in place for 24 hours, this position would be improved with wire, mines and 18" of overhead cover.

[domfluff]

Oh, and that foxhole time would assume the ground is soft, obviously. I think 2 hours is the typical textbook standard, but that will depend on ground conditions and motivation.

[Phantom Captain]

14 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

1) how long would it take to dig useful fox holes OR throw up some sandbags? Would a defeated force realistically be able to do that before the second blow hits? Or barbed wire?

 

I know this is sort of off topic but it popped into my head and I had to share.  At the battle of Franklin in 1864, the Union soldiers, after marching and slipping away from the pursuing Confederate army for the previous 36 hours, still put up complete breastworks, with a front ditch, abatis, and head logs around the entire southern end of the town (covering more than a mile) in about 4 hours.  

I do think men under threat of being shot work very quickly digging in or making any possible cover they can.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[BeondTheGrave]

9 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

I know this is sort of off topic but it popped into my head and I had to share.  At the battle of Franklin in 1864, the Union soldiers, after marching and slipping away from the pursuing Confederate army for the previous 36 hours, still put up complete breastworks, with a front ditch, abatis, and head logs around the entire southern end of the town (covering more than a mile) in about 4 fours.  

I do think men under threat of being shot work very quickly digging in or making any possible cover they can.

Thanks kind of what I was thinking, but then I've also heard accounts where a defeated force pulls back and the soldiers just kind of mill about while the command tries to 'get organized.' 

 

14 hours ago, domfluff said:

1-3 hours is reasonable for basic fox holes. Wire, mines and overhead cover are something you'd add later, to improve a position you're occupying for a while.
 

Timings from this for some guidance:

http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/britisharmy1956.htm

Dispersal times:

1 Hour to deploy for defence

5 Hours to deploy and properly dig-in, which implies digging slit trenches.
If taking over a previously dug-in position, that takes 1 hour, if the position was previously an enemy position, 3 hours

If the above unit remained in place for 24 hours, this position would be improved with wire, mines and 18" of overhead cover.

Thanks for the link, I'll look over the link. Im thinking in 90 min, in damp conditions/soft German farm soil it wouldn't be unreasonable to at least dig in some of the more vulnerable guys. 

BTW: Does CM Model any defensive works with overhead cover? I cant think of any, except the bunkers I guess. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[Hapless]

There were 27,000 Union troops at Franklin though, so a good example of how fast you can get fortifications up, but I'd say the scale is a little pre-modern for CM.

[Phantom Captain]

3 minutes ago, Hapless said:

There were 27,000 Union troops at Franklin though, so a good example of how fast you can get fortifications up, but I'd say the scale is a little pre-modern for CM.

Haha!  Indeed!  27,000 tired but motivated troops can be very productive. 

90 minutes is a long time.  I think, in soft ground, you could easily dig and complete pretty acceptable foxholes.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[domfluff]

2 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Thanks for the link, I'll look over the link. Im thinking in 90 min, in damp conditions/soft German farm soil it wouldn't be unreasonable to at least dig in some of the more vulnerable guys. 

BTW: Does CM Model any defensive works with overhead cover? I cant think of any, except the bunkers I guess. 

Yeah, but probably just foxholes.

Overhead cover is either not modelled, or abstracted (sadly)

[The_Capt]

14 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This may be a dumb question, but I'm currently working on a scenario right now as part of a campaign. It takes place between 60&90min after the first scenario and revolves around a US force attacking Soviet units to achieve a second phase line objective. The REDFOR in the second scenario are the remnants of what you fought in the first scenario given scant time to retreat, reposition, dig in, and rearm. I have two questions:

1) how long would it take to dig useful fox holes OR throw up some sandbags? Would a defeated force realistically be able to do that before the second blow hits? Or barbed wire?

2) Regardless of what is 'accurate,' what is a FUN! solution to the cover problem in engine? Should I just drop foxholes (I already did place a few) anyway to stiffen up the defenders a bit more? Or is there another fun solution you all have used in the past? Im open to suggestions.

Right now I have infantry occupying congested terrain, reverse slopes, tree lines, and the built up areas. But that leaves a lot of open ground. Not only that, but I feel like the defender would be very vulnerable to artillery in this scenario. Maybe thats the way it should be though? What do you all think. 

Basic shell scrapes on decent ground will take 30-60 mins, under fire guys will dig a hole much faster.  Ground conditions really matter, rocky ground can take forever.

A prepared 2-3 man fire position, say with overhead protection and deep enough to stand in can be done in 60 mins with heavy  equipment support, think about 2-3 hours with just shovels.

One does not just "throw up" sandbags if you actually want them to stop something, they need to placed and tamped.  Fire positions use some on the overhead cover but bunkers take the most and it could be half a day to build a real bunker. 

Barb wire is a freakin nightmare that takes hours/days to get out there in any density.  Better hasty obstacles are abatis, crater groups and nuisance minefields, engineers can all get these done pretty quickly (say 3 hours).

So rule thumb, you can go from a bunch of guys standing on a hill to a semi-decent prepared position in about 3-6 hours if you have all the support and logistics in place.  This would be considered a "hasty defence".  A true deliberate defence, dug in fire positions, some bunkers and moderate close obstacles is going to take 24-48hrs at least and if we are talking a strongpoint - communication trenches etc, that could be a week.

[Combatintman]

Beaten to it - but FWIW here's what a US pamphlet has to say about it:

 

Further to @The_Capt's point about sandbags - you've also got to fill the damn things in the first place.

Digging in is epic - of course if you really want to know ... get a shovel out and dig a hole in your back garden.

The full manual that the image comes from, for those that want to know the nuances of the various described positions is here:

The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills (fas.org)

 

 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Basic shell scrapes on decent ground will take 30-60 mins, under fire guys will dig a hole much faster.  Ground conditions really matter, rocky ground can take forever.

More good advice, more types of works not present in game. I wonder if I could use shell craters to simulate the effect of some scraped in fighting positions. Do infantry in shell holes get decent defensive buffs? At least a boost to defensive spotting?

Seems like having some, but not a huge number, of the game's foxhole positions would be the way to go. Maybe a bit more elaborate than is realistic, but reasonable enough to work with the assets included in the engine. 

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Do infantry in shell holes get decent defensive buffs?

Put them in hide inside the hole and they take away the LOS of the enemy. 

[arkhangelsk2021]

Since you are talking about Soviets defending, why not take one from the Soviets themselves?

http://army.armor.kiev.ua/fort/okop_1.php

Though they are, in the main, pretty similar to what's been put up so far suggesting everyone is coming to similar conclusions.

[chuckdyke]

Direct fire plotted and executed by the TacAI. If I plot manually, it usually fails. 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

8 hours ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Since you are talking about Soviets defending, why not take one from the Soviets themselves?

http://army.armor.kiev.ua/fort/okop_1.php

Though they are, in the main, pretty similar to what's been put up so far suggesting everyone is coming to similar conclusions.

Simple reason: I cant read Russian  Google translate seems to be of little help their either. But thanks for the shout! 

[domfluff]

Chrome offers auto-translation, which is pretty good:

 

[domfluff]

But yeah, broadly this is in line with all of the above.

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Chrome offers auto-translation, which is pretty good:

 

Every military has variations on the same theme of "shellscrape, foxhole or 'hole to die in'".  Doesn't look like the Soviets believed in overhead protection in standing trenches and most western militaries went with the standing trench as perpendicular to incoming fire (I am sure there are exceptions) had to do with ricochet risk I think.  That earthen berm is frankly adorable, it will not stop 7.62 or higher and a close hits by HE (let alone thermobaric) will likely turn it into a sandblaster.  But hey, any hole in the storm and all that.

[domfluff]

It's interesting looking over period manuals objectively, and seeing how undeveloped the US (at least) offensive doctrine was, by comparison to the thought put into the defence.  I wonder whether the opposite was true for the Soviets.