Digging In (Just A Thought)

[Kingfish]

Here's a few things we must accept if we add a dig-in command:

1) Troops will become tired, with the possibility of exhaustion in certain terrain types

2) Unable to defend themselves during the dig-in process, or at half strength but only getting half the dug-in bonus (signifying half the troops defending, the other half digging)

3) Longer delays in executing commands if player changes his / her mind and orders troops to do something else.

These are just a few off the top of my head. Anyone else want to add to the list?

[Kingfish]

Ooops, double post.

[This message has been edited by Kingfish (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

Actually, it's better to have CM model prepared defenses by allowing the defender to have foxholes available as part of set up.

That way, the defender can make successive defensive lines.

And yes, I know about making half squads and running forward. But that just doesn't cut it when the scenario is a small map, or you want more than one defensive line.

Allow foxholes to be PLACED on the map.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Bruno Weiss]

Head Mahone wrote:

Oh, and Bruno are you always like this? A prissy little prick that is....

Not always Head, sometimes I'm an oafish sloth that resorts to name calling out of desperation for what would otherwise be an embarrassing admission that I cannot conduct myself with any nominative amount of civility, like yourself infact.

Yes Michael. The normal battle lasts between 30 to 60 minutes depending. Some are twenty moves, some 60 moves, (give or take a few over and under). As Head points out though, my normal reaction to something ridiculas like in each and every battle where someone spent a minute or two idle, they'd just naturally rip off their helmut, or whip out their mess kit spoon and start digging foxholes no matter the terrain can be a bit on the sarcastic side. Sorry about that, I think Panzer Leader had a decent compromise between reality and fantasy, and an idea which has merit.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Steve McClaire]

I agree that it would be great to have foxholes available as a 'fortification' you can place on the map yourself.

And while we're wishing, I'd also like to see two different types. 'Standard' (obvious and hastily dug) and 'fortified' (overhead cover with log and earth, and better camouflage).

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Every turn a team/squad/whatever remains in place their cover/concealment factor goes up a little bit. SO if a squad was in one place for 5 minutes without moving, they would have better cover than the squad that was sprinting across the valley.

I like this one too. I think it is already implemented to a slight degree in that many times I have watched enemy units go to ground in some kind of cover and after the passage of a few seconds they change to the "last spotted here" national symbol icon. Then sometimes later they turn up in another spot having presumably crawled there from where they were last seen.

As Spook points out, the Sovs were famous for digging in wherever they were halted, but all this is purely anecdotal. I've never seen any actual statistics as to which army did the most, fastest, or best digging. The American thought the Germans were really good at camouflage. The Germans thought the same of the Soviets. I think the Americans did a lot of digging, but that it depended on the unit and its discipline and experience.

As has already been pointed out, the speed with which a soldier could scrape out a hole to lie in depended on so many variables as to make it more or less impossible to model convincingly in a game with one minute turns.

Michael

[argie]

The estimated time to make a deliberate firing position in today US Army FMs is round 3 man/hours, for every man in the positions... That kind of position, without upper cover, seems to be the represented by Foxholes in CM.

Ariel

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by argie:

The estimated time to make a deliberate firing position in today US Army FMs is round 3 man/hours, for every man in the positions... That kind of position, without upper cover, seems to be the represented by Foxholes in CM.

Ariel

Sorry to sound clueless

does that mean every man needs 3 hours to dig a fox hole?

Is an FM a Field Manual?

Does that mean for a squad of 12 men if they all dig for 3 hours each will have their own Fox hole?

3 hours seems like a very long time to me?

Thanks

interesting stats

-tom w

[argie]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Sorry to sound clueless

does that mean every man needs 3 hours to dig a fox hole?

Is an FM a Field Manual?

Does that mean for a squad of 12 men if they all dig for 3 hours each will have their own Fox hole?

3 hours seems like a very long time to me?

Thanks

interesting stats

-tom w

Tom,

FM is a Field Manual. I'm quoting the FM 5-103 "Suvivability", because is which I have at hand right now. Of course, this is an average for calculation purposes. But seems to be consistent along all the FMs I read about it... Although, first hand accounts from battle seems to consider that time to high.

Ariel

[ScoutPL]

I spent eights years as a grunt in the US Army so allow me to add my two cents.

Digging defensive positions is out of the scope of CM due to the time available. Digging positions, even a "shellscrape" (we called them Hasty fighting positions) takes at least ten to fifteen minutes to do to a depth that will offer some protection from direct fire. And keep in mind thats just direct GRAZING fire. Since a hasty position is only about 6-8 inches deep (just enough for you to lay in and get below the surface of the ground) it offers no protection against plunging fire (direct fire from a higher elevation), indirect fire, or any sort of direct fire with explosive ordinance. So I think its safe to argue that hasties are covered in the game mechanics. The abstracted "roll of the ground" so to speak. Even if it isnt, 15 minutes is half an average game in CM and if you're digging then you're not defending or attacking, which means you're losing.

After you dig your hasty you can start on your foxhole if you're going to be in the area for a while or you're setting up a defensive position. All US light infantrymen carry an entrenching tool and most carry up to six empty sandbags just for this purpose. US fighting positions are two man positions except for crew served weapons which can have up to four men in them. An average two man rifle pit will take a couple hours to dig the necessary 6' deep by 3' wide by 6' in length (roughly). Thats in soft ground using shovels and picks brought up from the rear just for this purpose. In heavily forested or rocky areas it can take twice as long. Crew served weapon positions start out at four of five hours and go from there. If its for a defense then you're talking about bringing up plywood or a similiar material plus more sandbags for overhead cover. Even more time.

An infantry battalion digging in for an anti armor defense takes at least 48 hours from receiving the mission to setting in the last mine or sandbag. All for a fight that will last approximately an hour. Its no wonder that todays modern armies have engineer vehicles that are dedicated strictly to digging fighting positions. As a rifle platoon leader I would get one of these vehicles for maybe an hour or two when we went into a defense. They spent that entire time digging the crew served positions and a few foxholes, the rest we had to do by shovel.

These things take up an enormous amount of time and energy. Another key factor is the level of exhaustion that hits a unit after a defense. Its useless for a good 24 hours after the last enemy tank is destroyed, simply because everyone has been busting their hump for the last 72 hours.

As far as setting up fortifications before the battle starts so you can have "multiple" lines of resistance, thats pretty far out there. We always planned alternate and supplementary postions but we would have figured the war was over if we ever had time to actually dig them. The only way you could do that is if you're playing a scenario where the defender had at least a few weeks to set up and then you're probably playing on a scale for which CM isnt meant for, i.e. a battalion attack on the Siegfried Line would only be against the first MLR. Another battalion would take on the next MLR, etc. Another key point here is that if you allow your enemy to continually fall back to successive defensive positions, you're not doing a very good job attacking him to begin with.

[Clubfoot]

Shellscrapes or fighting bevels were employed by several forces of the war. They are not foxholes, or even miniature foxholes. They are earth removed in a shallow "ditch" (typically 6 to 8 inches deep and 2 to 3 feet long) with the "waste" or excess dirt piled in a mound at the fire-facing end. Although they did not remotely equal the protection of a foxhole, they did provide some cover and minimized the visible profile of a prone soldier. They can be and were dug in 5 minutes and less. Pick up a copy of Macksey's 'Rommel:Battles and Campaigns' for a photo of this practice being employed not before a battle or in a lull, but during a firefight.

This could probably be modeled in the game by having a small cover bonus applied to any units which don't move for several minutes. The bonus would of course only apply to fire coming from a forward firing arc.

just my .02

Clubfoot.

[This message has been edited by Clubfoot (edited 03-15-2001).]

[ScoutPL]

"They can be and were dug in 5 minutes and less. Pick up a copy of Macksey's 'Rommel:Battles and Campaigns' for a photo of this practice being employed not before a battle or in a lull, but during a firefight."

I have a couple comments on this quote. Anyone surprised?

I spent some time in the euphrates river valley, fairly similiar to North Africa, and will admit that there are areas where a man could dig a hasty in five minutes. But most of the ground in those areas is actually rock not sand and to be perfectly honest the problem you ran into in the sandy areas was actually getting your hole to maintain its shape. Most defensive positions in the desert are actually built up rather then down. But the desert is an entirely different animal then western europe. If you live in a region similiar to western europe I challenge you to go down to the local city park or your back yard and see how quickly you can dig a "slit trench" with a 24" shovel. I bet it takes longer then 5 minutes. "(typically 6 to 8 inches deep and 2 to 3 feet long)" and if you dig it to these dimensions I challenge you to get your body in it. To be effective a slittrench, hasty, or whatever, it needs to be at least as long as your body. Even if you curl into a fetal position you would be digging the same amount of dirt since you would have to make it wider. But the idea is to be able to fight from it in the prone. That way you dont piss off all of your mates by curling up in your hole.

Also, if you have a picture of a guy digging a hole under fire my first question is "what the hell was the photographer doing?" There may have been some bad guys in the area and they may have been trading shots, but my bet is if the photographer risked his neck for the pic, the fighting couldnt have been that fierce. I dont really know of course, I'm just relying on my knowledge of human nature and the effects of combat.

[Clubfoot]

The picture, to be absolutely honest, is in Europe but not from WWII. It's from the closing days of WWI. Hope I didn't misrepresent myself. I'm not sure the slit was dug to conceal a body in, however. But more so for the dirt used in building a small 'hillock' to lay behind. I'll admit the cover provided was minimal, but preferable to laying in open ground.

Clubfoot.