Vehicles Digging In

[Jeff Duquette]

When vehicles dig they aren’t given movement command options during a scenario. Why is that?

[offtaskagain]

It had something to do with the AI. I'm pretty sure Steve or Charles said they're going to add an undig command for CM2.

[Doug Beman]

"Dig in" implies that the vehicle is emplaced in such a way (bulldozer-dug emplacements) that it is immobile, and freeing it requires some sort of heavy equipment and non-combat time to free.

DjB

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Beman Said: "Dig in" implies that the vehicle is emplaced in such a way (bulldozer-dug emplacements) that it is immobile, and freeing it requires some sort of heavy equipment and non-combat time to free.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So a dozer excavates a hull down fighting position for a tank…tank drives into position…than dozer buries tank hmmmm. I think I’ll run with panzerwerfer42’s answer. Werfer’s answer seems to make more since.

[Guest PondScum]

Think of a "dug in" tank as a tank turret that's been mounted in the ground as a defensive emplacement.

Of course, this doesn't explain how I close-assaulted a dug-in King Tiger and got an IMMOBILIZED result on it

[The_Capt]

Gentlemen,

A vehicle "run-up" postion is just that, a notch into the ground in which a vehicle can run up into, and conversely out of.

It requires engineer heavy equipment work (ie bulldozer) to accomplish and often can do multiple positions for each tank. Very handy in the withdrawl or defence.

I think the boys are fixing this for CM2 as right now the engineers seem to dig a hole and drop the unsuspecting tank into it.

Run up positions should be "buyable" much in the same way as roadblocks but I think the engine may prevent that.

[Herr Oberst]

There is also the notion of truly "emplaced" tanks.

Check out the histories of units fighting on Monte Cassino, and during their months of preparation, the Germans actually emplaced some Panthers inside the heavy stone buildings making up the town.

The ultimate in hull down (just the turret cleared the floor) allowed them firing lanes out the doors and through openings in the walls.

Some allied troops found them only after having spent the night in the building next door and hearing, of all things, a tank engine idling.

[Jeff Duquette]

Thanks for your replies…especially panzerwerfer and The Capt..

I really don’t think tank turrets emplaced on buried concrete bunkers is what is being represented by the tank “dig-in” option (but than I’m not the designer). I like the little added immobilized comment

Personally I have never come across the tank “dig-in” option in CMBO until recently while playing a scenario representing a counterattack by elements of the 12th SS Panzer vs. a Canadian defensive position ("Meyer’s Decision" or some such thing…very good scenario so far). The scenario is supposed to take place outside of Caen, Normandy. There are several Canadian tank troops at the start that have the option to begin the scenario “dug-in”. Silly me thinking that dug-in simply was referring to a tank run-up position, went ahead and dug in two troops of Shermans (six tanks) in a reserve position. Game starts…bumer dude you can’t move your Shermans. To bad for me But hay…I’m not bitter, just a little torqued. I didn’t look at the rules booklet until after the scenario started and I found I couldn’t move my “Shermans”. However I’m pressing on with the battle in hopes I can still pull it off without my two troops of immobile Shermans.

Anglo-American Armies would not likely have had too many tank turrets emplaced on buried concrete bunkers during the Normandy Campaign. Run-up positions…or dug-in tanks, are a different beast from tank turrets on bunkers. Turrets on bunkers should rightly be classified within the game as “fortifications”.

There is really no logical reason why an embrasure for a tank should in any way restrict the tank from exiting the entrenched position. The Soviet’s during WWII apparently employed dug-in tank positions quite often. A T-34 would sometimes have a primary, a secondary, and an alternate firing position. Each of the firing positions would be a “dug-in” position…or a run –up position. Tank engages from its primary dug-in position until it is spotted, than it displaces to its secondary dug-in position, etc. See “Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia” – Department of the Army Historical Study 1953 (pages 106-117). Israelis Centurions on the Golan Heights also employed multiple run-up positions very effectively against Syrian Armor during the opening days of the 1973 War. Take a gander at a book called “The Yom Kippur War”.

[StellarRat]

Yes indeed. A tank with only the turret exposed, camo and possibly earth to the sides to protect the turret from flanking fire would be a nasty position to assault (at least in WW II.)

Today's precision weapons would probably make it a bad idea though. I'd rather shoot and scoot from a hull down position than take my chances on someone's aim being poor.

[Chad Harrison]

ive seen a couple pictures from the battle of the bulge where the americans would "dig in" their tanks. obviously the digging was done by a bulldozer. but the interesting point was that there was an exit to the back. this would enable the TD or MT to fire and when the enemy had ranged him, back out. most of the time, the crew seems to cover the vehicle with all kinds of leaves/branches and other camo. just my two bits!