Digging in and Demolitions

[Brian]

Why is it not considered possible for infantry to be able to move to an objective and dig in in the course of a game?

I'd have thought, even the ability to dig a shellscrape (which is a "foxhole" in USspeak), which can take only about 10 minutes (or less if under fire as many veterans' memoires recount), should have been simulated in the game.

There also appears to be no differences in the sorts of trenches that a unit can get - they are all simply described as "foxholes" when in reality there were various stages in defensive works (and here I draw upon modern terminology) going from the shellscrape (18in), stage 2 (2'6"), stage 3 (5') and finally stage 3 with overhead cover or OHP.

I also find it surprising that there is no provision for the deliberate demolition of such things as bridges, buildings and so on. Many battles hinge on the capture or denial of a particular piece of scenery. Why is there no method to blow up a bridge and so deny it to the enemy? I'd also like to demolish buildings and plant charges but it seems they were not considered as being a valid use of engineers support in the game.

Will this change with the new versions/editions coming out in the future, I wonder?

[offtaskagain]

Trenches will be in CM2. Along with camoflauged bunkers and some other stuff.

[Mark IV]

I think "Hide" might incorporate the "shellscrape" concept... let's say it does. I'm not sure any of the others would be practical to construct in 30-60 minutes under fire in varying terrain. The OHP versions are best represented by the wooden bunkers, but I think moving up and establishing them in an hour is a bit much.

Trenching is obviously not modeled in CM, other than as a series of foxholes. Since you asked "Why is it not considered possible for infantry to be able to move to an objective and dig in in the course of a game?", the answer is because there isn't enough time or distance from the front in the CM scale to first move, and then prepare much more than the shellscrapes.

One does not dig much of hole in 10 minutes under fire, especially if the ground is frozen, or rock. I can imagine the difficulty in modeling soil densities, and national differences in entrenching tool design and doctrine.

If you're really under fire, as soon as the hole is "deep enough", you get in it. You wouldn't have grenade sumps, log cover, and honey holes in emergency construction... they are personal survival mechanisms, not prepared defensive fortifications.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

[QB]I think "Hide" might incorporate the "shellscrape" concept... let's say it does. I'm not sure any of the others would be practical to construct in 30-60 minutes under fire in varying terrain. The OHP versions are best represented by the wooden bunkers, but I think moving up and establishing them in an hour is a bit much.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't attempting to suggest you could. Rather I was making the point there is a lot more to a defensive position which a defender has had days/week/months/years to prepare, than a "foxhole" which is all CM allows.

By "digging in", I was referring more to the _start_ of defences - such as a shellscrape, which takes between 10-15 minutes to prepare, in my experience - but as you've pointed out, that depends upon soil type/weather conditions. I have fond memories of training films about 1st El Alamein where the commentator said the troops "dug in" and they were out there with pneumatic jackhammers on bare rock.

All I was doing was pointing out that such orders were given and obeyed in real life - how far one gets down, in the space of the game, depends upon the time limits conferred by the game - it should not mean that such an order should be unavailable IMO.