Trenches Rule, Bunkers Suck

[JasonC]

Just how good are trenches? I am enourmously impressed with these things. A wonderful bargain at 10 points a pop. They put "wooden bunkers" to shame, and HMGs in them are the smart player's machinegun nest.

At 750m, the bunker is spotted instantly. The trench doesn't pop into view until about 175m. An HMG that has been hosing infantry for 5 minutes is still a "sound contact" with a tank pulled up to 225m away. Go on "hide" when it gets close, and he losses even that.

A tank can crawl down to 65m, and won't see the MG team in the bottom of the trench unless they panic. Area fire directed at the wrong *part* of the trench will be lucky to "alert" a regular MG out of command.

In the right general area, 76mm HE direct, at point blank, will "pin", and if kept up for minutes will eventually panic or break the MG. But only if he knows to do it, because he gets no indication anybody is still there, let alone where in the trench.

The bunker is KOed by penetrations within 1 minute at 750 yards, by either a tank or a field gun. The trench - isn't. Area fire at a sound contact might get lucky and get one hit close enough to pin. MG area fire will just bring "alerted".

But you are thinking, the trench is much more vunerable to artillery. It is more vunerable, but not much more, until you get up to tons of shooting by very heavy calibers - stuff nobody can afford to throw at one "sound contact" MG.

I threw a full 120mm module at one (aiming at the sound contact, trench under beaten zone but not exactly centered), and the best I got was an "alerted". Another I hit with first 76mm, full module did nothing - OK, one hit right in the trench next to him, and he went to "shaken" for about 10 seconds. With any commander, back to "OK" by the end of the minute.

I strafed one with 3 passes by a La-5, and got no better than a "pin". 122s did better - a full module got all of 2 rounds close enough to do anything. The first sent him to "cautious" for 30 seconds, back to OK at the end of the minute. The second and nearest made him panic, briefly broke, recovered to shaken by the end of the barrage. Suppressed, therefore, but not a man hit yet.

Then I dumped 250 rounds of 82mm on him, the 9 mortar rate that looks like hail. I purposefully put this directly on the correct point of aim, though I had not even a sound contact at this point. He lost 1 man and panicked to the best of those, but was "OK!" at the end of the barrage. After a full 76, full large 82, a La-5, and full 122 module, he was 5-1 OK!

The 152s finally broke him. One near round and he went to 4-2 and broken, and ran for the rear map edge 40 yards away. Made it too, before the next salvo arrived, even lugging an HMG and becoming exhausted.

Meanwhile, even concrete pillboxes are easy to KO with direct fire (provided they don't have heavy PAK inside, it is true). A 76mm field gun knocked it out in 1:40. A 37mm AA gun did it in 23 seconds. These, at 750 yards. A tank got repeated "no effects", fast moved to just under 500 yards, and that close put the 3rd round through the firing slit and killed it.

So, the trench can be "countered", if that is the word, by an order of magnitude larger expenditure on the heaviest artillery with 15 minute delays. The more expensive bunkers can be countered by a lone field gun costing the same as the wooden one, or a lone tank, in either case without loss and very rapidly.

The combination of incredible stealth, great small arms fire defense, and levels of artillery fire defense that make only the largest caliber fires at all dangerous, make the cheap trench HMG a clear winner over any sort of bunker. You can put them anywhere and they remain unspotted, even firing for minutes on end.

Don't put them in trees, it just ups the airburst chance. One end can run into covered terrain or dead ground, to provide a route of retreat. Use 2 or more if you like, to reach places or pack in more men. Small caliber guns in them should also work (the heaviest will still be spotted at long range). The spotting range is so close even schrecks and ATRs will be in range, if enemy armor comes calling.

How to deal with them? You need to get something close enough to fully ID the trench. Infantry works, if only MG fire is being taken light armor might work. Once the trench is located, you need to plaster it with direct HE, right left and center - or hit it with powerful arty if you know it is full. If the defender has a covered route out and sees you coming, though, you will waste your HE on an empty trench.

[flammenwerfer]

Q- Is the uber-stealth of trenches realistic, considering the presence of binoculars.

[ January 28, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]

[Herr Kruger]

It is posts like these that make me wish this forum had a "Printer Friendly Version" button!

J Kruger

Edit : Actually, copying and pasting to Word works much better that I thought it would haha.

[ January 28, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Herr Kruger ]

[flammenwerfer]

Her kruger-

Bottom left of page

[Herr Kruger]

Hey! Is that button new? LOL!

[Ex Bellator]

One trench aspect that I'm not sure about is the ability to place AT guns of all sizes in them. They are very survivable once in there, I just had one shelled by 81mm & 120mm mortars all at once and survive.

Should AT guns be allowed in trenches?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

Should AT guns be allowed in trenches?

Sure, why not? Dont picture it as a big gun crammed down into a trench, but a gun really well dug in and with added cover of sandbags etc. There are some pictures of AT guns dug in so the gun barrel is just centimeters above the ground. If you do that with a big AT gun (or even a flak gun) it would be horribly hard to knock it out.

[ January 28, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[mike the wino2]

Thanks JasonC, well done. I look forward to using them.

[MikeyD]

The way you put it, it makes tremches sound like the ideal uberweapon! And compared to bunkers they are, but trenches do have one or two problems.

Their main fault IMHO is they're often placed so that their infantry has nowhere to go if things get too hot. It's either hunker-down in the trench or a suicidal sprint across open terrain.I've spent many turns merrily pounding trapped bunker infantry with 76.2mm tank guns at under 100m. I guess this is more the fault of scenario designers than trenches themselves.

[Redwolf]

CMBB trenches are interesting.

First they are spotted at 200m no matter what, even if a shocked vehicle goes backwards though fog towards a trench deep in heavy woods.

Then, the difference between trenches and foxholes is irritating. 2% exposure in the trench, 46% (or so, no CMBB here) for the foxhole, both in the open. How can a force which builds these trenches can be so lazy to dig foxholes right next to the trench that leaves 46% of their bodies exposed when fighting from them? Get in front of a mirror and measure how much 46% of your body is. It's not only your head, it is almost down to the waist. But you had time to build a trench to to a 92% coverage (EDITED, got 8% exposure and 98% coverage mixed up).

But not all is lost for the attacker, because even light vehicle MG area fire somewhere on a trench system makes movement in that trench system completely impossible. And that even applies to trenches layed down in zig-zags or even to several trenchlines that arenot even connected. The area fire prevents movement around the impact point at a certain radius and the engine doesn't care at all what is between the impact point and the unit you try to move. You can even shoot ground outside the trench and get movement shut down around that point in trenches around it, no matter what the direction of the trenches is.

[EDITED: last paragraph deleted]

[ January 28, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[walpurgis nacht]

As Jason points out, trenches are a wonderful tool if used correctly.

An MG in a trench at range is a nasty little weapon. But even "sound contact" does reveal your exact position if you are playing skilled opponent. All you have to do is "move-to-contact/hide" and wait until you have 2-3 squads that froze up to hide. Cross the LOS hairs of the "forzen" squads to that mysterious "hidden" MG on the hill and you can have an extremely good idea where that MG is. If you don't have LOS to it, then the MG isn't there. Kinda like the techniques used by the US to spot German submarines. IF you happen to have a heavy HE chucker, that MG is toast early on.

Also, trenches in the open do avoid treebursts, but as MikeyD points out, people don't often use them well. Unless it is the "Alamo" part of your line, you have to place the trench so you can escape/move/and hide around it. That means concealment is necessary, so you need trees close at least. If you "unhide" in a trench in open ground where the opponent has clear LOS, you will not be able hide again!!

The best way to use these guys is by placing them in open ground behind a patch of trees. This way you can sneak forward into the patch of trees and harass the enemy approaches, and then fall-back into the trench when the spearhead gets close. The key is to keep the trench out of the enemy field of fire so he has to come really close to attack it. Keep both flanks of the trench covered, and you've got a nasty little nut for the opponent to crack.

Also, try placing a trench halfway in and halfway out of a patch of woods. I don't mean this in the obvious way. A trench is roughly 3 meters long x 10 meters wide. Take the 3 meters "long" length of it and place it so the first meter is in the woods, and the last 2 meters are in open ground. This way, you can sneak 1 meter either way and be in open ground or woods but still be in the trench. This makes avoiding treebursts easy when necessary, but can still provide the invaluable concealment when necessary.

[ January 28, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[Ubertracker]

One of the differences is that you get a weapon - an MG - with a bunker for the cost, and with a trench, you have to fill it with warm bodies and/or guns. So it's not exactly apples and apples we're talking here. But trenches are certainly handy little boogers.

Hmmm... let's see... a trench in front of a bunker.... nasty combination. Could make the attacker think fire is still coming from the bunker even when it's knocked out... And put some barbed wire in front of the trenches... hard to get close to!

Uh... what's the visibility through barbed wire? Does it impede view or fire? Hope not.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by redwolf:

...Then, the difference between trenches and foxholes is irritating. 2% exposure in the trench, 46% (or so, no CMBB here) for the foxhole, both in the open. How can a force which builds these trenches can be so lazy to dig foxholes right next to the trench that leaves 46% of their bodies exposed when fighting from them? Get in front of a mirror and measure how much 46% of your body is. It's not only your head, it is almost down to the waist. But you had time to build a trench to to a 98% coverage.

According to my "Reibert" a hasty foxhole (one soldier/one hour to dig) gives about 50% protection against enemy fire, a "Kampfstand" (two soldiers/three hours to dig) which, I think, can be compared to a CMBB trench gives 90% protection vs incoming fire.

So BFC's figures don't seem to be too far off.

[ January 28, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by redwolf:

That is another one of these hasty CMBB features which have seen 1/10th of the thought and implementation effort put into them compared to most CMBO features. [/QB]

Yes Redwolf, there are just endless hasty features in CMBB. The boys at Battlefront don't care about the quality of their products. And most importantly, all their lazy flaws are designed just to piss you off.

You need a girlfriend, real bad.

[MikeyD]

[edited and deleted. apparently I can't discern irony. ]

[ January 28, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

That is another one of these hasty CMBB features which have seen 1/10th of the though and implementation effort put into them compared to most CMBO features.

Yeah sure, as if during Beta-testing we did not crawl all through (bad pun intended) those trenches, trying to break them...

I suggest a look at e.g. TM30-430 for what a decent Soviet trench (the manual version) should look like. The Sharp volumes have the info too I believe. These are all-singing, all-dancing trenches with overhead cover and, err, stuff. Lots of it.

[ParaBellum]

Just did a quick test:

A rifle squad in a foxhole gets 44% exposure, a rifle squad in a trench 9%.

These figures are pretty much the same as the ones given in the 'Reibert'. For those that don't know what I'm talking about , the 'Reibert' is the annual updated german soldier's handbook first published in 1929.

I got mine when I served in the Bundeswehr in 1993/94. It's also called 'the bible' of the german soldier.

Again, the 'Reibert' gives an 'protection value' for a foxhole of 50%, and for a trench-like construction of 90% against incoming fire.

Although these are, of course, rough figures I still think they show that the data in CMBB isn't that far off as Redwolf suggests.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

According to my "Reibert" a hasty foxhole (one soldier/one hour to dig) gives about 50% protection against enemy fire, a "Kampfstand" (two soldiers/three hours to dig) which, I think, can be compared to a CMBB trench gives 90% protection vs incoming fire.

Well, I have that book, too, but you didn't get my point.

The question here is: why do these guys spend on one hour at the foxhole they want to fight from when they are long enough in the area to build a trench system?

The hasty foxholes and the highly protective trenches do not mix on the same battlefield.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The hasty foxholes and the highly protective trenches do not mix on the same battlefield.

Non sequitur.

Part of your force can just have moved in, those could be positions that are not supposed to hold out long, the time investment in getting the trenches in was so high that there was not enough time for foxholes, etc.pp.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Simply: foxholes represent hasty fortifications. The troops simply didn't had time to dig a proper trench or didn't expect heavy enemy attacks in their area.

If you want to simulate well dug-in troops, don't use foxholes.

Edit: while typing saw Andreas' post.

[JasonC]

Oh, the need to put somebody in them I consider a plus, not a minus. I mean, an HMG team and trench costs considerably less than a log bunker. A field gun in a trench costs what an MG in wood does.

As for their placement and withdrawl routes, the best withdrawl route in dead ground, as on a reverse slope. Place the trench so that one end is over the "military crest" with LOS to lower ground ahead, and the other end isn't. Forward to fire, back to dead ground. Then off to wherever. Does work best with fast infantry rather than slow MGs You can also put one end behind a large building, to have somewhere else to go in the event of being zeroed by direct HE, create dead ground on a flat map, etc.

With two or more, the trench that leads into woods or pines becomes useful. The 1m away from woods idea won't work very well, because close counts in horseshoes, high explosives, and especially treebursts. It isn't the terrain type in the square meter you are in, but the terrain type in the square meter the shell lands in. With trench cover, if you are ~25m away from a large treeburst, you will live, but at 5-10m you won't.

Are they arguably too uber, or underpriced? Perhaps. If spotting them were considerably easier for multiple binoc units, that might be better. But there are plenty of historical reports of difficulties finding dug in MGs. If people think it is too much, use "full" rather than "extreme" fog of war. Defenders should certainly buy lots of them.

Access to them might be restricted, say not allowing them in "probe" QBs, and limiting the number used in "attacks" - to say 20-25% of the "fortification" point allowance. Elaborate trench systems for the defenders would mean assault odds for the attackers. A few improved firing positions (MG nests, gun pits, one set of dugouts, etc) would merit attack odds. Probe odds would not face them.

The real puzzle to me is why anybody would buy bunkers as they are today. OK, I can see the German heavy PAK ones, since they can duel guns or tanks shooting at their firing slits, and are immune to artillery. But the MG ones are easy to counter. And the log bunkers are easy to penetrate with modest direct fire (although, progress since CMBO, light 82mm and 76mm indirect HE doesn't KO them anymore).

The big issue with the bunkers is simply that they continue to use the "vehicle" and "penetration" model, which makes them fragile things and easy to spot. While the trenches use the "infantry" and "firepower rating" model, which makes them very hard to spot, and also hard to take out though somewhat easier to scare slightly (once you know where they are, that is).

You pay through the nose to get marginal additional invunerability to the heaviest artillery. (I've still seen wooden bunkers "shocked, -2 men" by a close 122mm round, but they mostly ignore shell fire. The concrete ones ignore even 8 inch stuff nearby). Which attackers can't really afford anyway.

In scenarios with huge amounts of prep fire, concrete may have its place. But it is just easy to see, avoid, mask, or take them out with direct fire (especially light AA, which from cover at range, the *bunker* won't even see rather than hear, while it is firing at them).

As for pinning movements in trenches via MG area fire, I hadn't tried that, though I did try 2xHMG area fire at a sound contact, with minimal effect. I have noticed that MG area fire puts stationary guys in trenches in "alerted" status, routinely, so there is some "we are under fire" notice and effect. And I've had guys trying to "move" or "advance" in trenches, under direct infantry fire from close by, pin and fail to move. Often the nearest infantry unit draws the fire and the others manage to "advance" down the trench.

But they are not highways when under infantry fire, that is true. Nor do you get 0% cover when you go "heads down", like with walls. They are still better infantry firefight cover than intact stone buildings, can't be rubbled, don't suffer from the treebursts of wooded foxholes, and don't attract pinpoint fire from half way across the map, like building aim points (for direct HE) and large clumps of trees (for FOs) tend to.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

You need a girlfriend

I wouldn't argue with that. But my wife won't let me

[Michael Dorosh]

Now hold on - has anyone tried pushing an AT gun into a trench?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Now hold on - has anyone tried pushing an AT gun into a trench?

Well I tried placing them in trenches, works fine.

I could find that they are that much more robust, though, certainly not much better than foxholes in woods. And of course you know that the trench gets instantly spotted when any enemy unit gets within 200 meters of it. A single half-squad ruins your day.

However, guns in trenches are good f you find that only open ground offers good firing positions for guns. Foxholes in the open totally suck (see above), so the trench in the open allows you to shape the terrain a little.

[Aaron]

I like the wooden MG bunkers because of their huge ammo loadouts. They can fire from turn 1 and never come close to running LOW. Against infantry they reign supreme. This is another case of something's value depending on the scenario and what they are liable to face.

Aaron