Spacewrangler Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 In CM, they look just like round craters, but I'm sure that's only an estimate graphical representation of what a real foxhole looked like. The reason I am asking is because I'm trying to get a better feel for how my men "look" to the enemy when they are in a foxhole. Are they standing in a hole up to their waist? chest? Are they kneeling? I guess what I'm asking is: how deep was the average foxhole and how many men get in it? Also, was it a round hole, or a mini-trench-like hole? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Check this out: WW2 Fox holes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 how deep was the average foxhole and how many men get in it? Not sure there is a thing as an average foxhole, since there are so many factors that go into making one. Terrain type is a big factor. Very rocky, very sandy or a water table that is only a few feet below the surface will have an effect. Other things to consider would be troop experience, fatigue level and time availible to dig a hole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nice foxhole link! I had seen somethng similar on Japanese foxhole/bunkers some time ago. Reading combat reports it did sound like foxholes a tank crew dug for sleeping were a whole different animal than infantry-facing-enemy type foxholes. I recall reading somewhere Sherman crews had to be on guard to make sure the driver's floor escape hatch didn't go missing because the infantry rather fancied using them as foxhole covers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Great link. On figures 61 and 62 of the foxhole link what is that extra deep area in the middle of the foxhole for? An ex-Vietnam era marine told me they would put a little (6inches across) two foot deep tunnel in the side at the bottom. That was where you'd kick the incoming grenade into. True or was he BSing me? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 What struck me from pictures of WW2 foxholes was all the junk scattered around them. Ammo pouches, food containers, webbing, bits and bobs of kit etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Originally posted by General Colt: Great link. On figures 61 and 62 of the foxhole link what is that extra deep area in the middle of the foxhole for?In the first part of figure 61 you can see the guy crouching there, with his ass on the higher section. It'd be harder to sit at the bottom and at the same time be able to stand up real quick if the floor was level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 The modern US field manuals contain quite a bit on the building of fighting positions. There is almost always a thin, deep trench in the bottom labelled "grenade sump". So I guess that said Marine may well be telling the truth. Putting it in the middle of the hole would be a bit daft as you'd be setting yourself up for a blast and fragmentation enema. The sumps are always around the sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacewrangler Posted July 14, 2004 Author Share Posted July 14, 2004 Definitely, great link, thanks for that. After seeing that, it seems infantry dug into fox holes are pretty much impervious to small arms fire from a distance. Artillery both called in and direct would be the best way to uproot them. I'm playing a lot of battles right now where I'm defending, and I'm trying to get a better idea as to how covered my men in their foxholes really are. After seeing this, I'm going to keep them in the foxholes longer before pulling back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spears Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 foxholes. In cmak i say they more represent shell scraps, as your men take casualties even when hidden, which isnt the case atall with foxholes, arty fire yes but small arms ??? noooooo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 mmmmmmmm .... IIRC cas in CM represent not just balistically induced apertures, but guys saying "fork this, I don't want to play anymore". So cas in foxholes etc in that case make sense. Also, field artillery on well dug in troops isn't terribly effective at directly causing cas. Even partial scrapes make a world of difference. Heck, even the raised crown of a road will protect you if the round lands on the other side of it. What it is good at is keeping their heads down, which allows your own troops to close with them. The exception to all that is prox or time fuzed rounds. OHP is the only way to go then. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 After viewing the pictures of the foxholes, I kind of get the impression that they're not as effective in the games as they are in real life, especially when you realize, that there isn't one hole with every man of the squad in it. A foxhole basically gives only an extra 1% exposure bonus compared to the terrain in which they're dug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jev.Dk Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Originally posted by General Colt: Great link. On figures 61 and 62 of the foxhole link what is that extra deep area in the middle of the foxhole for? An ex-Vietnam era marine told me they would put a little (6inches across) two foot deep tunnel in the side at the bottom. That was where you'd kick the incoming grenade into. True or was he BSing me? True, a friend of mine learned that one in the army J 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 I've always thought CM drastically underestimates the protective value of foxholes but I have no idea how one really determines how effective foxholes are in real life. In CM a foxhole behind a wall seems more like the real effectiveness of foxholes. If you go heads down your exposure goes to zero. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 I think some of those big foxholes seen in the link should be considered CM 'trenches'. You drop a heavy mg into a length of CM trench and you've got something equivalent to figure 64. It seems the CM 'foxhole' is more the open-shallow type seen in figure 63 (seat-of-the-pants impression). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hammond Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 All great stuff, in The British Army they were of course called slit trenches, describes them perfectly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by General Colt: Great link. On figures 61 and 62 of the foxhole link what is that extra deep area in the middle of the foxhole for? An ex-Vietnam era marine told me they would put a little (6inches across) two foot deep tunnel in the side at the bottom. That was where you'd kick the incoming grenade into. True or was he BSing me? The grenade sump was / is usually off to one side. You also need a lower area for drainage (or more accurately somewhere for the water to gather that is lower than you) so that you stay relatively dry when it gets wet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Didn't I hear at one time the "Fox"hole was either created by or refined by a Colonel Fox? Edit: After a search of the origin of the foxhole, one site has it named after "the defensive hole a fox lives in." [ July 18, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Ted ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 They probably named it 'foxhole' because the phrase 'gopher hole' just didn't seem manly enough. The latest media buzz-term on this subject is 'spider hole' which is your basic foxhole/slit trench with cover and camouflage. Named for the lair of certain hunting spiders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 The term "Spider Hole" was used in WWII as well with similar meaning. I've read numerous accounts of US GIs in the PTO referring to camouflaged ambush pits used by the Japanese as "Spider Holes." Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Here's a way to get a better feel for what WWII fox holes looked like. Get your cousin pregnant in the middle of the winter. Have her tell her pa, and hand him a shot gun. Stand outside with a shovel, with all but nine inches cut off the handle. When you can hear her pa hollerin' in the distance start diggin', fast! Then jump into your hole (fox hole). When he runs out of amunition, jump out and take a picture of your WWII style fox hole. You can dig the sump later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.