Direct hits on theoretically confined units

[PLM]

It seems to me that theres no such thing as a lucky hit against units in confined spaces. I would imagine you would find an occasional situtation in CM, where a lucky HE round would find the an entire HMG crew, or an entire mortar team or gun team in a foxhole and take them all out.

Its not like i have a secret fantasy for wiping out heavy weapon crews, just it seems like it should be possible, it might be very unlikely for that kind of lucky hit, but should what happen, i think it should be modelled.

Especially against entrenched units, I'd think a lucky HE round would KO the entire team.

This mortar team for instance (i know, its vietnam and isnt technically a foxhole), what would happen if a mortar round hit within the foxhole itself?

The difference from being in open ground is that you have to dig in for a foxhole which takes more effort and less of an area to be. Whereas in the open, the team could be spread out quite a bit.

I also cant see why a heavy weapon team would reside in several different foxholes and stay separated. True there could be some elaborate ways of digging in to prevent a direct hit from wiping out an entire team but i always figured thats what trenches simulate.

Am I wront that teams would be confined in one foxhole and if a lucky hit could acheive those results?

It seems even with infantry squads. I think most infantryman paired up in foxholes. So a lucky HE round could take 2 men out at the same time. I cant see anybody surviving a direct hit like that as foxholes really arent that big.

I hope this isnt confusing, but if an infantry squad is in foxholes in open ground and taking cover, shouldnt the only casualties in fact be from direct hits or very near hits? If the shells arent airbursts id think you'd lose infantry in pairs in that situation.

And what if an infantry squad takes cover in a crater? Its only a single hole in the ground. Shoudlnt a hit on the crater, in such a confined space where the shrapnel is more likely to hit you due to the different slopes and the fact that a lot of the team wouldnt be on the same slope? What if an indirect 105mm round landed anywhere within the crater? Would anyone survive at all?

I know its somewhat unlikely. but i also know its happened. Especially from direct mortar fire. I think they should sort out the direct gunfire first. That way cannon fire cant easily make direct hits inside entrenchments

I just think they should look into this kind of stuff when calculating HE casualties on entrenched units.

Also, why cant HMGs be abandoned or knocked out? They might be expensive, But I dont see how a lone survivor would continue to man it if he was pinned in the middle of a street having lost all his buddies. And shouldn't HMGs be destroyable? They can't be invulnerable... Cant the MGs on halftracks be knocked out? i think?

[ February 21, 2005, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[Michael Emrys]

It's a consideration.

Michael

[Beta1]

probably true for the example you give but with a 6 man HMG half of those guys are there to lug the spare barrels and ammo. They dont have to be in the same foxhole as the guys serving the gun and to help spot etc they may well be spaced out a fair bit.

[Renaud]

I think the mortar pit pictured above does count as an entrenchment in CM. A foxhole applies more to infantry positions.

Was it in WW2 that we discovered the 2-man foxhole was a bad idea...or vietnam? By the end of vietnam i think doctrine called for 3-man positions. The reason was psychological: 2 men alone freaked out a lot easier than 3 (3's a crowd or somefink...i'm no shrink).

For my part, i've seen mortars, guns and MG's taken out in one hit. Sometimes with no casualties, but the crew abandons the weapon. Especially due to tree bursts above the weapon-pit. I have personally watched 4.2" mortar crews put a shell right into a 3'x3' target pit at 3000+ meters (the target lifters get blown to fragments). That direct fire with a lot of time to get the range of course. 120mm mortars can't do that - fin stabilized.

I think every CM player has experienced entire entrenched squads decimated at one blow by sufficiently large HE landing on X marks the spot.

[John Kettler]

Renaud,

You do mean "observed fire," don't you? By definition, last I checked, mortar fire is indirect.

Regards,

John Kettler

[PLM]

yes i forgot to inquire specifically whether MG teams in particular may haev some extra guys. I'd imagine they all have jobs other than taking cover and hiding though. But I can imagine them not being in the same hidey hole

What i was mainly focused on was the lower caliber HE. 60-81 range. Obviously heavy artillery will do loads of damage if it lands right near a squad.

I'd say if it landed within several feet of a foxhole it would bury the occupants or kill them other ways. Lighter stuff isn't so earth shattering against entrenched units that it would matter so much

[ February 22, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[Renaud]

heck, 50mm mortars can take out a 150IG or any other gun with 1 lucky hit.

Things have completely changed since you last checked John. I have changed the nature of military terminology singlehanded.

[PLM]

Well im mostly concerned with casualties on the unit which goes to infantry units as well. Im well aware lucky hits will KO a gun.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PLM:

I'd say if it landed within several feet of a foxhole it would bury the occupants or kill them other ways.

Not unless it was very big, which also means pretty rare. By far the greatest number of artillery shells fired during the war were 105mm or smaller. Getting at all below the surface of the ground was usually good enough to protect one from anything but an extremely close direct hit or a tree/air burst. It was still a risky business, mind, but it took a lot of shells for each casualty.

Michael

[Hensworth]

Probably one of the things that annoys me most in CM is the last-guy-on-the-MG phenomenon.

He can't run because he's immobile and you can waste a tank's entire ammo load trying to kill him if you're unlucky. And you can't just leave him sitting there either because he will put out fire just as effectively as the entire team.

Mortars are OK because they get knocked out. But the amount of tank- and artillery fire absorbed by dug in MG teams is obscene.

[Michael Emrys]

But last man MG crews surrender easily. Unless you have a reason not to, run a tank up close to him and he will put up his hands. Then in the next turn, give him an order to proceed to your rear area and he will be harmless.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PLM:

I'd say if it landed within several feet of a foxhole it would bury the occupants or kill them other ways.

Not unless it was very big, which also means pretty rare. By far the greatest number of artillery shells fired during the war were 105mm or smaller. Getting at all below the surface of the ground was usually good enough to protect one from anything but an extremely close direct hit or a tree/air burst. It was still a risky business, mind, but it took a lot of shells for each casualty.</font>

[Renaud]

Couldn't agree more about the MG-last-man thing.

I'd like to see HMG's changed to the same way mortars behave: can be abandoned leaving a little HMG model tossed on the ground. In reality HMG's, like medium mortars, are broken down into 2 or 3 components for moves of any distance. But the model on the ground is symbolic anyway.

[PLM]

I meant heavy artillery. How big would a 150mm crater typically be? Shouldnt it also depend on the ground conditions and terrain? I didnt think 105s were too small. It'd be interesting to see some pictures. I did a search just now and couldnt find any specific caliber craters.

I'd think the bigger the caliber and the softer the ground the more likely it would burry or kill entrenched soldiers with ways other than the shrapnel.

I'd say if it landed within several feet of a foxhole it would bury the occupants or kill them other ways. Lighter stuff isn't so earth shattering against entrenched units that it would matter so much

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PLM:

I meant heavy artillery.

It would probably take something in the 170mm or bigger category. And like I said, that was not really all that common. It would not normally have been wasted on troops in foxholes, but on harder, higher-value targets. Like Jon said, arty is more for suppression than destruction against infantry.

Michael

[PLM2]

Did shrapnel not cause 60% of casualties?

[DrD]

Good discussion.

I think it's cool how weapons all have an effect, but not what you would think.

If foxholes make infantry proof against arty, why waste arty?

Here's why: it is the threat of that arty that makes the troops have to dig in in the first place.

Imagine they didn't have to dig in, how much further could they march or how much more could they sleep (increasing effectiveness/morale.)

Digging a foxhole sucks, it took troops literally hours, especially in cold ground. Imagine being on an advance and having to do that everynight before you went to sleep?

I read once about a US platoon (or maybe Co) on D+3 who was so exhausted that they just didn't dig in that night. They were caught by German 81mm mortar in the morning and lost half their strength in 10 minutes.

THAT is the power of arty: making troops dig instead of more useful/offensive things.

Now how to simulate in CM? Hmmmmm......

Maybe on a hasty defense you can get the option of digging in, but if you do your troop's fitness decreases.

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM2:

Did shrapnel not cause 60% of casualties?

yes, but over timescales measured in months and years. A continual slow bleed, rather than a sudden haemorage. Edit: Actually, given that 'shrapnel' is a specific type of round that was very seldomly used in WWII, the answer to that is an emphatic no! But 'artillery' did cause ~ 60-80% of all cas (depending on whose figures you use).

DrDs point, while somewhat valid, still misses the point about suppression. During an attack the attackers arty (fd) aims to keep the enemys head down until the friendlies are 1-200m out. Then other weapons systems take over - HMGs and MMGs. Then more intimate weapon systems - Brens, BARs, LMGs - handle the last few 10s of metres. Then you're into the pits, and they either give up, run away, or die. Or you do, especially if your supporting fireplan wasn't good enough.

[ February 23, 2005, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:

I meant heavy artillery. How big would a 150mm crater typically be? Shouldnt it also depend on the ground conditions and terrain? I didnt think 105s were too small. It'd be interesting to see some pictures. I did a search just now and couldnt find any specific caliber craters.

Not that big - maybe big enough to lie in in the fetal position. The type of ground does have some effect. OTOH, the type of fuze used, and fuze setting, has a significant effect.

[DrD]

DrDs point, while somewhat valid, still misses the point about suppression. During an attack the attackers arty (fd) aims to keep the enemys head down until the friendlies are 1-200m out. Then other weapons systems take over - HMGs and MMGs. Then more intimate weapon systems - Brens, BARs, LMGs - handle the last few 10s of metres. Then you're into the pits, and they either give up, run away, or die. Or you do, especially if your supporting fireplan wasn't good enough. [/qb]

True, but still not that effective. Why keep the enemy's head down until you can fire your MG's? What are they going to shoot you with? Presumbably you're out of their MG range too, ditto for other weapons systems. The primary purpose of coordinated attack fire was to keep the defender's heads down so they can't observe your deployment. As we have all read, as soon as the arty fire was lifted the defenders could quickly man their weapons and make it hot for the attackers, IF the defenders had prepared good positions.

There's also inderdiction fire to prevent reinforcements, movement of supplies, movement in general (defensive arty fire.)

My musings were mostly in regards to harrassing fire, such as that shown in Band of Brothers during the Bastgone action.

[JonS]

Originally posted by DrD:

True, but still not that effective. Why keep the enemy's head down until you can fire your MG's? What are they going to shoot you with? Presumably you're out of their MG range too, ditto for other weapons systems.

Er ... you are getting closer to their positions, and further away from your own, therefore you are moving into the enemies lethal zones, and out of your own.

Also, and the main point behind phased fireplans, as you get closer you need more accurate (read, smaller PEr and PEd) weapons, with smaller areas of effect. This means that you can lay fire more accurately on positions id'd during the advance, and your own infantry can approach closer before the fire has to lift to avoid excessive FF cas. Artillery has a very large PEr. LMGs firing from ~100m have a very small PEr. And, the LMG gunner can see the assaulting infantry. Guess which order they come in the plan?

The primary purpose of coordinated attack fire was to keep the defender's heads down so they can't observe your deployment. As we have all read, as soon as the arty fire was lifted the defenders could quickly man their weapons and make it hot for the attackers, IF the defenders had prepared good positions.

No, the primary purpose of a coordinated, suppressive fireplan is to keep the enemies heads down throughout the assault - which also means laying fire on positions beyond and flanking the immediate objective. If the plan is a good one, it won't matter how good the enemies posns are - you can shoot just as effectively from the bottom of a pretty hole as the bottom of an ugly one. And if they do put their heads up to return effective fire - then they die.

Edit: It's probably worth noting that this theory is notoriously difficult - in fact impossible - to put into effect perfectly. There will always be cas amongst the inf, regardless of the FP. A good FP, though, increases the chances of success in any given assault, and tends to reduce friendly cas at the same time.

H&I fire is, as they say, outside the scope.

[ February 23, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Jon left out one step in the fire plan I think. And that is that once the artillery (meaning in this case the guns and howitzers well behind the front lines) lifts, the battalion mortars may take over. Their fire is usually in a somewhat tighter, more controlled pattern and their bombs have a smaller lethal radius, so they can be fired closer to the assaulting troops. Inclusion of this step was the ideal and not always available, note.

Michael

[JonS]

yeah, my bad. I was going to mention it, but then omitted it for simplicity. Often times the FP may start with the mortars if no arty is available, or other planning factors dictate such a COA.

[Wartgamer]

I believe the 2 man fighting position was started in Vietnam. This is where two soldiers dig a rather small trench and pile the dirt in front of the trench. The intent is that you fire to the sides and cover the front of the person to the left and right. There is no fire to the front.

The goal was to cut down attackers with fire across the front. Attackers generally fire strait into the front and would hit the berm.

Digging one of these after marching all day is an incredibly tiring ordeal. In many cases, its just not even used and abandoned the next day.

If you stayed there, you would improve the position. Boards/logs can be laid from the berm to the back covering the trench and reinforced with sandbags. The hole could be excavated under the berm part so that you could hunker down there while heavy stuff came in.

Most NCOs that were in Vietnam told us that direct hits by even 81mm might take you out unless there was several feet of dirt above you. Rockets and heavy mortars could bounce you out of the hole.

[PLM2]

I see the logic in that but it sounds like as an infantryman in the foxhole you'd be scared crapless in the event of an enemy assault given that you're relying on someone else to keep the enemy from coming right over the berm.

Yes i know shrapnel is a certain type of shell, but it doesnt really matter as the term is generally coined to the fragments from any type of shell even grenades.