Trenches on defense

[The Coil]

I've played a bit of CMBO, new to CMAK. What can anyone tell me about using trenches - specifically, what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of placing them in different terrain types, and how many squads is it advisable to put in each trench?

[JasonC]

Trenches given good cover anywhere you put them. So you can put them right out in the open if you want to be in an unexpected location, or to have the best LOS (e.g. wide from a bald hill - or less obvious, on a reverse slope to KO anything that crests a ridge).

If you put them in a modest form of cover - brush is typical in the desert, wheat and the like also work if it is Italy - then you also get some concealment, and it is easier to move the men without drawing fire.

Trees are somewhat to be avoided, for 2 reasons. One it is something of a waste of the trench, since the cover is decent without it, and 2 you can get airbursts, which are one of the few things men in trenches don't like very much.

As for how many, try to keep the units in trenches 14m apart or so, to avoid fire at one suppressing them all. Even fire within 25m can slow rally, though trench cover is so good you generally don't have to worry about more than that. In practice, this means you should limit the units per trench to just 2.

It can be useful to make larger "forts" of ~4-5 trenches connected to each other, with at least one leading back to covered terrain if possible. Those are much harder for the enemy to deal with, because he doesn't know exactly where to aim his big HE... That is the appropriate fortification size for a platoon and its accompanying weapons.

[DerBlitzer]

Make sure to have some kind of decent cover behind the trench within a short running distance. Trenches, as mentioned, provide some of the best cover---except against artillery or mortars. Once those shells start coming down, you'll probably want to leave the trench. But trenches are a especially good place for your HMGs, Mortars, and AT Guns, who may be more or less fixed in place for the duration of the scenario, anyway.

[JasonC]

Clarification - trenches are relatively poor cover against on map HE, direct fire gun 75mm or larger, or mortar 81mm or larger. But they are excellent cover against off map artillery, FOs. Those are not delivered with sufficient pinpoint accuracy to regularly hurt men in a trench. Almost all shells land outside and do little.

An occasional direct hit is possible, but I've fired entire modules of artillery (in tests) up to 150mm caliber against a lone entrenched heavy machinegun, and sometimes done no more than pin it. I regularly inflict just a couple of losses and the men have recovered completely a few minutes after the barrage ends, and are spitting MG fire again. In return on cost terms, shelling isolated targets in trenches with off map artillery is an utter waste.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Clarification - trenches are relatively poor cover against on map HE, direct fire gun 75mm or larger, or mortar 81mm or larger. But they are excellent cover against off map artillery, FOs. Those are not delivered with sufficient pinpoint accuracy to regularly hurt men in a trench. Almost all shells land outside and do little.

An occasional direct hit is possible, but I've fired entire modules of artillery (in tests) up to 150mm caliber against a lone entrenched heavy machinegun, and sometimes done no more than pin it. I regularly inflict just a couple of losses and the men have recovered completely a few minutes after the barrage ends, and are spitting MG fire again. In return on cost terms, shelling isolated targets in trenches with off map artillery is an utter waste.

Have you tried it with VT arty Jason?

[The Coil]

Thanks for the thoughts. JasonC - am I right to hear you saying that cover is not cumulative, i.e. that a trench in woods does not provide more cover than a trench in the open? It seems(counterintuitively, to me) like (given the effect of treebursts) trenches in the open actually provide better protection. Although the tradeoff maybe is in terms of concealment?

[John Kettler]

ISTR Russian field regulations explicitly forbade

setting up antitank guns near trees (treebursts) or other readily recognizable terrain features (too easy to zero in on). For details of how a ZIS-3 unit fought in an antitank role, please see

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/monyushko/monyushko.html

Regards,

John Kettler