Bocage Redux

[dieseltaylor]

There is a thread started on CMSF in which bocage and the effectiveness of the Cuilin plow featured - Steve says I am too dismissive and I say it was over-hyped for morale purposes.

However the thread here is an interesting conjectural one on what would have happened if the Commonwealth Armies had the bocage to fight through, so for those who raqrely or never go to the CMSF forums [ i go very very rarely] I thought I would paste it here for WW2 grogs:

"However just to stir up something that should be in CMX1 forum was what if the British had the bocage to contend with - is it possible any of these already existing might have been useful:

From Wikipedia

The majority of the designs were modified forms of the Churchill tank or the Sherman tank. Both were available in large numbers. The Churchill had good (though slow) cross-country performance, heavy armour, and a roomy interior. The Sherman's mechanical reliability was valued.

Among the many specialist vehicles and their attachments were:

• Crocodile - A Churchill tank modified by the fitting of a flame-thrower in place of the hull machine gun. An armoured trailer, towed behind the tank, carried 400 Imperial gallons (1,800 litres) of fuel. The flamethrower had a range of over 120 yards (110 m). It excelled at clearing bunkers and it was a strong psychological weapon (see Flame tank).
  
• AVRE - Armoured Vehicle, Royal Engineers was a Churchill tank adapted to attack German defensive fortifications. The crew included two Royal Engineers who could easily leave and enter the tank through its side hatches. The AVRE had the main gun replaced by a Petard Spigot Mortar. This fired a forty pound (18 kg) HE-filled projectile (nicknamed the Flying Dustbin) 150 yards (137 m). The "Dustbin" could destroy concrete obstacles such as roadblocks and bunkers. This weapon was unusual in that it had to be reloaded externally - by opening a hatch and sliding a round into the mortar tube from the hull. AVREs were also used to carry and operate equipment such as:
  • Bobbin - A reel of 10-foot (3.0 m) wide canvas cloth reinforced with steel poles carried in front of the tank and unrolled onto the ground to form a "path", so that following vehicles (and itself) would not sink into the soft ground of the beaches during the amphibious landing.
    
  • Fascine - A bundle of wooden poles or rough brushwood lashed together with wires carried in front of the tank that could be released to fill a ditch or form a step. Metal pipes in the center of the fascine allowed water to flow through.
    
  • Small Box Girder was an assault bridge that was carried in front of the tank and could be dropped to span a 30-foot (9.1 m) gap in 30 seconds.
    
  • Bullshorn Plough. A mine plough intended to excavate the ground in front of the tank, to expose and make harmless any land mines.
    
  • Double Onion two large demolition charges on a metal frame that could be placed against a concrete wall and then detonated from a safe distance. It was the successor to the single charge device Carrot.

• ARK - Armoured Ramp Carrier was a Churchill tank without a turret that had extendable ramps at each end; other vehicles could drive up ramps and over the vehicle to scale obstacles.
  
• Crab - A modified Sherman tank equipped with a mine flail, a rotating cylinder of weighted chains that exploded mines in the path of the tank.
  
• DD tank - from "Duplex Drive", an amphibious Sherman or Valentine tank able to swim ashore after being launched from a landing craft several miles from the beach. They were intended to give support to the first waves of infantry that attacked the beaches. The Valentine version was used only for training.
  
• BARV - Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle. A Sherman M4A2 tank which had been waterproofed and had the turret replaced by a tall armoured superstructure. Able to operate in 9 foot (2.7 m) deep water, the BARV was intended to remove vehicles that had become broken-down or swamped in the surf and were blocking access to the beaches. They were also used to re-float small landing craft that had become stuck on the beach. Strictly speaking, Sherman BARV's were not 'Funnies' as they were developed and operated by the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, not the 79th Armoured Division.
  
• LVT "Buffalo" - British version of the American LVT4: an armoured amphibious landing vehicle.
  
• Armoured Bulldozer - A conventional Caterpillar D8 bulldozer fitted with armour to protect the driver and the engine. Their job was to clear the invasion beaches of obstacles and to make roads accessible by clearing rubble and filling in bomb craters. Conversions were carried out by a Caterpillar importer Jack Olding & Company Ltd of Hatfield.

• Centaur Bulldozer, a Cromwell tank with the turret removed and fitted with a simple, winch operated, bulldozer blade. These were produced because of a need for a well-armoured, obstacle clearing vehicle that, unlike a conventional bulldozer, would also be fast enough to keep up with tank formations. They were not used on D-Day but were issued to the 79th Armoured Division in Belgium during the latter part of 1944.
  
• Canal Defence Light This was a powerful carbon-arc searchlight carried on several types of tank inside a modified turret. The name of the device was deliberately inaccurate in order to help keep it secret - its true purpose was to blind the defenders during a night attack and so help obscure attacking forces. An ingenious optical design allowed the light to flood out of a comparatively small slit in the armour, minimising the chance of damage by enemy fire. This was not used on D-Day, but was used during the attack on the Geilenkirchen salient to create indirect artificial daylight

http://www.war44.com/forum/allied-motorised-weapons/187-hobarts-funnies.html

for a bit more detail and a picture of the plough which is missing from the Wikipedia article first quoted. Note the assertion that the Crocodile burst would last for ten minutes and the range. How wide are bocage fields? : )

And lobbed AVRe charges, and the demolition pronged vehicles ...

Somehow you have to wonder.

[Kingfish]

How wide are bocage fields?

There is no standard size

[costard]

Nice one DT.

Interesting to think that this could be an area for BF to look at for the upcoming CM2 WWII title. Roadblocks can be breached... that alone would advance the tactical challenge of an attack on a town.

As for getting through bocage - these are fields, with boundaries designated to a great extent by growths of large hedges, yes? But, being a field, it would not be unreasonable to expect a number of avenues of approach - else how does the farmer move his stock or produce to market? So gates and paths ought perhaps be represented more - and the need for the "hedge removing device" less.

[dieseltaylor]

Actually the question of how big the fields are is slightly loaded - Ambrose or Doubler says the average size is 50-75 acres which is complete baloney. I suspect the average is a tenth of that. And fields were very small and an AVRE could easily take out hedgerows across from one side to the other , and I suspect Crocodiles in some fields could do the same easy.

It would take incredible bravery to sit in your dug in position waiting to be blown to kingdom come or flames to death with no riposte available to you. Untenable I would think. BTW the US were lent some Crocodiles when besieging Cherbourg or Brest and the Crocodiles rolled up - showed how far they could flame and the Germans in that position surrendered on the demonstration alone.

[Kingfish]

It would take incredible bravery to sit in your dug in position waiting to be blown to kingdom come or flames to death with no riposte available to you.

What makes you think the Germans wouldn't have a riposte available?

The 75/L38 certainly had a greater range and accuracy than either the Croc's flame or AVRE's Petard, but the Americans still lost scores of Shermans in the bocage.

[dieseltaylor]

BTW Kingfish I had a lot of family and computer trouble but I hoping a play test can occur this Tuesday.

Range and accuracy not being important for the AVRE and Crocodile - anywhere within 10 metres probably being scary enough. And if I read my accounts right suppressive fire along all hedges etc was the norm so a single target accuracy a no-no.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/69/a2730269.shtml

[Kingfish]

BTW Kingfish I had a lot of family and computer trouble but I hoping a play test can occur this Tuesday.

No problem at all. Family first.

Range and accuracy not being important for the AVRE and Crocodile - anywhere within 10 metres probably being scary enough.

Right, because the prey they were designed to take down was immobile; i.e, bunkers, pillboxes, the like.

And if I read my accounts right suppressive fire along all hedges etc was the norm so a single target accuracy a no-no.

Suppressive area fire was not the AVRE's strong suit.

The Croc would have been better suited for the role, but there were too few of these and the Germans would have certainly made them priority one on their hit list.

In any event, it wouldn't have mattered much if the Brits had fielded a full brigade of Crocs. The bocage was busted by a combined arms team approach, but one heavily weighted in infantry, something the commonwealth was running short of by the summer of '44.

[dieseltaylor]

So should the US made more use of the Funnies ideas whilst in the UK? The "not invented here" syndrome?

How many crocs do you need to flame a hedgerow? I would have thought one per field sufficient. The Brits had quite a few 95mm Close Support tanks on D-Day. I am making an assumption that the reason for the 95mm was it was a very destructive LV shell compared to anything else. I am not sure how many Sherman 105mm were available in June /July.

[Kingfish]

So should the US made more use of the Funnies ideas whilst in the UK? The "not invented here" syndrome?

They certainly would have helped at Omaha, assuming of course they could have landed a sufficient number to make a difference. However, once past the beaches I would see their usefulness taper off. Each 'funny' variant was built for specific tasks in mind, but all centered around helping establish and secure the invasion beaches and perhaps a ways inland. They certainly weren't made or expected to 'drive on Caen / St. Lo'.

How many crocs do you need to flame a hedgerow? I would have thought one per field sufficient.

But AFAIK, the British inventory of Crocs was limited to one regiment (141st?). Assuming 50-odd tanks, how long do you think that number of runners would last in the close confines of the bocage?

Keep in mind that apart from the flame weapon the Croc wasn't that radical a departure from the Sherman in terms of firepower, and the US lost quite a lot in the bocage. Given that the Crocs were so specialized I suspect the turn around of damaged vehicles would have been slow.

One other thing to consider, the flame weapon is a great tool to use for suppressing a position you don't plan on entering anytime soon.

I am not sure how many Sherman 105mm were available in June /July.

Not many at all. I remember reading somewhere that the 105s were available in sufficient numbers until September, and even then were regulated to the assault gun platoon of the combat command HQ. Prior to that the smaller M8 GMC served in that capacity, but they were no more effective than the standard M4s.

[dieseltaylor]

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=187107&page=2

[quoteFound this from a Canadian report (CMHQ 184) written about the capture of Le Havre in Sep 44, in which comments about the crocodile were made and I quote

"

Two British divisions, the 49th (West Riding) and the 51st (Highland) Divisions were assigned to its reduction and the 79th Armoured Division under General Hobart was afforded a first large-scale opportunity to practise the armoured assault-team technique which formed part of the inspired conceptions which had led to the setting up of that novel

formation. Flails, mounted in "Crabs" to thresh a path through the 19 Report No. 184 minefields, "Avres" with their bombardment "Petrards" and miscellaneous equipment to bridge and overcome the miscellaneous anti-tank obstacles and "Crocodiles" to bring terror to the hearts of the defenders, constituted a redoubtable trio which carried all before them. Despite very bad going and by virtue of great gallantry by Crab, Crocodile and Avre crews alike, the formidable fortifications were over-run and the lives of many infantrymen were saved. The enemy condemned the "Crocodiles" as unfair and un-British and one officer prisoner reported that a whole platoon caught in the open had been burned to death. A "Crocodile" commander who witnessed this episode, one of the few occasions throughout the campaign when the enemy stood up to flame in the open without instantaneous surrender, has described the horror of the blazing, shrieking, demented Germans. Some of his crew were physically sick at the sight.

(Sir Donald Banks, Flame Over

Britain, p.111"]

[Kingfish]

No doubt the Crocs were a horrifying weapon to face, but Le Havre is not the bocage. The countryside is far more open:

http://www.dday04.com/photo-1214.php

The link is of a modern-day aerial view of Cricquville en Auge, which is just slightly inland and midway between Sword Beach and Le Havre, which you can just barely make out in the far left distance. The terrain would have been similar in '44.

[dieseltaylor]

Actually I am reasonably familiar with France : ) and would agree totally that Le Havre is not bocage country. I was just marvelling at an efficient use of armour!

You suggest the terrain is similar to '44 which I think is possibly a little misleading as I doubt very much that any fields have been made smaller in the last 65 years and that many have been made larger to make best use of tractors etc*. The field in the centre has a marked change of colour in a square area and looks highly suspect. The imposition of the road may well have lead to some more field amalgamations.

I would be grateful at your thoughts on the average size of a bocage field given my disagreement with the oft stated average of 50 to 75 acres - which I believe derives from Ambrose - though he may be repeating information from the US army.

Just out of general interest I thought this might help people appreciate why fields were small.

Originally, an acre was a selion of land one furlong (660 ft) long and one chain (66 ft) wide; the measure appears to have begun as an approximation of the amount of land an ox could plow in one day. However, an acre is a measure of area, and has no particular width, length or shape.

....The acre was approximately the amount of land tillable by one man behind an ox in one day. This explains one definition as the area of a rectangle with sides of length one chain and one furlong. A long narrow strip of land is more efficient to plough than a square plot, since the plough does not have to be turned so often. The word "furlong" itself derives from the fact that it is one furrow long.

. Wikipedia article on acres - worth a read

It should be noted that Normandy is not a great arable area now but in previous times the farmers would be self-sufficent and would have cereal, vegetable, livestock, orchards etc out of necessity and sell surplus into local markets.

*The Compact Tractor Bible By Graeme R. Quick

if you look this up in Google yuo get excerpts from the book which are very interesting as in time to mow an acre using different small tractors.

[Kingfish]

50 to 75 acres seems waaaay too big. Was he averaging the size for all of Normandy, or just the US sector? I know the British sector was more open, with some stretches south of Caen as wide open as a Kansas prairie.

Still, the Wiki link you posted lists the universally agreed upon size of an acre as just shy of a US football field, and Ambrose is saying the average was 50 times that? I dunno. In the first photo I posted I don't see one field that comes anywhere close to that.

[Tux]

Lmao!

"The Croc would new york asian escort have been better suited for new york asian escorts". Post of the year, anyone?

Gotta love some of the more creative spambots!

[dieseltaylor]

The maps in the Atlas will show field boundaries at a time when the total length of hedge in Devon was probably near its maximum. Recent destruction of hedges to make larger fields is well-known, but it is surprising how many hedges were destroyed in the period of agricultural prosperity between c.1840 and c.1870, and so were never recorded on Ordnance Survey maps. (I estimate that the average field size in North Devon at the time of the tithe surveys was 3.2 acres.)

So an English county but farming in a similar way. Even allowing for some field amalgamation the concept of 75 -50 acre fields being average is more and more unlikely for Normandy in 1940. it would be lovely to find where this canard originated