Trenches and their alternatives

[Der Alte Fritz]

In the WW1 thread it was mentioned that rocky in a depression could be used as a communication trench.

I am interested in alternatives to trenches as trenches, foxholes, craters are all images, hard to place (ie not from editor but within the game) and use up a lot of processing power if used in large numbers.

I looked up on Old Spikes article and came up with the following exposure/spotted range data:

rocky = 50%/100m

foxhole/crater = 44%/20m

rough = 28%/20m

foxhole in pines = 14%/20m

foxhole in scattered trees = 23%/20m

trench = 9%/20m

which would seem to indicate that for both visual effect and a decent communication trench a dip 1 step lower with rough would be best. Any other ideas?

[JasonC]

Rough is better cover but much slower to move through. Also, it completely blocks vehicles, whereas rocky allows vehicle movement but slows it considerably, which is right for a trench. You can also put a foxhole in rocky (but it is only marginally better cover); you can't in rough. Same with wire - it can't touch rough.

The thing about making it lower ground, though, is it allows realistic use of the trench bottom to "skulk" out of long ranged enemy fire. The occupier can choose a position part way up the slope with LOS (both ways, of course), or he can retire to a "back" position lower down, which will cut enemy LOS until the range is quite short. Very realistic.

I don't think 9% cover is actually realistic for ordinary trenches. They are too strong. Other cover still matters with the ad hoc solutions - then "trenches" can be saved for pillbox like improved "dugouts", for heavy weapon firing positions only, and only a handful. (The pillboxes and log bunkers suffer from their "vehicle" modeling, which makes them far too vulnerable to even the smallest AP). The great thing about "rocky" is it is basically a foxhole = shellhole level of protection that you can move through without cover panic, while also slowing but not fully blocking vehicle movement. (Greatly, for wheeled stuff). To me that is what typical modest or "open" or shell - damaged trenches actually should be like.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I discovered this vehicle effect of rough late last night.

All of this begs the question about the level of protection afforded by a trench system and the different types of trenches.

A German fighting position would have lateral trenches about 2 and half feet wide, deep at around 6 feet so they offered full protection from being over run by a tank but no real fighting value. Artillery had to land pretty close to collapse one.

Fighting positions were specialised trenches about 4 feet deep and 4 feet wide or larger still for MGs, mortars etc. They branched out from the lateral trench about 50 feet.

Dugouts - I read that it took a timber roof and 1 meter of soil to provide protection against a 105mm shell and 3 metres against a 155mm shell. (US Marines at Khe Sanh). So a major construction but still able to be built by troops using their own resources.

Communications trenches were often a bit wider than lateral trenches to allow passage of supplies and depth depended on time, probably 5 feet to allow use as a fighting position to contain breakthroughs?

[JasonC]

There is no reason for trenches to provide different cover than foxholes against ordinary infantry fire, or artillery HE, or on map direct HE. Seriously, the physical protection from either is quite exactly the same. Trenches provide the ability to keep that protection while moving and to do so at an upright pace, that is quite completely all. Getting small is just as possible in a foxhole as in a trench, etc. Focusing on imaginary physical differences in the field fortifications themselves is a red herring; there aren't any. Not until you add overhead cover, and that with log reinforcement holding up 3 feet of sandbags or rammed earth (105mm protection - nobody created 155mm protection in the field in WW II without engineer support, materials, and equipment).

You can argue that foxholes don't give enough protection I suppose, but trenches pretty clearly give too much. The cover level was apparently picked to make them marginally preferable to foxholes in woods cover, as the CMBO standard for strong defensive positions.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I have been doing some experimenting with various kinds of terrain to see which would be the best fit for the kind of trench I am looking for. I take your point about foxholes but the distinction I am trying to draw here is between a foxhole, or fighting position and a deep slit in the ground which is only vulnerable to direct hits.

A German position should consist of fighting positions - which pretty much equate to the ROCKY terrain idea above - as they were quite open. Connecting these positions were deep 6 feet plus and narrow 2.5 feet wide (to allow tanks to pass over) lateral trenches. These provided better protection from artillery, especially splinters and lighter 76mm and 105mm shells, they ideal to attack tanks from providing total cover but they are vulnerable to heavy calibre artillery as the trenches are not supported in any way.

I found the problem with ROCKY was that you were spotted at about 50m even when at two levels down and were quite vulnerable to light artillery fire. Likewise BRUSH and ROUGH. SCATTERED TREES did well if the infantry were in foxholes and allowed AT attacks and were not spotted until the last moment. But Tree Bursts were a problem and made the infantry very vulnerable to light artillery fire. I found RUBBLE to be excellent (esp the flat version) but it blocks vehicles and was too obvious. The best fit I came across was a WALL. It offered complete concealment, allow tank attacks, tanks were able to cross with ease, offered some protection against light artillery but was vulnerable to heavy.

So my best estimate of a German position would be sunk down 1 level with ROCKY fighting positions joined together by walls and then using trenches as heavy weapon emplacements or as dugouts.

Not ideal by any means but a good approximation.

[JasonC]

I understand what you are trying to do, but I think walls are overkill, in practice. The problem is they give literally 0% exposure to infantry fire as soon as the unit ducks (e.g. hits the "pinned" morale state). This is too generous. Independently broken, in other words. 12 man squads don't actually get 0% exposure, ever, while remaining combat effective in any way at least. Some men may be completely below ground but others won't be, and heavy fire hitting the wall with other rounds or shrapnel passing just over it, will definitely suppress those behind it. Most CM fire effect is suppression and setting exposure to suppressive effects to zero is simply incorrect.

I don't think remaining unspotted to near-zero distance for AT assault is a key feature of actual fieldworks. Urban or forest terrain AARs feature such attacks, just slit trenches in the open do not. Tanks simply weren't that oblivious.

Also, separated. short "slit trenche"s have the same characteristics and were widely employed as "foxholes". A man that "gets small" in a foxhole or individual slit trench is just as protected from light arty or small arms. They aren't 44% exposed in CM because they are standing up and only covered to the waist or something, but because incoming fire still suppresses men under ground level (and practically all firepower effect is suppression not casualties), and to fight men still expose themselves occasionally, etc.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Yes that is true but the other option was to use SCATTERED TREES as the lateral trench (attributes : restricts sight by enemy, allows some movement, can be crossed by tracked vehicles, affected by artillery) but whereas infantry behind a wall (regardless of whether they are in a foxhole or not) get 30% exposure, foxholes in scattered trees get 24% exposure and tree bursts make artillery fire on anyone not in a foxhole deadly.

Also there was the consideration that Scattered Trees are a common type of terrain whereas stone walls are rarely used, so one could 'mod' a stone wall to look more trench like without it affecting the game too much.

So really it is making the best of a bad job. I want to use these to 'build' a heavy German tench system like the Panther-Wotan line to show how they were laid out and to give some approximation of how they worked in my German Defense series. Trenches are a very laborious way of doing this and terrain features would be far easier, give a better result and not use so much computing power.

BY the way, do you have any information about how these sorts of line, Panther, Gothic, Marenth, etc were laid out. I have several books about how the actual trenchs were built (enought to build one in the back garden if I had a mind) but there are very few about how they were all connected. There is an article on the Lone Sentry website and I have a couple of maps from the Russian side. But no German maps. Any ideas.

[JasonC]

From what I've read, they were very weak, shallow, unfinished, linear defenses - at least in the south. In the northern woods area where the front was static longer they were apparently stronger, though still readily penetrated around Smolensk. In the south the retreating formations considered them a joke - part of which was that they lack the strength to man them fully by the time they fell back to them (e.g. Ziemke makes clear the front line trench strength of AG south was pathetic at the Dnepr, a collosal replacement and reinforcement stream failure given the huge numbers of underemployed German forces available everywhere but the key sector), but much of it was their simply unfinished status, and shallow linear nature where they were "ready".

That isn't the usual German defense scheme, and given time they would have made them deeper and more elaborate certainly. In the south they did not have the time.

[Der Alte Fritz]

The section I am thinking about is in Army Group Centre and was in much the condition you describe when the German forces arrived there in Oct/Nov 43 after falling back from Smolensk. (Raus describes it as being that way.) The Panther-Wotan line at this point held against numerous highly unimaginative attacks by the Western Front until April with little ground being given (Glantz's Forgotten Battles describes some of these attacks.) By that point the Germans had reinforced the position and added up to 6 lines behind it. So come 22nd June the Russians are facing quite a tough nut which they have failed to crack several times before. Certainly the attack on the Orscha road stalled and was only rescued by success on the flank. The 5th Army attack on Vibtesk did much better but then again they were trying to defend a salient which is never easy.

But I have yet to find any German maps of AG Centre for this period.

cheers

[JasonC]

The AG center section was better surely. But beware of Raus, he is a known teller of fish stories and he flat makes things up. I'd believe Glantz's description though...