Tanks and low hedgerows

[Khane]

In CMBN, like in CMBO (if I remember OK) tanks cannot go through the high hedgerows but why cannot they go through/over the low hedgerows which look like about 0.5 meters high in real life ? Was it the case in the real bocage fighting or is it a game's design ?

[akd]

In CMBN, like in CMBO (if I remember OK) tanks cannot go through the high hedgerows but why cannot they go through/over the low hedgerows which look like about 0.5 meters high in real life ? Was it the case in the real bocage fighting or is it a game's design ?

All tanks can cross simple hedges (but even these are taller than 0.5m). If you want to be sure that they cross them, give them waypoints just on either side, otherwise they might go for a gap or find a quicker/obstacle-free route.

[Peregrine]

There were a couple of other discussions re this that went into more detail but in a nutshell the low hedgerows are low enough for a tank to shoot over but in all other aspects the same as a high hedgerow (ie impenetrable unless blasting or rhinoing)

Depending on how you look it it in-game the hedgerow looks punier that it actually is. I think they are supposed to be 5ft high and as thick as a high hedgerow.

[Wengart]

In CMBN, like in CMBO (if I remember OK) tanks cannot go through the high hedgerows but why cannot they go through/over the low hedgerows which look like about 0.5 meters high in real life ? Was it the case in the real bocage fighting or is it a game's design ?

Game design, in reality they could indeed cross hedgerows on many occasions. However, it wasn't pretty the tank would roll up over the hedgerow revealing its belly to the enemy and be unable to return fire. Combined with the possibility of bogging down while crossing the hedgerow and the length of time this could take and it was quite a dangerous maneuver. This is why the Cullins device was invented.

Although I believe the ability to roll over hedgerows should be present, just with a high cost in time and possible equipment damage.

[Haggard Sketchy]

There were a couple of other discussions re this that went into more detail but in a nutshell the low hedgerows are low enough for a tank to shoot over but in all other aspects the same as a high hedgerow (ie impenetrable unless blasting or rhinoing)

But they can shoot through high hedgerows too?

[Peregrine]

But they can shoot through high hedgerows too?

Shoot through, shoot over, I think the spotting is different.

[Khane]

the low hedgerows are low enough for a tank to shoot over but in all other aspects the same as a high hedgerow (ie impenetrable unless blasting or rhinoing)

Depending on how you look it it in-game the hedgerow looks punier that it actually is. I think they are supposed to be 5ft high and as thick as a high hedgerow.

Thanks, that makes sense now.

[LongLeftFlank]

Watch out shooting over those low hedgerows though! I just had a nasty FF incident where my Sherman was Area Firing an enemy beyond the hedgerow. The Target tool showed LOS, but it was from the AAMG. The main gun undershoots about one shot in 5 and hit the nearby hedgerow, and got 3 doggies.

Again, I'd rather the low hedgerows be uncrossable than crossable too easily by AFVs. You can always slot in an embankment topped with a hedge if you want to enable a crossing point without an outright gap.

[Wengart]

I don't see why crossing bocage sans cullins couldn't just be painful, 30-45 seconds, belly armor facing the enemy, possibility of bogging. It wouldn't be pleasant, thats why the Cullins was invented, but it gives the player more real world options and imo would make for more interesting bocage combat.

[gunnergoz]

It doesn't sound like it was done very often once the tankers learned just how tough those hedgerows were on their tanks, not to mention the tactical disadvantage of showing your belly to the Germans and being unable to bring weapons to bear at the same time. I can see why it was left out of the game, since Steve and team seemed to want to focus their energy and attention on the most common battlefield situations, not the exceptions to the rule, e.g. infantry riding tanks into action were left out since it was not common with US forces (some short range transport of US infantry by tanks was done, but once near the line of contact, they usually were dismounted and the game scenarios are supposed to pick up about then.)

I want them to focus their time and energy on beefing up the command options in the upcoming patches.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree. To me it is one of those things that just isn't worth the trouble of putting in. I mean, what next? Modeling the effect of bird droppings on gun sights?

Michael

[James Crowley]

This famous painting by Terence Cuneo is based on accounts of the action of the right flank, 3rd Battalion Scots Guards during the advance from Caumont to Les Loges, Normandy, 30th July 1944. Commanding the Churchill tank, 'Lochinvar' is Lt Robert Runcie later to become Archbishop of Canterbury.

[ATTACH]824[/ATTACH]

It may be artistic licence - although I doubt it given Cuneo's reputation and it may have been restricted to certain types of tank (the Churchill was very adept at climbing) but it almost certainly did happen at times.

Perhaps it didn't happen often but the problem is that if you restrict actions to 'common' ones you will, be definition, exclude the extraordinary ones that often form the basis of the most notable incidents in battles.

You also restrict the player in making mistakes or taking chances.

Of course including such actions depends on the technical difficulty of doing so but I'm not sure that there are any here - is it more a case of policy?

[TrailApe]

the Churchill was very adept at climbing

I think if anything that's a bit of an understatement, the Churchill would pop up in places nobody in their right minds would expect an AFV to appear.

HOWEVER - looking at the painting and the extent of the soft belly presented, it's not something you would want to do is it?

Can you imagine the state of the crew members underwear after that particular stunt?

Of course, the Guards are a bit weird.

[Blackcat]

"the Guards are a bit weird."

Understatement of the week

[Martin Krejcirik]

OK tanks are not able to breach low bocage. But what about infantry ? I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to get through, albeit slowly. This is VERY annoying issue (plus invisible gaps in bocage). I think the blast command should be extended to allow slow climbing over walls and bocage (and maybe even crossing mud and water) by any light infantry unit (certainly no guns, mg's, mortars etc).

[James Crowley]

I think if anything that's a bit of an understatement, the Churchill would pop up in places nobody in their right minds would expect an AFV to appear.

HOWEVER - looking at the painting and the extent of the soft belly presented, it's not something you would want to do is it?

Can you imagine the state of the crew members underwear after that particular stunt?

Of course, the Guards are a bit weird.

I've gone over a 'knife-edge' (about 45 Degs) in an MBT at Bovington camp, stood on the commanders seat in the turret. Better than a fairground ride!

Carefully driven and controlled it's actually not that bad; the landing is more controlled than you might think!

Having said that, under combat conditions, with lots of vegetation obscuring vision and the expectation of people trying to kill you somewhere ahead, it probably isn't anywhere near as smooth or as much fun.

But rightly or wrongly, it could be done and it was part of the learning curve that the allied forces had to contend with in Bocage country. In an ideal world you would use proper breaching techniques but they were not always available and sometimes units had to make do if they were to 'get on'.

I'm not sure that an outright ban on driving over bocage is the right way to go. Very slow, with a high chance for immobilisation and the chance to receive a 'belly' shot would be better IMO.

[YankeeDog]

I don't mind the combat effects:

- High bocage -- high enough to block LOS even for the TC looking out of a hatch (unless immediately adjacent). Can't be driven or walked through.

- Low bocage -- still can't be driven or walked through, but low enough that most units can see over it (though prone infantry can't).

- Hedge -- similar LOS to low bocage, but less cover and can be driven through by vehicles, and jumped over by infantry.

Fine. BUT, I would make a few of criticisms:

1. Graphically speaking, low bocage just doesn't look "beefy" enough to stop an infantryman from jumping over it, or a tank from crashing through it; it doesn't really look much stronger or thicker than a hedge. If the graphical representation were a bit higher and thicker, I think there would be less confusion and complaints in this area.

1. From a map design viewpoint, to simulate the fact that infantry could occasionally fine places to penetrate bocage (either deliberate so farmers could pass from field to field, or just natural points where it was easier to climb over or wiggle through), lines of bocage should rarely, if ever, be completely contiguous for any length; there should pretty much always be "infantry gaps".

2. In addition to obvious points like gates to get wagons and the like in and out, vehicles could also occasionally get over lower bocage without breaching, albeit with some effort and risk. Not easily, but they could do it. I think the best way to simulate this would be to occasionally intersperse some sections of hedge amongst lengths of low bocage, simulating areas where a vehicle breach is feasible. Honestly, I wouldn't mind it if tanks were allowed to attempt to climb over low bocage as long as it took a long time to do so, and there was a high change of immobilization. But if this can't be done (or BFC isn't interested in doing so), then I think interspersing hedge now and then is a good solution.

Cheers,

YD

[The_Capt]

I think there is evidence of tanks taking on hedgrows directly and successfully getting over them, so no denying the reality. The big problem as I see it, is how do you accurately portray this in-game and is it worth the effort wrt enhancing gameplay?

First, in reality there aren't conveniently labelled GO/NO-GO hedgrows in Normandy. As has been noted this discussion seems to focus on in-game low bocage (hedges are crossable and high bocage is and should be impassable). I have no doubt drivers and crew commanders tried crossing low bocage unsupported and some were successful. The problem is this would have been an acquired skill and not easily taught. Units would likely have resident experts who would be very good at spotting places they could safely cross their tanks but most would not have a good idea. So how do you balance the risk vs gain with crew quality? Was this a Veteran skill, Crack or Elite and how did this effect chances of success?

Second, how often was this actually practiced in the context of a CM battle? I think the record shows it was very dangerous and definitely not adopted as common unit SOP or doctrine, probably for very good reasons. WWII history is full of weird and wonderful examples of stuff "pulled-off" but on any given day commanders tended to stick with what worked and avoided what didn't. I suspect given the level of effort to find a solution to the "bocage problem" that tanks rarely used this method as a primary means to cross bocage at the tactical level....prove me wrong kids.

Third, what are those odds? The biggest threat in bocage hopping, having spent a lot of time in tracked vehicles, is in the area of mobility. By trying to go up on bocage, assuming you find the right slope, you run the very real risk of throwing a track or bellying out. This is the same principal that stell hedgehogs use in game btw. So what are the real world odds of making a successful crossing? I suspect it would be high enough to put it in "let's jump those steel hedgehogs" catagory...possible but a really bad idea. Add to this accounts of AT teams tagging the soft underbelly and the practice get more tricky. Without some hard data though you are really introducing a lot of guesswork into a feature that can have a very big impact on the game.

Fourth, adding that all up, what is it going to do to gameplay? If you make the odds very high you will lose that tank with a highly experienced crew trying it, players will almost never use it. It will almost never be part of a tactical plan but may be tried in desperation as a Hail Mary play. There is a long list of Hail Mary plays out there (ramming, using cows for cover, suicide bombing), which ones do you pick? I think BFC has stuck to a firm foundation of what was common tactical practice as best they could because to open the environ up to every possible outcome would mean the game is never delivered.

If you make the odds of successful too easy you essentially negate low bocage as a factor which make the terrain less important. This is a serious impact in a very tactically focused game. Bocage country was a claustrophobic hell for armoured vehicles and I think the game as is delivers this very real world effect in spades. I would hate to see that taken away to provide what I highly suspect was a rare and desperate tactical measure that has no hard historical data to back it up beyond what appear to be anecdotal examples of success.

[MikeyD]

You're looking at the 'low bocage problem' the wrong way. Its not that wimpy low bocage is more of an obstacle than it should be. The 'problem' is that the significant low bocage obstacle looks a bit more wimpy than it actually is. Low bocage is supposed to offer sections of the bocage 'wall' where you can just manage to get some LOS over it. About infantry passing through - infantry can pass through but where you can pass is up to the map designer. Some map designers were singier than others with narrow infantry gaps.

[SNAFU]

You're looking at the 'low bocage problem' the wrong way. Its not that wimpy low bocage is more of an obstacle than it should be. The 'problem' is that the significant low bocage obstacle looks a bit more wimpy than it actually is. Low bocage is supposed to offer sections of the bocage 'wall' where you can just manage to get some LOS over it.

That makes sense and I think you're right that the problem is more of a graphical "interpretation" of players.

Just thought I'd throw in another aspect: Tanks surely did breach bocage at times. The question is, when? It's one thing to drive your tank over a nasty hedge row when your goal is simply to get from point A to point B and another to do it when the probablity of a panzerhaust (or worse) is likely to be wating on the other side. In the scale of BFBN, the situation is that they are in combat and any intelligent crew doesn't want to take higher percentage risks of getting killed. And no crew wanted to take the chance of throwing a track while the enemy was in close proximity...

From what I know about bocage fighting (only what I've read and heard from veterans), these obstacles should not be passable for tanks. The dangers were just too great and I believe it is this fact that BF wants to portray. It is an attempt to simulate the situation as it was in WWII. IMHO (and I do mean Humble ), being able to order units to do things that they didn't (couldn't?) would detract from the game rather than make it better.

Cheers!

[xenxen]

So the argument is that it was dangers and the chance of success was small ?? I'm starting to wounder if people know that this happened during a war, standing up and moving towards the enemy is dangerous, driving a tank down on a road is a very dangerous thing to do, properly the most stupid think to do if there is Germans around.

I don't see why i can't choose to move a tank over and through a hedge but i can and am forced to order it out on the road and around the hedge right into the firing line of a KwK/PaK or onto a minefield, why do you think that they were moving through the fields in the first place, the chance of surviving was better going over the hedgerow just not by much

If battlefront have chose to disallow tanks to move over hedgerow then that is there right and i will play the game this way but that does not make it "real" and trying to make it so by saying that it did not happen because it was dangerous is just plane silly.

They should however have made it clear from the graphic that a tank can not move over a line of plants, it looks silly when a huge tank has to stop and move around it

[The_Capt]

So the argument is that it was dangers and the chance of success was small ?? I'm starting to wounder if people know that this happened during a war, standing up and moving towards the enemy is dangerous, driving a tank down on a road is a very dangerous thing to do, properly the most stupid think to do if there is Germans around.

I don't see why i can't choose to move a tank over and through a hedge but i can and am forced to order it out on the road and around the hedge right into the firing line of a KwK/PaK or onto a minefield, why do you think that they were moving through the fields in the first place, the chance of surviving was better going over the hedgerow just not by much

If battlefront have chose to disallow tanks to move over hedgerow then that is there right and i will play the game this way but that does not make it "real" and trying to make it so by saying that it did not happen because it was dangerous is just plane silly.

They should however have made it clear from the graphic that a tank can not move over a line of plants, it looks silly when a huge tank has to stop and move around it

Well I guess in a way you are proving the original point. You are absolutely correct, moving down pre-sighted closed-in routes with a very real chance of hitting minefields was extremely dangerous.

So why was there not more on hedgrow-hopping? Roads being so dangerous meant crews would have gone to great lengths to avoid them. But there are few examples of this being a successful practice let alone a tactically sound one. What they did do was studies on how to blast thru the bocage and eventually how to cut thru it...odd if they could successfully simply drive over it.

I suspect it was less about "danger" and more about "failure". By this I mean the risk of throwing a track or bogging was so great that extended use could risk entire operations or took so long as to be impractical.

[Blackcat]

Is it just me or do others notice as well. Many posters refer to hedges when they are talking about the bocage, as if the nice suburban garden divider was equivalent to the hundreds of year's old growth of wild bramble, thorn and tree growth on top of an earth mound.

Not that the visual representations of low bocage in the game help clarify understanding. However we have had in recent days testament from a player who actually lives in the bocage region and numerous pictures from the time of both high and low bocage.

The current rules of the game seem perfectly reasonable to me. If the game were to make low bocage breachable then it will disappear (scenario designers include it for a purpose). I don't think everyone will be happy with that result.

[Michael Emrys]

Is it just me or do others notice as well. Many posters refer to hedges when they are talking about the bocage, as if the nice suburban garden divider was equivalent to the hundreds of year's old growth of wild bramble, thorn and tree growth on top of an earth mound.

It's also worth remembering that that earthen mound usually had stones at its core. I'd guess that it began as a kind of crude wall of stones cleared from the fields during plowing. The wind would then have deposited soil and seeds on it. Maybe later the farmers would have added some trees or they might have seeded naturally. As brambles grew they would have captured more soil permitting further growth and so on.

Michael

[Wengart]

I think there is evidence of tanks taking on hedgrows directly and successfully getting over them, so no denying the reality. The big problem as I see it, is how do you accurately portray this in-game and is it worth the effort wrt enhancing gameplay?

Okay so we currently have the ability to drive over obstacles, fences, low walls, even bocage with a Cullins device. So if the code was flexible enough, and I suspect its not owing to the fact that wire fencing and wooden fencing slows down a tank as much as running over a stone wall and damages the tracks the same amount.

Then you could just slow the tank down some more and increase the damage done to it, and throw in a chance for bogging.

What they did do was studies on how to blast thru the bocage and eventually how to cut thru it...odd if they could successfully simply drive over it.

Tanks were developed in WWI to overcome a stalemate in the trenches, but this didn't mean mass infantry assaults stopped until the tanks came rolling along.

The argument that something was too dangerous and rarely done, is a bad one imo, for not including something in a game that is attempting to realistically portray combat. If it is a bad idea then players will learn quickly enough not to do it, but there are occasions where you want to run a tank over some bocage, and even though it might take 45-60 seconds and you might bog your tank or get it blown up It might be something you need to do.

Same with tank riders, not adding them in because it was rarely done doesn't cut it in my opinion. If I want to load up a platoon onto the backs of some Shermans and race across an open field and get everyone killed, that is my perogative.

Just to note, that although I am not fine with he too dangerous to be worth developing argument, i'm perfectly alright with the we just didn't have time argument.