Look at that lovely view through the windo... ahhh!

[winkelried]

You could use a block of gelatin, you know. Maybe not as much fun, but easier to get a volunteer.

Michael

We had demonstrations when I joined the army (including the gelatin and some porc bones). It is true - wood is no real cover - we were able to penetrate even more than 60cm (at 90 degree angle!) with the 7.62×51. Best cover are sandbags - or concrete.

What was impressive too, was the effect of firing with an HMG (like the MG42) into some bushes. The deflections have a terrible effect.

We didn't like the 5.56x45 rifles when we got them - although they were much lighter. I think that's why they now have again light machine guns (like the minimi - called M249 in the US although still with 5.56x45).

Same with the hand grenades where the explosives were cut from almost 400gr to 150gr ...

[Michael Emrys]

Same with the hand grenades where the explosives were cut from almost 400gr to 150gr ...

Why was that? Guys couldn't throw them far enough to be out of their own blast/fragmentation radius?

Michael

[winkelried]

Why was that? Guys couldn't throw them far enough to be out of their own blast/fragmentation radius?

Michael

Nope - we trained 10 - 15 - 20 meters (some of us got even farther). blast is only effective in confined spaces (like foxholes, trenches, houses) - fragmentation (you had to screw a mantle on the grenade) was not used when you exposed yourself. today's grenades work mainly with fragmentation.

Just changing times :-)

[winkelried]

we used the grenade with the fragmentation in defensive situations and the other in offensive ones

[Broken]

I just ran a little test. First time I've done this. Three buildings in a row. Small indi house, mid-size modular, and one of the indi cathedral pieces. 200m away I dropped a trench line. Three US rifle squads in the trenchs and one German rifle squad in each house, ground floor. I just hit GO, did nothing else.

- The Allied trenchline seemed the safest bet, though I didn't pay much attention to that end of the map.

- The indi Cathedral building got very few penetrations that I could see. Either bullet ricochets or shots through the windows. It took awhile but eventually one soldier got tagged through a window. Soldiers enjoyed cowering as the incoming fire grew fierce but their morale stayed high.

- Down to the mid-size modular building. A lot more penetrations but a fair number of non-penetrating hits too. Troops did a lot of cowering avoiding the pretty accurate incoming fire, the squad LMG man was the brave one regularly spraying the distant trench line. One guy nailed, I think. Their morale stayed high.

- Third small house 1 floor with attic & windows. Bullets were going through it like swiss cheese. The squad put up a valient fight but their morale dropped and after their third casualty they broke and scooted out the back to lay on the lawn behind the building.

So it does make a difference what building type you're fighting from. There's a lot of small houses on those Normandy village maps and your men are getting small house-level protection. That might be skewing your observations somewhat.

Good info. It would be nice if buildings were tagged Heavy, Medium and Light as far as small arms protection were concerned. At least it would stop some of the incessant wanking about protection provided by buildings.

[xian]

My guy was on the second floor of a large two-story stone farmhouse. But he was standing before the window when he got popped. If I had known the risk was that high, I would have had him hide until I was ready to have him spot. BTW, from the start I gave the HQ group a ten meter cover arc, so that wasn't a factor. I'd hazard a guess that the guy who popped him was 100 meters away, more or less.

Michael

Which brings me back to the to my original point: soldiers unrealistically expose themselves to incoming fire when inside buildings. They even reload standing up in full view of the enemy!

[winkelried]

Which brings me back to the to my original point: soldiers unrealistically expose themselves to incoming fire when inside buildings. They even reload standing up in full view of the enemy!

But you shouldn't be fighting from the second floor of a farm building in Normandy. Observation might be okay - but fighting calls the bullets.

[Blackcat]

Achieving local fire superority is just as important whether you are sitting on a hill or on the second story of a building. I tend to use buildings for observation but a building with good lines of sight is not a good place to fight from IMO. I get my scouts out of there early.

Wise words.

"... a building with good lines of sight is not a good place to fight from..."

Because if you can see lots of places there are dozens of the buggers who can fire on you.

[xian]

Yes.. okay, point taken.

Agreed - my tactics are terrible... I shouldn't use buildings as fire bases.

(btw, my troops ran in there on their own accord)

But, and here's the rub... do I deserve to be unrealistically penalised for choosing a poor tactic?

Admittedly, I'm still not certain whether the LOS into a building is abstracted or not. It may be that it doesn't matter if a soldier stands in front of a window whilst he reloads, write letters home, eats K rations etc because calculations are being performed in the background that give him a fair chance of not being hit.

[vincere]

In the tutorial I used the beleaguered 82nd Airbourne squads to good effect in buildings when I could get defilade and fire (numerical) superiority.

Top floors and front line facing buildings were death traps. And I've notices when MG42 burps at my guys in buildings it' time to reshuffle things.

My good effect was still costly though. Lost most of my casualties taking MG fire in the buildings.

[YankeeDog]

There is some abstraction of cover.

Think about it; soldiers behind a stone wall don't duck down to reload, and soldiers firing from behind a tree don't duck completely behind the tree to reload, either. From what I've seen, the game treats soldiers firing through windows the same way.

AFAICT, the exact location of windows is somewhat abstracted for purposes of LOS and LOF. What does matter is whether a specific wall has windows *at all*. Soldiers can't see or or fire through a completely windowless wall.

I assume (though I've never actually tested this) that windowless walls also provide somewhat more cover.

Fighting from second floor and up is indeed usually risky, but first floors of buildings can be good fighting positions. They're particularly good if there's a low wall just outside of the building, which increases the cover. Depending on where the doors are, buildings can also provide very good covered routes of withdrawal, which is important for defensive positions. Groups of buildings also often break up LOS & LOF, allowing you to pick the building/position that provides the fire lane you want, without exposing yourself fire from enemies across a wide arc.

The devil is, as always, in the details.

[xian]

I have just been re-reading some of Anthony Beevor's 'Day-D: Battle for Normandy' and on page 116 there is a passage that clearly states that American troops found it extremely difficult to overcome german units located in the type of stone farmhouse commonly found throughout Normandy.

I don't feel that this is accurately represented in the game - I still avoid putting infantry in buildings at all cost.

[sburke]

I have just been re-reading some of Anthony Beevor's 'Day-D: Battle for Normandy' and on page 116 there is a passage that clearly states that American troops found it extremely difficult to overcome german units located in the type of stone farmhouse commonly found throughout Normandy.

I don't feel that this is accurately represented in the game - I still avoid putting infantry in buildings at all cost.

I would avoid second floors other than for initial observation. If the unit is under fire and needs to bail, it is just that much harder for them to retreat and recover.

As to whether the game is modelling an old Norman farmhouse or more a generic structure without some of the added strength an old farmhouse might have I can't say. However in "No Better place to Die" Robert Murphy recounts the battle for La Fiere Manoir. The primary fighting actually takes place in the grounds around the Manoir. The Manoir itself once isolated doesn't last long. The problem with fighting from a house (and has been noted as a "problem" in other threads) is you are limited to LOS from windows etc. This does provide an advantage to an attacker as they know where your blind spots are. A side with no windows and a demolition charge and your guys are toast.

Defensive positions can't be viewed in isolation. Being hold up in a house can be a bad thing if the position isn't part of a well thought out defensive arrangement.

[Praetori]

I think the protection feels about ok.

Maybe it's a bit weak on the far end of a building. I guess there's no abstract modeling of interior walls at all?

Aaanyhow...

Here's a link to a video which might put some things into perspective for those of you with little or no RL military experience of urban environments.

Bullets going through walls... and not

[gunnergoz]

There is also a difference between fighting from buildings in an urban, built up area and simply shoving a squad or more into a farmhouse all by its lonely in the countryside. It is hard to locate and pin down the enemy in the former, but the latter as often as not is a death trap for the troops within.

[PLM2]

This thread reminds me of the big shootout scene at Ma's house in "Four Brothers" with Mark Wahlberg.

[c3k]

The Norman farmhouse SHOULD have about the same protection as the cathedral building type. (Oh, I can't wait for the historical architects to weigh in!).

The city/town/village buildings were not - mostly - constructed as stoutly.

To me, the already suggested workaround of using stone walls to reinforce a building would be a good approach to mapping farmhouses which should be stout.

Low stone walls for the parts with windows, tall stone walls for the parts without. Internal stone walls for bit of more fun.

These techniques were used successfully in CMSF et al.

I am curious if small modular buildings which are attached to other modular buildings gain protection? Is it a function of size or is it a characteristic of the original building?

Ken

[wokelly]

The Germans (well all countries for that matter) tended to reinforce garrisoned buildings with sandbags to increase protection. Those Norman farmhouses likely had several layers of sandbags within to increase resistance. The houses we fight in in game are simply average homes, not reinforced at all.

[gunnulf]

I think the protection feels about ok.

Maybe it's a bit weak on the far end of a building. I guess there's no abstract modeling of interior walls at all?

Aaanyhow...

Here's a link to a video which might put some things into perspective for those of you with little or no RL military experience of urban environments.

Bullets going through walls... and not

All very interesting but thats a north american house, they blow away in a light breeze You'd have to be totally fresh out of any other ideas before you took cover in a building made of cinderblock and plywood And don't you think he'd get bored of repeating 'and passed through the mannequin wearing a fragmention vest' 25 times..? Why not just call him Dave at the start & then could just say 'and Dave got slotted again' thereafter. You're welcome Mr Voiceover.

European houses of the time made of stone (not all were obviously) would be a totally different proposition. Also bear in mind that modern 5.56 nato tends to have a steel core to better defeat cover and body armour. Latest 5.56 calibre would now be better than .303

And as has been stated above any decent army would be re-inforcing buildings with timber struts, sandbags, mouseholes and loopholes (which would have been the answer to the orig subject of not getting shot looking through a window) if they intended to put up a serious fight in a building.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Latest 5.56 calibre would now be better than .303

I know each calibre very well. 5.56 is ok at close range, but it is a piss-arsy little calibre with comparatively low muzzle energy, which drops off even further as the range increases. It is also far more susceptable to wind. Give me 303 any time.

Hang on a minute... 303? has the Brits and Commonwealth module been snuck out while we were not looking?

SLR

[dieseltaylor]

Praetori

I have already posted that link on the Forum and mentioned that in realtion to Normandy it is misleading. Interesting to see for sure but houses in Normandy are never as lightly constructed as the target house shown in the film.

I also did research on the quality of bricks which do vary widely in density and in hardness. The bricks in the film I suspect are aerated bricks with an open construction to give high insulation value. These are not similar to the bricks used pre-WW2. In any event a single skin brick wall is highly unlikely suitable only for walls and if above say 4-5ft[1.5m] would require buttressing.

Flint is a common building material but I have not found anything on flint nodules resistance to rifle calibre weapons but given flint is extremely hard it may be a problem. Flint/chert is 7 on the Mho scale compared to a knife blade which would be about 5.5 so significantly harder. However hardness in itself is not the only requirement to defeat bullets as thickness and other factors need consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint

There is also the nature of bullet penetration now as opposed to WW2 where armoured bullets which did have the highest possible penetration were being introduced. It did seem odd to me that the most lethal bullet would not be the standard but I suppose the downside is that they are lethal to a much greater range and I can imagine that there may have been concerns about accidental friendly fire.

[Magpie_Oz]

Do you think we might be missing the point a bit?

It really doesn't matter what the walls are made out of, the windows are all glass or simply and opening. Indeed on some buildings the sill of the window is angled towards the window so it would act as a funnel. Rounds that otherwise might punch through a timber wall and pass by might be deflected towards whom ever is silly enough to be standing in the window.

There is also the prospect that a stone building could make bullets and shrapnel ricochet about inside, where a wooden building they would pass through.

In short a Building of any type, stone particularly, is a great place to hide but a pretty crap place to fight from.

[dieseltaylor]

I was reading last night about a paratroop action against a Manoir - not a very big manor house in this case :

These units continued to converge on the objective until elements of the 505th and the 508th began to enter the manor grounds through its backyard. Sporadic shots continued briefly and then one of Dolan’s men fired an M-1A1 “bazooka” into the stoutly built stone house. Shortly thereafter, a 508th PIR sergeant darted through the front door and emptied a full magazine from his M-1A1 Thompson submachine gun up through the floorboards of the second story. What was left of the German force immediately surrendered, and the battle for the Leroux manor at La Fière was over.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/walk-where-they-fought-la-fiere-82d-airborne-division-d-day-1944.htm/2

The article does have pictures and there are plenty more on the Web of the house and grounds. Notice that the idea of shooting the occupiers to death from outside the house does not happen!

Unfortunately the article is rather lght on numbers involved and the quality of the German troops if one were thinking of scenario design based on this account.

Regarding Maggies commnets on riccochets etc. that is obviously true. However if the defenders are disobliging and lie on the floor in the ground floor then you accomplish not very much apart from suppression and using up ammo which is a very real consideration. Aiming at the upper floor windows the bullet will travel into the roof structure. So whilst it may be suppressed the house is a problem in that you cannot ignore the defenders so you have to take it. Grenades work both ways and as pointed out the defenders may have slits etc for fire or observation. There is also the probability that standing to one side of the window gives a sight-line for the defender.

Incidentally glass is the same Mho hardness as flint. So is 5 inches of glass going to stop a WW2 bullet? How about 10" I have no idea !!

[gunnulf]

I know each calibre very well. 5.56 is ok at close range, but it is a piss-arsy little calibre with comparatively low muzzle energy, which drops off even further as the range increases. It is also far more susceptable to wind. Give me 303 any time.

Hang on a minute... 303? has the Brits and Commonwealth module been snuck out while we were not looking?

SLR

Yeah, ok .30/.303/7.92/7.62... all similar species

5.56 might have limitations past 300/400m (though my best shot to date is still a pheasant at 600m with 5.56mm ) and 7.62 rules beyond that, we are talking urban warfare here and 5.56 comes into its own it terms of mobility, ammo etc... But I know the futility of arguing with a cold war warrior and convincing him to give up his trusty SLR...

[LemuelG]

I was reading last night about a paratroop action against a Manoir - not a very big manor house in this case :

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/walk-where-they-fought-la-fiere-82d-airborne-division-d-day-1944.htm/2

The article does have pictures and there are plenty more on the Web of the house and grounds. Notice that the idea of shooting the occupiers to death from outside the house does not happen!

Rather assumptive. When one digs deeper it becomes apparent that the Germans in the area didn't regard the manor as much of a defensive position themselves .

http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/normandy/dolan.html

Fortunately this account is replete with details of great value to a scenario designer (and the description of the manor as a "stucco-type farmhouse" hardly conjures visions of a fortress-like position). With all due respect to Armchair General, that article was rather inadequate.