Impenetrable bocage.

[Vark]

Perhaps the sturdy British yeoman of 1944 should not have given up the billhook after all! I can just see the checklist for an assault. "Rifle. Check. Grenades. Check. Secateurs. Check. Gardening gloves. Check".

Come of it, most infantry had a bayonet, (perhaps pocket knife) and a shovel or entrenching tool, trying to tackle centuries old hedgerows with those tools would take hours. I used to live in Norfolk when the hedges were still around, they could resist a horse, weighing in at half-a tonne plus barging into them, let alone a squad of comparatively puny humans.

[John1966]

Aren't engineers equipped with secateurs? I think there was a thread about it as differing sources dispute the months of availability.

[hoolaman]

I'm sure this is not be the case for all German defensive works dug into the bocage, but the position of the dugout in that particular picture actually looks very similar to where CM lets you place a foxhole or trench -- several meters behind the actual bocage line, without LOS through the bocage.

That dugout is clearly intended as a shelter against artillery, not a position you'd use to actually fire your MG or rifle at something on the other side of the bocage - you'd have to get out of the dugout and climb up the bank to do that. It does appear to offer much more protection than what seems to be offered by a CM foxhole or trench, but that's kind of a different subject... one wonders if a wood bunker placed one action spot behind the bocage line would be a better representation of that kind of dugout, even if the graphical representation in-game wouldn't match very well.

I think it could easily serve as a rifle pit, but given its poition in a sunken lane, I'd guess that it is actually the reverse side of the dugout, with a rifle pit on the other side. The links below show some more pics of foxholes dug right into the bocage. Imagine this on one side with a tunnel under the bank out into the dugout on the other side..

The dugout in my previous pic certainly isn't 4 or 5 metres from the embankment, it is right underneath it (just to be clear in that pic I see a sunken lane with bocage embankments on both sides). These positions were not on the reverse slope AIUI they were on the side facing the attackers.

It's pretty hard to find good pictures actually, but the famous map of the defenses around Le Carillon shows a lot of rifle pits and dugouts that would be similar to these ones.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216628&page=8

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=112&art_id=817&kb_cat_id=35

350 kb IMAGE of le carillon defenses:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/mp16.jpg

[Michael Emrys]

What the Sherman tanks did was drive into the hedgerow, knocking down enough of it to fire across the bocage field, but they were unable to knock enough down to allow them to get thru the hedgerow safely.

My reading is that it wasn't the foliage that prevented the tanks from penetrating. It wasn't even the berm, which they could climb over. It was that in climbing over, they exposed their lightly armored bellies to whatever AT weaponry was across the field. That's why gaps needed to be created in the hedgerow. That said, I have to wonder about that explanation since German AT weaponry, especially at the ranges encountered, would have defeated even Sherman frontal armor—let alone that of a Stuart—often enough to make it plenty dangerous. Maybe it all came down to psychological factors.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Aren't engineers equipped with secateurs? I think there was a thread about it as differing sources dispute the months of availability.

They had chainsaws, but it is impossible to use a chainsaw stealthily.

Michael

[SteveP]

My reading is that it wasn't the foliage that prevented the tanks from penetrating. It wasn't even the berm, which they could climb over. It was that in climbing over, they exposed their lightly armored bellies to whatever AT weaponry was across the field. That's why gaps needed to be created in the hedgerow. That said, I have to wonder about that explanation since German AT weaponry, especially at the ranges encountered, would have defeated even Sherman frontal armor—let alone that of a Stuart—often enough to make it plenty dangerous. Maybe it all came down to psychological factors.

Michael

Well, consider that the rhino attachment did not do anything other than cut thru the foliage. It did not blast an opening thru the foundation of the hedgerow. If the issue was entirely about exposing the underbelly, the rhino attachment would hardly have solved that problem. I think the advantage of the rhino was that the tanks did not have to pull back and wait for the engineers to blast a more complete opening (or, for that matter, wait for non-existent engineers to show up). Instead, they could continue to work thru the hedgerow on their own and get into the open field without having to let up the suppressing fire.

[JonS]

Well, consider that the rhino attachment did not do anything other than cut thru the foliage. It did not blast an opening thru the foundation of the hedgerow. If the issue was entirely about exposing the underbelly, the rhino attachment would hardly have solved that problem.

This is wrong. The Rhino did shift a substantial part of the embankment, as well as clearing away the tightly entangled, uncontrolled vegetation.

Incidentally; belly hits are modelled in CMBN. Not that it matters much though since, as Emrys pointed out, pretty much any German AT weapon could pierce the frontal armour on pretty much any Allied tank anyway.

[Michael Emrys]

This is wrong. The Rhino did shift a substantial part of the embankment, as well as clearing away the tightly entangled, uncontrolled vegetation.

Right. The whole point of it was to dig into the berm and prevent the nose of the tank from rising up. It was the weight and momentum of the tank that actually broke through the hedgerow, but it had to be prevented from simply going over it.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

There is no doubt that SHermans and Stuarts could shift earth with a Rhino attachment - the question really is how effective was it tactically. We have to make the distinction between what is shown in the US propaganda films and how it was actually used.

As someone pointed out CHurchills could bull their way cross-country and in a recorded incident did - though tank men were knocked senseless - and no doubt some tanks broke down. However this seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

I have read an account of a US Rhino SHerman crew who said RHinos were ineffective and actually injured the crew and the tank. It may be they were particularly bad at choosing the pieces of hedge however logically anything hitting a mound of earth repeatedly to break its structure is going to be painful to someone.

Stuarts racing at speed through small hedges is simply a travesty of the real bocage terrain. However if you are not aware of the real terrain ...it looks great.

[dieseltaylor]

Then I got my orders to report to the second battalion of the 120th regiment of the 30th Infantry Division and I was to report to battalion headquarters. And I was to be on the battalion staff as the assistant to the S1. So I am reporting to the front line troops and this is the 2nd battalion of the 120th Infantry Regiment. This is the hedgerow country. I get up to the front line on the very first day and report to my battalion commander. Well this is an experience that’s beyond, really beyond explanation. The American forces in Normandy were at a great disadvantage because basically what a hedgerow is, it is a little field that’s maybe about an acre, maybe half acre. It’s in the orchard country, a farming agricultural area in France. But largely orchards and lots of apple trees and this little patch maybe one acre. Its maybe only about a half acre, about half the size of our lake lot. Over the years they would build a hedge around their little plot of land to define the boundary. And then the hedge would catch blowing sand and debris and it would gradually build up into a mound. And then they would plant again on the mound another hedge or trees. Over the years these hedges would grow higher and higher and higher and higher and then they always keep a hedge on top. This was the boundary of their land. The hedgerows were usually at least six to eight to ten feet high. So we would be, maybe the ground would be here and the top of the hedgerow would be at about at that point up there, at the top of the door. And it would be a big wide wedge because of the accumulation of debris and dirt and the tree or hedge on top. This was a tremendous fortification for the Germans. What they would do, the Germans, would dig right through the base of the hedgerow, you get the picture now. We have this wedge, maybe 20 feet wide, six to eight feet high, and they would dig tunnels right through to the other side. They would lay down and fire their machine guns across that open space. Now you know what a field of fire is? A field of fire is, when a machine gun is sitting up maybe at that level or a little lower and they train them to point one machine gun this way and another machine gun that way. So you would get cross fire and that’s what you call a field of fire. And if anyone came out into that open area, they would open up with their machine guns and create that crossfire, and you are a dead duck, absolutely a dead duck. Every open space the Germans would be set up their field of fire and it was murder. And not only that, they would just pound you with mortar fire. You know what a mortar is? And artillery fire. The Germans had a piece of artillery that was devastating called a 88 and it was a very, very big piece of artillery and they had the 88’s time shells called air bursts. They would fire the gun and it would be timed so it would explode at a certain point in time over where their target was and it would explode in the air and just shower a field of shrapnel over a big area, oh my god they were deviating. I mean you had no defense unless you were in a tunnel.

http://www.oldhickory30th.com/Interview%20of%20Lt.%20Ray%20Holmquist%20Hedgerow.htm

[JonS]

There is no doubt that SHermans and Stuarts could shift earth with a Rhino attachment - the question really is how effective was it tactically.

Gee ... if only someone would write a book. Wouldn't that be swell? But what would one call such a book? Busting the Bocage, mayhap?

[dieseltaylor]

Oh gosh JonS that is so helpful. I must remember that not everyone here has necessarily read the manual.

However there is very little in Busting the Bocage on the upsides and downsides of the plow but perhaps you have forgotten that.

[John1966]

Right. The whole point of it was to dig into the berm and prevent the nose of the tank from rising up. It was the weight and momentum of the tank that actually broke through the hedgerow, but it had to be prevented from simply going over it.

Michael

Ah, this makes perfect sense. I've always puzzled a bit about how the cullen worked. This, I "get".

Incidentally, thinking about those hedgerows I was looking at yesterday, a lot had been "trimmed" in that they didn't have excess foilage; just the solid "core" of the hedgerow (if that's the right phrase). I think pictures of Normandy bocage can be a bit misleading as it was often a bit overgrown and just looks like some bushes that you can easily imagine an infantry man managing to crawl through. When you just see the "core" like this you can see that there is no way that is happening without some major work cutting holes in it; it's that solid. In fact, without some preperation, it is difficult to see how you could even see to shoot through it.

[SteveP]

We may be debating something not worth debating, but consider this:

In July, for units supported by non-rhino (or non-bulldozer equipped, for that matter) tanks, the sequence was: 1) tank plows into hedgerow and starts suppressing fire on the defended hedgerow; 2) infantry moves up into the bocage field and starts suppressing fire at close range; 3) tank pulls back and engineers lay charges in that location; 4) tank moves up and joins infantry.

If the problem for the tanks previously was only that they were vulnerable to AT fire while plowing thru the hedgerow and into the field, step #3 above would not have been necessary. The engineers could do their work only if the enemy was fully suppressed anyway. If the enemy is fully suppressed why not just drive the tank into the field? With explosives in short supply (and perhaps properly training engineers as well), that would have been the obvious thing to do.

[Holien]

I think there are two different things being discussed here.

I am saying that unopposed infantry will be able to get through (over or under) ANY hedge or bocage. The time taken to do that can be discussed but it would certainly in a timeframe that would fall within the game.

Getting over / under / through a hedge that has Germans covering it is another matter and I think from memory CM modelled this by making the men dead easy to hit and hence modelling it,

Now bocage is an obstacle which is modelled as non passable. If you found a section of undefended bocage I am sure WW2 troops would have got through it!!! I am sure modern troops would get through it as long as health and safety has not gone too mad in this modern world!!!

I think we need to go back to a different way of modelling bocage for infantry. Tanks I can live with high bocage not allowing them through low bocage any tank should be able to get through IMO...

[JonS]

I am saying that unopposed infantry will be able to get through (over or under) ANY hedge or bocage.

In the Real World, given enough time, tools, and material; yes.

In the game world, however, it is a valid design decision to make un-assisted breaching impossible.

Let's remember, too, that there are many different ways to force a breach. Bocage is not a permanent, inviolable obstacle. Any infantry unit can, in fact, get through ANY bocage in any location. But they'll need help to do it.

[Childress]

One wonders why BFC didn't include a %chance for breech failure. You know, based the team's experience. Or somefink.

[Holien]

In the Real World, given enough time, tools, and material; yes.

In the game world, however, it is a valid design decision to make un-assisted breaching impossible.

Let's remember, too, that there are many different ways to force a breach. Bocage is not a permanent, inviolable obstacle. Any infantry unit can, in fact, get through ANY bocage in any location. But they'll need help to do it.

Any decision made by BTS can be said to be a valid design decision. In the last version it was a valid decision to allow infantry the ability to cross but at a penalty.

If you are saying infantry in the real world need tools and material to cross I disagree, they have everything they need with what they are equipped. This hocus about "Tools and Material" is Hamster food...

Real World Infantry can get through / under / over bocage in a timely manner that would fit within what is modelled in the game. (they might choose not to do this if being fired at and would pay a price).

In game this can only be done with either a tank or explosives. This is not IMO a true representation of the real world. I accept that it is the route the game has chosen to use but in this instance it is not a full real world picture...

Just my view and happy to agree to disagree.

[Blackcat]

"I am saying that unopposed infantry will be able to get through (over or under) ANY hedge or bocage. The time taken to do that can be discussed but it would certainly in a timeframe that would fall within the game."

Yes, it is possible for a man or men using hand tools to get through/over any bocage hedge. Is it possible to breach every bocage hedge with hand tools inside 30 mins - four hours, no it ain't. Some hedges, in some places but evereywhere? No. Go and see some of this stuff. In addition we ae talking about a combat environment where the GI's would be trying to do the work whilst lying on their bellies and generally trying not to attract attention.

If, as above, a hedge can stop a cow or horse pushing through it, a soldier or even 12 soldiers won't be able to either. So its down to cutting your way through.

Holien, tell you what! You come down to my neck of the woods with a WWII entrenching tool. I'll introduce to some rural hedges and we will time how long it takes you to get through. Then we will go up to some sunken roads near Shere in Surrey which have banks just like the high bocage and we can repeat the test there.

Or you could just walk out into some fields near you and try a few experiments on ordnary hedges.

[JonS]

Any decision made by BTS can be said to be a valid design decision.

Well sure. But what I meant was that there is a pretty clear and easily justifiable reason why they did it this way. CMBN - or any other game - cannot model everything that is physically possible, it can only model what is physically plausible. Freely moving through full bocage in a combat environment is not plausible.

In the last version it was a valid decision to allow infantry the ability to cross but at a penalty.

True, but remember that CMx1 was a whole lot simpler. It's not like the abiulity to ghost through hedges has been yoinked without replacement. The modelling of, and interaction with, bocage is now a lot richer and more complex, so the simplistic CMs1 mechanic of ghosting through makes no sense in this context.

Incidentally, HE and Rhinos are not the only way through bocage. Mapmakers can put any number of breaks, in multiple different formats, and any location they desire. How players use - or misuse - those breaks is up to them.

[womble]

In game this can only be done with either a tank or explosives. This is not IMO a true representation of the real world. I accept that it is the route the game has chosen to use but in this instance it is not a full real world picture...

Then again, it's entirely possible to arrange for there to be a highly unrealistic quantity of explosives available to breach hedgerows, and it's certain that the use of these explosives to do so is much easier than it was IRL, so perhaps it's a mitigating aspect: consider (some of) the breaching explosives to be representative of the use of 'other means' that would be too arduous to code and build the interface for.

[Broadsword56]

Incidentally, HE and Rhinos are not the only way through bocage. Mapmakers can put any number of breaks, in multiple different formats, and any location they desire. How players use - or misuse - those breaks is up to them.

**Teachable moment alert** Speaking of that, how about sharing with us some examples of the variety you're describing, so aspiring mappers can understand some good ways to vary the bocage and place breaks in different formats along them? Use xxxx-oo--- type characters if you like, or (better yet) post a few editor screenies that show some good examples we can steal -- er -- learn from. The more these mapping techniques get shared, the better the maps and the better the playing experience for us all...

[JonS]

Sure Highly simplified examples below.

- bocage

# bocage with a gap/gate in it

~ wooden fence (or gate)

= wall, hedge, wire fence

1) Passable with assistance:

------------------------

I don't use this much anymore. It's boring to look at, and too much of a barrier to mobility.

2) Passable to infantry without assistance:

-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#

Is it plausible that any infantry would try to go over/under/through the bocage bits of that, rather than through the gaps? I don't think so.

3) Easily passable to infantry, little obstacle to movement:

###################

Despite not restricting infantry movement at all, this one is still useful since it keeps trees placed on it nicely aligned, and provides a good fighting position. It's good for lining either side of the driveway leading up to a chateau, for example.

4) Passable to armour and infantry:

---#--=~=---#--===---

Infantry can go through the gaps or over the fences and walls. Tanks can knock down the walls and fences.

I feel like I’m playing Nethack! I’ll see if I can rustle up some decent screen shots.

Once you’ve thought about the effect you’re trying to create, it’s pretty easy to come up with variations on the above. In general, I try to place at least two wooden-gate entrances to each bocage-lined field. Obviously each field must have at least one, but I figure that farmers will want to be able to move around their farms, and stringing together a beaded-necklace of gates provides a way for them to do that. I also often put bocage gaps in the corners of fields for much the same reason – allowing the farmer to move around his farm, albeit without equipment in this case – and additional gaps in likely short-cut locations, such as behind or near buildings and barns.

Something I’ve started doing recently is adding a rural stone wall on either side of a wooden gate. This is mainly to assist the AI, since just having the wooden gate makes for too much of a bottleneck.

Mixing up bocage with the other wall types in short runs gives the whole thing – IMO – a more organic look, and also provides mobility options, since the infantry can just hop over, and the tanks can knock the other types down (and wheeled vehicles can knock down the lighter types). I also use walls and wire fences for the entirety of some paddock divisions, on the basis that larger fields would be progressively subdivided, with the newer subdivisions consisting of newer and more permeable barriers.

Jon

[LemuelG]

That said, I have to wonder about that explanation since German AT weaponry, especially at the ranges encountered, would have defeated even Sherman frontal armor—let alone that of a Stuart—often enough to make it plenty dangerous. Maybe it all came down to psychological factors.

Michael

I wouldn't be so concerned about exposing by belly as by approaching dangerous enemies with all my weapons pointing at the moon.

[womble]

In July, for units supported by non-rhino (or non-bulldozer equipped, for that matter) tanks, the sequence was: 1) tank plows into hedgerow and starts suppressing fire on the defended hedgerow; 2) infantry moves up into the bocage field and starts suppressing fire at close range; 3) tank pulls back and engineers lay charges in that location; 4) tank moves up and joins infantry.

For me, the crux of Bocage's 'impenetrability' associates with point 2 above. I'm entirely happy that (for whatever reason) forcing a tank over a bocage berm was exceptional enough that the game disallows it. But for the above sequence to occur, the infantry have to be able to get through the hedgerow. No explosives are mentioned, and even with a suppressed enemy opposite, taking a hatchet and entrenching tools to the hedge of a bocage would mean your buddies would run out of ammo before you got it hacked (even if you had tanks spraying the opposite field edge), and cutting your concealment away from between you and an active enemy is a fine way to get a bullet in the face. Taking that into consideration, I find it hard not to conclude that the infantry used existing gaps (even crawlable ones, or weak points that could be forced through) rather than making their own. So there have to be gaps in bocage.

Bocage 'tiles' are impassable in the game, without earthmoving, but designers can put their own gaps in. Difficult gaps can have small patches of difficult terrain like bog or forest under them, whereas the 'intentional' gaps left for worker access could have dirt or grass, or even rocky or gravel (if the farmer's put some hardcore down in a damp gap).

At the moment, it seems we're largely working from a base that assumes a bocage tile is the be-all and end-all of simulating Norman hedgerows. That would require some pretty subtle coding of paramaters for a simple terrain type, and complex coding of TacAI and its interactions with such a subtle beast. The game's been out a bit over 3 months and map designers are still feeling their way to how to best create the feel of a Norman field complex. Focusing on the attributes of the one terrain type to the exclusion of how it interacts with other terrain is, I think, counterproductive.