Crossing 'Low' Bocage.

[James Crowley]

This Panther doesn't seem to be having too much of a problem. The tank-riders are hardly gripping on for their lives.

Original Caption:

'A Panther and a group of panzer-grenadiers crash through a bocage hedge in Normandy' from 'The Killing ground' by Lucas & Barker.

[LemoN]

I agree that low bocage should be crossable for all tanks, but for track damage and a severe danger of becoming bogged down.

[womble]

Or you could take the practical approach and say that the obstacle the panther is crossing would be represented is a hedge, since a tank can cross it. As could infantry, from the looks of it. Or it's a low stone wall with lots of scrub and bushes near it. By definition the photo is not of what CMBN rates as "low bocage".

[JSB]

This Panther doesn't seem to be having too much of a problem.

For the moment...what proves it managed to cross the hedge without harm?

Agree with womble. CMBN low bocage can be used in conjonction with trees to create impassable terrain for both infantry and vehicles, which is not possible with trees and/or heavy forest.

[winkelried]

For the moment...what proves it managed to cross the hedge without harm?

when looking at these photos or movies we should not forget that they often were made - on the German side - by members of Propagandakompanie's (I am sure that the Allies also selected photographs). And their main goal was propaganda. So they sometimes (often) arranged situations which looked nice on photo/film. One of the side effects was, that it seems that recruits came with distorted ideas - in the Tigerfibel on page 38 it is written "not to drive through walls, since the debris looks much better in the Wochenschau than on the rear deck" of the Tiger ...

[YankeeDog]

Yep. For CM purposes, a section of bocage breachable by vehicles without special equipment = hedge.

Probably the more useful discussion to have is how common long stretches of low bocage without sections of hedges or other variances that allow vehicles to pass through should be on CM maps. Or at least, on CM maps attempting to realistically model Normandy terrain.

[LJFHutch]

Yep. For CM purposes, a section of bocage breachable by vehicles without special equipment = hedge.

Probably the more useful discussion to have is how common long stretches of low bocage without sections of hedges or other variances that allow vehicles to pass through should be on CM maps. Or at least, on CM maps attempting to realistically model Normandy terrain.

Ooh, certainly, that's a discussion I want to have

[George MC]

This Panther doesn't seem to be having too much of a problem. The tank-riders are hardly gripping on for their lives.

Original Caption:

'A Panther and a group of panzer-grenadiers crash through a bocage hedge in Normandy' from 'The Killing ground' by Lucas & Barker.

[ATTACH]1124[/ATTACH]

No indication he has or did cross it - that photo shows the Panther just stuck on the hedge

I've been down visiting my parents in Fife the past week. Around where they stay is farmland with old hedge systems. I was looking at them thinking how like Normandy bocage they are. very dense (in this case Hawthron) that has been split and wovent together to form very dense and high hedge systems.

[James Crowley]

No indication he has or did cross it - that photo shows the Panther just stuck on the hedge

Isn't that just the problem with still photographs; you never know what happened next

I doubt that the photograher would have asked the tank driver to go over the bocage, or that the commander would have agreed to, if there was a high probability of damage to the vehicle, propaganda or not.

Tanks were designed to go over obstacles; that's why they were invented. I can only assume the the majority of posters have never seen a tank being put through its paces.

A hedge is a hedge - it has no, or neglible, earth bank.

There is clearly an earth bank in the photo, given the angle of the tank; so it is bocage of some sort. It looks to be about chest height, as described in the manual, so it is low bocage.

I have been driven over far more serious obstacles than the one in the photo, in tanks, at Bovington Camp and driven over equal ones myself. Done carefully there is really no problem; the Tank museum wouldn't take any undue chances with their running exhibits, believe me!

I'm more than happy to allow for some track damage if a tank goes over low bocage at anything other than slow speed. And being more vulnerable to enemy fire and unable to fire itself. But a total ban is IMHO, unrealistic.

[womble]

Isn't that just the problem with still photographs; you never know what happened next

I doubt that the photograher would have asked the tank driver to go over the bocage, or that the commander would have agreed to, if there was a high probability of damage to the vehicle, propaganda or not.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Stuff can be done in controlled circumstances for propaganda purposes that would neve be dreamed of in the field. You can risk a bogey going kablooey if it's going to do so within 200m of the divisional repair depot.

A hedge is a hedge - it has no, or neglible, earth bank. There is clearly an earth bank in the photo...

I'm not sure it is a hedge or a bank. Looks more like a low wall to me. With bushes on/around it.

...so it is bocage of some sort. It looks to be about chest height, as described in the manual, so it is low bocage...

No. You want it to be low bocage. If the tank makes it over, it simply isn't what's represented in the game as low bocage. There's a ditch missing. The vegetation on top isn't nearly thick enough. You can't even see if there's a drop back to ground level the other side; it could be a step of terracing.

In addition, it's pretty clear that, given a little time and careful handling, tanks could force their way across bocage, even the high stuff. It's equally clear that this was not something that was recommended in practice in the face of the enemy due to the inherent risks of breakdown and vulnerability. BFC's have decided that "possible" should not have the chance to be translated to "done in every CMBN battle that has a bocage."

I'm more than happy to allow for some track damage if a tank goes over low bocage at anything other than slow speed. And being more vulnerable to enemy fire and unable to fire itself. But a total ban is IMHO, unrealistic.

Right. Yeah. Track damage. So you can always succeed at the first bocage-crash. Yet if it was a percentage chance (a high one) of simply busticating the thing, people would squeal. Unrealistic is it happening all the time. If it was a worthwhile approach to crossing bocage, why the devil did the Americans spend all that time attaching Culins to the front of their tanks and blowing holes in hedgerows? Unrealistic is what you'd get, given the artificial nature of the environment and the low aversion to risk of a commander pushing pixels round a screen rather than ordering people around the countryside.

You can whinge about this, or you can look for reasons why it's so. There are lots of 'design decisions' like this (no AT Rockets from within buildings, for example) where it's possible to point at one or two exceptions that would become the rule if permitted to the player. These exceptions often occur for reasons that are below the grain of the simulation BFC offers us: a building with one side of its roof blown out might be a place where you could fire and ATR out an attic window in the other, mostly intact side, but coding that sort of discrimination is below the simulation granularity.

[James Crowley]

So how will that square with the Guards Churchills crashing, in large numbers, through Bocage in the Caumont battles?

It is exceedingly likely that only the likes of a Churchill tank could go over tall bocage. No argument from me on that one.

But I firmly believe that low level bocage would not pose an insurmountable problem for any tank, nor for infantry.

Because that was a safer approach. Not because it was impossible. What I'm saying is that the player should have the option to take the risks inherent in such an action and suffer any consequences. The player can order a tank to drive down a dirt road at full speed and try and take a right angled bend at the end of it. Probably not standard practice and likely to end in grief - but it is at least the players choice. Whats the difference?

And why didn't British armour use cullin type devices if they were the only viable option? Or will BFC programme in Flails?

Pointing out things that happened as a matter of historical fact is not whinging.

I would say that a simulation offering 1 to 1 soldier representation is very finely grained. Much more so than CMx1 and that allowed bocage to be traversed by infantry,albeit very, very, slowly, which also cannot be done in CMBN

Will the Guards at Caumont be treated as an 'exception'?

[Pak40]

Low Bocage and Wire should be treated about the same as wire was treated in the CMx1 engine: should be passable by infantry with a large cost to speed. U.S. squads were issued wire cutters and all infantry are trained to deal with and infiltrate wire. There's no reason why it should be impassable to infantry.

Low bocage should be treated the same way. It should be crossable by infantry at a cost to speed. Realistically I don't think there was a trained combat soldier that could not scale a 4' or 5' wall that shrubs on it. Think about what every soldier goes through in basic training: the obstacles they have to climb and navigate. Suddenly a 5' wall with shrubs pose as impassible - I highly doubt it.

[Pak40]

**edit**

And as for tanks, they should be able to cross also but at the risk of damage to their tracks. The larger the tank then the better chance to cross. M5's should be real risky to cross and halftracks probably wont have any success at all.

[Childress]

Low bocage should be treated the same way.

Don't know about that. Low bocage, as depicted in the game, is nearly as wide as it is tall.

[womble]

So how will that square with the Guards Churchills crashing, in large numbers, through Bocage in the Caumont battles?

I don't know. I'm not privvy to BFC's thoughts. I'd imagine it'll be some sort of special ability of the Churchill to cross bocage akin to but not exactly the same as the ability of Rhino-equipped units to plow holes in the stuff.

But I firmly believe that low level bocage would not pose an insurmountable problem for any tank, nor for infantry.

Can you not conceive of a low level bocage which is just high enough to provide a tactically insurmountable problem, but which isn't as high as "high bocage"?

Because that was a safer approach. Not because it was impossible. What I'm saying is that the player should have the option to take the risks inherent in such an action and suffer any consequences.

BFC disagree with you. They have drawn the line at 'low bocage' being uncrossable in the game because if it was possible it would happen all the time, when it happened, in history hardly at all. That's just the way we, the players, in aggregate, (ab)use the game. Matter of record. Fire is an arch example from CMx1.

The player can order a tank to drive down a dirt road at full speed and try and take a right angled bend at the end of it. Probably not standard practice and likely to end in grief - but it is at least the players choice. Whats the difference?

The difference is that the TacAI can and will moderate those 'orders' to something approaching doctrinal reality. The vehicle will slow at the turn (or halt and then turn on the spot). Recovering a tank from being bogged in some mud is a lot easier than recovering one stranded on a too-difficult Bocage with broken suspension, so driving on mud wasn't 'banned'. Driving in Swamp is though, and that's marked as "impassable" in the same way that Bocage is. Different magnitudes of no-no.

And why didn't British armour use cullin type devices if they were the only viable option? Or will BFC programme in Flails?

They had Churchills. Explosives is another viable option. They weren't as mired in the bocage around Caen as the Americans were further west, AIUI. Combine these three and you're maybe starting to get an answer.

Pointing out things that happened as a matter of historical fact is not whinging.

Complaining that the game doesn't reflect your interpretation of historical fact is, though.

I would say that a simulation offering 1 to 1 soldier representation is very finely grained.

In the soldier dimension, yes. Can't really get much finer without representing specific wounds... 8m terrain squares and buildings being treated as 'blobs' isn't though. My house is only about half an action spot, so a two-storey, single action spot building is smulating maybe 15 rooms. Taking into account whether a given room's back wall is open to the countryside isn't exactly going to be a 1:1 simulation when the engine is trying to determine whether a firing position for a ATR is suitable or not, and so to avoid people whinging when "Sometimes I can fire from inside a building and sometimes I can't and there's no telling which will be the case without trying every position within the building" they've disallowed it as a blanket rule.

As has been said earlier, this discussion would be much better focused on ways of showing non-bocage (and therefore passable) linear obstacles in a pleasing manner.

[Blackcat]

"Realistically I don't think there was a trained combat soldier that could not scale a 4' or 5' wall that shrubs on it."

I agree. However I thought we were discussing bocage here.

[mjkerner]

What about "bocage" don't you guys understand? It's been discussed to death on these boards...just read up on contemporary AAR's, US Army Manuals, etc. It's a no-brainer. Bocage is not just a wall with shrubs on it. Period. And no, soldiers can't just climb over/through bocage. Period.

Please, read up on it before you continue to beat this dead horse.

[Holien]

What about "bocage" don't you guys understand? It's been discussed to death on these boards...just read up on contemporary AAR's, US Army Manuals, etc. It's a no-brainer. Bocage is not just a wall with shrubs on it. Period. And no, soldiers can't just climb over/through bocage. Period.

Please, read up on it before you continue to beat this dead horse.

Please quote what sources so I can read what you have read?

I love how free speech and debate is being encouraged by the tone of your post....

[Holien]

You can whinge about this,

Womble it would be nice to keep the posts emotive free rather than tossing these sort of hand grenades when all Jim was doing is posting what he thought was evidence to support his view that tanks should be able to bull through low bocage.

Some good points have been made for both points of view and there is no need to start this sort of approach.

Focus on what you think is true but comments like the above could be taken the wrong way and I am sure you don't mean it in the way it could be taken?

Peace and Love Peace and Love as a certain drummer would say....

[Childress]

But some of us were enjoying the dueling Bits show.

[mjkerner]

Please quote what sources so I can read what you have read?

I love how free speech and debate is being encouraged by the tone of your post...."

Yes, when I get home I will give you some. There are many accounts in personal memoirs as well, of which there have been a lot of new releases in the last couple of years, as the veteran ranks are dwindling. Don't forget, these are field dividers "grown" over hundreds of years with all the roots and stones etc., firmly imbedded in them, not like the hedge around my neighbors house.

"I love how free speech and debate is being encouraged by the tone of your post....:

Then my work here is done. (Please note the smiley) Actually, it's BFC's house so technically there is no free speech here except as they define it.

But, all joking aside, it's just that this has been debated and discussed to death on many other threads here, and still people adopt the attitude that BFC screwed it up or is being pissy for not easing up on the bocage difficulties. (Several of those threads have sources quoted as well.) It was a fact of life for the combatants at the time, so it seems reasonable to me it should be for us, too.

I like Womble's comment. Scenario designers should think about using non-bocage hedges and berms and whatever as the case may fit the scenario. Personally, I'd like to see a high hedge..one that has a berm with "shrubs on top" that infantry and armor can pass through but that gives more protection to those hunkered down behind it. It's possible to do with elevations, but that's more work in the editor.

[womble]

"Realistically I don't think there was a trained combat soldier that could not scale a 4' or 5' wall that shrubs on it."

I agree. However I thought we were discussing bocage here.

Nope, we're discussing the photograph that is supposedly bocage being crossed by a Panther. Which looks to be a chest-high wall with some shrubs.

[Pak40]

"Realistically I don't think there was a trained combat soldier that could not scale a 4' or 5' wall that shrubs on it."

I agree. However I thought we were discussing bocage here.

I'm discussing low bocage, which is the thread's topic.

What about "bocage" don't you guys understand? It's been discussed to death on these boards...just read up on contemporary AAR's, US Army Manuals, etc. It's a no-brainer. Bocage is not just a wall with shrubs on it. Period. And no, soldiers can't just climb over/through bocage. Period.

Please, read up on it before you continue to beat this dead horse.

As much as you pretend to know more than the rest of us about the intricacies of bocage, you are not the definitive source on the subject and this does warrant further discussion. And we are not talking about the typical bocage that is probably referenced in the AARs that you mention.

The facts are that there are varying degrees of bocage(height and width) all over Normandy. For simplicity sake, CMBN has narrowed these down to two choices, normal and low.

I'm talking about the "low" bocage that is roughly the height of a short man and sometimes shorter. A typical example can be found here not far from St Mere Eglise: The left side seems to be a typical example of "low" bocage, the right side would be the "normal" bocage. You can use Google street view and see many more examples all over Normandy yourself. Most "low" bocage that I've seen is quite accessible to a human.

I agree that a casual stroller would not want or attempt to traverse normal or even low bocage but a physically fit soldier can, with varying degrees of effort, get across if ordered to.

[James Crowley]

I am curious as to why some people feel the need to act as self-appointed spoke-persons and apologists for BFC, especially when they freely admit that they have no more knowledge about the whys and wherefors of BFC than anyone else.

As to those who feel that it has all been discussed to death, then why are you wasting your time participating in the thread in the first place?

I don't think BFC has screwed up. They have produced a wonderful game which I am very much enjoying. There are some aspects of it that I disagree with and this crossing of low bocage is one of them. It is just my POV and I'm sorry if that causes a problem for some people. Take a deep breath and try and get over it.

Normal, or tall, Bocage was a major mobilty problem for all combatants in Normandy. It appears that the only tank fully capable of crossing it was the Churchill -which did, in large numbers on a major operation. All agreed?

Low bocage, which is defined as chest height in the manual -4 to 5 feet high - irrespective of what it is made up of, should IMO be crossable by both infantry and tanks. Maybe at the cost of time, vulnerabilty and potential damage but crossable non the less.

For those who are interested in the facts, as opposed to having a pissing competition, I am due a vist to Bovington Camp mid September. I am doing a tour of the workshops and have already booked into the library/archives to do some research on - you guessed it - tanks in bocage country. Be interesting to see what I can unearth.

Finally, Womble, it must be a bloody strong wall to take the weight of a 45 ton Panther moving across it. I would tend to think it would be rather flat by now but perhaps, apparently like everything in Normandy, it is also impenetrable.

[SteveP]

The "Busting the Bocage" study said that Shermans could move over and thru low bocage. However, they kept getting destroyed by infantry AT weapons when they did. Perhaps they risked getting bogged or damaged as well. I don't know. In any event, the American army stopped trying to run Shermans thru any type of bocage (i.e., any hedge built atop a substantial earthen berm) unless cleared by explosive charges first.

BFC did not choose to model the ability of Shermans to cross low bocage (which would have to include the vulnerability to AT weapons). OTOH, they made it way too easy, safe and quick to blow tank sized holes in the bocage. On the whole, it may balance out in a reasonable way.