Infantry Firefights in Forested terrain.

[Childress]

Apropos of trees, does anyone know if the the Battle of the Huertgen Forest will be in the Market Garden module? Or the Bulge game. Both operations began in Sept, iirc, but the Huertgen battles spilled into 1945.

[John1966]

SPOLIER!

I once managed to have a Sherman surprise an anti-tank gun by going up to its flank in the trees it was defending from. You'd have thought they'd hear it coming...

Oddly enough, it was in Bois de Baugin that this happened. IIRC the edges of the two flanking forests are passable to tanks. They just can't get into the middle of the forest (which was where I had all my problems).

Just an observation.

[Michael Emrys]

I think you're right, and to an extent, this is actually probably a Good Thing as the incidence of choked forest in Normandy '44 is probably pretty small, so at least the interior of even 'wild' (not that the adjective really applies to a very large area at all) forests should be largely clear of serious undergrowth.

I think this may be true over most of Western Europe at the time. One exception I have heard of is the trees/brush vegetation sometimes growing along stream banks, especially if those are lower than the adjacent surrounding terrain. Since those areas are pretty inaccessible anyway, there wasn't much incentive to clear them and the thick vegetation would help control erosion.

Michael

[Tux]

What sort of forests are most common in Normandy, in terms of tree/ plant types? If forests in Normandy are anything like the Beech, Birch, Oak and Chestnut forests of South East England then they would have fairly thick and extensive undergrowth consisting of Holly, Bracken, saplings and other, thornier things. You do get open areas between the Birch but not usually for more than 10-15m or so...

When I'm walking through Epping forest, for example, I sometimes imagine having to fight through it and, I can tell you, I'd far rather be defending from concealed ambush positions than trying to stalk through in an attacking force. It's a beautiful place though!

[John1966]

Just thinking aloud but it would be so much easier if you could manoeuvre individual men rather than squads in forests. Ultimately in this kind of really close quarters stuff, its the TacAI that's doing the fighting rather than you. All the player can do in manoeuvre squads. So I suppose splitting up your squads is going to increase your ability you outflank etc. Other than that, I'm not being very helpful. (Told you I was thinking allowed )

[Erwin]

mjkerner: Was that "Mad Minute Games'" two Civil War games (b4 they went bust)? Yes, I really liked the forests becoming translucent/transparent as one got closer. They did it right.

But, I know I had a CM1 mod that removed the lower tree branches/undergrowth so one could see ones troops in woods fairly easily without having to turn the trees off, so one could still enjoy the feel of being in trees (branches above you). (LOS was still bad for the troops, it was simply easier to see where your own guys were.)

[Bruce Robert]

It was Mad Minute Games that put out Bull Run and then 2nd Mannassas. The translucent trees was an option that worked/works very well. Still love this game.

BruceG

[sburke]

Just thinking aloud but it would be so much easier if you could manoeuvre individual men rather than squads in forests. Ultimately in this kind of really close quarters stuff, its the TacAI that's doing the fighting rather than you. All the player can do in manoeuvre squads. So I suppose splitting up your squads is going to increase your ability you outflank etc. Other than that, I'm not being very helpful. (Told you I was thinking allowed )

LOL I think we all do the same thing watching our pixeltruppen.

To the left! to the left you moron! Can't you hear that tank??!!!!

One thing I do enjoy though is the unpredictability of the AI. See the screenshots thread, I posted a bunch of shots from one turn following one guy in a current PBEM and it is pretty cool how active the AI can be. I think those who really master this game will be the ones who manage to create conditions for the AI to perform to it's optimum. Not an easy task even if you do figure out what those conditions are.

[GreenAsJade]

The pictures of forests etc, both CMBN and real, have been really helpful.

I've started to think that the "suprisingly little cover" experience that I've had (and I'm not saying anyone else has it, just it's what I get often) is actually two things:

1) Lack of the right tiles combined with

2) The individual guys don't use trees in the way that real guys would.

I was critical of a forest in a QB that I am playing where my guys are getting massacred, thinking that the trees were not dense enough.

But actually they look like some of the photos, and I don't think "foliage" will increase the cover, only the concealment.

So I went back and watched the guys. What they do (an MG team) is all cluster around the one tree that's in the action spot. Or (a squad) they don't spread out enough to have a tree-per-man. No wonder they get massacred. If you have a forest like this:

which is exactly what the forest looks like in-game, then surely every single man goes to a single tree to hide behind when the squad detects incoming attackers??

Unlike my guys, who are dieing like flies from attackers who are outside the forest

that they are in... because they largely aren't using the trees for cover:

GaJ

[JasonC]

Um guys, you do realize that a tree won't stop a rifle caliber bullet, right?

Pistol ammo like from an SMG, sure. Carbine ammo on a good day.

Rifle caliber at close range? It will go through those things like they were paper...

For reference...

http://civiliandefenseforce.com/308penetrationtest.html

[LongLeftFlank]

No one here has suggested differently, although in an ambush situation folks will get behind anything they can, as much for concealment as for cover. The best impromptu cover in a forest is the earth itself, and secondarily boulders. The disadvantage of those, of course, is that they're, well, on the ground and LOS is blocked by every last fern.

I'd venture that the vast preponderance of combat in forest interiors is a series of brief, violent short-range ambushes. It's relatively simple for either side to either break contact or to flank and close assault enemy positions after the first bump, so the soundest tactic might be to fall back and set the next ambush. The thicketed margins of the forest, as opposed to the interiors, would seem to offer more meaningful tactical possibilities, and fields of fire.

[Paper Tiger]

When I'm walking through Epping forest, for example, I sometimes imagine having to fight through it and, I can tell you, I'd far rather be defending from concealed ambush positions than trying to stalk through in an attacking force.

The Battle of Epping Forest, eh? That's been done...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOmCXCS1zSw

[GreenAsJade]

Um guys, you do realize that a tree won't stop a rifle caliber bullet, right?

Pistol ammo like from an SMG, sure. Carbine ammo on a good day.

Rifle caliber at close range? It will go through those things like they were paper...

For reference...

http://civiliandefenseforce.com/308penetrationtest.html

That's a really fascinating and "approachable" bit of information.

I think there are a couple of things it leaves me thinking though ...

... first, that amount of wood is not "a tree" it's "a branch".

and second ... how effective at killing is the bullet after it's been through? This is a genuine question, I have no idea what the answer is. After the bullet has been through one phone book, how far does it get into the next one? Does it plough through a second just as easily, or does it fall to the floor a few feet further on?

My totally ignorant intuition is that if I'm standing behind this tree:

which is about twice as thick (lets say) as the branch in the test, that I would be substantially protected against someone shooting at me from (lets say) 500m away IE "outside the forest that I'm hiding in".

I can imagine that someone "just on the other side of the tree" might be able to shoot through it at me, that wouldn't feel "unrealistic".

What feels "surprising" at the moment is guys getting no effective cover from tree trunks when the fire is coming from a way away... if it really is the case that a rifle can kill a man through a tree like that, then that's a lesson for me.... maybe it explains why the pixeltrupen don't bother taking cover behind them!

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

Another thing, now I'm looking: the trees all have surprisingly thin trunks in CM. I though Europe was full of large old trees? These trees have trunks substantially less thick than a person's body... is that right?

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

I'd venture that the vast preponderance of combat in forest interiors is a series of brief, violent short-range ambushes. It's relatively simple for either side to either break contact or to flank and close assault enemy positions after the first bump, so the soundest tactic might be to fall back and set the next ambush. The thicketed margins of the forest, as opposed to the interiors, would seem to offer more meaningful tactical possibilities, and fields of fire.

I wouldn't mind an experience like that. What I'm finding challenging is not being able to take cover in forests from forces that are firing in from the outside... the guys in the screen shot I posted are being waxed by guys who are on the other side of a hedgerow that is one the other side of the forest. I had thought that by hunkering down in the forest, I'd be forcing the oppo to come in and dig me out, but it's not the case: he can fire from outside till I'm dead, then walk in...

I had a similar thing in Chance Encounter, where a whole force of mine was routed by Sherms on the other side of the map firing into the forest...

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

I though Europe was full of large old trees?

How did you get that idea? Most of the forests in Europe have been cut down multiple times in the last 2,000-3,000 years. I don't think there has been anything like the old growth forests of North America there for a couple of centuries at least. I'm sure there are some historic old and large trees, but no forests full of them until you get east of Germany.

Michael

[JasonC]

GreenAsJade - well the round went through 8.5 inches of tree, then through 5.5 inches of wet phone book, then flew 40 or so feet, went through a pine board, and put a nice divet in a hard wall backing behind all of the above before stopping.

What it did to the wet phone book behind the tree is approximately what it would do to a human being behind such a tree. And that isn't pleasant. A big messy tumbling hole clean through you, is the answer.

Rifle rounds are not slightly more powerful than pistol ammo. They have 10 times the energy. Normally that is what lets them fly 500 to 1000 yards without loss of aim or too much drop - the accuracy is the point of all that energy. But at close range it also goes through what might be "cover" against pistols, but certainly is only concealment against full rifle ammo. And all the MGs (and BARs) throwing most of the lead are firing such full rifle ammo.

From actual accounts, grazing fire in forest fights is a serious issue, and any force that moves takes hits even when well out of enemy LOS, from fire penetrating far beyond visual engagement range. Hits per round fired are lower than you might expect from the short visual ranges, because people fire at movement and sound, knowing that concealment is way higher than cover. They miss a lot doing it, but make broad areas dangerous. Naturally grenades are also unusually effective in conditions where first LOS and their short range coincide.

Yes the life expectancy of forces in mutual LOS is very low in such circumstances, but most of the forces spend most of their time out of such mutual LOS. Only tiny subsets brush into it, and mutually annihilate as they do so. Plenty of firepower is expended beyond visual range - grenades tossed into concealed areas, fire at the sounds of enemy firing, etc - and it inflicts casualties. Not especially heavy ones compared to fighting in the open, however.

In fact, forest fights run up high eventual loss totals more from the forces remaining alive in close proximity for longer periods, than from any uptick in losses per unit of time they are actually engaged. Units normally burn out over time scales of a week or two, not on the time scale of one firefight.

FWIW...

[Michael Emrys]

I should think that using grenades in dense forests or woods would be tricky as even a small branch could deflect one, even sending it back to sender.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

I've learned a lot about rifle fire in this thread - thanks. I actually didn't absorb properly what the report told us either about what the bullet did: that it went through all those things at once. Rather awesome really.

What it tells me is that the cover that I experienced in CMx1 in trees was most unrealistic, and similarly houses, and that what we're experiencing now is more like the fact.

Given the effort that went into, and the hype surrounding, the realism of CMx1 I'm slightly surprised, but one could say it just goes to show how hard it is to make an abstraction be realistic! I kinda suspect that there was a playability factor as well: CMx1 might not have gone down so well if forests provided so little cover... we're hardly ready for this difficulty now, let alone 10 years ago!

Anyhow, thanks once more for the education: I better learn how to play with such deadly weapons!

GaJ

[RockinHarry]

Some data reposted from the building protection thread:

Penetration of german 7.92mm sS bullet (the standard one for rifles and MGs) vs . dry pine wood, taken from H.DV 73, shooting regulation for HMG, page 25/26, 1937:

at 100m penetrates 65cm dry pine wood

at 400m penetrates 85cm dry pine wood (!)

at 800m penetrates 45cm dry pine wood

at 1800m penetrates 25cm dry pine wood

the fact, that the 7.92mm sS penetrates less at 100m (than 400m) is from the bullet deforming at impact due to the higher velocity.

So depending upon type and material of a bullet, high velocity is not always of advantage, when it comes to penetration.

[RockinHarry]

How did you get that idea? Most of the forests in Europe have been cut down multiple times in the last 2,000-3,000 years. I don't think there has been anything like the old growth forests of North America there for a couple of centuries at least. I'm sure there are some historic old and large trees, but no forests full of them until you get east of Germany.

Michael

Think he rather means 50 to 100 year olds (deciduous) and more, which we still have plenty of. Cultivated evergreen forests usually will be cut after given times (20-30 years at least), then replanted, over and over again.

[GreenAsJade]

How did you get that idea?

Monty Python?

GaJ

[womble]

Monty Python?

GaJ

Youy leave that herring out of it!

[sburke]

Well Herr Von Kleist found at least a partial answer and based on that and an incident in my previous PBEM with Broadsword, there does seem to be some possibility of getting the TAC AI to react in a very human way that can give you some opportunity.

In our PBEM, Von Kleist tossed in some smoke and then followed that up with units coming in from a couple directions. The effect was that though my units still spotted his first, it was at closer range. One thing that does seem to occur is that as soon as a firefight starts, all units tend to drop their overall situational awareness and at that point become vulnerable to flanking. While my Landser were able to drop a few GIs before they could close, it meant that they were no longer as observant of their flanks (and their flank can shift now as they are directing fire in directions other than their original facing, in effect their front can become their flank in the space of a few short seconds). Net result is my position was overrun with my men being shot down like dogs. Pretty brutal actually watching GIs standing over prone Landser firing their Garands. (damn I love this game even when I am getting hit badly)

On the other side of my line my units had withdrawn a bit upon seeing the first smoke rounds and didn't suffer quite so badly in the assault while also doing I think more damage to the attackers. Being forced to give up ground just because you see smoke though can be a bitter pill.

Upon reflection I had a similar experience in my first PBEM with Broadsword. I had units that altered their facing to fire on an enemy on their flank who then became vulnerable to an enemy advancing on what had previously been their direct front.

I don't want to read too much into it as the German units in Bois de Baugin can be pretty fragile, but tactically this seems to have paid off in both situations for the attacker in that I believe in both instances they were able to at least maintain parity in casualties and held the ground afterwards. With the Germans being unable to administer buddy aid you lose points as well as access to weapons for retrieval.

Whether it will work consistently or not is another matter. Against units armed with SMGs or better morale it may have utterly failed and there is also the possibility of stumbling into flanking fire from still another unit, but hats off to Herr Von Kleist for putting together a plan resulting in a very very cool action sequence. This may have to go into the screenshot thread.

[Sublime]

Speaking of -- PBEM Anyone?