Dugouts - Missing feature in ASL?

[von Marwitz]

Inspired by another thread, I began to ponder Dugouts:

"A dugout can refer to a position with firing port(s) and overhead cover or a place of refuge from artillery/air but little or no possibility of firing from. The first can be represented by a Pillbox (either the standard or the 360° ones that came with BRT ), the second type would use the BRT Bombproof rules."

Could ASL possibly miss something like a Dugout?

I believe that neither a PB nor a BRT Bombproof adequately represents a Dugout with the former being too vulnerable and the latter too impervious.

I think a Dugout should not be vulnerable to AP fire like a PB, because if it is underground with no possibility from units therein to fire, then AP rounds would have a hard time hitting anything except a lucky hit on the access (which could be covered by some sort of CH).

Still, I think that a Dugout should be potentially vulnerable to certain types of OBA, large caliber HE under some circumstances and Indirect Fire (MTRs) given sufficient caliber.

There could be two different types of Dugouts (similar to the wooden and concrete PBs). Dugouts would always be connected to a Trench in the same hex, i.e. it would be represented by a new counter combining a Trench with the Dugout. Dugouts could be designated to have a Tunnel just like PBs. Dugouts would be very vulnerable to CC, as its contents really can't do much to defend while the attacker can easily lob grenades or demo charges down the access. A Dugout access could be blocked by OBA/HE/Demo Charges under certain circumstances. A blocked Dugout access might be able to be cleared by an addendum to the Clearance rules with its contents able to get a Labor counter. Before Clearance of the Dugout access could be attempted, some process like the AFV Shock/UK mechanism would be run through with a "positive" result enabling Clearance attempts and a "negative" result eliminating the Dugout for purposes of the scenario (but possibly not in a CG in which it might be restored during a Refit Phase). Movement into or out of a Dugout would cost 2 or 3 MF. SW could be portaged into a Dugout only if Dismantled. Advancing into or out of a Dugout should probably be N/A as it would otherwise create an overly powerful skulking position.

In this way, a Dugout could add something new to the game: An enhanced "safe haven" to keep out of harm's way at the cost of not being able to harm the enemy and for Routing purposes.

Do you think a Dugout roughly along these lines sound like a reasonable addition to ASL?


von Marwitz

P.S.

Some examples what could be Dugouts:





This latter booklet by the way does contain various types of fortifications that could be considered Dugouts. Recommendable acquisition. I am too lazy to photograph some examples right now from the contents just now...

Note, that just 1 meter of overhead cover would not be very safe vs. OBA. Depending on caliber, it would several meters of overhead cover. But this is where different types of Dugouts could come in with the "brown" variant representing one with, say 2-3 meters of overhead cover and the "grey" variant with more than that.

 

[hayman]

Although this is something worth thinking about for Campaign Games, I don't think Dugouts are necessary for standard scenarios.

It's a timing issue: a few rules in ASL are developed around the limited time span of the scenario (not being able to create Trenches during play is one example).

I believe that in a scenario, the action is supposed to take place after the troops have emerged from their safe havens,

and if you wanted to mimic a dugout by SSR, place a Pillbox + Trench in a hex and increase their relative DRM protection.

 

[witchbottles]

one might assume the Bunker is in fact a Dugout, as it already exists and offers advantages to to its occupier

 

[von Marwitz]

Generally it is indeed the case that ASL scenarios take place after the troops have emerged. But have scenarios to be limited in that way?

Of course, we might assume that a Bunker is a Dugout. In fact, now we do. However I have pointed out, where my idea of a Dugout differs from Bunkers/PBs as we know them. Simply increasing relative TEM of existing PBs does not solve the issue of general AP vulnerability.

The question is not if standard scenarios can do without Dugouts. They can, as there are none yet. It is always possible to SSR in anything. The question is if Dugouts would add new possibilities to the game.

von Marwitz

 

[jrv]

The question is if Dugouts would add new possibilities to the game.

If the dugout has a firing slit, you can fire AP at it. Make it a pillbox, or a Tarawa-style bombproof if it was intended primarily as shelter and had awkward fighting positions. If the dugout does not have a firing slit, about the only thing that can happen with one is that units can be eliminated with the dugout OBA/a bulldozer. That adds a new possibility, but does it add an interesting possibility? I think not.

JR

 

[xenovin]

Cave rules might work

 

[von Marwitz]

Cave rules might work

Um, yea...
But caves are so complicated! :readit::dontknow

von Marwitz

 

[Tuomo]

Wait a minute. You had a chance to name these "Feldbefestigungen" and you went with "Dugout"???????

DUDE.


<edit - yes, I know the German is plural. Beiss mich.>

 

[Paul M. Weir]

My comments in the other thread that vonM quoted were inspired to a good extent by the depictions of WW1 underground chambers, often dug into the side of a trench that was nearest the enemy (you can't get a lucky artillery shot directly down the entrance). When that was type was constructed in WW2 it differed little in principal and in ASL terms would be identical.

Relying upon various descriptions of their usage, I would be wary of imposing a SW dismantled rule. What little I know seems to indicate that the Germans in WW1 would have kept their MG 08 with their heavy sledge mounts assembled while hunkering down during the artillery barrage and emerge with whole contraption in one piece. A trade off between weight and speed into action, which could be critical where no-man's land was narrow. With the 'heavy' MG 34/42 in WW2 the standard practice might have been different as the they did not have to be assembled to fire, but I bet other nations might have kept their heavy MG assembled. So I would knock that as a general Dugout rule, but naturally in historically suggested/based SSRs, that would be fine.

A 7-82mm MTR would require to be dismantled as (1) it's the only way a 5/8" counter becomes a 1/2" and (2) a MTR is much less point and shoot than a MG and has heavier ammo thus requiring somewhat more set up time.

That recalls another variant, the artillery dugout. In a long out of print book on German fortifications it showed diagrams copied from the German manuals a design for protecting artillery, mainly AT guns. It consisted of a Dugout where the gun was protected from bombardment, an open firing pit and a shallow ramp between the two. So when in firing position treat as automatically normal Emplaced and while hiding treat as protected by the dugout. Due to the need to move the gun, the limitation would be weight rather than physical size (you can always build the Dugout bigger), so I would limit that to guns with a M# of 8+, possibly 6+ or 7+ in historically justified circumstances. After all you have to manhandle the gun up the ramp. Going from BU to CE and visa versa would be the only activity allowed to the gun's crew during it's movement phase or enemy movement phase but would not require a manhandling DR as this would have been a well prepared position and regularly practised.

So how would I implement those in ASL using the current components. My suggestion for a work around would be to give a side a number of Trenches and BU/CE counters equal to the number of Dugouts. So you might have, say, 6 Trenches and 2 BU/CE, which would give you 2 Dugouts and 4 standard Trenches. The presence of a Dugout as opposed to a normal Trench would normally only be revealed when a unit in the Dugout does something that requires the presence of a Dugout within the LOS of an enemy unit, like going from CE to BU.

So what can a unit in a Dugout do?

To enter/exit from outside the Dugout you must move via the Trench part, standard rules. To go to/from the Trench part into the underground Dugout part would cost 2 MF (same as a building) and would be signified by the placement of CE (in Trench part) or BU (in Dugout part) markers. Extra CE/BU counters may be used where there is a mix of unit status. I would treat the CE/BU parts as separate pseudo-locations each with their own stacking limits (3 SE for the Trench part). So you could have 3 units in 3 'Locations', 1 on top of the Trench counter, 1 under the Trench under a CE and 1 under the Trench under a BU, corresponding to a unit outside the Dugout, 1 in the Trench part and 1 in the underground Dugout. A unit IN a Trench not under a CE/BU counter is treated as having a CE marker. I'm inclined to give most Dugouts a capacity of the normal 3 SE as they tended to be big and/or numerous if built at all.

Units in the Dugout with a CE (or no CE/BU marker) would be treated in all ways like being in a trench. Units in Dugout under a BU marker are considered underground UG. UG are vulnerable to OBA, Area and any same hex fire only. UG units may only fire into the same hex using a maximum of 1 MMC, 1 Leader, unlimited Heroes and 1 SW. All such fire is halved as area fire or has a +2 DRM for a SW using TH processes. UG units may attack in CC, again using only at most 1 MMC, 1 Leader and unlimited Heroes, but also halved. The choice of which UG unit(s) to use in CC for defence / attack in CC is entirely up to the UG player. UG firer same hex fire may not benefit from FFNAM/FFMO. Notes: UG units are penalise even a bit more than Cellar (RB/VotG) firers which had restricted but deliberate firing positions. Such UG don't get FFNAM/FFMO as they only have an almost non-existent view of approaching enemy. I would not be inclined to have more than a 2 MF cost for CE/BU flip as troops are not going to dawdle if the enemy is approaching and they most likely have practised the routine. It's not like a fire in a civilian disco.

Protection: I would follow vonM's idea of 2 levels, Brown and Grey with in-hex defensive values (DRM) of +3 and +5 respectively, identical to the equivalent pillbox CA. FT and non-thrown, non-Set DC ignore the DRM. A Set DC uses the DRM reversed (IE -3/-5). UG units are treated as hidden until an enemy enters the Hex. When an enemy enters the Hex then at least 1 unit must be revealed (defender's choice). If the UG contains MMC then at least 1 MMC must be revealed. If it only has Leaders and/or Heroes then at least 1 of them must be revealed. Only revealed units may fire or use CC, but all UG units are affected by enemy fire or CC. Revealed units are not considered concealed. Unrevealed units, though they can be affected by combat, do not have to be shown to the enemy player until broken (You could get a K/# result which by random selection CRs a unrevealed unit, but does not break it. The owner can CR the unit without revealing its factors). Unrevealed Dummies are eliminated by any effective result under the usual rules (A12.14, Ch A Note 10A, etc).

Non-in-hex fire: UG units are only affected by OBA and Area fire upon the firer achieving a CH (DR=2). Area fire that would require a 2 or less to hit at all use the normal unlikely hits procedures and must get a subsequent CH for any effect. Upon getting a CH, the firer must roll a 2nd effect DR using the normal FP column. A Grey UG Dugout gets an additional -1 DRM to such effects. While no other DRMs would apply to such an effects DR, an original 2 effects DR always eliminates the UG part of the Dugout and its contents (and is unrepairable in a CG). Notes: Dugouts were built to withstand all except direct and heavy hits. The chances of that were very low. I exclude the normal CH reversed TEM as most effects were surface/shallow blast mitigated by the overlying layers. The effects 2 DR represents the rare shell that actually enters the UG part and explodes either inside or directly on the inner walls. A CH on a Pillbox mainly represents a shell through the slit with the blast magnified by the enclosed space whilst a CH on an UG Dugout represents the rare shell close and heavy enough to do some damage.

While I considered claustrophobia rules (a failed MC requiring a subsequent TC which when failed moves the unit from BU to CE), they would also could be applicable to any fortification and thus too much hassle, unnecessary complication. Any unit that gets KIA/K/CR could have some members running screaming into the shellfire. While the above relative invulnerability to Area/OBA might seem extreme, that was the while point of Dugouts. So unless you have Uncle Joe's favour and the corresponding allocation of guns and shells, the above would be appropriate. While in WW1 heavy siege type artillery was used often, the more fluid WW2 combat rarely saw much such usage. Besides, ASL deliberately skips over the rubble bouncing artillery phase of an attack and concentrates on the survivors. So if you wanted to represent that in some way then roll a dr at start for each and every fortification (not just Dugouts), using an agreed table for retaining/losing the fortification and contents.

 

[von Marwitz]

Can you supply a historical instance of soldiers being bombed in their dugouts?

I will give you a rough direction at least because I am too lazy to search for a direct page reference in my library: Author: Ernst Jünger, title: "Kriegstagebuch 1914-18". He tells about the entrance shafts to dugouts caving in or being blocked due to artillery fire with soldiers being entombed within if my memory does not grossly plays tricks on me (It's been some years past since I read the book). This was not an uncommon occurrence. It was often very taxing on the psyche of entombed soldiers. They might be rescued in some cases by being dug out or eventually suffocate in others. These dugouts were often many meters below ground, so clearing a caved in entry shaft might not be a quick job.

The same situations as described above could of course arise not only in WW1 but as well in WW2. The annex No. 2 of "Feldbefestigungen des deutschen Heeres" states that the following measure of overhead cover would be deemed necessary for safe protection vs. a direct hit of 10.5cm shells (for example): filled soil - 5 meters, "gewachsener" Boden (dunno the English term - natural unmoved soil) - 4 meters, clay/loam - 4 meters, sand/debris - 3.8 meters, soft woods - 3.4 meters, hard woods - 2.8 meters, etc. Values for a 120mm MTR: filled soil - 7 to 8 meters, clay/loam - 5.5 to 6.5 meters, sand/debris - 4.8 to 6 meters. This is considerable. It is highly unlikely that most dugouts of WW2 went that far into the ground. So the "normal" dugouts in WW2 would in many cases not be proof vs. direct hits of artillery of rather common calibers, which in turn makes occurrences of soldiers being bombed in their dugouts probable.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

In a long out of print book on German fortifications it showed diagrams copied from the German manuals a design for protecting artillery, mainly AT guns. It consisted of a Dugout where the gun was protected from bombardment, an open firing pit and a shallow ramp between the two.

Do you mean this?



All of this and a lot more can be found in this little booklet:

https://www.amazon.de/Feldbefestigungen-deutschen-1939-1945-Wolfgang-Fleischer/dp/3895552127

An earlier print was by Podzun-Pallas (screenshot of the cover in my OP). The link is to a print by Dörfler. The content is identical and it is not only in print but also rather cheap. In case you are interested in German field fortifications of WW2, give it a go. Not much text in it but most of it sketches in the style of the above screenshot, so can well be used by people not able to understand German.

von Marwitz

 

[BattleSchool]

Pity these panssarintorjunta-kallio korsu, PKK for short, never made the cut for HP.

These anti-tank rock dugouts would have provided Finnish 4-3-7 squads with a place to sip Koskenkorva, while their far less sissy brethren dealt with the latest threat to the nation's alcohol supply line.

An OB could include a number of PKK points.

One point converts a Light-Woods hex to a crag hex containing an AT rock dugout (1-6-8).

Two points converts a Pine Woods hex to a combination Pine Woods-crag hex containing a HIP (E1.16) AT rock dugout (1-6-8).

Three points... best quit while I'm ahead.

Decorate with wire and/or AP mines as desired. Siellä!

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Yup, that's the layout or a variant of same that I was thinking about. The book I read was a Bellona book, done some time in the '70s, "German Field Works of World War II", long before ISBN or bar codes. Price 90p = £0.90 Irish/Sterling (they were the same value back then).
Bildheit Rengeitlicher Stellungsbau (excuse any misinterpretation of the funny '40s German characters), with what appears to be an original date of 15.9.42, revised 11.3.43.

It does not have identical content as your book but very likely pretty much the same, artistic style identical, 78 pages including English translations/explanations.

As for the gun positions, my version has about a dozen, from the simplest pits to the more sophisticated with gun shelters. It has 2 shelter versions with the shelter ramp descending away from the enemy or slightly to one side but descending towards the enemy.

 

[von Marwitz]

The Podzun-Pallas version that I have has 120 pages all taken together with 88 pages of these being sketches in the abovementioned style. So I reckon most of the content will be identical or at least based on the same sources.

Bildheit Rengeitlicher Stellungsbau (excuse any misinterpretation of the funny '40s German characters), with what appears to be an original date of 15.9.42, revised 11.3.43.

With this, you probably mean:
"Entwurf Bildheft Neuzeitlicher Stellungsbau vom 15. September 1942, Nachdruck einschließlich eingearbeiteter Berichtigung nach dem Stand vom 11. März 1943, Berlin 1943."

It is among the sources listed in the Podzun-Pallas / Dörfler booklet.

What is really astonishing:
Germans - apparently liking and adhering to rules - built some of these fortifications "by the book". At least I was able to discern some fortifications during walks in the woods that looked exactly like in the plan, that is the remains of them.

von Marwitz

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Am I surprise that my reading of the old style letters were wrong? Absolutely not! The dates were in the form above, IE DD.MM.YY on the reproduced cover.

I was lucky to find it amongst my book collection within two minutes. After a year or so I am still trying to find a much more substantial book on German Police armour, but too vigorous a search would risk life and limb - "Avalanche! ... Dig him out boys." .

 

[BattleSchool]

Wouldn't a bunker without a CA be simpler?

Not for conscripts.

 

[xenovin]

Do you mean this?

View attachment 629

All of this and a lot more can be found in this little booklet:

https://www.amazon.de/Feldbefestigungen-deutschen-1939-1945-Wolfgang-Fleischer/dp/3895552127

An earlier print was by Podzun-Pallas (screenshot of the cover in my OP). The link is to a print by Dörfler. The content is identical and it is not only in print but also rather cheap. In case you are interested in German field fortifications of WW2, give it a go. Not much text in it but most of it sketches in the style of the above screenshot, so can well be used by people not able to understand German.

von Marwitz

is this the Steve Martin "walk like an Egyptian" defensive system?!

 

[Tuomo]

Do you mean this?
View attachment 629

Sorry to quote with the full attachment, but there's a reason: I'm delightfully entertained by the arrow notation "feindwärts" ("toward the enemy").

Without that, who knows what horrible misconfiguration might have occurred. "OK Sarge, we're all set! They'll never know what hit 'em!" "Dorfmann you idiot! It's facing the wrong way!"

 

[von Marwitz]

Sorry to quote with the full attachment, but there's a reason: I'm delightfully entertained by the arrow notation "feindwärts" ("toward the enemy").

But, but... it's a GERMAN manual. It HAS to be precise and complete! :readit:

WARNING:
The following lines could be meant serious or not. There is a chance that you may die while reading them. The chance is higher, if you are above 100 years of age. Yet, if you read on, you do so at your own risk and responsibility, acknowledge that the author is free of any liability, and that you fully agree to and endorse the terms of use required to sign up for services of google, amazon, microsoft, linked in, twitter, whats app, eBay, AND facebook taken together.


Besides, I still believe that the Americans 'win': Germans would not have ever believed it necessary to label microwaves to the effect that one should not put live animals into them. Or paper cups to the effect that hot coffee is, well, hot. Or, to give the academic elite their fat, announcements prior to lectures warning of the hazard that someone might have said anything throughout to course of history or present that might not be 100% in line with the conviction of the students which thus could expose them to the danger of being severely shocked and/or traumatized by such an outrageous event.

But there is still room for improvement: To my knowledge no parents have yet successfully sued anyone because to their newborn baby had not been read some basic instructions such as failing to commence breathing could pose a severe impediment to the average expected lifespan. Better safeguard against that...

von Marwitz

 

[Justiciar]

http://www.specialforces.com/image/data/A0/A03671-large1.jpg