Stationary Troop terrain bonus?

[BOSTON]

Gfran64 wrote:

Hey Hoistingman4,

I don't see it working for most of the scenarios except for the tactical withdraw of Buford on day one and maybe Culp's Hill on all days and maybe Cemetery Hill/Ridge on those same days. I think MP is where it fits in the best especially in non VP engagements where you could tier your defenses and fallback through your new fortified line with your forward units.

I figured 4 levels of entrenchment bonus at 15 minute intervals.

Regards,

Greg

I'd have to wonder if it would be worth it to entrench 90 degrees to an existing entrenchment by the same regiment to avoid being flanked? like in a sunken road, fence, ect. positions.

Actually with a four level system would be of interest to a WW1 mod as well, if not a whole new WW1 game altogether.

It was in the forum or in a book I read recently that the Union had troops that specialized in building entrenchments, that's all they did for the most part.

Hoistingman4

[BOSTON]

One-other-thing if the troops are entrenching and approached by the enemy, there should be a delay in their ability to fire, like troops taking cover to avoid artillery fire.

[Little Powell]

Although Norb said that this probably won't make it in the first release of the game, keep the ideas coming! These are all great ideas, and I personally would love to see entrenchments in the game eventually. That's the beauty of having a forum as we can go back to these discussions anytime in the future and grab the ideas.

[BOSTON]

Hi Greg,

Had to dig up these two definitions of ways to fortify to try and be correct for a given location. Plus I feel that a fortified position might be a combination of entrenchment and breastworks. I believe it was Longstreet who said to Lee; "That he could hear the axes felling trees for fortifications on Cementary Hill." Likely the logs from those trees would be placed on the ground breast high to a man (breastworks), At present I'm not sure if dirt and rocks were put in front of those logs to give added protection. For if the dirt was dug from behind those logs, it would be entrenching. Thus a combination of both types of fortifing.

In a field or pasture terrain, where no logs were nearby the troops would more than likely have to dig an entrenchment, using the excavated dirt and rock to form a kind of breastwork as well as a trench to be down in for protection.

At Little Round Top, the ground was hard, so the troops probablly rolled rocks in front of them with whatever loose material they could use to fill the gaps, something on that idea (breastworks).

Entrenchment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Entrenchment.Entrenchment may refer to:

A method of trench digging, particularly with relation to Trench warfare.
A type of fortification created by digging (which may or may not be manned).

breastwork
Noun
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006
Fortifications a temporary defensive work, usually breast-high © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

In locations, like heavy woods, rocky areas, that have an abundance of loose material, that fortifications could be built faster than open terrain. If 300 more or less men are doing the work it should be noted on the map with a "Pick and Shovel crossed" to show what is in progress, sighted to friendly units. Upon completion of a fortififcation (level/stage) a sprite should be there to represent the progress (stone wall/pile of wood logs/slit trench).

Hoistingman4

[Gfran64]

Got it. Perhaps the word should be "Fortify."

Greg B)

[BOSTON]

Gfran64 wrote:

Got it. Perhaps the word should be "Fortify."

Greg B)

I agree! :laugh:

Hoistingman4

[BOSTON]

Fortifications Classifications



Battery at Petersburg drawing by Waud

Earthworks Classification
Adopted at Nashville, TN, March 1999


Class One: PREPARED ARTILLERY FORTIFICATIONS
Includes: Forts; redoubts; bastions; lunettes; redans; batteries; blockhouses Builders: Laid out or renovated by engineers Type of construction: “Classic” prototypes; ditch-in-front, revetted Materials: Gabions; sandbags; fascines; log; plank; sod; stone revetments Dimensions: 12-20+ feet relief; 15-25+ feet width of parapet Features: Artillery platforms; embrasures; banquettes Situation: Semi-permanent defense of towns, depots, transportation routes, river crossings; sieges; may be improved from rapid fortifications during prolonged battle situation

Class Two: PREPARED INFANTRY FORTIFICATIONS
Includes: Siegeworks; main lines; parallels; connecting curtains; blockhouses Builders: Laid out or renovated by engineers Type of construction: Typically ditch-in-front, revetted Materials: Log; plank; sod; stone revetments Dimensions: 6-15 feet relief; 12-20 feet width of parapet Features: Banquettes; traverses Situation: Semi-permanent defense of towns, depots, transportation routes, river crossings; sieges; may be improved from rapid fortifications during prolonged battle situation


Class Three: RAPID ARTILLERY FORTIFICATIONS
Includes: Breastworks; minor artillery lunettes or demi-lunes Builders: Laid out by field officers for their units, thrown up quickly, often under fire Type of construction: Ditch-in-front; ditch-in-rear; ditch-both sides, revetted or not Materials: Materials at hand – piled stone; fence rail or log fill; log, sapling, fence rail, wicker or stone revetment Dimensions: 3-6 feet relief; 10-15 feet width of parapet Features: Artillery platforms; traverses; holes for ammo chests Situation: Battlefield; bivouac; defense of roads, railroads, river crossings


Class Four: RAPID INFANTRY FORTIFICATIONS
Includes: Breastworks; rifle trenches Builders: Laid out by field officers for their units, thrown up quickly, often under fire Type of construction: Ditch-in-front, ditch-in-rear, ditch-both sides, revetted or not Materials: Materials at hand – piled stone; fence rail or log fill; log, sapling, fence rail, wicker or stone revetment Dimensions: 2-5 feet relief; 8-15 feet width of parapet Features: Bays, balks, traverses, “command” holes Situation: Battlefield; bivouac; defense of roads, railroads, river crossings

Class Five: COMMUNICATION AND SUPPLY
Includes: Communication trenches, covered ways, entrenched military roads Builders: Laid out by engineers or field officers Type of construction: Ditch-in-front, ditch-in-rear, ditch-both sides, parapet both sides, revetted or not Materials: Earth, log stone or wicker revetment Dimensions: Ditch 3-15 feet wide Features: Associated holes and bunkers for storage Situation: Semi-permanent fortifications, siegeworks, or prolonged battle when front line troops need resupply


Class Six: INTERNAL WORKS
Includes: Magazines, bombproofs, bunkers, traverses, associated with enclosed or semi-enclosed artillery fortifications Builders: Laid out by engineers to strengthen prepared positions Type of construction: Square or rectangular hole with surrounding berm, sometimes roofed; internal parapet designed to provide defilade Materials: Earth, plank or log sides, flooring, sometimes roofed, sandbags, gabions Dimensions: 5-15+ feet per side; traverses of varying length, relief Features: Access door or trench Situation: Associated with prepared artillery positions, siegeworks


Class Seven: PERSONAL FIELD SHELTER
Includes: Discrete fox holes, picket or skirmish holes, command holes, slit trenches, “rifle pits” Builders: Typically sited by individuals in action Type of construction: Hole with earth thrown in front or shallow trench, ditch-in -rear Materials: Earth, sometimes wood or stone fill, typically not revetted Dimensions: 2-5 feet relief, 2-8 feet width of parapet Features: Discontinuous, arrayed in pattern of unit, shelters 1-3 persons, slit trenches shelter 4-10 persons Situation: Picket or skirmish lines, holes associated with rapid entrenchments

Class Eight: DEFENSES OF CONVENIENCE
Includes: Stone walls, piled stone breastworks, sunken roads, railroad cuts/fills, often enhanced by digging Builders: Pre-existing features adapted to combat or constructed ad hoc by soldiers Type of construction: Various Materials: Stone, wood, earth Dimensions: Various Features: Walls, barricades Situation: Meeting battles, stony ground

http://www2.cr.nps.gov/gis/battlefield/earthworks.htm Mapping America's Battlefields -- Application of CWFSG Earthworks Classification System
CWFSG

More material to read on fortifing defense.

HM4

[BOSTON]

Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War: The Eastern Campaigns, 1861-1864 (Book Review)
| Book Reviews | 0 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post

hide Search ResultsYou arrived here after searching for the following phrases:

war
civil
fortifications
Click a phrase to jump to the first occurrence, or return to the search results.

Reviewed by Perry D. Jamieson, Air Force Historical Studies Office
By Earl J. Hess
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 2005



Many books describe Civil War military operations in remarkable detail, but prove disappointing when it comes to the subject of field fortifications. They mention the features on the battlefield, but leave the reader with many unanswered questions.

Did the men in the ranks prepare a particular line of fortifications on their own initiative, or at the orders of some commander? What role did engineers play in constructing field works? How did the soldiers take advantage of the terrain available to them? Did the fortifications on a given battlefield influence the outcome of that engagement or its campaign?

In Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War: The Eastern Campaigns, 1861-1864 (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 2005, $45), Professor Earl J. Hess addresses those and several other important questions. Field entrenchments played a significant role in the conflict of the 1860s, and they well deserve the thorough attention that this book gives them. Readers will be glad to learn Professor Hess intends to follow this volume with two others that will continue his treatment of the Eastern theater through the end of the war.

It is possible to admire Hess’ work without accepting all of his interpretations. His effort to minimize the significance of rifled shoulder arms fails — in part because it is based on his incorrect assertion that the only advantage that the rifled weapon held over the musket “was a range that was about three times longer.”

That contention is wrong because it ignores the fact that the new shoulder arm had not only a longer range, but also greater accuracy, than the old. Like other efforts to discount the importance of rifled muskets on Civil War battlefields, one runs into the fundamental truth that casualties in this war — both in absolute terms and also relative to the numbers of troops engaged — were far higher than in previous American conflicts.

In the Eastern theater from the beginning of the war through the Plymouth, N.C., operation, as Hess himself recounts, thousands of dead and wounded littered the ground from Gaines’ Mill to Bristoe Station. No amount of revisionism can explain away those bodies.

Disparaging the rifled musket and some of the other interpretations of Field Armies and Fortifications can be debated, but the book belongs on the “must read” list. It has many strong points, beginning with the author’s basic decision to concentrate on how field defenses were prepared and how they influenced battles and campaigns, rather than on the details of their engineering. He states in his preface that this book “is not a technical study; the focus is on military operations.” His text carries out that intention. Hess gives both scholars and general readers what they want: a readable survey that integrates the history of field fortifications into a narrative of military operations. For those who are interested in the technical aspects of the subject, the author adequately covers them in the book’s illustrations and their captions, a glossary and appendices.

Another strength of Field Armies and Fortifications is its research. Hess draws on an impressive range of primary accounts and secondary works. He makes good use of popular articles, National Park Service resources (including conversations with NPS historians, who in recent years have produced some excellent work on their specialties) and archeological studies.

Photographs are a particularly important source for a work on field fortifications. Hess has selected informative ones and has written captions that further their value. Battlefield surveys also are essential to understanding the subject of this book. As Hess rightly observes, there “simply is no substitute for field visits to military sites.” All too often, Civil War readers encounter an author who tries to describe a battlefield that the writer has never seen. Hess is not guilty of this. He’s done his homework — in archives, in libraries and on the ground.

The author also deserves credit for the ambitious scope of his work. Field Armies and Fortifications covers events in western Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, areas that some historians would have omitted from a book on the Eastern theater. Hess gives Rich Mountain, New Berne, Suffolk, Battery Wagner and other actions the attention they merit. He makes a strong case that even in the war’s backwaters, fortifications played a significant role in operations.

Earl Hess deserves much credit for taking on the important subject of Civil War fortifications. Students of this great conflict, of American military history and of 19th-century warfare should read this book carefully. Some of its arguments miss their mark, but they deserve serious consideration. Wisely focused, widely researched and well written, Field Armies and Fortifications is an informative work. Readers can look forward to the author’s future volumes on this topic, and expect them to be as scholarly as this one.

Some-thing-else to consider reading about fortifing, the only problem is that it does not seem to cover Gettysburg.

HT4

[Gfran64]

HM4,

A most excellent post!!!!

Regards,


Greg B)

[BOSTON]

Gfran64 wrote:

HM4,

A most excellent post!!!!

Regards,


Greg B)

Your going to cost me the price of a book and invest more time in researching the fortifing thread! :laugh: Which is OK, for I'll probablly learn something constructive (haHa).

Thanks, Hoistingman4