"Light vs Heavy Woods" Topic

Driving around Northern Virginia – I have yet to see what would be Light woods anywhere. There's barely anything that wouldn't seriously disorder formed infantry. Even light order would find it's members grappling with underbrush to a large extent.

What would you say is the frequency of occurrence of Light Woods, in the wild and untended in Europe, North America or any popular gaming fronts?

Light woods to me must be either orchards or things like the Sequoias where the canopy is high and away.

Is there any reason to believe there was far less underbrush centuries ago ? folks using it for day-to-day firewood etc etc …

I would think that today's woods would be more regulated than in the past. Thus there is more growth and undergrowth these days due to Forest Service regulation.

I don't have good thoughts on heavy woods in games. Units defending or attacking get in and never return. The underbrush is to me the difference if it's heavy or light. I wouldn't call a orchard if small fruit trees like apples or peaches to be much of a hindrance in movement, cover or firing. Also I would (or wood he he) think any woods with a farm or village near to be cut out. Look at Little Round Top during the ACW it was virtually cleaned out by the time of the battle.

To me the difference between light and heavy woods the degree of undergrowth in the woodland. The degree of undergrowth despends on the type of trees, the land management of the area and the types of undergrowth.

A 'light' wood would have little or no undergrowth:

This would be a light Northern European beach-wood. Lots of land management, remember charcoal was an important fuel source before the late 18thC. That leads to clearing. As does clearing land to encourage certain types of hunting.

Small trees and bushes or marshy ground can create difficult going:

The Wilderness of Northern Virginia would be heavy books in my book.

The wilderness is a good example of heavy woods though this was created due to human activity. Much of the old wood had been removed for iron industry which allowed rapid growth of undergrowth and dense saplings which were starting to mature, especially once the industry was halted a generation before the war.

Coppiced woodland (a common type of management at one time) would be heavy going.

A lot of British forest land was like that until coke replaced charcoal for smelting. Surprisingly the unmanaged woodland could be more open with mature trees shading out the under growth.

As an aside much of Sherwood forest was manage as coppice at the time of Robin Hood. No riding through the trees and getting dropped on but much easier to hide in.

X42

The military even in the 1800s maps classified forests based on undergrowth. Little or no undergrowth were light woods on maps and Heavy Undergrowth forests were heacy woods.

Remember that the woods of the North American Atlantic coast were regarded as Wilderness by Europeans. A totally different rating.

I'd understood that the native Americans extensively used fire to clear the undergrowth to make hunting more manageable. I recall reading a quote about Europeans, presumably the nobility, being amazed that they could drive a carriage through the woods unimpeded.

Which might also point to expectations about European woods.

That said, in the UK, the king's forests were a mixture of open and wooded land. Peak Forestis a village in the Peak District, and is about the least wooded place I've ever seen the whole of the national park.

Remember, animals were frequently grazed in woodlots. That would take care of a lot of undergrowth.