"Should Infantry Be Able to Move Up River INSIDE the River?" Topic

If your rules allow for fordable rivers or streams, then no reason why your troops can't use as cover and traverse them – with the usual movement penalties. Usually the differentiation between 'rivers' and 'streams' in rules is precisely what your taking about. A stream can be crossed or even followed with a movement penalty (i.e. its fordable), whereas a river is too deep to ford and needs a boat or bridge.

I live on the Severn estuary – you could cross it a low tide, if you could avoid the quicksands, but there is a reason the Romans built the crossing upstream at Gloucester, because the time wasted (and lost pack animals) trying to ford a very temperamental river with a 25m tidal range would be made up a hundredfold by using a bridge.

You're overthinking it.

Depends on the river, depends on the infantry.

Most Royal Marine Commandos would rather move submerged through the water to emerge underneath the enemy, for a well timed bite in the groin…

I don't see why not other than the obvious problems

being out in the open, no cover
being slowed down by the current

Do they have canoes?

I think unless specifically scenario driven I don't think I'd like the idea of troops moving up and down a river…in most circumstances it would seem like tactical suicide…I may be prejudiced as I grew up in Athlone Ireland where the bridge has been made famous over the centuries as a thing of supreme tactical importance. Ironically the largest battle there in 1691 ended when locals informed Williamite forces of a single shallow ford where the river could be crossed.

My two cents

BTW whats with the name change? Not getting any snow over east? You can have some of ours if you like :)

Your rules should list the penalties for moving through a river or stream. Rough ground or difficult terrain or whatever.
What the players choose to do should be up to them.

Depends on the depth of the water. Not forgetting the fact that the banks give good cover and quite often one encounters obstacles such as fallen trees etc.

Moved up rivers a few times!

Tally Ho!

40 meters would not be a small river. Moving in the middle of that makes you a pretty easy target with sweet FA cover.

Depends on the piranha content. (or crocs, alligators or hungry, hungry hippos).

No reason they can't if the river is fordable its entire length on the board. In Korea, we moved tanks and wheeled vehicles up and down the riverbeds routinely during the dry season and in the winter. In fact, when frozen over around this time of year, taking the rivers was usually faster and safer than the ice-covered unpaved roads that ran up and down the mountain sides.

My local river (and it is one) in summer could be traveled up stream at least in parts but certainly not all parts. Also maybe working up but just in the shallow sides.

Current is everything! The Marine Commandos in Sparker's picture might have a problem in this river. Each water obstacle should be scenario specific.

I have some experience in river / stream / ravine ops. I would say yes under the RIGHT conditions moving in a river you make better time than on the banks trail blazing through vegetation.

Along fordable sections (however the games defines fordable), sure. Otherwise, no.

Doug

The Marine Commandos in Sparker's picture might have a problem in this river.

Oh I'm not so sure – a couple of mighty quaffs each would soon reduce the current!

Have you been drinking with Royal Machines? – its not a pretty sight!

You might be right Sparker they look like they could do better than the bus.

It's when they get the digestive biscuits out you have to worry!

As mentioned above, any particulars should be scenario specific.

It's when they get the digestive biscuits out you have to worry!

Euuuwww!

I think it has to be scenario specific. I live next to the Rio Grande, considered to be one of the most fordable rivers in the world and yet many people drown crossing it. The bottom itself can be smooth for miles and then there is a sudden drop and the river goes from being a few feet deep to quite a few feet deep. If you were to try to walk up Antietam Creek you would find that the bottom is extremely broken terrain. Depending in where and when some water would be cold enough to rapidly induce hypothermia, currents can be swift enough to knock you down. Essentially all streams are not created equal.

Don't some special forces sometimes use river banks as cover?
Regular ww2 units with no special trained??
Can't really see it.

Perhaps invent some sort of danger rating per river, a fording section rolls against that per turn.
Keep it secret or roll for how dangerous an unknown river is as you get in.
Then nobody will use it – which I think is probably best from a realism perspective.
Maybe give special units a plus of some sort.

Have you ever hill walked with wet feet?
It's miserable.

Special conditions might apply, temperature of the water; leeches?; effect of water on ammunition; after effects of soggy footwear; etc

I see following recent defense cuts The Royal Marines have diversified and started their own strip show.

The Marines seem to have a penchant for getting their kit off, sometimes so they can don lady's clothing, so it is said.

Doug

Like some have already said, yes, if the river is not too deep or too fast … And being a former Grunt … not too cold and more importantly … there is nothing in there that can eat you ! In Panama we made poncho rafts sometimes to assist in the crossing … Now for gaming purposes, for situations like this we'd do a Dangerous Terrian Test[DTT] on a d6. Movement would be reduced to 1/2. And at the beginning of every turn you roll a DTT for each unit/stand crossing/in the water … 1- they are stuck no movement, 6 – they must roll for a save … Something like that. But as also noted you may be over thinking it … Sometimes we'd decide at the beginning of the game, all bodies of water are impassible[without boats, amphtracks, etc.] … Or any wider than 3 inches are impassible. And < 3 inches, you must do a DDT … KISS …

I worked in Sudan in the '80s and we were taught to NEVER drive our landrovers up the wadi beds, even if it was quicker and more convenient than crossing the sand dunes, because:

YouTube link

I have done this in shallow rivers. Going downstream is okay, going upstream gets very tiring especially with a lot of gear.

I'm halfway between the two sets of suggestions WRT your rules.

If you already have rules for movement penalties, the possibility of being snared, and hazardous terrain (terrain that attacks you and moves/damages forces) as well as specific forces that can mitigate these risks (due to training and/or equipment), I think you're good. I wouldn't make special river rules, but rather allow scenarios to define how these different generic terrain situations (that you find in other cases) apply to specific bodies of water.

allow scenarios to define how these different generic terrain situations

seems to be the reasonable consensus…but I do think a few random hungry hungry hippos could spice up your Normandy scenarios a touch

Yes, you can as long as the current is not to strong.

I did it many times, in the units I served with, up or down the length of the river.

From as little as ankle to as much as chin deep in water.

I found it easier to move up stream then down stream.

Also the make up of the bottom, if rocks or uneven(drop off's or holes)can really make it difficult.

And of course how cold is water ? That is a major problem during at after the movement.

Depending on the banks it may be possible to move Slowly either in the river or along its banks. In the UK even our small rivers could be impassible in speight or if the bank is heavily wooded in high flow as you would need to be in the middel in the strong current as the banks would be all but impassible. The speed would be very slow possibly less than 1 mph depending. You would need to define in detail the terrain and flow rate of all sections. This is in addition to all the other climate effects mentioned.

Normally I would say go try it yourself but in this case it would be extremly dangerous if you got it wrong SO DON'T.

The depth of a river depends on how much and how recently it has rained, among other things -- so does the strength of the current. In other words, it varies from time to time.

Like a lot of other people have said, it really depends. I think you can classify most bodies of water as
1. Unfordable anywhere
2. Fordable only at particular points
3. Fordable in sections
4. Fordable everywhere

I think you are looking at numbers 2 and 3.
I think you make it a die roll.

Some also depends on weaponry. Black powder weapons are vulnerable to soaking as are bowstrings

It's too variable for a general rule.

Well, I take that back. My general ruling would be NO, not traveling upstream against the current in any river big enough to call such.

If you want to allow it, you need to write scenario-specifc rules for when it IS allowed.

Also I wonder how many Napoleonic soldiers could swim?

Along with current, depth, even-ness of the bottom etc it also depends on steepness of the banks. Many of the rivers around here have vertical banks which provide excellent (directional) cover but are a complete pig to get in and out of, and of course if your steep bank leads to a deep bit…

Then again you can always surf…

YouTube link

YouTube link

I live in the village on the right bank in the distance (you can see the church)..

Yes steepness of banks is a real determining factor, especially for vehicles. I've seen the river the German army had to cross when escaping the Falaise Pocket. It is a little thing, shallow and maybe five meters across; a man to wade it and barely be damp above the knee. But the banks were high and steep. Even a tank would go nose down and get stuck if it tried to cross.

D for Dubious wrote:

Yes steepness of banks is a real determining factor, especially for vehicles. I've seen the river the German army had to cross when escaping the Falaise Pocket. It is a little thing, shallow and maybe five meters across; a man to wade it and barely be damp above the knee. But the banks were high and steep. Even a tank would go nose down and get stuck if it tried to cross.

When we did a battlefield walk of Falaise, a mate of mine drove his Land Rover Discovery across it, and back. The ri ver might have been higher in the summer of '44, but it really was astonishing to us what a poor obstacle it was.

Another point was made by our host and acting guide, a retired loggy Colonel. There were stone-built houses still standing within a few dozen metres of the river, obviously old enough to have been there in '44. Our Colonel said he would have had that lot knocked down and the rubble shovelled into the river to make it more fordable. I'm not sure how much that would have helped; but I bet a Russian army would have made a much better job of improvised crossing than the Germans seem to have done.

All the best,

John.