"Wooden buildings" Topic

I read in the Osprey work on WW2 Russian Field Fortifications that troops avoided using wooden buildings for defense due to their propensity to catch fire. I had never thought about that but it does makes sense. Does anyone have any further information on that?

I think any kind of high explosive round will have some chance of starting a fire, whether you are in a wooden bunker or a steel tank!

I have read in modern manuals to keep away from wooden buildings but the basements are a good place for defense.

I'd think that wooden buildings would need prep work to install sandbags and loopholes to make an effective defensive position.

Even tracers can start fires.

Wolfhag

Depends on the weather-other accounts detail jamming platoons in to avoid 'General Winter'………log buildings and defences were used too-even accounts from present day Ukraine mention fighting from wooden buildings…….as long as there is a way 'out the back' then they would be used.

I think it is not so much the case that wooden buildings individually have a propensity to catch fire, but rather that if one does, it can quickly spread to others.

On the other hand, they would make a great source of materials for roofing over a slit trench.

The biggest thing for me in WW2 rules development was to find that being in a wood is a dangerous place to be under artillery fire. Some of the trees get hit by shells and then you get an airburst effect. So overhead cover is the preferred option.

Sometimes I fear that too much can be made of anecdotal evidence, which is especially true for wargamers who are serious about recreating the nitty, gritty details of combat. Did tree branches ever become dangerous shrapnel? Sure, in some instances this happened. But a tree branch is never going to maintain its velocity more than a couple dozen yards. Meanwhile, a 12cm mortar had something like an 80m kill radius (define as the area in which 50% casualties could be expected) and something close to a 250m total fragmentation radius. I forget the exact numbers, but it was an enormous area. Sure, a single mortar round didn't have a ton of shrapnel in it, but it was enough of a lethal weapon that it would never have had to rely on tree branches to have an effect. If such a thing needs to be modelled at all, I would just reduce the amount of cover normally provided by forests. Nevertheless, my concern would be that salutary appeals to "realism" often end in disproportionate attention to minor details (frequently inferred from anecdotal evidence that is blown out of proportion).

Great wisdom Achtung Minen. Something that's say 5% more lethal getting a "+1" on a d6 actually reduces "realism" as it distorts the effect.

In Combat Command "Wooden Buildings" often Concealment modifiers to To Hit rolls but give Hard Cover Morale Check modifiers only against small arms. Stone Buildings grant Hard Cover up to Medium Heavy Weapons. Troops can reinforce a building up to the next level pre-game.

TomT

I'd be more worried about the wood fortification turning into splinter-shrapnel in an enclosed space. Dirt won't do that. Additionally, the real concern with fire isn't the fortification itself catching fire, but what's stored inside (fuel, ammo, etc).