"Defensive trench LAYOUT design required for simulation" Topic

First this is NOT about available models, we will almost certaily produce our own 3D prints based on our analysis. Second it is not about construction in detail, much already abounds,

What we are looking for is the theoty of trench design. as an example but only an example, do all the automatic weapons fire across the front to provide enfalaide fire and limit damage from directly to the front. If not str frontsl fire positions alternate position so that enfalide foire positions are netter protected from the front?

What detailed preparation is made to stop attackers moving down trenches communication or otherwise?

How have you represented this if you have given the discrepancy between figure and groundscale. we are interested in goundscales of 1mm to a 1m. larger say 1" to 10m may not be of interest the board would not contain sufficent ground. It may be our goundscale may make it difficuly but we can get fukll lewngth of grazing fire fpor mg.s (about 600m).

The difficulty is if you understand so little its difficult even to begin to frame the right questions.

why the questions now? Well we have always used fighting position but these have generally been isolated, sometimes with a covered access, somtimes not. The fighting in Ukraine has focused our minds on more sophisticated systems. Clearly such trench systems these were about from WW1 but learning im wargames is a slow proccess its a hobby not fulltime job. Onece we have an understanding of the what and how we can begin to assess the best way to represent them on the table.

Thanks in advance for the help.

The main things are depth and mutual support (assuming units have had at least 24 hours to dig in). Various WW2 manuals show the ideal layouts of entrenched positions, have a look at the repros of the 1942 German ones up to company level in the Nafziger 'Germans Squad Tactics', similar in Sharps 'Soviet Infantry Tactics in WW2.

No, not all the MGs are sited to cover the front. In the British manual the two forward Brens fire on arcs to cover the two forward sections in mutual support as well as the adjacent platoons, the Bren with the reserve section sited to cover the adjacent platoons from the rear position.

SFMGs positioned in the depth of the defended locality providing both local protection and cover for adjacent, platoon or company defended localities, ideally firing along wire obstacles as well as area fire missions forward of the main defence line along with mortars.

Alternate positions, yes, if you have time to dig them.

No idea about the security of comms trenches, unless you are into WW1 levels of digging, they are going to be scanty at best. More digging = greater visisbility from the air.

Modern units are pretty spread out so I've no idea how far apart the section, platoon and company defended localities are these days, I'm more familiar with WW1 and WW2. I suspect extended positions means no comms trenches at all apart from with each locality.

You're looking for modern, correct?

emckinney, Ideally yes but I would take WW2 its the basic spacing and how the fires interlock that is of interest. Alaso how you defend once an enemy has got into the system.

Martin Rapier, I think modern trenching machines can dig great lenghts of trent in a short time. The BMT-4M can dig around a kilometer an hour in reasonable conditions and do so for several hours at a time including zig-zags.

Look for the WW-II Field Guides on German forces. IIRC there are basic layouts for positions, communication trenches and command/observation posts. US manuals would have these as well.

I'm pretty sure the OPFOR manuals have a Soviet example too

link

Ideally for mutually supported defensive positions you have a string of strong points and bunkers along the line. These are normally connected by trenches.

Here are some ideas: link

Wolfhag

"would take WW2 its the basic spacing and how the fires interlock that is of interest. Alaso how you defend once an enemy has got into the system."

OK, well for WW2, a kind of idealised layout for a rifle company would be two platoons up, one back. Each platoon has two sections up, one back. The sections are 100m apart with perhaps 200m between platoon positions (possibly more depending on the assigned frontage) in depth as well as width, so the entire company occupies an area 400 to 600m Square. The main thing is to ensure the LMGs can cover the front of the adjacent platoon (max effective range being about 600m).

The reserve sections in each platoon position provide the counterattack force if the position is penetrated. The reserve platoon provides the same for the company position, as well as some protection from flank and rear attacks.

All this stuff needs to conform to the terrain (reverse slope is best) and be supported by an obstacle plan. Looking at suggested layouts in manuals is the best bet. One thing British doctrine stresses is the integrity of the platoon and company defended locality, even if it means leaving big gaps to the next locality which have to be covered by patrols instead of fire. ie you can't defend everything and it is better to have a few well defended locations arranged in depth, than stringing your guys out in a load of outposts.

Modern artillery systems are so kthal that I imagine the guys are more spread these days.