Matrix Games Forums

I am designing a couple of battles in the Papuan Campaign (Aussies and Americans vs. Japanese) and they talk about breastworks being built by the japanese. What are they aand can they be modeled in the scenario editor?

They were a top secret weapon in development by the Japanese, forerunners to the implants
that we know, love and enjoy today!

------------------
MJ
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

Breastworks are most any kind of field fortification or trenchwork that soldiers can stand behind or in that protect them from the chest(breast) on down ...usually breastwork is differntiated from trenchworks that they are built-up above ground level as opposed to dug in below ground level

My guess is they're talking about a kind of fortification made by piling dirt up and packing it down, and then manning the middle.

There used to be a book called "Great Military Design Failures" or something like that, which contained a fairly humorous if vaguely sexist answer to this question, but you sort of had to see the cartoon to get the joke.

As to how you'd model this in the scenario editor, I'd do it by outlining the area with a level 1 hill and leaving the inside at ground level. Maybe put some entrenchments on top, depending on the circumstances?

I seem to remember an SP1 scenario that had something like this in it, although it was set in Russia. The Germans were attacking some sort of Russian fortress. I remember buying a lot of Nebelwerfers and pounding the hell out of it.

DFW

So would using a stone wall be an adequate representation of a breastwork?

Yes a stone wall could be considered a breastwork if delibertly constructed as a defensive measure

It really depends how much time they had to prepare the defenses - in the American Civil War, it could be just the dirt from the trench if it was in a hurry, all the way to logs stacked with a spacer in between to create a narrow gap to fire out of. These were called "headlogs". Out in front of that would be abatis (pointed sticks joined together) and felled trees. Anything to impede the advance of the enemy was suitable.

I'm sure WW2 soldiers did the same - dug in, then started piling whatever was handy in front of them. Boards, chunks of concrete, whatever will stop a bullet.

I think a stone wall represents far more than breastworks could be and I wouldn't use it. There is no real way to model breastworks, but a hedge would be more appropriate. Weren't many hedges where you're battles are though, I bet. I've long wanted felled trees in this game and they would be useful here. I would probably try to model it by giving them bomb craters to hide in, and then play around with the map editor and see what works best next to the craters. If I had to I might use very short pieces of stone wall spaced out, but not a continuous one.

Don

Stone walls would be quite ok. - have seen breastworks from WW1 at the "Dolomitenfront" .. shallow trenches (you couldn't dig very deep when you are a lonely outpost somewhere 9000ft high on a mountain), and a little wall build up before it (there's plenty of stone available, I can tell you ).

In a jungle area there might be problems getting much stones to pile up, so some wood and clay must do ...

I would notsimply make it a hedge, so ... doesn't give the right picture IMHO.

Arralen

[This message has been edited by Arralen (edited January 24, 2001).]

I'm talking about the practical problem of designing breastworks in an SPWAW scenario. Are stone walls the only way? Do they provide a similar amount of protection as a breastwork would provide? I realize there is variation in breatwork size due to materials and time spent on them is a stone wall going to be adequate. This is a entrenched japanese scenario so they have had a fair amount of time to do the dirty work.

Thanks again!

Hi.
Why not just use the Entrenchment command in the editor, that will give you a combination of trenches with sandbagged breastworks.

Urban Personally i think a stone wall would be fine as far as effect would be ..the problem would be graphic .. Now i would directly ask Wild Bill or Brent about this because i am certainly no scenario designer ...trust me if i had the time i would be jumping on Brents request for help converting SPWW2 secnarios ... but there used to be a bug in map making where if you placed a stone wall and then replaced it with woods ..you couldn't see the stone wall but you still got the effect particularly vehicle imobilization when vehicles entered the hex it takes a 105mm to break down stone walls does this fit??
the rear would be uncovered so indirect arty would be effective against the troops ..does this fit? ..would log rifle pit unit work better ? or some other fortification ? Sometimes you have to settle for graphic incorrectness for correct effect ...

Thanks for the replies and advice. I might test the various ideas out as to which gives the closest simulation of the Japanese troop behavior (as I interpret from the source I ma using) using breastworks for cover.

I'll also be sensitive to how arty effects behavior as well. The only good thing is that there were not to many tracked or wheeled vehicles involved in these battles.

I assume a tank etc can drive over a breastwork with out becoming immobolized.

If a tank tries to cross a stone wall... chances are that it will be immobolized.

Keep this in mind when designing. Unless you want the breastwork to be able to stop a tank then don't use stone walls.

A stone wall is way, way more protection than breastworks. Breastworks are only a couple of feet high, while you can stand behind a stone wall. We need a "rubble" button that we could pile up and string out for this.

Don

If making a scenario, why not just make a level 3 hill around the area you want to defend, somewhat like a parapet. Then you could put a stone wall on top of that. In
SPII I made an American fire base by using a level 3 hill like a parapet around the area I wanted to defend. It worked fine. Hope that helps.
Semper Fi
Randy