Fords in CMBO

[Brian]

How does one determine if a ford is crossable by vehicle? I often see/use fords in scenarios but there appears to be no way to make them useable by vehicles. Is there a trick that I'm missing here?

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

My CM manual says "vehicles cannot enter" fords (under the Impassible Terrain heading found in the "Issuing Orders" section).

Although, it does seem like a jeep or scout car should be able to cross in "some" instances (what's that you say? this has been covered a million times... oh well.)

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ]

[lcm1947]

Good and timely question Brian. I was under the impression that tanks could cross fords and in a recent scenario I played they couldn't. I was really preplexed due to having to route all these tanks to another crossing that was quite a good distance away and wasn't able to outflank the damnned enemy as planned. Sure screwed up my brilliant attack. :mad:

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:
My CM manual says "vehicles cannot enter" fords (under the Impassible Terrain heading found in the "Issuing Orders" section).

Although, it does seem like a jeep or scout car should be able to cross in "some" instances (what's that you say? this has been covered a million times... oh well.)

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have thought the idea was that all vehicles (within reason) should be able to utilise a ford - that was why the existed to offer an alternative to bridges.

I can think of several battles where fords were significant because they did allow the attackers to cross rivers where no bridge was available.

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:


I'd have thought the idea was that all vehicles (within reason) should be able to utilise a ford - that was why the existed to offer an alternative to bridges.

I can think of several battles where fords were significant because they did allow the attackers to cross rivers where no bridge was available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CMBB will feature fords that will be usable by vehicles. Alas, CMBO does not. Just one of those things we have to live with smile.gif

[The Commissar]

I don't see why AFV's cannot cross fords myself. It was done on numerous occasions on almost all the fronts of the war. Ive seen footage of Soviet tanks going through a river, completely submerging. Of course this was a small river.

However, since I imagine a ford is at maximum a meter deep, most threaded vehicles theoretically should not face any problems. Just make them bog often when crossing.

[offtaskagain]

Like ASL Vet has said, CMBB will have have infantry only, infantry and tracked, and all units fords. I'm pretty sure that's what Steve has said.

[M Hofbauer]

IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross.

[Doug Beman]

Hof, why do you say that infantry should have trouble crossing a ford that a vehicle cannot? If you got a river 20m wide, 5m deep that has some narrow thing across it (eg falled tree, beaver damn, maybe a very minor spot of rocks/rapids) infantry would be able to cross that whereas vehicles could not. Even in the case of a much smaller stream, say 1m deep and a 8m wide, if the bottom of the stream doesn't offer fairly regular contours, tanks will have trouble crossing. If their tracks aren't making full contact with the streambed (very rocky), that combined with the tanks' buoyancy in water will combine to make them tough to steer etc. Infantry would be better able to walk across the bottom, stepping from submerged stone to submerged stone.

Forty's "German Tanks of WW2" discusses the PzIII's fording equipment/performance in some detail. A German POW interviewed by the Brits told of the care necessary in crossing even small streams, as the tank might lose good traction and begin to drift in the current, or spin around if the driver weren't careful in his steering inputs, or a sudden water surge could flood the vehicle. There is a picture of, IIRC, a group of PzIIs crossing a stream; one is clearly in trouble as its crew is climbing out and water is pouring in through the hatches.

DjB

[PiggDogg]

Fords ?? :confused:

What about Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles, Ramblers,
Buicks, Plymouths, Chryslers, blah, blah.

Just kidding, y'all. ;) tongue.gif

Cheers, Richard

[Yowie]

This sounds silly, but has any thought about the possibilty of losing a few infantry when crossing the ford (drawn in the rapids?)

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:
Hof, why do you say that infantry should have trouble crossing a ford that a vehicle cannot? If you got a river 20m wide, 5m deep that has some narrow thing across it (eg falled tree, beaver damn, maybe a very minor spot of rocks/rapids) infantry would be able to cross that whereas vehicles could not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please notice my use of inverted commas to emphasize that I was stressing the literal meaning of the word "to ford". What *you* are describing are the various ways for infantry of "crossing" a river, not of "fording" it.

"Fording" implies they are wading through the river using the shallowness. It is not swimming or balancing over some tree log nor using stepping stones.

[Doug Beman]

Oh, I didn't know there was a separation between vehicles fording and infantry crossing.

What conditions of fording that would give a tank trouble aren't in CM to give infantry trouble? (did that question make any sense?)

DjB

[Andrew H.]

IIRC, BTS's response to this was that there were many rivers in the CMBO area that were passable by infantry but impassible to vehicles because of the steep banks leading down to the river.

It is certainly true that there are far more rivers like this (and smaller canals would be like this, too) in NW Europe than rivers that can be forded by vehicles and infantry. Although of course vehicles did ford some rivers in NWE in WWII.

[M Hofbauer]

Doug,

your question doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, I don't understand it.

I was not taking issue with your notion that tanks have troubles fording rivers deeper than a certain depth; I also do not question that humans can cross rivers much easier than vehicles.

However, I was concentrating on the literal meaning of the word "fording" - look up the definition in a dictionary.

The problem is that no vehicle in CMBO can cross fords which infantry soldiers in full combat gear are "fording" at ease with no problems. I am not saying it's totally impossible but unlikely that there is a ford in it's true sense of the word through which a fully ladden infantry soldier can walk through with that ease and security shown in CMBO, which is a ford that not even the best-suited tanks or vehicles can cross.

Now I am not sure if that makes sense.

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
IIRC, BTS's response to this was that there were many rivers in the CMBO area that were passable by infantry but impassible to vehicles because of the steep banks leading down to the river.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is really the case, I think BTS fouled up on the issue. If you want to have rivers with fords but also with steep banks that cannot support vehicles, why not just have the banks be designated as a "slope"? IE: In CMBO, infantry can climb a slope while AFV's cannot. Thus, fords could still be useable by AFV's and infantry and controlling whether any AFV's got to your ford would be as simple as sloping the elevation down to the river steeply enough. This would also have been the most realistic approach, as opposed to "no AFV's crossing fords, period". Problem solved. If people had wanted to simulate rivers without steep banks, they could have used normal elevation. I can't believe this was overlooked.

Oh well, guess the guys were too busy. CMBB should fix up the nitpicks.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[ASL Veteran]

How about this for a nitpick. Infantry in CMBO can run through a Ford - thus making their crossing much more quick. I suppose it would depend on the depth of the Ford, but I would think that if the depth was waist deep or greater it would prove difficult, if not impossible, to run through a Ford.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

I'd suggest that there are perhaps several different albeit interconnected factors which determine whether or not a ford could be crossed by either infantry or vehicles.

They would be depth, speed of flow and footing.

Other factors which affect vehicles, in addition would be approaches - the steeper they are, the less likely a vehicle would attempt such a ford.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christ! Not another Ozzie politician! Quick, Henry, the Flit! It's an infestation!

;)

Well, I suppose as long as they manage to come up with intelligent posts (how does a politician pull this one off? oh, that's right, he's in the opposition) we can stand it.

smile.gif

Michael

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:


Christ! Not another Ozzie politician! Quick, Henry, the Flit! It's an infestation!

;)

Well, I suppose as long as they manage to come up with intelligent posts (how does a politician pull this one off? oh, that's right, he's in the opposition) we can stand it.

smile.gif

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity you cannot do similar in the other thread devoted to the question of the missing funnies.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:


Pity you cannot do similar in the other thread devoted to the question of the missing funnies.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at the moment we are all waiting there, with baited breath, for the numbers of tripod-mounted Brens employed in NWE, as well as those instances where fascines and scissor bridges were used in a CMBO setting (outside the training movie). Not saying they weren't, but it would be better to have something to go on when you make claims about how badly the game simulates this that or the other.

In the mean-time, please excuse me while I pour a bottle of Jacob's Creek down the kitchen sink, it needs disinfecting :D

[Doug Beman]

Hof, I'll try restating the question (and I wasn't taking your posts as personal, just trying to clarify my own knowledge)

"What in the literal 'fording' would allow vehicles but not infantry? Is 'fording' indicative of water depths (say, 2m+) that would completely prevent infantry crossing?"

Forty's "German Tanks of WW2" lists normal wading depth of Tigers as 4ft. I'm not sure if "wading" is different from "fording" (ie wading is "just drive straight through the water" while fording involves special preparations.) What depth of water is the max for infantry to cross as SOP/trained procedure.

Again, I'm just trying to gain more info etc on 'fording', as it's clear I was using the term to indicate "any time you cross water."

DjB

[M Hofbauer]

Doug,

I did the work of looking through a dictionary for you:

from Merriam-Webster on: "fording/to ford"

Main Entry: ford
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1614
: to cross (a body of water) by wading

to elaborate, this refers to *humans* wading through said ford. Therefore, if humans *wade* through a body of water (by using a ford), it's unlikely to be very deep ("wading" *usually* implying a waterline somewhere at the waist).

If a ford is so deep that no vehicle, not even the most apt at fording, can cross it (a la in CMBO), then this would be a depth at which a fully combat-ladden soldier would have at least a hard time at fording, too. Hence my original post:

"IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross."

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
Doug,

I did the work of looking through a dictionary for you:

from Merriam-Webster on: "fording/to ford"

Main Entry: ford
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1614
: to cross (a body of water) by wading

to elaborate, this refers to *humans* wading through said ford. Therefore, if humans *wade* through a body of water (by using a ford), it's unlikely to be very deep ("wading" *usually* implying a waterline somewhere at the waist).

If a ford is so deep that no vehicle, not even the most apt at fording, can cross it (a la in CMBO), then this would be a depth at which a fully combat-ladden soldier would have at least a hard time at fording, too. Hence my original post:

"IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys are presuming that depth of water is the only factor.

I grew up with a stream running through my backyard. I could wade across it with ease. You couldn't drive a heavy duty truck through it, though, because of the jagged rocks on half of the bottom, and the soft SOFT mud extending about 10m on either side of the creek.

Simply put, it may be problems with mud or rocks that explain why a particular ford is NOT crossable by vehicles, but IS crossable by humans.

[Bruno Weiss]

Maybe it's just that some of them you can cross, and some you cannot. Some could for example allow for wading, dogpaddeling, skinnydipping, but would sweep a Tiger downstream, suffering perhaps a rise in water levels due to rains on the African plain or latrines up stream, while others are lower in water levels due to irrigation or drought, or global warming, and present little or no problems to a skateboarder. It is just all so complicated. smile.gif

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

I remember my parents had a sincere dislike for Ford because he pardoned Nixon.

[Doug Beman]

There's also the possibility that BTS incorrectly chose "ford" when perhaps another word might've been better. Whatever word means "spot in an otherwise-uncrossable river where humans can cross but vehicles cannot."

DjB

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:


Well, at the moment we are all waiting there, with baited breath, for the numbers of tripod-mounted Brens employed in NWE, as well as those instances where fascines and scissor bridges were used in a CMBO setting (outside the training movie).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have references to tripod mounted Brens being utilised during the advance into Holland and during Operation Market-Garden. I also have references to Fascines being utilised in the assaults on le Havre and the Channel ports and in Italy.

I have no references to the use of the Lynx, the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind or Ostwind. Perhaps you'd care to provide them?

The point being of course, armies often have equipment that is (a) never issued but produced, (b) in such small quantities that its use is never noticed, (c) of such insignificance that no one records their use.

As George McDonald Fraser suggests with the PIAT and its use in Burma - he's seen references which state it was never issued or used in that theatre, yet he carried and used one, as recounted in his book, "Quartered Safe Out Here".

I suspect you'd be dreadfully upset if CMBO had appeared without the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind yet you seem to get annoyed when I or others point out that these weapons were available to the British and were utilised by them and then ask why they aren't in the game or even considered in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
In the mean-time, please excuse me while I pour a bottle of Jacob's Creek down the kitchen sink, it needs disinfecting :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barbarian. Of course, depends upon the year but Jacob's is considered one of the better quality, cheap Australian reds. Much better than vin ordinaire in my experience.

I suggest, if you really want to show your disdain for things Australian, do it with a bottle of Grange Hermitage or are you too cheap?

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:


Well, at the moment we are all waiting there, with baited breath, for the numbers of tripod-mounted Brens employed in NWE...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the basis of 1 per platoon, that would be about 2,500. Roughly.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
Doug,

I did the work of looking through a dictionary for you:

from Merriam-Webster on: "fording/to ford"

Main Entry: ford
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1614
: to cross (a body of water) by wading

to elaborate, this refers to *humans* wading through said ford. Therefore, if humans *wade* through a body of water (by using a ford), it's unlikely to be very deep ("wading" *usually* implying a waterline somewhere at the waist).

If a ford is so deep that no vehicle, not even the most apt at fording, can cross it (a la in CMBO), then this would be a depth at which a fully combat-ladden soldier would have at least a hard time at fording, too. Hence my original post:

"IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hof,

This may only be true in the United States, but according to the USGS, the mapping org for the US, a Ford is a "point with low banks, stable foundation, and easy currents, capable of being crossed by horse or humans, or vehicles with proper equipment." further, my map guide says in the history of mapping section, "fords were first surveyed to determine if they were suitable for crossing by men loaded down with packs, or horse and livestock." So perhaps the definition in the game is the older one, used as a professional term.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:


On the basis of 1 per platoon, that would be about 2,500. Roughly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And very nicely contained on the platoon truck...

Would be interesting to put this one to rest, but I suspect that those fools in WW II were too busy fighting for their lives to bother recording with precision what equipment they used and how, and what percentage chance there was of killing enemy soldiers with it...

We still us SF (sustained fire) kits for the C6 machine gun.; seems to me they aren't used that often either. And I know that they are heavy on top of it. I've been hands on with a Bren tripod a couple of times - not something you wanted to carry on patrol or in an attack. I would suspect also that once objectives were taken, by the time the 15 cwts made it forward, your initial German counterattacks would already have concluded by the time you could get the damn things set up.

Not just a matter of setting it up, either, but of doing your range card, staking out your firing lanes, etc. - stuff best not done when being counterattacked furiously.

Would be interested in the reference that says they were used in Market Garden; I have not seen any reference to their use anywhere, but haven't looked very hard either.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:
There's also the possibility that BTS incorrectly chose "ford" when perhaps another word might've been better. Whatever word means "spot in an otherwise-uncrossable river where humans can cross but vehicles cannot."

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

now we're talking. smile.gif

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:
I suspect you'd be dreadfully upset if CMBO had appeared without the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind yet you seem to get annoyed when I or others point out that these weapons were available to the British and were utilised by them and then ask why they aren't in the game or even considered in the game.

I suggest, if you really want to show your disdain for things Australian, do it with a bottle of Grange Hermitage or are you too cheap?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You suspect wrongly, I actually coud hardly care less. Equally rightly I could tell you that you really need to rid yourself of the 'Commonwealth Persecution'™ complex. I am also not annoyed, I just would like to see some proof that these were used in the way you intend them to. Not that it matters, since the game won't be changed anyway.

I go and look up the Le Havre story tonight, can't recall that one, but my memory is going anyway, so that does not say much.

BTW, I don't have any disdain for things Australian, I just hate Australian wine. If you identify Australia with wine, the worse for you :D

[Sig]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:


You guys are presuming that depth of water is the only factor.

I grew up with a stream running through my backyard. I could wade across it with ease. You couldn't drive a heavy duty truck through it, though, because of the jagged rocks on half of the bottom, and the soft SOFT mud extending about 10m on either side of the creek.

Simply put, it may be problems with mud or rocks that explain why a particular ford is NOT crossable by vehicles, but IS crossable by humans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Right. I know rivers here in Europe that have their bottom made of a deep layer of pebbles. Fordable by humans, but impossible for vehicles (even tracked ones) which would just lose traction and bog.

But it's true that the addition in CMBB of fords that can be crossed vehicles AND/OR humans will be nice. Will add variety to scenario design too.

And so everybody will be happy. O joy.

Sig

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:


You suspect wrongly, I actually coud hardly care less. Equally rightly I could tell you that you really need to rid yourself of the 'Commonwealth Persecution'™ complex. I am also not annoyed, I just would like to see some proof that these were used in the way you intend them to. Not that it matters, since the game won't be changed anyway.

I go and look up the Le Havre story tonight, can't recall that one, but my memory is going anyway, so that does not say much.

BTW, I don't have any disdain for things Australian, I just hate Australian wine. If you identify Australia with wine, the worse for you :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas, I like Australian wines. I just hate Australian Whine. Seems a lots is being uncorked lately, and the vintage is definately sour grapes.

[mikeadams]

I believe the problem for vehicles is often the nature of the river bed. While it may be fine for foot traffic, it is too soft for vehicles. Obviously there will be a range and some would be able to take vehicles, but I suspect it is not worth BTSs time coding all the variations. I do know that some fords were maintained by the government and were certainly capable of allowing cars across