fine, make it 3 hours, its a Game;)
and with the appropriate equipment,it can be done in less than that, say 4 hours, dig, logs, sandbags.
In case you or anyone else is not aware of this: Construction Engineers already with JTCS can create Trench systems. Trenches are not Bunkers of course, but they are much better than IPs.
I got bored today and started poking around the forums.. I came across this post and just couldn't believe how quickly some posters think engineering functions can be completed. The ability to construct trenches within the time frame of ANY CS game is just wrong, much less bunkers
I have worked in surveying, civil engineering and heavy (highway) construction for over 40 years. Even with modern excavators, it is not possible to create a trench system for the size of a CS hex within a day (240 turns), much less 6 minutes.
Among many other things, I have been extensively involved in the oversight of pipe excavation and installation. Some of my work has involved estimating time and materials necessary to complete a construction project. Many of the tools available for this purpose use 30 cubic meters/ hour as a starting point for estimating trench excavation. This equates to a trench roughly 3.2' deep x 3.2' wide x 100' long. It also assumes using modern track excavators; the 30 CM/hour number assumes the use of a one-half cubic meter bucket. Naturally, there are multipliers for additional work, such as types of soils encountered, if shoring is required to keep the trench from collapsing and whether trucks or haulers are being loaded to move the material to another site. This number corresponds fairly well with the production I've observed over my years in the business.
The 250 meter hex used by CS comprises approximately 13-1/2 acres (actually 13.37 acres, 5.41 hectares). The length of each side is roughly 144 meters. Using the industry standard of thirty meters an hour mean that it would take nearly 5 hours for one excavator to dig the length of one hexside. This certainly doesn't include the timber and other materials necessary to support the trench and provide top cover from artillery and air bombardment. It's also entrenchment solely along one side of a hex, not trenching that will provide all-around coverage.
I haven't been able to determine the number of men in the Construction Engineer platoon used in the game. I'm guessing the number would be approximately 40 -50 men. A search of the US Army TO&E for a construction battalion turned up cranes, front-end loaders; lifts, bulldozers, etc. While a dozer can push material around, they're not generally capable of trenching. Certainly, given enough time, a dozer could create a wide ditch like an anti-tank trench. but it would be nearly impossible to build a trench system with a bulldozer... certainly not within the time limits of ANY Campaign Series scenario. A bulldozer is fine for a tank scrape, but this would be closer to an improved position rather than a trench.
Equipment that I did not find in the TO&E, and that I would assume to be available, were excavators and backhoes. Still, this is at battalion level and neither would likely be available in significant numbers at the platoon/company level. A standard backhoe would be capable of helping in the construction of a trench system, but production rates would be far less than the 30 CM/Hour shown above. Backhoes are generally used for cutting small (1-2' wide) ditches for small pipe installations, i.e., smaller utility lines. I would expect excavators to only be used in areas quite removed from the FEBA and certainly not in the area encompassed by a CS scenario.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to allow trenching to occur during a scenario. As it is, allowing a 20-30% chance of improving a position within 6 minutes is extremely liberal. But this has been that way since the beginning and I don't really see a reason to change. But, after 7 attempts (42 minutes) the probability of having constructed a trench system (encompassing the all-around defense of more than 13 acres) is greater than 50% (52.2%). It's just not possible within the time frame, not even if an entire CB unit took part with all of their standard equipment.
Possibly the best post ever to describe "real life" versus game fantasy and "wishing".
I would take the word of someone 'who has done it' over someone who wishes to quote the statistics in an algorithm to show what may be done (but can't be done ... but they need it to be done because they wrote it into the program so it could be done).
Players are then stuck with things in the game that can be done in minutes, game wise, when in reality they take many hours, to many days, to accomplish.
did you read Dox44's reply?
Because nothing in rakes message has to do with folks who've 'done it'....like apparently Dox and myself, in real time, under lets say strenuous and extra-ordinary circumstances.
First lets be clear; the hex size in this case means little, in the sense that you're not building or digging for a hex, you're digging to create positions that provide lower body cover and concealment 2men by 2men.
Maybe a trench isn't even a good name for it, maybe we need a new name? Or an in between fortification, because IF we dont have the ability to acquire/build a Cover and concealment bonus alike a trench ( or at least half again as improved as an IP) in the new Vietnam game, well, it wont be very realistic.
When things got hot, you and your buddy took turns scooping dirt,with your E tool, you'd never get 'armpit wide and titty deep' as we called it unless you had several hours to do it and yes you absolutely could do it, in fact in an 4 hour time frame ( unless the ground was rock hard or the jungle was so thick, roots and all or you were to close to a river paddies etc. ( seepage) .......... but, the point is, you had position that was akin too a trench/foxhole/ fighting position.
I hope everyone is aware that the use of IPs in Vietnam was pretty much exclusively on Firebase's, out in the bush, it was fighting positions/fox holes, which for game purposes is more than an IP but not quite a trench.