Y
Yoozername
Guest
I suppose it is being 'looked-at' but the whole subject of trees, specifically the trunks, as being cover (stopping fire effects) is an interesting subject.
When I was in the military, the training NCO's did demonstrations of fire effects of small arms on various objects. Live trees and felled 'logs' amongst them. The NCO's were Vietnam vets in many cases. The bottom line is that many small trees would not stop MG rounds. By that they meant the M60 or its counterparts that fired full ammo. You need a very old and thick tree to stop a 30 cal and 50 cals go through trees one after the other. Trees can stop or greatly decrease pistol (SMG) and even the 5.56mm. But something like a garand with M2 ammo would put a hurt on someone hiding behind a tree.
The main difference between WWII fighting and modern fighting is the body armor that soldiers wear today. Any small cover can be thought of as additional 'body' armor since it may deflect or blunt a projectile. It will scrub some velocity thereby decreasing the severity of a wound.
But WWII soldiers were almost naked to all projectiles and fragmentation. The helmet being the only attempt at saving the brain. Trees can defeat fragmentation much more easily than a bullet so there is some sense in it. But it is probably offset by the fact that trees can generate 'airbursts' that rain fragments down on troops.
I have read a very good report of a US Platoon fighting a forest battle with German infantry. I will try to locate it online and post a link. But basically it describes US troops using the BAR and Garand to shoot at tree trunks at a foot or so above the ground. They did this as SOP without spotting an enemy. The trunks acted as aiming points and the Germans behind them were killed out of LOS in some cases. The report goes on to demonstrate that a soldier takes a tommy gun off a wounded comrade instead of his M1 carbine. The carbine, with its low penetration being viewed as useless.
When I was in the military, the training NCO's did demonstrations of fire effects of small arms on various objects. Live trees and felled 'logs' amongst them. The NCO's were Vietnam vets in many cases. The bottom line is that many small trees would not stop MG rounds. By that they meant the M60 or its counterparts that fired full ammo. You need a very old and thick tree to stop a 30 cal and 50 cals go through trees one after the other. Trees can stop or greatly decrease pistol (SMG) and even the 5.56mm. But something like a garand with M2 ammo would put a hurt on someone hiding behind a tree.
The main difference between WWII fighting and modern fighting is the body armor that soldiers wear today. Any small cover can be thought of as additional 'body' armor since it may deflect or blunt a projectile. It will scrub some velocity thereby decreasing the severity of a wound.
But WWII soldiers were almost naked to all projectiles and fragmentation. The helmet being the only attempt at saving the brain. Trees can defeat fragmentation much more easily than a bullet so there is some sense in it. But it is probably offset by the fact that trees can generate 'airbursts' that rain fragments down on troops.
I have read a very good report of a US Platoon fighting a forest battle with German infantry. I will try to locate it online and post a link. But basically it describes US troops using the BAR and Garand to shoot at tree trunks at a foot or so above the ground. They did this as SOP without spotting an enemy. The trunks acted as aiming points and the Germans behind them were killed out of LOS in some cases. The report goes on to demonstrate that a soldier takes a tommy gun off a wounded comrade instead of his M1 carbine. The carbine, with its low penetration being viewed as useless.
![scan0001-1[1].jpg](http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/data/attachments/0/250-51623f3f68a0922f0dac39d292c6c343.jpg "scan0001-1[1].jpg")
