The Parfox trench system/trenches in defilade

[Haligonian]

Does anyone know much about this system?  I just saw a diagram about it recently and if you develop parfox style trenches (trenches with a mound a dirt directly in front of the trench, making direct fire from the front ineffective, atleast from small arms), in a one up two back scheme it allows for excellent interlocking arcs between trenches.

I was never really shown anything like this in training and my typical conception of a battle trench has the spoilage distributed, and the defensive position as a whole usually done with 2 up and 1 back.  I also did a quick check of some of our doctrine and found little on it.  The most I could find was a single line in section and platoon in battle reference "creating a dirt parapet to place some crew served weapons in defilade."

Does anyone have any experience with this style of trench and position?  What are the pros and cons?  I would imagine detection of the position is much easier.

Thanks.

 

[Infanteer]

Trenches?  Do we even do trenches anymore?!?  (I'm being silly, of course).

I've seen these trenches in some American Field Manuals.  I think the squad leader handbook has them.  As well, I recall seeing some German fortifications dug in this way - a massive cement casing with slits on the sides for machinegunners to produce enfilading fire while completely protecting them from the front.

I could see advantages and disadvantages to this method.  I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate the massive blind spot to the front - if another trench goes down, you're essentially a sitting duck to a frontal attack.

This form of trench, to me, seems ideal for machineguns being dug in with close protection by other weapons systems.  It allows them to open up with a degree of protection against observation, direct fire, and concealment of the weapon signature.

 

[Haligonian]

I think you raise an excellent point regarding MG's.  They should be firing to their flanks anyway to produce enfilade fire so why not cover them up?  Thereby securing your most precious Platoon asset.

 

[zio]

This type of trench is also commonly called a DePuy fighting position.  DePuy’s belief in frontal parapet defences came from his experiences in WW2. During his time in Vietnam he mandated this type of position and although a controversial soldier, there is evidence to support his stance on this type of trench construction, including comparative experiments by the US Army between frontal parapet positions and both open and split parapet ones.

 

[Old Sweat]

When I was on a liaison posting in the US, some friends who were Vietnam veterans mentioned the Dupuy trench and fighting system. At the time Dupuy was, I think, Westmorland's deputy commander and circulated a direction to the effect that this would be adopted. The Dupuy (William) was not the same person who attempted to quantify battlefield performance by mathematactics (Trevor).

 

[zio]

He was J-3 MACV, and Commander 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam.  He believed that a trench was not just for protection and a place to hide but a position to fight from.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We tried these types of trenches (in training) and found them completely annoying.

Everyone hates not being able to see in front of their trench and tries to peer around it, exposing themselves to fire and view. And if your 'interlocking' trenches  are taken out, you are basically screwed. The big 'hump' also provides a handy aiming point for RPGs (and the hump gives them something to detonate against) and other nasties the bad guys might want to throw at you. You can also pretty much spot the complete defensive position by locating all the little 'hills', depending on what the rest of the terrain looks like.

All the fresh earth piled up stands out nicely through thermal sights at night too - something that they didn't have to worry about when fighting the Viet Cong and NVA in '68.

We found it much more effective to just site the normal 2 or 4 man trenches (parapet, parados, OHP/ shelter bay, well cammed, low profile) in a way that gives you section, then platoon, integrity - complemented with GPMG (SF), 84mm and 60mm MOR sited to provide overall interlocking fire between platoons.

It didn't work in Norway either with ice defenses. I don't know why we even bothered trying it there if it didn't work elsewhere. Must have been one of those great ideas that may have worked somewhere once, then all of a sudden becomes the latest 'fad'.

 

[zio]

My experiences with having employed this type of trench differ from that which you describe.  I too found that initially the loss of s/a was disconcerting, however this was quickly overcome.  (I am not sure how you built the position but with OHP I did not find it possible to peer around the parapet)

I also found the exact opposite when it came to cam and concealment, the positions were far more concealed (even in open terrain) and it was much more difficult to ascertain manning states.  Additionally I did not find any major issue with thermal signature after the position was complete, and they were far more difficult to discern using night vision devices.

I agree there are disadvantages to these positions including being blind to the front and being dependant on the other positions around you.  Ultimately these type of positions are much more difficult to select and layout  but I feel that they are worth the effort.

 

[daftandbarmy]

My experiences with having employed this type of trench differ from that which you describe.  I too found that initially the loss of s/a was disconcerting, however this was quickly overcome.  (I am not sure how you built the position but with OHP I did not find it possible to peer around the parapet)

I also found the exact opposite when it came to cam and concealment, the positions were far more concealed (even in open terrain) and it was much more difficult to ascertain manning states.  Additionally I did not find any major issue with thermal signature after the position was complete, and they were far more difficult to discern using night vision devices.

I agree there are disadvantages to these positions including being blind to the front and being dependant on the other positions around you.  Ultimately these type of positions are much more difficult to select and layout  but I feel that they are worth the effort.

Well that settles it then... you show me how to build these 'humpty dumpty' trenches, and I'll show you how to pick up an ugly Scottish widow in a 3rd class Dundee nightclub. 

 

[zio]

Deal

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/fight/individualfightingpositions.pdf

 

[daftandbarmy]

One good turn deserves another:

http://www.bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=6610935&BlogId=4304477543

Note: Any of these lines may be prefaced with the universal term of endearment "Is tha' yer faice or did yer neck spew?"

 

[Haligonian]

Any ideas why we don't have these types of trenches in our PAM's?  You'd think we'd have put then in simply to make commanders and soldiers aware of another option that might be appropriate in a certain operation.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Any ideas why we don't have these types of trenches in our PAM's?  You'd think we'd have put then in simply to make commanders and soldiers aware of another option that might be appropriate in a certain operation.

My guess is that, as I've experienced, results with this approach are mixed for various reasons including lack of a sound understanding of the principles and deployment.

In addition, most Western armies haven't upgraded their defensive doctrine since we were dug in at the Fulda Gap, so changing it is not a big priority. As with our COIN doctrine prior to 2001!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So is there any reason that you could not build a slit in the front parapet to fire forward while having flank protection? It would give up some protection, but would still provide protection when using the flanks of the parapet. I remember digging something similar for our C2 position, although the parapet was only slightly lower than the barrel on the C2 with bipod extended and the parapet was slightly forward giving a place for bipod and ammo.

Do they still issue that little overhead cover kit?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

You mean the SKOP Kit?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ah yes that's the name, so are they still issued and used?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Taught it this summer to the DP1 Engineers.

Not sure if they are OP Restricted.

 

[kkwd]

SKOP kit is another item you can get on eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Support-Kit-Overhead-Protection-C2-SKOP-NEW-Sealed_W0QQitemZ260261709534QQihZ016QQcategoryZ36071QQcmdZViewItem

I always thought it was pretty funny to call it a SKOP kit when it had kit in the acronym itself. So it would work out as Support Kit Overhead Protection kit.

 

[geo]

the tarps make dandy drop cloths for paint & the like.....
Ended up with about 12 tarps without the cords & pegs one summer..... prolly still have about half of em.

 

[kkwd]

The tarps are great barbecue covers too, they last for years. The cord is pretty good too.