AVLB

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Would it be possible for the US to have AVLB capability in game, Also similar Russian capability

[MikeyD]

In CM WWII titles there's the German pioneer half track with a length of bridging on its roof. The problem was it spanned such a short gap that it was virtually useless for bridging anything on a CM map. So they never implemented the feature. I wonder how many water tiles an AVLB bridge would span. One? Two?

[HUSKER2142]

I think this proposal is due to the fact that russian and ukrainian armored vehicles can cross rivers, and american armored vehicles have to search for a ford or bridge. I had an interesting match where I took advantage of this opportunity. The player who played for the US Army did not expect me to be able to attack him from the flank, since there was no bridge or ford.

[John Kettler]

LUCASWILLEN05,

Would love to see them in the game, along with PMP type (US essentially copied it, too, after seeing its staggering capabilities used to attack across the Suez Canal in the Yom Kippur War) assault bridging, an operation well within CM time limits. 

MikeyD,

The German bridge was for getting across such small obstacles as trenches, not crossing rivers. The answer to your question for the AVLB is two AS, with a lot of change. The AVLB will get you across many significant obstacles, just not the Dnepr! The AVLB will get you across a deliberate crater in a road, a blown culvert, many water obstacles otherwise impassable by vehicles, such as steeply banked  creeks, significant gaps in bridge decking, etc. 

HUSKER2142,

Have been on the receiving end of that Russian amphibious flanking capability, and it was a nightmare for me, there being no close ford and no quick way to get to the one available, which was located on the far side of the map's width and exposed to enemy fire not just there but on the approaches. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

22 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

I think this proposal is due to the fact that russian and ukrainian armored vehicles can cross rivers, and american armored vehicles have to search for a ford or bridge. I had an interesting match where I took advantage of this opportunity. The player who played for the US Army did not expect me to be able to attack him from the flank, since there was no bridge or ford.

That and the fact that the AVLB is a real US capability (the Russians and Ukrainians have similar capabilities) which would certainly b useful in aiding the crossing of small streams, ditches etc thus allowing additional tactical flexibility as John points out. No use fr crossing the Dnieper which obviously requires a very large pontoon bridge the construction of which would require hours of engineering work far beyond the time scale

In fact you could even build a whole scenario around this

 

[HUSKER2142]

I think this will be one of the desires that we will never see. Unfortunately .

 

 

[c3k]

AVLB is...meh.

It is about two Abrams long. How many obstacles are two Abrams long, with strong banks on each side...which an Abrams cannot just cross? Looking at the videos (even of the Russian one), shows the AVLB being deployed...in a field.

This does not seem like anything that is either tactically useful or should be in the game. To me.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Anti-tank ditches & canals would both be strong candidates.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 hours ago, c3k said:

AVLB is...meh.

It is about two Abrams long. How many obstacles are two Abrams long, with strong banks on each side...which an Abrams cannot just cross? Looking at the videos (even of the Russian one), shows the AVLB being deployed...in a field.

This does not seem like anything that is either tactically useful or should be in the game. To me.

There are plenty of rivers in Ukraine,not just the Dnieper, In some areas you will find ravines locally known as balkas. Small scale bridging equipment capability would be useful for dealing with some of these obstacles as well as man made obstacles.

Regarding the top video, did you stop to consider that was probably just a training exercise rehearsing how to deploy the bridge before doing it on a real obstacle?

You probably also didn't watch the other four videos!

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Whether BF have the coding skills to actually feature the AVLB deploying a bridge is another question. However, if hey can solve that one a couple of these vehicles might in principle feature in scenarios. Which would be kind of nice

[c3k]

11 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

There are plenty of rivers in Ukraine,not just the Dnieper, In some areas you will find ravines locally known as balkas. Small scale bridging equipment capability would be useful for dealing with some of these obstacles as well as man made obstacles.

Regarding the top video, did you stop to consider that was probably just a training exercise rehearsing how to deploy the bridge before doing it on a real obstacle?

You probably also didn't watch the other four videos!

 

An Abrams at full throttle (with a running start) could cross that in a jiff.

[John Kettler]

LUCASWILLEN05,

Watched all of the videos of that crossing. Great stuff, but was confused by English voices and German weapons. What game, please? Wish it hadn't been so blurry. What I saw was the Christmas came early for the Bundeswehr assault, one in which the defender was stupid and barely had a pulse. Saw no ATGM launches, no MR infantry with ATGMs and RPGs and could've sworn I saw no launchers on the BMP-2s. No were there any mines used, and these are part and parcel of Russian defensive positions, also notably absent. On the German side we had the recon guys doing the opposite of snoop and poop, rolling along in the open. Also, it looked as though there were BLUFOR on an objective being shelled by same. Not good and saw no mention regarding this. Love the clever German AVLB--which doesn't look like a public monument when being put in place. Good way to avoid being killed during the bridge laying process and gain surprise otherwise not possible.

HUSKER2142,

We copied their PMP-1, and they copied our public monument AVLB, but I didn't see those extensible legs coming and certainly had no idea they could join two like that. I now have an even greater appreciation of why there was such a concerted effort under CAFE to force Russia to move most of its bridging units out of the treaty region altogether.

c3k,

A most informative video, but has the bridge been upgraded to carry the way past the 60 ton limit (I've heard 73 tons combat loaded) Abrams?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

[John Kettler]

Well after I posted, I realized something massively important that I forgot: No Russian FS of any sort whatsoever was used in that battle, compounding all the other deficiencies.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 8, 2017 by John Kettler

[Combatintman]

11 hours ago, John Kettler said:

LUCASWILLEN05,

Watched all of the videos of that crossing. Great stuff, but was confused by English voices and German weapons. What game, please? Steel Beasts at a guess.

HUSKER2142,

We copied their PMP-1, and they copied our public monument AVLB, but I didn't see those extensible legs coming and certainly had no idea they could join two like that - been able to do it for years the TMM is a good example of legs and joins (standard Cold War era bridging, four in the Regimental Engineer Company if I remember rightly).

Some editing but my comments in bold.

[John Kettler]

Combatintman,

Appreciate the info, but I'm confused ref the TMM. Is it as slow in deploying as this apparently continuous normal speed top video would indicate, or is it more on the other end of the time scale, as seen in this at times sped up deployment video? If the former, I can see why they went with the relatively quick AVLB.

 

 

 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[c3k]

Love the bucket under the fuel tank for the leaks.

The concrete pad pivots up. That thing is putting down some serious ground pressure.

What's all the fluid under the engine?

Good thing there are some pits dug for the end-supports.

This strikes me as a video of a museum piece which can still operate...if not actually move.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

17 hours ago, John Kettler said:

LUCASWILLEN05,

Watched all of the videos of that crossing. Great stuff, but was confused by English voices and German weapons. What game, please? Wish it hadn't been so blurry. What I saw was the Christmas came early for the Bundeswehr assault, one in which the defender was stupid and barely had a pulse. Saw no ATGM launches, no MR infantry with ATGMs and RPGs and could've sworn I saw no launchers on the BMP-2s. No were there any mines used, and these are part and parcel of Russian defensive positions, also notably absent. On the German side we had the recon guys doing the opposite of snoop and poop, rolling along in the open. Also, it looked as though there were BLUFOR on an objective being shelled by same. Not good and saw no mention regarding this. Love the clever German AVLB--which doesn't look like a public monument when being put in place. Good way to avoid being killed during the bridge laying process and gain surprise otherwise not possible.

HUSKER2142,

We copied their PMP-1, and they copied our public monument AVLB, but I didn't see those extensible legs coming and certainly had no idea they could join two like that. I now have an even greater appreciation of why there was such a concerted effort under CAFE to force Russia to move most of its bridging units out of the treaty region altogether.

c3k,

A most informative video, but has the bridge been upgraded to carry the way past the 60 ton limit (I've heard 73 tons combat loaded) Abrams?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

The game is called Steel Beasts. My intention was to show the possibilities for additional combat engineering capabilities which, as you will probably agree. are tactically important on the modern mechanized battlefield

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60a1-avlb.htm

This will be what we would likely use in most scenarios

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M104_Wolverine 

Wolverine seems to be quite rare (only abou 40 in service accordn to the link belowThere is also  the Joint Assault Bridge but this does not seem to be in service yet

 https://tankandafvnews.com/tag/joint-assault-bridge/

[HUSKER2142]

 

There is a question to ask the developers, but is it possible to implement it technically on the game engine at least one span of the bridge.

 

P.S.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by HUSKER2142

[Thewood1]

In Steel Beasts, I think up to three bridges can be linked or pushed together to span longer or deeper obstacles.  On the SB forums, someone just showed a video of it in the game and one from real life for comparison.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

9 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

In Steel Beasts, I think up to three bridges can be linked or pushed together to span longer or deeper obstacles.  On the SB forums, someone just showed a video of it in the game and one from real life for comparison.

As I understand it that is how it works in the real world

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Remember, the Russians swim across the water obstacle first, then build the bridge with both banks already secured.....Different bridging philosophy.

[c3k]

42 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Remember, the Russians swim across the water obstacle first, then build the bridge with both banks already secured.....Different bridging philosophy.

...and one that seems more likely to succeed.

If there is opposition, the "bridge it on the go" method will be ugly. Very ugly. I'd love to defend against an enemy who has to bring up a vulnerable, slow, large device to cross an obstacle.

In CM terms, the fight will be over before the AVLB is brought forward. (Unless we really enlarge the maps?)

In CM terms, the Russians will fight on the map...and only bridge the obstacle after the CM battle ends.

Buy, yeah, it'd be nice to see.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Bridging under fire is an option with the AVLB assuming you've got plenty of fire support (in fact it's the whole point), but it's definitely not the safest way to do things.  A plausible scenario for an AVLB would be to overcome an anti-tank ditch or berm at the beginning of an offensive (Desert Storm springs to mind), under cover of massive air, artillery and direct fire support.....Cool but not massively utilitarian and given the issues with normal bridges! 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LUCASWILLEN05]

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Bridging under fire is an option with the AVLB assuming you've got plenty of fire support (in fact it's the whole point), but it's definitely not the safest way to do things.  A plausible scenario for an AVLB would be to overcome an anti-tank ditch or berm at the beginning of an offensive (Desert Storm springs to mind), under cover of massive air, artillery and direct fire support.....Cool but not massively utilitarian and given the issues with normal bridges! 

In Ukraine also streams and perhaps some of the smaller balkas. You can use several AVLBs to form larger bridges.

A scenario involving a forced river crossing of one of Ukraine's smaller rivers would be an interesting game in itself. One would have to assume  degree of operational deception  using only a portion of Russian defenders spread out to cover the line. Reinforcements for both sides might be available for both sides

https://www.mapsofworld.com/ukraine/ukraine-river-map.html

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In practice the AVLBs of various makes are actually mostly used for anti-tank ditches similar gaps.  There's not a lot of bodies of water that are the right combination of narrow and deep, and non-bypassable to make an AVLB the right choice.