AVLB

[JonS]

On 9/06/2017 at 8:03 PM, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

A scenario involving a forced river crossing of one of Ukraine's smaller rivers would be an interesting game in itself.

You can already do that, except for the actual bridging. And, tactically, the bridging is the least interesting bit of a SOSRA-type activity.

It's would also make for extraordinarily fragile scenarios - once the AVLB is destroyed the scenario is effectively over. So either you do it 'right' in which case the AVLB is all but irrelevant, or do it wrong in which case the designer gets to "enjoy" listening to an endless string of whining about how the scenario is 'stupid' and 'unbalanced'.

No thanks.

Edited June 11, 2017 by JonS

[LUCASWILLEN05]

In the real world there are very good reasons the military uses this equipment.

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_avlb.php

Regarding their use in scenarios what you are describing is a badly designed scenario. Unlike the Russians most US vehicles lack amphibious capability - in te real world they use the AVLB instead but we don't have this capability in game, My contention is hat we should.

However a well designed scenario should not have only one way to win, If you do however have such a scenario you need to cover he crossing sight with overwatch fire, use smoke extensively and destroy as many identified enemy units as possible before you bring your AVLBs up. 

In most scenarios there should be other ways of crossing a water obstacle than an AVLB but these options are likey to be wel defended. The AVLB lets you cross at a time and place of your choosing - and the place you choose will hopefully be less well defended than that bridge, The same principle goes for the Russian amphibious vehicle capability - and there is at least one  published scenario n which they must attempt a river crossing - Brutal. Note that this scenario includes a road bridge in addition to the Russian amphibious crossing downstream A very similar scenario might designed using US forces were the real world AVLB capability to be available. To cross the river in a "Brutal" like scenario h US would in fact require several AVLBs allowing for possible losses and the width of the river,

Note also that AVLBs use tank chassis. There is an obvious reason for that - AVLBs are intended to be used .with the forward units so the advance can be continued rapidly. The current version uses the M60 chassis. The M104 Wolvrine and the future Joint Attack Bridge use the M1A2 chassis which reduces the vulnerability of such vehicles considerably

[JonS]

Now you're talking about a massive massive scenario,  which is uninteresting for different reasons.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I don't know what I'm even typing this.

1. AVLBs are not really water crossing systems under most circumstances.  This is the case for most all "launched" bridges, that your entry/exit points have to be fairly close, and things like wide banks will really ruin your day.  Also soft soil pretty much buggers the whole thing.

2. The main targets we were taught that AVLBs were good for were:
a. AT ditches (deep, but generally pretty narrow)
b. Damaged bridges (gapping a fallen span between two supports, again, deep but pretty narrow)
c. Canals (small ones, usually irrigation or drainage type).

3. It isn't to say that AVLBs will not be ever used for water crossings, just that the system has a fairly limited capability, and the sort of gaps it crosses effectively do not align against what most waterways have.  I know of a FOB in Iraq that used one as a means of crossing the largeish canal next to it (the bridge was simply left in place for years), but I'm hard pressed to think of many other examples, especially of gapping natural waterways.  

4. Water crossings are really painful.  Like if anyone ever talks to you about "dynamic river crossing" check them for genitals growing out of their head.  Even amphibious vehicles which seem to offer some sort of quick solution, have some pretty nasty restrictions on actual crossing abilities (current direction and speed, bottom conditions, entry/exit conditions will all ruin an amphibious crossing).

The best analogy I can come up with is crossing a river is a lot like crossing a prepared obstacle belt.  It needs extensive recon, preparation, rehearsals,  specialized equipment and tools, all of which impose a massive amount of complexity, and thus Clauswitzian "friction."  I had the pleasure of planning the US Army's first river crossing in Korea since 2002 (this was 2013 mind you, also I'm not sure what other qualifiers might enter that, or if it's just hyperbole on my old BN CO's part), and as a result I had to do a lot of research for this stuff.  

Like in a nutshell the river crossing is a Division level event, with extensive fixed wing and rotary wing augmentation.  The "far side" of the river can expect to be hit by virtually every kind of artillery or CAS asset in the US inventory, with extensive direct fire support (basically tanks and mech infantry firing from the river bank).  It will literally rain smoke shells for likely the next few hours.  MRLS and other deep fires assets will fire in support to isolate the crossing area (although some of that  deep fires will likely shift to counter-battery fires for the remainder).

Even prior to this it's entirely likely the crossing site itself has been checked out by combat divers/scouts to ensure the crossing site is "good," and the exit bank+approaches will be hit by pretty much every echelon of recon available.

Prior to the bridging itself, the far side will likely have some sort of security in place.  The preferred US option is the air assault because it places a reasonably large infantry force on the far bank, and it often benefits from how "sudden" it is (basically it can happen right after the initial suppressive fires end, and the isolation fires are at their height as the crossing element is on approach), although assault boats may also be used (rubber rafts or other engineering craft).   

As for the bridging itself more is always better, so having 1-2 "extra" bridging units working and one or more units in reserve would be beneficial.  The first step would be establishing a "ferry" type setup, which uses ribbon bridge segments, pushed by engineering boats to move vehicles across.  The ferry setup is MLC 140 tons, so safely each trip could carry 2-3 Bradley type vehicles, or 1-2 tanks (urgency and condition dependent, 2 tanks is unlikely unless it is really required because of risk-risked asset imbalance).  Ferry "turns" really depend on the width and river conditions, fast current means more horsepower devoted to keeping the ferry on-course slower speed, slow current obviously less so, BUT slower rivers tend to be the wider kind, and also often have the sort of soft silty banks that preclude most amphibious operations.  

Ribbon bridges would eventually be established, again, more is better, at least two, more preferred.  Once the bridges are established combat unit hands the site over to an MP/engineer team to keep traffic control functional, but a common setup would be two bridges "forward" traffic, one bridge "rearward" (keep in mind supply vehicles will need to return to the rear.  Additional bridging units should be placed near the crossing site (proximity adjusted to safety, low enemy risk, closer, high enemy risk, farther to prevent loss of bridges and spares in one strike).  

Optimally the ribbon bridge should support taking a "real" bridge simply for load/durability options but this may not always be possible.

In practice the crossing unit shouldn't be in much of a fight, simply because it's not practical to assault-land against enemy forces.  The enemy on the immediate far side should be fairly small to begin with (to make the crossing practical in the first place), and heavily suppressed.   Basically the Brigade or so that's doing the crossing itself might see a platoon worth of enemy forces, but the whole point of crossing not-at-a-bridge is to get across without attacking directly into enemy opposition thus the enemy on the far bank shouldn't be too much to deal with.

I think "Combat Mission: ENGINEERS UP!" would be an awesome game, but it'd likely be better played as a turn based resource management simulator (hours of blade type, men to task, CL IV supplies etc) rather than a traditional CM type game.  

5. Just because I'm further bored, in practice the best crossing sites for all means (Boats, amphibious vehicles, ribbon bridges, barges, whatever) tend to also correspond to existing bridges (same conditions that make crossing possible make building easier).  It's also worth keeping in mind the exit bank location needs to be somewhere useful too (HURRAY! You have a Battalion of troops in their tracks on the far side!  Sadly the only way out of the crossing area is a narrow cut easily defended by boyscouts with sharp sticks/far side terrain is very poor off the bank and precludes rapid movement.

6. See attached photo.  This was one of the tanks we moved for that river crossing operation I planned on a ROKA Improved Ribbon Bridge in ferry/raft configuration.  I also take all the blame for nearly every M1A2 SEP v2 model kit having "Cobra King II" as a marking option, as apparently various photographers for several model companies were at this event, and Cobra King was the first tank in the chute for the trip over and trip back.   

TLDR: AVLB is a very good tool for crossing engineered obstacles as part of a breach operation.  It is not really much of a river crossing operation, and river crossing operations and while I feel CMBS is a great game, I do not feel it captures the complexity of crossing water obstacles (nor should it, as it's something much better suited to an operational-strategic level game).

 

[sburke]

It is rather funny all the development time that folks are willing to commit for a unit that almost none (has even one suggested they'd bother?) of the actual scenarios designers would be willing to commit their time to.  I am really glad Charles and Steve are the only ones who get to say what goes in this game or we wouldn't actually have a game.  Oh yeah,and you are so blatantly wrong @panzersaurkrautwerfer.  pffft I can just drive my BMPs into the water in CM, current schmerent, heck I can make a river 3km wide and cross in a straight line no problem.  What the hell are you going on about?

and the why of you typing all that is clear.  You are bored.  I have some stuff I could use help with around the house.  Interested in helping me put up some beams in my living room?

Signed - Cobra King II

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The discussion itself has some merit, we've all learned a lot more about bridging practices. 

Plus I have an explanation for this:

Edited June 11, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

@panzersaurkrautwerfer.  pffft I can just drive my BMPs into the water in CM, current schmerent, heck I can make a river 3km wide and cross in a straight line no problem.  What the hell are you going on about?

and the why of you typing all that is clear.  You are bored.  I have some stuff I could use help with around the house.  Interested in helping me put up some beams in my living room?

Signed - Cobra King II

It was more a snipe at a certain someone who, regardless of having no actual training his lengthy wargaming career makes him the SME for all things involving military affairs.  The irrelevancy of actually knowing what I'm talking about and what not.

I've pretty much left combat arms behind at this point for a newer, weirder career field in the National Guard, so I almost welcome the chance to let all my old maneuver stuff leak out sometimes.  Gives it slightly more relevance.
 

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The discussion itself has some merit, we've all learned a lot more about bridging practices. 

Plus I have an explanation for this:

 

The more specific explanation is the guy in the photo attached.  I was initially weirded out because unlike all the other media guys, he only seemed interested in the tanks.  If I had to guess he was Academy or Dragon's photo dude because they seemed to be the first models with a Cobra King II SEP v2.  C Co 2-9 IN seemed to attract all the attention in any event when it came to such affairs.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Academy seems very plausible.....Nice insight, appreciated. 

I still think the AVLB might be cool, personally I'd prefer the Churchill type as I think it might be more useful in the game, but even that one would be a fairly long way down my list of wants. 

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I don't know what I'm even typing this.

It's like the Stryker thread all over again.

[Thewood1]

Keep in mind the AVLB was developed in Steel Beasts at the request of a couple armies using the sim for training.  esims got paid to develop it.  My thoughts are its, as stated already, more of a breaching tool and not a big river crossing tool.

In Steel Beasts, there is a  heavy focus on breaching and obstacles.  I swear I spend most of my time in scenarios working out breaching than anything else.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

It was more a snipe at a certain someone who, regardless of having no actual training his lengthy wargaming career makes him the SME for all things involving military affairs.  The irrelevancy of actually knowing what I'm talking about and what not.

well of the things you could be doing at this time

• randomly surfing stupid news stories on the web
• watching your grass grow
• examining you belly button lint collection
• Pondering the significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic resonance and other highly ambient domains...

you instead chose this, I submit you are well and truly bored

 

as to Forced crossing of rivers by the Russians, they have no need to worry.  They can now just drive up and place the bridge as long as they have a big sheet of this material covering it - game over Hato armies!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-scientists-develop-invisibility-cloak-071649342.html

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by sburke

[c3k]

Given the choice between an AVLB or a MicLic being added to the game, well, I will always vote for "boom" over "flume".

(C'mon, THAT was good!)

c3k "can a bridge be derailed?"

Edited June 12, 2017 by c3k

[Combatintman]

I'm with c3k and Basil Brush on this one ...

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

17 hours ago, JonS said:

Now you're talking about a massive massive scenario,  which is uninteresting for different reasons.

NoI am not. There are good reasons that modern armies have bridging equipment forward with the leaving units. They are there to maintain the rate f advance. The size of scenario need not involve more than a company or two. The battles we fight in CM, like their tabletop wargame equivalents represent only a fraction of a larger engagement 

In my previous post  the point I was making was that a well designed scenario should not have only one way to win. Let us take the scenario in Brutal for example Though this battle involves a Russian attack across a river against a defended Ukrainian town it does not involve large forces. Only a two or three companies on the Russian side. There is a major road bridge and there is a Russian river crossing employing their amphibious vehicles downstream.  

A similar scenario to Brutal could easily be designed using AVLBs to allow US forces to attempt a similar river crossing option to that of the Russians except that the US method is different Such a scenario would, I suggest be highly instructive. If you take a look at the OpenTopoMap application (and you can zoom in to very small areas if you wish on this app) there are quite a few rivers in Ukraine including the Eastern half of the country. AVLBs would be of particular importance in the NATO counter offensive phase. In the defensive phase they are less prominent but still potentially useful in local counter attacks. You may like to take a look at the map using the OpenTopoMap application with an eye to appreciating the overall operational possibilities/requirements as well as for the tactical situations resulting from that.

 

[Combatintman]

20 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

NoI am not. There are good reasons that modern armies have bridging equipment forward with the leaving units. They are there to maintain the rate f advance. The size of scenario need not involve more than a company or two. The battles we fight in CM, like their tabletop wargame equivalents represent only a fraction of a larger engagement 

In my previous post  the point I was making was that a well designed scenario should not have only one way to win. Let us take the scenario in Brutal for example Though this battle involves a Russian attack across a river against a defended Ukrainian town it does not involve large forces. Only a two or three companies on the Russian side. There is a major road bridge and there is a Russian river crossing employing their amphibious vehicles downstream.  

A similar scenario to Brutal could easily be designed using AVLBs to allow US forces to attempt a similar river crossing option to that of the Russians except that the US method is different Such a scenario would, I suggest be highly instructive. If you take a look at the OpenTopoMap application (and you can zoom in to very small areas if you wish on this app) there are quite a few rivers in Ukraine including the Eastern half of the country. AVLBs would be of particular importance in the NATO counter offensive phase. In the defensive phase they are less prominent but still potentially useful in local counter attacks. You may like to take a look at the map using the OpenTopoMap application with an eye to appreciating the overall operational possibilities/requirements as well as for the tactical situations resulting from that.

 

I doubt JonS will do anything in the post above that starts with the word 'you' for reasons that ought to be pretty obvious but just in case see below ...

Serving Officer.

Author of scenario design manual.

Author of the CMBN scenario pack.

Author or contributor of scenarios and campaigns in most of the CM titles.

Putting that aside, I'm not averse to AVLBs being in the game but if you put this into QB or TO&E terms ... think of the rarity. As an example, a tank regiment in an old style Soviet  division had about 3 x AVLB in its engineer company and the motor rifle regiment would generally have one. In those days they were rather keen on being able to cross obstacles or in your words, there to maintain the rate of advance.

I suspect they are less prevalent these days ...

 

[JonS]

n/m

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by JonS

[Thomm]

What happened to Cobra King I ??!?

Best regards,
Thomm

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Combatintman said:

I doubt JonS will do anything in the post above that starts with the word 'you' for reasons that ought to be pretty obvious but just in case see below ...

Serving Officer.

Author of scenario design manual.

Author of the CMBN scenario pack.

Author or contributor of scenarios and campaigns in most of the CM titles.

Putting that aside, I'm not averse to AVLBs being in the game but if you put this into QB or TO&E terms ... think of the rarity. As an example, a tank regiment in an old style Soviet  division had about 3 x AVLB in its engineer company and the motor rifle regiment would generally have one. In those days they were rather keen on being able to cross obstacles or in your words, there to maintain the rate of advance.

I suspect they are less prevalent these days ...

 

I am not one for playing Quick Battles anyway - I prefer scenarios and campaigns and always have.

If we take the "Brutal" scenario a the basis strictly for illustration purposes one might assume something along these lines. The US are conducting a major counter attack planning to take the Russian forces defending in sector from the rear. They conducted a rapid river crossing further downstream and moved rapidly overnight with a bridging unit attached (probably several vehicles n fact) to the battle group. Your force is to be one arm of a pincer move on Russian forces in sector. The river must be crossed quickly which is why the AVLB unit was attached. Brigade Headquarters who for the purposes of argument are coordinating all of this need you to cross the river, eliminate the Russian Mechanizd Company holding the town and continue he advance with minimal casualties and ammunition expenditure and for the operation to be complete within let u say an hour to an hour and a half. This attack is to be made off the march by the leading company combat team who will support the bridging of the river which will assist with the capture of the road bridge. After the end of the scenario follow on company combat teams will conduct a Passage of Lines to continue the advance

i agree with you in regard of the rarity. The difference between he Russians and US is that Russian vehicles are swimming capable whereas US forces lacking such capability need to eithe capture bridges or they brig their own as n the example above

It would be interesting to either remake the Brutal scenario with US forces attacking Russians or to design a similar scenario. Without the availability of AVLB  the US would be required to attack the bridge which in all probability is going to be heavily defended. I don't have a great deal of time just now owing to course work but perhaps we could work together on a scenario along the above lines. Obviously without the AVLB capability for the present. Something approximately Company Combat Team in size - I don't usually want to do anything much larger

[Rinaldi]

I wouldn't have minded AVLBs, MICLICs and Mine Rollers for designing a classic breaching mission, but you can still do one without; given how fluid the fighting is meant to appear in the Black Sea game its easy to 'write-in' the fact that niether side has time to dig in so completely and wholly. Mine rollers are definitely still on my wish list.

Its tough to do a proper anti-tank ditch with how an action space is 8x8 anyways. That's pretty wide for a proper AT ditch. They're usually half that width.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

NoI am not. There are good reasons that modern armies have bridging equipment forward with the leaving units. They are there to maintain the rate f advance. The size of scenario need not involve more than a company or two. The battles we fight in CM, like their tabletop wargame equivalents represent only a fraction of a larger engagement 

In my previous post  the point I was making was that a well designed scenario should not have only one way to win. Let us take the scenario in Brutal for example Though this battle involves a Russian attack across a river against a defended Ukrainian town it does not involve large forces. Only a two or three companies on the Russian side. There is a major road bridge and there is a Russian river crossing employing their amphibious vehicles downstream.  

A similar scenario to Brutal could easily be designed using AVLBs to allow US forces to attempt a similar river crossing option to that of the Russians except that the US method is different Such a scenario would, I suggest be highly instructive. If you take a look at the OpenTopoMap application (and you can zoom in to very small areas if you wish on this app) there are quite a few rivers in Ukraine including the Eastern half of the country. AVLBs would be of particular importance in the NATO counter offensive phase. In the defensive phase they are less prominent but still potentially useful in local counter attacks. You may like to take a look at the map using the OpenTopoMap application with an eye to appreciating the overall operational possibilities/requirements as well as for the tactical situations resulting from that.

 

Wasting my breath, but no.  Like I keep saying I don't think you have a realistic vision of what any AVLB can accomplish.  If you just surgically extracted the "bridge" from that acronymn and thought of it as "ditch crossing ramp" it'd likely save you some confusion.

 

 

1 hour ago, Thomm said:

What happened to Cobra King I ??!?

Best regards,
Thomm

Not sure if you're unaware of Cobra King on a whole or the fate of the tank itself, so I'll answer both quickly:

Cobra King was an M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Assault Tank (heavily up-armored Sherman tank) in 4th Armored Division circa winter of 1944-Spring 1945.  It achieved fame because it was the spearhead tank that led the element that broke through the German siege surrounding Bastogne to rescue the cut-off 101st Airborne Division.  As a result of this feat it was widely photographed, and achieved some measure of fame.

Cobra King was ultimately knocked out and abandoned during the Task Force Baum fiasco in 1945, but recovered sometime after the war, and put on display without any context at a US Army installation in Germany (likely it was recovered because it was an uncommon model of Sherman vs any knowledge of which specific tank it was).  It took until 2008 for someone to identify the tank as having been Cobra King and I believe it's undergoing some level of restoration/being returned to the US now.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

33 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

I wouldn't have minded AVLBs, MICLICs and Mine Rollers for designing a classic breaching mission, but you can still do one without; given how fluid the fighting is meant to appear in the Black Sea game its easy to 'write-in' the fact that niether side has time to dig in so completely and wholly. Mine rollers are definitely still on my wish list.

Its tough to do a proper anti-tank ditch with how an action space is 8x8 anyways. That's pretty wide for a proper AT ditch. They're usually half that width.

Yes it would b nice to have proper anti tank ditches - and fr hat matter tank scrapes (In Desert Storm the Rebublican Guard Tawaklna Division was able to produce hasty tank scrapes nd lay some mnes n a matter of a few hours (See Jayhawk Stephen A Bourque for details

One suspects that he campaign in Ukraine would be quite a fluid affair. Bridging and relatively hasty defensive positions would however be needed by both sides at various points. Certainly to a similar scope to the defensive positions implemented by the Republican Guard for the climatic tank battles albeit far more competently implemented. Engineering equipment as Rinaldi correctly says would be required to deal with his although such equipment  is relatively rare. However we have such equipment for Combat Mission Normandy and Final Blitzkrieg so no reason not to implement modern capabilities in CMBS

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Lucas, dude, I think we all get the message, some of us agree with you to varying extents, but I think even you would agree that AVLBs should not be a priority for the BFC team right now? 

Maybe sort the regular bridges out first? 

PS - From a modeller's perspective, 'Cobra King' is THE Sherman Jumbo, if you think there are a lot of kits of #2, you'd be staggered at how many there are of this bad boy:

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

57 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Lucas, dude, I think we all get the message, some of us agree with you to varying extents, but I think even you would agree that AVLBs should not be a priority for the BFC team right now? 

Maybe sort the regular bridges out first? 

PS - From a modeller's perspective, 'Cobra King' is THE Sherman Jumbo, if you think there are a lot of kits of #2, you'd be staggered at how many there are of this bad boy:

The AVLB would be something interesting to see, but if put it well below mine plows (every US tank platoon has one), rollers, or the ABV.  Also I think Lucas doesn't understand what the platform can actually do which mildly annoys me. 

I keep pondering doing up an M4A3E2,  but my stash o' kits needs to get smaller before I go for more. 

[John Kettler]

Would like to point out the official Army training video shows both the Abrams M1 Assault Breachers and the Abrams AVLB employed in a Company level action vs a dug-in Reinforced MR Platoon strongpoint with MRL support. The first, under a hail of indirect and direct suppressive fires, are used to get through the obstacles and clear and mark safe lanes, which the AVLB, protected by the straight Abrams MBTs, advances through in order to deploy the AVLB to get the unit across the otherwise impassable antitank ditch. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

The AVLB would be something interesting to see, but if put it well below mine plows (every US tank platoon has one), rollers, or the ABV.  Also I think Lucas doesn't understand what the platform can actually do which mildly annoys me. 

I keep pondering doing up an M4A3E2,  but my stash o' kits needs to get smaller before I go for more. 

Yes mine plows would be nice to have as well as other engineering equipment. It may however be more accurate to say that I don't have your professional understanding of the full capability of the equipment though I probably am aware of the basic principles as a civilian and a miniature wargamer. You can always find suitable youtube videos and open access sources to educate the civvies. Maybe that approach will work better with me though you can't assume I am going to understand all of it at your level. You can expect  questions and yes you ight think some of them are dumb from a professional;peersecive. You have to bwear in mid that not everone here is a professional soldier

 We can however agree it is a nice capability to have in game as an option for scenarios. This is probably a good time for all of us to agree on that principle From a computer modelling perspective I agree that there will be issues around the programming and graphics design as there must have been for the Sherman flail - but these issues are probably not insoluble. Who knows it might even accidentally result in a solution to your regular bridges issues