Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kipanderson

Mines, wire, breaching operations and CMSF.

Recommended Posts

Hi,

CMX1 was, and remains until the release of CMSF, the worlds number one series of wargames. However it did have a few shortcomings due mainly to the fact that it had to run on a P200 and time for the developers was obviously limited.

One of the imperfections was in the modelling of obstacles, mines and wire, and in how they could be cleared. Let me give an example.

In CMBB if a tank makes it successfully through a minefield other AFVs and men cannot follow in the tracks. The same is true with wire.

So my question is to what extent has the modelling of mines and obstacles been changed for CMSF? Are breaching operations possible? Can troops/vehicles follow in the tracks of a previously successful tank in crossing minefields?

I realise that time is very limited for CMSF….so I am not holding my breath ;) … but when we move to more high intensity warfare in Normandy I hope obstacles and engineering will get its turn in the limelight smile.gif .

Looking forward to CMSF,

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by kipanderson:

In CMBB if a tank makes it successfully through a minefield other AFVs and men cannot follow in the tracks. The same is true with wire.

Wire obstacles can spring back into place; driving a tank over them is not a guarantee that they will cease to impede the movement of infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

“Wire obstacles can spring back into place; driving a tank over them is not a guarantee that they will cease to impede the movement of infantry.”

Agreed….. but the big one is that in WWII mines widely used were pressure or contact and if a tank made it through this should allow infantry and other AFVs to pass through with vastly greater safety.

This is not a criticism of CMX1…it broke so much ground and set new standards… but for CMX2 it does need looking at. It matters ;) …. once we move on to WWIII settings anyway.

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by PzKpfwIII:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kipanderson:

In CMBB if a tank makes it successfully through a minefield other AFVs and men cannot follow in the tracks. The same is true with wire.

Wire obstacles can spring back into place; driving a tank over them is not a guarantee that they will cease to impede the movement of infantry. </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wood? Screw pickets have been around since 1915 or so...angle iron would be more likely, so would Soviet style emplacements. Nice German stuff from 1943 per your picture, don't get me wrong...but what does it have to do with Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by PzKpfwIII:

Wood? Screw pickets have been around since 1915 or so...angle iron would be more likely, so would Soviet style emplacements. Nice German stuff from 1943 per your picture, don't get me wrong...but what does it have to do with Syria?

As Kip said, he is also looking to the future with CMX2 Normandy. Not just CMSF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

“but what does it have to do with Syria?”

Well…. as Dr. Zoidberg points out I am looking to the future, however do not forget that mines play an even bigger part in modern warfare than they did in WWII… if such a thing were possible ;) .

The Syrians go big time when it comes to mines, or they did a few years ago and I cannot believe it has changed.

Any invasion of Syria would meet many a mine field so how they are modeled cannot be ignored.

Having said the above let me jump to Battlefronts defense before they even defend themselves ;) . Time will have been in very short supply for the first outing of CMX2 so I am expecting Steve or someone to post that they have not fully modeled mines in CMSF. But it would be interesting to know how they are modeled and if they are on the list for more detailed treatment in later outings of CMX2.

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by kipanderson:

Well…. as Dr. Zoidberg points out I am looking to the future, however do not forget that mines play an even bigger part in modern warfare than they did in WWII… if such a thing were possible ;)

Only in the Middle East. Notably, the US and Syria are not signatories to the Ottawa Convention, but their importance in modern warfare once we stray outside of that setting may be slightly less than you may realize, at least with respect to other theatres and nationalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Convention

Important for Second World War and Middle East subjects, sure, but I disagree with your exaggeration that mine warfare is "bigger" now than during the Second World War. Not possible on the face of it, given the assurances of Canada, Australia, almost all of South America and Africa and most of Europe not to use A-P mines.

Interestingly, the Claymore mine is exempt because it is controlled by a human and is considered a weapon and not a mine.

Of course, "bigger" depends on where you are talking about fighting, and who the combatants would be. A matchup in Korea involving Chinese and/or US troops and the gloves would be off. Fighting in Africa with European/African Union/Canadian/ANZAC troops and I would expect not to see much in the way of A-P mines - if we think the governments would live up to their treaty obligations, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by kipanderson:

In CMBB if a tank makes it successfully through a minefield other AFVs and men cannot follow in the tracks. The same is true with wire.

The tiles are 20x20 meter in CM1. That might be part of the reason the obstacles are not cleared - one AFV can't clear an entire tile. Perhaps it will be easier to keep track of obstacles with CM:SF's smaller tiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thanks for reminding me of the anti-mines convention. These things can work in the real world. There is one massively important example that is often overlooked.

In WWII none of the major players used gas even though the technology was well established. So once these conventions take hold it is sometimes to the advantage of all to stick to them.

However I am not sure the anti-personal mine convention has really taken hold yet because as you say many, in fact all the major players have still to accept it.

But coming back to Syria a few years ago it relied a lot on mines and I guess it still would. This means that modern breaching operations, a very major part of modern warfare, should really be modelled. Added to which breaching operations would be hugely fun to play and watch unfold on your PC screen smile.gif .

My guess is that they are not in CMSF because there was not time. This is fare enough. But it would be a huge set back if they do not make it into a Normandy game ;) .

JaguarUSF… thanks for pointing out that “mark mines” is available as a command. This is an improvement… but I hope for more ;) .

It is the “uber” nature of mines in previous outings of CM which needs to be addressed.

Hoping Battlefront will let us know what the score is on this issue.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pictures of MICLICs going off running through my head. :eek:

Now that would be exciting. :D

Unfortunately, a MICLIC is so big, given its 2,000 lb C4 charge, that it might overwhelm the map. But, gosh it would be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

There has just been a new blog posted covering all the seven types of Stryker that will be modelled in CMSF.

When it comes to the M1132 Engineering vehicle there is a rider added to the description

“The specialized engineering capabilities of the vehicle are currently not simulated.”

So I do not expect much more detail on the mine front than in CMX1. But does this mean more detailed modeling is on the list for a later module.

Let’s hope so smile.gif .

It would be a bonus if one of the team who knows the level of current modeling, and whether there is more detail to come in later modules would break cover and post to let us all know ;) . Sharing secrets is very therapeutic!

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that the specialized engineering capabilities of the vehicle are currently not simulated. ;)

Incidentally, the Ottawa Convention doesn't just prohibit the use of mines, but the parties have all agreed to destroy stockpiles - if the wiki article is accurate, it would seem that a goodly number of countries have done just that. An interesting situation. More interesting is that the largest armies in the world - Russia, United States, China - are not signatories.

Mine warfare in the Second World War will be interesting as well - notably, Ottawa Convention does not rule out "booby traps" either (nor vehicle mines), so lots of scope for inclusion of things that blow up, in any time frame.

Engineering will be something we are all eagerly awaiting proper modelling of, if not in the CM pantheon, then by whomever is brave enough to try it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology hasn't really much advanced in the realm of mine 'detection' since WWII. It may actually be harder with the introduction of plastic-bodied mines that thwart classic 'mine detectors'. The art of 'doing something about it' has advanced though. Mine ploughs, line charges, V-hull vehicles, airburst fuel air explosives, flail vehicles have even started to make a small comeback. The U.S. had bought a batch of South African mine detection vehicles (and VERY awkward looking vehicles they are!). I haven't heard how they might be doing at their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Spiny Mouse:

I have pictures of MICLICs going off running through my head. :eek:

Now that would be exciting. :D

Unfortunately, a MICLIC is so big, given its 2,000 lb C4 charge, that it might overwhelm the map. But, gosh it would be fun.

Yeah it's fun watching a breaching operation in SB Pro PE. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Spiny Mouse:

I have pictures of MICLICs going off running through my head. :eek:

Now that would be exciting. :D

Unfortunately, a MICLIC is so big, given its 2,000 lb C4 charge, that it might overwhelm the map. But, gosh it would be fun.

I was just watching the program Delta Company on TV. It's about a Marine company in the Iraq invasion, and had footage of a breaching operation where the MICLIC didn't detonate - apparently, some poor LCpl had to run out there and set it off by hand. That can't have been much fun. I wonder if BF will model that aspect too ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a MICLIC one time that severed it's attaching cable and just ended up in one big heap downrange. Of course, that meant that the detonating circuit was also severed. Very inconvenient. :(

Not wanting to send someone out there where he might get hurt, we detonated it by firing a .50 cal with tracers into it from a CEV. It took quite a few hits and it was burning merrily before the magic bullet finally did the trick and detonated it.

We were in Iraq, but fortunately it was a training situation, not an actual breach attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by kipanderson:

In WWII none of the major players used gas even though the technology was well established. So once these conventions take hold it is sometimes to the advantage of all to stick to them.

Only because of the threat of massive retalitation by one or the other sides in the conflict causing deterrence, not because of any treaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just to update the thread and anyone who may be interested.

Rune has made clear on another thread that there is hope that the engineering version of the Stryker will at some time in the future have some of its engineer features modelled.

This is very good news. There is hope of breaching operations being modelled smile.gif .

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The M1132 Stryker has a mine plough, or can be fitted with one anyway.

I hope they do model most of what is needed for breaching operations as they are a very large part of modern warfare. Particularly the conventional warfare which is the main focus of CMSF.

The work put into modelling such features here would also help in modelling minefields/engineering in later WWII outings.

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...