Engineers and Explosives

[SGTRock]

Hey, I was wondering if you guys have engineers and demolitionist in the game?

Could say Gerry Blow a bridge?

I know that this is all real time and that the allies would be basically screwed because to build a baily would take quite a bit of time.. But do you have these units?

And if so, how do they operate?

Also if there's Razor Wire incoorperated into the game can you get your guys to cut it or blast it?

------------------

Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[Rhet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Could say Gerry Blow a bridge?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if he knows it very well No seriously, you have to set up charges in effective positions to drop a major structure. You just can't throw a demo pack onto a major bridge and expect it to turn into rubble. You have to locate the charges at locations that will cause severe structural damage (eg. bearing pads). for this reason I think dropping major structures is outside of CM's scope. However you could design a scenario that if the allies did not have control of both ends of the bridge by a set turn they would loose.

Minor bridges could be brought down or damaged to a point where they are unsafe for vehicular traffic (by use of demo charges). This could be done in that you could order a squad to run up to the bridge and spend a minute or two on the bridge then have them run to cover. A short time later kaboom.

I think they have engineers (pioneers)in CM but I can't say for sure. I know it has been brought up before. Things like building bridges and removing mines are like you say out of CM's scope but blowing a road block or removing wire should be in there

Ah ha! found this quote by Steve in an earlier post on barbed wire <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No banglores, but engineers do have satchel charges<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it appears that Engineers are definatly in.

------------------

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-17-99).]

[Brian Rock]

I question the assertion that engineers removing mines is out of the scope of a CM battle. In fact unless the defenders are dolts defensive minefields should be covered with fire, so the really tactically important minefields are *only* cleared under fire.

Either

a) minefields can be cleared, or

units have to use the "clearing by driving through" tactic (not recommended), or

c) minefields become impenetrable barriers.

There are numerous cases of engineers clearing minefields - and indeed erecting bridges under fire.

Now I wouldn't suggest simulating the entire "approach to bridge- begin construction - finish bridge - drive vehicles off other side" process within the span of a single CM game. That could take many hours. Still, a part of this process could be simulated.

How I dunno - maybe put a victory flag halfway across the river, and the US player has to build part of a bridge to reach it.

[Simon Fox]

In the campaign game laying small bridges across small rivers should certainly be within the time frame especially with mobile bridging equipment and could be a good focus for a campaign game.

As for clearing minefields it should certainly be possible to both remove and place mines in the campaign game and possibly even in a scenario. I am specifically thinking of boobytrapped buildings and roadblocks consisting of a small number of mines. In the current scenario if Martin had a few mines to place in those forest roads then Fionn would be stuffed if he couldn't clear them. From my reading this was a very common practice. Also you would have to allow mine clearing during a scenario if dozer or flail tanks were available and these weren't exactly rare, the Brits had a whole division of specialised armour.

I am sure this won't be in but I reckon it should be if the specialised armour is in and I don't know how you can manage mines in the campaign game but I hope it has been worked out. Steve?

[Fionn]

Ok, I'm officially asking any engineers from the Army to step in here and luagh heartily at the idea of putting bridges over rivers in combat in 1 hour in WW2.

In WW2 is very important here. Sure they could do it now but not in WW2. It simply wouldn't have happened at the scale of CM during the middle of CM's firefights.

An engineer will tell you guys just how long WW2 engineers took to build a bridge . It's a lot longer than you thought I'm sure.

BTW what under fire means in a book is some sporadic fire and artillery. It isn't (except in the rarest, rarest cases) talking about them throwing a bridge together within 200 metres of the enemy infantry positions

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SGTRock]

Fionn:

I recognized the fact that bailies and, or other engineered cross-over points take time that's why I dismissed it, because even if you could put a baily together in an hour the campaign is basically finished, am I right?

But, Brian Rock makes a good point about clearing mines, what about detectors? Are these units available? rather than to just wright off that part of the battle field?

The other question I had that is a very important one is the yell of GRENADE!

Are grenades made available to your grunts?

------------------

Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[buddy]

Yeah, what about those shermans (churchhills?) equipped with anti-mine "swirling mass of rotating chain thingees" (technical term). Shermans were equipped with anti-hedgerow type things as well . . . hmmm, just got a thought. What about one of my favorite German vehicles - the schwimvagan (spelling of this definately wrong) - it was a water jeep, right? (kinda like a Volkswagon/Jeep thing - very cool.)

[Ken Talley]

Actually the Brits had a number of bridging vehicles designed for rapid crossing of streams, tank ditches, trenches, etc. I don't know how much time was required to deploy the bridging devices but I imagine some could be very fast. Some of the types are listed below:

Bridge Carrying and Pusher Tanks:

Usually tank chassis converted to carry a length of steel bridging to enable armoured formations to cross narrow rivers. Larger rivers required Pontoon bridge sections.

Scissors Bridging Tanks

These converted Tanks carried a hinged double section of steel bridge which was hydraulically pushed into place, folding out as it did so.

Ramp Type Bridging Tanks

These converted tanks were used to drive up to a wall, extend their bridges over their heads and act as a physical ramp for the following armour.

AVRE with Fascine

Fascine was a bundle of wooden or metal poles carried on the front of the AVRE to fill trenches and allow the armour to roll over the Trench without getting trapped.

Ken

[Dar]

Buddy:

They don't list flail tanks, but I do recall them saying elsewhere that Shermans with the hedgerow cutter attachments would be included.

The Schwimmwagen isn't listed. They do list the Kuebelwagen (the VW "Thing") and the Kettenkrad (tracked motorcycle), but no Schwimmwagen.

It should be fun to see what bicycle infantry will look like if they include them in the later CM covering the early war years.

Dar Steckelberg

[buddy]

How about Polish Cavalry?

just kidding....

[Ken Talley]

Actually I think the Germans used bicycle and motorcycle troops all the way to the war's end on both the West and East Front. I believe one battalion of each regiment in Volksgrenadier Divisions were supposed to be bicycle mounted.

Ken

[Justin Hoerter]

I seem to recall the British landing with bicycles on D-Day as well. I think they were mostly left on the beach though. Well, with a bit more scratching of the noggin, I thought there were a few who rode into a town, capturing it... A bit anecdotal, but maybe worth considering.

Justin Hoerter

[Fionn]

Well, I simply don't remember seeing any bridge-building being implemented. It just took so long that it'd be boring for a game.

E.g What I mean here is that if it takes 60 minutes to make a bridge in CM (which is pretty quick, those other fascine tanks etc are used for crossing little streams. I'm talking a big twenty metre river. Fascines were used in WW1 to cross 3 metres trenches and often they couldn't even do that so what chance would they have with a 20 metre river?)

If it takes 60 minutes to make a bridge you'd literally sit there hitting "GO" 60 times before the bridge is built. Talk about boring..

I think the way this would be modelled is to conduct an assault crossing via boats OR ford the river , advance a bit beyond it and ONCE the bridge is safely out of enemy direct fire range (and this would be in a campaign game NOT during that one scenario) say that someone built a bridge over it.

Anything else would just skew the game scale totally.. I'll look up some books to see what the Germans thought of river-crossing and pass on any hard data I find.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeeze, power is out for a bit and you can't look at the BBS, and all Hell breaks loose

I've got to keep this short because there are 50 others to get to, but here goes...

No bridgebuilding of any sort. It did happen from time to time, but generally is WAY outside of CM's scope. Same with clearing minfields. During an attack this sort of stuff didn't happen. Since CM is not meant to simulate engineering feats of wonder, but combat, we aren't including this stuff. Generally when done "under fire" it was harrassing artillery/mortars and long range small arms fire. Not a true battle situation.

No to mine clearing "funnies". There is a big, long thread about this some time ago. The vehicles were mostly only used during the early days of D-Day. The Sherman "roller" tanks, for example, were abandoned during the advance because they were too darned slow and tended to get bogged down on anything but paved surfaces and hardpacked roads.

Schwimwagens are not in the game because they weren't all that important. Great for going over a small, still water stream, but this is not the sort of thing you try under fire. Personally I love schwimwagens and even have a really nice model we could use for the textures. But on the scale of priorities it is WAY down there. Same with US GPW amphib jeeps.

No to bicycle infantry of any sort. In combat the bikes would be left behind as if they were soft skined vehicles. Don't forget these were hard surface only transport, not something practical in the frontlines.

No to blowing up bridges. There are only a handfull of documented cases of a bridge blowing up in the face of an Allied advance. We might allow engineers to blow bridges using their satchel charges, but it is still on The List and not currently in the game.

Uh... think I got everything

Steve

[Brian Rock]

I can accept that engineers clearing minefields won't be in; CM isn't the "do everything imaginable in WWII" game. I can't accept that they engineers didn't do this in combat. Here's a start:

I don't have any WWII US or German field manuals, but I do have some current US military manuals. _FM 20-32 (Mine Countermine Operations)_ notes that (pp 195,196)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Breaching is usually executed under enemy fire, but it can be executed when the obstacle is not covered by enemy fire...

Breaching fundamentals are (to) Suppress... Obscure... Secure... Reduce...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not saying that because current practice does this it must have occured in WWII - but compare this with Doubler's _Closing with the Enemy_, account of the battle to reduce Mountbarey.

Doubler notes that whilst the engineers first cleared two lanes through the minefields before dawn (question: will players ever be able to start a scenario with the option to have cleared lanes through enemy minefields?), in the afternoon on 14 September (pg 114):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"mortar crews laid down a thick smoke screen to block German observation. TDs and tanks opened fire against the fort's defenses while engineers continued to clear the minefields..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(It is worth noting that the mortar and tank fire began at 1300 hours, and the lanes weren't cleared until 1630. It may not be quick - but my point is that it *happened under fire*.)

The process would be recognisable to a 1990s military engineer, tasked with reducing a minefield under fire.

(He also notes ambiguously "When operating with tank-infantry forces in offensive operations, engineers usually had a mobility enhancement mission, which meant they were to remove or breach obstacles such as antitank ditches, wire entanglements, and minefields. " It's not clear from this *when* they did this - before or during the battle - so this statement is a draw.)

Also from WWII (right war, wrong front) are the Soviet _1944 Red Armor Combat Orders_. In chapter eight: The Offensive, pg 81:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(d) Cooperation with Engineers and Technical Troops

384. During combat the engineers clear lanes through tank obstacles, especially through minefileds. To this end engineers detailed to support tanks move in front with the forwardmost infantry elements on the signal of the tank commander. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think *that's* pretty unambiguous. .

I can always dig out some primary sources. If anyone wants to continue this (unlikely).

I'll spare you the evidence for _some_ bridges being _constructed_ (Fionn's qualifications notwithstanding) under fire.

For now, anyway.

Oh, and the Brit 79th Armoured Division was still using flail tanks in the Reichwald at least as late as Feb 1945... *ducks*

[This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 09-18-99).]

[Fionn]

Brian,

But I think what they mean by "under fire" and what it would mean in CM are different.

They're talking about sporadic fires usually OR if they are talking about direct, close fire then they are talking about having HUGE amounts of smoke etc. Not exactly in-game.

BTW fort's are an exception since you need to clear minefields to properly assault them so lay down huge amounts of smoke the blind the defenders. I'll grant you forts but won't grant you this being used when manoeuvre-capable enemy units were in the close vicinity...

US troops nowadays have many vehicles etc designed to allow them to deliver bridges under fire. Not really so back then. Back then it was an infantry out in the open type thing.

Anyways, whether it only sometimes occured under DF or usually did the point is it still took a LONG time and so won't get into CM because of the time aspect either.

(PS Engineers in your army would hate you Brian LOL .. They'd have glorious but SHORT careers ).

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Mike T]

The 79th British Armoured Division with it's assortment of 'Funnies' supported the First Canadian Army in its run up the coast of France - most notably in the captures of Le Havre and Boulogne as well as in the Scheldt estuary and during Operation Veritable. They were used so much alongside the Canadians that the 1st Canadian Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment (using Kangaroos)was formed and incorporated into the 79th.

[Guest Lokesa]

Would it be possible to detonate mines through HE fire?

I'm thinking of the earlier example of a bottleneck like the ones Fionn had to pass through leaving the forest. It just wouldn't do to have your whole advance stopped dead in it's tracks from a mined road...

[Guest Big Time Software]

The definition of "under fire" is any time someone is shooting at you. This does not mean part of a battle. In CM a battle simulates, at most, 60 minutes long (yes, you can set it longer, but I can tell you it will be rare to see that work) of direct military action between two opposing forces. You yourself show that clearing mines "under fire" took hours of dedicated efforts to both clear and supress. This is way out of the scope of CM. I know of no combat description of mine clearing that was conducted during an attack.

In fact, I just read about an assault on West Wall positions and the poor sods in the first wave had to go through the minefields that THEY KNEW WERE THERE simply because it is impossible to clear mines during a general attack (or in this case an assault). They sent forward pathfinders to find ways through the mines, but this is such a crude thing and many men (including medics) were blown up during the process.

Again, combat engineers did their jobs while being shot at, but they didn't clear minefields during a general military action (which is what CM simulates). Even the example from Doubler shows that this was something done outside of CM's scope.

As far as clearing lanes for an attack, no, this is not possible in CM. The player has the option to set up minefields where ever he wants, so there can be no scenario set "paths". I would think the examples of paths being used in a CM scale battle would be few. Plus, thick minfields were not very common.

Steve

[Guest Bryan Corkill]

Seeing as limited bridge blowing is permited, is this in the scope of being say the 291st ECB in front of KG Piper? (Dreaming of making Fionn say 'The Damned Engineers!')

[This message has been edited by Bryan Corkill (edited 09-18-99).]

[This message has been edited by Bryan Corkill (edited 09-18-99).]

[Fionn]

Those damned engineers !

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Rhet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An engineer will tell you guys just how long WW2 engineers took to build a bridge . It's a lot longer than you thought I'm sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn, you are a prophetic one aren't you. I just so happen to know an engineer that was in the Army and had errected many baileys. I decided to keep it simple, I asked him how many men and how long it would take to erect and launch a bailey that would span 100'(this is a short distance). Furthermore, he could use the existing abutments from the downed bridge (this decreases the required span considerably). He said that if the bridge was already on site and if he wasn't working under harrasing fire (light mortar or sporadic artillary fire) it would take 2 to 3 hours. The one hour range was allowance for other site conditions such as a short or tight assembly and launch area on the friendly side of the river. The manpower requirement would be about a platoon of engineers. In the end you would have what they call a double single bailey bridge (two lanes wide and one truss thick). This is about the minimum you would need to get tanks across.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll look up some books to see what the Germans thought of river-crossing and pass on any hard data I find.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is an excellent description of German bridging operations on pg. 507 paragraph 2 of the HGMF. I'll sum up for those that don't have a copy yet. First stage; use assault rafts or storm boats to secure the bridgehead. Continue to ferry troops on the boats or rafts to reinforce the lodgement. Second stage; build a "light" (pedestrian) bridge out of timber to bring further troops across. Third stage; build the vehicular bridge to allow for vehicular passage. These vehicular bridges were delivered from the divisional level.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those damned engineers !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Fionn, I couldn't get to this thread sooner because I was slamming a new video card into my computer.

------------------

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-19-99).]

[Rhet]

Oh yeah, mines...

The first misconception about mines is that they are designed to kill enemy troops. They are actually intended to deny or delay access of a specific area to the enemy. If you were just trying to kill people there would be no need for minefield warning signs. Also the leathality of mines are toned down to reinforce this. A soldier that has had his legs blown off yells and moans thereby further reinforcing to his commrads that they are in a place that they shouldn't be in (Wounded soldiers also require more resource expenditure to the enemy than dead ones, sort of a side benefit if you could call it that ). I brought this up because Brians post sort of indicated that the mine fields were covered with fire to keep the enemy from defeating the mine field. In fact it is the other way around. The mine fields are there to allow a fewer number of defenders to hold a location. He may have not meant it this way but it came out that way to me atleast, I could be wrong about his intentions and I apologise if I am.

Uncontested (undefended) mine fields are also sewn. These are usually used in retrograde movements or withdrawls. They are a very cheap way to slow (delay) the advance of the enemy.

Combat engineers are elite units! They require a lot of training and as a result armys just don't throw them into meat grinders. Like anything there are exceptions to the rule, but in this case they are usually extrordinary situations in which without engineers the position would be unobtainable or two expensive to be worth taking. DDay was such an exception, without the engineers the number of men left on the beach would have atleast been doubled. Like Steve said, these situations (almost always massive assaults on prepared positions) were larger than battalion level and thus outside CM's scope.

As a side note... on the Eastern front the Russian sappers sent mine raiding parties out at night to remove German mines. They did this not to clear the fields but to steal the mines! Russian mines were very unstable and did not take to being repositioned kindly so they would rather risk their lives gathering German made mines than laying their own.

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet, I didn't know that about SU sappers, but it doesn't surprise me. Any nation that thinks of strapping TNT to the backs of dogs is a bit on the odd side

The Germans also did some nasty things with mines. They used punishment battalions to go out and clear mines while under artillery and small arms fire. I think the casualty rates for some of these units were over 90%. Go figure...

Steve

P.S. Mines do work the way you expect. They scare the pants off the attacker, slow movement, panic troops, keep guys pinned, etc. Casualties are also not uncommon.

[Brian Rock]

Rhet: I certainly didn't mean to imply the troops were intended to protect the *minefields*.

The point I was making is that minefields tend to be covered with fire because they work better that way. If you want to protect the defending force from attack, or disrupt, turn, fix or block enemy manuever, your mines are more effective if defenders can shoot the troops trying to clear them.

You are right that some minefields are laid for other reasons, such as to cover retreats - but they are the ones we wouldn't expect to see on a CM battlefield.

Fionn: re: your comment "(PS Engineers in your army would hate you Brian LOL .. They'd have glorious but SHORT careers )."

Sorry, but that's what engineers DO. This isn't some wacky notion I dreamed up, it is standard procedure.

Yes it is dangerous. If your point is that minefields covered with DF weapons are much harder to clear - why do you think the enemy tries to cover them with fire? They aren't silly.

Also you comment that "under fire" meaning "sporadic fires usually OR if they are talking about direct, close fire then they are talking about having HUGE amounts of smoke etc."

I don't think so. I mean the enemy has guns ranged on the approaches and fields and the good guys have to obscure with smoke and suppress with DF and IF and work real hard & real fast.

Now it may be true that this doesn't happen in a 60 min time frame. That's ok. It just means there are combat situations that CM can't simulate.

I stand by my basic argument. Engineers clear minefields under fire.