Fionn Posted September 19, 1999 Share Posted September 19, 1999 Brian, Nowadays they sure do with their vehicles etc BUT I totally stand by my statement that in the past they only did so under exceptional circumstances. The Germans would have LOVED to simply have the Allies move engineers forward under fire to clear minefields. lots of chances to kill elite troops. The Germans certainly didn't do that as SOP, the Russians didn't the British didn't and the Americans didn't. I'm quite sure the Canadians didn't either. The Aussies have always done things differently but I'm still willing to wager that in WW2 their engineers didn't clear minefields under concentrated direct fire. UNLESS it was some massive assault like D-Day. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 19, 1999 Share Posted September 19, 1999 Breaching minefields and other obstacles under fire IS something that Engineers do as a primary mission (at least nowadays.) It does help that there is a whole new range of "funnies" attached to them to help this such as mineplow tanks, Mine clearance vehilces and other CEVs. However in light units they normally don't have access to this fancy stuff and have to do it the old fashion way. Most every deliberate attack entails the clearance of obstacles or breaching operations under fire. Obviously the best answer is to go around said obstacles but any halfway competent defender would place stuff in a way to make that diffuicult or impossible to do while still getting at your objectives. Blasting the area prior is another method though too many times that has proven partially successful particularly with regards to wire. Just a few things about breaching operations "under fire". This is a major operation which is planned for in some detail and requires extensive rehearsal. The first phase of the operation calls for sealing or and suppressing the point of breach. In the movies you see the lone guy or squad running forward while everyone else hugs the dirt and maybe a couple of guys pop off with their garands. Bull****. First the area being breached is sealed off from supporting defensive fire with Indirect fire, direct fire and most overall overriddingly importantly (get my point?) the use of smoke! Then the area covering the spot to be breached is deluged with direct fire from dedicated supporting units. Once all that is done, then the engineer squad and accompmanying assault guys go forward to either blow a way though the breach or use some other means to quickly clear and mark a narrow lane through the mess (A good Artillery prep or carpet bombardment on the area really helps.) Units just don't march people across minefields they know about. (maybe a few isolated incidences on the Russian front or Iran Iraq war) Because after the first guy or two gets blown up everyone stops moving forward. It does seem reasonable to presume in most deliberate attack CM scenarios that the designer has had the clearing oeprations happen earlier(usually at night before the main attack or through other infiltration techniques) though just doing a pure breaching scenario using a company with engineers/pioneers attached would be an interesting scenario in its own right. That being said I would support engineers/pioneers having some sort of superior ability to clear or mark/cross a mined area (and to clear wire quicker) even if it happens at a slow pace. If someone wanted to know what that pace was I could probably ask some engineer friends. Cheers... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Sallows Posted September 19, 1999 Share Posted September 19, 1999 Breaching by hand under fire is too time-consuming for the game time scale. Most AVLB (armoured vehicle launched bridges) could deploy in a few minutes (5-10) to span small gaps (ditches, small streams), but how many scenarios will feature deliberate assaults where this equipment was available or required? It is true that tactical minefields (large ones) were sown in areas where they were not necessarily covered by fire. However, in most cases it was normal practice to cover any type of obstacle with fire (direct or observed indirect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 I don't know what you consider time consuming but at NTC or JRTC if you haven't cleared a lane through a minebelt within a few minutes you are dead or the assault has failed anyway. Is that within the time scope of a CM scenario? We're not talking about ten mile wide barrier of mines anyway. Usually when you are saying going across a trenchline or to a bunker the minebelts a very narrow and put in certain spots, (Often to cover "dead space" which cannot be observed by the defenders fire but make perfect avenues of apporach to the attacker. Unless you are talking assaulting the Atlantic wall or some other crazy-assed defensive belt where the defenders have had unlimited resources to lay out mines unmolested, then these are the hasty or limited minefields (mines cost money too) which are teh most typical kind encountered in the assault. I guess the point of all this discusison is: do CM units or at least engineers have any capability whatsoever to clear LANES through minefields (at any rate of speed) within the game or are they simply "permanent" obstacles? Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 Engineers will be able to navigate through minefields better than other infantry, but we weren't planning on having them clear mines. Mines should be only a scattered and rare thing in CM. Besides the Atlantic and Western Walls, there were few deep fortified belts that I can think of. This discussion is interesting to us because our understanding is that Engineers did not attempt to clear mines DURING a CM type battle. Like Los said, it sure did happen but the mine clearing was the battle (in effect). We thought this would be a silly game to play But can anybody point us to sources where WWII Combat Engineers fairly regularly cleared minefields (paths or otherwise) DURING an assault. Not 1/2 hour before, not during the night, not during a specific operation to get the mines cleared, etc. Yes, current Engineers certainly do this, but that is neither here nor there Thanks! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 I was looking at one of the official histories of 2(NZ) Div recently, in particular the one covering the engineers. I remember a graphic used for training that showed the layout of an engineer platoon during an opposed, minefield-breaching operation. The position of each man was shown (including some poor sappers in the uncleared field providing cover). I'll get the details of the book and a soft copy of the graphic - can I post attachments to this board? The graphic was originally developed for use on desert battlefields, so strictly is outside the scope of CM1, but this was a Commonwealth unit, so the technique should have been reasonably standard Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 Los, I fully agree that engineers clear fields under fire these days but I still don't think they did so commonly during WW2. (CM's timescale.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 Los, I fully agree that engineers clear fields under fire these days but I still don't think they did so commonly during WW2. (CM's timescale.) ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 Keep in mind that I'm not talking Deep minebelts or any such. I'm talking the typical minefield erected by at a prepared or hasty defensive point. They aren't deep, they are usually 10-30 meters and include wire and mines. The engineers only have to clear a lane of say 3m or 8m depending on if they are passing infantry or vehicles. What are the size of minebelts used in CM? The key is either being able to clear a narrow lane for troops to pass through or then by having engineers adjacent to the mines/lanes it diminishes the possibility of regular uits being hit by them. I'm only asking becasue it's always been a regular part of an engineers task and people seem to be caught up on the misconception of most minefields being these huge things dealt with on the Siegried line and the Atlantic wall, but most minefields are of the more mundane type meant to cover hasty or semi-permanent battle positions or just scattered about to harass(can't do much about those). If CM isn't going to cover clearing lanes or addressing this issue it's not a big deal. I only point it out because this was a standard thing infanty had to deal with particularly in deliberate assaults. Cheers... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kip anderson Posted September 20, 1999 Share Posted September 20, 1999 Steve, no one it a bigger fan of CM than I am,and of the people that have put it together, but when it comes to mines I think you have got it wrong. I look forward to CM just as much with or without what I would call "full feature mines" it will be the all time greartest war game by a huge margin but when you move to the Eastern Front the ability to do breaching operations will be important. For me the whole point of CM is that you are presented with the same problems and the same possible solutions as battalion commanders had in the real world, everything should be real world except that thankfully no one gets hurt. From what I have read breaching operations took two main forms on the Eastern Front. The covering forces would be suppressed by HE, smoke and small arms fire while troops would crawl forward and clear a path. The other and more usual way to clear mines was to use artillery, in the Soviet case using shells with "instant" detonation fuses. By the later part of the war the use by the Soviets of the PT-34 mine roller was also standard practice, Hand Book on USSR Military Forces November 1945.When it comes to the "time factor" I am sure you are correct when you say people just want to attack but I will not be the only one that wants to spend 30-60 game turns doing recon and fighting breaching operations followed be the "action" bits. In this version of CM "no mine clearing no problem" but hopefully you can be persuaded to include it in a future Eastern Front version. All the best, Kip. [This message has been edited by kip anderson (edited 09-20-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted September 21, 1999 Share Posted September 21, 1999 Kip, You forgot the third method employed by the Russians to defeat minefields. Marching an entire penal battalion across the minefield to detonate as many as possible. ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted September 21, 1999 Share Posted September 21, 1999 Steve, 'No to blowing up bridges' Hmmm. I can see the logic in the other decisions you outline but I'm personally doubtful about this one. Don't claim to be a military history expert or 'grog-nerd' or anything but from reading various books I'd got the impression that attacks on defenders holding bridges wired for demolition (usually holding to the last minute to allow retreating forces to cross) was a fairly classic encounter. Indeed such a cliche it was even used in Saving Ryan's Privates (and an episode of the pre-Napoleonic 'Hornblower' series!). Reading accounts of Market Garden such as Ryan's 'A Bridge Too Far' gives the impression that the whole campaign was a string of such scenarios with the Son and Arnhem Railway bridges going up in the 'attackers faces' as well as other lesser spans and the Nijmegen *almost* but for German bad luck! Books on the Ardennes seem to suggest the US learnt the lesson in reverse... Please feel free to give me the good slapping down I truly deserve if I've got the wrong end of the stick here Won't stop me buying the darn game... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bryan Corkill Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 It would be nice to do a Trois Ponts scenario. Something along the lines that if it ends w/ the US on the left bank and the Germans on the right,with the US blowing the bridge, it would be a tactical US victory. Same result with the bridge up would be a major US victory. Germans on the left bank and bridge down, tactical German. Germans take bridge up, major victory. Seems some mechanism would be nescessary for any scenario involving KG Piper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Mike, no slapping necessary Sure, it did happen in a few places and that is why they became "classics". But how many hundreds of contested bridges did the Allies cross from the time they hit the Normandy beaches until Germany surrendered? How many of those were blown up in the face of a direct assault? A very small handful. And how many were not blown up because of a severed wire, killing the engineers, not enough explosives, etc.? Probably no more than can be counted on one hand. The problem is that Hollywood, and wargames with such tendencies, have built up the "blow it up in the face of the enemy" bridge assaults into something much larger than they were in real life. They were rare and often predecided to either happen or not happen (like Remagen, where they simply didn't have enough explosives to blow the thing). What really happened when the Allies got to a bridge that went BOOM, the officers and men would swear, then would concentrate on consolodating positions on their bank of the river (in CM terms, end of game). Later on they would try to cross over in another place by bridge, boat, or fording. If the river was significant, and defenses tough, the assault would be much more planned and involve more higher level assets (like artillery). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 22, 1999 Author Share Posted September 22, 1999 MY LORD, I HAVE CREATED A MONSTER... hehehe... Thanks for all your postings guys and trying to stick to the topic... Now ABOUT GRENADES?? And I quote as in post 6 " Are grenades made available to your grunts? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 One of the AARs has a couple of screen shots of a unit throwing a grenade. I think it was one of Fionns, and pretty early on...Found it combathq.thegamers.net/battle/Turn12x/axisturn12.htm So the answer is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Martin's dudes killed one of Fionn's halftracks in the town on an upcoming turn (~32). The HT pulled up outside a building and the infantry guys basically dropped grenades out the window into the vehicle. BOOMIES!! DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 22, 1999 Author Share Posted September 22, 1999 Thanks Ben, looks good...although I would've preferred the Gerry to be on the other side of the grenade.. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 It is true that by and large and engineer waiting for the last second to blow up a bridge in the enemy's face is porbably carrying out the demolition in what is at best a highly irresponsible fashion. (SPR/BTF situations excepted) That's hollywood. Too many things to go wrong to risk such a vital task to the last minute. One other thing. I'm not an engineer so I don't have a lot of first hand experience with blowing bridges and have never seen one blown for real. I do know how to calc and place demo (P=plenty) to blow and cut various items (I'm not an expert but get cross trained on such matters at least once every 12-18 months). However I do know that to blow any bridge other than a simple small woodedn one takes a lot of time to prep and palce the charges (including fixating and tamping) we ell as wiring and what not so it is not unreasonable to leave out rigging bridge demolitions giving the time frame of a scenario. However detonating a demo prerigged before a scenario might be another matter? Cheers... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bryan Corkill Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 Whether or not Engineer units in the game can regularly blow bridges is not as important as a mechanism for portraying situations such as Trois Ponts, Stavelot, Stoumont, Habiemont, and La Glieze. All in the course of 24 hours in 1 Battle, I grant. Something in the editor maybe? Only reason I am being unreasonable, is these situations are not well handled by any other game, and I have hopes to finally do these. I did ask my girlfriends gfather what he remembered of engineers, (Coy A, 1/119th, 30th Inf Div(Bloody Bucket)) His first comment was that All engineers were A**holes, something to do w/ wading every stream and river in France, surely an exageration. He next stated that his coy blew one somewhere in Belgium prior to the Bulge w/out engineer support. (Even rarer?) Took 30 or 40 crates of German arty ammo, strapped them to the piers of what reminded him of a covered Bridge in Vermont, and fired Bazookas at it til it went up. Does sound like fun if not practical. I am no longer arguing for engineers to 'blow bridges', just a way to inclde these things in a scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 Los/Bryan, Simple... I'm not sure you can start out with one destroyed, but not having one is (game wise) the same thing. So, the designer decides ahead of time if the bridge is blown or not, then either puts one in or not. Pretty low tech solution, but it is realistic and not unreasonable. Steve P.S. I love hearing Vets talk about anybody other than themselves. 9 times out of 10 it is pretty colorful Charles' SO's father was in military intelligence for the 3rd Army. Calls Stuart tanks "bicycle smashers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 My neighbor, (who has since passed away) was in the 30th. He was a crewman on a quad fifty AA half track. His experience was this. They spent a whole week digging their Halftrack into teh frozen earth using etools. As soon as it was in place to their satisfaction they were ordered to move. My best friends dad (also since passed away) was the Communications Officer for Third Army during the drive across France and Germany. Patton's first communique when he reached the Rhine River was: "I pissed in the Rhine River today." Both Bradley and Ike had a ****fit and rapidly ordered the message changed to something more palatable for the American people. And another little bit of history was slightly changed to make it better for the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 My Father-in-Law was a navigator in a B-29 and he has some great stories. Last christmas he showed me the war diary of his brother. His brother was a B-17 pilot that was shot down on the Schweinfurt Raid. This poor guy endured a whole lot of bad luck. He also took me to dinner with a Pearl Harbor Survivor. This guy was ordered to be a Naval liasion officer to Eisenhour during the final stages of the war. He told some great stories including this little gem. After the Germans had surrendered, he was ordered to oversee the transfer of a war prize back to the United States. This particular prize was a German Warship. When he told me it was the Prinz Eugen I almost choked to death on my beer! It is a shame what happened to that ship. Sniff, sniff ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 23, 1999 Author Share Posted September 23, 1999 Sounds cool to hear about WWII Vets talk you guys should do a post on it, we all may just learn a little more, or at least hear some great stories. In this post let's stick to Engineers and Explosives. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 Good point. Steve P.S. Met a guy who SERVED on the Prinz Eugen after being transfered from the Atlantis prior to its sinking. Couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts