Targeting Bridges

[ChappyCanuck]

I was recently playing a scenario where I had two 150mm onboard guns. I targeted a bridge I wanted to take down....but the guns would not engage it. I waited 6 minutes with the same targeting order to no avail.

 

So I ran a test and again the guns would not engage the bridge.  So instead I fooled the buggers. For each gun, I targeted the ground at both ends of the bridge, hoping the large blast effect would do something. And it did. The stone/concrete bridge was eventually brought down. I find this to be very unusual that you cannot direct target a bridge, but thought I would send this tip out to my fellow brothers in arms.

[A Canadian Cat]

Interesting. Was this direct fire from infantry guns with LOS to the bridge? I have seen tanks target bridges directly before - I should make sure that still works...

[womble]

I was wondering whether the guns were engaging from the side of the bridge. If they were, it may have been that the bridge parapet was occluding sight of the "aiming point" on the bridge deck.

[John1966]

In a lot of cases, wouldn't it ruin the scenario if you could target the bridge? I mean if it's a river-crossing scenario with one bridge and somebody takes it out right at the start, that's pretty much game ruined.

 

I have a dim and distant memory from some game or another (quite probably a board game) where the designer notes specifically stated that it would be unrealistic to let a player target a bridge as somebody further up the command might not want it destroyed even if the enemy was crossing as they might like to use it for the inevitable counter-attack. (I'm not saying that's historically accurate, that's just what the designers said and it sounds reasonable enough - bridges obviously were blown but at what level would the orders be given to do so bearing in mind a bridges obvious strategic importance?)

 

Anyway, seems very unsporting if it's a river crossing and it's the only poinr you (or your vehicles) can cross.

[ChappyCanuck]

Interesting. Was this direct fire from infantry guns with LOS to the bridge? I have seen tanks target bridges directly before - I should make sure that still works...

Yes it was Ian....both guns had LOS.

[ChappyCanuck]

I was wondering whether the guns were engaging from the side of the bridge. If they were, it may have been that the bridge parapet was occluding sight of the "aiming point" on the bridge deck.

There was a clear sight to all sections of the bridge, so not an LOS issue. I am at a loss

[ChappyCanuck]

In a lot of cases, wouldn't it ruin the scenario if you could target the bridge? I mean if it's a river-crossing scenario with one bridge and somebody takes it out right at the start, that's pretty much game ruined.

 

I have a dim and distant memory from some game or another (quite probably a board game) where the designer notes specifically stated that it would be unrealistic to let a player target a bridge as somebody further up the command might not want it destroyed even if the enemy was crossing as they might like to use it for the inevitable counter-attack. (I'm not saying that's historically accurate, that's just what the designers said and it sounds reasonable enough - bridges obviously were blown but at what level would the orders be given to do so bearing in mind a bridges obvious strategic importance?)

 

Anyway, seems very unsporting if it's a river crossing and it's the only poinr you (or your vehicles) can cross.

Hey John:

 

A. there is nothing in the briefing that informs any side not to blow a bridge

 

B. It is not the only bridge across the river, and there is a route around the obstacle as well...a long one but so be it

 

C. Sporting? War?

[A Canadian Cat]

There was a clear sight to all sections of the bridge, so not an LOS issue. I am at a loss

I think he meant were the guns looking at the bridge from the side on and low down? In that case I could see there being an issue of getting a LOF to the bridge deck. The cases I have seen bridges destroyed the tanks where very much on one side or the other of the bridge looking "down the road".

Either way it would be worth firing up the game and checking it out. Which I might remember to do tomorrow some time

Edited January 26, 2015 by IanL

[ChappyCanuck]

I think he meant were the guns looking at the bridge from the side on and low down? In that case I could see there being an issue of getting a LOF to the bridge deck. The cases I have seen bridges destroyed the tanks where very much on one side or the other of the bridge looking "down the road".

Either way it would be worth firing up the game and checking it out. Which I might remember to do tomorrow some time

 

The guns were almost perpendicular to the bridge and slightly higher than the bridge itself

[John1966]

Hey John:

 

A. there is nothing in the briefing that informs any side not to blow a bridge

 

B. It is not the only bridge across the river, and there is a route around the obstacle as well...a long one but so be it

 

C. Sporting? War?

 

Of course. I was just pondering whether it might be a reason why Battlefront might have made bridges untargettable. Difficult really because in some scenarios would might want them vulnerable (where there are multiple crossings) and in others not. I've just done one with only a single crossing point for the armour (that I found, anyway ). If the Americans had blown the bridge on turn one then we'd have been reduced to taking potshots at each other for the next couple of hours. I suppose that might be fun of a sort but it'd make the ground objectives a bit tricky to take. Not that I took most of them anyway...

[ChappyCanuck]

Of course. I was just pondering whether it might be a reason why Battlefront might have made bridges untargettable. Difficult really because in some scenarios would might want them vulnerable (where there are multiple crossings) and in others not. I've just done one with only a single crossing point for the armour (that I found, anyway ). If the Americans had blown the bridge on turn one then we'd have been reduced to taking potshots at each other for the next couple of hours. I suppose that might be fun of a sort but it'd make the ground objectives a bit tricky to take. Not that I took most of them anyway...

John: your battle has only the one crossing, so I could see where making the destruction of the bridge "illegal". If I was the battle designer, I would just mention that in the notes/briefing.  I will add that to take down a bridge (depending on the type of course) requires a lot of high explosive ammo, and the larger the calibre the better.  Good luck taking those ground objectives

[womble]

There was a clear sight to all sections of the bridge, so not an LOS issue. I am at a loss

My woolly suspicion is that there's a conflict here between LOS and LOF. I believe the sIG is notionally capable of on-map indirect fire, so its LOS will be reckoned valid to "Just past" where its vision is obscured, same as a mortar firing in direct lay or an HQ or FO team. But it's firing on a flat trajectory, possibly below the minimum range of a lofted shot, so that doesn't translate into LOF. So the Targeting tool allows you to set a target, but the gun isn't capable of shooting at it.

At 300m, and 60m elevation distance, I can get an sIG33 to fire at a bridge.

Halve the elevation and I can still draw a Target line to the same spot, but the gun vaccilates between "Aiming" and "Waiting" and does not fire.

So I tried it with a PaK43, and that behaves the same. So it's not to do with indirect fire capability. So I tried it with the ammo bearer team (equipped with an MG34) and that too can draw a target line but cannot fire. Which leads me to conclude that either the "Can target this AS" point is not on the ground, but the "Can fire at this AS" point is or that the Target tool is more liberal than the LOF tool. At both elevations, the drawn target line intersects at least some part of the bridge parapet.

At the very least, I can conclusively say that it's not that bridges aren't valid targets, it's to do with the parapet obscuring the point at which the gun is supposed to be firing. If you were end-on to the bridge or much higher, it wouldn't be a problem to shoot at the bridge.

[ChappyCanuck]

Well done womble!  My testing wasn't as thorough

[A Canadian Cat]

Nice I just tested using armour just to see if bridges could be targeted and destroyed - yep. I was doing other things and just added in some destroying of bridges so no guns on hand to play with. I was able to destroy a bridge with an AFV still on it - destroyed the tank too when it fell. Cool.

Thanks @womble now I do not need to set up a scenario with guns.

[womble]

Best way to destroy a bridge is to catastrophically nail an Assault Gun on the bridge. Priest, Grille, Sherman 105, STuH, they'll take the bridge down handily when they cook off...

[ChappyCanuck]

Best way to destroy a bridge is to catastrophically nail an Assault Gun on the bridge. Priest, Grille, Sherman 105, STuH, they'll take the bridge down handily when they cook off...

 

Now that is what I would love to see!