The detection of minefields

[Erwin]

Wonderful result.  I have yet to play a scenario with flail tanks. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

In the old CM games engineers could target mines and clear them with their satchel charges.....Is that not possible in the newer games? 

[Erwin]

In CM1 - yeah...  Never been possible to clear in CM2.

I still like CM1 as a game.  Can do things that are more fun even if not as realistic as CM2.

[c3k]

axxe, nicely done! The hunt vs. move stats you produced were very counter-intuitive to me. I thought that hunt would (should?) create a slower move with more awareness of the surroundings.

[MikeyD]

Big explosions will set of sympathetic mine explosions in their immediate area. I recall people calling down 155mm (or battleship) artillery on a minefield then try hopping from crater-to crater. That's a solution fraught with problems, though. Its extremely unreliable, you're likely to set off only two of five buried mines under a location. If you're playing Russians in CMRT perhaps you'd be more tolerant of mounting casualties in pursuit of a victory.

[axxe]

10 hours ago, c3k said:

axxe, nicely done! The hunt vs. move stats you produced were very counter-intuitive to me. I thought that hunt would (should?) create a slower move with more awareness of the surroundings.

Thanks! I am understanding it as hunt being a sharp focus on enemy units "out there somewhere", and move allowing the guys to also scan the ground.

[Erwin]

11 hours ago, c3k said:

axxe, nicely done! The hunt vs. move stats you produced were very counter-intuitive to me. I thought that hunt would (should?) create a slower move with more awareness of the surroundings.

Yes HUNT really should result in more care and fewer casualties.  Something for BF to look at...

[Michael Emrys]

14 hours ago, c3k said:

I thought that hunt would (should?) create a slower move...

Hunt seems to me that as far as vehicles go, to produce a movement speed that falls somewhere between Move and Quick. As I have not run any rigorous tests of this proposition, it is based entirely on casual observation during game play.

Michael

[axxe]

My experience is that move and hunt are the same speed for personnel and vehicle units, but I'm a n00b, so what do I know ;-)

Here's my data on movement for a single environmental condition:

[Erwin]

Hunt speed = Move speed. Hmm...  Thought Hunt would be slower as one is being more careful.  Not sure why Hunt is so much more tiring than Move (or even Quick - given the distance traveled).

[John Kettler]

niall78,

Regret to inform you that you are completely incorrect. Mines were removed from the pointy end, sometimes covertly starting with friendly mines when switching from defense to offense. At Kursk, German combat engineers were doing demining under fire day after day as they sought to breach successive belts of defenses so the armor could smash through. Their casualties were awful.  The Russians were notorious for removing German mines at night, resulting in very unpleasant dawn experiences for the surprised Landser. Demining under fire, just like conducting bridging operations under fire, was and is a reality of war, as explained here. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited February 21, 2017 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

axxe,

Thanks for your extensive tests. In reading them, I must say I think BFC's in need of addressing several things when it comes to mines.

The typical German AT mine was the Teller mine, and it should utterly wreck a jeep and wound, if not kill, practically everyone aboard. It is, after all, designed to destroy a tank, and there are accounts in which tanks hit them and wound up not just immobilized but destroyed and with multiple crew casualties. That it should take 3-4 to immobilize a Sherman is patently ridiculous based on the accounts of tankers who survived being in a tank or AFV which hit one. Even the little US AT mine which you see in side rails on US halftracks was designed to bust a track on a typical tank, and reports I've seen for sure covered Panthers. Am unsure regarding any Tiger tank or derivative. Here's an actual US halftrack encounter with what has to be a Teller mine, since it was throwable. Italics mine.

http://www.historynet.com/dispatches-march-2015.htm

Excerpted from the segment "Cobra King" the first Tank to relieve Bastogne

(Fair Use)

"Supported by artillery, a team commanded by Captain William A. Dwight consisting of infantrymen, eight tanks, a halftrack and additional vehicles made the final push to break the siege. Driving at full speed, the team entered the town of Assenois, less than two miles from the Bastogne perimeter, with all guns blazing as friendly support artillery fell around it.

Despite orders to push on to Bastogne, several tanks and infantrymen became engaged infighting within Assenois. Three tanks surged ahead of the others,and German infantrymen threw mines between the separated vehicles. The half track was destroyed when it struck one of them. Dwight dismounted his tank to clear away the mines in the vehicles’ path, while the tanks ahead of him continued forward."

 

If it does that to a halftrack, imagine being in a jeep!  This is a good discussion of Shermans vs. mines, together with a picture showing a typical outcome-loss of track and damage to the suspension proper. If a tank ran into a bar mine with tilt rod fuze, the full width of the tank was vulnerable, with much of that being the fighting compartment. In light of things I've read and what I just found with practically zero effort, as a general rule, an AT mine should break the track, leaving the tank as a short of pivoting pillbox. It might do a whole lot worse, including even destroying the tank outright.

 

Turning now to AP mines, BFC has, I believe, from numerous accounts, seriously underrated AP mines. For one, getting one guy blown up by a mine tells you only where that mine was, but you have no idea where the others are. The unit, depending on how the men are spaced, how the field is oriented, what the mine spacings are, could have some men walk right through, yet have some other guy catch one. "Mines!" Now what? All or part of that group is in a minefield, but with no real idea where the next one is. There's no guarantee the first casualty is showing you the front edge of that minefield, just its presence. Any movement in the minefield, including facing change, can cause further casualties. Worst, of course, in reality, is trying to run out of it. Short of Slow, Hunt should be better for both mine spotting and getting through a mined zone than Move, because Move is basically route march speed with no particular attention to the scenery. You've seen it a zillion times in war movies, the long dusty column tramping across the screen, the men practically against the guys in front. Hunt, by contrast, is a state of hypervigilance and acute attention to the surroundings. It is the readiness posture for contact at any time. Therefore, I emphatically concur with Erwin. Hunt should be much better for detecting mines and avoiding them while moving in or exiting from a minefield. Also, the typical German AP mine was the rightfully feared S-Mine, which generally caused quite a few casualties when triggered. Against a march column, it could murderous. There's an account in the excellent GPW book Penalty Strike of a route march with platoons marching in column down a narrow road. The author's unit got past okay, but the Germans had mined the verge, and a man from the following platoon stepped on one of the mines. Thanking his stars it wasn't his platoon, the Penalty Strike's writer said everyone in the (luckless) platoon was killed! Granted, that's an extreme case. This is the British actual drill used if you stepped on one. You had to be quick about it because the charge causing the mine to "bounce" was enough to take your foot off, so staying on the mine, that great  war movie trope, won't work. The IWM lists the effective range of those steel balls in it as 150-200 meters. Therefore, that's radius of effect, not total diameter! If (working from memory here) one AS is 8 meters on a side, the total zone covered is ~19-25 AS from the point of detonation 360 degrees, which equates to a casualty zone 38-50 AS across! Since that was Germany's principal AP mine, methinks there's a problem. Certainly, Germany did later field the Glasmine and Schuehmine, but these had minuscule damage zones by comparison, with the last having the least of the three, since it was a blast weapon which generally took the foot or more off the one who trod upon it but little else.

 

Here, by contrast, is something one US unit did in Vietnam. A combination of being most fortunate and smart got the men out of it unscathed, but note well no one stepped on one to begin with. Italics mine.

 

Excerpted from 

"One Step from My Grave" by Ray Sarlin

http://www.ichiban1.org/html/stories/story_49.htm

(Fair Use)

"We'd been patrolling for a week or so and were dog-tired from lack of sleep, but we still faced enough more days so that the troops were still focused as we trekked between shoulder high ant mounds through the sunburnt waist-high elephant grass. There wasn't a breeze to offer relief from the dry, dusty heat. It was one step after another as we followed in the tracks of the man in front to avoid trip wires, punji stakes or the dreaded triple prongs of the Bouncing Betty. As a Chinese proverb says, "One false step can bring everlasting grief."

The tactical map showed a disused French road that led through the hills into the mountains to our west. We were patrolling parallel to that supposed track two hundred meters or so south trying to spot any signs of the enemy, but it seemed for all the world that we might have been the first people to ever see that desolate place. Not long before, a grass fire had swept through the area and our passing boots stirred up a black ash dust that filled our nose and throat and burned our eyes. The ash was a positive sign, though, because any trip wires or booby-traps that had survived the fire should be easier to spot. So we trudged onwards, carefully stepping over fallen trees and debris, trying to stay in the tracks of the man in front.

I had my command post with our first platoon. We were in a single file with flanking squads out to both sides. I was intent on not only what was around me, but also on my map and the next moves in our tactical plan. Suddenly, the point man waved us down. "There's an old barbed wire fence up ahead. Stop while I check it out." As we paused in place, the men automatically turned outwards to provide 360° security. This wasn't a break. We would often pause during a patrol while something or another was checked out. I passed a grid coordinate to an RTO to call the fence location in to battalion.

The word came back from up front that there seemed to be a sign on the fence and the point was moving up to read it. As he neared the fence, he checked it out and found that it seemed clear of booby-traps, but the battered sign on the rusty old barbed wire was blank. As he leaned over the fence to see if there was any message on the other side he suddenly shouted, "Holy ****, it's a minefield!!!" There was a long pause, and then he shouted back, "And we're in it!" On the opposite side of the twisted triangular sign were the words: "Attention! Les Mines," or words to that effect.

I had been so intent on following the footsteps in front and my own planning that I hadn't paid enough attention to the ground off to either side. Frozen in place by the shout, I looked right and left and saw what could have been several sets of prongs protruding from the ground among the partially burned grass stubble… the sign that we were surrounded by the feared Bouncing Betty. The men ahead of and behind me were reaching the same conclusion. We were in the middle of a minefield!

My order to "Freeze" was unnecessary. Nobody moved.

After nine weeks of WWII combat at St.-Lo, Stephen E. Ambrose's 1997 book "Citizen Soldier" quotes LT George Wilson of the 4th Infantry Division as saying, "By now I had gone through aerial bombing, artillery and mortar shelling, open combat, direct rifle and machine gun firing, night patrolling and ambush. Against all of this we had some kind of chance; against mines we had none. The only defence was to not move at all."

But staying put was never an option. Not having any idea where the minefield started, but knowing where it stopped, there was no choice but to move ahead through the minefield to get out of it. We radioed our situation to battalion. We also told flank patrols and advised them to be especially alert for both the enemy and the "friendly" minefield. They set out flank security and tried to define the scope of our temporary prison.

Slowly and carefully, the men resumed moving forward, stepping in the footprints of the man ahead. No matter how much we wanted to be out of the minefield, the rule was never rush, take your time. As some ancient Chinaman also said, "Once you make a false step, a hundred lifetimes cannot redeem it."

As soon as a person stepped over the low fence and was outside, he was allowed a quick deep breath before he joined the security force protecting the others not yet out. Finally, everyone was out of the minefield. It was a huge relief that we had suffered no casualties, although we left buckets of sweat behind. Nothing has ever tasted as good as the quick gulp I swigged from my lukewarm canteen to rinse out my mouth.

Then we moved on again."

Recapping, I believe BFC needs to fundamentally revisit present evidently grossly inadequate damage capabilities of AT mines, lethality and zone of effect of AP mines, and the real dynamics of moving within, transiting through and getting out of a minefield when detected the hard way. I think, too, that a mine detonation ought to have significant suppression, and an S-Mine lots, per this quote from the Wiki. Note also what it says about damage to vehicles. Enough explosive to wreck the man standing on it when the popup charge is triggered is more than adequate to wreck tires! Italics mine.

 

The S-mine had a great psychological effect on Allied forces because of its tendency to seriously maim, rather than kill, the infantryman. The German habit of laying the mines around anti-tank and anti-vehicle mines contributed to the reputation. If a vehicle was disabled by a mine, the soldiers would be trapped in it until someone came to rescue them.^[10] In particular, limbs and genitalia were the most vulnerable. In his book Mine Warfare on Land, Lt. Col. Sloan described the S-mine as "probably the most feared device encountered by Allied troops in the war."^[3]

 

Would like to see specific mine types modeled, just as every other weapon in the game is. Finally, I believe that, at the very least, for the reasons given, Hunt and Move should swap places in terms of detecting and avoiding mines. For an excellent (and likely NSFW because of big grisly color photos) discussion of pertinent weapon effects, please see the authoritative medical discussion on this,  Weapon Effects, Chapter 2. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited February 21, 2017 by John Kettler

[Erwin]

"My order to "Freeze" was unnecessary. Nobody moved."

Unlike what our guys do in the game. 

[axxe]

Jonh Kettler,

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original posting. The mines that do light damage to vehicles are AP mines (antipersonnel). Antivehicle mines (I abbreviated as AV) do absolutely kill any vehicle that detonates one.  The AV mine section was very short - only on line!

From my earlier posting:

===================

Vehicles and AP mines:

    - Jeep is destroyed by a single AP mine.

    - Tracked vehicles take damage and are eventually immobilized by AP mines

        - 1-2 mines stop a halftrack

        - 3-4 stop a Sherman tank.

    - Vehicles appear to always trigger AP mines.

    - Personnel units in a jeep or halftrack take casualties from AP mines, tank crews do not.

Blast and AP mines:

    - Mines adjacent to barbed wire which is blasted away with TNT remain active minefields.

==  Antivehicle mines  ==

Detected as with AP mines. Marking has no effect - vehicles will still detonate a vehicle mine. One AV mine will disable a Sherman tank.

====================

[John Kettler]

axxe,

My apologies!.I somehow got crossed up, perhaps because you used AV and it shorted my brain. Or it could've been the hour, considering I got up yesterday at the ungodly time for me of around 7 AM. Running over an AP mine would certainly immobilize a jeep, but wouldn't necessarily kill it. What would be brutal would be if an S-Mine got popped up anywhere around the jeep and detonated. That would shred the occupants and damage or destroy the jeep, too. A truck would be a whole different game, because of height, strong construction , numerous tires and more. Trucks are hard to destroy. In gunship strikes on the Ho Chi Minh Trail,  US found it could knock out a truck with a 40 mm hit, but to destroy the truck and cargo took a 105 mm hit. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by John Kettler

[Sardaukar]

On 2/18/2017 at 5:36 PM, Michael Emrys said:

It is also a standard practice for the defender to cover a minefield with some kind of fire, either MGs or mortars to inhibit and delay mine clearance as well as killing and/or wounding engineers, which is another reason for the popularity of mine-clearing tanks.

Michael

Old military adage is: "Obstacle not covered by fire is not an obstacle."

[John Kettler]

It appears a link I thought was in didn't make it. That is for what a Sherman's suspension looks like after hitting an AT mine. Helps to include the evidence for your own argument! Notice the wrecked road wheel in the foreground. The explosion has fundamentally deformed it and knocked the rubber around almost completely loose. It appears the men doing the repair are on the home stretch after having gotten a replacement into position. They are singularly fortunate in that they have dry ground. Imagine doing this in a situation in which the ground can't properly support the jack!

http://www.theshermantank.com/category/mines/

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Erwin]

Mines...  Phew..  You are so melodramatic John.  The tire obviously just had a puncture.  I've had flat tires that look worse than that.  Esp if you run on em for a bit down the M1. 

[John Kettler]

Erwin,

Am going to presume you're being humorous here and that you're referring plastically deformed, rim weld broken and apparently deeply holed road wheel, not something else. If not, please explain.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

Ace Alloy Wheel Repairs - Established 1944

Edited February 25, 2017 by Wicky

[Warts 'n' all]

The repair service of choice for boy racers all over Essex.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 2/19/2017 at 6:58 AM, axxe said:

My experience is that move and hunt are the same speed for personnel and vehicle units, but I'm a n00b, so what do I know ;-)

Here's my data on movement for a single environmental condition:

Interesting table.   

Besides the unexpected results between Hunt and Move is that faster vehicles are not noticeably faster until you get to Quick and Fast.  This is useful information when you have a group of mixed vehicle types moving down a road or through a choke point.  As long as you are not using Quick or Fast your jeeps will not overtake your heavy armor.  On Move, Slow & Hunt they will all travel at the same speed (If no track damage etc..).       

I did an experiment last year on the fitness of troops and how the different movement speeds effected this soft factor.  While doing this experiment I noticed that Hunt was faster than Move.  This was in CMFI but I just did a quick check in CMFB and the results were the same.  In the CMFB experiment I took two US administratively split assault teams from from their squads (first split A-Team).  I lined then up on flat, level, open terrain and gave one team Hunt and the other team Move and let them go for three minutes.  The team on Hunt won the inter-company speed competition .  Since my original experiment was for fitness levels I had the troops traveling at long distances for many minutes and the speed differences became more apparent with time.  Three minutes showed it nicely.  Since your movement for troops shows no difference between Hunt and Move I wonder how long you let them travel?  Maybe the team on Hunt just didn't have time to take a noticeable lead?

Thanks for making this table and sharing it.  I never understood the mixed vehicle convoy / choke point application until I looked at your table.     

[axxe]

Interesting that you found hunt to be faster than move. I did also test for distance til tiring, so I did have my units run hundreds of meters, though I can't say for certain I waited til the end of that run to calculate speed.  So it could be that hunt was a bit faster than move and I missed it.  I was also testing on flat, level, open terrain (grass).

But I did also test movement in light forest, and there I did notice hunt was a bit _slower_ than move.  Though the terrain could account for that.

Here is all of my personnel unit movement data:

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, axxe said:

<Snip> But I did also test movement in light forest, and there I did notice hunt was a bit _slower_ than move.  Though the terrain could account for that. <Snip> 

I think it was probably the terrain however that makes understanding speed a little more complicated.  I didn't test in light forest.  But I thought that the same type of infantry unit moving over the same type of terrain (everything equal) the one on Hunt would always be a little faster than the one on Move.  Seems maybe it is not that easy .    

Very nice tables.  Thanks again for doing this.   

[axxe]

Glad the tables are helpful. When I encounter a new situation I try to do a bit of homework/training as I would expect to have received before becoming a commander ;-)

I have other tables that might be helpful.  Shall I start a new thread and post them?  Is there some official place where this sort of thing would go?