New findings about minefields In CM for scenario authors and players

[H1nd]

Hi all.

I decided to post my most recent findings in regarding minefields and mine removal in CMBS. Some or all of this might be known to some of you but since I have complained about this subject in the past I think it is appropriate to talk about these rather positive findings and thoughts:

First up the problems I complained about in the past:

• CMBS and engineers in CM-games in general lack the ability to completely remove mines, especially ANTI-TANK mines. Infantry can move across marked minefields with relative safety but vehicles cannot.
• CMBS does not have any dedicated engineering vehicles commonly found in modern mechanized armies. This I hope will get remedied in the next CMBS module since CMBN already got the allied sherman crabs.

Due to these reasons I came to the conclusion that mine warfare is simply too effective and completely unfun (it still is but maybe to lesser degree) and thus it is not really feasible to use them as element of scenario design in realistic proportions. Mines are still very relevant on the modern battlefield as can be attested by the abundant use of mines in current Donbass conflict and elsewhere. I found this very disturbing and somewhat depressing since I had in my mind to make several scenarios representing realistic use of mines and defensive light infantry tactics against mechanized attacker.

Now on the the new (at least for me) findings:

In CMBS with the current (1.4) patch there are three possible and easy workarounds for clearing a safe path through moderately deep (2 AS) minefields:

• NON-AIRBURST regular tank cannon rounds of t-72b3 can remove mines by firing directly at the (preferably marked) mined action squares from close range. This will take many rounds but I think it is somewhat appropriate work around to simulate mine-roller or plow fitted t-72 engineer variants. I was previously under the impression that only 152mm artillery rounds where capable of detonating antitank mines in CMBS.
• Point target 152mm artillery is more than able to take out minefields in few turns (with some luck). Once again marking the path through the minefield helps to confirm that the mines have indeed detonated. This is to some degree old news but for some reason seems now more viable option especially when combined with the newly discovered tank cannon method.
• It is also possible for the scenario author to place barbed wire on top of the minefields that can be then BLASTED with engineers resulting in the AT mines exploding as well. This however is very dangerous and will most likely result in engineer casualties but resembles to some degree the use of bangalore torpedo like explosive devices in mine removal duty (which is also very dangerous in reality). Naturally this solution is sub optimal but possible should the scenario author wish to use it.

Hopefully this is of some help to people.

Cheers!

-H1nd

 

[akd]

Engineers in CM games are considered to be detecting mines and marking a path for infantry through a minefield, not hand clearing mines as this is process that would take hours and is generally out of scope for the game.

Edited December 3, 2016 by akd

[H1nd]

Akd, with all due respect I think you are slightly missing my point or we are talking about two different things. I do also point out that I know what I am talking about due to my training as combat engineer officer. What I am talking about is breaching the minefield on the move at the spearhead of a mechanized offensive and while this is generally a task for mechanized mine plow/roller tanks or other engineering vehicles, combat engineer squads in general are equipped to breach 20-50m deep minefields within minutes if the opportunity presents itself. From what I understand you on the other hand seem to be arguing about hand clearing entire minefields which is completely different concept and is generally tasked to larger rear formation engineer units. This has been discussed several times in the past and always it seems to come down to the misconceptions and difficulty to differentiate breaching and mine clearing.

I know that this is also an alien subject to many and it is also true that my vision on this matter is what we were thought in the Finnish Army which by no means is a general example of modern mechanized army but rather we were thought how to fight one.

[H1nd]

As a general guideline to the subject: Finding the mines is hard. We can mark the mines in the game ergo the hardest part is already done. What follows is very simple: you detonate the mines and voila: clear route through. In CM when you have a good idea where the minefield is, marking it takes anything between 1-10 minutes. In real life engineers would have ready to use explosives to then detonate the found mines in matter of minutes. All it takes is good training and preparation. AP-mines make life much more difficult but in general AT-mines are much more benign to engineers.

[Erwin]

That's an interesting observation for modern warfare where this tech exists.

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, H1nd said:

<Snip>

• NON-AIRBURST regular tank cannon rounds of t-72b3 can remove mines by firing directly at the (preferably marked) mined action squares from close range. This will take many rounds
• <Snip> 
• It is also possible for the scenario author to place barbed wire on top of the minefields that can be then BLASTED with engineers resulting in the AT mines exploding as well. This however is very dangerous and will most likely result in engineer casualties <Snip>  

Interesting stuff.  Thanks for posting.  About how many HE tank rounds does it take?  I would guess this HE tank round tactic probably works for all tanks?  I will try it with an M1A2 Abrams here shortly. 

For the barbwire / sympathetic mine explosion tactic.  In theory the stand off Blast and hold drill will usually work for this tactic and keep the engineers more or less safe.  (Where you put the Blast waypoint in a different action spot and use the Pause order)  I have used this tactic before but sometimes get mixed results.     

[H1nd]

Seems like it takes anything between 1 - 10(ish) rounds. If that wont work, moving closer or trying at different angle might help. Sometimes the RNG just isn't your friend  

As for the Abrams, I was under the impression that all the in game variants use the Airburst HE wich does not seem to work. Same goes for some (all?) t-90 variants.

[MOS:96B2P]

11 minutes ago, H1nd said:

Seems like it takes anything between 1 - 10(ish) rounds. If that wont work, moving closer or trying at different angle might help. Sometimes the RNG just isn't your friend  

As for the Abrams, I was under the impression that all the in game variants use the Airburst HE wich does not seem to work. Same goes for some (all?) t-90 variants.

Ah, that must be it.  I fired all 18 rounds of an Abrams 120mm Multi ammo at a marked minefield marker with no result.  

[akd]

3 hours ago, H1nd said:

Akd, with all due respect I think you are slightly missing my point or we are talking about two different things. I do also point out that I know what I am talking about due to my training as combat engineer officer. What I am talking about is breaching the minefield on the move at the spearhead of a mechanized offensive and while this is generally a task for mechanized mine plow/roller tanks or other engineering vehicles, combat engineer squads in general are equipped to breach 20-50m deep minefields within minutes if the opportunity presents itself. From what I understand you on the other hand seem to be arguing about hand clearing entire minefields which is completely different concept and is generally tasked to larger rear formation engineer units. This has been discussed several times in the past and always it seems to come down to the misconceptions and difficulty to differentiate breaching and mine clearing.

I know that this is also an alien subject to many and it is also true that my vision on this matter is what we were thought in the Finnish Army which by no means is a general example of modern mechanized army but rather we were thought how to fight one.

Ah, I thought you were listing two separate "problems" when in fact it was a "problem" with a desired solution.  Yes, I think we would all love to see a range of engineering vehicles added to CMBS, especially the M1 ABV.