Barbed wire

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

So recently i play with barbed wire and find out... that is indestructible!

Except tank other vehicles cannot cross it, no BTR, no BMP... Is it correct?

I shoot with BTR 30mm ABHE ammo on it and again still there intact... This way its ultimate barrier for lighter vehicles...

[DougPhresh]

As we learned in the first world war, shooting concertina wire just turns it into entanglements. Wire is usually cleared by engineers.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

But AI cannot clear it...

[Artkin]

I was just reading something how the wire would often entangle inside the treads of a tank and mobility kill it!

[Glubokii Boy]

2 hours ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

But AI cannot clear it...

Kohlenklau ( a forum member) experimented with this a while back and did manage to get it to work.

I cant remember right now the title of the thread in wich i explained how to do it. I think it was in CMRT forum.

But YES ! The AI can be made to blow through barbed wire...

Unfortunatelly some RL issiues (i belive) have forced him to take a break from CM but the thread is still avaliable somewhere amongst these forums...

 

[Artkin]

I will try breaching charges when I am home

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd be interested to see that thread, I was really surprised to discover that AI units would 'Blast' through walls, I haven't tried them against fortifications as most of my experiments have been in CM:A & CM:SF.  I did search for 'Blast' related threads but didn't find any.

[Glubokii Boy]

I will do a sweep through the forums and see if anything rings a bell. IIRC the post are among the last ones he did before taking his CM break...

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Blast command for AI works this way: first order paint zone next to building, next order advance to building

if i remember it correct, have to check it...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's 'Advance' to tile adjacent to building, then a new order 'Assault' into building.....Then hope they don't decide to run the long way round rather than using the charges.  

Works with walls too.....Here's a test file I made, play Red/WEGO/Scenario Author Test (don't shoot the Blue dudes):

[CMBS]BlastTest.btt

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[gnarly]

Ahh, this explains why @Marwek77 aka Red Reporter 's turn rate in this game has slowed! His platoon of T-90AMs are stalled behind the barbed wire fences!!!

 

Maybe you needed a few UR-77s? ?? ;D

 

 

 

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Yes exactly Mr. Gnarly, but i am back online. We have finished the tunnel underneath the barbed wire and my tanks will push you right now!

[DougPhresh]

Sherman crabs in the WW2 titles give me hope that we might see mine plows on MBTs or even military engineering vehicles.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd love it if you could tow tanks or other immobilised vehicles.....But there are other things I'd love more (CM:SF II). 

[MOS:96B2P]

On 5/4/2017 at 6:27 AM, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

So recently i play with barbed wire and find out... that is indestructible!

Except tank other vehicles cannot cross it, no BTR, no BMP... Is it correct?

I shoot with BTR 30mm ABHE ammo on it and again still there intact... This way its ultimate barrier for lighter vehicles...

I have not seen barbwire destroyed with direct fire.  In one of the WWII titles I fired about 50 75mm tank rounds at a section of wire and had no effect.              

Barbwire can be Blasted with demo charges.                                                                                     

I think it may be tracks vs wheels.  Wheels can't crush barbwire and tracks can (with some track damage). 

Edited May 6, 2017 by MOS:96B2P

[Artkin]

Being able to tow an immobilized vehicle is a necessity in this game given how often vehicles get stuck. Also bridge layers would add immense strategic value to games. 

[LukeFF]

53 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Being able to tow an immobilized vehicle is a necessity in this game given how often vehicles get stuck.

Towing vehicles is out of the time frame being simulated by these games. No army is going to risk valuable recovery assets in the middle of a firefight. 

[Artkin]

I've seen tanks being towed by tanks out of thick mud. I believe it was a russian T90

[A Canadian Cat]

And they set up the tow lines under fire? 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Not as a matter of course, but it did happen.....As I said, I can think of plenty of things I'd rather see first. 

[Artkin]

Who said the tank had to be under fire? It could be behind friendly lines. Most often I lose my afv's far behind the battlefield. Sometimes even just past the start zone. 

[DougPhresh]

Recovering immobilized vehicles, like MEDEVAC and graves registration happens after the fighting has moved on. If you can't self-recover, they aren't sending a wrecker to get you under fire. 

[John Kettler]

Guys,

Let's test this notion that AFV recovery is done only administratively, not while the battle is raging. I'll first argue by analogy. Am sure you'd agree that having men doing construction while under fire is dangerous-lethal, yet that is precisely what combat engineers have done since tactical bridging was invented. Mines were cleared under fire, too, by men wearing only their uniforms. Equally, people risk life and limb to remove road obstacles under fire and breach barbed wire. From these examples, I can only conclude that it is acceptable to expose practically naked humans to fires direct, indirect or both.

With that principle established, let us now tackle the argument about why ARVs would never evacuate immobilized (or by other means combat ineffective) AFV under fire. Otto Carius talks repeatedly about taking another Tiger 1 under tow or being towed out of battle himself while the battle raged. Panzer commanders at Kursk were categorically forbidden from stopping to help tanks which were hit and unable to proceed. Obviously, this means such stopping to assist was common enough to require explicit prohibition. So far, we have no ARVs doing combat recoveries. Before we address that, please tell me why, if only administative retrieval is expected, would one go to all the expense of using an AFV, let alone a specially equipped one, where a truck would do? The answer is self-evident. You use an ARV instead of a wrecker because the former would be unsurvivable against any threat within range. It therefore ineluctably follows the ARV is expected to operate, and have a fair chance of surviving, on an active battlefield. The principal wheeled US tank retriever of WW II, the M26, was armored. The M32 (a converted Sherman) was armored. The T-34 ARV was a deturreted T-34 with the turret ring plated over and a cupola installed. I have recently seen a photo of one evacuating a T-34 while under artillery fire. You can see the shell bursts. The M88 Hercules ARV is specifically designed to be able to operate under fire. Tank/other AFV retrieval may need to be done to keep an armor deficient force as strong as possible by evacuating, repairing and returning the AFV to the fight or prevent capture. Have read some interesting accounts of tankers and their immobilized steed spending a long scary night in "Indian country." This is to be avoided whenever possible. Would also note the various armored mine clearing, combat engineering, CBRN recon and other specialist AFVs designed to perform their tasks under fire. Tank recovery under fire is just one such combat task among many. Summing up, I think the case for administrative retrieval only is demolished, and I haven't really gone out and dug. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[IICptMillerII]

36 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Guys,

Let's test this notion that AFV recovery is done only administratively, not while the battle is raging. I'll first argue by analogy. Am sure you'd agree that having men doing construction while under fire is dangerous-lethal, yet that is precisely what combat engineers have done since tactical bridging was invented. Mines were cleared under fire, too, by men wearing only their uniforms. Equally, people risk life and limb to remove road obstacles under fire and breach barbed wire. From these examples, I can only conclude that it is acceptable to expose practically naked humans to fires direct, indirect or both.

With that principle established, let us now tackle the argument about why ARVs would never evacuate immobilized (or by other means combat ineffective) AFV under fire. Otto Carius talks repeatedly about taking another Tiger 1 under tow or being towed out of battle himself while the battle raged. Panzer commanders at Kursk were categorically forbidden from stopping to help tanks which were hit and unable to proceed. Obviously, this means such stopping to assist was common enough to require explicit prohibition. So far, we have no ARVs doing combat recoveries. Before we address that, please tell me why, if only administative retrieval is expected, would one go to all the expense of using an AFV, let alone a specially equipped one, where a truck would do? The answer is self-evident. You use an ARV instead of a wrecker because the former would be unsurvivable against any threat within range. It therefore ineluctably follows the ARV is expected to operate, and have a fair chance of surviving, on an active battlefield. The principal wheeled US tank retriever of WW II, the M26, was armored. The M32 (a converted Sherman) was armored. The T-34 ARV was a deturreted T-34 with the turret ring plated over and a cupola installed. I have recently seen a photo of one evacuating a T-34 while under artillery fire. You can see the shell bursts. The M88 Hercules ARV is specifically designed to be able to operate under fire. Tank/other AFV retrieval may need to be done to keep an armor deficient force as strong as possible by evacuating, repairing and returning the AFV to the fight or prevent capture. Have read some interesting accounts of tankers and their immobilized steed spending a long scary night in "Indian country." This is to be avoided whenever possible. Would also note the various armored mine clearing, combat engineering, CBRN recon and other specialist AFVs designed to perform their tasks under fire. Tank recovery under fire is just one such combat task among many. Summing up, I think the case for administrative retrieval only is demolished, and I haven't really gone out and dug. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Pretty sure that recovery vehicles were made from tank chassis' because it was easier to do that than design and develop a whole new vehicle with the ability to tow something as heavy as a tank. The Germans ran into this problem with their heavy tanks, none of their recovery vehicles could tow the heavies. So they had to convert Tiger tank chassis' to recovery vehicles, and were not able to make very many because of that. By your logic, just because something is armored means it should be in the thick of it. Its generally not a good idea to have unarmored vehicles operating in the same operational environment as armored ones. Most SPGs (at the very least the US Paladin) are armored, yet they are in no way designed to be in the middle of a firefight. They're armored because they are big, heavy vehicles designed to operate in close coordination with tanks and IFVs, which puts them at risk of receiving direct and indirect fires, not because they are supposed to be right next to the tanks as they charge the enemy down. Honestly this notion is absurd. 

As for barbed wire, it is more of an obstacle to vehicles than one might think. Its even listed as a tank-stopping device in fieldwork manuals. If you have enough wire and a tank or wheeled vehicle tries to traverse it, the wire tangles in the wheels/treads and renders the vehicle immobile. 

Same goes for being able to just 'blow it up.' Again, harder than one may think. In WWII the Bangalore was developed because regular demo charges didn't work. Even today, charges used to breach barbed wire are more akin to the bangalore than they are a regular satchel of explosives. Its essentially a long tube filled with explosives. Here's an article with video that I found after a quick google that shows all this in a modern use: https://www.sofmag.com/bangalore-torpedo/

There are likely much better sources out there, but that should give you a rough idea of what is done to clear barbed wire on the modern battlefield.   

[DougPhresh]

I don't work with engineers too often but "under fire" can mean a lot of things. They are in the battlespace, yes but not on the FEBA. Considering their tasks "under fire" could mean light or harassing fire or even just indirect fire while being covered from accurate, concentrated fire by the other combat arms, smoke or terrain.

Having seen M113s, LAVs and every kind of wheeled vehicle you can imagine in the ditch or stuck in the mud, even under good circumstances and not under fire it can take hours to recover them. Self-recovery is already modeled in the game with "bogged", anything more serious than that is not going to be a quick battlefield recovery.