Full feature mine warfare in CM2?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

If I remember correctly, about eighteen months ago there was a lot of discussion about the extent to which mine clearing should be included in CM. Steve’s view was that removing mines was not within the time scale of CM and therefor should not be included. After some discussion Steve showed he was open-minded enough to change the official view and mine clearing was included. I think it works very well.

However, it is not what I would call “full feature mine warfare”; to the extent that say anti-tank guns are modelled in CM. Currently the only way to remove dug-in mines is with explosive changes. For full feature mine warfare it would be necessary to add the following methods of clearing mines,

1) crawling forward and lifting them,

2) the use of mine rollers,

3) the use of artillery to reduce minefields.

This brings me to CM2. On the Eastern Front mines played a very large part in many, possibly most, major engagements. Imagine Kursk without mines. During the second half of the campaign the Soviet PT34 mine roller was a common site on the battlefields of the east. However, the most common method of clearing/reducing minefields was by artillery bombardment. It would be great to see “full feature mine warfare” in CM2. CM2 will be a stunning simulation with or without it, but something will be missing if it is not there.

I am sure that one of the objections to including it will be that it is not within the time scale of CM. I disagree. CM is good enough to be called a true simulation and I see no deed to “artificially” limit the time scale by excluding breaching operations. I feel it is well within the scope of CM to model a 100-turn game in which the first half is spent breaching a minefield and the second assaulting an enemy position. A company of engineers makes the breach and then a combined arms team pass through and assault. I.e. model everything as it really was at the time. This type of battle will not be of interest to all; I respect the fact that a majority prefer shorter battles. To the minority that is interested in longer, at times slower moving battles, it would be a huge plus.

I fully understand that CM2 is to be a “tweaked” version of CM1 rather than a fully new engine. I also understand that not all the features everyone wants can be or should be included. I hope “full feature mine warfare” is one of those requests that makes it through the filtering process.

All the best,

Kip.

[Mika]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

should be included in CM. Steve’s view was that removing mines was not within the time scale of CM and therefor should not be.

It was very accurate view, removing a minefield is operation that will take hours. If you do it properly.

the only way to remove dug-in mines is with explosive changes. For full feature mine

Which in CM's timescale is only realistic way to remove them.

1) crawling forward and lifting them,

2) the use of mine rollers,

3) the use of artillery to reduce minefields.

Method 1 might seem simple enough, how ever no sane mine will ever enter a minefield, locate mine and then lift it up. There are mainly two reasons for that. 1st, antitank mines are very easy to trap. Ie. placing additional charge of 20kg's of explosive under it (it's sometimes enough to break the better equipment, like vehicles that are build to clear mines). 2nd, it's common and wise practice to place smaller antipersonnel mines around AT minefields.

About using artillery, that is not very effective way to clear anything. AT mines (the regular ones, the more advanced models that react to movement and magnetic fields became 'bit' later) dont detonate very easily, thus explosion nearby just might toss it into air but leave it still operational. I know I wouldn't drive into minefield that has been 'cleared' with arty fire.

Then there are of course the antipersonnel minefields which are bit different...

scale by excluding breaching operations. I feel it is well within the scope of CM to model a 100-turn game in which the first half is spent breaching a minefield and the second assaulting an enemy position. A company of

Making a hole into antipersonnel minefield is much easier as the mines are more sensitive. Generally if attacking the hole is punched with special charge that is put together from several long metalpipes that are filled with explosives (I've seen these being used in Private Ryan and I have used them myself in the army, but as english is not my native language I have no idea what they were called). It will take only few minutes for a platoon to punch hole through minefield, go through it and begin attack.

-- MS. --

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mika:

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Making a hole into antipersonnel minefield is much easier as the mines are more sensitive. Generally if attacking the hole is punched with special charge that is put together from several long metalpipes that are filled with explosives (I've seen these being used in Private Ryan and I have used them myself in the army, but as english is not my native language I have no idea what they were called). It will take only few minutes for a platoon to punch hole through minefield, go through it and begin attack.

-- MS. --

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Bangalore Torpedo's is how those tube like explosive charges were referred to.

Regards

Jim R.

[tss]

kipanderson wrote:

3) the use of artillery to reduce minefields.

Quoting my earlier answer to the question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Clearing minefields (and barbed wire) with artillery requires either _a lot_ rounds and a competant FO or a great amount of dumb luck.

A 1936-vintage Finnish artillery field manual ("Tykistön taktillinen toiminta") quotes that with 75 mm guns it takes 250-350 rounds to clear a 10x30 meter area of obstacles. (The figure is for wire, but the text implies that it applies to minefields also).

With intensive fire, a 75 mm gun can fire 10 rounds in a minute (but only for a short time because the barrel will otherwise be ruined). The guns in CM fire with much slower rof. I've not checked but I think that they fire less than 5 salvos in a minute. So, to clear that small area would take at least 15 CM turns.

In practice, obstacle clearing was much slower since intensive fire couldn't be used and the results of each shot had to be observed. The artillery manual gives the figure that a 2-gun section can clear a breach in 3-4 hours, so a battery would need 1.5-2 hours, the effective rof being somewhere around one shell a minute per gun.

Also note, that according to an older Finnish manual (early 20's), it is not possible to clear obstacles that are placed in marsh with artillery.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And another about using larger calibere shells:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Yup. Of course I forgot to check my notes to see what the obstacle clearing figures were for heavier guns, but I seem to remember that 105 guns would need about 1/3 - 1/2 less ammo than 75 mm ones.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel it is well within the scope of CM to model a 100-turn game in which the first half is spent breaching a minefield and the second assaulting an enemy position.

But even 50 minutes is not enough (using artillery) unless you have heavy artillery and sound firing methods. With a 4-gun 105 mm battery it would take 45-60 minutes to get a single 10 m wide breach to an obstacle.

Clearing minefields by hand is even slower and was usually done during the night (or nights) before the attack. Minefields were usually placed in positions where they could be covered by fire. Clearing them during day would lead to severe casualties, even if smoke screens were used. Additionally, the enemy would have a good idea on the approximate attack direction.

The fastest way through a minefield is to blast it with demolition charges or bangalore torpedos, and this is already in CM.

- Tommi