Fascine Reprise

[Spook]

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

The Engineer battle in CM is in serious need of re-working to bring it anywhere near reality, so my hope of seeing "assault breaching" is pretty small until at least the CM II engine. On the other side, just about every wargame out there short plays the Engineer aspect in favour of play balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the platoon-level game "Brigade Combat Team" (Shrapnel Games) by Cpt Proctor gives reasonable attention to combat engineering elements, particularly to minelaying and breaching units. (Given that FASCAM artillery is also available in that game, breaching vehicles are a definite necessity as a counter.)

While BCT is platoon-level, his follow-on "Armored Task Force" plays at squad/vehicle/weapon level and utilizes much of the same game mechanics. It's due out later this year.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...the training film was not necessarily a decent reference for how things were done (or how fast).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to expand on this point for just a moment. As part of my personal odyssey, at one time I made films. Therefore I am aware of how easy it is to shoot film at a different speed than it will be projected, having used the technique myself. This can make the depicted action appear either faster or slower than it actually occurred at the time of filming. I might further note that the art of filming is to a very great degree the art of creating credible illusions.

Now, that is not to say that the makers of the training film in question actually fiddled with the speed of filming, but since the possibility exists, the credibility of the film invested by the person who originally brought it up and cited it as absolute proof of his point was, in my view, naïve. The film would no doubt be of interest to view, but taken by itself no particular proof of anything that might or might not have ever taken place on the battlefield.

Michael

[JonS]

Michael,

hmm, that's an interesting point about producing a false film. And it would be still easier to write a training pam (remember we were talking about a training film) complete with spurious times, distances, manpower requirements, capabilities, limitations, etc. And the point would be ... what?

Using a variety of sources is always a good idea, and the training film was brought up as an additional source that seemed to support the times given in an engineering pam from the same era.

The conclusion: well, either the author and the film-maker colluded, or they were honest.

YMMV

Jon

[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I would like to expand on this point for just a moment. As part of my personal odyssey, at one time I made films. Therefore I am aware of how easy it is to shoot film at a different speed than it will be projected, having used the technique myself. This can make the depicted action appear either faster or slower than it actually occurred at the time of filming. I might further note that the art of filming is to a very great degree the art of creating credible illusions.

Now, that is not to say that the makers of the training film in question actually fiddled with the speed of filming, but since the possibility exists, the credibility of the film invested by the person who originally brought it up and cited it as absolute proof of his point was, in my view, naïve. The film would no doubt be of interest to view, but taken by itself no particular proof of anything that might or might not have ever taken place on the battlefield.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Film is a perfectly valid source, but it is not a source that is high in technical value (for which we usually go to written records). When I teach graduate student's about the art and science of history, we evaluate a number of factors about historical sources. We look closely at the source credibility of the cite, the distance from the event that the source sits, and at its ability to transmit information to us through time, and what sort of information can be transmitted.

To make a long story short, a training film is a primary source document, that may have a high source credibility, but the type of document and the issues of compression and alternative motive for films, plus the distance the film maker is from front line practice, makes it a poor choice for building a sole argument upon. It is quite common for people to do that, build a house of cards on a single tight wire, but the foundation is not stable and easily knocked over when it is peer reviewed.

Instead, it would be nice to see an operational diary account (which Mike is procuring for me), said film, and possibly a real oral history account, along with expert testimony from modern engineers. All of those build a great foundation for advancing our theory. Pull out one, and you loose some of the accuracy needed to make our discussions of history more relevant than the discussions found in Mien Kamph.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Mike is bringing this up from an earlier proposal that Bailey bridges were common used at the front and well within the scope of the CM battle. Bailey Bridging, at least tactical use of it, has been pretty well discredited as part of the standard CM action, except that such a bridge could possible show up as a map peice or in an operation. It still crops its head up even though most times to build are 6 hours and up, and attempts to use it at Rapido resulted in several days of heavy casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"...has been pretty well discredited as part of the standard CM action...."

Discredited is certainly the wrong term.

CM is built about "quick assaults" factoring up to about 30 mins action (something that is somewhat of a drawback with the design in my opinion).

Bailey bridge construction does not fit inside this paradigm.

However to throw a cat amongst the pigeons how does the "skid" Bailey go as used in the final campaigns in Italy?

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

However to throw a cat amongst the pigeons how does the "skid" Bailey go as used in the final campaigns in Italy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beware - Slapdragon is not your average urban pidgeon. He's more like...uh... a Killer Flamingo!

[M Hofbauer]

seriously though, if the allies get fascine funnies, shouldn't the germans get the SdKfz 251/7 m Sturmbrücke ?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Beware - Slapdragon is not your average urban pidgeon. He's more like...uh... a Killer Flamingo!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was a complete waste of everyone's time. Tell us about the "stormbridge" and try and avoid the ad hominem stuff that everyone keeps railing about, eh?

[Simon Fox]

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

Mike is bringing this up from an earlier proposal that Bailey bridges were common used at the front and well within the scope of the CM battle. Bailey Bridging, at least tactical use of it, has been pretty well discredited as part of the standard CM action, except that such a bridge could possible show up as a map peice or in an operation. It still crops its head up even though most times to build are 6 hours and up, and attempts to use it at Rapido resulted in several days of heavy casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Was that proposal made in the previous thread? I can't seem to find it in this one.

In my opinion the SBG was is the only bridge which falls within the scope of CM both in terms of historical use and deployment time.

I also think that 30 turns is not necessarily a 'typical' scenario length especially if one is considering a complex assault scenario. The scope of the game is the maximum length permissable not some arbitary intermediate time period based on personal preference.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

This was a complete waste of everyone's time. Tell us about the "stormbridge" and try and avoid the ad hominem stuff that everyone keeps railing about, eh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jacko and Hofbauer seem to have a long standing banter going on. It would be best to assume that this is a continuation of it rather than jumping to conclusions. I am sure that Jacko will be devastated to be referred to as a "Killer Flamingo" Yes Hof, let's hear more on this German uberbridge.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Was that proposal made in the previous thread? I can't seem to find it in this one.

In my opinion the SBG was is the only bridge which falls within the scope of CM both in terms of historical use and deployment time.

I also think that 30 turns is not necessarily a 'typical' scenario length especially if one is considering a complex assault scenario. The scope of the game is the maximum length permissable not some arbitary intermediate time period based on personal preference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, and item that takes 120 minutes to set up is ok for inclusion in CM for example, since it could be used in the time limit.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Jacko and Hofbauer seem to have a long standing banter going on. It would be best to assume that this is a continuation of it rather than jumping to conclusions. I am sure that Jacko will be devastated to be referred to as a "Killer Flamingo" Yes Hof, let's hear more on this German uberbridge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give Mike a break, he is sensitive about the flamers who have sent these threads to hell recently, and just wants to keep that sort of thing down to a minimum, not realizing Hof and I cut at each other for fun once in a great while (you on the other hand I insult and mean it).

As for the skid bailey, there is one record of a bailey being constructed for use at the Rapido under fire. It was a massively complex operation, the Rapido crossing was a crushing defeat, and the bridge failed to be deployed, in fact needing quite a lot of time to get firmly into place. The Rapido crossing also demolished several ranger units assigned to it.

[JonS]

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

...

As for the skid bailey, there is one record of a bailey being constructed for use at the Rapido under fire...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was that a skid bailey, or a regular one? If it was a regular one then there are several other examples: The Kiwis at Orsogna, and the 43rd over the Seine, are two I can think of. However, given the blah, blah, blah this doesn't fit in the scope of the game.

I think Simons point about the arbitrary time limit that you seem to impose on these is that 30 mins (up, I notice, from the initail 15mins) is only 1/4 of the time available to a scenario designer. If a designer wanted to create a two hour long breaching and/or bridging scenario and it took 1 or 1 1/2 hours to get the bridge up, because the necessary vehicles and units were available, I say good luck to them. And even you, Slap, can't believe that it would take that long to position a Fascine, an SBG, or an Ark.

Sure, Funnies (I'm specifically not including Baileys here) wouldn't - and shouldn't - be in every scenario. And not every scenario involving them would or should run to two hours. But then neither should King Tigers and Pumas, but no-one moans about their presence in the overall game. And, for example, I've yet to use the Gebirgsjagers, so from my POV the time spent on developing them for the game was time wasted. But, they are another element that add to the overall completeness of the game.

Regards

Jon

[Slapdragon]

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

Was that a skid bailey, or a regular one? If it was a regular one then there are several other examples: The Kiwis at Orsogna, and the 43rd over the Seine, are two I can think of. However, given the blah, blah, blah this doesn't fit in the scope of the game.

I think Simons point about the arbitrary time limit that you seem to impose on these is that 30 mins (up, I notice, from the initail 15mins) is only 1/4 of the time available to a scenario designer. If a designer wanted to create a two hour long breaching and/or bridging scenario and it took 1 or 1 1/2 hours to get the bridge up, because the necessary vehicles and units were available, I say good luck to them. And even you, Slap, can't believe that it would take that long to position a Fascine, an SBG, or an Ark.

Sure, Funnies (I'm specifically not including Baileys here) wouldn't - and shouldn't - be in every scenario. And not every scenario involving them would or should run to two hours. But then neither should King Tigers and Pumas, but no-one moans about their presence in the overall game. And, for example, I've yet to use the Gebirgsjagers, so from my POV the time spent on developing them for the game was time wasted. But, they are another element that add to the overall completeness of the game.

Regards

Jon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

15 turns is for QBs, which is half the length of the average game, which means the unit will be of use if bought for most battles -- making the complex coding worth while.

I am not sure where you are getting the 30 from. Here we would find the average length of a scenario (lets choose Der Kessel and poll those scenarios) and find it is 49 turns (unless I am missing some, they have a lot). Divide that in half, and you het 25 turns for the window. If you want to make it the maximum game, then 60 turns would be the window.

Why? Because to be of any effect what so ever it needs to be deployed with enough time to pursue a further mission. Just for argument, I use half the game for deployment, half for operation. Otherwise, there is no point in modelling it because it does not effect the game, so why not use a fixed map peice. Unless some tactical unit will be moving across it in the time frame, it is not something to worry about.

The Ark was limited in its scope because you could not just fling one down anyplace, the place needed to be surveyed, the vehicle driven into place, and in optimum circumstances, a 5 minute deployment begun. Then engineers would need to seat and ready it for vehicles (although in an emergency a tank or two could use it immediately). These limits, having to go in one pre planned space, and long setup, leave the Ark out as a AFV, even though it would be nice to have it as a preplaced item.

I have never argued against the fascines, only that their use needs to be understood better.

[Simon Fox]

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

So, and item that takes 120 minutes to set up is ok for inclusion in CM for example, since it could be used in the time limit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this a question or a statement?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

So, and item that takes 120 minutes to set up is ok for inclusion in CM for example, since it could be used in the time limit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seem to remember from another thread the mention of a "30 min time scale" by your good self.

As I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere in game doco, et al, my interest was picued but I did not act on it at the time.

Where was this figure (of time drawn from), what was thre rationale for it (the time limitations), and what of use of something that could fit inside this time limitation (for deployment) and will allow bridging of obstacles greater than the minimum 20m which apparently another design limitation ?

(And yes it was the SBG bridge not the Bailey though were not some or all of the parts interchangeable ?)

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Is this a question or a statement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said that arbitrary limits are not good. The only fixed limit is game length. So do your propose than any item that would take 2 hours to prepare for first employement should recieve the efforts by BTS to model as a real-ime tactical element of the game? If not, I am interested in what the Simon Fox rule of thumb would be for what should be the cutoff for preperation time of items for use in the tactical game, assuming that these items cannot be in place ahead of time and thus show up as part of the map.

For example, would you accept digging in a 105mm battery, building an earth bunker, establishing a new battery firing position and registering for fire, or changing the engine on a tank for inclusion in the game mechanics, since each has been done under optimum conditions in 2 hours?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

I seem to remember from another thread the mention of a "30 min time scale" by your good self.

As I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere in game doco, et al, my interest was picued but I did not act on it at the time.

Where was this figure (of time drawn from), what was thre rationale for it (the time limitations), and what of use of something that could fit inside this time limitation (for deployment) and will allow bridging of obstacles greater than the minimum 20m which apparently another design limitation ?

(And yes it was the SBG bridge not the Bailey though were not some or all of the parts interchangeable ?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

30m the average length of time for a QB to play itself in. To be of use, a unit must be able to get into action in 30 minutes. A unit which is a supporting unit must do its job in less time, I say half, because if the unit only lets your tanks across the river in turn 29, what will your tanks do then?

As for the rest, you need to read the previous posts. I laid out a set of criteria that were needed to be met by any game item to allow for it to be modelled. These are all common sense, and are in fact related to why the funnies that got modelled did so.

[Simon Fox]

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

I am not sure where you are getting the 30 from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From you of course.

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

2) It must be able to be used within the confines of the battle (the average scenario is 30 turns, so say 15 turns, or 15 minutes).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that arbitrary limits are not good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I didn't. I must say I find it somewhat perplexing that you are frequently misconceiving what people say. Jon didn't seem to have any trouble with it. You would save yourself a lot of wasted time and effort in the long run if you made the initial effort to understand what people were writing rather than going off half-cocked.

[Spook]

Coming back to an earlier comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

CM is built about "quick assaults" factoring up to about 30 mins action (something that is somewhat of a drawback with the design in my opinion).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While CM scenarios can be longer than 30 minutes, we can all recognize that the relative "time focus" of BTS for its CMBO design was for shorter times as more typical for "firefights."

Take note of that term: "focus." Why would BTS seek relatively constrained time scales for its tactical scenarios? Well, the answer is simple if reflected on. BTS had to focus its game scales, given the complexities of trying to simulate WWII combined-arms tactical combat. If BTS didn't do that, and tried also to allow open-ended scenario timelines (e.g., 4-6 hours) for CMBO, then many other "non-tactical" issues would have to be also addressed, such as supply & logistics. On many occasions in CMBO, I've shot through ammo loads for infantry units & AFV's within 30 turns (minutes), even in a defensive stance.

And as we may all concur here, "combat engineering" is a very limited aspect of CMBO, in terms of "funnies" or even of engineering foot unit capabilities. But need it constrain to recognizing only that limation? I think a much more fundamental element to CMBO has a comparable level of abstraction---artillery spotting. The way that artillery spotters presently work, it's as if field phones never existed as to differentiate from radios.

Or close air support. Granted, for the greater part of WWII, CAS wasn't something to be regularly counted on by a tactical commander. But in the 1944-45 timeframe, the US/UK did devise viable techniques as to coordinate CAS more effectively, and with fairly quick response times. This wasn't available to the US/UK in the absolute sense, but in select historical cases, CAS could be "guided" by Allied ground control within the timeframe of a CM scenario. (Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" is useful in relating CAS evolution & techniques by the US.)

Trying to detail "combat engineering," CAS, artillery control options, active supply, etc., to the first CM game---CMBO---would have likely caused BTS to lose its game-design focus. So, the limitations chosen by BTS were not a "drawback"; rather, BTS needed to get its feet wet with modeling the more fundamental elements to WWII squad-level tactical warfare in a 3D environment.

By historical example, has anyone else here bought & played Avalon Hill's "Squad Leader" as it first released in 1977, as I had? If so, can any such gamer then relate as to how much that SL covered as compared to "Advanced SL" which released its initial rules in 1985, and still took about five years after that to complete its rules section?

I hope not to have to wait 8-10 years for the CM II engine. But it'll be a couple of years at the least. And that's likely where we'll see "combat engineering" features taken up more in earnest.

In the interim, if some gamers here don't wish to wait, and truly desire to play special WWII scenarios with a detailed combat engineering element, then seek out ASL and its added game modules. (Or SPWaW? I haven't tried that game though.)

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

No I didn't. I must say I find it somewhat perplexing that you are frequently misconceiving what people say. Jon didn't seem to have any trouble with it. You would save yourself a lot of wasted time and effort in the long run if you made the initial effort to understand what people were writing rather than going off half-cocked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you are grabbing information out of context Simon in order to be obstructionist. Average length of QB -- 30 minutes, maximum length, 60 minutes, average length of scenario -- 40 something minute (depends though, as it is shorter -- 30 something minutes on the disk), maximum length of scenario -- 120 minutes. Take the average game. Assume that a device needs to be in place in time for use in that game. Divide in half (that is arbitrary, but you have not presented a better idea) the length of the scenario. Object must be done with its work in that time or it will not effect the game.

Now to keep the Simon Fox style misunderstandings down to a minimum, why should we care? Well, because designing in any engineering tasks will be a lengthy and complex programming routine. If the function is only useful inside of the 1 in 100 scenarios that exceed 100 minutes, and it takes a month of research and coding to get a realistic abstraction of the movement in and construction of a device, plus AI to assure that the engine knows how to behave in various circumstances, then is it still agood feature?

As for wasted time and effort, your baiting of Micheal Dorosh and comments designed just to throw a wrench into the conversation seem like quite a waste of time and effort, but I do not always run around after you pointing that out. Basically, if you or someone else wants a bailey bridge in the action, I think you need to show BTS that it could be built within the parameters of the game.

In other words, present some evidence or refute some evidence, don't just try and increase the dissonance for fun. It may be funny at first, but it is not all that funny for all that long.

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Coming back to an earlier comment:

While CM scenarios can be longer than 30 minutes, we can all recognize that the relative "time focus" of BTS for its CMBO design was for shorter times as more typical for "firefights."

Take note of that term: "focus." Why would BTS seek relatively constrained time scales for its tactical scenarios? Well, the answer is simple if reflected on. BTS had to focus its game scales, given the complexities of trying to simulate WWII combined-arms tactical combat. If BTS didn't do that, and tried also to allow open-ended scenario timelines (e.g., 4-6 hours) for CMBO, then many other "non-tactical" issues would have to be also addressed, such as supply & logistics. On many occasions in CMBO, I've shot through ammo loads for infantry units & AFV's within 30 turns (minutes), even in a defensive stance.

And as we may all concur here, "combat engineering" is a very limited aspect of CMBO, in terms of "funnies" or even of engineering foot unit capabilities. But need it constrain to recognizing only that limation? I think a much more fundamental element to CMBO has a comparable level of abstraction---artillery spotting. The way that artillery spotters presently work, it's as if field phones never existed as to differentiate from radios.

Or close air support. Granted, for the greater part of WWII, CAS wasn't something to be regularly counted on by a tactical commander. But in the 1944-45 timeframe, the US/UK did devise viable techniques as to coordinate CAS more effectively, and with fairly quick response times. This wasn't available to the US/UK in the absolute sense, but in select historical cases, CAS could be "guided" by Allied ground control within the timeframe of a CM scenario. (Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" is useful in relating CAS evolution & techniques by the US.)

Trying to detail "combat engineering," CAS, artillery control options, active supply, etc., to the first CM game---CMBO---would have likely caused BTS to lose its game-design focus. So, the limitations chosen by BTS were not a "drawback"; rather, BTS needed to get its feet wet with modeling the more fundamental elements to WWII squad-level tactical warfare in a 3D environment.

By historical example, has anyone else here bought & played Avalon Hill's "Squad Leader" as it first released in 1977, as I had? If so, can any such gamer then relate as to how much that SL covered as compared to "Advanced SL" which released its initial rules in 1985, and still took about five years after that to complete its rules section?

I hope not to have to wait 8-10 years for the CM II engine. But it'll be a couple of years at the least. And that's likely where we'll see "combat engineering" features taken up more in earnest.

In the interim, if some gamers here don't wish to wait, and truly desire to play special WWII scenarios with a detailed combat engineering element, then seek out ASL and its added game modules. (Or SPWaW? I haven't tried that game though.)

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did yours have a purple box? I missed out on that, but started SL through GI in about 1983, and than of course ASL. They got a lot right, and I too dream of the day that everything from para jumps to honest-to-God assault boats and night fighting etc. will be part of CM. I am sure Steve et al do, too.

But they also got a lot of stuff wrong, so I am wary of using them as a reference - especially stuff that is more subjective (ie times to set up bridges, etc.) than scientific (ie armour penetration stats or ammunition stowage limits on AFVs).

The point you raise is excellent though - re: why 30 minutes.

The longer a CM battles lasts, the more unrealistic it becomes. In addition to resupply problems, you also have no way of tracking fatigue, morale, etc., over long periods. The Operation system is a sort of elegant way to do this - but to have a 400 minute (for example) CM battle would simply highlight the true focus (I almost said shortcomings, which isn't true) of CM - that of the short tactical engagement, in which casualties, ammunition supply, food, etc. are not ongoing factors.

Not sure what the quibble is between 15 and 30 is, or who said what; seems to be taking things off track again.

I have asked my CME buddy about WW II bridging equipment, times of employment, etc., I am also in the field this weekend on a brigade exercise - I will see if I can look up my other engineer buddy who is intimately acquainted with Baileys and other bridges and see what he has to say, if anything.

[Spook]

What is a potential problem in this topic thread is that "time scale" is becoming too much the defining issue as to whether or not to develop a combat-engineering feature for CMBO.

Time scale alone is not the single issue, of course. There are others to make the CM-related development worth the effort, as related by your earlier six-point "logic outline" of game design issues, Slapdragon.

Ironically, while you & Simon are "striking sparks" again (although still in a civil manner), I also liked Simon's follow-on interpretation of your guideline. As such, I think the words chosen between you two, on what qualifies a requested feature as viable for BTS to develop, should be considered by BTS to include in its manifesto or a separate BTS "CM FAQ."

[The_Capt]

Well Michael you can take it from this "CME buddy" that bridging in the face of the enemy is a very bad idea and it was tried a few times in WWII but was very costly. Bailey is more cumbersome than MGB and it's build time well outside the scope of CM. A CM opeation would be to secure a bridgehead line so that a Bailey could be built.

Assault bridging is relatively new and is still limited to small gaps. For anything larger you really have to go with a swimming/fording op.

I have seen a few sexy new toys coming out of Britain where a heavy bridge (MLC 70) is mech assembled in 15-20 mins. For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the damn thing.

If you are in Calgary, you are in 8 FER territory. If you see Gord Stringer or Brent Waldon say hi from me.

[argie]

Ok, you grogs! That's enough!

Here is the link! http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/5-277/toc.htm