Fascine Reprise

[Brian]

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

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>

I think that you mistaking the purpose of the thread. It is not to slam BTS, nor is to try and have CMBO necessarily altered, as it stands now. Rather it is to discuss the matter of funnies, their employment and their possible simulation in future releases of CM.

I used to turn my nose up at SL and ASL, still do to a certain extent - I was a pure figure gamer and found the SL/ASL methodology , like CM, rather restraining. I know/knew that it was possible to do certain things in a "battle" but within the SL/ASL system, it basically just wasn't allowed for someone to think independently and apply their own rules - the mentality of most SL/ASL players I found were just too narrowly focused on "the rules" as they existed.

CM has IMO huge potential - it is the one computer game thats made me reconsider figure gaming - it removes a great deal of ambiguity from various aspects of how a "battle" is conducted but like SL/ASL it is very constraining.

We have someone who thinks "people aren't interested in the engineering battle" - which should be translated in reality to "I am not interested in the engineering battle". He also believes we should only be thinking about equipment that can be employed/utilised within the very artificial and narrow time constraints that he has decided are what the majority of gamers want and he's been fighting a rearguard action ever since.

Then, on the otherhand, you produce a much better argument about the question of "focus". I think we all recognise that CMBO is a harbringer of what the potential future holds, than necessarily the final be-all and end-all of how the game system will be.

Therefore such a discussion as this is more about suggesting improvements, than necessarily trying to force through one particular viewpoint or another. We recognise that BTS decided to "focus" on certain points and they have done a reasonably good job - that does not mean that in future editions of the game, they cannot widen that focus to include such matters as the funnies.

Yes, it means that certain terrain features will need to be included which are presently absent but the point is that they did exist and the means to counter them also existed.

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

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this completely. Time scale in and of itself is only downfall one for some engineering units that would disqualify under other parts of the test. So, a bailey coding may not be worth it for QB and Scenario, but may be an option for operations, where something different applies -- for example, if you capture both sides of the bank you can throw a bridge up inbetween battles in the operation.

[Spook]

From argie's link (Good job, sir!):

"Time for assembly and installation of a normal bridge is given in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 shows estimated times for daylight assembly and launching of various lengths of different types of bridges when built by manpower alone and when using one crane. Times do not include preparation of site and layout of rollers. These times assume there is a favorable assembly site, trained personnel are available, equipment is stacked at the site, and footwalks are omitted. Use of untrained troops, poor weather, various terrain conditions, and enemy activity will lengthen assembly time by 30 percent. Added time must also be allowed for placing wear treads. Add 1/2 to 4 or more hours for preparation of site and layout and placing of rollers (depending upon the amount of work required to level site, install grillages, and crib up rollers). Add 1/2 hour for unloading from trucks if separate unloading parties are available. If not available, add 1 to 21/2 hours according to type of bridge. For blackout conditions, increase daylight times by 50 percent. For mission-oriented protection posture (MOPP) conditions, increase final construction (all other conditions considered) by 50 percent."

[Brian]

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

I agree with this completely. Time scale in and of itself is only downfall one for some engineering units that would disqualify under other parts of the test. So, a bailey coding may not be worth it for QB and Scenario, but may be an option for operations, where something different applies -- for example, if you capture both sides of the bank you can throw a bridge up inbetween battles in the operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or a bridge might well already exist and you have to defend the bridgehead.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter of Bailey Bridges is a red herring, thrown up to obscure the real purpose of this discussion which is the funnies.

Bridging would be better suited to being treated as a terrain feature IMO, rather than as an active unit. It is usually, something which occurs before or after a battle - only rarely during.

The use of the funnies OTOH are much more a part of the scale that CM utilises IMO - afterall they were developed to be utilised in the assault, afterall.

[Slapdragon]

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

We have someone like Slappy who thinks "people aren't interested in the engineering battle" - which should be translated in reality to "I am not interested in the engineering battle".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you really need to translate the Brianese out and realize that I never said that no one is interested in the engineering battle, just that some of it will be incredibly boring (oh joy, we get to play a mine clearing scenario where no opfors appear at all, just mines) to anyone and completely outside of the tactical focus of the game, and that you need to have some sort of fact going into desiding if a feature should be programmed rather than fancy and nationalistic banter.

Brian, as you learn historical methods you will find lots of situations where scope muct be adjusted and a careful look must be made at source material with a critical eye. This is the biggest argument on this thread, is the level of historical research that should be put into this subject. Nationalistic pride, hearsay, bar room talk, and the like make for poor historical meat and potatoes to feed historical research.

On the issue of time, although it is talked out, there is a set time limit on the game -- read the previous posts. This is set in stone by the game design and focus. If CM were to magically morph to 4000 turn limits then your original bailey bridge proposal makes some sense as a sideline to the fighting to hold or take a bridging point, but until the game does morph into this sort of scope, it cannot meet the deployment requirments. Heck, even the Ark can't unless we assume it is pretargeted and will go to one pre chosen place and drop its bridge even there.

There is a great deal of resistance to reasonably pushing these elements off stage where they seem to belong -- ie. using them as map pieces, mostly because of a mistake in understanding CM's scope limitations and the efforts needed at programming a realitive minor part of the action -- far more work than just making the AI for a tank.

For example, the bailey will need trucks coming to and fro to deliver metal, boats in the water, engineering teams moving from one part to another, and each unit will have to react in some manner if shot at. A monumental undertaking for an object that would not be ready in time to use anyway. Alternative, you could use it as a map piece, then put a half completed bridge in. That represents the bridge under construction during the length of the scenario. An operation could have the bridge go in between battles. All useful ways of saving the game from becoming "lets build a bridge" and still acuurately and historically simulating the use of these devices.

Spook, perhaps you would like to repost my six standards for inclusion.

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

[Slapdragon]

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

Or a bridge might well already exist and you have to defend the bridgehead.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter of Bailey Bridges is a red herring, thrown up to obscure the real purpose of this discussion which is the funnies.

Bridging would be better suited to being treated as a terrain feature IMO, rather than as an active unit. It is usually, something which occurs before or after a battle - only rarely during.

The use of the funnies OTOH are much more a part of the scale that CM utilises IMO - afterall they were developed to be utilised in the assault, afterall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it was you who first brought up bailey bridges under fire, so I guess it is a herring of a different color so to speak.

Still, it is good to see that Brian is accepting that these bridges may not have been tactical devices. I think Argie's chart is an excellent example of data on how a bridge is made, since the basic technology has not changed all that much. Assuming everything is in place, the smalled bridge built by manpower needs and hour. So that is for one in which you already control the space aroud the bridge (or else, how would you have everything ready.)

Now Arks are similar in needing surveying. Fascines are very tactical, but research needs to be done on their AI behavior to see what they did under fire, etc.

[The_Capt]

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

AAHH come on argie, I slept thru this material once already. Don't make me live thru it again.

Serously though. CM has lots of room for the Engineer battle. But mostly at the pointy end. A lot of things have to be addressed in order to do this though. And there is the over-riding question of "is it worth it".

Assuming we stick with the assault and protective minefields and keep tactical minefields out of the picture. They will still have to get a lot cheaper. Protective minefields are very easy to emplace and can cover a wide area. Breaching assets (bangalore and the like) will have to be modeled better and the entire operation will be quite complex.

I think BTS and most wargames steer clear of this because it quickly begins to outstrip all but the most hardcore or professional players. Most people find coordination of Arty, armour and infantry hard enough but add in engineer breaching teams in a series of well timied assaults and it may cease to be fun for some. Play balance will also be changed quite a bit. Obstacles are designed to make a fight unbalanced and unfair, so putting them in without serious thought will only see most casual gamers screaming all over the forum.

For fun, I set up a 36 Tp hour (basic field troop with 2xDozers in support) obstacle plan in support of a Bn position. The problem was that there were so many obstacles that the game wouldn't let me buy troops. So you can see that a prepared position is a horrible thing to assault without tremendous superiority and will prove very frustrating for many.

I guess engineering does have a part in the game but it is on the line between fun and work. Much like realistic command and control, realistic spotting, troop "group-think morale", continuous time and logistics. It may some people here happy and even may make an excellent military simulator but it would probably only gain a small amount of ground on the commercial "mass consumer" side.

Perhaps the best analogy is like building a beautiful observatory onto your house. Fine if another astronomy nut wants to buy but for most of the market it will only be a freakin big empty room with a glass ceiling..hardly worth paying extra for.

[Spook]

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

Then, on the otherhand, you produce a much better argument about the question of "focus". I think we all recognise that CMBO is a harbringer of what the potential future holds, than necessarily the final be-all and end-all of how the game system will be.

Therefore such a discussion as this is more about suggesting improvements, than necessarily trying to force through one particular viewpoint or another. We recognise that BTS decided to "focus" on certain points and they have done a reasonably good job - that does not mean that in future editions of the game, they cannot widen that focus to include such matters as the funnies.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. It's my own hope that the "funnies" have more detailed treatment in CM II, and that combat-engineering elements such as expanded mine clearance and obstacle removal (heck, even bridge demo! ) will find their way into CM II also.

And it certainly can be productive to discuss such issues now for future reference, instead of waiting just before CM II's advent. Just as long as we all keep the "work in progress" perspective.

BTW, Michael D, no, I didn't get SL with a "purple box." That might have been some special edition or later reprint, but what I got in '77 was the standard bookcase-box issue. SL did have its own add-on modules prior to ASL, with added rules & features, but by the time of the GI module in '82, the rules revisions had then become an incoherent jumble to me.

The irony is that even after all the ASL updates, I still think that CMBO, in its present form, still does better than ASL in leadership/C&C treatment.

[Slapdragon]

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

AAHH come on argie, I slept thru this material once already. Don't make me live thru it again.

Serously though. CM has lots of room for the Engineer battle. But mostly at the pointy end. A lot of things have to be addressed in order to do this though. And there is the over-riding question of "is it worth it".

Assuming we stick with the assault and protective minefields and keep tactical minefields out of the picture. They will still have to get a lot cheaper. Protective minefields are very easy to emplace and can cover a wide area. Breaching assets (bangalore and the like) will have to be modeled better and the entire operation will be quite complex.

I think BTS and most wargames steer clear of this because it quickly begins to outstrip all but the most hardcore or professional players. Most people find coordination of Arty, armour and infantry hard enough but add in engineer breaching teams in a series of well timied assaults and it may cease to be fun for some. Play balance will also be changed quite a bit. Obstacles are designed to make a fight unbalanced and unfair, so putting them in without serious thought will only see most casual gamers screaming all over the forum.

For fun, I set up a 36 Tp hour (basic field troop with 2xDozers in support) obstacle plan in support of a Bn position. The problem was that there were so many obstacles that the game wouldn't let me buy troops. So you can see that a prepared position is a horrible thing to assault without tremendous superiority and will prove very frustrating for many.

I guess engineering does have a part in the game but it is on the line between fun and work. Much like realistic command and control, realistic spotting, troop "group-think morale", continuous time and logistics. It may some people here happy and even may make an excellent military simulator but it would probably only gain a small amount of ground on the commercial "mass consumer" side.

Perhaps the best analogy is like building a beautiful observatory onto your house. Fine if another astronomy nut wants to buy but for most of the market it will only be a freakin big empty room with a glass ceiling..hardly worth paying extra for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an excellent commentary, and the "is it worth it" issue is more complex than yes or no. First the item must fit the scope of the game, then it must be quantifiable (except for mods and the like), and then it must pass that worth it test. After all, we could model the bladder level of the troops, and troops under fire need to empty their bladders. So we would have a series of bladder ratings to show how full the troops are, and if they get to far then we need to have a bladder break.

This is of course a real part of war, and is often ignored in simulations, just like engineering. It also might be a little out of scope, easily ignored for bigger issues, and not all that interesting to track.

No one is saying that the engineer battle should not expand, just that we should take a more serious look at it than watching a history channel special on it then buying a copy of Mcgyver comics as a reference.

[M Hofbauer]

yes, applause to argie for finding that material!!

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

From argie's link (Good job, sir!): (...) Use of untrained troops, poor weather, various terrain conditions, and enemy activity will lengthen assembly time by 30 percent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems that's pretty far out on a limb there, giving such hard data like facts - personally I'ld imagine that "enemy activity" can in fact delay the assembly infinitely.

The_Capt raises an excellent point - would a realistic engineering model make the game too realistic, too complex, simply no fun to many people? in a way remotely similar to organizing logistics, where it can also be an art to have all the right stuff arrive at the right places at the right time despite all kinds of problems, the least of which is enemy action. Complex, but fun to many - while to many others it would be a dread.

I remember playing with the Matchbox AVRE bridgelayer as a kid, and with the plastic soldiers it made a great tank+bridge combo. I think some of the people who want to include the different funnies are imagining something like a sandbox employment of these vehicles. Interesting thought. The question then is not if they were historically used in combat or not. CM allows for such things to simply be done, whether they happened in real life or not. Similar like facing off a platoon of Jagdtigers and Königstiger against a mixed platoon of T26 E and Comets. Come to think of it, actually, how many of the common CM battles we witness each day would have happened anything like that in reality? How many Btn or Company commanders had such a god-like omnipresence and omnipotence of a CM player even under full FOW?

We have to face it, CM is foremost a GAME, and many of the abstractions and design decisions were made to make it a *fun* *game* (otherwise as a Btn commander you'ld be standing somewhere, largely immobile, at view level 1, with messengers coming in every once in a while (or not, depending on situation) to report what's going on and to receive orders.

CM is more like a box full of chess pieces, toys, which are modeled realistic in themselves and their characteristics, so that one can throw them onto a beautiful table (map) and play with them and see how they fare against the other toys.

In that light, the funnies would be additional Tonka Toy vehicles with certain abilities. The player can try and see if he can employ them within his battles. Whether or not they actually did something in real life is irrelevant at that level.

ok, I'm fine with fascines as soon as CM will have terrain tiles which even remotely allow for such stuff - but I insist on having the 251/7 Sturmbrücke, too, then

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[JonS]

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

... the Ark can't unless we assume it is pretargeted and will go to one pre chosen place and drop its bridge even there...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick observation: the Ark is the bridge, it doesn't need to 'drop' anything.

But you knew that, right?

[Simon Fox]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Spook and Michael that the time issue is largely a minor one. However, in the interests of Jacko's education some clarification is in order Johnny Howard referred to CM being "built about "quick assaults" factoring up to about 30 mins". I then stated that I didn't think that 30 turns was the average scenario length (the principal question in said post remaining unanswered of course) and that IMO the choice of 30 turns for scenario length was arbitary. Jacko then asked where did we get the 30 turn figure from. The answer is of course in the "Slapdragon Criteria" posted in the previous funnies thread which clearly states: "the average scenario is 30 turns". Asked and answered. Obstructionist? I think not.

Now clearly Jacko seized upon "arbitary" as referring to his 50% of average scenario length deployment criteria for game inclusion. He misunderstood. I had not even begun to start on that issue The paragraph referred to scenario length as stated in the first sentence. I would have been happy to clarify my point if I had been asked. Which only goes to show that I learnt everything I know about grabbing things out of context from the master himself, hehe.

If you or Dorosh think that my pointing out the nature of the Jacko-Hofbauer relationship is baiting him then that is your perogative. You can rest assured that my intent was merely to inform. I make it a point never to bait Dorosh. I prefer to have one of those big Jackofish on my hook as they leap out of the pond, pick their own hook out of the tacklebox, put it on the line, bait it, impale themselves on it, hand you the rod, then jump back in the water and fight like crazy. All while you're not even fishing

I am glad to see you have revised your original mean scenario length on the basis of further research. If you intend to specify some parameter or limit for the inclusion of a particular item then surely it is necessary to establish some consensus baseline scenario length?

Perhaps I missed it but I have yet to see where either myself or anyone else supported the building of bailey bridges within the time of a single scenario. As the "discrediting" of bailey bridge inclusion proceeds apace it would certainly be interesting to know where the idea that it might be placed in the game originated.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

33 FES, actually - Reserve. (Are they part of 8 FER?)

My other buddy is Ed Storey in Ottawa; I believe he is mapping and charting now.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

If you or Dorosh think that my pointing out the nature of the Jacko-Hofbauer relationship is baiting him then that is your perogative. You can rest assured that my intent was merely to inform. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is how I took it, for what it's worth. I am quick to anger, so the Australian sense of humour as practiced by one Simon Fox does tend to drive me over the edge sometimes - that's my hang up, not yours. On the other hand, Slapdragon is correct about recent flamewars. I wouldn't call Germanboy a square-headed Limey if I didn't think we were both comfortable with it (see the sewer trout thread). You, on the other hand, I have a hard time reading - perhaps the way you like it?

Anyway, I also agree that time factors are not the only ones of import with regards to modelling the engineer battle - but I wouldn't say it is an unimportant aspect either.

The use of time in operations adds a bit of flexibility to the mix, also, depending on how it is done.

[Slapdragon]

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

Just a quick observation: the Ark is the bridge, it doesn't need to 'drop' anything.

But you knew that, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, this damn picture of an Ark shows two sections, one on each end, of "track" that must be dropped into place to be effective. But you knew that also, so it is not problem.

[JonS]

Slap,

Ok, so we are talking about the smae vehicle. From your description it sounded like you were off on another tangent

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[M Hofbauer]

Simon Fox: "the Jacko-Hofbauer relationship"

?? :confused:

Hey, I never met Michael Jackson. I don't even like his songs.

Or to put it into presidential english:

"...uh...I never had a sexual relationship with that man, Michael Jackson."

[Andreas]

The Bailey bridge appeared because of convoluted thinking on the part of the late member calling himself Kim B. or Steve N.J. Some of his comments made me think he had gone off the track completely, because instead of furthering his case for fascines he started rambling about bridges in battle, yada yada, without ever making clear what he was talking about. Never mind that, and forget about Bailey bridges. Nobody who has not been banned already even thinks they should be included as deploy in-battle equipment. Right? Right!

Now, should we return to the issue of Fascines, mine-rollers, congers and various other stuff that the pyromanically challenged otherwise known as the Royal Engineers came up with and seem to have used in the scope of what we know as a CM battle?

So, let's take mine-rollers. Some of my reading makes me think that really they were used a bit differently than some people may imagine. In Totalize they flailed ahead, alright, but only on the march, not in the actual battle, IIRC. But in Astonia (Le Havre) they flailed on their own, with infantry and tanks waiting in the rear until the lanes were clear. Since they flail at 1.6 mph, it is again doubtful if that is in the CM battle.

One way to simulate this without having to wait 25 mins to see whether your mine-rollers actually managed to clear would be to use some points at the purchasing stage for the engineer battle. Say you have an assault - so for, say, 250 points, you can buy four lanes through the minefields that will be 'taped' somehow. I know, not as exciting as watching paint dry, or flails flail, but might be workable, and sort of realistic (oh no! - the 'r' word again ) Seems BTS is going that way with the pre-battle barrage. Why not with some aspects of the engineering battle?

Thoughts, refutations, sea-stories?

[Spook]

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

One way to simulate this without having to wait 25 mins to see whether your mine-rollers actually managed to clear would be to use some points at the purchasing stage for the engineer battle. Say you have an assault - so for, say, 250 points, you can buy four lanes through the minefields that will be 'taped' somehow. I know, not as exciting as watching paint dry, or flails flail, but might be workable, and sort of realistic (oh no! - the 'r' word again ) Seems BTS is going that way with the pre-battle barrage. Why not with some aspects of the engineering battle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes sense in CM operations, if having an "engineering" phase between scenarios. The more typical experience in a single-scenario game, however, is to encounter the obstacle/minefield in the battle's course. For certain CM scenarios (like a perverse situation of having a roadblock straddle the only bridge across a river), some added "in-game" engineering abilities might still be needed, or more flexibility in what can remove an obstacle.

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

Thoughts, refutations, sea-stories?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"There was a young man from Nantucket..."

[Slapdragon]

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

T

One way to simulate this without having to wait 25 mins to see whether your mine-rollers actually managed to clear would be to use some points at the purchasing stage for the engineer battle. Say you have an assault - so for, say, 250 points, you can buy four lanes through the minefields that will be 'taped' somehow. I know, not as exciting as watching paint dry, or flails flail, but might be workable, and sort of realistic (oh no! - the 'r' word again ) Seems BTS is going that way with the pre-battle barrage. Why not with some aspects of the engineering battle?

Thoughts, refutations, sea-stories?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was a suggestion I made earlier, and I think it is a good one. One question I have about mine rollers and flails was were they ever attached to smaller echelon sunits for use if and when small minefields were encountered, the way Avre could be attached to a company or battalion of infantry as a support asset.

I too am glad the bailey debate is put to bed.

[Andreas]

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

This was a suggestion I made earlier, and I think it is a good one. One question I have about mine rollers and flails was were they ever attached to smaller echelon sunits for use if and when small minefields were encountered, the way Avre could be attached to a company or battalion of infantry as a support asset.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the smallest unit they were parcelled into was the troop, which I think was either three or four flails and one flail command tank (I'll check that). By comparison, Crocodiles had the half-troop as smallest unit, IIRC, because anything more than two of them might border on over-kill for many engagements, and because a lot of them were desired all over the front to roast those pesky Germans.

I also think that flails were really only used in the set-piece battle, and to clear rear-areas. I would have to check, but I would be surprised if there were many (any?) cases of them just trundling along on the off-chance that there would be a mine-field. There were still the flat-feet sappers to deal with those minefields.

They were really not the best tank for movement, since they were not only overweight/underpowered, but also very front-heavy (there's a surprise).

Another ingenious mine-clearing device was the Conger, which I think was just a flexible pipe filled with Nitroglycerine, laid across the suspected minefield and detonated. There was an accident when refilling a container once that wiped out an AVRE troop, IIRC. (working from memory here, because I am too lazy to go and dig out the extremely badly referenced books I have dealing with this)

[M Hofbauer]

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

This was a suggestion I made earlier, and I think it is a good one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

careful there, Slapdragon, that line is grade-A sig material

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I too am glad the bailey debate is put to bed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Le Bailey Bridge est mort. Vive la Sturmbrücke!

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[argie]

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

I think the smallest unit they were parcelled into was the troop, which I think was either three or four flails and one flail command tank (I'll check that). By comparison, Crocodiles had the half-troop as smallest unit, IIRC, because anything more than two of them might border on over-kill for many engagements, and because a lot of them were desired all over the front to roast those pesky Germans.

I also think that flails were really only used in the set-piece battle, and to clear rear-areas. I would have to check, but I would be surprised if there were many (any?) cases of them just trundling along on the off-chance that there would be a mine-field. There were still the flat-feet sappers to deal with those minefields.

They were really not the best tank for movement, since they were not only overweight/underpowered, but also very front-heavy (there's a surprise).

Another ingenious mine-clearing device was the Conger, which I think was just a flexible pipe filled with Nitroglycerine, laid across the suspected minefield and detonated. There was an accident when refilling a container once that wiped out an AVRE troop, IIRC. (working from memory here, because I am too lazy to go and dig out the extremely badly referenced books I have dealing with this)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some not too much reliable sources I have say that flsils were deployed in platoons of 4 or 5 vehicles. 2 or 3 flails in line do the clearing, with another 2 in reserve, as was expected that some flails were lost by the obstacles or enemy fire (an obsctace not covered by fire is not an obstacle ).

Usually were deployed in a way to allow to open two lines for Battalion. That gives us an estimate of 2 Platoons (8 to 10 vehicles) for Battalion in an assault operation.

I will look if I can found a table I saw somewhere on how effective is this kind of breaching, but with modern mine rollers, though

[argie]

Ok... The FM seems to not be online anymore... I will look carefully later. Is the FM 90-13-1 and in its Appendix C says:

"Mine rollers can also be used to detect minefield in front of deployed tactical formations, although more than one roller tank is required for good probability of detection. A company deployed across a 500-meter front led by one roller tank, has less than a 40-percent probability of detecting a standard Soviet minefield with the roller. Two roller tanks increase this probability to approximately 80 percent, and

three virtually guarantee detection."

I think vehicles of WWII could have a little detection probability, as the rollers were less effective.

[argie]

I found it... They changed the nomenclature http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-34.2/appc.htm#pgfId-1026881