Engineer options during the game

[Jackal]

There has been talk about using arty/mortars to blowing up bridges. Why can I not instruct my engineers to rig a bridge to blow in "x" number of minutes? Or a building for that matter.

-Blowing a crater in a road to assist with defensive wire and mines or to slow an enemy's advance.

-What are the possibilities of setting a wire obstacle/mine field during game play?

-Assisting a tank in preparing a hull down position when on the defense.

-Assist with helping a tank that is bogged down to get out.

thinking out loud I suppose, but what are your thoughts on this?

[Speedbump]

On the surface it seems like a nice idea. Distinguishes the Engineers from the infantry in a better way.

However, (and I am not an expert) would not many of the suggestions normally take longer than the normal scope of the game (30-60 minutes). For example, how long would it take a squad of Engineers to prepare a hull-down position for a tank without a bulldozer?

Just a thought.

Speedbump

[Terence]

Depends on the ground, their tools and the weather. But the answer is alwasys going to be: too long to be within the scope of the game.

[Dr. Brian]

Actually, the idea of engineers being able to actually use their demo charges for blowing buildings is a good one. They can set them in a few minutes, and boom, rubble a building.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[argie]

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

Actually, the idea of engineers being able to actually use their demo charges for blowing buildings is a good one. They can set them in a few minutes, and boom, rubble a building.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The demo chrges take out buildings, if enemy troops are inside.

Ariel

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Leonidas]

I also find it strange that engineers can't cut barbed wire. I don't think they can clear roadblocks, either. And they don't seem very good at assaulting tanks. I'm not sure what they're good for, unless you really need to clear a minefield instead of going around it.

[Speedbump]

Good point Leonidis. Actions like removing barbed wire and roadblocks do seem to be within the scope of the game.

Speedbump

[Clubfoot]

I agree as well. Destruction of barbed wire and roadblocks would indeed be handy and helpful (and entirely realistic).

Clubfoot.

[Mika]

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

I also find it strange that engineers can't cut barbed wire. I don't think they can clear roadblocks, either. And they don't seem very good at assaulting tanks. I'm not sure what they're good for, unless you really need to clear a minefield instead of going around it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've said it before but I can say it again. Engineer units are not going to be very useful while in combat themselves. Now, only way to use engineering units like they should be used is to add two more 'phases' into combat. Before and after action, that's when engineers do their thing. And I am somewhat doubtful we'll be seeing that addition in any version

Sure there are also combat situations where engineers can be used, but these are mainly to sit in dug-in positions and fire oncoming infantry or blow holes in minefields. In modern combat this is bit different (atleast in Finnish armed forces) as engineer squads are almost as heavily armed as any other infantry squads/platoons.

Barbed wire, when placed properly is not something you can blow away just like that. Unless you have loads of explosives that is, but like someone said everything can be blown to bits if there's enough of that stuff that goes boom.

Also roadblocks are exactly that, you cut down some trees, you tie them together with some heavy duty iron wire, you take huge boulders, you dig large holes, break the road and toss everything you can into road. When these are done like they are supposed to be done they are about as slow or even slower to be removed than real minefields. And you always put in some AP mines and traps so when someone goes to remove it, it can go off into their faces.

To answer to original post, setting up quick mine fields and wire obstacles would be definately in the game time scale. It's always easy to put them into ground, it's the taking off that is slow and hard work.

-- MS. --

[CavScout]

I think we have to be careful not to confuse combat engineers and regular engineers.

[Phoenix]

Hehe. I get to thinking sometimes that people think roadblocks are made by a couple of guys rolling some grocery store carts into the street and turning them over.

"There, that'll stop em!!"

Come on. As Mika pointed out, real roadBLOCKS are big massive HARD to remove structures. And quite possibly booby trapped. Not something that a bunch of engineers run over to and disassemble in the middle of combat.

Now if BTS had made different levels of roadblocks (simple, complex etc) then maybe the smaller ones could be removed in game time. But they didn't.

Personally I think engineers clear minefields WAY to fast in the game, and the idea that they could clear a road block in a few minutes in the front lines is pretty funny.

[Shipmonkey]

Engineers seem to be pretty quick with mine removal, but think of it like this. They're not clearing the entire field, they're using devices like Banglors to clear paths through the mine fields and then tagging the paths for the following infantry. this seems reasonable within the couple minute span of game time it takes to "clear" the fields.

[Mika]

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

Engineers seem to be pretty quick with mine removal, but think of it like this. They're not clearing the entire field, they're using devices like Banglors to clear paths through the mine fields and then tagging the paths for the following infantry. this seems reasonable within the couple minute span of game time it takes to "clear" the fields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very much true, though this only works for AP minefields. For game reasons it's nice that they can do that same thing to AT mines too, otherwise they would be rendered rather useless. Going through AP minefield doesn't take very long, you stick the pipe through, wait it to explode and run like hell through that path it makes (it is very narrow, that's why the two men who follow squad leader usually have reel of red cord or something highly visible they use to mark the both sides of the path). Nobody wants to step outside from the clear route, that's for sure.

There really is no way to find a quick and realistic way through AT minefield (except those specially designed mine clearing vehicles, which however are not present in Combat Mission). But then again I've always been into engineer military branch and I'm still waiting for that one game that does them justice. Might have something to do with the fact that I have combat engineer training myself

Perhaps when we get into modern day combat in some future version of Combat Mission I'll have my dreams come true

-- MS. --

[Shipmonkey]

I wasn't a Seabee, but on a long cruise I did do the Seabee Combat course for fun.

[Annalist]

Mika, I know a lot of combat engineers who would be unhappy about your comments. Engineers, with proper supporting units (i.e. infantry) can breach a triple strand concertina wire obstacle in about 30 seconds. I've seen it done in real life. Roadblocks could be done by units in the game too, using their demolition charges, in just a little more time.

[Horncastle]

Im pretty sure even the quickest enginneer squad would be unlikely to see if they can try and beat their personal best while a battle rages on. Im of the opinion that clearing obstacles is a lot more difficult in a hostile environemnt than it is on a training ground.

I would also like to know how much equipment would be needed to do some of the jobs mentioned and support needed e.g. halftracks etc to carry equipement and men. Any ideas anyone?

I thought the engineers in the game were just like infantry but desinged for assults and support in built up enviroment against buildings/bunkers and armour.

[The_Capt]

Ok time for me to wade in. I have spent 12 yrs as a full-time Combat Engineering officer and though I may have limited knowledge of WWII employment of the "sapper" I think I can shed some light on the ensuing argument.

For the purposes of CM engineers are employed in to distinct roles.

Defensive: Defensive works are completed prior to engagement with the enemy. WWII did not have SCAT Mines of FASCAM which could actually influence the defensive battle so wire, minefields, bridges etc would be prep prior to the actual contact with the enemy. CM has been rather gamey (my only criticism of the game by the way) on the actual effectiveness of these works. Minefields were/are normally 400m in depth and can be several kms long, with AP rows mixed in. The AT ditch, which is a real "show stopper", is not even modeled. These effects were no doubt "toned down" to enhance game play but they are unrealistic. In the defensive battle one could see bridge demolition but in the scope of CM it would probably, be an entire battle on it's own, not a tactical device.

Next the offence. Engineers are critical in the offensive role. They remove enemy obstacles by breaching. Breaching can be by hand (very slow and costly) or by explosive means (bangalore, line charges, satchel etc). The breaching of buildings or "mouse-hole breaching" is the act of engineers placing a satchel charge on a safe wall and blowing a hole for the infantry to enter and clear. The charge not only provides an opening but also tends to neutralize anybody inside the building in the vicinity, much the same for pillboxes. Breaching of barbwire and roadblocks is very "do-able" and is in fact part of the "mobility support".

Second-to-last and not really included in CM is general support. Fortifications are an example. Hull-down positions and extensive trenches/CP hardening are not in the game but should be, for a price.

Last, we can see small pieces of it but Armoured Engineering has also been left out. Breaching Tanks, flails, rollers (WWII?) which provide a high-speed and protected method to deal with these problems would also add to the game.

[tss]

In case someone is interested in this...

According to my grandfather's company's (31st Sapper Company) war diary they were used in following combat roles:

1) They participated in one counter attack (Koukunniemi, 6 December 1939). As the enemy hadn't advanced to their sector yet, they weren't in an actual combat. The data is pretty scarce but it seems that the company then withdrew before Soviets attacked the area.

2) They manned the frontline as common infantry on two days (10-11 December). The Red Army didn't attack against their positions on those days. (However, one of my great uncles disappeared (along with 9 other men of the company) when his sapper company (29th) was in a similar situation at Summa on 13 February 1940).

3) Parts of the company (20 - 60 men, depending on the day) manned AT defence foxholes behind the frontline on days of major Soviets attacks. They had demolition charges and Molotov coctails. Apparently no enemy tanks managed to advance as far as their defence positions, but that is not completely certain.

4) On one night (between 10 and 11 January) one platoon followed infantrymen when they raided an enemy attack trench. The sappers then mined the trench after the infantry had cleared it.

The rest of their duties (digging trenches, building minefields and wire obstacles, and digging dugouts) was done out of direct combat (though the Soviets tried to harass by artillery and MG fire).

- Tommi

[Mika]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Mika, I know a lot of combat engineers who would be unhappy about your comments. Engineers, with proper supporting units (i.e. infantry) can breach a triple strand concertina wire obstacle in about 30 seconds. I've seen it done in real life. Roadblocks could be done by units in the game too, using their demolition charges, in just a little more time.

Well, being combat engineer myself I'd like to think I know something about how to build those things. Of course there might be some differences in how it's done in different countries but let me explain how we did it.

Barbed wire is not something you just spread out and leave it there, a monkey could remove that in 30 seconds If you wish to make it stay there, you'll pin it down into ground with long wooden or metal stakes in short distances from one another. Sure you can cut small holes into it, but removing it completely is way different. Thus I have always liked to think that when units in CM move through that obstacle slowly, they do exactly that.

Now, roadblocks are my all time favourites. Roadblock is not some trees cut down on the road, it's a piece of road (how long piece of road, depends how much you have time to build it). More the better naturally, it's not something you can blow away (or you can, if you have unlimited amount of explosives) When you build one properly, removing it can be pain. It's more often than not booby-trapped and it's always nice to place some AT and AP mines there too.

I do feel bit like repeating myself, but think it like this. If it would be easy to remove, you think it would stop a tank in Combat Mission? My word is not a word of God however, I am sure there are other combat engineers who have different opinions and they are quite entitled to have them

-- MS. --

[tss]

The_Capt wrote:

The AT ditch, which is a real "show stopper", is not even modeled.

An AT ditch could be effective if it could be covered with fire. If other AT defences were inadequate, an AT ditch could actually help the attacker more than the defender.

For example, my grandfather's company dug part of a major (really major, about 3 km long, it took at least 13 days to dig it, I don't know how many sappers were doing it) AT ditch in front of Kirvesmäki sector of Taipale front just before the Winter War broke out.

Just about all memoirs of soldiers that fought in the area curse that ditch. Soviets managed to capture the ditch on 15 December (I think, it is possible that they got it as early as 7-8 December). After that, they had a pretty much ideal place to prepare for attacks. The ditch proved cover from small arms fire and normal artillery shells and there weren't enough mortar shells available to seriously distrupt the ditches. They could even hide small tanks (T-26) in it. Soviet engineers then spent a couple of days and prepared numerous crossing points so that in practice tanks could go over it at will.

The Soviets also designed a pretty innovative way of crossing AT ditches in that war. They crossed one ditch by removing the turret of one T-26, drove it into the ditch, and drove rest of the tanks over it.

- Tommi

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

The breaching of buildings or "mouse-hole breaching" is the act of engineers placing a satchel charge on a safe wall and blowing a hole for the infantry to enter and clear.

It wasn't just engineers who mouseholed - at Ortona (for one), the two regular Canadian infantry battalions engaged found themselves mouseholing pretty much everywhere they went. It was quite literally suicide to step out into the street.

Also, demolitions of houses were done - but these seem not to have been spur of the moment tactical decisions, but generally well planned events, with the demolitions done not during a firefight (as we have in CM) but in quiet periods - so as to catch the enemy unawares.

I agree -flail tanks etc. are something I would like to see as well, if for historical scenarios if nothing else. They probably weren't an "on call" item for your regular infantry outfit.

I also think that the engineers in this game represent battalion level Pioneers (the Germans and the Commonwealth both called them that) whose tasks were to provide minor engineering tasks and assist in the breaching of obstacles. Brit/Canadian battalions only had a platoon of them, so they were rather thin on the ground.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Jackal]

Interesting points of views. . .thanks for all of your responses.

I do feel that the combat engineers could be improved for combat support missions in CM. While on the offense and defense when in the Army I trully respected the engineers for their work. . .

[The_Capt]

Bang on comments by "tss" and "Dorosh". I could go on at great length as to the employment principals of obstacles and the "general" vs "close support" concepts. Regardless, tss has an excellent learning point in that all obstacle must be covered by direct or indirect fire. Another clear example is the Gulf War. If the Iraqis had actually offered resistance along their defensive obstacles the US casualties would have been much higher.

The AT ditch embedded in a minefield is my worst nightmare. With modern armoured assets (ploughs, rollers, dozer tanks and Armoured bridges) it still takes around 5 mins to breach an AT ditch in the middle of a minefield. And as everybody here knows 5 min is one hell of a long time under fire.

As to CM engineers, yup, what we are seeing are actually Pioneers or trained infantry, semi-permanently attached to a battalion. These guys did the dirty work of blowing wire and holes in bunkers. "Engineers" were centrally controlled and would execute Brigade level obstacle plans.

This is changing with the concept of manoeuvre warfare and empowerment of subordinates. Engineers are now cut to Battalions in sufficient numbers to do a hell of a lot more in a shorter planning cycle.

Last note on the subject: CM is probably one of the better games in the use of engineer and engineer works. Steel Panthers III also does a pretty good job of modeling the effect of obstacles. I hope CM 2 will improve this by adding the complete spectrum of engineer capability available in the time period.

[tss]

I took my copy of "Upseerin käsikirja", 1940 ("Officer's handbook") with me to work today. Here are some figures about bridge demolition:

A) Iron bridges:

- complete destruction: 800-1200 kg explosives, 7 sapper squads (63 men), 8 hours (2-3 days if the charges are emplaced).

- breaking the span at two places: 200-300 kg, 3 squads (27 men), 8 hours.

Reinforced concrete arched bridge (50-100m span):

- complete destruction: 1000-1500 kg, 7 squads, 8-16 hours

- breaking at one point: 200-400 kg, 2 squads (18 men), 4 hours

Figures for 10-20m are similar but less explosives are needed.

C) Reinforced concrete girder bridge (10-20m span):

- complete destruction: 400-800kg, 3 squads, 8 hours.

- breaking at one point: 100-150kg, 2 squads, 2 hours.

D) Stone bridge (2-15m span):

- complete destruction: 100-400 kg, 3 squads, 8 hours

- breaking the arch: 50-100 kg, 1 squad, 4 hours.

E) Wooden bridge (15-50m span):

- destruction of both abutments and the span: 200-400 kg, 3 squads, 8 hours

- breaking the span: 30-80 kg, 1 squad, 2-4 hours

Shorter wooden bridges need less explosives but same time.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks for all the comments, especially from the ones with first hand experience (and of course Tommi for always coming up with fun examples ).

I think there is a popular misconception of how likely, in terms of employment and time, it was for WWII engineers to do certain things.

Combat Engineers could do some damned impressive feats under enemy fire, but generally the whole sector was sealed off and "protected" while the men worked. And this is beyond CM's scope, especially because some of these things people have asked for (in the past at least) like pontoon bridges, took a *LONG* time to set up.

Although I am not an engineer, especially not a combat engineer, I do have FM 5-34 (1962) Engineer Field Data to read and learn from. Time estimates, quantities of explosives, number of men, and tools for such and such jobs are all outlined here. While not perfect data (i.e. it is just a FM, not real life action) it does show how a whole range of things are outside the scope of CM for reasons of time, mostly.

So what COULD combat engineers do in the field during WWII within CM's scope?

1. Clear PATHS through barbed wire, minefields, etc.

2. Use demo charges to blow up stuff that did not require a LOT of explosives, time, and critical placement (i.e. NOT a bridge, but a tank would go up nicely).

3. Mouseholing, as described above.

4. Flamethrowers were a combat engineer weapon. So if you use one in battle there SHOULD be, in theory, a full engineer platoon to assist it. That was standard practice then, and I think it is that way now (at least it was in Vietnam from what one FT vet told me).

5. Standard line infantry. As Tommi wrote, like any unit with more than a wrench and bunch of paperwork, units like combat engineers were often called in as regular infantry. Especially the Germans. This was not their primary duty, but when things start to go wrong...

So how does CM stack up? Pretty well I think. They can do all but #3, which is currently not possible with our abstract building system. We intend on fixing this for CM2. We also intend on allowing engineers to "throw" their satchels which should increase tactical flexibility.

AT trenches... we though about these for the Western Front. They were, so far as we can tell, rather rare. Too much work for two little likely gain I think was the reason. And the two places the Germans managed to wage positional warfare didn't need AT trenches (Normandy and the western German border) because the local terrain was just as good. So not including this type of fortification is not a significant issue.

Thanks,

Steve