Krinks Posted January 12, 2002 Share Posted January 12, 2002 I'm playing a PBEM game in which some of my forces are being forced to cross a bridgehead that is mined. I'm not sure whether or not there are AT mines or not, but I've already lost one jeep to them, so I'm assuming so. There is a secondary bridge, but it's a railway bridge. The odd thing is that the railway runs up to the bridge, then turns into a road bridge, and then back to railway on teh other side. I assume that the bridge graphics are limited to a generic bridge tile or something, but could someone tell me whether I'd be able to use the bridge to cross vehicles? I'm assuming the answer is "No," but I thought I'd ask and double check anyway. Someone might know something I don't. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted January 12, 2002 Share Posted January 12, 2002 You are right in amsumming that there is no railway bridge graphic. You can however safely cross it with vehicles - just be careful moving over the rail tracks, I've found that you can get imobilized quite easily if you move fast. You should check in the briefing what the designer says about the bridge. Hope it helps Cpl Carrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krinks Posted January 13, 2002 Author Share Posted January 13, 2002 Would that be considered gamey though? What are your opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 13, 2002 Share Posted January 13, 2002 Nope, not gamey at all. A bridge is a bridge. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 13, 2002 Share Posted January 13, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Krinks: Would that be considered gamey though? What are your opinions?<hr></blockquote> I would discuss it with your opponent and if possible with the scenario designer. Most railroad bridges were not equiped for vehicle traffic, though could be converted quite easily if engineers are avaiable and have a day or so (and are not being shot at). I think that infantry moving across it shouldn't be a problem, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 13, 2002 Share Posted January 13, 2002 Compared to the weight of a train, the heaviest tank is as nothing. Send what ever you want across the rail bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 13, 2002 Share Posted January 13, 2002 Again, many rail bridge are simply not desiged to toke anything other than rolling stock. The weight of any individual vehicle is not relevant. Slight modificatoins on many of these bridges had to be made (like putting in a roadbed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 Compassion, As one who has crossed railway bridges in an AFV (In fact led a Sqn of tanks (US company)), let me assure you a fully tracked AFV can easily cross such a bridge (albeit a bit bumpy). You are of course exposed and it is hard to manoeuvre once you are astride the tracks. The sleepers etc do make it difficult for soft skinned wheeled vehicles to follow you (but by then the road bridge should be cleared). [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: gibsonm ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by gibsonm: Compassion, As one who has crossed railway bridges in an AFV (In fact led a Sqn of tanks (US company)), let me assure you a fully tracked AFV can easily cross such a bridge (albeit a bit bumpy). You are of course exposed and it is hard to manoeuvre once you are astride the tracks. <hr></blockquote> I dunno what's the norm now and what the engineering realities were during wartime 50+ years ago, but the recores are replete with rail bridges being taken and then engineers being required to make adjustments for Armored vehicles. Agree with previous post that it's (obviously) not weight that causes problems. Perhaps it's in building standards of the time (or lack thereof...). [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Compassion ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Compassion: I dunno what's the norm now and what the engineering realities were during wartime 50+ years ago, but the recores are replete with rail bridges being taken and then engineers being required to make adjustments for Armored vehicles. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Compassion ]<hr></blockquote> I'm no expert but tend to believe that the main adaptation was just put a flat bed of some kind over the rails so it would be a smoother , faster ride for tanks and other vehicles. But in real life, tanks often crossed unmodified rail bridges in a pinch. For example, the Luddendorf Bridge over the Rhine at Remagen was a rail bridge and the 9th Armored moved a bunch of tanks across it before the engineers got there. The bridge collapsed a few days later, but only because it had been damaged by the initial (partially successful) attempt to blow it, then hit many times by German artillery and bombs (in one of the Luftwaffe's last hurrahs). BTW, the great Hall of Fame pitcher Warren Spahn was an army engineer working on the bridge. He stepped off to get a tool or something just before it collapsed, saving one of baseball's outstanding careers. I wonder how many potentially great ballplayers, writers, artists, encyclopedia salesmen--you name it!--were not so lucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms: But in real life, tanks often crossed unmodified rail bridges in a pinch. For example, the Luddendorf Bridge over the Rhine at Remagen was a rail bridge and the 9th Armored moved a bunch of tanks across it before the engineers got there. <hr></blockquote> Right.. .But there are also plenty of real life examples such as the rail bridge over the Waal in Nijmegan that was unusable by anything other than rolling stock until modified. I think that the player probalby should be able to use the bridge unless it's specified against in the scenario notes. But if the players have a question about it, I see checking with the scenario designer as to intentions or if it's a historical scenario doing some research as perfectly valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvoRoadster Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 [bTW, the great Hall of Fame pitcher Warren Spahn was an army engineer working on the bridge. He stepped off to get a tool or something just before it collapsed, saving one of baseball's outstanding careers. I wonder how many potentially great ballplayers, writers, artists, encyclopedia salesmen--you name it!--were not so lucky?] Too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted January 30, 2002 Share Posted January 30, 2002 Originally posted by Compassion: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CombinedArms: But in real life, tanks often crossed unmodified rail bridges in a pinch. For example, the Luddendorf Bridge over the Rhine at Remagen was a rail bridge and the 9th Armored moved a bunch of tanks across it before the engineers got there. Right.. .But there are also plenty of real life examples such as the rail bridge over the Waal in Nijmegan that was unusable by anything other than rolling stock until modified. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts