IEDs, mines, booby traps, etc

[JasonC]

Since these are a key feature of this kind of warfare, I was just wondering what level of support the new game will have for them, and in how much detail they will be covered. Mine tiles aren't going to cut it as simulations of this stuff.

(1) some detonate based on units disturbing them as they pass through - tripwire or pressure plate etc. But others are detonated manually by wire connect (like a claymore), others by remote control, others by timers.

(2) some are standardized sizes for AP purposes or larger AT types. But they come in all shapes and sizes, from buried daisy-chained artillery shells to car and truck bombs.

(3) some require long engineering style prep time. Others are emplaced by infantry type forces as they move (claymores e.g.). Others are ad hoc - the tripwired grenade set across a doorway in a minute or two, behind a moving unit. And some aren't even stationary - car bombs driven to position etc.

It seems to me attempting to simulate this sort of combat without these devices being covered in detail, would be like simulating WW II with one side's artillery not being modeled, while the other side's is. So what are the plans for it?

[c3k]

Agreed.

[V]

It would be impossible to correctly model such an engagement without things like this and, sadly, suicide bombers.

[GSX]

Good question, there are all types of mines out there. Ones that go boom when you stand on them, ones that jump to head height and go boom. IED's that can be put in buildings to blow when the doors are opened.

Anti tank mines, roadside bombs and mines, command detonated mines, suicide cars etc etc.....

The timescales of the scenarios, missions will have to be increased to take all this into account. MOUT is a long slow process and the slower the better.

[cassh]

In addition to area denial weapons and explosive I hope CMSF is able to deal with the finer points of MOUT battle engineering and assault tactics.

When fighting a MOUT/FIBUA battle line infantry rather than assault pioneers/sappers [engineers] will have breaching and mouse-holing charges to allow them to circumvent obvious booby-trap points such a doorways, window and stairwells.

PE often used to create interior and exterior firing loopholes, to clear obstacles, and to structurally alter a building for improved defence - removing staircases for example.

Scaling ladders, grappling hooks and ropes often used to gain access to unorthodox entry points during an assault. By allowing these items of equipment to be modelled our computerised assault teams will be able to take-down a target building top down as one would wish, and carry the assault from house to house across roof tops.

Also some favoured entry methods such as using a beaching charge to go through the roof allowing access to antic/top floor would be cool to model as would using a shaped charge to breach an elevated exterior wall to come in at a random point.

I mentioned it elsewhere but thermobaric rounds should also be modelled if possible as this will clearly be the preferred method of clearing an enemy strong-point in a serious MOUT battle.

Some Mines and booby trap types required

Command detonated IED

Command detonated AT

Command detonated Directional AP - in-game set up X turns or pre-game set up

AT Point device - in-game set up X turns or pre-game set up

AP Point device in-game set up X turns or pre-game set up

Mixed Cluster Munitions - deliverable during game

AT Mines

AP Mines

Timed IED - timer set on turn one possibly

[Dillweed]

Steve has stated they are definetly doing IEDs and possibly the kind that walk around on 2 legs. Not sure about car bombs. If no civs are modeled I'm going to be pretty suspicious about cars driving twords my guys.

[pad152]

Civilians:confused:

I don't see how you can do suicide bombers or IEDs without including civilians. I though Battlefront said they would never include civilians in their wargames or did the war in Iraq change that?

[JonS]

Originally posted by V:

It would be impossible to correctly model such an engagement without things like this and, sadly, suicide bombers.

What possible relevance to a tactical engagement does a suicide bomber have :confused:

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

It would be impossible to correctly model such an engagement without things like this and, sadly, suicide bombers.

What possible relevance to a tactical engagement does a suicide bomber have :confused: </font>

[gunnergoz]

I just saw this thread, having posted the following in another:

IED's and/or mines can be great equalizers as we are seeing right now. I would think that the game would have to account for these in some way to be realistic. One cannot simply exclude them due to (and I think Steve would put it this way) "lack of time in the scenario to account for clearing/breaching actions." I'd want to see them employed and employable by scenario designers.

So you guys beat me to it. Great minds think alike, eh? Even if they are blind as a bat.

[Michael Dorosh]

But seriously, Gunnergoz, should suicide bombers be under the player's control? Assuming the player on the Syrian side is controlling a company sized unit, in real life - this is the same argument we had over medical personnel - is he really going to integrate suicide bombers into his company battle plan?

If so, how?

I won't go so far as to say they should be irrelevant, but in a company vs. company fight, be it in an urban environment or out in "the country" or the desert, is it something a Militia or regular Syrian commander would have any control over?

Am I wrong in thinking IEDs are anything different from "mines"? I agree that CMX1 handled them poorly, but assuming that they will be "fixed" in CMX2, should there be any reason to believe they can't be used rather like "mines" were in CMX1?

[BloodyBucket]

It really depends on what the game will simulate...If they are going for the pure military phase, who cares about suicide bombers? Anybody attempting to get near military units during the combat phase in OIF, for instance, would have been stopped or shot.

If they are going to sim MOOTW (military operations other than war), like the current pacification ops in Iraq, than suicide bombers make sense.

As far as IEDs, the only difference between IEDs and mines in CMX1 I can see is command detonation.

VBIEDs (Vehicle Borne IEDs) would be stopped or destroyed in the combat phase, but in a MOOTW sim, they might be a factor.

I think that SF will be focused on the combat phase of the Syrian/UN conflict, but I could be wrong.

After dealing with coalition warfare first hand, I am curious about what effect this might have on the company level of SF...OIF was really a US/UK show, but in a true UN operation, I have no doubt that the nature of UN ops would have some impact on company commanders, mostly in the form of delays in getting fire support and the danger of blue on blue fratricide.

[Michael Dorosh]

Exactly, blutiger eimer, but - how do you simulate "peacekeeping" missions in a turn-based company level tactical wargame?

Would I be wrong in thinking the focus of this game will indeed be the "combat phase" of this 2007 military action?

Potentially, a company commander would issue different orders to mounted personnel; for example, shoot any civilian vehicles that come too close. (A Canadian geländewagen crew did this recently in Afghanistan), by putting a burst of C6 machinegun fire into a civilian vehicle that got too close to their convoy).

For dismounted personnel, how would the presence of suicide bombers affect the company commander's decision making?

[ October 10, 2005, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[C'Rogers]

should suicide bombers be under the player's control?

How different are they from anti-tank teams currently under control? I know I have seen my share of anti-tank teams throw their lives away trying to reach their target (or be killed shortly after they hit their target).

To answer your question, yes, suicide bombers should be included as troops carrying a large deal of explosives. Should they be called suicide bombers, definetly not. My opinion at least.

Also to my understanding (which is somewhat limited in this field) suicide bombings are much more of a political message than an effective military tactic. Thus I doubt they should have much place in a game representing an a short battle.

[V]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't see where some of these posters are getting their logic from. Lots of

OH MY GOD IT'S A MODERN GAME well tanks can fire 4000 metres away so the maps will be HUGE and since its the middle east where armies don't exist the games must be all about SUICIDE BOMBERS AND KIDS! Kids I tell ya!

I never mentioned kids. But I don't see what is unrealistic about 'martyr' troops blowing themselves up. It is a reality and it has happened in tactical situations in Iraq.

[JasonC]

Mike - they are different from mines because their tactical role is not area denial, and they are not all passive, set off by being stepped on. Also they come in all sizes, from hand grenade to literally tons of explosives packed into a semi.

Have you ever seen a CM mine tile go off like a 2000 lb bomb? Or even like 155mm artillery? A typical roadside bomb consists of half a dozen 155mm shells set to go off together, command detonated as soft skinned vehicles pass the position. Not the first one, as a passive mine would do. So you can't know a route is safe just because one vehicle made it.

And tactics are built entirely around them. The whole purpose of an RPG and AK ambush may simply be to draw pursuers into the zone of a particular buried or parked bomb. Or to lure a platoon into a building wired to blow apart on command. Or a whole defensive scheme for a region of town may be based on tripwires in a ring of houses and large buried bombs on vehicle-width thoroughfares. With infantry in the interior an afterthought, meant to avoid engagement and act more as bait than as the fighting force.

As for how a company commander changes ops when expecting IED attacks and the like, the answer is sure, a lot. You can't bunch up, even if the maneuver arms fighting seems to call for it. If you are going to spend any length of time stationary there needs to be a wide perimeter of open ground - long LOS - around the force. Convoy procedure and ambush procedure needs to expect a cut column at any time, with no amount of overwatch able to prevent that from happening sometime or other. An area is not "safe" just because it has been verified there are no enemy personnel within it.

Many of these effects are similar to what artillery fire made infantry do in WW II. It is the modern stationary defender's form of registered artillery, a form that can't be neutralized by souped up counterbattery and high tech recon assets.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't see where some of these posters are getting their logic from. Lots of

OH MY GOD IT'S A MODERN GAME well tanks can fire 4000 metres away so the maps will be HUGE and since its the middle east where armies don't exist the games must be all about SUICIDE BOMBERS AND KIDS! Kids I tell ya!

I never mentioned kids. But I don't see what is unrealistic about 'martyr' troops blowing themselves up. It is a reality and it has happened in tactical situations in Iraq. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Mike - they are different from mines because their tactical role is not area denial, and they are not all passive, set off by being stepped on. Also they come in all sizes, from hand grenade to literally tons of explosives packed into a semi.

Have you ever seen a CM mine tile go off like a 2000 lb bomb? Or even like 155mm artillery? A typical roadside bomb consists of half a dozen 155mm shells set to go off together, command detonated as soft skinned vehicles pass the position. Not the first one, as a passive mine would do. So you can't know a route is safe just because one vehicle made it.

And tactics are built entirely around them. The whole purpose of an RPG and AK ambush may simply be to draw pursuers into the zone of a particular buried or parked bomb. Or to lure a platoon into a building wired to blow apart on command. Or a whole defensive scheme for a region of town may be based on tripwires in a ring of houses and large buried bombs on vehicle-width thoroughfares. With infantry in the interior an afterthought, meant to avoid engagement and act more as bait than as the fighting force.

As for how a company commander changes ops when expecting IED attacks and the like, the answer is sure, a lot. You can't bunch up, even if the maneuver arms fighting seems to call for it. If you are going to spend any length of time stationary there needs to be a wide perimeter of open ground - long LOS - around the force. Convoy procedure and ambush procedure needs to expect a cut column at any time, with no amount of overwatch able to prevent that from happening sometime or other. An area is not "safe" just because it has been verified there are no enemy personnel within it.

Many of these effects are similar to what artillery fire made infantry do in WW II. It is the modern stationary defender's form of registered artillery, a form that can't be neutralized by souped up counterbattery and high tech recon assets.

All impeccable points. And what effects does it have on dismounted tactics?

It will be interesting to see how this is modelled in a turn based environment; I suspect we would need some sort of SOP list for IEDs? Unless they are only available in single player mode (ie computer-controlled Syrians).

Just trying to figure out how all this will work in CM rather than in real life.

[Mord]

Ok I didn't read through everything so if this was suggested I appologize. First I don't care one way or another whether there are actually Suicide Bombers..But if they are included and someone doesn't want to control them or shouldn't control them what about having a percenatge factor like we have for fanatical troops? You could have so much of a percentage chance, chosen by scenario designer of a suicide bomber showing up in game...you wouldn't know who it is like you don't with fanatic troops until the bomber goes and blows something up. That would take alot of abuse out of player hands and maybe even some of the moral issues people might have with using a unit like that while still possibly simulating reality. (I say possibly because Dorosh posed a good question; do the Syrian's promote this in their doctrine?)

But I guess it could also simulate a soldier that is more fanatical about his beliefs than following doctrine too though.

Mord.

[RSColonel_131st]

Simple put, I see it this way:

1) They can't really make a game just about the military phase of such an invasion. Because in a full on military assault, force against force, Syrian Troops will always be toast.

2) Much of it, in order to remain realistic and challenging for the US Side, will likley have to be designed so as to play out similar to Faljuah or other US Ops in citys full of civilians, defended by a mix of regular troops, Guerillias and also "Martyrs".

In CMBB, you have command over russian partisans as well. There's no reason to think that non-regular syrian fighters will be excluded from the OoB in this game.

And with all that comes the need for all the nasty little devices these people use, including walking and driving "suicide" attacks with little to no hope for survival.

But then, as someone asked above, you can't really simulate half of this proberly without civilians present.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Have you ever seen a CM mine tile go off like a 2000 lb bomb? Or even like 155mm artillery? A typical roadside bomb consists of half a dozen 155mm shells set to go off together, command detonated as soft skinned vehicles pass the position. Not the first one, as a passive mine would do. So you can't know a route is safe just because one vehicle made it.

I agree with everything in your post except for the use of the word "typical." I'm sure you're aware of this, but you might accidentally give the impression that the very large IEDs are more common than they actually are.

Of note in a Syrian campaign, we can expect that the Syrians employ fairly advanced IEDs from the beginning, given their exposure to lessons learned in Iraq. In fact, in Syrian military use they're really pushing back into "command detonated mine" territory; given expected use of advanced triggers and purpose-built shaped charged, there's not so much "improvised" about them.

Originally posted by JonS:

What possible relevance to a tactical engagement does a suicide bomber have :confused:

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question...

It depends on the presence of "foreign volunteers," I'd say. How much do we want to borrow from the Iraq case is how much it will be relevant. Tanks and Brads fighting their way into Baghdad encountered several VBIEDs; again, given the lessons of Iraq, I'd expect them to be even more of a danger now than they were in March-April 2003. Iraqi suicide car bombs now employ what amounts to swarming tactics; they patrol Baghdad waiting for a cell phone call when one of their spotters calls in a target and then whichever of the several cars they have available gets there first gets the "glory." I would fully expect these in a Syrian scenario because they've been shown to work very well for quite some time.

Scott

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scott B:

It depends on the presence of "foreign volunteers," I'd say. How much do we want to borrow from the Iraq case is how much it will be relevant. Tanks and Brads fighting their way into Baghdad encountered several VBIEDs; again, given the lessons of Iraq, I'd expect them to be even more of a danger now than they were in March-April 2003. Iraqi suicide car bombs now employ what amounts to swarming tactics; they patrol Baghdad waiting for a cell phone call when one of their spotters calls in a target and then whichever of the several cars they have available gets there first gets the "glory." I would fully expect these in a Syrian scenario because they've been shown to work very well for quite some time.

Scott

You're not answering the question; what decisions would a company commander need to make with regards to them? Would tempo of his company plan change? What is SOP? Do engineers lead the way in environments where IEDs are expected? Or would that depend on the mission?

If your mission is to traverse an area only, and in a hurry (maybe you are the QRF and a convoy has been hit 2000 metres down the road) is there really anything a commander can do to reduce his risk - or does he just drive through at speed and hope for the best?

Are IEDs something that can be "detected"?

I am thinking in game terms here - command detonation, sure, but aside from technicalities, does it really get harder to simulate in a turn-based company level game?

We keep seeing "real world" discussion which is great, but the obvious questions are - how do you simulate that in such a game?

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're not answering the question; what decisions would a company commander need to make with regards to them? Would tempo of his company plan change? What is SOP? Do engineers lead the way in environments where IEDs are expected? Or would that depend on the mission?

I was responding to the suicide bombing question - IEDs have a different set of considerations. The existence of suicide bombers, particularly in cars, has pretty significant and obvious effects on decision making.

As for IEDs, though, a lot of what we've been doing to deal with these things indeed happens outside the scale of a CM type wargame. You can go out hunting at night in an area over a period of several weeks and shoot the people you find digging holes; you can talk to the locals; you can have an EA-6 Prowler overhead broadcasting on frequencies that would make the IEDs detonate as soon as armed or incapable of receiving signals.

At the company level on the move, your best bet is to keep your eyes open. In Iraq you don't drive close to that dog carcass or that old pile of trash next to the road and you stay the hell away from anything that looks like it has loose dirt on it. You definitely develop a feel for the locals - if they're nowhere to be seen or even acting somewhat oddly, that can be a tip-off. Against a competent enemy, though, these things are pretty much a nightmare.

Scott

[Battlefront.com]

Quick note...

We do expect IEDs to be an important part of CM:SF. Details? Not yet. We'll talk more about them in the future.

One thing to keep in mind is that the player's force is considered to be on the move and fast tempo ops. Much of the danger from IEDs comes from predictability of the enemy's movements. This can, generally, only be acheived when the enemy is stationary for some length of time (perhaps only days). Otherwise it is akin to planting a needle in a haystack and expecting someone to get stuck by it. It simply isn't an effective weapon unless there is some predictibility of where the person is going to roll.

Suicide bombers are an entirely different thing. This is far, far more difficult to deal with. The main reason for the effectiveness of bombers is that they appear to be just like everything else in the background. Civilian people, cars, buildings, Human debris, animal debris, etc. The less of this we simulate the more a sucide bomber will stick out like a sore thumb. And as one can imagine, simulating an entire living city is a huge development task. It is why no wargame to date has even attempted to do this. We will at some point, but not now.

So given the fact that our civilian simulation will be necessarily limited, how effective does that make suicide bombers in game terms? You see a guy in civilian clothes walking towards your position, you know there are no civilians in the game, so you shoot and bingo... no suicide bomber problem. A Nissan pickup comes around the corner from the other side, and since there is no civilian traffic you open up on it and prevent yet another suicide bomber attack. So on and so forth.

Fortunately the suicide bomber aspect can be skipped for CM:SF. The reason being necessity (as explained above) but also noting that the average US force did not experience such a thing during the initial phase of OIF. Like IEDs, this is more of a destabilization tool to use against the occupying forces, the natives who support them, and settling old scores that have little to do with the military situation. Unlike suicide bombers, IEDs are more likely to become a part of standard military tactics so they need to be included for sure. Armies are good at planting explosives, not so good at finding suicidal fanatics to blow themselves up on purpose. So it is logical to see why they'd likely choose to focus on one and not on the other.

Steve

[Drusus]

Will you have IEDs or something like this?

http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/index.dsp?level=70&equipment=128

This thing is just like the more advanced IEDs used in Iraq. It "fires" a cone of steel capable of penetrating 150mm of steel from 15m. Now what I mean by will you have IEDs is that this thing is _not_ an Improvised Explosive Device, but a sort of mine excellent for ambushes.