Unavoidable IEDs

[tyrspawn]

What do you do in a situation in which you know an IED is in a spot? The 2nd or 3rd canadian mission has such a scenario. There is obviously a IED in the middle of a bridge, and you have to cross it.

You get pioneers, but they can't mark mines (does marking mines even work anymore? does it find IEDs even if it did?). I tried shooting it with my leos, but to no avail. Finally I sent a sacrificial g-wagon to trigger the bomb, extremely unrealistic and gamey. But I couldn't think of any other sure way. Smoking could have concealed LOS to the triggerman, but that's just as gamey.

Hell if it was realistic i'd just cross the marsh with my LAVs.

[Euri]

check

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94578

[tyrspawn]

Yeah, so sounds like there is no non-gamey solution to it. If only the LAVs were amphibious (as they are in real life). I'd really like to hear why the scenario designer thought this was a good idea.

[Erwin]

From the link the solution to IED's on a choke point (other than locating and killing the triggerman) is to smoke the crossing area. If the triggerman can't see it he won't detonate.

Mines are impossible to detect b4 they go boom. I think I know which scenario you are talking about and it's frustrated a lot of us.

If we were warned in general about mines, then that's one thing. But, to say that there are mines on the bridge and there is no way to get rid of them so we have to send sacrificial units across is just possibly unrealistic and plain daft. (Spoils an otherwise great scenario.)

[Paper Tiger]

I'd really like to hear why the scenario designer thought this was a good idea.

Simple answer: I have no military experience. Smoking an obvious choke point like that bridge to conceal your crossing seems like very good sense to me. But if you want to tell me otherwise...

[abneo3sierra]

Well...really smoking doesn't let them target you with visual sensors, but it does alert them that you are coming (else why would you be blinding their sensor capability). usually would probably get someone across very fast or very stealthy first,if possible, secure anything around the bridgehead that may offer concealment to an enemy,then push across the more valuable units.

[Paper Tiger]

You can employ that tactic as well. While playtesting I would infiltrate my infantry across both sides of the bridge with little difficulty while my tanks and LAVs on the other bank provided very generous cover fire. This was my favourite way of playing this mission and I was under the impression that THAT was the gamey tactic - that IRL infantry don't like to get too far from their rides.

[abneo3sierra]

Nope,that is probably the least gamey of the solutions to the problem...would help also to have some eyes somewhere on the area,maybe a FO or something,not to fire, but to try to pick up where THEIR observer is, if you know it is mined with an IED at least. Or, can do "recon by fire" to buildings,clumps of trees,etc,always knowing if you can get their guy to take cover, he isnt going to be watching the IED. any time he pops up with your own quiet FO able to see, have one of the overwatch units area fire a couple of bursts into his area...even if they cannot see him, it'll get him to take cover again...I probably use my Forward Observers as much for this as for calling in artillery...the response time is much faster, less accurate, but if my goal is just to keep their guys' heads down while I get close enough to really pound on them, it works.

And most infantry irl don't like being near their rides once real fighting starts..armored vehicles are targets,infantry usually prefer to be concealed rather than in a vehicle with a bullseye painted on it.

[tyrspawn]

I'd really like to hear why the scenario designer thought this was a good idea.

Simple answer: I have no military experience. Smoking an obvious choke point like that bridge to conceal your crossing seems like very good sense to me. But if you want to tell me otherwise...

Well - the way I see it is, that would never happen in real life because the LAVs are amphibious. Even if they didn't have LAVs, they would use a bridging company or otherwise use engineers to clear the bridge. It just broke the immersion for me basically. Rushing through an obvious kill zone, which you KNOW is mined, never happens - especially when you have vehicles which could easily cross the river.

I know LAVs are not amphibious in the game, but you could have spawned the LAVs on the edge of the map, across the river, or just made a crossable portion in the marsh. In reality if you were a triggerman and saw a smoke screen then heard vehicles rumbling across the bridge, wouldn't you blow it? It's basically a game exploit to smoke the bridge and then roll across. Totally absurd and would never be done in combat.

I don't mean to sound harsh, I am thankful for your hard work and I like the game - it's just something that annoyed me.

[gibsonm]

If only the LAVs were amphibious (as they are in real life).

Um LAV III isn’t amphibious.

The “swim” capability was lost (the propellers were removed) in the up armouring.

It can certainly still wade though.

Then of course you’d need to assess the risk of getting bogged entering / exiting the river (if a section of the bank allowed for it in the first place) under fire.

[Erwin]

It was a super scenario, but I agree with tyrspawn, it was an unbelievable tactical choice that is forced on us. His solution re a ford elsewhere makes sense. (Hope that is an easy fix.)

[ZPB II]

I'm going to step in and defend Paper Tiger on his choice here. During my service, in a time-limited simulated scenario, where a crossing needed to be made and it is known that it is under observation and a choke point, possibly mined we used the exact same approach.

We (mechanized infantry) took positions on the other bank while mortars shot smoke and a bridgelaying Leopard 2A4 did it's thing. The only difference was we sent a bulldozer Leo across first, followed by tanks, infantry and CV90s with plentiful overwatch. We had F-18s and MD-500s flying overhead, simulating air support.

There was no time or chance to start clearing a minefield that is observed.

CMx2 does not feature engineering tanks, but it is not a huge omission.

But in basic terms of terrain and scenario it was the same. Smoke it and rush across, but do not clump together. This was Finnish Defence Forces doctrine ala 2008.

[ZPB II]

Also, regarding dismounts and their distance to their rides. We were told (and also naturally did) keep a distance of well over 100-200m to the IFV. When disembarking, the most typical orders were "Forward right open line" or "Forward left open line."

This placed the squad a healthy distance away. Never hang out in the line of fire of your IFV, when sabot rounds are fired the "shoes" that stabilize the arrow fly out of the barrel and pose a serious threat to soft targets in a forward arc. Nevermind the blastwave, even a 30mm cannon can severely disorient and injure you. The forward arc of an MBT firing it's main weapon is a serious no-go zone. The blast from the 120mm will kill you.

[gibsonm]

This placed the squad a healthy distance away. Never hang out in the line of fire of your IFV, when sabot rounds are fired the "shoes" that stabilize the arrow fly out of the barrel and pose a serious threat to soft targets in a forward arc. Nevermind the blastwave, even a 30mm cannon can severely disorient and injure you. The forward arc of an MBT firing it's main weapon is a serious no-go zone. The blast from the 120mm will kill you.

Dare I say the “shoes” are the “sabots”.

This danger arc issue, Engineer vehicles and other stuff are on a lengthy list of “fix this” items I’m pushing for CM:SF 2 time will tell how many get in.

[Erwin]

"I'm going to step in and defend Paper Tiger on his choice here. During my service, in a time-limited simulated scenario, where a crossing needed to be made and it is known that it is under observation and a choke point, possibly mined we used the exact same approach... The only difference was we sent a bulldozer Leo across first."

That's one hell of a difference, Zeb.

What I was commenting on is that the ONLY way to get across that river was by pushing combat troops and AFV's across and risking significant casualties. In CMSF, we don't have a bulldozer etc. Of course specialized equipment like that would make all the difference.

In the circumstances, I hope that a ford could be added as an alternative river crossing. It is otherwise a great scenario/campaign.

[gibsonm]

In the circumstances, I hope that a ford could be added as an alternative river crossing. It is otherwise a great scenario/campaign.

Except of course in CM:SF you don’t have “fords” because there is no water.

IIRC designers had to use “marsh” or “bog” or something (terrain that vehicles can’t enter) to represent a non passable water obstacle and force people to use the bridge.

So you can’t have a gentle entry and exit slope because the marsh itself is impassable.

The nearest thing to a “ford” would be a strip of other terrain crossing the “marsh” which would be blindingly obvious visually and would remove the whole challenge of the bridge.

I think he did a pretty good job given the available terrain constraints.

And I’m not a signed up member of the PT fan club - he and I have had rigorous discussions while developing some of his more open, vehicle manoeuvre centric, scenarios.

[Erwin]

Yes, marsh crossing points, whatever the actual name of the terrain are generally called "fords" in briefings, so am just trying to communicate per CM2 terms...

So, Major, in RL if you had a bridge to cross and you KNEW it was heavily mined, and you had no special equipment like a bulldozer etc. you would simply send units across to see who got killed?

Let's be specific as I am sincerely interested in your tactical thinking: Would you send some poor guy in a jeep first, or would you go for a tank?

Or, would it be at least a team of your most useless inf or guys you just didn't like since you could afford to have all of them killed in the blast, and they were expendable, or... CMSF is just a game, so who cares, lol?

[gibsonm]

So, Major, in RL if you had a bridge to cross and you KNEW it was heavily mined, and you had no special equipment like a bulldozer etc. you would simply send units across to see who got killed?

Well your use of “had” sums it up.

In this profession, at the end of the day people sometimes die and whilst I obviously do my best to avoid those situations, there may well come a time when you know the guys you are sending out will have slim chances of making it.

You know that, they know that, yet your job is to send them anyway and its their job to go.

If they was another way sure I’d pick it in a heat beat.

However in RL this is where things diverge from CM:SF.

Let's be specific as I am sincerely interested in your tactical thinking: Would you send some poor guy in a jeep first, or would you go for a tank?

In RL in the absence of some specialist kit (like the dozer tank or AVLB) and depending on what assets I’d have, I’d probably:

- Setup vehicles in overwatch locations.

- Neutralise the “far side” of the obstacle with HE.

- Obscure the crossing with smoke to maximise the concealment provided.

- Send dismounts over to secure the far bank (accepting some risk for these guys).

- The guys now on the far side (and the guys in overwatch) provide security to at worst case some grunts that I’d press gang to probe the crossing and at least “mark” the mines (trying to lift them with non Engineers is pretty high risk).

- If I needed to continue, I’d probably shoot at the located mines with 25mm fire (or something small enough to destroy them without damaging the bridge itself - so no 120mm HE rounds).

- Then I’d move the vehicles over (again accepting some risk that we hadn’t found all the mines) one at a time, with the subsequent vehicles following in the “path finder‘s“ tracks.

So pretty much SOSRA but without the dedicated assets.

If its a IED as opposed to traditional mines, then a similar approach but if the dismounts on the far side secure a large enough zone, the trigger guy may not be able to detonate it (as he’s been forced to move or whatever).

Also he may decide to wait for a “juicy” vehicle target and leave the infantry alone.

As to tank Vs light vehicle.

Yes a Tk first might give the crew the best protection but if its disabled you might not have anything else to push it out of the way with.

A light vehicle can be moved but there’s an increased risk to the crew and depending on what it is, it may not be heavy enough to detonate a conventional AT mine.

So “it all depends“ on

Nature of “minefield” (APERs only, AT only, mixed, IED, etc.).

Time available

Assets available

Nature of the Mission - perhaps you Boss will accept that you can’t cross the bridge and let you stop on the friendly side (again “had” suggests that you must).

....

Or, would it be at least a team of your most useless inf or guys you just didn't like since you could afford to have all of them killed in the blast, and they were expendable, or... CMSF is just a game, so who cares, lol?

I’m taking that bit in jest and not addressing it because I’ve never had people under my command that I thought about that way.

Of course if you want to play it as a “shoot em up“ game, then that’s up to you.

[Alan8325]

Perhaps if the time and will is still there on the part of Battlefront to add it in the next patch, a good solution is to allow large HE to detonate IEDs and mines. Mines may already be possible to detonate with HE IIRC, but I'm not sure.

Hitting a known or highly probable IED location in CMSF with large HE, either from tanks or arty, could be a good workaround for the lack of engineers or EOD placing demo charges.

[Erwin]

Thanks Major... your analysis makes sense altho' in our casualty sensitive environment it surprises me that we would resort to Soviet style "mine-clearing" by recon. I mean if you send some poor bastard across in a vehicle, does he go alone as the driver? Do you really order men to "run over there and see if you detonate any mines"?!

My assumption would be that given the likelyhood of mines (IED's can be neutralized by smoke, since the CMSF triggerman doesn't make a guess and blow the thing if he has no LOS), in RL there would be specialized equipment like a dozer or that "bungalore-type" explosive device that clears a path several hundred feet blow blowing up linearly and the shock wave detonates all the mines in that long path (you know what device I mean).

In the absence of neat toys like that, the CMSF workaround would be to allow another crossing point that could be defended or whatever. (Or only use IED's and no mines!)

[gibsonm]

Thanks Major... your analysis makes sense altho' in our casualty sensitive environment it surprises me that we would resort to Soviet style "mine-clearing" by recon. I mean if you send some poor bastard across in a vehicle, does he go alone as the driver? Do you really order men to "run over there and see if you detonate any mines"?!

Where did I say that? :mad:

What I said was:

“- Send dismounts over to secure the far bank (accepting some risk for these guys).“

Now how they get over there is up to their boss (they might go across one at a time, in pairs, crawl, whatever).

I’m not going to write 20 pages delving into this in massive detail.

You asked for an outline of one way to do this in RL if you didn’t have access to the supporting gear like a bulldozer and AVLB, and you got one.

As it is given I gather its a reasonable bridge, you’d probably see where the mines were because they were surface laid or the concrete or whatever had been disturbed (unless this is some mega prepared demolition where they drilled into the concrete, placed the mine / IED and resurfaced it so it blended in).

[Erwin]

Yes, but in RL I am saying it seems inappropriate since it's sending guys and equipment to almost certain destruction is it not? Effectively there is no way to detect the mines in the GAME before they kill you, or did I miss something?

In a GAME, I suppose all units are expendable. I guess I thought you were in the "CMSF as realistic" camp, and would be as concerned as I am re the RL implications. No worries. Just wanted to confirm this was a breakdown in the realism aspect.

[gibsonm]

Yes, but in RL I am saying it seems inappropriate since it's sending guys and equipment to almost certain destruction is it not?

Did you not read this ......

Well your use of “had” sums it up.

In this profession, at the end of the day people sometimes die and whilst I obviously do my best to avoid those situations, there may well come a time when you know the guys you are sending out will have slim chances of making it.

You know that, they know that, yet your job is to send them anyway and its their job to go.

If they was another way sure I’d pick it in a heat beat.

I’ve had to do just that and to suggest I did it without a care for them, their families or their potentially lost futures I find outrageously insulting.

Its called burden of command.

Have a nice life, just be tankful other people carry that burden on your behalf!

[dan/california]

It is always contextual, sometimes a brutal sacrifice up front can save hundreds or thousands of lives later. The cold, cruel math of war may dictate sacrificing a platoon to complete the encirclement of a large enemy formation. One you will have to spend painful weeks hunting down later if it escapes. Or it may be necessary to prevent such encirclement of your own side. Or..........

By definition you don't get a balanced battle at the CM level unless the Corps/Division level commander made a mistake, or at least a hard decision. Otherwise they would have sent enough of everything to ensure it wasn't a fair fight in the first place.

[abneo3sierra]

Exactly what Dan and the Major said...you used the term "if you have to" in real life, an officer will do everything he can to never be in a "have to" position...but once you are there...as the saying goes, "you gotta do what you gotta do" Then once that happens, he (the major) gave a pretty good idea for how to at the least, improve your odds...you never fight a battle where you are guaranteed to lose. There are always some tactics you can use to improve the odds, will some of your guys pay the ultimate price? Almost certainly, if you have gotten into this position...but it "isn't over till the fat lady sings" to add one last dumb saying. And here, you can usually get foot soldiers into ANY terrain to bypass the bridge, if I am not mistaken, only need the bridge for vehicles who cant drive through marsh. put your infantry slowly across,fan out, secure the areas in the other side where there are possibly enemy observers, and then scoot the vehicles across. This does not entail any "suicide"mission for your guys.

That said though, if the engineers are unable to remove mines or IEDs, seems like we should not have those items in the "build kits" for the scenarios.