Is it really that easy to rubble a European building?

[LongLeftFlank]

After watching Tyrspawn's panzergrenadiers plaster that village with artillery in the second AAR, causing one stone building after another to pancake neatly into an almost flat pile of rubble, I posted the below quoted observations, but they got lost in the larger discussion.

However, I was just browsing through legendary GI cartoonist Bill Mauldin's memoir "Up Front" and he gives a pretty interesting description of what war does to towns and buildings that resparked my interest in this topic.

This isn't a show-stopper for me of course -- a lot of large buildings will consist of multiple building objects that can be rubbled individually, but I throw it out for discussion -- I hope BFC will take a closer look at this in future modules or in the Bulge evolution.

"You can usually tell what kind of fighting went on in a town and how much was necessary to take it, by the wreckage that remains. If the buildings are fairly intact, with only broken windows, doors and pocked walls, it was a quick hand-to-hand street fight with small arms and grenades and perhaps a mortar or two.

If most of the walls are still standing, but the roofs have gaping holes and many rooms are shattered, then the entry was preceded by an artillery barrage. If some of the holes are in the slopes of the roofs facing the retreating enemy, then he gave the town a plastering after he left.

But if there isn't much town left at all, then planes have been around. Bombs sort of lift things up in the air and drop them in a heap. Even the enormous sheet-metal doors with which shopowners shutter their establishments buckle and balloon out into grotesque swollen shapes."

A collapsing European building (other than a wooden barn), with load-bearing walls of thick masonry or bricks, will very rarely pancake totally into a low heap of rubble when hit by HE as it does in the game. When one wall or a corner is blown away by direct fire, that will deprive the ceiling or roof section(s) immediately above it of support, causing partial collapse, but the sturdy roof beams would tend to keep most of the rest standing, leaving a "cutaway" structure. Units in the intact portion might be relatively untouched by the calamity.

Now if an artillery shell plunges through a roof and explodes in the interior, a lethal overpressure + fragments situation exists for people inside, but a "gutted" structure will likely remain with its walls structurally intact and units on the ground floor might be largely untouched. If the shell detonates close to a wall, you might blow it out however, resulting in partial collapse as above.

Full demolition of a building in the manner shown in the game would generally require both a large calibre shell (or bomb) relative to building size, plus fuzing that caused it to punch through to the foundation before exploding. The resulting earthquake causes collapse of all the walls out and down, and "pancaking" of the floors and roofs, with near total destruction of all occupants. Even then however, you'd probably still see one or two corners of the building left standing at least up to the level of a "high wall", with appropriate LOS blocking and residual cover.

[Cull]

I agree. I was surprised to see buildings falling down so easily/frequently in tyrspawn's vid(s). And if I'm not mistaken he was doing it with mortars?

It's certainly got a "cool factor" to it but if it's too easy to level the defender's structures then---aside from the lack of realism---there's a "gamey-ness" to be exploited.

That said, if a structure's cover/concealment isn't altered that much from intact to leveled then I guess it doesn't matter, in terms of gameplay---aside from removing the height advantage provided by multi-story buildings, of course.

I'd be interested to hear any official comment on the subject.

[Magpie_Oz]

I would think the main way to make a building utterly collapse is to take out the roof timbers as these hold the walls together.

Given that these timbers are one of the strongest components of the building it would take quite a bit to bring a house down completely. Not something you would expect from a mortar

The World Trade Centre collapse is an example of this, the fires from the planes cut the supporting members and the whole lot came down.

[LongLeftFlank]

The timbers would help hold the walls together in a brick house or building, but not so much in a stone farmhouse where the thick exterior walls are the major load-bearing elements. But as you say, you'd need to sever most of the timbers to trigger total collapse of even a modestly-sized building, which takes a pretty big explosion (155m+), a direct hit and a roof penetration.

That church, for example -- I can see piles of photos of gutted churches, but very few utterly destroyed ones unless bombs were involved. That thing's walls should be pretty much indestructible by most CM HE weapons (other than Long Toms, naval guns or Nebelwerfers), even if the roof and the occupants aren't.

[mjkerner]

That bothered me too, LLF. I haven't fired up CMSF in about 6 months, but I don't remember buildings falling that quickly in that game. Are modern 2nd/3rd world countries that much stonger than old stone & mortar European buildings?

[MikeyD]

Tyrspawn used a good deal of concentrated artillery in that scenario directly targetting the buildings. I can't say that I've had a building collapse on me while playing the game. But I tend to rely on mortars or tank fire as opposed to raining death from above. Now that I think of it, I haven't even tried out the U.S. 8 inch artillery in the game! That's got to be some nasty stuff.

[Magpie_Oz]

Tyrspawn used a good deal of concentrated artillery in that scenario directly targetting the buildings. I can't say that I've had a building collapse on me while playing the game. But I tend to rely on mortars or tank fire as opposed to raining death from above. Now that I think of it, I haven't even tried out the U.S. 8 inch artillery in the game! That's got to be some nasty stuff.

Mortars are generally fairly light and rely on shrapnel to do their damage so I wouldn't imagine too much structural damage.

Similarly direct fire tank guns , say 75 to 105mm will be punching holes in walls which will weaken the structure for sure but bring it crashing down? not so sure.

8" Arty now your talking.

[LongLeftFlank]

That bothered me too, LLF. I haven't fired up CMSF in about 6 months, but I don't remember buildings falling that quickly in that game. Are modern 2nd/3rd world countries that much stonger than old stone & mortar European buildings?

No, quite the contrary. Middle Eastern buildings are generally either built of traditional mud bricks, which are the load bearing elements, or around a structural skeleton of cement/rebar pillars, slab cement floors and relatively thin walls/windows. Single story sheds or warehouses might also use cinderblock, but CMSF didn't provide those (cover values utterly suck).

Mud brick walls are thick but not very strong -- 7.62 MG ammo should achieve regular penetrations and .50 cal will punch clean through both walls. As to the modern stuff, either get behind a pillar or lie flat on the cement floor because not much else in there is going to stop even a .223 round.

Norman farmhouses and other buildings in contrast have walls built by piling up large stones pulled out of the surrounding fields, held together and faced/sealed with mortar. They are often a couple of feet thick, which gives pretty solid cover from bullets at ground level. Except for chateaux, the second storeys will generally have a lighter timber framed wall instead, which isn't as good for cover.

In towns, building walls are a mix of the same kind of dressed stone construction described above and red brick, which came into wider use in the late 19th century.

[Yak Meister]

I think that the buildings all imploded too uniformly, representing a controlled demolition far more than a random detonation of shells.

Rubble used to be one of my fav terrains, especially for tank hunter teams. Maybe future releases could add some variety to the buildings intial trashed state with the inclusion of one or more partially standing walls.

[LongLeftFlank]

I'd also love to see a shelled building transform into a "gutted" but intact structure with vacant windows and scorch marks, even though its in game cover properties remain unchanged.

But I'd guess we'll get that around the time we get burning tank hulks with turrets knocked askew.... Strictly eye candy.

[LongLeftFlank]

St. Lo. Look closely at the cutaway -- you can see the thicker dressed stone on the ground level and bricks on the upper levels. Metal cantilever indicates post-1880 construction.

[MikeyD]

There's two building types in the game. CMSF-style modular buildings which act somewhat like CMSF buildings and new more complex-shaped 'independent' buildings. The two building types use entirely different ways of representing damage. In the AAR I spotted one indi building go from intact to pock-marked and busted roof, to blasted facade, to collaped upper story, then finally total collapse.

[LongLeftFlank]

Sounds great! Look forward to playing around with this.

[silverstars]

That bothered me too, LLF. I haven't fired up CMSF in about 6 months, but I don't remember buildings falling that quickly in that game. Are modern 2nd/3rd world countries that much stonger than old stone & mortar European buildings?

Actually CMSF buildings fall about that easily, if not easier. As I posted in another thread,here is one tactic I would use in a QB where I was assigned a lot of light AFVs, but no real infantry to speak of. I would line abreast all of my LAVs, or 40mm Strykers, or anything with an automatic firing cannon, and have them area fire the first row of buildings. after a minute or two those buildings would rubble to the foundation. then I would repeat this action for the next row of buildings, and the next, and so forth, till I had a clear view of my objective. I would occasionally have some leftover infantry in the rubble, but they would be so demoralized by that point they were hardly a threat at all.

I guess my point is I doubt ME architecture is so shoddy as to make this a viable tactic in the real world. And I especially wouldn't plan on it in WWII, either. But also this isn't exactly a game breaker by a long shot, and would hardly constitute something to hold up the works.

But it is something to think about.

[gibsonm]

I guess my point is I doubt ME architecture is so shoddy as to make this a viable tactic in the real world.

But 25mm HEI-T is pretty potent (a lot better than say 20mm solid shot AP or other Second World War proxy).

[GhostRider3/3]

As far as direct fire goes... Urban combat, one tactic was to bring up a sIG 33 SP 15cm/155mm gun (Bison) "in the earlier days like with Poland". In the Normandy campaign the STuH42 with its 105mm gun would be a good choice for direct fire, as would the 105mm Sherman.

I guess if you are making a scenerio and you dont want your beautiful town blown to hell, then you could set the parameters to make one of the goals of having calateral damage to the buildings? I mean hey, The GI's are going to want to sleep inside a nice cozy place right?

[GhostRider3/3]

Also If you check the link out below you will see what happens after Direct Fire to the Regina Rifles Command Post... NOTE: the Abbey to its left... or your right when looking at the Photo.

http://www.wwii.ca/photo/306/normandy-caen/

[Battlefront.com]

A more detailed modeling of building damage is planned. CM:BN is more advanced than CM:SF, but I don't think we are where we want to be with it. Unfortunately, it's a pretty complicated thing to simulate both from game effects and graphical standpoints.

Steve

[Erik Springelkamp]

The ruins of buildings one sees in the photographs are often the result of fire, instead of the explosions themselves, and the collapse would only follow after some time when the fire would have destroyed the structural integrity.

In Groningen where I live there were 200 such ruins in April 1945, but although they were pounded by tanks there, all of those ruins only collapsed because of fire.

I also remember the big fireworks explosion in Enschede, where a whole neighbourhood was destroyed, and all the houses were ruins. There also, the houses were not destroyed by the explosion itself, but by the following raging fire.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Enschede+vuurwerkramp

[GhostRider3/3]

A more detailed modeling of building damage is planned. CM:BN is more advanced than CM:SF, but I don't think we are where we want to be with it. Unfortunately, it's a pretty complicated thing to simulate both from game effects and graphical standpoints.

Steve

Freaking Awesome!

[Wodin]

I to would love some added graphcal detail to the way buildings collapsed...but we must understand that so much goes on under the hood (more than other tactcial games I'm sure) some things have to be alittle abstracted...I'm willing to except this if it means we get great gameplay and realsitic ballistics etc etc...It may not look like some more cutting edge graphic games but they don't have all that underlying code which will make CMBN head and shoulders above more fancy looking tactical games..

Lets remember this is a true wargame with (compared to other true wargames) some great looking graphics...I think maybe that now it is 1:1 and looking alot better than the old CM we maybe are expecting abit to much in the graphic department..this is a tactical combat sim unlike any other out there...and for me I'm very happy with the way it looks...

Overtime the series and engine will get enhancements and what counts (and from my experience with CMSF, and remember I'm not interested in modern warfare) is the gameplay...you will be so sucked into the battle stuff your wishing for now wont cross your mind....your imagination aided with the current graphics will be flying...

[Fly Pusher]

I would think the main way to make a building utterly collapse is to take out the roof timbers as these hold the walls together.

Given that these timbers are one of the strongest components of the building it would take quite a bit to bring a house down completely. Not something you would expect from a mortar

The World Trade Centre collapse is an example of this, the fires from the planes cut the supporting members and the whole lot came down.

There is a big difference between US style balloon timber frame construction and traditional Normandy farm houses with solid stone and mortar walls over a food thick.

The roof timbers are not structural and taking them out, either violently or by fire, will not collapse a building (although it would probably weaken its resistance to subsequent damage).

However I think we need to be careful not to draw conclusions from the building behavior in one video AAR. Lets just wait a few more days and we can judge for ourselves....

[permanent666]

the collaps at 8:45 AAR3 looks odd because the mortar round didn't even hit the building. more odd is that people in the rumbled buildings survive and were able to return fire.

i hope bf will finetune building collapsing behaviour.

another thing i want to see is more rubble or some kind of ruin instead of this flat representation of destroyed houses

[Wodin]

@permanent666...again you have to remember what we see is abstracted...it maybe that there was a partial collapse or half the building gave way but either way it becomaes rubble with the upstairs in accessable...so we get a house turning to rubble...doesn't actaully mean in RL that house would have totally collapsed flat to the ground..

Until we get more super computers (or BF become billioniares and hire a massive team) we have to except abstraction in games like these...and this game has far less abrstarction than other tactical wargmes...overtime and hopefully before I die we will see a version on Combat Missions that near as dman it graphically replicates real life....

[GhostRider3/3]

@permanent666...again you have to remember what we see is abstracted...it maybe that there was a partial collapse or half the building gave way but either way it becomaes rubble with the upstairs in accessable...so we get a house turning to rubble...doesn't actaully mean in RL that house would have totally collapsed flat to the ground..

Until we get more super computers (or BF become billioniares and hire a massive team) we have to except abstraction in games like these...and this game has far less abrstarction than other tactical wargmes...overtime and hopefully before I die we will see a version on Combat Missions that near as dman it graphically replicates real life....

Well if I had a Billion dollars I would donate at least 10 Million to Battlefront....LOL