9.2.2 Bridge Demolitioin - Huh?

[Akmatov]

I find it strange that the only way I see to destroy a bridge is to put troops on the bridge and rig explosives. What about all the various things that can be dropped/fired off aircraft or artillery or tank gun sniping? Am I missing something? Also, 30 minutes seems impossibly fast to rig a major bridge for demolition.

[Mad Russian]

Really long story, really short; the combat engineers are highly abstracted in the game. They are on the list of improvements we want to make.

If we had kept going before releasing the game for you guys to play, it would have been another decade before it ever saw the light of day. We thought this approach was better. [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

I find it strange that the only way I see to destroy a bridge is to put troops on the bridge and rig explosives. What about all the various things that can be dropped/fired off aircraft or artillery or tank gun sniping? Am I missing something? Also, 30 minutes seems impossibly fast to rig a major bridge for demolition.

Arty and Tank fire? Nope, no chance. 30 minutes? NATO\West did not as a course blow an entire bridge, we planned to use them to counter attack. The standard method would be to drop part of the span nearest the friendly side creating a gap that was wider than the Soviet\WP Armored Launched Bridge. You blew the Friendly side in order to make the enemy engineers come out on to the remaining bridge, in the wide open, in order to work on it and attempt to lay replacement.

The other main point, and I should have said this first, is that a vast majority, and all large bridges, in West Germany were 'pre-chambered' so that all the NATO engineers had to do was place the required amount (which had already been calculated and noted) of explosive in the existing chambers, wire it and initiate the explosives. Boom. All done.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: combatengineerjr

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

I find it strange that the only way I see to destroy a bridge is to put troops on the bridge and rig explosives. What about all the various things that can be dropped/fired off aircraft or artillery or tank gun sniping? Am I missing something? Also, 30 minutes seems impossibly fast to rig a major bridge for demolition.

Arty and Tank fire? Nope, no chance. 30 minutes? NATO\West did not as a course blow an entire bridge, we planned to use them to counter attack. The standard method would be to drop part of the span nearest the friendly side creating a gap that was wider than the Soviet\WP Armored Launched Bridge. You blew the Friendly side in order to make the enemy engineers come out on to the remaining bridge, in the wide open, in order to work on it and attempt to lay replacement.

The other main point, and I should have said this first, is that a vast majority, and all large bridges, in West Germany were 'pre-chambered' so that all the NATO engineers had to do was place the required amount (which had already been calculated and noted) of explosive in the existing chambers, wire it and initiate the explosives. Boom. All done.

That's the upside. Very handy to blow the bridges when they are just waiting for you to do it.

The downside is,

Where is that track with the explosives? It was with us an hour ago...

What do you mean we don't have blasting caps?

No det-cord??? Are you kidding me???!!!???

Good Hunting.

MR

[DoubleDeuce]

The Combat Engineering aspect is one I am really looking forward to seeing fleshed out. I want my CEV's and MICLIC's and I want my Engineers to have to drive the project location in a way I have to provide escort and protect them form enemy fire. [:D]

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

The Combat Engineering aspect is one I am really looking forward to seeing fleshed out. I want my CEV's and MICLIC's and I want my Engineers to have to drive the project location in a way I have to provide escort and protect them form enemy fire. [:D]

Escort and protect WHO???? Why do you think they call us Combat Engineers... pffffffft..... [:@]

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: combatengineerjr

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

I find it strange that the only way I see to destroy a bridge is to put troops on the bridge and rig explosives. What about all the various things that can be dropped/fired off aircraft or artillery or tank gun sniping? Am I missing something? Also, 30 minutes seems impossibly fast to rig a major bridge for demolition.

Arty and Tank fire? Nope, no chance. 30 minutes? NATO\West did not as a course blow an entire bridge, we planned to use them to counter attack. The standard method would be to drop part of the span nearest the friendly side creating a gap that was wider than the Soviet\WP Armored Launched Bridge. You blew the Friendly side in order to make the enemy engineers come out on to the remaining bridge, in the wide open, in order to work on it and attempt to lay replacement.

The other main point, and I should have said this first, is that a vast majority, and all large bridges, in West Germany were 'pre-chambered' so that all the NATO engineers had to do was place the required amount (which had already been calculated and noted) of explosive in the existing chambers, wire it and initiate the explosives. Boom. All done.

That's the upside. Very handy to blow the bridges when they are just waiting for you to do it.

The downside is,

Where is that track with the explosives? It was with us an hour ago...

What do you mean we don't have blasting caps?

No det-cord??? Are you kidding me???!!!???

Good Hunting.

MR

Our Teeth can be used as a Cap in an emergency and we can pull Det Cord out of our #$%.....

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I actually like the way bridge blowing is handled. As noted, the bridges are generally prepped, and it doesn't add much to the game for me to have to escort a small team to each bridge. As it is, if the unit with the E mission that is sitting on the bridge site is forced to retreat, or even I guess forced into R mode, the engineering operation is aborted. So you do have to keep the bad guys away some.

[Akmatov]

I had forgotten about the bridges being pre-chambered. If I recall correctly most of the bridge and autobahn demolition was handled by the local Landwehr. All that a combat commander would probably have to do is stop by and tell Hans to blow the bridge as prep for demolition was probably already done by the local guys.

And MR, def agree with not waiting until the next decade for release and glad to hear on-board engineers are on The List. No hurry, just glad to know they will be along eventually, it is not like I don't have plenty to do now.

Arty and Tank fire? Nope, no chance.

No expert at all, but was thinking:
1) Putting in a pontoon bridge with arty air bursting overhead or in the water would seem to me to be real pain.
2) If a tank fire control system is realistically expected to be able to hit a target the size of a tank's front, I would think there would be at least a 50% chance of whatever to be able to hit a bridge-sized target with say about 50% the square feet of the front aspect of a tank. Even if the odds are only 33%, I would think putting HE into trucks carrying pontoons up to the river would be a significant enough issue that the crossing force would need to clear out the LOS to the bridging area (as opposed to just making to a single 500m hex on the friendly side of the river as it is now).

[DoubleDeuce]

Tanks could easily hit a bridge size structure, just not sure they have the proper ammo. In US Armor units, we pretty much only carried APFSDS and HEAT and while HEAT might knock a hole in the concrete it didn't really have any explosive force so much as just creating a fairly thin, penetrating hot jet of plasma to burn a hole through steel.

[Akmatov]

Darn, I actually knew that, but was thinking of WW2 loadouts where some HE was often included, I think. Also, was thinking about hitting the bridge, not what would happen after hitting it. Thanks.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

From what I gather, hitting a bridge is one thing (hard from an airplane with dumb bombs, easier probably with a tank), and actually rendering it structurally unusable is quite another. Hell, even when engineers tried to blow bridges sometimes the bridge stubbornly refused to fall. This even happens in peacetime with controlled demos sometimes I understand.

Now, destroying temporary bridges like the engineers put up, that might be possible, but in 1973 the Israelis had a devil of a time trying to do that for the ones the Egyptians put up over the canal, with either air or arty. So maybe that's not that easy either.

[CapnDarwin]

The only other system I would at least consider is a level bomber(s) with a big enough PGM(s). You have to get enough boom on the right parts of the structure or you are just wasting ordinance.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Post-WWII examples of airplanes successfully bombing bridges seems fairly scant; Korea and Vietnam showed how difficult it was with iron bombs or very early PGMs, and again the 1973 October War demonstrated much the same with the Canal bridges. Modern tech would probably be more useful, but in the scenarios we're talking about I really doubt Colonel Whatshisname is going to get that kind of support tasked to him to blow up some bridge over a piddly stream while the entire Warsaw Pact runs rampant through Germany....

[Akmatov]

I have read that the great difficult the USAF had with blowing bridges in Vietnam was due to the ridiculous political rules of engagement that bridges only be attacked perpendicularly from the side, not laterally down the length of the bridge, as had been fairly successful in WW2. By attacking from the side the pilot had to place the bomb in an area no greater than the width of the bridge, rather than having an area the length of the bridge as a viable target. This insane restriction was dreamed up by those great tactical thinkers in Washington who also prohibited bombing anti-aircraft equipment installed on the dykes between rice paddies - don't want to accidentally kill some civilian. Once early smart bombs were deployed, bridges suddenly became extinct. Don't know about Korea or 1973 October War, though both would be before smart bombs.

I'm not talking about using air assets to blow "some bridge over a piddly stream", but rather rivers. Note the term 'stream' is used in this game to reference rivers below the level of the Rhine, not something you can slap a tank mounted bridge over and keep moving.

The only other system I would at least consider is a level bomber(s) with a big enough PGM(s). You have to get enough boom on the right parts of the structure or you are just wasting ordinance.

During Vietnam there was one critical railroad bridge the USAF flew LOTS of sorties against with no luck, due to the stupid ROE mentioned above. Very late in the war with first generation smart bombs, one mission = one downed bridge. So, I'm thinking in the 1980's if the AF can get a mission to the bridge through the defenses, then the bridge is going to get hit; maybe not down, but hit.

Just a quick and dirty Google search turns up the GBU-24E/B, an Enhanced Paveway Laser Guided Bomb fielded in 1983 with a CEP of <10 meters. This somewhat similar GBU-27 with a 2,000-pound penetrating warhead was used in Operation Desert Storm and according to the Air Force, the GBU-27 hit 70 percent of its targets. I repeat, quick and dirty data to suggest boundaries, not refined at all.

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

Air power is a viable way to take out a Bridge. Is it going to destroy it? Nope. Put a whole in the decking structure so that it is not usable until an AVLB or other 'patch' is applied? Yes. If it hits a critical spot it could also weaken it structurally so that it is virtually unusable.

During River Crossing operations fixed tactical bridging (pontoon or Bailey) is NEVER put in place until the threat of spotted\Caller indirect fire is gone, which of course implies no direct fire either. The risk of 'by the map' indirect fire is small enough that the fixed bridging can go in. Until that point only tactical rafting is conducted. Such rafts are made up of the same pontoon and ribbon bridging 'bays' so that they can quickly be assembled into a fixed bridge once called\directed IDF has been eliminated.

Sorry for the Combat Engineer Bridging lecture....

[Mad Russian]

To add to that, for the most part you don't want a bridging site under fire because:

1) Combat Engineers are rare and you don't want to lose them unnecessarily. They are usually parceled out at the rate of one CE company to a Brigade, with one company held in Division reserve. The Bridging company (E) was also held in Division/Corps reserve for when there was a need to cross water obstacles of our own. A CE battalion assigned to a combat division would have at least 4 line companies. A-D and if there was a bridging company it was E.

2) The pneumatic pontoons can be punctured and they will be useless. They must be kept out of enemy artillery range at all times if possible. Mobile Assault Bridges (MAB's) could be used to construct pontoons and this is what the division's CE's would have, at least for a US Armored Division. I'm not sure what CE assets a US Infantry Division would have for water crossings. That's something I need to find out.

3) Bailey bridges are very structurally sound. The worry would not be the bridge being destroyed but the traffic going across it in the area immediately before and after the bridge.

4) Once the bridges/pontoons/rafts are in place artillery becomes much less of a threat to the structure as it does those trying to use it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Akmatov]

Sorry for the Combat Engineer Bridging lecture....

Thank you for the Combat Engineer Bridging Lecture! I have opinions that I think makes sense, but you are sharing the real stuff.

Thoughts:
1) In game, leave things as they are for now, 'close enough for government work'. Getting into the minutia of how fast rafts can cross troops vs a bridge is just too nit picky at this scale (and probably for me at any scale).
2) When visible engineers make their appearance, they will become targets, the loss of which will impact further engineer projects. This danger will cause the clearing of the enemy bank to occur as a natural result of wanting to preserve your assets.
3) I still think an air delivered 2000 pound laser guided bomb onto any bridge, especially a pontoon bridge, is going to probably put it out of action within the scale of the game. The fact that others disagree seems to me to be very strange.

OK, the bridge I was thinking of from the Vietnam War was the Thanh Hóa Bridge. This was a major braced steel girder road and rail bridge resting on concrete pillars built by the French. During the war the USAF and USN conducted hundreds of attacks with no long-term success. Wiki says it was hit by hundreds of bombs, but I suspect there were hundreds of bombs dropped with some falling close enough to do some damage (or hitting it with bombs too small to do enough damage). Finally, in 1972 eight F4 Phantoms with the new laser guided bombs weighing up to 2000 pounds, so I'm thinking Paveway although Wiki credits Walleyes which are 250 pounders, put it out of operation, dropping half of it into the river. Hence my thinking that if you can hit a bridge with a 2000 pound bomb (according to the Air Force, the GBU-27 hit 70 percent of its targets in Iraq), it is probably going to be non-operational within the scale of the scenarios (up to 14 hours per the Manual AFAIR). Just getting into the game, but bridges seem to be a major issue. If aircraft had a realistic chance of putting a bridge out of action (within the scale of the game), I could see a subset of Air-AD struggles developing over bridges.

[You have just committed your last reserves seeking to block the offensive of the Slavering Red Barbarian Hordes. Recon informs you a whole new Horde is approaching the bridge on the river line to the north. What to DO? Engineers? - No, they are all on their union mandated coffee and brotchen break. Artillery? - Well, that would make things uncomfortable, but it wouldn't slow down anyone. Air? - Hmmm, they might get lucky and take down the bridge - Send in the Zoomies! Who knows, they might actually hit something.]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

Sorry for the Combat Engineer Bridging lecture....

Thank you for the Combat Engineer Bridging Lecture! I have opinions that I think makes sense, but you are sharing the real stuff.

Thoughts:

3) I still think an air delivered 2000 pound laser guided bomb onto any bridge, especially a pontoon bridge, is going to probably put it out of action within the scale of the game. The fact that others disagree seems to me to be very strange.

You misunderstand. We don't disagree that a 2000 pound laser guided bomb wouldn't take out any bridge in this game. What we are disputing is that you would have access to that bomb at this level.

OK, the bridge I was thinking of from the Vietnam War was the Thanh Hóa Bridge. This was a major braced steel girder road and rail bridge resting on concrete pillars built by the French. During the war the USAF and USN conducted hundreds of attacks with no long-term success. Wiki says it was hit by hundreds of bombs, but I suspect there were hundreds of bombs dropped with some falling close enough to do some damage (or hitting it with bombs too small to do enough damage). Finally, in 1972 eight F4 Phantoms with the new laser guided bombs weighing up to 2000 pounds, so I'm thinking Paveway although Wiki credits Walleyes which are 250 pounders, put it out of operation, dropping half of it into the river. Hence my thinking that if you can hit a bridge with a 2000 pound bomb (according to the Air Force, the GBU-27 hit 70 percent of its targets in Iraq), it is probably going to be non-operational within the scale of the scenarios (up to 14 hours per the Manual AFAIR). Just getting into the game, but bridges seem to be a major issue. If aircraft had a realistic chance of putting a bridge out of action (within the scale of the game), I could see a subset of Air-AD struggles developing over bridges.

I was also thinking you were talking about that bridge. Have you taken a look at that bridge??? That is a multi-span steel girder bridge. What we have in the game is a simple two lane stone bridge. Even a bailey bridge would be two lane. (Unless they put two of them up side by side.)

A pontoon bridge or a ferry?

Could your laser guided bomb take them out? Without question. How are you going to convince the Corps commander to give you that asset for a 2 lane stone bridge in your Brigade's AO?

You might, probably you won't.

[You have just committed your last reserves seeking to block the offensive of the Slavering Red Barbarian Hordes. Recon informs you a whole new Horde is approaching the bridge on the river line to the north. What to DO? Engineers? - No, they are all on their union mandated coffee and brotchen break. Artillery? - Well, that would make things uncomfortable, but it wouldn't slow down anyone. Air? - Hmmm, they might get lucky and take down the bridge - Send in the Zoomies! Who knows, they might actually hit something.]

It has always been my contention that there will be very little NATO air available in the opening rounds of World War III. Smart weapons vs dumb munitions?

This will not be Shock and Awe Iraqi style. This will be Shock and Awe Soviet style. Think Operation Bagration. It will be NATO's forces reeling and on the run. Not the Soviet ones.

Good Hunting.

MR

[DoubleDeuce]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

This will not be Shock and Awe Iraqi style. This will be Shock and Awe Soviet style. Think Operation Bagration. It will be NATO's forces reeling and on the run. Not the Soviet ones.

Indeed. We were pretty much told flat out that we were there to be sacrificed to buy time for the Reforger units. Barring the successful deployment of those forces the next option would probably have been tactical nukes.