Bridge Demolition

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Bridge Demolition

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Bridge Demolition

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Bridge Demolition - 9/13/2006 9:41:21 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

Are there limits to what units and unit sizes can destroy bridges? At this point, it seems like a farmer with a lame mule packs enough C4 to blow a bridge. Bridge demolition shouldn't be an automatic. It should be a percentage like bombing runs. Engineers are more likely to be successful than infantry or flak units. Units in close contact with the enemy are less likely to be able to successfully destroy a bridge. Time constrants should effect it as well. A unit in a bridge hex for a half week turn is likely to be more successful than one with a six hour turn. Just my thoughts.

Opinions?

Post #: 1

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/13/2006 10:58:43 PM

alaric99x

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

You're correct on all points, you're talking about the real world.

But my opinions are based upon my 21 years of service in the US Army where I had opportunities to "work" (excercise) with real combat engineers and bridging units. I don't have much experience with demolitions, but I did have a few chances to blow up things with C4 and it was great fun.

Please check out my comments on "Pontoon and Bailey bridges" and "Engineers," I'm still waiting for Ralph to consider my recommendations on these.

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 2

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/13/2006 11:02:18 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Opinions?

Yup I agree, normally a designer will make a House Rule that only certian units may blow a bridge such as Engineer, Sappers, or Pioneer units.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 3

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/13/2006 11:13:46 PM

alaric99x

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

Wait, I retract my statement about C4 being "fun." That's probably not a very "politically correct" thing to say these days. Let me just say that training with C4 was very "instructive."

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 4

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/13/2006 11:19:34 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaric99x

Wait, I retract my statement about C4 being "fun."� That's probably not a very "politically correct" thing to say these days.� Let me just say that training with C4 was very "instructive."

Seeing that most players of TOAW are current military, ex-military, wannatbe military, or people with an interest in military hisrtory and tatics, I think your safe in saying C4 is "fun!"

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to alaric99x)

Post #: 5

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/13/2006 11:23:02 PM

alaric99x

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

OK, to you, and to you alone, I'll admit it was fun.

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 6

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 12:20:40 AM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

I was in the Army and got to 'play' with C4 and det cord, so it goes to show any fool can use it.

But for game purposes, I just don't think there is really enough in every unit to take down a bridge in every hex as they move along.

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 7

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 12:44:27 AM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

I was in the Army and got to 'play' with C4 and det cord, so it goes to show any fool can use it. But for game purposes, I just don't think there is really enough in every unit to take down a bridge in every hex as they move along.

I was playing a game once where I moved all my units across a river and left small useless AAA Company's behind to blow the bridges. Just one more example to show why this should be changed.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 8

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 1:12:04 AM

Nemo69

Posts: 685
Joined: 2/18/2004
From: Nowhere to be seen
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Are there limits to what units and unit sizes can destroy bridges? At this point, it seems like a farmer with a lame mule packs enough C4 to blow a bridge. Bridge demolition shouldn't be an automatic. It should be a percentage like bombing runs. Engineers are more likely to be successful than infantry or flak units. Units in close contact with the enemy are less likely to be able to successfully destroy a bridge. Time constrants should effect it as well. A unit in a bridge hex for a half week turn is likely to be more successful than one with a six hour turn. Just my thoughts.

Opinions?

Ditto that. The idea of having bridge demolition capacity work as a percentage depending on unit capabilities and size, time and map scales, nearby enemy ZOCs is indeed a good one. The size of the river the bridge crosses could probably be factored in too.

_____________________________

Fais ce que dois

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 9

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 5:59:23 PM

FaneFlugt

Posts: 188
Joined: 7/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Cant you just presume that A truck full of explosives is sent to the bridge by a nearby HQ. Then even one squad left behind should be enough to blow the bridge. Given enough time. Say 12 hours. Standart demolition is included in basic training in most armies. So presuamably even a flak squad could do the job.

(in reply to Nemo69)

Post #: 10

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 6:30:58 PM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I would tend to agree. Things are easier to destroy than rebuild. Also, and I do NOT mean this as a slur, but most competant soldiers will find a way to bring down a bridge. If you are going to put in a rule, It would probably have to differentiate between classes of bridge (suspension bridge, pontoon bridge, wooden bridge, concrete bridge, ect) and the load bearing capacity. Given that a LOT of bridges in Europe and Asia had to be strengthed (I'm speaking of WW2 period stuff) so that vehicles could cross them, I dont see that it is unrealistic to allow a unit (which probably had some kind of explosives, be it HE Artillery, Grenades, C-4 or Sachel charges) to take down a bridge. It is a compromise, but would require a lot of reworking.

TOC

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

(in reply to FaneFlugt)

Post #: 11

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 7:40:28 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt.DK

Cant you just presume that A truck full of explosives is sent to the bridge by a nearby HQ. Then even one squad left behind should be enough to blow the bridge. Given enough time. Say 12 hours. Standart demolition is included in basic training in most armies. So presuamably even a flak squad could do the job.

At this point, the presumption has to be all of the necessary explosives and expertise is available to do the job, because every time I try, the bridge goes down. But should it? In World War II, the Ludendorff bridge over the Rhine at Remagen didn't go down for 6 days after the charges were blown. By then, the bridge head was well established. Here is a situation where the German defenders had time, explosives and men to do the job. The close proximity of Allied forces had to have effect on the defenders ability to destroy the bridge.

(in reply to FaneFlugt)

Post #: 12

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 7:55:40 PM

alaric99x

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

Grenades!?

You're right, there are different kinds of bridges, some easier to take out than others. Still, some bridges are very difficult to destroy. You can't just deposit a satchel charge on the road bed and expect to knock down a bridge. Charges have to be placed at particular points and tamped to cut support pillars and girders. Blasting caps have to be wired and placed and wire has to be laid. (I'm talking about WWII, now we have det cord to link charges so that they all go off simultaneously.) There is some engineering knowledge required in order to place charges at the proper locations. Recall that the Germans tried to blow the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen twice unsuccessfully, that bridge was built around WWI. It finally collapsed ten days later.

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 13

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 8:00:06 PM

alaric99x

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

RERomine

Sorry to duplicate some of your comments, I didn't see them while I was typing - slowly.

They also tried to bomb the Ludendorff Bridge and I read somewhere that they also sent frogmen to try to blow it.

(in reply to alaric99x)

Post #: 14

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 8:20:31 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

I would tend to agree. Things are easier to destroy than rebuild. Also, and I do NOT mean this as a slur, but most competant soldiers will find a way to bring down a bridge. If you are going to put in a rule, It would probably have to differentiate between classes of bridge (suspension bridge, pontoon bridge, wooden bridge, concrete bridge, ect) and the load bearing capacity. Given that a LOT of bridges in Europe and Asia had to be strengthed (I'm speaking of WW2 period stuff) so that vehicles could cross them, I dont see that it is unrealistic to allow a unit (which probably had some kind of explosives, be it HE Artillery, Grenades, C-4 or Sachel charges) to take down a bridge. It is a compromise, but would require a lot of reworking.

TOC

I'm not sure I would go so far as classifying the bridges. That is starting to boil things down to too much for a theater level game. I think it is sufficient to view the bridge in a given hex as capable of handling the heaviest tank in existence at the time. It is unlikely a bridge capable of handling a 70-ton King Tiger will be brought down by grenades because that bridge is not made of wood. In the game, strangely enough, I don't think you can use artillery to destroy a bridge by shelling it, but it can be bombed into non-existence by aircraft. In the end, I still believe it shouldn't be automatic that ground units can successfully blow the bridge in the hex it occupies. Even with the explosives and the time, there still is no guaranty it will work if an inexperienced small unit is performing the task.

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 15

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 8:25:58 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaric99x

RERomine

Sorry to duplicate some of your comments, I didn't see them while I was typing - slowly.

They also tried to bomb the Ludendorff Bridge and I read somewhere that they also sent frogmen to try to blow it.

Not a problem. We seem to be thinking along the same line, since I just dupped your comments about grenades

(in reply to alaric99x)

Post #: 16

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 8:48:41 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Even with the explosives and the time, there still is no guaranty it will work if an inexperienced small unit is performing the task.

I was in the Marine Corps infantry and yes we did train with det cord and C4 (once or twice) but when we needed something blown up we had to call the Seabees, EOD, or Eng's we could not do it ourselves. We could not be trusted to not kill ourselves and everyone around us.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 17

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/14/2006 8:56:35 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

I was in the Marine Corps infantry and yes we did train with det cord and C4 (once or twice) but when we needed something blown up we had to call the Seabees, EOD, or Eng's we could not do it ourselves. We could not be trusted to not kill ourselves and everyone around us.

Did the same thing in the Army. The idea was we could use a small amount of C4 to blow mines in place rather than removing them.

< Message edited by RERomine -- 9/14/2006 8:57:28 PM >

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 18

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/15/2006 4:03:54 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

I was an assault pioneer a couple and a half decades ago - didn't have C4 then, but anything that went bang was fun! :)

there are any number of ways of destroying bridges - even if it's only pouring petrol or diesel on the tarmak roadway and setting fire to it - it will not knock a steel bridge down but it will seriously degrade its load carrying capacity!!

Picks and shovels can tear up the approaches or undermine the foundations, conciveably ammunition propelland could be used as ad-hoc demolition charges.....

but generally to "properly" demolish a good solid bridge is hard work - steel is not easy to cut with explosives and any basic training given to non-specialists is unlikely to be good enough.

However what is it that bridge "demolition" represents in TOAW? Units can still move over teh river usually - just with a few extra MP's spent. And repair is prety damned easy too!

So I suggest that bridge "demolition" isn't knocking down the arches and sopans - it is normally something less than that - some means of limiting the capacity of the bridge network/system in that hex.

It is ill defined, easy to do, and easy to repair, so fairly well balanced IMO.

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 19

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/15/2006 5:21:37 AM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Picks and shovels can tear up the approaches or undermine the foundations, conciveably ammunition propelland could be used as ad-hoc demolition charges.....

Would you consider the pick and shovel approach under fire? Even engineers would have a more difficult time with enemy bullets and shells buzzing around.

But do you believe it is easier for an infantry company to destory a bridge than modern attack aircraft? I found a unit with 18 B2 bombers that had a 47% chance of scoring a bridge kill. Just an interesting note, bombers are not permitted to bomb bridges inside their own borders.

I don't dispute, given time and motivation, a 10-year old with an ice pick could eventually do the job. My point is in a game of percentages, why is bridge demolition a given for the earth bound combatants? Artillery can't destroy bridges by shelling them. Bombers at least have a chance, as long as they aren't in friendly territory. In this respect, ground units are given too much power, at least in my opinion.

In the long run, show me any war game that considers everything. Even if there was one, people would disputes something. It's a simulation of war and in such simulations, it's the opinions of the designers and programmers that count.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 20

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/15/2006 2:43:19 PM

Okimaw

Posts: 268
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Land of the brave, home of the Cree
Status: offline

I more or less agree with SMK. I don't know if the designers or anyone else had this thought but maybe when the command was written in for this procedure it wasn't intended to just mean demolished with explosives. The command is "destroy bridge". Would I be remiss in assuming that this could mean other procedures that don't involve fun stuff like c4? I worked construction (including lots of bridge work) for 10 years and if I had 10 or 20 guys with tools found on an everyday construction site one side of a bridge could be effectively destroyed in 6 hrs. Steel bridges are obviously easy enough, precast concrete bridge a little tougher but might even just involve sabotaging anchor bolts in the appropriate places, cast in place concrete is a tad tougher but could be done. The fun thing to do would be to compromise the structure, watch it go into the river with a bunch of the other guys.

_____________________________

I have returned

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 21

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/15/2006 4:25:41 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okimaw

I more or less agree with SMK. I don't know if the designers or anyone else had this thought but maybe when the command was written in for this procedure it wasn't intended to just mean demolished with explosives. The command is "destroy bridge". Would I be remiss in assuming that this could mean other procedures that don't involve fun stuff like c4? I worked construction (including lots of bridge work) for 10 years and if I had 10 or 20 guys with tools found on an everyday construction site one side of a bridge could be effectively destroyed in 6 hrs. Steel bridges are obviously easy enough, precast concrete bridge a little tougher but might even just involve sabotaging anchor bolts in the appropriate places, cast in place concrete is a tad tougher but could be done. The fun thing to do would be to compromise the structure, watch it go into the river with a bunch of�the other guys.�

Again, I don't dispute it can be destroyed, however it is done. But should it be an automatic for a squad of men, potentially under fire, when a battalion of artillery has no chance and it may be only a possibility for aircraft? The first choice of a brigade commander isn't going to be to send a squad of men, hypothetically under fired, to destroy a bridge if it needs brought down. I believe his first choice would be to use the one method that isn't allowed, artillery.

Throwing a twist on things, consider the same squad in a city, London for example. Full day turns, 10K hex. How many bridges across the Thames would that squad have to destroy to render it such crossings at that location impossible? There are places in the town I live in, Columbus, Ohio, USA, where there are at least a dozen concrete and steel bridges crossing a single unfordable river within a 5K radius of a single point.

(in reply to Okimaw)

Post #: 22

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/16/2006 1:52:43 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

I was playing a game once where I moved all my units across a river and left small useless AAA Company's behind to blow the bridges. Just one more example to show why this should be changed.

Well to be fair, AA units would have to be lugging quite a lot of explosive shells around with them and....

On the whole, bridge destruction is too easy, yes.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Dr. Foo)

Post #: 23

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/16/2006 1:54:58 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

but most competant soldiers will find a way to bring down a bridge.

If they're competent. And also if their mind is on the job. They might be running away instead.

Even then, things can go wrong. We've all seen A Bridge Too Far.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 24

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/16/2006 3:01:46 AM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Yeah, see my post above about all that training I had with C4....just about none. Sure it is not hard to stick the blasting cap into the C4, attach the det cord, igniter and your done, but I have no idea how much is too much or how much is too little or even where it should go in order to do the most damage.

Of course, if need be we go with what we have, but we did need some things blown up every now andthen but we never did it, the Engs took care of that. I say and long as a unit has at least one Eng squad it should be able to take care of bridges. On more than one occasion we had Engs attached to us for short missions.

< Message edited by Dr. Foo -- 9/16/2006 3:20:52 AM >

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 25

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/16/2006 4:00:14 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Throwing a twist on things, consider the same squad in a city, London for example. Full day turns, 10K hex. How many bridges across the Thames would that squad have to destroy to render it such crossings at that location impossible?

Well, in a well-designed scenario, at 10km/hex you shouldn't have units smaller than battalions. So you could assign a platoon to each of the bridges on a 10km stretch of the river.

Of course this is an extreme. Most 10km stretches of river don't lie in the middle of major capital cities.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 26

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/16/2006 10:18:33 AM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Throwing a twist on things, consider the same squad in a city, London for example. Full day turns, 10K hex. How many bridges across the Thames would that squad have to destroy to render it such crossings at that location impossible?

Well, in a well-designed scenario, at 10km/hex you shouldn't have units smaller than battalions. So you could assign a platoon to each of the bridges on a 10km stretch of the river.

Of course this is an extreme. Most 10km stretches of river don't lie in the middle of major capital cities.

It is quite true that the example was extreme, since the thread had somewhat veared toward reality instead of what occurs in the game.

While I still don't believe it would be that difficult to assign percentages on bridge destruction for ground units, it concerns me more the lack of capability of other units to even try. If artillery can destroy ships, why can't it destroy a bridge? Also, why can't aircraft bomb bridges in friendly territory? By game definition, the hex a bridge is in and destroyed by ground units is friendly territory. If they can do it, why not aircraft. For aircraft to destroy the same bridge, one has to wait until it is captured by the enemy. Only then, can it be bombed. There are scenarios that are very wide open. It is possible to out manuever someone to the degree that aircraft can reach the bridge before ground units can. Should the bridge be over a super river, destroying the bridge by aircraft might allow the defender to turn or two to shift some defenders to the threat. Might be a tad difficult if the enemy has pushed units across the bridge already.

Obviously, knowing bombs don't work in friendly territory for some reason, I now alter my strategy to make sure ground units are covering critical river crossings. Still, it would be nice if aircraft were an option for the unforeseen.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 27

RE: Bridge Demolition - 9/16/2006 2:47:06 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

If artillery can destroy ships, why can't it destroy a bridge?

Ordinary artillery can only fire on ships which are actually adjacent to them.

quote:

Obviously, knowing bombs don't work in friendly territory for some reason, I now alter my strategy to make sure ground units are covering critical river crossings.

I'd say this would be a good idea either way. Bridges are fixed easily enough.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 28

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Bridge Demolition

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

0.656

Slitherine

Bridge Demolition