Blowing Bridges with Stukas?

[Seydlitz69]

Isnt it possible to blow bridges with air units? Iam currently playing Fall Weiß and I wanted to cut some retreat routes for the Poles but my air units are only able to blow bridges beside the hexes they´re stationed in.

[vonRocko]

I have seen bridges get destroyed by air attacks on units, it was collateral damage, but I don't think you can target bridges with air attacks.

[goodwoodrw]

Yep I have destroyed bridges unintentionally, while attacking ground troops, a bit of a bother, u have find an engineer to rebuild it. A nice touch I think.

[borsook79]

It's a good idea, we should be able to destroy bridges both by air and artillery attacks, it did happen quite often.

[GBS]

This is the kind of question that VIC should respond to....it think. He must be on vacation.

[Seydlitz69]

I think this should be made possible. Cutting the enemy´s line of communication was a very important part of Blitzkrieg.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

It's a good idea, we should be able to destroy bridges both by air and artillery attacks, it did happen quite often.

Did it happen quite often in 1939/40, later in the war the allies had a comprehensive campaign to destroy bridges prior to D-Day and used enormous air power to achieve it (using multiple strikes and numbers of aircraft that the Germans could only dream of). The Germans probably did not want to destroy bridges in 1939/40, therefore, we don't know how successful they would have been, whilst the Allies demonstrated total failure to destroy bridges with air power. [:)]

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Borsook

It's a good idea, we should be able to destroy bridges both by air and artillery attacks, it did happen quite often.

Did it happen quite often in 1939/40, later in the war the allies had a comprehensive campaign to destroy bridges prior to D-Day and used enormous air power to achieve it (using multiple strikes and numbers of aircraft that the Germans could only dream of). The Germans probably did not want to destroy bridges in 1939/40, therefore, we don't know how successful they would have been, whilst the Allies demonstrated total failure to destroy bridges with air power. [:)]

I'm sorry but this is not a good argument. Stukas were quite good at this task, indeed in 1939/40 Germans did not try to destroy bridges very often (actually they used dive bombers to prevent the enemy from destroying the bridges). But why should it matter? This is a game, not a movie, if the player wants to attempt to destroy bridges by aircraft he/she should be able to do so, regardless of the fact whether it is a good move or not.

[hank]

When I saw this topic I had to wait to see how it was received. The blowing of bridges by air strike has been debated (heatedly) on other game forums. I don't recall the outcome(s) but I would suggest some good research before implementing it. Especially the ease factor. From what i've read in my past, it was very difficult to totally destroy a bridge behind enemy lines with air strikes. The combination of AA and the pilots ability to hit a bridge (10 or 20 miles behind the lines) ... well enough to knock it down, make it a high risk and low probability of success mission. ... not saying don't put it in, just saying be aware of how realistic the system models success.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: hank

When I saw this topic I had to wait to see how it was received. The blowing of bridges by air strike has been debated (heatedly) on other game forums. I don't recall the outcome(s) but I would suggest some good research before implementing it. Especially the ease factor. From what i've read in my past, it was very difficult to totally destroy a bridge behind enemy lines with air strikes. The combination of AA and the pilots ability to hit a bridge (10 or 20 miles behind the lines) ... well enough to knock it down, make it a high risk and low probability of success mission. ... not saying don't put it in, just saying be aware of how realistic the system models success.

Yes, this is a very good point. Fortunately the game does not give 100% chance of blowing up a bridge so it's just a matter of tweaking it. Still it would be nice to have this possibility, whatever the success rate.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Borsook

It's a good idea, we should be able to destroy bridges both by air and artillery attacks, it did happen quite often.

Did it happen quite often in 1939/40, later in the war the allies had a comprehensive campaign to destroy bridges prior to D-Day and used enormous air power to achieve it (using multiple strikes and numbers of aircraft that the Germans could only dream of). The Germans probably did not want to destroy bridges in 1939/40, therefore, we don't know how successful they would have been, whilst the Allies demonstrated total failure to destroy bridges with air power. [:)]

I'm sorry but this is not a good argument. Stukas were quite good at this task, indeed in 1939/40 Germans did not try to destroy bridges very often (actually they used dive bombers to prevent the enemy from destroying the bridges). But why should it matter? This is a game, not a movie, if the player wants to attempt to destroy bridges by aircraft he/she should be able to do so, regardless of the fact whether it is a good move or not.

How do we know that Stukas were 'quite good at this task', how many bridges were destroyed by Stukas at this stage of the war. It doesn't matter why they were not used to destroy bridges, they just weren't.

Stukas were very effective, as they did not have to hit the target to disrupt and demoralise forces, during the Meuse crossing at Sedan, constant dive bombing failed to hit most of the fortified positions, but did effectively suppress them, to assist the crossing to take place. However, to destroy a bridge you have obtain direct hits, nothing less will do, my point is that there is little evidence to assess how effective airpower in 1939/40 was in destroying bridges. I agree, this is not a movie, where the bridge goes up spectacularly when required, so how does the game designer set the odds for how easy it is to destroy briges, when there is so little data to work from. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: hank

When I saw this topic I had to wait to see how it was received. The blowing of bridges by air strike has been debated (heatedly) on other game forums. I don't recall the outcome(s) but I would suggest some good research before implementing it. Especially the ease factor. From what i've read in my past, it was very difficult to totally destroy a bridge behind enemy lines with air strikes. The combination of AA and the pilots ability to hit a bridge (10 or 20 miles behind the lines) ... well enough to knock it down, make it a high risk and low probability of success mission. ... not saying don't put it in, just saying be aware of how realistic the system models success.

I agree, if the designers wish to add this feature to the game, it would probabliy be on the basis of a very low chance of success. Historically the allies lost many aircraft in a vain attempt to destroy the German bridges over the Meuse, but that was their choice until they gave up trying, which most players would also do, if the odds were set historically [:)]

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa




Did it happen quite often in 1939/40, later in the war the allies had a comprehensive campaign to destroy bridges prior to D-Day and used enormous air power to achieve it (using multiple strikes and numbers of aircraft that the Germans could only dream of). The Germans probably did not want to destroy bridges in 1939/40, therefore, we don't know how successful they would have been, whilst the Allies demonstrated total failure to destroy bridges with air power. [:)]

I'm sorry but this is not a good argument. Stukas were quite good at this task, indeed in 1939/40 Germans did not try to destroy bridges very often (actually they used dive bombers to prevent the enemy from destroying the bridges). But why should it matter? This is a game, not a movie, if the player wants to attempt to destroy bridges by aircraft he/she should be able to do so, regardless of the fact whether it is a good move or not.

How do we know that Stukas were 'quite good at this task', how many bridges were destroyed by Stukas at this stage of the war. It doesn't matter why they were not used to destroy bridges, they just weren't.

Stukas were very effective, as they did not have to hit the target to disrupt and demoralise forces, during the Meuse crossing at Sedan, constant dive bombing failed to hit most of the fortified positions, but did effectively suppress them, to assist the crossing to take place. However, to destroy a bridge you have obtain direct hits, nothing less will do, my point is that there is little evidence to assess how effective airpower in 1939/40 was in destroying bridges. I agree, this is not a movie, where the bridge goes up spectacularly when required, so how does the game designer set the odds for how easy it is to destroy briges, when there is so little data to work from. [:)]

Of course direct hit is necessary, but this was the main strength of this plane, being able to score very precise hits. That is why they were used to prevent destroying of bridges, they targeted little buildings which contained the controls of the charges I can't see how they could miss a bridge, which has been shown by the later stages of the war.

[hank]

I agree whole heartedly with the last two posts. I think it should be in since it was an activity that did happen but the risk and likelihood of success also needs to be accurately modelled.

Of course it we don't know if it will be added or not but its fun discussing it.

[&o]

ps: of course if this was a present day wargame, success of hitting a bridge would be much much better considering the accuracy of laser guided munitions. [8D]

pss: while thinking on this subject I realized a (IMHO) realistic consequence for having the ability to bomb bridges ... Key bridges behind enemy lines (and the player's front lines) would need AA units located in the bridge hex to help safeguard those key supply lines ... how would this affect the game? Is there enough separate AA units to guard important river crossings? ... just more food for thought .... hehehehehee!! ... forgive me, its Friday and I'm a happy camper.

[Rasputitsa]

[/quote]

Of course direct hit is necessary, but this was the main strength of this plane, being able to score very precise hits. That is why they were used to prevent destroying of bridges, they targeted little buildings which contained the controls of the charges I can't see how they could miss a bridge, which has been shown by the later stages of the war.

[/quote]

The Luftwaffe attempts hit the radar stations in Britain demonstrates the ability of the Stuka to disrupt, by damaging cables, buildings, electronic equipment and personnel (or keeping them in shelters), but they had hardly any effect on the lattice-work aerial towers (similar construction to most large bridges). So we would be adding a game feature because we think it should be possible, but we don't know the odds, because there is no historical data.

The Luftwaffe had a limited effect on the Dunkirk evacuation shippig, many of them slow and unarmed. However, the Germans learned from the experience and by 1941 Fliegerkorps X arrived in the Mediterranean as a potent anti-shipping force. In 1944 the allies used airpower to destroy large numbers of bridges in France, but this was achieved by huge numbers of aircraft, none of them true dive-bombers. It is difficult to apply the results from different periods in the war to other time intervals.

I am not making these points just for fun, we cannot ask the designers for a feature just because we want it, there has to be some justification and historical data to work with, or else the result is just guesswork and wishful thinking. [:)]

[vonRocko]

In my opinion, this game don't need this feature. I don't feel it would have any big impact on game play and strategy. Besides, as the German, I would just have to rebuild them later anyhow.

[typhoon]

Seen this debate go on for a number of games. For me it would just be a bit of unessasary glitz good for the legend of the stuka not so good for the game

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Of course direct hit is necessary, but this was the main strength of this plane, being able to score very precise hits. That is why they were used to prevent destroying of bridges, they targeted little buildings which contained the controls of the charges I can't see how they could miss a bridge, which has been shown by the later stages of the war.

[/quote]

The Luftwaffe attempts hit the radar stations in Britain demonstrates the ability of the Stuka to disrupt, by damaging cables, buildings, electronic equipment and personnel (or keeping them in shelters), but they had hardly any effect on the lattice-work aerial towers (similar construction to most large bridges). So we would be adding a game feature because we think it should be possible, but we don't know the odds, because there is no historical data.

The Luftwaffe had a limited effect on the Dunkirk evacuation shippig, many of them slow and unarmed. However, the Germans learned from the experience and by 1941 Fliegerkorps X arrived in the Mediterranean as a potent anti-shipping force. In 1944 the allies used airpower to destroy large numbers of bridges in France, but this was achieved by huge numbers of aircraft, none of them true dive-bombers. It is difficult to apply the results from different periods in the war to other time intervals.

I am not making these points just for fun, we cannot ask the designers for a feature just because we want it, there has to be some justification and historical data to work with, or else the result is just guesswork and wishful thinking. [:)]
[/quote]
These are very valid points, but please do not forget that we're talking early war here, actually a large number of bridges in Poland were wooden ones. The tries to simulate the quality of the bridges giving them totally random strength, and this should work nicely with this feature. If get a low roll for the bridge (i.e. old wooden one) the attack should succeed, with the higher one fail.

[Krupinski]

ORIGINAL: Seydlitz69

I think this should be made possible. Cutting the enemy´s line of communication was a very important part of Blitzkrieg.

i've the same opinion. a direct attack must be possible by air unit.

[bcgames]

I would offer a compromise solution. Decisive Campaigns is an operational game so provide the player a means to use his air power to interdict the movement of enemy units. Bridge crossing sites are easier to interdict than roads...which are easier to interdict than non-bridge, non-road hexes, etc. Make it a function of how many action points are expended to enter an interdicted hex.

Attacking a bridge specifically is a tactical solution; slowing movement in an area is an operational solution...which is potentially a combination of several tactical solutions...attack the bridge, attack the HQ in control of an area, attacking unit's on the road, attacking engineers maintaining a bridge, the air defenders, etc. "Interdiction" can represent a roll-up of all these tactical effects.