Bridge Demolition

[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?

[alaric99x]

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.

[Dr. Foo]

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.

[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."

[Dr. Foo]

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."

[:D] 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!" [;)]

[alaric99x]

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

[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.

[Dr. Foo]

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.

[:D]

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. [:-]

[nemo69]

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.

[FaneFlugt]

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.

[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

[RERomine]

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.

[alaric99x]

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.  

[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.

[RERomine]

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.

[RERomine]

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 [:)]

[Dr. Foo]

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. [:D]

[RERomine]

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. [:D]

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.

[SMK-at-work]

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.

[RERomine]

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.