Bridge Demolition

[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. 

[RERomine]

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

[Dr. Foo]

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

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.