Operational Art Of War IV

[NationalFrost]

The Operational Art Of War IV manual indicates that
any unit can demolish rail lines, however I have not been able to find a way of
doing that. Even having an Engineering Unit directly on a Rail Line, I find
no way of demolishing the railroad line. Can you help me ?

[Curtis Lemay]

Page 3 of the Situation Report shows your Rail Destruction Chance. Normally it is 100% (guaranteed), but the designer can change it to anything, including 0%.

However, this is your chance to destroy enemy owned rail lines. There is no facility to destroy your own rail lines - if that was what you meant.

[rhinobones]

Page 3 of the Situation Report shows your Rail Destruction Chance. Normally it is 100% (guaranteed), but the designer can change it to anything, including 0%.
However, this is your chance to destroy enemy owned rail lines. There is no facility to destroy your own rail lines - if that was what you meant.

The automatic rail destruction described occurs when a friendly unit enters and converts ownership of an enemy hex. In effect, the friendly unit destroys its own supply line as it advances. The rational I’ve heard is that it simulates destruction by the retreating force and/or a change in rail gauge. I think retreating force units with engineering capability, not the advancing units, should be tasked to destroy rails; same as they do with bridges. A case where automatic rail destruction still happens is when combat occurs in the rail hex.

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

Page 3 of the Situation Report shows your Rail Destruction Chance. Normally it is 100% (guaranteed), but the designer can change it to anything, including 0%.
However, this is your chance to destroy enemy owned rail lines. There is no facility to destroy your own rail lines - if that was what you meant.

The automatic rail destruction described occurs when a friendly unit enters and converts ownership of an enemy hex. In effect, the friendly unit destroys its own supply line as it advances. The rational I’ve heard is that it simulates destruction by the retreating force and/or a change in rail gauge. I think retreating force units with engineering capability, not the advancing units, should be tasked to destroy rails; same as they do with bridges. A case where automatic rail destruction still happens is when combat occurs in the rail hex.

Regards

Rail was easily destroyed by this sort of rail car. It just "unzipped" the ties as it traveled.

[rhinobones]

Rail was easily destroyed by this sort of rail car. It just "unzipped" the ties as it traveled.

Agreed, the cutter easily ripped up railroad ties. However, that’s one big chunk of steel and there is no reason to believe that every unit had it in its inventory. Engineers, maybe, but not combat units. Also, the cutter was used intentionally by retreating forces, not advancing forces.

Regards

[Lobster]

That is a German contraption called a Schienenwolf (Rail Wolf) or Schwellenpflug (Sleeper Plough). It was used in Russia during German withdrawals. The wholesale destruction of rail networks was not something that was common anyplace else. Typically destruction of infrastructure like water and coaling stations, repair yards and marshalling yards and equipment plus the destruction of locomotives and railcars was carried out. If there was time. Wholesale damage of the rail network in Russia works because of the different rail gauge. Anyplace else in Europe is questionable at best. But since it can be adjusted via scenario settings I don't see a problem.

[Curtis Lemay]

Rail was easily destroyed by this sort of rail car. It just "unzipped" the ties as it traveled.

Agreed, the cutter easily ripped up railroad ties. However, that’s one big chunk of steel and there is no reason to believe that every unit had it in its inventory.

You just need one per rail line.

Engineers, maybe, but not combat units. Also, the cutter was used intentionally by retreating forces, not advancing forces.

And that's how it functions in the game: The rail line is destroyed as soon as an enemy unit enters the rail hex. Just like a "Scorched Earth" policy.

[Lobster]

You would need two for double track lines.

[Curtis Lemay]

You would need two for double track lines.

Exacly: One per line (of track).

[Cpl GAC]

The automatic rail destruction described occurs when a friendly unit enters and converts ownership of an enemy hex. In effect, the friendly unit destroys its own supply line as it advances. The rational I’ve heard is that it simulates destruction by the retreating force and/or a change in rail gauge. I think retreating force units with engineering capability, not the advancing units, should be tasked to destroy rails; same as they do with bridges. A case where automatic rail destruction still happens is when combat occurs in the rail hex.

Create another gauge rail in the programming & separate rail line gauge symbol seems like a lot of reprogramming.
"rail is hex 20,12 and rail2 is hex 21,11".

How deep into lost territory is a trainload of troops willing to ride and see if the rail line is still intact?

Left04.jpg (168.93 KiB) Viewed 475 times

[rhinobones]

And that's how it functions in the game: The rail line is destroyed as soon as an enemy unit enters the rail hex. Just like a "Scorched Earth" policy.

You make my point. The R/R should be destroyed by the defender before retreating. TOAW has the R/R being destroyed after the attacker captures the hex. Who’s scorching the earth when the defender is no longer there? If anything is to be destroyed it should be by the action of the player, not by senseless automation.

When an attacker enters a bridge hex is the bridge automatically destroyed? No. It is destroyed by the defender prior to retreating. Same should be true of the R/R hex.

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

And that's how it functions in the game: The rail line is destroyed as soon as an enemy unit enters the rail hex. Just like a "Scorched Earth" policy.

You make my point. The R/R should be destroyed by the defender before retreating. TOAW has the R/R being destroyed after the attacker captures the hex. Who’s scorching the earth when the defender is no longer there? If anything is to be destroyed it should be by the action of the player, not by senseless automation.

Nonsense. It is being destroyed automatically by a withdrawing rail car- which can do it's function far faster than any enemy can advance. TOAW is IGUG - the rail can't be destroyed by friendlies simultaeously with enemy advances due to that. It has to be automatic.

When an attacker enters a bridge hex is the bridge automatically destroyed? No. It is destroyed by the defender prior to retreating. Same should be true of the R/R hex.

A case could be made for just that (See Elliot Gould's scene in "A Bridge Too Far"). But the mechanism for bridge destruction is very different and often requires permission from higher up (See later scenes in "A Bridge Too Far" ).

[Lobster]

They didn't have so many Schienenwolf that they could use them on any and every rail line. They were used sparingly. Because they had a very limited number. It's like saying, oh there's some photos of the Spruce Goose. Must have been hundreds of them.

[Curtis Lemay]

They didn't have so many Schienenwolf that they could use them on any and every rail line. They were used sparingly. Because they had a very limited number. It's like saying, oh there's some photos of the Spruce Goose. Must have been hundreds of them.

I'm sure they had as many as they needed. Look at the picture: How burdensome could such a car be? But how often is rail destruction needed?

Note this site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsbauart

Shows 116,645 rail cars made during the war (and that's not a complete total).

[Lobster]

Yeah the Schienenwolf looks simple enough. But the articles I've read said they were used sparingly. Maybe something to do with locomotives. And there is a method for scenario designers to limit railroad destruction. It doesn't have to be 100%. The only place I would do that is in the east. And like rhinobones said, why is it the very people who need the rail lines the ones who destroy them? Makes no sense. I can't imagine why Norm would do that other than to simplify the game. Can you imagine the work involved to order a unit with engineers to destroy every hex of rail? Repetitive motion injury.

[rhinobones]

A case could be made for just that (See Elliot Gould's scene in "A Bridge Too Far"). But the mechanism for bridge destruction is very different and often requires permission from higher up (See later scenes in "A Bridge Too Far" ).

Resorting to Hollywood doesn’t help your case, especially when Robert Redford captured Nijmegen bridge intact.

Totally disagree that somehow blowing a bridge is very different than destroying R/R track. An order is given, a delaying tactic is performed and a withdrawal is performed. No magical higher up permission required. In TOAW a unit should be able to perform “Destroy Track” same as “Destroy Bridge”, IGUG has nothing to do with this action. As for “often requires permission from higher up”, unless there is evidence that this higher up decision occurs often (no movies), I’ll assume this was made up.

Your defense of automatic R/R destruction seems to be centered on the Eastern front while the problem is more universal. Every nation, in every era, in every scenario containing R/R has the potential for 100% automatic destruction. Lobster points out correctly that events can be used to adjust the probability that tracks will be destroyed, but those events are rarely used. As an example, in Gettysburg 1863, when CSA units maneuver across Union controlled track there is a 100% destruction probability. Why? Why is the CSA taking time to destroy R/R track during a maneuver to engage? Union troops were not present so it couldn’t have been the Union denying the CSA use of the track.

This debate is devolving into the same defensive debate as to why hex “in” rivers are superior to hex “side” rivers. It’s a Norman coding issue. Think I’ve made my point so it’s time to put a cap on this.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

Resorting to Hollywood doesn’t help your case, especially when Robert Redford captured Nijmegen bridge intact.

?? Nijmegen bridge was captured intact. "A Bridge Too Far" 1, you 0. In fact, till I'm showed evidence to the contrary, I assume everything in "A Bridge Too Far" was accurate (yes, I know they used some modern tanks in a few scenes).

Totally disagree that somehow blowing a bridge is very different than destroying R/R track. An order is given, a delaying tactic is performed and a withdrawal is performed. No magical higher up permission required. In TOAW a unit should be able to perform “Destroy Track” same as “Destroy Bridge”, IGUG has nothing to do with this action. As for “often requires permission from higher up”, unless there is evidence that this higher up decision occurs often (no movies), I’ll assume this was made up.

Rail destruction by the special car I showed is obviously very different from needing to place expolosives on a bridge. And if the higher up command can't decide if they will want to retain the bridge for counterattack purposes, it can result in the bridge being captured - just as Nijmegan bridge was.

As an example, in Gettysburg 1863, when CSA units maneuver across Union controlled track there is a 100% destruction probability. Why? Why is the CSA taking time to destroy R/R track during a maneuver to engage? Union troops were not present so it couldn’t have been the Union denying the CSA use of the track.

OK, I overlooked that and it'll get fixed. Not that it affects anything in the scenario since neither side has rail capacity. Designers do have that ability to reduce the destruction chances. But, it remains correct that it should remain automatic because of the IGUG fact that I posted earlier.

I would also point out that there can be a significant difference in what is considered "destroyed" for rail lines. Designers can make it much easier to repair lines by how they design their rail repair assets. Lots of high-mobilty rail repair units models light damage being repaired. One rail repair unit per line with only one MP per turn models very severe damage (or even a different gauge).

[Lobster]

But why would an advancing army destory the very rails that they will need to receive supply and reinforcements? Let's leave Russia out of this since that is a special case. I would think the retreating army would do the destruction for example with the piece of equipment you have mentioned.

[Curtis Lemay]

But why would an advancing army destory the very rails that they will need to receive supply and reinforcements? Let's leave Russia out of this since that is a special case. I would think the retreating army would do the destruction for example with the piece of equipment you have mentioned.

The retreating army is doing the destruction - automatically, simultaneously with the advance of their enemy.

[altipueri]

Here's a few more pictures of the rail destroyer - including one of it being used in Italy:

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/schwel ... ough-1944/

They were made by Krupp.