9.2.2 Bridge Demolitioin - Huh?

[Mad Russian]

Something we have tried to show in the game is that Soviet forces would more than likely have been anything but paper tigers. The Soviet military studied the art of war more closely than any other nation after WWII. They had 20+ million good reasons to do so.

What you would have seen is Soviet assault troops that would have been a level or so down from their NATO counterparts. What would have offset that training deficiency would have been numbers. It's the same old story. Quality vs quantity.

The Germans in WWII tried the quality vs quantity and we all know how that turned out. I don't see there being much difference in what NATO planned to try than what the Germans put into actual practice in WWII. I would think the results would be very closely related.

Soviet combat formations in the opening days would have taken tremendous losses at the points of attack. The breakthroughs would have been costly. All that is acceptable to their art of war.

What would be telling, IMO, would be the meeting engagements with tanks at under 2000 meters. With NATO airfields in shambles from chemical and high yield missile attacks. With their logistical centers unmanned, by the mass of civilian laborers they use from those very same chemical attacks. From the lack of the Reforger units to get to Europe. '10 Divisions in 10 Days' assumes everything goes NATO's way. Including air superiority and trans-oceanic naval superiority. Personally, from what I've seen of history, when you have to have everything work perfectly for your plan to succeed, you are in deep trouble.

That's how I wrote the history of the war. It's what I gave to you in the campaigns/scenarios and briefings.

In short, NATO is fighting for it's very existence and is fighting a desperate delaying action. Sometimes they win local battles but the tide always surges on toward the Atlantic ocean.

With all the pages of briefings I wrote I thought a couple of times about writing the Red Storm book to go with the game. So far, I've not. Time is an issue in that regard. As well as a lack of writing talent on my part. [:(]

Good Hunting.

MR

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

We'll never resolve the question of 'what if,' of course. Mad Russian's view is certainly viable. So are the views of those who feel that NATO's technical edge and the Pact's internal issues would have made the difference. Me, I'm sort of torn. I think tactically and operationally the Pact had the advantage, because they'd have the initiative, and barring a political miracle they'd have a degree of surprise, at least at the level of morale and psychology if not at a purely tactical level. Oh, and numbers. In the medium-long term, I don't think they'd have had the resources or the internal structure to sustain a campaign, but that only means that probably the damn thing would have gone nuclear, because once the USSR had committed itself to an attack, it could hardly back out. The one thing that's for sure is that it would have been a Bad Thing for all concerned.

Which is one reason it never happened--there was no upside for the Kremlin, really.

Anyhow, I certainly agree a large LGB could blow up a small bridge real good. But I tend to agree with MR in his assessment of how much air you'd get supporting you at this level, and what kind. But again, no one really knows. In game terms, I don't think it makes much difference. The Pact can throw up bridges all over the damn place, so blowing up one isn't going to help much unless it's the Remagen bridge type of thing.

[Tazak]

Playing devil's advocate, if ARM/SEAD aircraft are available in game shouldn't larger LGB/PGM be available. NATO stocks of ARM are smaller than Mk84 and LGB conversions kits.

I think ground forces wouldn't have seen airforce support for a number of days until the airwar had swung one way or the other and providing NATO can retro fit older generation of aircraft with the capability to use PGM as there would likely be high losses on current aircraft.

[CapnDarwin]

Tazak,

There should be a number of PGM configuration for aircraft in the data. It would depend on the scenario designer and what he wanted to do for the scenario.

I would also have to think that the NATO brass would look at hitting major bridges to the rear to slow/stop the flow of reinforcements and supplies versus a small bridge in the FEBA.

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Tazak,

There should be a number of PGM configuration for aircraft in the data. It would depend on the scenario designer and what he wanted to do for the scenario.

I would also have to think that the NATO brass would look at hitting major bridges to the rear to slow/stop the flow of reinforcements and supplies versus a small bridge in the FEBA.

I know which target I'd want hit, slow the current formation down by 60 minutes or 2-3 divisions by 2 days....

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: combatengineerjr

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Tazak,

There should be a number of PGM configuration for aircraft in the data. It would depend on the scenario designer and what he wanted to do for the scenario.

I would also have to think that the NATO brass would look at hitting major bridges to the rear to slow/stop the flow of reinforcements and supplies versus a small bridge in the FEBA.

I know which target I'd want hit, slow the current formation down by 60 minutes or 2-3 divisions by 2 days....

Yep, and IIRC that was doctrine, part of the deep strike aspect of air land battle. Ride out the initial push and cut off the spearheads in the rear so that the offensive sort of atrophies and you can counter attack. Dunno if it would have worked, but that was sort of the plan.

[Akmatov]

Mad Russian, thx for taking to time to clear up some confusion.

I think there has been a bit of talking about different things in these posts. There are different levels of water obstacles and different levels of bridges involved and I think sometimes we posters have been talking about different things. For example, the comment by Cpt Darwin:

The only other system I would at least consider is a level bomber(s) with a big enough PGM(s)

The smaller streams and canals are below the scale of the game. These are the obstacles where the Soviets would just put a tank mounted bridge over and keep rolling. The water obstacles being discussed are mainly the medium sized bridges over 'Streams' which the rules define as 'minor rivers'. And occasionally major bridges over major rivers.

As I understand how these things work, the ground commander requests a strike on a target, the fire control people determine the appropriate munition and availability, if the munition and the delivery means are available the strike is conducted. This is where the game would make the decision as to whether the strike occurs. You (Mad Russian) are of the opinion that the initial Soviet surge would so degrade NATO air assets that there would be

very little NATO air available in the opening rounds of World War III

. This is a very reasonable view.

Hmm, however, the game supports the scenario designer including air assets 'on call'. And here my newness to the game system and ignorance come up: Can a scenario designer create on call air assets with munitions capable of taking out a bridge? Thinking while writing. Just checked the American-USER.xls and find the AGM65D Maverick, GBU-10 & 12 Paveway II guided missiles available. So I suspect that the scenario author could assign bridge busting air assets to be on call if he wanted to and thought such would be realistic. The solution has arrived.

Once I figure out how to use the Scenario Editor, I think I'm going to do some experiments.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov


Hmm, however, the game supports the scenario designer including air assets 'on call'. And here my newness to the game system and ignorance come up: Can a scenario designer create on call air assets with munitions capable of taking out a bridge? Thinking while writing. Just checked the American-USER.xls and find the AGM65D Maverick, GBU-10 & 12 Paveway II guided missiles available. So I suspect that the scenario author could assign bridge busting air assets to be on call if he wanted to and thought such would be realistic. The solution has arrived.

Once I figure out how to use the Scenario Editor, I think I'm going to do some experiments.

I don't think those weapons systems will attack a bridge at this time.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

MR is correct. Right now the code does not allow for bridges to be "attacked" in any fashion except by engineering demolition and I believe nuke strikes (which pretty much wreck everything). We would need to make a specific strike option for certain aircraft to engage a bridge.

[Akmatov]

Rats.

Any chance of a tweak?

And thanks for saving me the frustration of trying it and then having to figure out what I had done wrong.