Combat engineering

[Mad Russian]

The engineering issues come in several layers. All the US Combat Engineer doctrine I will put forward here was used by the 23rd Engineer Battalion (Combat) which was assigned to the 3rd Armored Division defending the Fulda Gap. Unless I note it as standard US procedure it may well have only been the 23rd CE Bn that used this SOP. I would/will have to cross reference that when the time comes. Not too important at the moment.

First, often times recon/prep teams will be sent out to locate and prepare a site before the main unit shows up.

Second, is that most Combat Engineer tasks, unlike maneuver units may not be performed by entire platoons. Those platoons may be broken down into squad size elements. FPC currently doesn't allow for that

Third, Combat Engineers have to have their equipment with them to do their job like everyone else. Unlike everyone else their equipment often doesn't travel with them in their inherent vehicles.

Fourth, not all engineering support on a battlefield comes from the Combat Engineer Battalions in the ORBAT of the divisions. There are major differences in capabilities and effectiveness of the engineering support from both Corps and Army level engineering assets.

I firmly believe these 4 principles apply to Combat Engineers the world over. No matter the army or the doctrine. These 4 principles, and how they are applied to each nations SOP, will more than likely be the foundation for the Engineering assets applied to FPC in the future. Or something close to this.

We can discuss each of these in turn. Like with most things in the war the aspects of completing engineering tasks are far more complicated than most people think.

Good Hunting.

MR

[VegasOZ]

In light of MR's post, is there any data as to the time a typical Russian or NATO unit takes to bridge a typical European River of moderate or small size?

MR's post suggests to me that if a unit, even with a preparatory scout report, would take at least an hour to setup a crossing? I suspect that now in most of the scenarios that I have played the Russians can do it in around 20 to 30 minutes game time/real time. In short, they do it in one orders pulse/phase.

At the very least I would hope that it takes about 3 times as long to bridge a water obstacle as it does to destroy one (given modern demo methods). So if it takes 1 orders pulse (30 minutes) to blow a bridge maybe it should take 3 orders pulses (90 minutes) to bridge one.
Is there any merit in that view?

[VegasOZ]

I do not believe I have encountered any other ENG functions so far. Is there any obstacle or mine laying functions available to either side?
If not are such capabilities under study/consideration?

[Tazak]

VegasOZ, at present all engineering functions are abstract, minefileds/obstacles/fortifications are placed by the scenario designer while creating the scenario and are locked in placed. Minefield breaching & obstacle clearing are abstracted activities that take a short period of time by any unit that are in the same hex as the minefield/obstacle similar to how bridges are laid/destroyed.

[VegasOZ]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

VegasOZ, at present all engineering functions are abstract, minefileds/obstacles/fortifications are placed by the scenario designer while creating the scenario and are locked in placed. Minefield breaching & obstacle clearing are abstracted activities that take a short period of time by any unit that are in the same hex as the minefield/obstacle similar to how bridges are laid/destroyed.

Thanks.

My understanding of the NATO v WARSAW PACT era is that NATO was going to be hard pressed to hold off the massive Warsaw armored formations. So, I'd vote to have every reasonable combat engineering feature added as is possible. In the meantime, I think I'll add some obstacles and maybe a mine field or two to some of the scenarios where I'm pretty sure NATO would have had to do so and play them out.

[Mad Russian]

Creating bridges in FPC:RS.

Bridges in FPC:RS are for the most part vehicle launch bridges. These are normally carried on the backs of tanks to bridge short gaps. Either water or open gaps such as anti-tank ditches.

All bridging takes place in three steps.

1. A request for bridging takes place and a recon team is sent to prepare a location. Can be done on site if the bridge is at the front of a column or have a recon team sent ahead as a preliminary for an assault.

2. Move the equipment to the site. This can happen immediately if the launch bridge is already at the site.

3. Lay the bridge. This takes a very short amount of time.

This is the sequence for all bridging. Whether or not it involves a vehicle launch bridge. The bigger the gap, the bigger the bridge the longer number 3 takes. The more engineers involved normally the shorter number 3 takes if it is not a vehicle launch bridge.

Since we are dealing with a tactical situation the bridging in the game would be almost exclusively vehicle launch bridges. Those would be found within the lead elements of the Soviet forces if they were doing a Red Storm type of offensive. So, for those concerned with the availability of the Soviets to bridge water obstacles quickly consider that the Soviets are far from stupid. They did extremely detailed studies of the water obstacles in West Germany. As did NATO.

They would have positioned the resources they needed in the places they were needed. Remember, you are not a platoon leader here. You are Battalion/Regimental commander. You would give those resources to your junior commanders and they would use them. You wouldn't be calling up a Captain and asking him if he had his AVLB within 2km of the place you told him to breach the lines. You would assume he would be doing his job.

We assume that too.

That's why you can bridge in such a fashion in FPC:RS.

Good Hunting.

MR

[IronMikeGolf]

The engineer company of a tank regt would have 7 bridge spans

[calgar]

We had the topic of abstraction in another thread. Just to throw something out there: I think the way the Assault-series board games handled Engineering was exceptionally good.

I don't want to narrow down the engineering topic to only bridging isues, but I just found a nice video made by the German Armed Forces that tries to explain river crossing in a simplified and time lapsed manner. These kind of exercises are beeing held yearly to help civilians and young officers understand what the other branches are capable of. Klick here

Regards,

A

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

The engineer company of a tank regt would have 7 bridge spans

Yes, but for a major offensive in Western Europe the normal allotment of equipment wouldn't mean anything. They would be heavily reinforced at the point of attack.

Good Hunting.

MR

[IronMikeGolf]

MR,

My point is at normal levels, there is enough bridging spans for the lead companies (in 2 up, 1 back formation) for each tank bn in a TR. The pretty much lays one bridge for a bn (rarely 2, never seen 3) sot he number of bridges being laid is totally realistic. That's just with organic assets and not taking into account additional assets from higher formations.

Bottom line, the abstraction we have now strikes me as pretty realistic. Might want to put some restrictions on what types of units can bridge. Like not let a recce section do that. Or the lone surviving tank of a tank company