Matrix Games Forums

I remember engineering activities being a possibility for 2.1 (or later) but cant find the thread as my search-fu is weak. And hile I'm sure you folks at OTS have plan of what your going to include I thought I'd put my 2pence in [:)]

Defensive:
Minefield Laying
a. Manual mine laying
b. Scatterable AP mine laying (not FASCAM as that’s arty)
c. Vehicle/towed AT mine laying
Obstacle Construction
a. Cratering/explosive digging
b. Booby trapping (act like mines but limited effect/disappear after 1 “attack”, should only be used in conjunction with obstacles)
c. Bridge blowing
d. Antitank ditches
e. barbed wire
Creation of field defences such as trenches, vehicle scrapes and HQ dugouts

Do we need a better breakdown of ‘hold’ & ‘improved’ positions in relation to infantry? (Or do I need to update my understanding of current mechanisms)
a. Shellscrapes – minor benefits obtained after 30min-1hour under hold orders and no enemy contact i.e. minor protection from ground burst & ground fire, no protection from airburst
b. Foxholes – decent benefits gained after 2-4 hours under hold orders and no enemy contact i.e. good protection from ground burst & ground fire, minor protection from airburst
c. Trenches with OHP/fortified positions i.e. good protection from ground burst & ground fire and airburst – requires engineering support/units nearby and 6+ hours in hold orders and no enemy contact or prepositioned before battle start

Offensive:
Minefield Breaching (and obstacle breaching? or should this cover different activities and equipment)
a. Mine ploughs and rollers
b. Tank dozer and rollers blades
c. Explosive mine clearance devices
d. Manual mine clearance
Water obstacle crossing
a. Mobile & temporary bridges
b. Mobile ferries

I like your list Tazak. I will repost my list here, that I have posted on the 7/18 for the first time.

Engineering

The minimum I would expect is

1.) dedicated ScatMine Systems, dedicated Mine Breaching Systems, Mine plows and rollers.
2.) Dedicated River Crossing Equipment, including AVLBs and Ribbon Bridges. Introduction of different river tyes. (Maybe Stream, Minor and Major River?)
3.) Helo Delivered Minefields.
4.) Point Minefields
5.) Preplanned minefields vs. hasty minefields (Authorization takes time)

I would be delighted to see:

1.) The Ability to put down lanes, and close them later.
2.) Proper Nato Battlefield graphics (A replacement for the bridge marker would be nice too...)
3.) Single- and double density minefields.
4.) An engineering control window (Maybe as part of the TOC) where I can see how many AEVs are are available for what task, and e.g. how many hexes of AT Scatt mines I have still available. Plus the Option to dispatch an available ScattmMien System to a pre planned Minefield.
5.) Abatis, Anti-Tank Ditches, and Cratering.

A

Thanks Calgar, I was browsing cold war gamer blog and it made me remember the conversations but not the content

How many of you were in combat engineering during your time of service?

I was.

That's one.

Anyone else?

Good Hunting.

MR

Now, I know that sometimes on forums comments come off as more harsh as they were intended to be, but I can't help but feel that your comment MR, is quite provocative.

What would you like to tell us? that all non-engineers on this forum are from now on excluded from discussing engineering issues? Do you disagree with anything that has been put forward, why not say so?

A

I think we can safely say we do have first hand experience with combat engineering on the team and yes we do listen to all suggestions put forth from the players. The mechanics of engineering will get a boost in the next game. Let's take a deep breath and let things settle.

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

How many of you were in combat engineering during your time of service?

Does assault pioneer training count

Tazak, I would think so. It would be interesting to see the particular methods and methodology used by the various forces.

it was a 2 week course mainly around low level stuff to be handled by an infantry bn, they trialled it but I left before they announced if they were scrapping it or keeping it. 1 infantry platoon strength trained in small scale mine laying and detection, booby traps and making road blocks or culvert demo, rarely had to use much in the way of C4. I assumed that the major stuff would still be handled by actual combat engineers, bridge blowing, full minefields etc..

Good information. Thanks.

Should add that under the trial the battalions used existing man power by reassigning a regular platoon and sending them on a course.

Fun course though, making things go bang [:)], loved being allowed to plan and implement booby traps in the training rooms...sadly they stopped short of letting me use real C4

ORIGINAL: calgar

Now, I know that sometimes on forums comments come off as more harsh as they were intended to be, but I can't help but feel that your comment MR, is quite provocative.

What would you like to tell us? that all non-engineers on this forum are from now on excluded from discussing engineering issues? Do you disagree with anything that has been put forward, why not say so?

A

What I'm going to tell you is that for most of you combat engineering isn't like you may think it is. That's why I'm hoping that I can identify CE's that may have served in other nations. It would be good to know who they are when the time comes to include them for the nations besides the US. I have the knowledge and the manuals to do the US CE tasks. Just wondering how close other nations CE's doctrine would be to ours.

Sorry the post came off negative.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Tazak

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

How many of you were in combat engineering during your time of service?

Does assault pioneer training count

Yes, what we are going to need to do, in the case of Combat Engineering, as we have done with all other aspects of the game is to get as much input from different sources as possible to give us a well rounded a perspective as we can get. I have US and Soviet CE doctrine. UK/West German/French/Canadian/etc.....I have no idea about. Anyone that can shed light on those organizations and SOP we would be glad to have enter into this conversation.

Not saying that those of you that weren't CE's don't know what it is they are capable of providing, just saying that you may well not know how it's provided. Somewhat like knowing if you call the artillery they fire a mission for you while not understanding the process they use to fire the mission.

Good Hunting.

MR

My strongest impression about the engineering in the game thus far is that the Russians seem to be able to deploy or construct a tank capable bridge rather quickly. A bit too quickly.

I look forward to improvements in the ENG functions and will await patiently.

Thanks.

Don't think about bridges in the game being constructed. The bridging in the game is represented more with the use of AVLB's. Armored Vehicle Launch Bridges. They take roughly 5 minutes to lay down. That's pretty quick. We don't allow them to be put down that fast because of other things like preparing the location of the launch etc. but in actuality they are put in place very quickly.

That's what I meant by non-CE's not necessarily understanding the processes and just understanding the end results.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Don't think about bridges in the game being constructed. The bridging in the game is represented more with the use of AVLB's. Armored Vehicle Launch Bridges. They take roughly 5 minutes to lay down. That's pretty quick. We don't allow them to be put down that fast because of other things like preparing the location of the launch etc. but in actuality they are put in place very quickly.

That's what I meant by non-CE's not necessarily understanding the processes and just understanding the end results.

Good Hunting.

MR

All things considered even with the equipment available I don't believe most Russian military units could cast a bridge across a river in less than at least an hour... all things considered.

It is not a deal breaker from my point of view, but in a fast moving offensive operation I seriously doubt that they could do it in 5 minutes.

On the question of ENG capability, do Soviet line units have with them bridging equipment at all times?

Should not bridging be a capability of a specific ENG unit?

I do not know Soviet TO&E, so I ask the question.

Ideally, I think non-amphibious units should NOT have any bridging capability. Without Engineers no Armor unit I was ever in would ever get across anything bigger than a fairly shallow stream. If it's not something an AVLB could span, no crossing so IMO, if no Engineer unit is at the location, they are stuck. That same thing I think would make the extra assets that much more valuable to the BN/BDE Commander and require more input on maneuvering them into the correct location at the right time. Just my 2 cents.

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

On the question of ENG capability, do Soviet line units have with them bridging equipment at all times?

Should not bridging be a capability of a specific ENG unit?

I do not know Soviet TO&E, so I ask the question.

I believe there were some TMM bridging vehicles as well as 'motorised ferries'(GSP vehicles) held at Division level, the soviet knew they had a number of rivers/large streams to cross and planned accordingly, I would like to think they also expected every bridge between France and Moscow to a target for NATO airstrikes [:)]

Mad russian

Sorry the post came off negative.

I am very glad for that clarification, sorry that I interpreted it wrong.

Mad Russian

Yes, what we are going to need to do, in the case of Combat Engineering, as we have done with all other aspects of the game is to get as much input from different sources as possible to give us a well rounded a perspective as we can get. I have US and Soviet CE doctrine. UK/West German/French/Canadian/etc.....I have no idea about. Anyone that can shed light on those organizations and SOP we would be glad to have enter into this conversation.

I perfectly understand what you mean. As for me, I am no Engineer. What I can bring to the table is what I learned at Army Academy in 2011 (so not necessarily Cold War standard). No matter what branch you are in, in Germany we all learn the ropes by leading a TankBn in a simulated retrograde operation. Classes in Engineering included. Just not from an "proper" engineering perspective, but from the Cdr perspective(Limitations, Capabilities, basic SOPs, Org etc.).

VegasOZ

Should not bridging be a capability of a specific ENG unit?

MR will be the expert on this, but there are a number of MTU-80/55 AVLBs and TMMs in every Rgt + what is coming from higher echolon. They are then cross-attached to the lower echolon, when needed.

A