 |
|
MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? (/showthread.php?tid=65895) Pages:
1
2
|
MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - HirooOnoda - 02-26-2014 List, Almost every combat vehicle-not the mobile arty mind you-has a real-life amphibious capability, yet this capability is mysteriously absent. Why is that? Given that the T-80 didn't have TI in 1985, or at any time in the 1980s, why would we not give the WP units the amphibious capabilities they have in real life? RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Ricky B - 02-26-2014 Which game specifically? I don't believe the tanks have, or should have, amphib for any nation, and agree with that as the prep time was extensive and didn't necessarily work as well as some said, as best I can tell. For example, it took a very level entry and exit point for tanks to enter and leave the water, and a fairly low current speed. I think that is the reason given originally, at least from memory. I have books from back in the 80s, backed by what we learned in the Marines, that in training exercises, the Soviets would lay concrete across river bottoms to improve the ability of tanks to cross rivers without being lost - doesn't mean it was true but I have heard that from more than one source. But in DF, at least, most or all the WP infantry is amphibious. Works for me overall, anyway. Rick RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - HirooOnoda - 02-26-2014 (02-26-2014, 03:06 PM)Ricky B Wrote: Which game specifically? I don't believe the tanks have, or should have, amphib for any nation, and agree with that as the prep time was extensive and didn't necessarily work as well as some said, as best I can tell. For example, it took a very level entry and exit point for tanks to enter and leave the water, and a fairly low current speed. I think that is the reason given originally, at least from memory. Hi Rick, I'm sure that if WP engineer unit was in the same hex it could be prepared for said fording by the tanks. Take care! PS Thinking NGP for example RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Aaron - 02-26-2014 From things I read about WP tanks/tactics snorkeling would be more of a last resort. If it was used at all it would be to put a company of tanks across to help secure the far side of the river while a pontoon was built but most would be ferried across whenever possible. As far as mass use of snorkeling even at a Bn level I dont see happening let alone a whole Bde or Div. Aaron Maybe a better question is why we can ferry troops across but not tanks/ifvs RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Volcano Man - 02-27-2014 BMP, BTR, BRDM have amphibious capability in real life and do so in MC games. Tanks are not amphibious in real life, and as such, are not amphibious in MC. It takes great preparation to get in a fordable state, and when done some tanks may/will be lost in the process. It is time consuming and risky. In other words, there is no bias there. ;) RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Steelwhip - 02-28-2014 really? how do you get them to use amphib movement to cross a river, cause I have never found out how to do it even after trying several times in FG '85. have managed to lose a scenario or 2 with a buddy of mine because of it ("15_02s: Next Stop Aschaffenburg" Im looking at you.....) RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Mr Grumpy - 03-01-2014 Long time since I played an MC scenario, when you have full MP do you not put them into T mode when adjacent to the river and you can move across?? RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Ricky B - 03-01-2014 I believe that is right. The unit must be in good order I think, start next to the river, go into t mode, be able to enter the terrain on both sides of the river etc. RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - Steelwhip - 03-01-2014 Ill check that..but for some reason I thought I had tried that and never got it to work RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - JDR Dragoon - 03-02-2014 The use of snorkeling equipment on WAPA (and NATO, the Leopard 1 could do it as well) tanks was primarily done as an administrative move, after proper scouting (by divers and engineers) of the riverbed and both banks. It is something that might be done in order to alleviate the pressure and congestion on established engineer bridges, which are vulnerable to enemy air attack (both the the bridges and the units waiting to cross the bridge). This is how an opposed crossing of a major river might be done (from an East-German film on the Waffenbrüderschaft 80 WAPA exercise): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC98UqytUCg 0.38: The WAPA commander decides to attempt a quick crossing of the river before NATOs defences can be strenghtened further. To this puprose the opposite bank is taken under artillery fire and airmobile infantry is used to "bounce" the river. 1.30: Divers are dropped into the river in order to ascertain the passability of the opposite riverbank. 1.41: BMP fighting vehicles cross the river using their inherent amphibious ability. 2.08: Helicopter Gunships in support. 2.22: MiG 23s over the bridgehead (might be airsupport or aircover). 2.30: Amphibious ferries moving up to the riverbank in the background (looks like PTS-M) 2.38: The ace in the hole; soviet paratroppers w. BMDs are dropped in the depth of the NATO defences in order to secure the bridgehead against counterattacks (this is c hronologically supposed to take place before the film starts). The Youtube clip ends before the river crossing is complete, but the original film ends with the erection of PMP pontoon bridges and the use of ferries to move across tanks and towed artillery (notice: tanks goes last, not first!) This film is similar (River crossing starts at 1.00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtAHw4NeQoQ This film shows just how problematic and dangerous snorkeling is (1.25.25 FWD) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C99h5hSZwQ |
){kind=link}