Attacking a Full Bridge Hex by Air

Dogbert · 04-15-2008, 08:37 AM,

An interesting result the other night in a D85 game. I had an engineer unit wiring a bridge for demolition (in travel mode, on bridge performing bridge ops) only to be wiped out COMPLETELY by an air strike.

Now, I don't really have a problem with the unit being wiped out completely. They are on a bridge over water after all. My problem is that an air strike could wipe them out and yet not damage the bridge! Here is a unit wiring explosives to a bridge that can be wiped out without doing any damage to the bridge? It seems to me that there ought to at least be a chance that the bridge is damaged during an air attack against it.

In any case, this doesn't seem to make sense to me. Is there a reason for this?

Note that the inability to blow this one bridge isn't going to affect the outcome of the game one way or the other. I'm just curious as to the reason for the result.

JonS1 · 04-15-2008, 09:40 AM,

See here.

Dogbert · 04-15-2008, 10:22 AM,

Close, but not the same as what I was talking about (although I was wondering about that as well).

This is a case where there is a full hex bridge. A unit was attacked BY AIR while on the bridge. The unit was wiped out by air while wiring the bridge for demolition. The question wasn't about why you couldn't order an airstrike against a bridge, it was why attacking a unit on the bridge didn't risk damaging the bridge.

Dog Soldier · 04-15-2008, 05:26 PM,

Dogbert,

Could the following make sense?

1. The air attack was a strafing attack. Not every engineer in the unit was KIA, many were wounded by the guns and flying debris from near misses. Enough to cause the unit to cease to function as a unit?

2. The charges being placed, even if hit might not go off since the primers were not yet in place. I'm not an explosives expert, but I think even modern bridge demo charges are inert until that little something is added that makes them truely dangerous to be around.

Dog Soldier

Dogbert · 04-16-2008, 07:38 AM,

I thought about that, but it really doesn't make sense for bridges of this length and with 1985 technology. You have 100 guys spread out over a 1 km bridge (and probably mostly hanging over the edge where they need to be to get at the structure). Heck, many of these guys are probably in boats under the bridge attaching explosives to the footings and supports! The very nature of wiring a bridge for demolation involves being under substantial cover.

I don't see how a strafing attack is going to have much effect. It isn't as if these guys are really in travel mode marching along the roadway and are easy to hit. You are going to have to work to get at them.

Zemke · 04-17-2008, 01:21 AM,

Bridges are very hard to destroy. It takes just the right hits at the right spot to drop a bridge. The bridge may have been damaged, say by a hole in the surface, but that is easily repaired with a sheet of steal over the hole, taking very little time. In the game this is minor damage and I think would not be modeled. Also there are other munitions that could cause more casualties to personnel, but leave the bridge undamaged at all, napalm and cluster bombs come to mind. Last even though it shows your unit was wiped out in game terms, in reality there would be men left, but the "Unit" could be completely in-effective due to heavy loses of key personnel or equipment.

**Ricky B** · 04-17-2008, 06:35 AM,

I guess ultimately, and ties in with what JonS1 linked to, is that there just plain isn't a mechanism for air strikes of any kind destroying bridges in the game, for the reasons linked to by Jon and others. So whether an air strike could destroy an engineer unit on a bridge, or any other unit in travel mode on the bridge for that matter, without actually damaging the bridge beyond usability, doesn't matter for the question orignally asked. There just plain isn't a mechanism for this damage, and I assume there won't be either, until such a mechanism is needed for a game in the works.

As to the various reasons given for why it could happen this way in the game, they are all legitimate explanations within the bounds of how the engine works, just remembering that there is a whole lot of abstraction present and it would be extremely rare that any unit would be destroyed to the last man and not reconstituted, even though it is common in the game to trap and destroy a unit - I say this because most times there would be members of a unit in the rear/on leave/etc that would be around to fight still, but in game terms that unit is destroyed.
Rick

HirooOnoda · 04-18-2008, 06:45 AM,

I'm sorry, but if most of the strike aircraft have laser guided bombs than any strike in good weather should be able to obliterate something as big as a bridge.

Su-24s had this capability as did most strike craft in NATO's arsenal.

Liebchen · 04-18-2008, 07:35 AM,

Maybe the aircraft used napalm...

**Ricky B** · 04-18-2008, 07:48 AM,

HirooOnoda Wrote:I'm sorry, but if most of the strike aircraft have laser guided bombs than any strike in good weather should be able to obliterate something as big as a bridge.

Su-24s had this capability as did most strike craft in NATO's arsenal.

And? I don't think there is any doubt that air strikes could knock out bridges, as you say. I don't see anyone arguing it was too difficult, as of the 1985 games.

Rick