Bridge attack

[Dog Soldier]

Maybe the question for air attacks on bridges for PzC should be how often would a player do this compared to historical incidents. I think the argument went that successful bridge destruction by air units was too rare historically to model in the game. The game model might result in two or three bridges being taken out in a CG, far more than ever happened historically.

The other argument was that the game series was about the land combat and air attacks were added as an abstraction, not something to become an important factor in the game. The added complexity did not justify the gaming result. Bridges are integral to the map, To attack them they would have to made into counters, along with extensive additions to the game engine. Even if you could add this feature, what would you do next to destroy engineer constructed bridges from the air? Currently a player can destroy those bridges if they can break or destroy the engineer unit. Would that activity have to be modified to align the new air demolition of bridges rule being asked for in this thread?

To offset the Kiev example I would point out the futile efforts of the western Allies in 1940 to destroy the German bridges at Sedan.

Dog Soldier

[Mr Grumpy]

[Moez]

And that footage was in excellent colour if I remember correctly.

Smile Big Grin

[Aaron]

Even in Vietnam with more modern aircraft they had trouble knocking down certain bridges, i cant remember the name of it but they had to send in multiple strikes b/c the damn thing wouldnt fall down. I would say with modern weapons around 1990 and after u could do it but before that it would have been tough to bring down a good size bridge.

Aaron

[JonS1]

Thanh Hoa bridge, finally knocked down with first gen laser guided bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanh_Hoa_Bridge

To offset the Kiev example I would point out the futile efforts of the western Allies in 1940 to destroy the German bridges at Sedan.

The question wasn't about the success of those efforts. Success should depend on local AA defences, who has air superiority, etc. All factors that can be handled in game at a commanders discretion. For example, charging panzers with cavalry might not be a very smart thing to do and it might never be successful, but PzC allows me to try, should that be my wont.

My example for a/c vs. bridges in WWII is the bridge busting campaign carried before and after 6 June 1944 along the Seine and Loire in NWE. The USAAF managed to get to the point where they could reliably knock down a bridge with as few as 8 x P-47 sorties.

You could say that was part of the overall interdiction plan - which it was - and therefore covered by the interdiction thingy in PzC. However, the interdiction thingy in PzC functions quite differently, as even a superficial investigation will discover. It is based on causing cas to units moving along routes, not preventing them moving along that route to begin with.

The wider point is that in N'44 - for example - the player can be anyone upto and including Eisenhower or Rundstedt. Now, Eisenhower himself wouldn't say, "Ya know what fellas? I think we should knock down the bridge at GR 123 456." However, somewhere between him and Private Snooks hiding in his foxhole under a hedgrerow on the way to St Lo there are commanders - and more importantly their staff officers - who can, would, and did call for strikes on bridges.

Heck, the Anglo-American armies managed to get Bomber Command and 8th Air Force to come play on at least fourteen (14) occasions during the Normandy campaign. Given that, asking their associated TAFs to go knock out a bridge is well within the army's remit.

However, looking at N'44 as it stands, my spurious comment was specifically in response to the idea that "asking air units to attack bridges would be outside the scope of what an operational ground commander could do." Even if we accept that statement as accurate (which it isn't, but let's pretend it is) then there are a whole swag of other things that should be stripped out of N'44 for exactly the same reason. Naval Gunfire Support being the most obvious, and others depending on the particular scenario and nations involved.

Incidentally; once implemented bridge busting in PzC should IMO be somewhat counter-intuitive, in that larger and longer bridges (ie, the heavy type, or thse than span water hexes) should be easier to KO than the little light jobbies (LLJs) that span streams. In fact, the LLJs should be almost impossible to knock down (although you can still try if you want...). This is because the LLJs are typically heavily masked by terrain and vegitation, while the larger bridges tend to be easier to find and approach from the air.

Edit to add: bridges of any size should also be essentially immune to heavy bomber attack.

[Glenn Saunders]

In late August 1941, during the initial stages of the battle of Kiev, General Kirponos ordered all Red Air Force assets against a bridge over the Dnepr. Two IL-2:s managed to destroy the bridge with bombs, isolating the German 11th Panzer division for 10 days. (Osprey Campaign #129, page 58)

Engelbrekt

I'll see your bridge at Kiev in 1941 (where there is no game) and raise you one in France 40.

Page 144 of Lightning War by Powaski

170 British and French bombers (100 which are British Blenhiems) carry out what is called "suicidal attack on the Gaulier bridge.

I'll let anyone who cares look it up - the attack went on all day and the Bridge was not destroyed. The cost was 45 Brit and 5 French Bombers.

I can scan the reference and send it to anyone who really wants to see the reference for themselves.

Glenn

[JonS1]

So, Glenn, you agree too. Bridge attacks are something an operational commander orders.

[Glenn Saunders]

So, Glenn, you agree too. Bridge attacks are something an operational commander orders.

It is not something that I believe belongs in the game and if it were added it would expect it would lead to gamey things occuring as well as any number of "IF then, but if not that, this" types of situation.

There is not a single example that I am aware of covered by one of our existing titles where a bridge was ordered taken out by air on the orders of the operational commander and where the bridge was actually destrioyed. And even if we could dig up a successful example it would likely be one of those odd ball cases that was not a significant event in the battle to warrant inclusion in the game series as not every single thing that happened in a battle can be depicted by the game engine. I am sure we could list all the things that did happen that the game doesn't do.

Interesting discussion all the same, but not likely to be something John will be looking to add to the game.

Glenn

[JonS1]

That's an interesting way to shut down discussion.

1) point out that you haven't heard of any, with the clear implication that if there were any to be heard of you cetainly would have heard of them. But you haven't. So they mustn't exist.
2) Make a blanket statement that because of 1) above any examples would be both rare and very hard to find, so therefore ...
3) assume that any examples would be 'oddball', and thus clearly ignorable.

Taken together we have the handy feature of rendering pointless anyone's efforts to find examples. Any examples found can immediately be dismissed as either 'rare' and/or 'oddball'. In fact, we've already seen that in this thread:

A:
maybe you can provide a historical example of where a operational ground commander ... ordered an airstrike to destroy a bridge.

B:
late August 1941, during the initial stages of the battle of Kiev

A:
I wonder how widespread an occurence this was?

So we immediately went from a request for a single example to an implication that it was oddbal and/or rare, and then a request for an unspecified number of further examples to determine "widespreadness".

Glenn raised an interesting philosophical point about the nature of wargames, probably unintentionally:

There is not a single example that I am aware of covered by one of our existing titles where a bridge was ordered taken out by air on the orders of the operational commander and where the bridge was actually destroyed.

Leaving aside Glenn's lack of research, what are we to make of this statement? Well, clearly bridge destruction within the scope of PzC titles was ordered, but Glenn isn't aware of any succesful ones. Fair enough. But ... what is a wargame supposed to be? Is it simply a slightly interactive movie, in which some off screen director controls all the input and output variables to ensure that the battle unfolds as it is 'supposed' to, and we - the players - are merely along for the ride? Or is it something more open, in which players have control over their destinies, and can try something crazy and out of the box like ... oh, I don't know - using 3.7-in HAA guns as anti-tank weapons, or destroying all the bridges along the Meuse, etc.

Incidentally - it is the case that in most PzC titles the player is representing both ground and air commanders. Bear that in mind while you're thinking who designates targets.

[sergio]