Steel Beasts vs. Real Life: Mobility

[GaryOwen]

Sherman's and Dr. Device's comments in Ssnake's 'Lock On discussion about armored warfare' thread, along with discussions I've had with Sherman and others reminded me of a comment regarding SB made by Patrick Proctor (who, doing business as ProSimCo, has developed the Brigade Combat Team/Armored Task Force/Raging Tiger/The Falklands War '82 line of warfare simulators) in a thread on another wargaming website:

"The lack of mobility/countermobility and survivability positions was really the biggest detractor from an otherwise great game."

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2472 See tenth post from the top.

While it appears from the screenshots that SB2 will indeed have prepared fighting positions and minefield breaching equipment, I think that the comment touches a fundamental issue with SB, that is that mobility is not modeled with much detail. The SB vehicles all have three speeds, and basically other than swamping out in substantial water obstacles or throwing tracks in woods, they can go anywhere. SB vehicles seem to be able to climb any grade and never bog down in mud. No-one never need worry about bridge weight classification in SB, nor worry about rolling over while turning around on a slope.

This fact about the game, leads, I believe, to an overemphasis by players on gunnery and makes it more difficult to design scenarios that attempt to present gaming options that emphasize manuever. Without natural restrictions on the use of terrain, the scenario designer, if he is to restrict movement, is forced to use penalty zones or stilted deployment and victory conditions.

So Sherman, if you want to talk about SB vs RL, here you go: a topic of discussion with or without its own forum sub-heading.

** BTW, demos of ProSimCo's sims are available here: http://www.prosimco.com/

[DrDevice]

Is this still true in ProPE? I had hoped for a bit more modeling of the interaction of the vehicles and the terrain. As Steven Zolaga (IIRC) once put it "Armored vehicles do not move over the land as much as they move through it."

Although I think three speeds should cover most driving situations (Cautious/Slow, Cross Country/Normal, and Road/Fast), I think the consequences of moving at inappropriate speeds over the wrong terrain, or even attempting to move over impassable terrain should have a pronounced effect on the vehicles.

As it stands, we drive Ferrari Tanks on Rails® and get little feeling of what moving armor in combat is really like.

[ShermansWar]

I honestly have more questions than anwers here, to be Honest.

1)If the terrain model is unrealistic, how is it unrealistic?Perhaps I should have said mobility model? therein is a question in and of itself. Is it a problem with modeling the terrain? Or is it a problem with modeling the vehicles mobility?Are these limits of the available technology to the game designers,is this a limitation imposed on the design team by staffing, or are these limitations imposed by the availiobility of information we have to model the vehicle, or are these limitations imposed only by lack of imagination of the part of scenario designers?


2)On the defense, how do real life units deploy?
What is standard doctrine? How much attention is paid to scoping out BPs with LOS over avenues of approach?How would a different mobility model affect the game as opposed to what we are dealing with now?

I have found , in game, a defence in depth( based on what I identify as critical BPs on key terrain features with LOS that dominate the most obvious avenues of approach) with a second unit stationed close by, say,less than a minutes travel away from the original BP( so that if the unit in the Key BP is destroyed, it may be replaced within what I have identified as a standard decison cycle in SB, 2 1/2 minutes)is the most effective type of defense, at least initially.

I must say, that I take pains to identify these intital BPs by 2 criteria, one, the speed at which they can be reached from the initial DZ, and 2, the distance they will be away from the enemy, assuming he travelled at top speed from the time he left his DZ, so that I will be in position just as he reaches a point about 4.5 kilometers from my position, so that I have about 30 seconds to situate before he comes into range, and I can then open fire at maxe range from a BP with a long LOS at what I hope is a moving target in the open from a stationary position that is hull down, taking maximum advantage of my M1 fire control system and armor.I use this tactic to gain an initial edge in attrition(if succesful) and the try and capitalize on that as an advantage to gain greater advantage.This is why, after gaining an initial edge in attrition, I am loathe to advance en masse over unreconnoitered terrain against an enemy whose BPs are unknown to me.I dont want to hand this advantage back.Would a more realistic terrain/mobility model negate this tactic?If so, how and why?

3) Convergent fires from Multiple BPs as opposed to massed fire from one BP.

Real world tankers, I have observed, do not split their units as I do.Why?

The game does not reward the player for massed fires( by that i mean firing as a platoon unit. This is a function of the superiority of the human gunner over the AI gunner.This I beleive is the kind of situation GO alludes to where gunnery prevails . How does terrain affect this? From My point of view, again, it goes back to who has the best LOS,

AA told me once that massing fire does not mean having all your tanks in one spot, but rather, the ability to bring all your fires AGAINST one spot, that is to say, Massing is not so much a function of where you start from, how you fire and how you move as a single massed glob, but rather, how you get your units to wind up in the same space and at the same time, and how you bring your convergent fires against one point, although they may originate from different BPs. This, coupled with the concept of combined arms( i.e., getting arty fires and infantry units there at the same time) is what I view as massing, as opposed to maneuvering all my units together.

Succesfully employing this tactic, considering the use of my initial defensive tactic therefore entails a certain coordination, whereby the commander , taking units in a somewhat dispresed defensive employment, switches to a scouting/intelligence gathering mode, until he has fixed the locations of the enemy BPs. The next step is to identify which of those BPs the enemies defense is based on, where he is vulnerable, make a decison how to attack it, and then, to bring your dispersed forvce together to attack these positions. then, spread out again, after seizing these BPs and setting up a hasty defense, to repeat the process, of identifying enemy BPs,, bringing fires against them to fix the enemy in position while you maneuver against him, and repeating this process, of dispersion, coming together, dispersion, coming together, until there develops a gap in the enemies defense, and THEN, and only THEN, maneuvering all units en masse through that gap against the enemies center of gravity and overwhelming him by events and fire.
My question is, how would a realistic mobility model affect this particular approach?How would a different survivability model( based on terrain, trenches, etc) affect this?

How do real world issues of command and control affect this approach? can effective command be excercised over units deployed in disparate positions, viv-a-vis there ability to concentrate in space and time, and then spread out and do it over again, repeatedly?

Until the AI is modeled where the computer can be trusted with maneuvering from point A to point B without getting blown away,I think Gunnery and LOS will reign supreme, and dispersion of force will remain the best bet for continued survivability, and players will feed their tanks into action 0ne at a time, exchewing real world tactivcs of masse movement, simply so they can retain direct control over their units, unwilling to trust the AI.

How will a realistic terrain model affect this dynamic?

I cant answer these questions, I am neither a topographer, nor have I ever been a real world tanker. All I can add is my own observations of what I have seen by trial and error in the time I have played.

Certain effects I attribute to the AI, and it's deficiencies, I am currious what of these issues do you think would be addressed, or minimized by a realistic terrain model, and why?

[3Star]

They no longer climb every grade.

NTM

[GaryOwen]

Is this still true in ProPE?

I didn't intend to imply anything about Pro PE. I really don't know what Pro PE will be like in its final form.

It's just that Dr. Device's mention of Brigade Combat Team reminded me of Pat Proctor's comment, and I wanted to use that as a segue or introduction to my major point about the importance of mobility modeling.

1)If the terrain model is unrealistic, how is it unrealistic?

I don't have the slightest idea about how the actual movement is coded in SB. But I have seen tanks lose control and slide down wet tank trails, I have mired Bradleys and M113s plenty of times. Once at Hohenfels, when I was driving an M113, my TC asked me whether I thought I could get the vehicle down a certain wooded slope. I responded that I could try, and one of my squad mates jumped out of the rear cargo hatch in sheer terror because he was certain that I was actually going to make the attempt.

It's just my experience that tanks can't go everywhere. There is some terrain where a tank will lose traction and get stuck. Some terrain is so rough that driving over it will snap a torsion bar or injure the crew from being bounced around. A lot of times, applying Murphy's Law, the positions with the best lines of sight are going to be surrounded by impassable terrain.

Moreover, if a tank has trouble with certain terrain, most likely so will support vehicles, such as trucks. And I think that the terrain that is most likely to be militarily important is the terrain that can be used for lines of communication -- the roads on which you can drive trucks. Those seem to me to be the areas that are going to be fought over, rather than the inaccessible ridgelines with clear lines of sight to all the other ridge lines within four kilometers.

If mobility were more restricted in the game than it is, then movement would be easier to channelize and I think that the game would tend not to disperse units as much as players tend to now.

[PS-SCUD]

They no longer climb every grade.

Even if they could still climb every grade, I hear that the new "roll" computations for gunnery (I.E. when your tank is titled on a slope) make gunnery much more difficult.


It is probably impossible in Pro PE to "jink" along a slope and gun at the same time.

[DrDevice]

Real world tankers, I have observed, do not split their units as I do.Why?

First, they have frontages that are much smaller than most SB battles. In RL, you send a platoon to cover 1km, not 4. Unit dispersion in SB has as much to do with scenario design as anything else. One of the reasons “6K Front” is at least somewhat good is the fact that it approaches a realistic density of units. (Chaplain made several attempts at demonstrating this in some scenarios about a year or so ago. I think dependence on AI in such situations turned most SB players off.)

Second, we split to protect vulnerable AI tanks as much as to gain spaced fires. In SB we send 4 separated tanks to do what in RL is done by 3 platoons of 4 (a company). Instead of 1 gun tube at that critical BP (as in SB), imagine having 2-4 and being able to rapidly destroy any platoon or heavily damage even a company-sized force that blundered into the fire zone before moving to a secondary BP. In SB that takes 2-4 human gunners in the same spot. Given player parity and usual MP levels of players, that’s not practical. You spread players out to mind the AI and keep a sharp eye. (We don't even have to deal with fire control and who shoots at what to maximize platoon fires...)

My question is, how would a realistic mobility model affect this particular approach?How would a different survivability model( based on terrain, trenches, etc) affect this?

You couldn’t GET to half the places that are good BPs! J And you certainly would have the added dimension of how the terrain between A and B slows you down. “1 minute apart” is nearly constant in SB. In RL, it’s much more variable.

As GO pointed out – high speed avenues of approach are critical. SB undervalues them because a field is as good as a road, is as good as a sand patch, is as good as a hill. The terrain is largely homogeneous. Remember all the soil analysis that the Rangers did prior to Desert Storm? There were MAJOR issues with the terrain and mobility, especially for real units of mass. (Brigade-level maneuver.) So the ground you drive over has everything to do with maneuver warfare. If you can narrow down where the enemy CAN come from, you can build lighter, tighter defenses.

More detailed terrain means that critical ground becomes more rare. The ONE road into an area might be the only good, fast way in. It might be the ONLY way in for some units! GO mentioned bridges – think about that. We have NOTHING in SB we can’t drive over except water. And we have no bridge modeling. (ProPE addresses this much more, I believe) In RL, you can’t park a 60-ton tank on just anything, let alone drive it at 40mph.

How do real world issues of command and control affect this approach? can effective command be excercised over units deployed in disparate positions, viv-a-vis there ability to concentrate in space and time, and then spread out and do it over again, repeatedly?

With systems like IVIS/FBCB2 and comparable systems in French, German, Israeli, and other units, dispersed command and control is critical in the modern fight. SB has god-like shared information, so we are a bit spoiled to date, although we don't have good short-cut spot reports and target hand-off stuff yet. Putting a whole company’s worth of guns on a single zone is quite possible in RL, although from what I’ve read, the focus is on multiplying the platoon-level firepower by information sharing.

We also have over-modeled artillery access in SB. ProPE is definitely improving that 10x.

[Hell_Hound]

Real-life tankers also stick together so they can maintain command and control using hand signals and the Mk 1 eyeball instead of radio.

A moderately-sophisticated enemy like the USSR will punish your use of radio by jamming you off the air; a highly sophisticated enemy like the US Air Force will either tell their army about you, or hammer you with anti-tank missiles from twenty miles out.

[luit]

Real-life tankers also stick together so they can maintain command and control using hand signals and the Mk 1 eyeball instead of radio.

A moderately-sophisticated enemy like the USSR will punish your use of radio by jamming you off the air; a highly sophisticated enemy like the US Air Force will either tell their army about you, or hammer you with anti-tank missiles from twenty miles out.



Well the thing is before contact there is no radio use after contact who gives a shit most radios used nower days use some kind of frequency hopping. So if an enemy attemps to clear out an frequency out of the air it has little to no effect. To Jam an enemy radio nowerdays you should clear out whole ranges of frequency's and this will make your own command and controll a bit harder. And yes the locationfinders are very good at the moment so if you dicide to jam an enemy he will surely attempt to kill the source with arty.

[Trekker]

Real-life tankers also stick together so they can maintain command and control using hand signals and the Mk 1 eyeball instead of radio.


This was the numbero uno way to communicate with the BMP´s. Mostly due to three reasons:
1: The R-123 is a really old radio and very easy to jam. I never forget those damn psyco sounds the electronic warriors sent.
2: There can be no missinterpetations. I point or show by dismount where i want my vehicles, sending a grid reference or try to describe by radio will never put a vehicle exactly where i want it.
3: By leading the plt unbutton, makes me feel like i can faster adapt to situations and also presee them. It also feels like manouever reaction gets much faster.

[TankHunter]

They no longer climb every grade.

Even if they could still climb every grade, I hear that the new "roll" computations for gunnery (I.E. when your tank is titled on a slope) make gunnery much more difficult.


It is probably impossible in Pro PE to "jink" along a slope and gun at the same time.

Thank God, now I can have the chance to shoot you and Stumpy when you are on the move!

[bewing77]

Real world tankers, I have observed, do not split their units as I do.Why?

As been said, RL density of forces is much greater in real situations. When assaulting a dug in enemy a platoon may have as little as 400 metres of frontline to cover. And because a prepared defender will be dug in it takes alot more to take him out then it takes in the game. The common formula is 1 platoon to take out one squad/tank, one company to take out one platoon, on batallion to take ut one company. Another thing is that real combat seldom comes down to whiping out every unit of the enemy force. Rather it is about forcing him to retreat from a strategic area so that you can claim it. In SB we know that the enemy has a finite number of units, and we usually know that this number is roughly the same as ours. Thus we know that if we kill those we win automaticly since we are left uncontested and so the game becomes more one of killing enemy units then focusing on objectives.
In real combat we must always keep casualties at a minimum since we need to have something to fight with the following day aswell. We also have a rough idea of the opposition at best. But we can never be certain that reinforcements hasn't moved into the area, etc. And the balance of forces is most often not very balanced. Thus we must focus on taking our objective, and holding it, not drive around a square area sniping tanks. This is where realistic movement comes into play: in real combat we can try to anticipate all possible reinforcement and supply routes and take them into concideration. We can anticipate wich routes of attack the enemy must choose etc. and thus we can focus our forces in theese areas, and not spread them all over the map.

Also, as a real tanker I am used to having crews that can actually think in the other tanks in my plt. This means that they wont park stupidly 100 metres in front of a perfect hull down position, and that they can perform advanced maneuvers and contact drills without me having to dictate every move they make. Is the AI could do this so that it wouldn't have to be babysat as much the true benefits of keeping your platoon together would become apparent.

[ShermansWar]

bewing77 wrote:


in real combat we can try to anticipate all possible reinforcement and supply routes and take them into concideration. We can anticipate wich routes of attack the enemy must choose etc. and thus we can focus our forces in theese areas, and not spread them all over the map.

Excellent points.Can we make scenarios with conditions that require us to block reinforcement routes, or zones that have to be occupied and if they aren't, release enemy reinforcements into the battle?

how can we make scenarios that discourage the 80-90% attrition rates we get, and still allow the commander his prerogative to employ his force according to what he thinks it will take to acheive the victory conditions?

Also, is it realistic to expect that 2 equally matched forces, over even terrain, will in fact battle till they get the Kind of casualty levels we do? I think that in rreality, for the most part, tanks are going to avoid attackikg the enemy strength wherever possible.as Sun Tzu said," attack the enemy where they are not". US doctrine, I would imagine, would try and leave destroying enemy armored formations to airpower if at all possible,m while keeping own own armored formations free to mave and as close to max strength as possible, so the could attack enemy command and control centers, control lines of communication, advance, retreat, etc. the Germans fought this way, mASSING force where they expected minimal resistance, and i would expect any good commander would do the same, fighting enemy armor when necessary, as opposed to seeking it out, oprefferring to use other weapons( airpower, for instance) against iit, or isolating them as the germans did the russians and the israilis did the egyptians wherever possible.

How couldm we design scenrios that would replicate what an actual set peice arttack would be against a prepared defense that was not tank heavy?

[DrDevice]

how can we make scenarios that discourage the 80-90% attrition rates we get, and still allow the commander his prerogative to employ his force according to what he thinks it will take to acheive the victory conditions?

Pretty straightforward. In a standard battle, tie points directly to force size. SB has great built-in logic for determining how many units you have left in any given zone. So just set an "all map" zone or multiple "critical location" zones and tie the points to the OBJ. Don't reward 90% casualties. Hell - penalize anything above 40-50%!!!

The problem isn't one of being ABLE to do it...it's keeping players who are used to fighting to the last tank interested. The SB-syndrome is "shoot more! Keep throwing tanks into that fight until nothing is left!" Players want to play, and if your whole platoon is shot out from under you in the first 10 minutes, most don't look to further the team's goals, they look to help their enjoyment of the game.

We often don't realize that the 4 tanks you lost in the first 20 minutes at the wrong location cost you the fight. Or that since A company is destroyed, this is now a time to leave, not add B company to the meat grinder.

This dovetails into the standard 60-minute fight. This is something that is a dinosaur in my book. Why fight 60 minutes, when the action is all in the middle 40? You have 10 minutes of getting into BPs, and getting setup…good. Then you have 20 or so of fighting for the ground first planned on…good. Then you usually have 25 minutes of waiting and low-intensity probing to find out of one side really does have an advantage. And then you have the last frantic 5 minutes as the remaining forces are run to the OBJ.

I say shorten the fight and make the timing better to get a more even battle over say...45 minutes.

Its all scenario design, not play style. We’ve adapted play style to the scenarios at hand. Not that they are bad at all, they justr breed a certain sameness

How couldm we design scenrios that would replicate what an actual set peice arttack would be against a prepared defense that was not tank heavy?

Your point about equal forces in the attack/defense is dead-on. Fair fights are stupid in terms of real command. A fair fight is one you have poorly planned for.

So why is it SB convention that 100%-alike forces fight? IMO – it’s not wanting to hear cries of “unfair advantage” or “you had better terrain” etc., etc. It’s a crock, but popularity of scenarios is often based on such opinions.

The key is to build scenarios that have unbalanced force levels, but still have equal chances of achieving victory conditions. Asymmetric conditions for winning makes the formula change. What is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander when it comes to victory conditions!

Example: As the attacker, you must capture X ground in Y time with less than Z% losses. You are graded, in points, on how far you get, how fast, and how undamaged.

As the defender, you must hold X ground for Y time (not necessarily the same as your opponent – you have your own schedule to keep) and you must preserve Z% of your force. You are awarded points for how successful you are at these.

Compare the points to determine a winner. The totals should be the same. The awards for each piece need not be. The difficulty of the task of winning should be roughly the same.

For flavor, add an objective that must not be lost at all. Or add reinforcements under AI control to be released to the players if they destroy over X% of the enemy and can mount a counterattack. Or any number of variations. It’s possible, but more work on the designer and less popular with the troops, in my experience. (See my .sce Red Tide for the above example in SB)

We have to challenge some long-standing SB convetions to make this type of play work. (It's a large part of why I don't play MP more often. The battles become so much of the same sometimes.)

[edit for minor logic error]

[ShermansWar]

You make excellent points, and I don't disagree with any of them.

Myself, iIwas introduced to wargaming when I got a copy of 'Panzerblitz" for a Christmas present in '76. In that game, it was rare to have a meeting engagemnent as a scenario, but they were the most fun(hehe). Most scenarios ran along the lines you described, or scenarios where you had to exit a certain amount of units off the map edge. Forces and terrain were rarely equal,or even close to it, but the victory conditions balanced out the game, even if it was assured that one side would lose the battle, they had an even chance to win the game.

The problem, as I see it, is a lack of good scenarios, a lack of time for people to make them, and a lack of playtesting to make sure the victory conditions are in fact workable.Even the oldest scenarios( Pre-TGIF era) are basically the same formula as what came after, when guys like me just picked a nice map, a cental objective and threw an equal force on it starting equidistant from the objective.
The scenarios that ARE like what you describe arent very popular, for reasons you already explained, and, I'm sorry to say, many dont find them as much fun.I myself would play scenarios like you describe, but noone is making them, they take a lot of time and thought, and the ones that do exist are played out.Hopefully when the next version of SB is released, we get some fresh minds willing to make scenarios that are based more in reality, for those that want to play like that. Myself, I'm a whore, and will play anything, as long as the victory conditions balance out the scenario. With the game size restricted to 8 players, it may be a more manageable effort to make those scenarios.

[RIPper]

very good points about scenario design. now, might i point you to my sce? :) it's leos vs OPFOR (t-72s and t-80s). the OPFOR is also player controlled. i wanted to make a different type of sce than the usuall, so the leos can win just by punching through the reds to the other side of the map and sustaining low casualties. it can also win by gaining territory, but losses are punished. unfortunately, from the time a made it i can't play (i will probably be able to play in 3-4 weeks), so i couldn't test it. for anyone intrested, it's called "Attack valley, OPFOR vs leo2", it's in Multiplayed HtH scenarios -> medium

[bewing77]

It's been years (litterally) since I played online the last time since I don't like the unrealistic scenarios (wlle I don't know how it is today really). We do however play weekly at work and I design scenarios, beeing the only one here with real experience. The scenarios we play are rarely about fighting to the last tank. Last week we played a recon scenario where one side was to march into an area and the other side had to use recon to find out what route they where choosing quickly enough to set up an effective ambush. The recon side had a restriction in that if they took to severe losses they would be forced to retreat. The advancing side had a time limit. So the scenario was not about killing the other side it was about delaying the advancing force long enough while minimizing losses, wich is a much more common scenario in real combat. Recon, security, realistic (ie non equal forces) assaults etc are what we play and is what I would like to play online.

The biggest problem is that theese kind of scenarios take alot of time. Planning often takes an hour, and the scenarios starts much earlier than the actual engagement occurs so that there is time for recon and maneuvers. Once engagement begins it also takes time since it's not as much of a meat grinder, but more an affair of short contacts, retreating back to different BPs, recon, probing etc. But it is all possible to create theese scenarios with the current scenario tools if you take your time setting up triggers and zones.

[DrDevice]

So time seems to be the killer. Building and testing isn't easy, and this forum has long struggled with feedback to designers. (Something we are all guilty of, I think.) I'm certainly not a prolific .sce designer, but I try and make the ones I build in the style we've talked about. Unforunately ideas are quick to come by, it's finding the time to build. :(

RIPper, I will gladly check out your .sce! Sounds interesting.

It's something to consider, moving forward. This style of .sce takes time to work out, so maybe an infrequent game, announced in advance, can be worked out. Players who aren't interested in this style of play can be fair warned, but players like bewing77 that seek this out can also try to plan on participation.

[ShotMagnet]

Second, RIPper, and I'll help with the briefings if you like.


Shot

[RIPper]

thank you for your support. btw, here is a thread about the scenario, so we don't get OT here:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5503

[YdnarB]

I wrote a few sce with various time conditions and uneven sides. Just to mix things up a bit but I didn't get a whole lot of interest in playing them. I'm a math geek so I like playing with the logic. But besides that, I've tried to make uneven scenarios from time to time but they are really unpopular, from what i recall. I think we've all seen someone pop out of scenario when they end up in a Leo with older ammo. I've tried scenarios where say blue has good tanks, modern super ammo but at 1/3 the force; or blue has all that and red is even worse (say no TIS) and blue is 1/6th the force. Turn one of those on in MP but turn down the volume because the groans will be quite loud. :)

The all-even games are fun but they do seem to run together. And super-gunners tend to lopside them. And the uneven scenarios are much harder to make.

[ShotMagnet]

Y, you still owe me for the time-based scoring thingie, so that your name may shine in the annals of SBdom.


Shot

[Newbie-Olle]

I've tried scenarios where say blue has good tanks, modern super ammo ... and red is even worse (say no TIS) and blue is 1/6th the force. Turn one of those on in MP but turn down the volume because the groans will be quite loud.Not very surprising If you allow Blue players to do the shooting they should do quite well.
Such a scenario should be played in external and map view only, and/or at 1 Blue per 6 Red players to get it right!

/Olle

[smogover]

Does anyone know of any single player scenarios in the same style as described above... ? Am on 3 & a half weeks annual leave & would love to get some tricky beast that I can really sick my teeth into :P

[mapman]

Highway to Hell took me 3 hours to complete the other night...LOL

You could also do the entire Korean Series that BW put together...10+ scenarios if I recall...

[pamak]

Speaking about mobility in real life, i have one question.

Can tanks or trucked vehicles move on ice?

Suppose for example that there is a frozen lake and the thickness of ice is sufficient.

Can tanks move on this type of surface?

[Kingtiger]

Yes it can, and does

[pamak]

Yes it can, and does


I suppose since you are from Sweden ,that you know what you are talking about :wink:

I was thinking about this subject after i saw a wwii video.

I noticed a case when a tank (i think sherman) was trying to move on ice .
The trucks were spinning and the tank was not able to move.
So i was thinking if the friction between the trucks and the ice is so small ,that prohibits movement without some type of engineer support.

[Wahrborg]

you put "spikes" in the tracks

[Trekker]

Or remove the pads, will also work..

Tank will require about 50cm ice.
IFV = 25cm ice.

[TopKick]

American tanks can now ice skate. Well, I saw one do a tripple lutz once.

[chrisotto]

Can tanks or trucked vehicles move on ice

The M109 has snow / ice-pads mounted to the turret. These are track-sized links that can be inserted into the tracks instead of the rubber.

[Koen]

- Interesting thread - THX Gary !

- Bewing : are these recent scenario's that you made for single player ? If so, why not load them up here ? I still remember your older scenario's !

- And about :
Real world tankers, I have observed, do not split their units as I do.Why?

As been said, RL density of forces is much greater in real situations. When assaulting a dug in enemy a platoon may have as little as 400 metres of frontline to cover.
And because a prepared defender will be dug in it takes alot more to take him out then it takes in the game.
The common formula is 1 platoon to take out one squad/tank, one company to take out one platoon, on batallion to take ut one company.

To give an extreme historical example of massing of forces :

The second Soviet offensive against Budapest (nov - dec 1944) :(from Battle for Budapest. 100 days in World War II - Krisztian Ungvary)

… Both Stalin and the Soviet general staff were displeased with the slow progress in Hungary in 1944 of Malinovsky's 2nd Ukrainian Front, the strongest of all Soviet fronts.
Further north, the 4th Ukrainian Front was even worse off, having covered only 200 kilometres since August 1944, and coming to a standstill at the Carpathians.

The Soviet supreme command sent Marshall Timoshenko to investigate.
He submitted his report on 24 November.

"The 2nd Ukrainian Front is one of the strongest fronts. It has substantial potential for smashing the resistance of the enemy, but nevertheless has not scored any successes lately.
The reasons for this lack of success, in my view are the following:

1. The supreme command - relying on its relatively superior strength - is trying to destroy the enemy formations simultaneously in different areas (Miskolc, Eger, Hatvan).

2. This leads to a dispersal of forces, making it impossible for our troops to bring their superior strength to bear.

In view of the above I would consider it practical to require the commander of the 2nd Ukrainian Front to review his earlier decisions and create such formations as will confront the enemy in 2 sectors with absolutely superior strength."

Soviet headquarters then ordered the 6th Guard Tank Army, the 7th Guard Army, two mechanised corps, one tank corps, two cavalry corps and two newly constituted artillery divisions to the Hatvan-Kartal region northeast of Budapest.

Their attack on the 8-kilometre sector of the front chosen for the breakthrough was to be carried out in two waves, the first by six divisions, the second by two divisions, two artillery divisions and the 6th Guard Tank Army.

With a total of 510 tanks and 2074 guns and mortars, every single kilometre of the front line was to be covered by 64 tanks, 260 guns and mortars, and 4000 infantry.

An extreme historical example indeed, but the Soviets used this tactic more than once.

[Ssnake]

...and, in the case of the Seelow heights, to their disadvantage. The terrain/road network infrastructure can only carry a certain amount of vehicles during an assault before the delays of combat action create so vast traffic jams that a coordinated movement of forces is no longer possible. At which points less reinforcement will make their way to the front line in time than if one had sent less forces in the beginning. It cost them dearly to learn this lesson.

[bewing77]

Does anyone know of any single player scenarios in the same style as described above... ? Am on 3 & a half weeks annual leave & would love to get some tricky beast that I can really sick my teeth into :P

I created a couple of single player scenarios in this style a couple of years ago, but I suppose they are not around anymore, and I am not sure if I have them left. It takes alot of time creating scenarios like this, especially for single player, and public interest where quite lacking so I stopped doing it.

Oh and Koen, cool that someone still remembers them! Sadly my newer ones lack sp functionality. It could be added, but it would take quite some time: the AI logic is what takes 90% of the time creating sp scenarios.. Maybe if I could convince my boss to give me some time off :roll:

[colin]

I have used damage zones in boggy terrain in some scenarios to simulate terrain restrictions. Not hard to do, but you should say something about route planning in the briefing.