Early war engineers

[1925frank]

If the invasion was properly planned, you would think there'd be some way to handle the pill boxes. I don't think the invasion of Albania was a model of proper planning. I think "fiasco" might more more aptly describe it. Kind of like the Allies' surprise with the hedgerows in Normandy. It might have been an aspect of the landing that was just botched, but probably not.

I'm thinking if they started training in March, more than likely they had units available for Albania in October or November 1940. I don't know. If there were a number of pill boxes, I would think they had some method in mind. It might have been engineers, or it might have been something else.

But yes, if research showed the engineers weren't trained for strong hard attacks, then the designer would have to compensate with something else, like ships or some 88 AAs. Even the Italian tanks around 1940 wouldn't pack much of a hard target punch -- not the type of punch you'd need to consistently disrupt units in a pill box. I'm thinking the hard attack for most Italian tanks in 1940 at one hex was a 6 or an 8.

For purposes of accuracy, I wouldn't recommend putting in engineers with 12 or 18 hard attacks if research shows that wasn't the case.

[Jason Petho]

Engineers


A. Under Italian doctrine, engineers were considered to be technical, rather than combat, troops. Engineer functions were conventional: work communications zones, erect of obstacles, clearance of obstacles, laying of minefields, water supply, and supply of engineer materials, Also, in the Italian army, the providing of signal communications and the supplying of hydrogen for captive balloons were engineer functions.

B. The success of the German Assault Engineers encouraged the formation of Assault Pioneers known as “Guastatori” (destroyers). These forces were organized into battalions. They were patterned after similar German units and the Assault Engineer School at Civitavecchia was organized by a German engineer, a Col. Steiner, in Mar ’40. The attacks by pioneers (Guastatori) were nearly always carried out at dawn, the objective having been approached during the night. Assault engineers were used against tanks at night. Personnel did not lay mines but were trained in removing them should they impede their progress.

http://www.comandosupremo.com

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Agreed. Hawks idea would involve programming a new functionality while just changing the hard attack value wouldn't.

But increasing the hard attack value turns engineer units into AT killing machines. That should not be the case. Maybe it is possible for engineer units to have their assault factor doubled or tripled when assaulting a pillbox, bunker, cave, etc... This would be an accurate potrayal of flamethrowers, deomo charges and the like.

To my knowledge engineers in combat would not blow up pillboxes, but rather the entrance of the pillboxes so there is no need to change the hex to rubble.

Yes, but if you do not change the pillbox into something less than a pillbox then the whole point is moot.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Since just about all combat engineers of the major combatants probably had access to satchel charges and man-portable flamethrowers, early war engineers should probably be considered even across the board one way or the other.

Regarding panzershrecks, were Germans combat engineers even issued shrecks? I can't remember. I am pretty sure that US engineers had bazookas and UK engineers had piats. The Russians and Japanese did not have shrek/bazooka equivalents, so that is a potential difference.

Nope that is not the case at all. The German engineer unit has a 18 hard attack in 1939 and a hard attack of 18 in 1945.

Same with the Brits (altough it is is only 12) and same with the US 1941 to 1945.

So bazookas, scheks and Panzerfauts are not the answer.

Thanx!

Hawk

[1925frank]

It'd be nice to know what the original Talonsoft people were thinking when assigning hard attack values for engineers.

I could be wrong, but I don't think knocking down high walls is a function of hard attack values. I know it's limited to engineers.

The last post suggests the introduction of bazookas and panzerfausts didn't figure into the hard attack values of the engineer units. But for the regular infantry units, bazookas and panzerfausts appear to make a significant difference, as their hard attack values go up significantly as the war progresses.

There's now the idea of separate hard attack values for armored vehicles and pill boxes.

This has been a thought-provoking thread.

[K K Rossokolski]

I wouldn't get too carried away with one small scen on the Italian invasion of Albania..........English sources on this are few and far between. The pillboxes are there because an important harbour would probably have some fixed defences, and pouring concrete ain't very difficult.
FACTS...very important things, facts. The Italians invaded in April 1939.

I think Hawk is on the money trail here...the great difference between early war Germans and everybody else. But please...not another brand of engineer.

"To my knowledge engineers in combat would not blow up pillboxes, but rather the entrance of the pillboxes so there is no need to change the hex to rubble."
...WHAT?????????????? I suggest they blew what parts they could get to. Ideally in through the slits.

[1925frank]

Yep. Italy invaded Greece in October 1940. My mistake.

[Huib Versloot]

"To my knowledge engineers in combat would not blow up pillboxes, but rather the entrance of the pillboxes so there is no need to change the hex to rubble."
...WHAT?????????????? I suggest they blew what parts they could get to. Ideally in through the slits.

Yes they did, but this would not change the pillbox into a pile of rubble, it mostly killed or dazed the crew. The pillboxes were most blown to pieces with lots of TNT later when the frontline had already moved up or after the war. The english word in the story I provided was "embrasure" I do not know what that means and was too lazy to look it up. Could be a slit or entrance?

To come back to the game. I still think that engineers armed with flamethrowers and satchel charges should be able to harm/disrupt a pillbox regardsless which nation they are. What the best method of achieving this is, I'll leave to the technical guys such as Jason, Umbro & Wyatt.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

It'd be nice to know what the original Talonsoft people were thinking when assigning hard attack values for engineers.

I could be wrong, but I don't think knocking down high walls is a function of hard attack values. I know it's limited to engineers.

The last post suggests the introduction of bazookas and panzerfausts didn't figure into the hard attack values of the engineer units. But for the regular infantry units, bazookas and panzerfausts appear to make a significant difference, as their hard attack values go up significantly as the war progresses.

There's now the idea of separate hard attack values for armored vehicles and pill boxes.

This has been a thought-provoking thread.

From "Lone Sentry":

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/engas...index.html

It would really be a matter of finding our how each army trained it's engineers? And, for what time period?
The above link covers German engineers training for attacking pillboxes.
I know there are other sites that discuss the engineers attacking armor. Once I get it I'll attach a link.

And, you would not use a flamethrower to take down a wall. Though bazookas and fausts were known to punch holes in them. :)

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Anyone have this book? It's Osprey.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vCwV1bC...lt#PPP1,M1

RR