MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias?

HirooOnoda · 03-03-2014, 11:07 AM,

(02-27-2014, 03:40 AM)Volcano Man Wrote: 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. ;)

So put it in the game and make each fording have some losses-say dependent upon the experience of the unit.

No bias on my part, just want the capability included.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xit2G2jELuo

Volcano Man · 03-05-2014, 07:58 AM,

Well, first of all, that is a T-90 tank - a little bit more modern. Second of all, ALL tanks have the ability to ford, it just depends on the preparation level. So, it wouldn't just be Russian tanks fording, it would be all tanks fording. And no, unfortunately the game draws a line at fording, because of preparation time, and risk.

It is easy to say "just add it in and have a unit take losses", well maybe you can email John and convince him of that. But it would be bias then to only allow WP to ford, so you would not get the effect you seem to be after (some sort of WP advantage).

HirooOnoda · 03-05-2014, 03:09 PM,

VM,

Yes, I know this was a T-90. Not sure it matters as I don't think the technology is very different from 30 years.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a Squad battles (Advance of the Reich) where the Germans use snorkel equipped tanks to cross a river?

If so, why it's permissible in a 1941 scenario and not a 1985 scenario is intriguing.

Not a big deal to me. Just bugs me.

Take care,

Hiroo

Volcano Man · (This post was last modified: 03-07-2014, 07:48 AM by Volcano Man.)

Yes, believe it or not, fording technology does change. The type and reliability of seals, and fording preparation times do advance.

In regards to that specific SqB scenario you mention, well, the answer is because I guess it was known to happen historically in that battle. But the answer on why tanks cannot ford in MC series, is the same reason why they don't ford in PzC series.

I am not "Mr. Anti-fording" I am just explaining the reasons why it isn't represented in the game. As mentioned, just about every modern AFV can ford a river. But there are a couple of misleading issues here. Firstly, every video you find of a tank fording a river, is some demonstration showing that it can be done. Almost every one of these cases (including your video) occurs in a PREPARED fording position, where there is essentially a paved road under the river. Obviously this would not be the case in reality. Fording is really a last resort measure, when a bridge cannot be captured or built, and the tanks MUST cross. That said, I am not aware of a mass fording exercise occurring in modern times, simply because it is too risky.

So, if you add fording capability to an operational level game, you run into some problems. First is the preparation time. This can vary, but I am sure it would be similar to using unit quality to determine how many turns it would take to fully prepare to ford a river. Secondly, there is the issue of attrition. This factor is an unknown really. I have some experience in this matter -- modern tanks have trouble keeping rain water out, let alone fording a river. There will be many tanks lost to getting stuck, or just drowning in the water because of seals that do not function. I would estimate a 25% to 30% attrition rate if an armored battalion or regiment forded a river, but it depends again on training, equipment maintenance etc. Maybe even 50% of the tanks cannot cross the river because they are deemed unsatisfactory in regards to the state of their seals. These seals are rubber and they wear out all the time, and there are a great many of them. You have hatch seals, turret ring seals, engine seals etc. I think the most obvious case would be that part of the battalion or regiment could cross but the other half would be denied for maintenance reasons. Then how do you represent that? Just kill 50% of the battalion to attrition? I don't think people would be too happy either way.

Next, and most important, is the fording site. Not every site can be forded, and determining whether it can be forded takes time and engineers must get involved. You have to figure out what the lay of the land is under the river, how deep it is, and the steepness of the banks, etc. It may turn out that a river isn't fordable for many miles or that a river isn't fordable at all at any point. There would be no way that I know of to represent this. Yet, if fording was allowed in a game at this scale, then suddenly you have tank units fording anywhere and everywhere. You could just slap a long time penalty and a huge attrition rate on it and then let the user decide to sacrifice time and a large portion of strength to do it, but then how much is too much to the degree that no one ever does it? At a smaller scale game none of this is an issue because you control exactly where and when fording happens, confining it exactly to a specific place and time.

And finally, like I said -- you imply that there is some anti-Warsaw Pact bias in preventing them from fording, but like I mentioned - its not like Soviet AFV designers were rocket scientists and were the only ones who knew how to do it. There wouldn't be any advantage to either side, because both sides would be able to do so. The fact that fording isn't allowed just means that neither side can do it, it is a balanced approach.

Not much else I can say on the topic really. I am not totally against fording, but I don't think it is something that is vital to be represented at this scale because it comes with too many difficulties and would seldom be done. Personally I rationalize it this way: the act of an engineer unit building a bridge for the tanks to cross is also representing fording. We don't know if they actually built a bridge, or prepared a fording sight. Who knows and I don't really care to know as long as my tanks end up on the other side of the water obstacle. ;)

edited: typos

Aaron · 03-06-2014, 01:43 AM,

(03-05-2014, 04:55 PM)Volcano Man Wrote: Yes, believe it or not, fording technology does change. The type and reliability of seals, and fording preparation times do advance.

In regards to that specific SqB scenario you mention, well, the answer is because I guess it was known to happen historically in that battle. But the answer on why tanks cannot ford in MC series, is the same reason why they don't ford in PzC series.

I am not "Mr. Anti-fording" I am just explaining the reasons why it isn't represented in the game. As mentioned, just about every modern AFV can ford a river. But there are a couple of misleading issues here. Firstly, every video you find of a tank fording a river, is some demonstration showing that it can be done. Almost every one of these cases (including your video) occurs in a PREPARED fording position, where there is essentially a paved road under the river. Obviously this would not be the case in reality. Fording is really a last resort measure, when a bridge cannot be captured or built, and the tanks MUST cross. That said, I am not aware of a mass fording exercise occurring in modern times, simply because it is too risky.

So, if you add fording capability to an operational level game, you run into some problems. First is the preparation time. This can vary, but I am sure it would be similar to using unit quality to determine how many turns it would take to fully prepare to ford a river. Secondly, there is the issue of attrition. This factor is an unknown really. I have some experience in this matter -- modern tanks have trouble keeping rain water out, let alone fording a river. There will be many tanks lost to getting stuck, or just drowning in the water because of seals that do not function. I would estimate a 25% to 30% attrition rate if an armored battalion or regiment forded a river, but it depends again on training, equipment maintenance etc. Maybe even 50% of the tanks cannot cross the river because they are deemed unsatisfactory in regards to the state of their seals. These seals are rubber and they wear out all the time, and there are a great many of them. You have hatch seals, turret ring seals, engine seals etc. I think the most obvious case would be that part of the battalion or regiment could cross but the other half would be denied for maintenance reasons. Then how do you represent that? Just kill 50% of the battalion to attrition? I don't think people would be too happy either way.

Next, and most important, is the fording site. Not every site can be forded, and determining whether it can be forded takes time and engineers must get involved. You have to figure out what the lay of the land is under the river, how deep it is, and the steepness of the banks, etc. It may out that a river isn't fordable for many miles or that a river isn't fordable at all at any point. There would be no way that I know of to represent this. Yet, if fording was allowed in a game at this scale, then suddenly you have tank units fording anywhere and everywhere. You could just slap a long time penalty and a huge attrition rate on it and then let the user decide to sacrifice time and a large portion of strength to do it, but then how much is too much to the degree that no one ever does it? At a smaller scale game none of this is an issue because you control exactly where and when fording happens, confining it exactly to a specific place and time.

And finally, like I said -- you imply that there is some anti-Warsaw Pact bias in preventing them from fording, but like I mentioned - its not like Soviet AFV designers were rocket scientists and were the only ones who knew how to do it. There wouldn't be any advantage to either side, because both sides would be able to do so. The fact that fording isn't allowed just means that neither side can do it, it is a balanced approach.

Not much else I can say on the topic really. I am not totally against fording, but I don't think it is something that is vital to be represented at this scale because it comes with too many difficulties and would seldom be done. Personally I rationalize it this way: the act of an engineer unit building a bridge for the tanks to cross is also representing fording. We don't know if they actually built a bridge, or prepared a fording sight. Who knows and I don't really care to know as long as my tanks end up on the other side of the water obstacle. ;)

Im with VM on this, as i mentioned before it would be a last resort for anyone and in any small remote chance it was used it would be for a dozen tanks. Dont see any place for snorkeling in the game.

Aaron

JDR Dragoon · 03-06-2014, 06:22 AM,

It is definitely not a "last resort", but since the use of snorkeling requires the presence of engineers (for reconnoitering the banks and riverbed through the use of divers, for preparing the approaches and exits from the riverbank in order to make it possible to run large number of tanks over them etc.), it is represented abstractly already in the games routine for river crossings. If you were really anal about it, I guess you could argue that the capability of engineers to ferry units across hexside-rivers should be extended to tanks as well (at least in the MC series), but then we hit the problem that not all tanks were snorkel equipped (Centurion would be one example)

Aaron · 03-06-2014, 09:11 AM,

(03-06-2014, 06:22 AM)JDR Dragoon Wrote: It is definitely not a "last resort", but since the use of snorkeling requires the presence of engineers (for reconnoitering the banks and riverbed through the use of divers, for preparing the approaches and exits from the riverbank in order to make it possible to run large number of tanks over them etc.), it is represented abstractly already in the games routine for river crossings. If you were really anal about it, I guess you could argue that the capability of engineers to ferry units across hexside-rivers should be extended to tanks as well (at least in the MC series), but then we hit the problem that not all tanks were snorkel equipped (Centurion would be one example)

It is a last resort, the commander comes up to the river and the last thing he thinks of is snorkeling, first he thinks amphib capabilities, ferrys and pontoons and when all that is out the window he might think snorkeling and in alot of cases it wouldnt be feasible anyways.

Aaron