Z the IVth posted:

But think of the TBI for the poor guardsmen!

Pepe Silvia Browne posted:

it seems like it would be easier to destroy/sabotage a ferry than to do the same to a bridge

The Oldest Man posted:

the bigger problem is using ferries takes like fifty times as long, ferries are powered vehicles that break down constantly, and because you're moving the ferries back and forth all the time, you have a chance every time to wipe out, ground, hit an obstacle, etc.

The Oldest Man posted:

the bigger problem is using ferries takes like fifty times as long, ferries are powered vehicles that break down constantly, and because you're moving the ferries back and forth all the time, you have a chance every time to wipe out, ground, hit an obstacle, etc.

mlmp08 posted:

Ferries are the trade of tremendous pain in rear end to use vs like 100 times harder to know precisely where one is and strike it with a munition than bridges, which famously don't move much and are anchored into the ground.

If Poland is making a separate argument that tactical, deployable temporary bridging assets are obsolete, well, that's not an idea that I would take seriously....

mlmp08 posted:

Ferries are the trade of tremendous pain in rear end to use vs like 100 times harder to know precisely where one is and strike it with a munition than bridges, which famously don't move much and are anchored into the ground.

If Poland is making a separate argument that tactical, deployable temporary bridging assets are obsolete, well, that's not an idea that I would take seriously....

bedpan posted:

just make everything amphibious. no bridges or ferries needed!

The Oldest Man posted:

ok but the reason why you'd hit a bridge with a missile is primarily because bridges are loving great for moving huge quantities of stuff and non-bridge alternatives both eat and suck rear end

the reason why you'd use ferries is never "well they'd hit a bridge with a missile" it's always because you simply aren't able to use a bridge there for one reason or another (eg your bridge was just hit by a missile and indeed maybe all of your bridging units have been hit by missiles since you only had like ten to start with)

one more example of western dogbrain seeing a key asset getting attrited and applying magical thinking that it wasnt a good asset to begin with or itd never be attrited in the first place rather than just building more of them

mlmp08 posted:

they dislike the idea of bridges, the dumbass take is yours

The Oldest Man posted:

atelier morgan posted:

i'm like 90% sure the actual problem is that combat engineers take a lot of time to train for troops and require a lot of elan invested in a role that isn't being an 'operator' and their military and society (like ) isn't up to the task any more so there's no way they could build and maintain bridges under fire

hard to simultaneously insult russia as backwards barbarian fools for using shovels and then put together an elite formation that specifically fights with shovels

mlmp08 posted:

I think it's the latter.

mlmp08 posted:

By reading an article instead of looking at a twitter clip, this is one unit with combined bridge and ferry capability and is not indicative of abandoning bridges. They even highlight that they're a unique unit for wide gap crossings, as opposed to the more standard bridging unit which can only bridge but cannot both bridge and also ferry.

I think we can safely say that in this NATO exercise, they didn't decide to say "bridges are no good, I hate them."

In fact, these specific vehicles being used for this training can choose to either link up into a bridge, or if the river is too wide, they can be used as ferries instead.

But maybe you're right. Maybe the dog brain has forgotten how roads and bridges work and has opted to return to rowboats or something.

good example of going in misinformed then using that to confirm your bias based on a twitter clip out of context though.

The Oldest Man posted:

this is the ultimate expression of the neoliberal dogbrain: we don't need cheap, proven capabilities that any factory could build (bridging unit), we need invincible amphibious gundams that only general dynamics and lockheed martin can build

The Oldest Man posted:

what's the lesson from ukraine lol

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/Jamie04381095/status/1765700627936444887

My "we don't need a bridge for the river crossing" t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my t-shirt.

mlmp08 posted:

That you need to practice and organize to be successful for wet gap crossings. Which is less a lesson from Ukraine, and more a constant of warfare since forever, though tactics and tech change.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

Every ferry crossing exercise I've been involved in was a poo poo show, and I can't imagine things have gotten better.

By comparison, I've crossed Bailey Bridges laid down in WW2 without incident, and there are tonnes of bridges built by military engineers all over the training area and country - you may drive on some of them regularly.

The Oldest Man posted:

Let me know when that's the quote and not what the guy actually said

quote:

M3 Rigs are unique; they are four-wheeled vehicles, with all-wheel drive and can be used as single or longer ferries or joined together to form a bridge.

In Poland, the Engineers joined four rigs to form ferries capable of taking three vehicles and in minutes were transferred to the far bank of the River Vistula.

By working together with the Germans, Polish and French taking part in this exercise we bring a lot to the table.”

The Amphibious Engineers demonstrated their capability by transporting a variety of vehicles, including Leopard 2 and Abrams Main Battle Tanks, Bradley and other armoured fighting vehicles from different countries, across a 320m gap.

The Battalion received a further recognition as the Commander 1st (German) Panzer Division, Major General Heiko Hübner, declared the unit at Full Operational Capability (FOC) in the presence of Colonel Simon Hirst, Military Attaché at the British Embassy in Berlin.

This is a result of two years hard and dedicated work, involving operational deployments to the Baltic as part of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence. Since its formation in 2021, the Minden based unit has undergone an intensive development programme to ensure it can deliver a joint capability to NATO.

Battalion Commander Lieutenant Colonel Florian Loges added:

“The wide wet gap crossing capability is important, especially in Europe, because there are a lot of large rivers and bodies of water that could stop or hamper our movements.

“This is why it is so important for NATO to have their own capability to cross large bodies of water.”

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

Like someone said, the Pontonier tradition has pretty much been extinguished from western militaries in favour of the Assault Engineer, and that's a problem when you need to recruit people into a trade filled with monotonous and backbreaking labour alternating with operations that historically can have up to 90% casualties among some bridge and ferry detachments.

mlmp08 posted:

It is very funny that you think when Russia practices amphibious crossings or tactical bridging

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

I love the defensive alliance carefully counting the 12 major north south rivers from Western Europe to the Urals, defensively, as you do.

The Oldest Man posted:

Adding "ferries: not even once" to "paratroopers: not even once"

Bar Crow posted:

Military planners are fascinated by the idea of solving logistics by just stranding troops behind enemy lines.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

I love the defensive alliance carefully counting the 12 major north south rivers from Western Europe to the Urals, defensively, as you do.

quote:

It is a complex and dangerous operation that is necessary to be able to perform under fire, in order to be able to restore territory and be able to counter-attack adversary forces.

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

Maybe we could figure out a way to airdrop bridges out of C-130s?