Smoke & bridges

Simon62

Recruit
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hi

Can ordinance fire smoke into a bridge hex over a water obstacle? Rules seem to say that smoke can’t be fired into a water obstacle but smoke is always area fire indicating that it is not targeted but effects the whole hex. The bridge only accounts for about a third of the hex.
 

semenza

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
630
Reaction score
75
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
Hi

Can ordinance fire smoke into a bridge hex over a water obstacle? Rules seem to say that smoke can’t be fired into a water obstacle but smoke is always area fire indicating that it is not targeted but effects the whole hex. The bridge only accounts for about a third of the hex.

A24.1 Looks to me that only smoke grenades or vehicle smoke dispensers may put smoke on a non-footbridge bridge location that is over a Water Obstacle. The exception in the sentence comes before "and neither may ordnance" .

Doesn't have anything to do with the artwork, apparent size of the bridge, or reality.

Seth
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,385
Reaction score
442
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Just make sure you know whether the bridge is really over a water Obstacle. If it is over an unfordable river, then no, ordnance cannot place smoke. If the bridge lies over a non-flooded stream, however, ordnance can fire smoke.

From the INDEX: Water Obstacles (unfordable River, Pond, Frigid/flooded Stream, Canal, Lake, OCEAN).
 

Simon62

Recruit
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Just make sure you know whether the bridge is really over a water Obstacle. If it is over an unfordable river, then no, ordnance cannot place smoke. If the bridge lies over a non-flooded stream, however, ordnance can fire smoke.

From the INDEX: Water Obstacles (unfordable River, Pond, Frigid/flooded Stream, Canal, Lake, OCEAN).
Thanks

We are playing Pegasus bridge campaign he (the British) need to get his commandoes over the bridge in the day 2 scenario otherwise he looses, however, I can put a large amount of fire power onto the bridge.

He wants to fire smoke into the bridge from a mortar and a Sherman 8 hexes or so away and then run across the bridge - I don’t think he can do that hence the question
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Thanks

We are playing Pegasus bridge campaign he (the British) need to get his commandoes over the bridge in the day 2 scenario otherwise he looses, however, I can put a large amount of fire power onto the bridge.

He wants to fire smoke into the bridge from a mortar and a Sherman 8 hexes or so away and then run across the bridge - I don’t think he can do that hence the question
Pretty sure the ordinance has prevented placement and ordnance cannot place smoke there.;)
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
4,643
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Note that per C1.71 OBA can place SMOKE on bridges even over a water obstacle.

JR
 

semenza

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
630
Reaction score
75
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
Thanks

We are playing Pegasus bridge campaign he (the British) need to get his commandoes over the bridge in the day 2 scenario otherwise he looses, however, I can put a large amount of fire power onto the bridge.

He wants to fire smoke into the bridge from a mortar and a Sherman 8 hexes or so away and then run across the bridge - I don’t think he can do that hence the question
Time for the smoke grenades and dispensers. Plus Armored assault.

Seth
 

Simon62

Recruit
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Thanks for all the replies - I think I am clear that the smoke cannot be placed in the bridge.

I appreciate all the other references that have opened my eyes to a whole host of exceptions etc that I will read up on
 

The Purist

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
49
Location
In my castle by the sea
Country
llCanada
A24.1 Looks to me that only smoke grenades or vehicle smoke dispensers may put smoke on a non-footbridge bridge location that is over a Water Obstacle. The exception in the sentence comes before "and neither may ordnance" .
Hmm, I am not sure I agree. The sentence seems to be worded a bit strangely but the bracketed section should also have the EXC applied to it..

If we parse the sentence into two (infantry and ordnance) the EXC would apply to both

"A squad may not place SMOKE in Water Obstacles [EXC: Bridges (not foot bridges)], sewer, or marsh hexes." [Full stop]

and

"Ordnance may not place SMOKE in Water Obstacles [EXC: Bridges (not foot bridges)], sewer, or marsh hexes." [Full stop]

Otherwise, why would OBA SMOKE be allowed on bridges? The off-board guns are (arguably) ordnance.

I'll admit it has been a very long time since I have dug into the rules but this is my understanding.

Happy to be proven incorrect (wouldn't be the first time).
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
4,643
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Hmm, I am not sure I agree. The sentence seems to be worded a bit strangely but the bracketed section should also have the EXC applied to it..

If we parse the sentence into two (infantry and ordnance) the EXC would apply to both

"A squad may not place SMOKE in Water Obstacles [EXC: Bridges (not foot bridges)], sewer, or marsh hexes." [Full stop]

and

"Ordnance may not place SMOKE in Water Obstacles [EXC: Bridges (not foot bridges)], sewer, or marsh hexes." [Full stop]
I wondered about this. The little bit about ordnance in A24.1 seems to suggest that they follow exactly the same rules as smoke grenades, which would allow SMOKE to be placed on bridges. But there is a q&a that might be taken to suggest otherwise:

A24.1 & C1.71 May ordnance place Smoke in a Water Obstacle?
A. No. [An97; Mw]
There's no EXC there for bridges, but it's hard to tell if that is because the question didn't raise the issue and the answer didn't consider the idea, or if it's really not allowed.

JR
 

Michael R

Elder Member
Staff member
Moderator
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
764
Location
Montreal, Canada
Country
llCanada
Thanks for all the replies - I think I am clear that the smoke cannot be placed in the bridge.

I appreciate all the other references that have opened my eyes to a whole host of exceptions etc that I will read up on
Ordnance smoke can be placed on the bridge location over a water obstacle, just like infantry smoke and vehicle smoke dispensers.
 
Last edited:

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,385
Reaction score
442
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
If we parse the sentence into two (infantry and ordnance) the EXC would apply to both

"A squad may not place SMOKE in Water Obstacles [EXC: Bridges (not foot bridges)], sewer, or marsh hexes." [Full stop]

and

"Ordnance may not place SMOKE in Water Obstacles [EXC: Bridges (not foot bridges)], sewer, or marsh hexes." [Full stop]

Otherwise, why would OBA SMOKE be allowed on bridges? The off-board guns are (arguably) ordnance.
Thanks for this post. I have to admit that parsing the text this way never occurred to me. I now have some doubts as well, and request that someone (Simon62?) ask Perry.

By my original reading, Infantry grenades and OBA Smoke were allowed to be placed on bridges across water obstacles, but ordnance smoke could not be so placed. While this reading is now in question, I am not yet sure if I would change my interpretation. It still makes some sense to me! (uh oh...)

Infantry, obviously, could "easily" toss smoke grenades onto or about the surface of a bridge. But ordnance would likely not waste time/ammo attempting to drop a round onto so small (and potentially hindered) a target. To fire so precisely would probably require an extra TH DRM. As for OBA, the water obstacle with bridge might not even be the intended target, lying on the edge of an FFE centered upon dry land. But OBA fire is so concentrated - and the rounds fired so abundant - that it may have seemed unreasonable to suggest that a single shell couldn't land on the surface of the bridge....hence a possible reason for the rule distinction.
 
Last edited:

The Purist

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
49
Location
In my castle by the sea
Country
llCanada
Thanks for this post. I have to admit that parsing the text this way never occurred to me. I now have some doubts as well, and request that someone (Simon62?) ask Perry.

By my original reading, Infantry grenades and OBA Smoke were allowed to be placed on bridges across water obstacles, but ordnance smoke could not be so placed. While this reading is now in question, I am not yet sure if I would change my interpretation. It still makes some sense to me! (uh oh...)

Infantry, obviously, could "easily" toss smoke grenades onto or about the surface of a bridge. But ordnance would likely not waste time/ammo attempting to drop a round onto so small (and potentially hindered) a target. To fire so precisely would probably require an extra TH DRM. As for OBA, the water obstacle with bridge might not even be the intended target, lying on the edge of an FFE centered upon dry land. But OBA fire is so concentrated - and the rounds fired so abundant - that it may have seemed unreasonable to suggest that a single shell couldn't land on the surface of the bridge....hence a possible reason for the rule distinction.
Don't twist yourself into knots trying to figure it out. ;) We can't base a decision on how many rounds we think are fired. As the game notes each "shot" is multiple rounds of ammunition. That aside, I think that if it meant lives, tank crews would glad expend as many rounds as it took to "SMOKE" a bridge.

Two or three smoke grenades from infantry or a few (base) ejected canisters from a smoke round (OBA or Ordnance) would have the same effect. Note that most bridges that are two lanes wide are likely the better part of 10+ meters wide and it would not take much to have canisters to land on the road. In the case of a river that is 80-120+ metres in length, the bridge is probably quite substantial and could "realistically" (shhhhhhhh) take up half the hex or more.
 
Top