How do you deal with concrete bunkers?

[Pericles]

How do you deal with concrete bunkers if you don't have any artillery? Are 51 mm HE mortars enough? Can you take a bunker from the back with your infantry (away from where the MG is facing)? 

[Wicky]

You can try infantry from behind but it takes a lot of grenades and time.  You can try engineers with demo charges, flame throwers and bazookas but make sure they have covering troops as the bunker's inhabitants come out mighty peeved looking for revenge when the doors are kicked in.

Otherwise Churchill AVRE, Crocs or call in a Lancaster with a Tallboy...

[Erwin]

I doubt that any size mortars will do anything.  If you only have inf, your guys need satchel charges (attacking from the rear).  You would think that bazookas will KIA a bunker from the front.  But am not sure about that.  Not sure if grenades in the rear will do anything. 

I woulda thought that bunkers are designed to resist grenades, small arms, and any HE hitting from above.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Erwin

[Bulletpoint]

You can kill concrete bunkers with infantry if you get close enough. Preferably from behind. The attacking troops will throw grenades (to represent a close assault) and then for some weird reason the inhabitants will come running out and very likely shoot your guys dead because of a design flaw in the game: Your troops will start firing at the enemy before they actually exit the bunker, so you will blow your magazines and be caught reloading.

In short, the best way to kill concrete bunkers is with direct tank fire. But I don't think anything will penetrate the walls, I believe you need a couple of lucky hits to go through the vision slit.

[slysniper]

IF YOU HAVE SMOKE, SMOKE IT TO HELP UNITS GET TO THE BACK SIDE without getting fired on from the bunker.

As mentioned, satchel are the best thing from the back.

flame units work well also, best from the front, but no one fires back from the back.

Of course armor from the rear is a sure way to knock the door in.

 

With infantry only, it takes a boat load of grenades to do it. Not worth it unless its a must have issue

Plus as everyone mention, when you do breach the door, the enemy pours out. Have one infantry unit set not to fire until the enemy comes out. That stops what everyone else is complaining about. someone with a rapid fire gun and a cover arc does the trick

[user1000]

Churchill AVRE if the randomizer gave me one.

 

Has anyone tried to set a breach near the bunker door with a charge? You know the same kind to clear hedges.. I have to try this.

Edited June 10, 2017 by user1000

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Don't think it will work, the bunker is a 'unit' not a 'building' and it has no 'walls' to breach.

[Combatintman]

You can do it with a satchel charge (circled in red) in the image below:

[Michael Emrys]

Has anybody tried the M12 155mm? Historically those were sometimes used against Westwall bunkers.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

16 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

You can do it with a satchel charge (circled in red) in the image below:

I'm guessing that's a 'Target' command rather than 'Blast'?

Edited June 10, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Has anybody tried the M12 155mm? Historically those were sometimes used against Westwall bunkers.

Michael

Funnily enough ... yes - the same mission about three turns previous to the last image I posted (last mission of @benpark's excellent CMFB Aachen Campaign).

@Sgt.Squareheadalthough I can't remember, I'm guessing it was a target command.

[Erwin]

IIRC Blast only works vs walls and hedges.  I thought vs bunkers or vehicles one had to simply wait until a unit with charges uses its own initiative.   If you use TARGET IIRC the unit just fires at the target.

But, it's been very long since I played a scenario with bunkers...

Edited June 10, 2017 by Erwin

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm guessing that's a 'Target' command rather than 'Blast'?

At three action spots away the team may throw grenades if they have them. No Target order needed.  In June of 2015 I was able to destroy a concrete bunker with grenades.  I think somebody recently posted, maybe even in this thread, that grenades can't destroy concrete bunkers.  So that ability may have been taken away at some point.  Don't have time to test again.  Busy in The Hornet's Nest..........

At two action spots away the team will throw demo charges.  No Target order needed.  In fact I have in my notes not to use Target.  Don't remember why now..............  

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

5 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 In fact I have in my notes not to use Target.  Don't remember why now..............  

I assume it was because of the waste of small-arms ammunition (those SMG's unload pretty quick!) and standard grenades. Maybe infantry are coded to fire all weapons at a bunker, regardless of their penetrative power or the direction of the opening.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Close assaulting them with infantry is the best solution, as I did in my CMFI "Eye of the Elefant" BETA AAR:

 

I also discovered during that same AAR that MGs are the most effective weapon against them.  MGs are the best weapon to use to keep the occupants suppressed so you can more effectively close assault them.  

IMO using tanks against them is a waste of ammo in these games.

From the AAR (note, this is a different bunker than the example above shows):

On 6/27/2013 at 9:04 AM, Bil Hardenberger said:

On the outskirts of S. Maria Infante I just noticed that somehow I knocked out a bunker... the only thing I am firing at these things now is MGs... which appear to be the most effective weapon against them (other than smoke) when advancing in front of them.

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bil Hardenberger

[Glubokii Boy]

27 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

 

I also discovered during that same AAR that MGs are the most effective weapon against them.  MGs are the best weapon to use to keep the occupants suppressed so you can more effectively close assault them.  

 

I have also found machineguns to be a good solution against enemy bunkers. If i can sneak up 2 ( or even 3 ) friendly MGs to get LOF to the enemy bunker from different locations and then start firering simultaniously then the enemy fire comming from that place will be very limited (if any at all)...allowing me to move past or close in on it.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by RepsolCBR

[Michael Emrys]

14 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Funnily enough ... yes - the same mission about three turns previous to the last image I posted (last mission of @benpark's excellent CMFB Aachen Campaign).

Should I take that is a yes that you have tried the M12 and yes it was effective?

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

I'm surprised by the suggestion to use MGs against bunkers. In my experience, it takes a very high volume of fire to suppress a concrete bunker, and it will always be located way back, supported by other units. So even if you manage to suppress it, getting close to it won't be easy. 

[Pericles]

Update: So in this second Lions of Carpiquet CMBN mission I'm playing, I received tank support a few turns after making the initial post. I initially "targeted" the concrete bunkers with the tanks. This didn't have much of an effect. I then "light targeted" the concrete bunkers with the tanks, making sure that MG fire was directed at the front slot of the bunker. Within between 20-60 seconds of MG fire from the tanks, each concrete bunker was knocked out. One of the bunkers exploded (must have hit interior ammo boxes with MG fire) and the occupants of all the others were killed. 

So the MG hypothesis (Hardenberger, RepsolCBR) seems to hold. To deal with concrete bunkers, fire at their front slots with MGs. 

[slysniper]

well, if you are going to take in on from the front MG's are likely your best bet.

At least getting more rounds through the firing slots anyway.

As for it working, maybe that is a good tactic vs the AI, but not sure that works for H2h play if you encounter it.

I know for a fact that I can hold a concrete bunker vs a ton of enemy small arms fire with out a issue whatsoever. 

I will not be firing from it much, but you sure not likely to clear it or remove it as a threat that way.

 

A player can  use the hide command and avoid losses. Only exposing his men when a juicy target looks worthy of the risk.

[Erwin]

"...maybe that is a good tactic vs the AI, but not sure that works for H2h play if you encounter it." 

Why would it male a difference if one has several human-controlled MG's firing vs AI-controlled MG's firing?  Unless the AI doesn't use TARGET but only TARGET LIGHT(?).

[Glubokii Boy]

"I'm surprised by the suggestion to use MGs against bunkers. In my experience, it takes a very high volume of fire to suppress a concrete bunker, and it will always be located way back, supported by other units. So even if you manage to suppress it, getting close to it won't be easy."

 

Yes...other supporting enemy units will obviously complicate things but the task of the supressing machineguns are not to defeat the entire enemy possition...
It is to supress or possibly knock out/rout the bunker...

Other firendly troops will need to deal with the supporting enemy units while this is happening or possibly before if the enemy possitions have been identified.

 

"As for it working, maybe that is a good tactic vs the AI"
Thats what i have been playing...

 

"I know for a fact that I can hold a concrete bunker vs a ton of enemy small arms fire with out a issue whatsoever.
I will not be firing from it much, but you sure not likely to clear it or remove it as a threat that way."
.
If you are not firering it is not much of a weapon but rather just a lump of concrete sitting in the terrain.

 

"A player can use the hide command and avoid losses. Only exposing his men when a juicy target looks worthy of the risk."

True...But will your crew happily pop up and start shooting if something like 3 machineguns are pouring fire into their firering slit ?
I guess this depends on the quality/motivation of the crew....

[rocketman]

3 hours ago, Pericles said:

Update: So in this second Lions of Carpiquet CMBN mission I'm playing, I received tank support a few turns after making the initial post. I initially "targeted" the concrete bunkers with the tanks. This didn't have much of an effect. I then "light targeted" the concrete bunkers with the tanks, making sure that MG fire was directed at the front slot of the bunker. Within between 20-60 seconds of MG fire from the tanks, each concrete bunker was knocked out. One of the bunkers exploded (must have hit interior ammo boxes with MG fire) and the occupants of all the others were killed. 

So the MG hypothesis (Hardenberger, RepsolCBR) seems to hold. To deal with concrete bunkers, fire at their front slots with MGs. 

I did some testing in the "Titanium Bunker" thread in the FI forum and my conclusion was that MG fire with tanks from a distance is effective vs MG concrete bunkers. The main reason being that the bunker crew, no matter how suppressed, will never cower (engine limitation as bunker is considered a vehicle) and will fire back at infantry despite full suppression meter. Incoming MG fire has a tendency to hit the MG crew man much faster than any HE/AP and as soon as he goes down another crewman takes his place. In a few turns you can whittle away at the crew until broken/destroyed.

One danger with close assault on a bunker is that once the crew breaks, the doors open and they intend to flee, a lot of times they are in such a brittle state that they cower inside the bunker, which they now can when it is "destroyed". From inside the bunker they are relatively protected and will cause a lot of casualties because firing into the bunker is much harder.

In fact, I would like to see an overhaul on how bunkers are treated in the game. Another reason is the tell-tale mark in the terrain which reveals the bunker long before being spotted.

[Bil Hardenberger]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

well, if you are going to take in on from the front MG's are likely your best bet.

At least getting more rounds through the firing slots anyway.

As for it working, maybe that is a good tactic vs the AI, but not sure that works for H2h play if you encounter it.

I know for a fact that I can hold a concrete bunker vs a ton of enemy small arms fire with out a issue whatsoever. 

I will not be firing from it much, but you sure not likely to clear it or remove it as a threat that way.

 

A player can  use the hide command and avoid losses. Only exposing his men when a juicy target looks worthy of the risk.

Granted I don't play a lot of games that feature bunkers... but my example above is from a H2H game, and I can attest that the MG v bunker tactic will work regardless of whether the opponent has a gray-matter or a binary brain.

My intent is not to outright kill the bunker with MG fire (Pericles' example is interesting), only to suppress it, so an infantry team can close with it safely and close assault it.  In my example above, these bunkers had no support, that had been cleared previous to my unit's arriving on scene.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

5 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Another reason is the tell-tale mark in the terrain which reveals the bunker long before being spotted.

I dislike the 'bunker divots' too, they could look OK combined with CM:SF/CM:A terrain type trenches, but it looks a bit odd in the newer titles, to me at least. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead