Bunkers Immune to Arty + Other Issues

[Ataru *~]

Remote is right, M Hofbauer. And it's Ataru, not Atari. (Atari also means hit, but is a noun whereas Ataru is a verb)

Hehe, and tho I really didn't think David was trying to start a philosophical discussion, my apologies if somehow I was in err. *chuckles*

Ataru

[JoePrivate]

Ataru, may I ask where you found that the pillboxes in CM are 500mm thick? Thanks.

[Ataru *~]

Either the info onscreen when purchasing or the in-game pop-up stats window; not sure which. I can't confirm right now, but I'm just about positive I'm right; you're welcome to check tho.

Ataru

[M Hofbauer]

Joe,

in QB or scenario design when you buy the units, in the lower left corner of the screen there are some rough data given on the item of purchase. among them is armor. for the concrete bunkers, IIRC it says up to 500mm or something....

hey WAIT A MINUTE ataru!

it doesn't say 500mm of concrete! it says 500mm of ARMOR!

that means, they have translated the 200cm of steel-reinforced concrete into the equivalent of 50cm armor!

now, 50cm armor, that indeed is "nothing" as in "nothing can withstand a 14inch hit".

case solved.

------------------

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[JoePrivate]

Thanks guys, I had not noticed that at all!

[Ataru *~]

Hehe, M Hofbauer, don't think that's some kind of victory over me. When I said 500 mms of concrete I was stating what I thought I'd read, and it had no effect on my opinion as to whether or not the pillboxes could be penetrated at the time. (which to tell the truth was nonexistant; I had and still have no idea how much concrete, steel-reinforced or not, anything could penetrate) *grins* But if you feel the pillboxes should not be able to be knocked out by arty then, knowing it's 500 mms of armor max thickness, I'll go with that.

However, such large arty as 14 inch cannon fire *would* kill or disable everyone in a pillbox were it to land on it or within feet of it, wouldn't it? Or am I overestimating these weapons? And if noone were killed or wounded, wouldn't the blast and sheer noise be enough to warrant a *shocked* state? (basically a 30 second to minute daze in CM)

And hey, the flamethrower prices are still extremely strange.

Ataru

[Ataru *~]

Bump. Hey, there are some issues yet to be laid to rest that remain in this thread! Me want cheaper Allied Flamethrowers! (or more expensive German ones I guess, tho I'd rather not see Flamethrowers get *even more* expensive) *grins*

Ataru

[David Aitken]

I was just wondering, if "nothing" could survive a direct hit from a 14" shell, would five metres of concrete be classified as "nothing"?

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I was just wondering, if "nothing" could survive a direct hit from a 14" shell, would five metres of concrete be classified as "nothing"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not thinking in terms of 5 or 50 meters of concrete,

a mountain, a planet, or something like that.

I was merely thinking of something man-made that was around.

Unless you are seriously suggesting pillboxes were 5 meters thick?

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Splinty]

The only way I've been able to actually knock out a bunker is with a lucky slit penetration from a 105mm Sherman and I've only done that once.(this afternoon actually!)

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

[M Hofbauer]

the "hit"-asterisksnake wrote:

Hehe, M Hofbauer, don't think that's some kind of victory over me. When I said 500 mms

of concrete I was stating what I thought I'd read, and it had no effect on my opinion as to whether or not the pillboxes could be penetrated at the time.

oh, that wait a minute was not meant directed as a "na-na nana-na you're wrong" at you, it was more like an outspoken lightbulb of astonishment, because I hadn't thought of that ymself before, and 50cm armor is quite a difference to 50cm concrete...so I had one of those rare spilt-seconds where you see all the beauty of life, the universe and everything, where you can see to infinity with total clarity....of course such moments pass faster than they appear so all you are left with is that astonishment over a small issue that was cleared up in that moment.

(which to tell the truth was nonexistant; I had and still have no idea how much concrete, steel-reinforced or not, anything could penetrate)

hmm not sure about HE, but there are rules of thumb for conversion of concrete into armor (btw when I say "armor" I always mean it as a terminus technicus for armor = treated steel) or vice versa. I seem to faintly remember a rule of thumb for the conversion of concrete into effective armor as regards the effectiveness of hollow charges, and it went something like 200cm of concrete transform into 80cm of armor...or something like that...might be totally of here though, I don't remember the exact figures (personally I find the figure to be too high).

But if you feel the pillboxes should not be able to be knocked out by arty then, knowing it's 500 mms of armor max thickness, I'll go with that.

now don't you start giving in, this is an argument here

no, you really shouldn't "go with that" because I frankly I don't know either, it's just my personal opinion. Yes, IMO I think 500mm of armor should be pretty immune to artillery, but then I am not so sure about the 14"....

However, such large arty as 14 inch cannon fire *would* kill or disable everyone in a pillbox were it to land on it or within feet of it, wouldn't it?

well if you are asking for my personal opinion:

no, it wouldn't IMO. If it doesn't penetrate or cave in or spall, a bunker is exactly what it was built for, a shelter. Depending on the bunker construction, even blast can be disregarded, but probably not for the type we are discusing here.

Or am I overestimating these weapons?

maybe.

let me see, I'll look some artillery data up.

(big hassle, rummaging through boxes with books)

(returns with a wad of documents and things he usually refers to as "stuff")

ok, seems we can totally forget all that smaller stuff...an arbitrary example, the german 17-K18 fired a projectile with an actual caliber of 172mm which weighed 62.8kg which included 6.1 kg of explosives. (Vo 925m/s, range 31km)

this won't harm our baby. kinetic energy shouldn't be disregarded, oh no, but still it is after all a HE round.

we need bigger stuff, something in the 14" range...

ok, how about .... a rail gun...like, the Siegfried (E) with 38cm...yes that should be more than comparable to the 14"...

ok it fired the S.Gr.L/4,5 which weighed 495kg which included 48 kg of explosives.

hmmm...basically, Imight be totally off here but isn't it too far fetched to roughy compare this to a SC500, a 500kg (1000lb) heavy aircraft bomb?

Now, even a StuKa throwing down a 500kg bomb has problems with heavy concrete bunkers...

but we are not much further, anyway at least now you have a rough idea on some of the dimensions...

now, here's an interesting tidbit which refers to my comment above that a HE round isn't exactly the best thing to attack concrete binkers...

because of the ineffectivity of regular artillery ammunitions versus fortifications, theb germans developed special Betongranaten ((anti-concrete) rounds), later became known under the name "Röchling-Granaten"...hmm yes I read that before somewhere...ok they were basically long penetrator rods, much like in a sabot, made of chrome-vanadium (got some of that stuff in my toolbox, screwdrivers and such)...these long kinetic energy penetrators worked rather well, they were made in 15cm and 24cm caliber...trials at the Maginot line showed they could penetrate welll over 4m of concrete...however, since they were so spectacularly effective, Hitler prohibited the use of this ammunition (well he didnt prohibnit it but he had to be asked before every single round of them was to be employed, and he very rarely allowed it) as he feared the allies would find out about them and then use this concept against the german fortifications...

(typing interrupted by 55min - phone call)

uhmmm...where have we left off?

yes, artillery ineffective versus strong fortifications. I say, regular arty, no dice, heavy arty would need direct hits IMO.

And if noone were killed or wounded, wouldn't the blast and sheer noise be enough to warrant a *shocked* state?

noise maybe, blast maybe. Not sure. Fortunately I never had to endure anything like that, I guerss I'ld be terrified by the thought alone that there is people around which are actively trying to kill me.

And hey, the flamethrower prices are still extremely strange.

you might very well be right there, but I can't tell, because I never use them, I find them pretty ineffective, and so far my PBEM opponents never achieved anything worthwile with handheld FTs either (they did with wasps and such nasty stuff, though). Historically, handheld FTs weren't regular equipment in the german army, but only issued out of the arsenal to assault engineers for certain tasks/missions, which happened more seldom than what most people seem to think (my grampa was an assault engineer NCO with the 290. ID near Leningrad).

Bump. Hey, there are some issues yet to be laid to rest that remain in this thread! Me

want cheaper Allied Flamethrowers! (or more expensive German ones I guess, tho I'd rather not see Flamethrowers get *even more* expensive) *grins*

well if they have equal performance then I agree they should cost the same. are you sure they have the same range? didn't the allies have a longer range?

David,

I was just wondering, if "nothing" could survive a direct hit from a 14" shell, would five metres of concrete be classified as "nothing"?

IMO 5 meters of concrete might be absolutely nothing by the above definition. I've been to the Atlantikwall bunkers, they have around 5m of concrete, and they do show signs of very large hits on them. But didn't suffer on the inside.

Jarmo,

some were. Though agreed pillbox might not be the right term then, more like casemate.

Splinty,

I have repeatedly seen Greyhounds or halftracks take out concrete bunkers through firing slit hits.

[Jager 7]

Great thread but I have yet to see anyone address the real issue. So far everyone is comparing oranges to apples. Indirect fire arty (105mm, 155mm and even the huge German Rail guns) fire at Low Velocity with rather high trajectory.

Naval guns are in effect big rifles. They fire large projectiles at High Velocity. Most of their destructive and penetration power is a result of this high velocity. Naval guns are designed to penetrate heavily armored capital ships first....provide shore bombardment secondly. Have to research 14" muzzle velocities but 16"/50 had an MV of about 2,700 feet per second...or roughly the same MV as a 7.62mm bullet fired from an American M-60 MG. I imagine a 14" would have a somewhat lower MV but not much lower. The key is the rifle-like high velocity and relatively flat trajectory.

Not really sure if the concrete bunkers in CM should be able to withstand a direct hit from a 14" naval gun but I will say they should be resistant to all forms of "Indirect artillery" fire. If the bunker has thick enough walls it could withstand a 14" hit.

My 2 cents worth.

Out here....

------------------

When the situation is obscure....attack!

CGen. Heinz Guderian

[Jarmo]

So this seems to pour down to the question of, what kind of constructions

the pillboxes in CM represent.

As there is only one model of pillbox in the game, it might be

reasonable to assume, it's something of an average, the most

usual model, or something.

As the thing is shown to be much smaller than an average building,

about tank-size, I find it hard to believe it has walls several

meters thick. I could be wrong, of course.

It's understandable that there were very resilient constructions

around. I'd expect the ones on the coast would be more strongly built

than the ones inland.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Jager 7]

Jarmo,

If I had to come down on one side or the other I would say IMHO all concrete bunkers in CM should be resistant to Indirect fire arty,(81, 105, 150, 155mm)but not resistant to a direct hit from a 14" NGF or a similar vision slit shot by a tank or bazooka.

[Guest Germanboy]

Ataru somefink, re: flamethrowers. I would bet the issue is range.

US 45m

Gerbil 32m

This makes a huge difference.

------------------

Andreas

[Ataru *~]

Alrighty. So here's the situation... we have a general agreement that normal indirect fire arty, even of the largest calibers, should be incapable of defeating CM's pillboxes, but still some uncertainty on the 14 inchers due to their nature as direct fire battleship guns. We have M Hofbauer who wants me to hold up my side of the argument. *grins* We have myself, who still takes issue with flamethrower prices, and StuG prices to some degree. (heck, let's add Tiger prices to the list; who wants an early version when you can get the late, much less susceptible to rockets and large arty for 1 point more! )

On the flamers, their ranges are equal, tho the Allied flamers certainly have range advantages on their flamer vehicles. (albeit at increased cost) Even discounting the balance issues however, someone please tell me how realistic it is that the German flamethrower team can have 50% more ammo AND a better movement class than the Allied flamers? I guess the German equipment *could* be enough superior in weight and bulkyness to hold more napalm at a weight that would warrant the same movement class as the Allied version... but enough to carry that and to warrant *better* movement?

(ah, just reviewed the thread and saw that German flamers have less range... hehe, guess I was wrong on that. I wouldn't say it makes *enough* of a difference to equalize the prices however; not by a long shot. What are flamers for? Mainly, burning buildings; sometimes pillboxes if you can get behind. For both of these purposes, medium speed is significantly superior to slow speed with somewhat longer range. Range is more important in an ambush, but infantry flamethrowers are never bought for this purpose, tho they are used in this manner at times in defensive scenarios in which you are given them... however, that is irrelevant as price only matters in QBs. Why they aren't bought for ambush is pretty obvious; inferior speed and performance in armor/vehicle-busting than rocket launchers of any sort, at a much higher price, and horrible anti-infantry performance. Plus, as infantry flamethrowers that actually are of use pretty much always run out of ammo, the extra ammo of the german variety is a big deal, while not as important as the speed issue. The extra ammo at a faster speed also remains nebulous in its realism to me; an explanation would be nice. )

Hehe, now, I actually think ALL flamethrowers are overpriced in relation to non-flamethrower units, but that is merely an opinion.

Ataru

[This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-04-2000).]

[Claymore]

Bump...

Reviewing my sources (e.g. American Forces in Action Series) the performance of large caliber naval artillery on concrete strongpoints was poor. There were numerous strongpoints in and around the Normandy beaches and the advance to Cherbourg that were deluged with 14+" artillery. Plunging fire seemed to do little to knock out the emplacements or cause the inferior quality troops manning them to surrender. Without exception the strongpoints had to be reduced with infantry in close combat using satchel charges and flamethrowers.

How these emplacements compare to those modeled in CM is a fair question. But to me, I am very interested in modeling the Allies attempts to reduce the peninsular forts and the effectivness of plunging fire is correctly modeled in my opinion.

Now, on the beaches themselves the high-velocity med caliber naval artillery was far more effective in taking out strongpoints. Without a doubt this was caused by firing slit penetrations not by side-wall penetrations. CMBO does not model this behaviour correctly, unless simulated with direct fire from tanks or on board artillery pieces. HOWEVER, CMBO clearly states that it deals with actions AWAY from the beachead and I do not find anything worth patching/fixing in this case.

(References and correct spellings available upon request)

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore:

HOWEVER, CMBO clearly states that it deals with actions AWAY from the beachead and I do not find anything worth patching/fixing in this case.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes; it is, after all, "Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord". For those who really want to try a D-day, scenario, why is no one instead pointing out the lack of beach terrain? This, IMHO, is more important than if a 14" rifle can take out a bunker. The large guns were not used on beach defenses once the troops were on the beach, anyway. True, light cruisers and destroyers did provide some direct fire support, but that's another story.

Ditto to Claymore.

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[jshandorf]

I have read actual accounts from the soldiers on D-Dy and they basically said that the naval bombardment did nothing to the concrete casements the Germans poured into the cliff walls.

BUT in some cases a large volume of direct hits on the casements caused the soldiers eardrums inside to burst and some of them to pass out from the concussion damage.

An interesting fact is that even today you can go to Omaha beach and STILL see some of the concrete casements the Germans poured. They are STILL there.. After 50 years.

Jeff

[Holien]

I have spent some time in Normandy looking at the remains of the fortifications there and my belief is that indirect fire against concrete pillboxs is pretty naff.

Even the air dropped bombs did little against the actual structure. When they hit which was rare indeed.

The Germans are great engineers and the concrete was sunk deep onto pads which soaked up the KE from all that hit it. I could go into more technical detail but believe me those guys knew what they were doing in their designs (unlike the Brits designs for Sealion).

The only way to really deal with the bunkers were direct LOS weapons which could get a shot in the slit. This was very difficult due to the way they were designed.

The effect on morale however is the real win in Indirect weapons as the men inside were not upto much after all those load bangs and the fear generated by their own minds based upon death images as hell enveloped them.

So IMHO concrete bunkers should be pretty much invulnerale to arty fired indirect.

Somewhat vulnerable to long range direct weapons and pretty vulnerable to up close front on (facing slit) direct LOS shots.

Side on or rear on direct los shots should have no effect. Misses from direct los weapons should not worry the crew too much as physcologically it is easier to deal with.

Indirect LOS weapons should give the greater chance of the crew legging it.

Just my view, from looking hard at designs in Normandy and the UK.

[patboivin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The CM Borg:

Ataru is assimilated

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM Borg, I congratulate the collective on this addition of a fine Borg smiley.

[Olle Petersson]

Hi all!

This thread intruiged me, so I did a test (like everybody else). A couple of Elite pillboxes attacked by 14" guns.

Several "Hit, no substantial damage" were noted to a couple of the bunkers.

This seems wrong!

Effect of 14" gun, IMO:

1st hit: Pillbox shaking, some external structural damage.

2nd hit: Internal flaking, more structural damage.

3rd hit: Total destruction.

Even smaller calibres (>100mm) should have this prolonged effect, but requiring more hits. Treating pillboxes like (very heavy) buildings rather than vehicles would do the trick.

As it is now HE rounds need to enter the pillbox through the firing slit or rear door to have a chance of knocking it out (Spigot mortars excepted).

Oh, hollow charge rounds are very effective in destroying reinforced concrete (in real life, not CM).

Cheers

Olle

[Claymore]

Ollie,

Re your comment: "This seems wrong!...IMO"

It is evident that your critique of the effect of plunging fire from 14+" artillery is based solely on your "feelings". The historical record is clear on the effect of plunging fire on the concrete bunkers/strong points during WWII. Plunging naval gunnery during the Overlord and post-Overlord advance to Cherbourg DID NOT KNOCK OUT A SINGLE concrete bunker according to my references (available upon request).

CM modeling of artillery vs pillboxes DOES NOT require any fixes/patches.

[Jager 7]

Claymore....

"CM modeling of artillery vs pillboxes DOES NOT require any fixes/patches."

I like the way you put that.

[M Hofbauer]

Olle,

Effect of 14" gun, IMO:

1st hit: Pillbox shaking, some external structural damage.

2nd hit: Internal flaking, more structural damage.

3rd hit: Total destruction.

this is like saying: Greyhound's 37mm main gun vs Kingtiger front armor:

1st hit: no damage

(...)

15th hit: internal armor flaking

(...)

58th hit: total destruction.

Maybe you have played too many RTS games like Sudden Strike and RedAlert or the like.

CM is NOT like that. You can NOT kill a tank in CM with a rifle repeatedly hiting it.

There is no adding-up effect of armor penetration or damage capability of single rounds.

Sorry but I think your opinion above is very silly. Any round, be it artillery or not, has a certain penetration performance, and based on that a certain chance of defeating the target's armor. The first round has as much or as little chance to destroy the target, as does the last round.

I agree with Claymore when he says, to coin it in the style of CPT S.:

"please dont fix. do nofink!!!!"

------------------

"Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)