apex Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Hi, in a PBEM ran into the problem that a pillbox was taken out in the very first turn by a Bofors 40mm. I did test the matter further and built a test scenario with only a bofors and a 88 pillbox in it, distance 850 meters, no ammo for the 88. Result: 10 times out of 10 the pillbox was taken out or the gun damaged within the first turn, usually around 20 seconds into the first round. Now, obviously this renders pillboxes quite useless, and furthermore I don't think the war accounts I have read talk much about AAA being used to take out pillboxes. Thesis: This is a bug / hole in the modelling. Comments? apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 I've never really delved very far into specific WWII accounts, but, in theory, I'm not sure why AAA couldn't handle pillboxes. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 According to the readme, this is far less likely to occur in 1.04. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted August 20, 2000 Author Share Posted August 20, 2000 This was with 1.04. apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 AAA, here I come!! I have to give this a try, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 I was the one doing the shooting here. The main problem would seem to be the abundance of firing slit penetrations. That's about the only way pboxes are killed in CM. The matter was discussed in length in the long running "...gaping holes" thread. I don't think an agreement was reached, but I'm too lazy to check. 1.04 lessened the chance of low calibre guns destroying the box with a penetration, but I guess 40mm doesn't qualify. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 It didn't say impossible, just less likely. Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a concrete box with two-pound bits of steel ricocheting around inside, but that's just me. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Mr. Test here... I ran a test pretty much like you did. Bofors vs 75 and 88 pillboxes. All forces Regular. Distance approx 750m. Ran 100 test fires. On average, it took 5.89 shots to knock out/cause abandonment of the pillboxes. Average time was about 25 seconds. Now you might say... "Wow, the pillboxes are worthless, look how fast they die facing that AAA." I think you would be wrong. The only thing this has proved that unarmed pillboxes that have no friendly units helping are dead meat against the Bofors AA. I set up the same battle using a wooden mg bunker instead of the gunned pillboxes. While the AA won most of those match ups, the mg was able to suppress and pin the Bofors a couple of times. Using a 75 Pillbox against an unarmed Bofors, the AA was usually pinned by the 2nd or 3rd shot, in an average of about 25 second. So what can we conclude... 1st, it's going to be very rare that a bofors vs pillbox matchup will occur, because since both units have very low/no mobility, they will generally only engage because they both "setup" with LOS to each other. 2nd. In a head to head engagement, the pillbox generally will render ineffective the AA before the the AA can get the kill. 3rd. If the Pillbox has any support, then the AA is most likely dead meat. So sorry, but you don't get your PhD in CM-ology. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz: So sorry, but you don't get your PhD in CM-ology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mike, if you don't get to be a Beta-tester for CM2, they must have stopped recruiting a long time ago. Thanks for the work here and on other issues. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz: Ran 100 test fires. On average, it took 5.89 shots to k... ... 1st, it's going to be very rare that a bofors vs pillbox matchup will occur, because since both units have very low/no mobility, they will generally only engage because they both "setup" with LOS to each other. 2nd. In a head to head engagement, the pillbox generally will render ineffective the AA <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First: Wow man! When you test you test but good. Second: I throw in a quote from "Concrete Bunkers" thread <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: In Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose he talks about the Siegfried Line assault (which VoT is supposed to represent).From his story telling there was only 2 "sure" ways to take out a bunker, engineers and a 155mm artillery piece firing direct fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe it was just that no-one ever tried AA gun against a bunker. Maybe. But maybe there's something wrong here instead. Now, I can easily believe a pillbox can be taken out with AA gun. Sounds credible. But if it's so, why wasn't it done that way? Oops. Forgot to bitch about 155mm artillery piece not being any more mobile than a 44 AA gun. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? [This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 08-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Upon reading these posts, I had to set my own firing range with the Bofors and an 88 pillbox. The distance was 350 meters. Both had command units attached. There was a major problem I'll get to anon. First, when the Bofors was firing from cover, thus enjoying the 1st blow, it knocked ot the P'box every time within a few shots. Should an Ack Ack gun be this potent against concrete emplacements? I don't know. Without the Bofors enjoying cover, the 88's, the quicker draw, neutralised or annihilated the Bofors- virtually every time. With the MG Pillbox it was about 50-50 from this distance. If the Bofors unit became heavily suppressed-which is what MGs seem to do in CM- it sputtered out of ammunition, ending the scenario in a draw. Now why, you may ask, did I choose a distance of only 350m? Because...I had to use a horizontal battlefield. When I placed the pillbox and played the Germans, the gun slit was oriented properly facing the allies to the south. Howrver, when I took the allied side, the pillbox faced resolutely west whatever I did in scenario creation. The Bofors refused to open up on the flank or rear of the 'box. No fire exchanges took place until the allied HQ took off for the victory flag making a beeline North and was gunned down- gruesome overkill-by the mighty western-facing 88s. Four dead men. Do we have a major bug here? Of course, maybe all the German fortifications did face west- except on the other front. I'm getting confused. This test scenario was created in 1.04. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 An addendum to the previous post. In my readings in WW2 history, including Steven Ambrose & others, I don't recall General Patton , when he arrived at the Westwall in Sept '44, begging Monty to loan his 3rd Army some Bofors guns. The Allies employed 105s and 155s in direct fire, at close range against these structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Regarding your problems getting the pillbox facing... I had no problems.. you have to use the rotate command to get it facing which ever way you want. Are you saying that the bug is the 40 wouldn't fire at the side or rear of the pillbox? Nope. not a bug from what I know... The reason the AA didn't fire is because there is zero chance, as far as the AA is concered, of penetrating the thick concrete sides of rear to get a kill. The only way the AA can get a kill is to get a slit penetration. Since it can't hit the slit from the side/rear, it's not gonna waste the ammo. Also, concerning the Bofors "kills" on the pillboxes. When I ran my test, I did not make an actual count of the numbers, but probably a good 90-95% of the "kills" were actually abandonments, after the AA caused gun damage, or causing a large number of casualties inside the pillbox. I just finished running another series of tests using an M36 anainst the pillbox. On average, it took 4.4 shots for the 36 to score a kill. But the difference here is that 90% of these "kills" are real (ie knockouts). Of course this is just my minds eye, and I have no clue if any real life tests were conducted using AA against concrete enplacements, but I can imagine that an AA gun spewing tons of lead at a pillbox will probably squeeze quite a few rounds into the slit, and some of those rounds will damage the gun/crew, as we see from the CM tests. Without any real life data to refute the possibility, how can we characterize this as a bug. We don't know... But here is the main point of this whole argument. Was what Apex witnessed a fluke? I say yes because it came about purely because of of the circumstances concerning the setup each side made, LOS, phases of the moon, ect. And if this is a QB, what are the odds of one side taking pillboxes, vs the other side taking AA guns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Mikeydz, sorry, I tried another test scenario and- again- the computer mis-oriented the pillbox towards the West. Yes, I understand how the 'O' key works. In scenario design it doesn't sometimes- apparently. No, I don't think it's a bug that the AA gun declined to fire at the flank & rear of the wrong-facing pillbox. The target line noted that chance of kill was 'rare'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 I think I know what's going on with your placement problem You need to do 1 of 2 things. 1. When creating your scenario, make sure you padlock the pillboxes to lock them down. 2. Make sure when you "play the scenario", make sure that you set the computer setup option to "stick to scenario default" I'm willing to be that will get the results you want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Your're right, padlocking the the damn thing in design solved the problem. Good thinking. I still wonder about the potency of this gun, emptying out pillboxes with such ease. If the the Bofors gun was that potent then American .50 MGs should have been equally effective. And I don't think they were known as pillbox busters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Well, I was going to test the .50s effectiveness against the pillbox, but unfortunately, I couldn't get the .50cal to stay targeted on the pillbox. It won't target using target next, but you can manually target during the order phase. But the problem is the TacAI cancels the target order after the first burst, so you can't sustain fire on the thing. I doubt that the .50 should be as effective, at least as far as causing gun damage/knocking out. But I would think that it would have some small chance, with a slit penetration, of causing a crew casualty, or at least providing some suppressive effect on the crew. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 FWIW an AA unit cleared one of the main holdups on a D-Day beach. Sorry, its late and I don't feel like looking it up but I think it was Utah. Bottom line is they DID work pretty well because I have heard this account several times. The reason they were not used more is because docterine generally placed AA & AAA (not the same) behind the front lines (another argument entirely...that I refuse to start again, thank you) ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Keep in mind that the 40mm Bofors was a rapid fire weapon for it's bore size. I imagine several 40mm HE or AP rounds in a short space would cause major shrapnel damage as long as the impacts were grouped around the firing slit. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 There is a combination of factors here: 1. People for some reason don't think of AAA as effective ground to ground weapons. ( They were and are.) 2. People are starting the AAA gun off in a perfect attacking position. In reality IF a AAA gun got into position to fire at a bunker then it had a very good chance of taking it out BUT the bitch was dragging the AAA gun into position through the hail of MG or HE fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: There is a combination of factors here: 1. People for some reason don't think of AAA as effective ground to ground weapons. ( They were and are.) 2. People are starting the AAA gun off in a perfect attacking position. In reality IF a AAA gun got into position to fire at a bunker then it had a very good chance of taking it out BUT the bitch was dragging the AAA gun into position through the hail of MG or HE fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the more reason for BTS (he says hopefully) to include the M19 GMC with twin Bofors AA Guns mounted on an M24 Chaffee chassis. I know it was only being delivered to US units right towards the end of the war but it would still be alot of fun to test out against bunker fortifications. I guess I'll just have to keep dreaming Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted August 20, 2000 Author Share Posted August 20, 2000 Several answers in one post: To Mikey (100 tests, wow, I was satisfied after 10 that showed the same result ): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alexander: Your're right, padlocking the the damn thing in design solved the problem. Good thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah --- so that's the secret! Had noticed this too, but never got around to bitching about it. Am still curious, however, on why in canned scenarios, bunker crews are all depicted as tanker crewmen --- complete with black uniform and profile pic? In QB's they show up as normal soldats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 One thing that just occurred to me. If you'd kill a pillbox with AA gun in real life, you wouldn't know it's dead before you'd go to it and look. I mean, how could you tell the difference between lethal and non-lethal slit penetration? With a big gun, when the box caves in, you can be pretty sure it's dead. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: One thing that just occurred to me. If you'd kill a pillbox with AA gun in real life, you wouldn't know it's dead before you'd go to it and look. I mean, how could you tell the difference between lethal and non-lethal slit penetration?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they're still shooting back, it wasn't lethal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts