Pillbox Vision Slits are apparently giant gaping holes that attract wayward rounds!!

[Jeff Heidman]

This has happened to me a few times now.

How is it possible for a tank to fire a round from over 500m away and hit the vision slit of a pillbox on the very first try? This has happened to me three times now. First round fired of the intire scenario last night took out my 88 Pillbox with a shot through the vision slit at 500m.

I know that the vision slit was targeted, but I do not think it would be remotely possible to aim at and hit a vision slit at that distance, much less with the first round fired. I doubt you could do that today, with laser range finders and high velocity SABOT ammunition. For that matter, with WW2 era optics, I doubt you could SEE a vision slit at half a kilometer!

Jeff Heidman

[Guest ACTOR]

Jeff I have had the opposite problem with pillboxes. I can't kill the damn things. I played a scenario will an AT pillbox sitting at the end of a valley. The thing toasted me!

I finally did kill it with a shot through the vision slit at less than 50m.

Maybe it was luck!

[This message has been edited by ACTOR (edited 07-12-2000).]

[paullus]

Vision slits are the weakest point at the front of a pillbox (the concrete is not supported as much, as in the rest of the structure).

A near miss by a tank or artillery round could be enough to cave in the vision slit and destroy the bunker.

[Guest Michael emrys]

And besides, calling it a vision slit is misleading since it suggests an opening only large enough to peep through. Calling it a gun port would be closer to the mark. Remember, it has to be large enough to allow the gun to be aimed through its full field of fire. Since the trunnions would likely be some distance back from even the inside walls, the opening has to be large enough to permit considerable play. In the case of your 88, that means it might be well over a foot high and three or more feet wide easily. As paullus mentions, the immediately surrounding area, while solid, is of greatly reduced thickness.

Michael

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

And besides, calling it a vision slit is misleading since it suggests an opening only large enough to peep through. Calling it a gun port would be closer to the mark. Remember, it has to be large enough to allow the gun to be aimed through its full field of fire. Since the trunnions would likely be some distance back from even the inside walls, the opening has to be large enough to permit considerable play. In the case of your 88, that means it might be well over a foot high and three or more feet wide easily. As paullus mentions, the immediately surrounding area, while solid, is of greatly reduced thickness.Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have a chance to rent it, watch the movie "The Longest Day". There are some scenes showing some of the Atlantic Wall fortifications that have HUGE gun ports, big enough to drive a truck into! Granted, they're a special case (coastal artillery), but scale the guns down to 88mm or 75mm and it should give you an idea of how big the openings really need to be for the guns to have an effective field of fire.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Jeff Heidman]

The size of the opening is irrelevant. The point is that at 500m, using WW2 technology, any hit on any particluar part of a pilbox is going to be nothing more than luck. You cannot aim at the gun port at 500m, period. You aim at the pillbox in general. Then, IF you hit the pillbox itself, you have a chance of hitting the weak spot, based on the size of the weak spot divided by the surface area of the exposed face.

The Atlantic wall is a good exmaple. With giant pillboxes, presumably with very large gunports, the Navy never managed to take a significant number of them out, despite vastly superior fire control to anything found in a tank.

In real life, if you are counting on your armor taking out a pillbox by firing through the firing port, you are going to end up with dead armor if the pillbox has anything larger than a machine gun in it. If the key is hitting the firing port, your best bet is a small caliber, high velocity, high rate of fire round anyway. Yet, history tells us that in order to take out pillboxes, all the combatants went the other way, with large caliber, low velocity rounds designed to crush the walls.

I would eb willing to bet that the very vast majority of pillboxes destroyed in WW2 were NOT destroyed by guns firing rounds through the vision slits, but that is the *primary* kill method in CM.

Jeff Heidman

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The size of the opening is irrelevant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to disagree; it's the most vunerable part of the target! To have the field of fire that pillboxes posess in the game would in most cases require an opening nearly the size of a light tank. (but it doesn't move as fast )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Atlantic wall is a good exmaple. With giant pillboxes, presumably with very large gunports, the Navy never managed to take a significant number of them out, despite vastly superior fire control to anything found in a tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's cause it was indirect fire. I have read many accounts of destroyers closing to direct fire range and sending shots straight into bunkers (and Japanese caves in the Pacific).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would eb willing to bet that the very vast majority of pillboxes destroyed in WW2 were NOT destroyed by guns firing rounds through the vision slits, but that is the *primary* kill method in CM.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would second this, actually. That's because most pillboxes were not stand alone affairs, but part of a defensive SYSTEM (that included tank obstacles, some not included in CM like dragon's teeth, AT ditches, etc). Infantry was more plentiful than armor in WWII and better suited to a battle of atrittion like these fortifications created. (IMHO)

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Little Black Devil]

Well Jeff I'm afraid I'd have to disagree too. Tankers did infact target specific parts of their targets at range. If you take the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers for instance, they and many other allied WWII tankers, used to aim at the lower portion of a Panther A's gun mantlet so as to purposely deflect the round into the thinner armour over the driver and co-driver at at range of 500m with a standard 75mm gun. This was regular practice and usually only ever took anywhere from between 1-3 rounds. The lower portion of a Panther A's gun mantlet is certainly no bigger than the Gun port, and these guys regularly scored hits and kills doing it.

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

"Hosti Acie Nominati"

[Mi_Go]

you have also got to remember that a AT pillbox was not really meant to defend from the firing side. it was meant to defend the side/rear/top and some of the front. Because it was part of a system, it was assumed that it only had to be responsible for defending its weak spot, its front end. In CM, I have actually had more trouble knocking out mg bunkers, probably cause they model the vision slit a lot smaller so it is harder to hit (any 1 know if that is correct?). Let me ask you this, did u get a shot off with your 88? if not, that is your real problem. The fastest way for me to knock out AT pillboxes has been to get more than 1 target for them to shoot at. They may get 1 tank, but the 2nd almost always does the job before the AT gun can switch targets.

[chrisl]

The turret on a hull down tank isn't exactly a huge target and they get zapped plenty frequently. I don't think PBs are overly weak from the front either. 500 m isn't all *that* far, especially with an aiming system that has even a little magnification.

[Guest Mike the bike]

500m is point blank for most tank guns in laet WW2 - that is the round doesn't drop much in it's trajectory tothat range. Add a magnifying gun-sight, and a statinoary target with good target definition (ie you can easily see where the slit is) and a 1st shot kill doesn't seem too bad.

Also how are you placing yuor pillboxes? As someone else said, they have to be part of a defesivescheme. Preferably firing into the flank from hidden positions, with infantry to cover their flank/rear from clsoe assault.

If yuo are trynig to hide your gun directly in front of the enemy, then a bloody great concrete or wood structure is not going to help!

[Guest Johnsog]

I reckon the computer seems to have a little more luck when it comes to targeting Pillboxes... When I'm targeting them, I have to shot ten rounds at the enemy pillbox... and STILL nothing. But reverse the situation, I've got a pillbox with 50 rounds ready... do I get to use any...no, enemy tank pops up, POW! , first shot into firing slit, no more pillbox...

[Fionn]

Jeff,

1. The size of the slit is NOT irrelevant. On many bunker these openings could be 2 or 3 feet in size.

2. A weak spot on the Panther A was FOUR INCHES in size. Allied tankers used to intentionally ai at that weakspot. If they COULD hit a 4 inch high target then they could surely hit a target 3 to 9 times larger than that.

Sorry but you're just wrong. Your statements about optics etc are also wrong. Optics were good enough to allow a good crew to pick out a tank hiding in trees at over a km.

[Aacooper]

Johnsog pointed out one of the rules of gaming. I have the problem in PBEM. When I attack pillboxes, they're invulnerable. When I have pillboxes, they get knocked out by the first Greyhound that sticks its nose that way.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Johnsog pointed out one of the rules of gaming. I have the problem in PBEM. When I attack pillboxes, they're invulnerable. When I have pillboxes, they get knocked out by the first Greyhound that sticks its nose that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Harharhar!!!!! For both our games!! Die Panther die!!!!!

Oops, lunchtime...

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

Andreas

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

In real life, if you are counting on your armor taking out a pillbox by firing through the firing port, you are going to end up with dead armor if the pillbox has anything larger than a machine gun in it. If the key is hitting the firing port, your best bet is a small caliber, high velocity, high rate of fire round anyway. Yet, history tells us that in order to take out pillboxes, all the combatants went the other way, with large caliber, low velocity rounds designed to crush the walls.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Those loonie Heer chaps reclassified the 8.8 cm FlaK 18 as a Dual- purpose Kannon/gun based upon their experience with it on Bunker busting in the Low lands in 1939. Another intresting point is the Heer's continued intrest in Guns for the arty arm as opposed to low velocity Howitzers for Fortress/bunker busting: 10cm Kannon, 17 cm sK18 guns vs the 10,5 cm LeFH and LeFH 15cm Howitzers.

Oh in designing a Gun you want Range and velocity. The 1st point, range is so you outrang the defenders guns. The 2nd point, velocity is for punching thru reinforced concrete, what Bunkers are made out of. The lack of 'Guns' in the American inventory is one of the reasons why they found Metz (French fortress town, medieval) such hard going.

[MichaelU]

I've seen a 75mm bunker in Normandy, and I was surprised by how large the opening was. Certainly wouldn't be too much trouble lobbing a shell through there.

I've got a great picture of the bunker that shows the size of the opening, but unfortunately no scanner.

[Tom Callmeyer]

Got a concrete MG pillbox by working a piat and an engineer behind it (took a pitched infantry firefight to clear the flank). Piat fired into the metal rear doos about 5 times, penetrating the door & killing 2 crew. Next brought the enigineer up behind and a single satchel charge finished the job.

[Jarmo]

A point made by Scott in "naval guns":

If the bunkers have

such a large openings, shouldn't shrapnell from explosions in front

of it be able to kill or wound crewmembers?

[John Kettler]

Jeff,

Here's what "Seek, Strike and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II," Leavenworth Papers #12 by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel of the U.S. Army's Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas says on your topic (pp.57-58) concerning engaging Westwall (Siegfried Line) fortifications:

"From a range of one thousand yards, ten rounds from a tank destroyer gun would penetrate a small pillbox or jam the shutters of a larger work and would often cause the pillbox crew to surrender. The penetrative effect was enhanced by aiming all four guns of a platoon at the same point and firing simultaneously. The 629th Tank Destroyer Battalion (M-10) discovered that the easiest way to reduce a pillbox was from the rear--where one three-inch round would blow in the entrance and one high-explosive round sent through the open doorway invariably induced the survivors to surrender."

He then goes on to note that the 803rd Tank Destroyer Battalion assigned a platoon to each infantry assault battalion, provided that platoon with infantry radios and "engaged a pair of pillboxes at a time, with one M-10 firing at the embrasure of each pillbox, and with two M-10s standing by in an overwatch role. The three-inch rounds did not usually penetrate the fortifications, but they did prevent the enemy from manning his weapons, thus enabling the American infantry to reach the blind side of the fortifications."

If you're wondering about the nastier 90mm M-36, the same monograph lists penetration as 4.5' of nonreinforced concrete, no range given, on pp. 53-54.

The sources for all of the above items were period official field reports.

I'd also suggest you take a look at what German 88s did to some of the French pillboxes in 1940. The pictures show shot groups measuring less than a foot apart, some even overlapped. The surface of these structures looked like that of the moon after being hit repeatedly, and the embrasures were barely recognizable as embrasures.

That's all I have for now. Hope this provides some insight.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jeff Heidman]

Thanks John, that was a refreshingly useful post.

I note that it essentially corroborates precisely what I said. Single shot, first shot kills of pillboxes should be a rare thing, but in CM, they are not.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Michael emrys]

FWIW, I tend to think there may also be too many first-round kills in CM against tanks as well. I once read many years back a statistic that American tankers averaged 17 shots for every enemy tank killed. Now by itself that statistic is useless, since it doesn't explain which weapons were firing against which targets at what range under what conditions, etc. But is does make the point, confirmed by other sources, that first round kills at anything over, say, 50 meters were rare in those days. Many descriptions of tank vs. tank combat that I've read tell of firing about two rounds just to get the range and a burst on target, then firing two to four more rounds before they got a penetration and a kill. Again, I would expect this to vary a lot, but that the average to fall somewhere along those lines.

That said, I can't say with certainty that the first round kills I've seen and others I've read described here on the board aren't just statistical flukes. I've also seen some misses and a few ricochets before a kill. All I can say is that I've seen more first round kills than I expected to.

Michael

[Fionn]

Mike,

That statistic would include ALL HE rounds wouldn't it?

PLUS it would include all rounds fired as "areas suppresion".

By the time you get down to it you'd probably end up with 8 AP rounds being fired for every kill. Now, assume it takes 3 hits for every tank kill ( not unreasonable given that the Germans had Panthers Tigers etc) and THEN you end up with one HIT per three shots.

IOW that statistic you mentioned is useless. What it SHOULD give is number of AP shots per HIT ( not kill).

[PhoenixD]

I've seen plenty of times when tanks would exchange a huge number of shots.. One time I snuck a Panzer up to a ridgeline, and came face-to-face with a sherman 76, less than 25 meters! Each tank bounced about 8 rounds off eachother before I finally smashed one through the sherman's turret. I've seen a 75mm infantry gun spend almost half its ammo trying to hit a hull-down sherman..

And on the other side, I've seen a panzer kill a hull-down sherman jumbo at about 500 meters with the first shot. It tends to vary a lot.. But that's life };>

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

Phoenix, lava dragon

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Thanks John, that was a refreshingly useful post.

I note that it essentially corroborates precisely what I said. Single shot, first shot kills of pillboxes should be a rare thing, but in CM, they are not.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? In the demo I've found the bloody thing well nigh imperivious to df unit's. I have had 4 shermans slamming round after round into them to no effect.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 07-15-2000).]