Bunker Bug?

[Fernando]

I'm playing PBEM a scenario with some bunkers(v1.1). The first bunker (a MG one) was knocked out at the second shot. Well, I thought my opponent was lucky. Unfortunately the second bunker (a 75 mm) was knocked out at the first enemy shot. The enemy tanks were regulars. I was very surprised and I decided to do a test. I placed 8 ammoless 88 mm bunkers against a lone M4A3(76)W with 70 AP rounds placed about 700 m away of the bunkers. The results were:

FSP: Firing Slit penetration

SBU: Shell broke up

GH: Gun Hit

KO: Knocked out

C: Casualty (the bunkers is shocked)

1st bunker (688 m):

1. Miss

2. FSP, 1c

3. SBU

4. FSP, 1c

5. FSP, KO

2nd bunker (706):

1. GH

2. GH, Gun damaged

3. FSP, 1c

4. SBU

5. SBU

6. FSP

7. GH

8. FSP

9. GH

10. FSP

11. GH

12. SBU

13. Miss

14. FSP, KO

3rd bunker (698 m):

1. Miss

2. SBU

3. Miss

4. FSP, Gun damaged

5. SBU

6. FSP, 2c

7. FSP

8. SBU

9. GH, abandoned

4th bunker 690 m):

1. GH

2. FSP, 1c

3. SBU

4. SBU

5. SBU

6. GH

7. FSP, KO

5th bunker (684 m):

1. Miss

2. GH

3. GH

4. GH, Gun damaged

5. SBU

6. SBU

7. FSP, 2c

8. FSP, KO

6th bunker (675 m):

1. Miss

2. SBU

3. FSP, KO

7th bunker (672 m):

1. SBU

2. FSP, 1c

3. GH

4. FSP, KO

8th bunker (672 m):

1. SBU

2. FSP, KO

Miss: 6 (11.5%)

Shell broke up: 15 (28.9%)

Firing Slit Penetration: 19 (36.5%)

Gun Hit: 12 (23.1%)

52 shells were shot by the Sherman. 59.6 % of the shots (67.4% of the hits) were Firing Slit penetrations or Gun Hits. The Sherman needed 31 shots to get a Gun damaged result or knock a bunker out. The other 21 shots were needed to finnish those bunkers wich got Gun damaged results. Please notice that many Firing Slit Penetrations results didn’t damage the gun, but killed one or two crewmen, shocking the bunker and rendering it ineffective for some time. The Sherman only had to fire 21 shots to get a positive result (Gun damage, KO or crew casualty/shocked)in fact.

In short, you need to fire just 4 shots on average to kill a bunker placed 700 m away or about 2.6 to shock or knock it out. The probability to hit a bunker 700 m away is about 88% and the probability to get a Gun Hit or Firing Slit Penetration result is 67.4%. Only 32.6% of the shells hitting the bunkers broke up. I wonder how big a bunker firing slit was. IMHO it was much smaller than a tank, so it was harder to hit it, but I may be wrong. Now, I wonder how easy to aim to and hit the firing slit of a bunker situated 700 m away is. Is it as BTS intended or just a bug? At the present, it seems it doesn’t make sense to buy any bunkers in QB because they cost a lot of points an die quickly.

Fernando

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 01-28-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Guest Madmatt]

Well those numbers may seem a little high at first but remember you are firing at a rather large stationary target which is not firing back at close range which also has a large aperture with a gun sticking out if it.

That tends to be a little hard to miss...

Try it "real" battle field conditions, give those bunkers some ammo and see how well they do.

While I am a big proponent of testing, you have to be careful of WHAT you are really testing when you start removing all the conditions that normally surround a battle.

Madmatt

[KiwiJoe]

Tell ya what... try the test using a stuart. That high rof 37mm with knock the bunker out in no time. 37mm guns are death to bunkers.

[Fernando]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

Well those numbers may seem a little high at first but remember you are firing at a rather large stationary target which is not firing back at close range which also has a large aperture with a gun sticking out if it. That tends to be a little hard to miss...

Hi Madmatt,

How large is the aperture? Like a tank? I don’t think so.

The problem isn’t to hit bunkers (I think it’s OK) but the high percentage of Gun hits and Firing Slit Penetrations. AFAIK most of the time some parts of the bunkers are buried on the ground making them smaller targets and firing slits weren’t really big. Do you really think apertures from a bunker covered about 67% of the bunker front (67 of the hits were Gun damage/Firing Slit penetrations)? I don’t. Please remember that the Sherman was firing AP shells

Try it "real" battle field conditions, give those bunkers some ammo and see how well they do.

Please notice that I did a test after losing two bunkers to just THREE enemy shots. My 75 mm bunker only shot a shell, missed its target and was knocked out by the first enemy shell fired at it. The MG bunker was knocked out by the second shell fired at it (there were two tanks firing at it, so it was the first shot fired by one of them). I lost two bunkers to two first shots (Firing Slit Penetration) under combat conditions.

My test seems to suggest that you only have to fire 2.6 shots on average to get a Knock out, a Gun damage or a Firing Slit penetration-1 casualty-shocked result. If you have three tanks you can expect to KO a bunker before it shots for a second time. If you’re unlucky you’ll lost a tank to the bunker first shot, but most of the time it’ll miss it and you can expect to get a gun damage, a shock (thus getting extra time to knock it out or damage its gun) or a knock it out result without losing a tank.

While I am a big proponent of testing, you have to be careful of WHAT you are really testing when you start removing all the conditions that normally surround a battle.

It doesn’t matter was the combat conditions are. I’m talking about probabilities. If the probability of hitting your tank is 85% then it doesn’t matter if your tank is firing at me or not. I know I’ll hit yours 8 out of 10 times. If I miss my shot your tank could destroy mine, of course, but the probability of hitting your tank is always 85%. BTW, I don’t know if BTS reduces the hit probabilities of a vehicle under fire.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 01-28-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Fernando]

Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

Tell ya what... try the test using a stuart. That high rof 37mm with knock the bunker out in no time. 37mm guns are death to bunkers.

I did it again with a Stuart at about 700 m.:

1st bunker

1. Miss

2. Miss

3. SBU

4. SBU

5. FSP, 1c

6. FSP, KO

2nd bunker

1. SBU

2. FSP, KO

3rd bunker

1. Miss

2. GH

3. GH

4. GH

5. Miss

6. GH, Gun damaged

7. SBU

8. FSP, 1c

9. SBU

10. GH

11. FSP

12. FSP

13. FSP, KO

4th bunker

1. FSP, 1c

2. FSP, KO

5th bunker :

1. Miss

2. FSP

3. GH

4. GH

5. FSP, 2c

6. FSP

7. Miss

8. FSP, KO

6th bunker

1. Miss

2. SBU

3. SBU

4. FSP

5. SBU

6. FSP, 2c

7. FSP, KO

7th bunker:

1. FSP, Gun damage

2. FSP

3. FSP

4. FSP, 1c

5. FSP, 1c

6. SBU

7. FSP, KO

8th bunker (672 m):

1. Miss

2. SBU

3. FSP, 1c

4. FSP

5. FSP, KO

Miss: 8 (16%)

Shell broke up: 10 (20%)

Firing Slit Penetration: 25 (50%)

Gun Hit: 7 (14%)

64% of shots (72.2% of hits) were GH or FSP

33 shots needed to disable or knock out the bunkers (about 4 shots per bunker). 29 to get a disabkle or shocking result (about 3.5 shots per bunker. If we take both test then 8 out of 16 times (50%) the tank got a Gun Damaged, Knock Out or Shock (Firing Slit Penetration, 1 or 2 casualties)result at the second shot. It seems way high to me.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 01-28-2001).]

[BlackVoid]

At the current state of the game bunkers are really useless. Especially in quick battles against a human opponent. In one game I had a 40mm Bofors inf front of a bunker. The AA gun took it out in less than a minute.

Not only are bunkers too highly priced, but they are way too vulnerable as well.

[Slapdragon]

I think people are mistaking a poured concrete defensive installation with the Atlantic wall. The bunkers in CM to my understanding are the fairly common squad fighting position with overhead protection and not the more sturdy linked forts of the Maginot line or the Atlantic wall. US forces, attacking the Siegfried line and West wall, found dragon's teeth to be easy to fight, and bunker only a passing problem. Bunkers were very vulnerable to 37mm fire from rapid fires (which would be used almost like a sniper rifle on a firing slit and then would bounce around in the bunker) and could not with stand a long barrage from 75 and 105 tank guns.

The forts that could are not covered in CM.

[Harv]

Just a short anecdote: in a game vs the AI I had an 88 and a 75 bunker. The 75 was taken out in the first turn by a Stuart (the bunker never got a shot off), but the 88 survived for 16 turns, and took out 4 Fireflys, 2 Sextons, 2 Stuarts, 2 MMG Carriers and 11 Shermans. It had too many hits to count, and lost 2 crew.

However, I think the only reason it survived for so long was that most of the shots directed at it missed, as it was on a hill, and most sailed overhead, or impacted in front of it. Maybe I had it hull down?

Anyways, I really have nothing to say, just wanted to tell my story.

Harv

ps. Maybe Henri could start an "AAR Writing Workshop" for the storily challenged.

[Fernando]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I think people are mistaking a poured concrete defensive installation with the Atlantic wall. The bunkers in CM to my understanding are the fairly common squad fighting position with overhead protection and not the more sturdy linked forts of the Maginot line or the Atlantic wall.

I thought that those “squad fighting positions with overhead protection” were the wooden bunkers. I was speaking about concrete bunkers. I don’t think those positions are field works made by the units in a hurry. They are defensive positions in a defensive fortified line or on key points (i.e. defending a bridge). You need enginers and time to make them and they’re sturdy

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

US forces, attacking the Siegfried line and West wall, found dragon's teeth to be easy to fight, and bunker only a passing problem. Bunkers were very vulnerable to 37mm fire from rapid fires (which would be used almost like a sniper rifle on a firing slit and then would bounce around in the bunker) and could not with stand a long barrage from 75 and 105 tank guns.

I wasn’t speaking of a long barrage.

If you check my tests then you can see that half of the time only two shots were needed to disable a bunker (8 out of 16). I’m sure bunkers could be destroyed or disabled, but you need time for achieving it. It seems it’s very easy to do it right now. Simply gather three tanks and attack the bunker head-on. Most of the time it’ll destroyed in seconds, if you aren’t very unlucky, that is.

[HGA]

I haven't tested bunkers and pillboxes against tanks. I did however an artillery vs pillbox test. The result: 14 wooden bunkers destroyed in two turns but none of the, about 20, pillboxes got a scratch. after 25 turns of bombardment and a lot of "hit no damage" messages i gave up. The artillery I used was about 20 14" naval guns + some 220mm arty (total of 30000 points of artillery).

My conclusion is that pillboxes are impervious to artillery I didn't even disturbed the crews. I know this have been discussed before but I just wanted to share my results.

HGA

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

"Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" BLACK KNIGHT.

[Fernando]

I tested three Stuarts against a 75 mm bunker 20 times. Here’re the results:

Times the bunker was knocked out: 19

Times the bunker knocked out all three Stuarts: 1

Stuarts destroyed: 15 (including the three ones knocked out in the only battle the bunker won).

Volleys needed to knockout /gun damage the bunker:

One: 3 (15%)

Two: 8 (40%)

Three: 6 (30%)

Four: 2 (10%)

Unable to damage it: 1 (5%)

Best time: 12 seconds

Worst time: 32 seconds (of course, I discarded the battle where all three Stuarts were knocked out)

If we discard the extremes (the best and worst results) then the results are:

Bunker destroyed by a Stuart at:

1st shot: 2 times (11%)

2nd shot: 8 times (44%)

3rd shot: 6 times (33%)

4th shot: 2 times (11%)

If seems three Stuarts can knock out or gun damage a bunker with just two shots each half the time . Espect to lose one Stuart most of the time (66%). Moral of the story: if you expect some enemy gun armed bunkers in a QB then buy three M8s (same quick fire gun as the Stuart, are cheaper and allow you to buy real tanks and tank destroyers) and an additional M8 for every expected gun-armed German bunker after the first one (four if you expect two bunkers, five if you expect three and so on). Most of the time you’ll kill all of them and two or three M8s will survive for flanking moves against German panzers.

[JoePrivate]

I agree Fernando, in CM pillboxes do seem to get knocked out fairly easily from the front, however I have no comparisons to say one way or the other if that is realistic. Someone earlier said pillboxes were just improved common firing positions with overhead cover, the detail screen shows the armour of a pillbox as 500mm, reinforced concrete I presume, that seems like pretty sturdy construction. One method I have of circumventing the gaping firing slit is to place the pillbox, where possible, in HD positions and rotate it so the firing slit is at an oblique angle to likely enemy fire. Their survivability goes up significantly after that.

[M Hofbauer]

I have long learned not to buy any pillboxes as a defender and not to fear them as an attacker.

IMHO you are right, they're too damn vulnerable to anything except from above. One of my first experience with a pillbox was a .50cal gun hit from a Greyhound from a range of more than 1000m, in the opening turns of a large operation where the pillbox was supposed to last prety long. Unlikely and hard luck you might say and yes that might be true but eventually it proved to be very symptomatic/typical...

[Tiger]

I have to agree. Too damned vulnerable to make them worth purchasing

Occasionally you'll get one that does ok, but it has to be positioned *perfectly* and have alot of luck. I'd rather see bunkers the terror that they were way back in the demo scenario valley of trouble. Anyone remember playing that one?

As far as realism, if bunkers were as fragile in real-life as they are in CMBO, no-one would have bothered building them.

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Guest Madmatt]

Just one more point guys, bunkers need to be part of an interlocking defensive net. A single bunker out on its own, in poor position is not much of a threat to anyone.

As to the Firing Slit size, actually it is rather a large % of the front face of the bunker and is as wide and high as most tank mantlets in order for it to elevate and traverse effectively.

I have several first person accounts of American tankers and field artillery crews popping bunkers with shots right through the gun slits. It was more common that you might think.

The key to using bunkers effectively is in their position and mutual support. So go ahead and take 3 Stuarts against that one bunker, but if I am a good defensive player then I will have another bunker or two to its flanks as well AT guns or teams also providing support plus some roadblocks, minefields and barbedwire to help funnel the attacker into areas covered by these assets.

That is what I mean by proper battlefield testing.

Now, having said all that I will take another look at bunkers in general and see just how vulnerable they may be although if anything, we have made them *tougher* since VOT was released.

Madmatt

[Tris]

Pillboxes/bunkers are laughably vulnerable and it doesn't seem to matter what gun fires at them, what the range is or even if the gun firing is on a moving platform with intervening terrain to obstruct LOS. A slit hit always seems to be the result within a few shots, usually with dire consequences for the defensive work.

The only question left which seems worth articulating: why hasn't BTS moved on this issue yet?

(ithinkiknow)

(inanyeventilltaketheansweroffline)

[Tiger]

The problem is that bunkers are approached with little caution and little fear. Bunkers *should* have all the various terrain features from where they can be fired upon pre-sighted and ranged in to decrerase shot time and increase the hit chances. The only thing a concrete bunker does right now is protect the gun from artillery/mortar fire somewhat better than a gun out in the open.

I dare say a gun in the open is less vulnerable than one in a concrete bunker. In the open shots will miss the gun more often and fall short, to the side, fall longm, etc. Firing slits appear to suck in shots like a hoover on a shag carpet.

-Tiger

ps~ Madmatt, I'd have to agree with others that bunkers are much too expensive, even in 1.1.

In most cases all you can buy is one bunker and very few other "fortifications". 204 points for a reg 88mm in bunker, 130 points for a 75mm concrete bunker, 76 for a concrete w/mgs, 44 points for a wooden with mgs. A regular 88mm gun is 118 points, so the bunker costs 86 more points. 75mm concrete bunker costs 63 more points than the support weapon version. Essentially a concrete bunker w/gun costs twice as much as their regular support equivalent, and you just don't have the points to spend on them:

In a 2000 point QB I can buy 6 pak/43 88mm support weapons but only 1 pak43/88mm in a concrete bunker. This is with combined arms. With an infantry force I can buy 10 pak/43 88mms to 2 88mm in bunkers.

A solution could be to reduce the point cost of bunkers, or increase the spendable points in "fortifiactions" to allow bunkers to be bought on a 1-3 vs similiar support weapons, rather than a 1-6 exchange rate (or a 1-5 rate in infantry force battles).

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Subvet]

Not only are bunkers extremely vulnerable, but you can't hide them either. Put a 75 in the woods and you can keep it hidden for a long time. Put a 75 bunker in the same woods and it will be spotted the first turn. So you end up with a weapon that is more vulnerable to the enemy (except for arty) and easier to spot for more points. Doesn't seem logical to ever buy these things. When I first started playing I bought them, but now the only time I'll ever end up playing with them is if the computer purchases my units. And when that happens I'm not pleased!

BTS, if you aren't going to make them easier to hide, or more durable, then at least lower their point cost accordingly.

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

Craig

"Only a madman would consider the possibility of war between the two states (France and Germany), for which, from our point of view, there is no rational or moral ground." - Chancellor Adolf Hitler, Oct. 14, 1933

[Lacky]

Pillboxes are a liability rather than an assets. AT pillboxes generally cost twice as much as their counterpart AT sections.

75mm AT Pillbox: 130

75mm AT PaK 40: 67

88 AT Pillbox: 204

88 AT PaK 43/41: 114; PaK 43 118

Pillboxes are classified as vehicles and thus cannot readily hide from scouting.

AT guns benefit from nearby HQ's, thus the HQ augments the AT gun's ability to hide in ambush in addition to morale boost. For the cost of a "regular" 75mm AT Pillbox, one can field an Elite 75mm AT section. Couple the elite status with a nearby HQ and the AT section is rarely suppressed nor missing important shots. The Pillbox is generally KO'ed before using a small portion of its ammo is used.

One can easily smoke a pillbox. The Allies have plenty of smoke. High caliber artillery can knock out pillboxes with ease. In a recent auto purchase TCP game one of my pillboxes was taken out by 105mm VT rounds. It never got to fire a shot, because the hide command is useless. The Pillbox was situated in a deep valley with a very limited field of fire.

Madmatt's idea of using pillboxes with interlocking fields of fire with AT support doesn't work when playing anything other than 2k+ battles due to the outrageous costs of pillboxes. And even then, the Axis is sinking a lot of points into Fortifications, which is probably better spent on support and/or artillery. Smart playing can easily defeat an interlocking pillbox defense. A 75mm AT Pillbox costs as much as thirteen TRP's. I'd place my bets on 13 TRP's ability to inflict significant damage on the attacker rather than 1 helpless, misbegotten Pillbox who's cowering in a limited field of fire.

[CMplayer]

I had four MG concrete bunkers knocked

out by infantry who never got closer

than 300 meters from the bunkers. They

had no heavy weapons support whatsoever,

not even 50 cals.

regards,

--Rett

[Guest Napoleon1944]

With fragile bunkers, the Churchill AVRE has no work do do. Who needs this when you can use a Stuart? Its nice BTS put a lot of the vehicles and bunkers in the game, but they don't seem to reflect reality in a lot of cases. The 14inch guns should devistate a a small bunker. I urge everyone to stick to thier guns and supply data if you want BTS to listen to you.

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[OGSF]

FWIW, I agree that bunkers area way too fragile in CM. Thank you Fernando for doing some empirical testing.

I have posted on this before. The Allies used special assault teams to take out bunkers, and the average time to kill a bunker with one of these teams was 30 minutes. This is after they have the system working efficiently with experience troops(refer Doubler, "Closing with the Enemy").

As a German player, I would take a Stug or Hetzer any day over a bunker. Yet my instincts tell me a bunker should be harder to kill than an AFV. The gun in the bunker gives up mobility in exchange for higher protection.

I appreciate the bunker's ability to withstand artillery. But artillery will at best immobilize a Stug anyway.

Perhaps bunkers only real vulnerability is against armoured vehicles, and rear shots from bazookas / flame throwers etc. In that case, it does come down to placement and support. But why did the Allies in Normandy not use Stuarts or Chafees or whatever as a routine way of dealing with bunkers, but developed infantry assault tactics instead?

I recall that Steve mentioned that bunkers would be able to "button up" in CM2, which is a little more realistic than currently.

A question I have for anyone able to answer, how common were bunkers outside of the Atlantic Wall and the Seigfeid Line?

Cheers,

OberGruppenStompinFuhrer

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

You posture more than Marcia Brady with books on her head and you chatter like a dolphin near the fish bucket. - Dalem

[Silencer]

Tiger wrote:

" I'd rather see bunkers the terror that they were way back in the demo scenario valley of trouble"

I totally agree. Bunker slits are now some sort of magnets for tank rounds of all calibre. :-(

S.

[Guest Mikey D]

The anti-tank bunkers do seem to be more vulnerable than a plain-old AT-gun. Possibly because a well camou'd AT-gun's just so darned hard to spot?

When bunkers work they work well. Playing one scenario, the AI decided to assault my mg bunker. At the end of the game I counted more than sixty allied infantry dead in front.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

I have several first person accounts of American tankers and field artillery crews popping bunkers with shots right through the gun slits. It was more common that you might think.

How many accounts do you have from tankers who didn't get a firing slit penetration..? I wonder why that might be...

I used pillboxes myself for the first time recently. The change from the original VoT demo was huge. Easy to hit, even with the first shot in trees, and far to easy to achieve a firing slit penetration.

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

"He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..."

- Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent