Bunker Bug?

[CavScout]

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.

True, right Slap? But anything with a 37mmm is dead to those friggin' AA guns!!!

[CavScout]

Originally posted by OGSF:

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?

Vehicles are/were hard to get on the beach compared to infantry. Also, it is interesting to note that the beaches that got decent amounts of armor had relative "cake walks" to those that got little or none.

[Silencer]

bump

[Guest tero]

>Originally osted by Madmatt:

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

Were these accounts from combat or from target practice ?

When I was in the army we had a contest with 45mm AT guns firing through vision slits of concrete bunkers and it was actually quite hard to get a straight hit. The reason was the fact that the slit openings were sloped and unless you got a perfectly aimed hit the shot bounced everywhere except inside the bunker. And the slits were camouflaged so it took the effort of the entire crew to first spot the slit.

Could this feature be (again) the cross section targeting playing tricks on us ?

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

If this is true it must also follow that they follow also other TacAI quirks reserved for vehicles. GERMAN vehicles.

[Leonidas]

I don't understand why you need AT rounds to kill pillboxes, if the only killing hits are firing slit hits. If the concrete is assumed to be impenetrable, but the slit is relatively open, then wouldn't a MG be the optimal weapon? (This assumes that the slit is completely open. I could be wrong about that.) But assuming the slit is open, I would think that a bunch of little MG bullets bouncing around in a pillbox would be much more dangerous than a single chunk of AP tungsten. If a tank fired at a pillbox, I would think that it would use HE, to cause an explosion inside. Pillboxes are currently modeled as stationary vehicles, but it seems that they would be better modeled as AT guns with really good cover.

A separate point: Pillboxes and bunkers give rise to some silly tactics. For example, you can place it on the side of the map, so that you can put one side of its firing arc down the edge of the map and the other side of the arc across the middle of the battlfield. There is no effective way for infantry to get around the pillbox's arc of fire.

It feels kinda strange to be able to carefully hand-place pillboxes. I assume they take days or weeks to construct. Placement would be based on assumptions about the direction of the enemy's approach. It seems to me that most of the time a permanent fortification like that would not be in the right place, or pointing in quite the right direction.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

I don't understand why you need AT rounds to kill pillboxes...

I think that was part of the original point. If it's so easy to take out pillboxes with AP, then it must be even easier with HE!

As for the (visible) size of a pillbox, it's comparable to anything from a hull down tank up to a universal carrier. The firing slit can't have been that huge, and probably smaller for pillboxes with MGs than for those with ATGs.

Cheers

Olle

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

Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Originally posted by Leonidas:

I don't understand why you need AT rounds to kill pillboxes...I think that was part of the original point. If it's so easy to take out pillboxes with AP, then it must be even easier with HE!

As for the (visible) size of a pillbox, it's comparable to anything from a hull down tank up to a universal carrier. The firing slit can't have been that huge, and probably smaller for pillboxes with MGs than for those with ATGs.

Cheers

Olle

Let's not confuse the pillboxes in John Wayne movies with real life ones. Some were big indeed - others looked like the one at the bottom of this page.

http://highlanders.freehosting.net/walcheren.htm

Not much of a target to aim for, is it?

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

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-05-2001).]

[Pak40]

Both tests you ran seem perfectly normal to me. You've proved that it takes about 5-6 shots to kill a bunker. What's so unusual about that?

The only thing unusual is the 2 bunkers killed in 3 shots.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I think that was part of the original point. If it's so easy to take out pillboxes with AP, then it must be even easier with HE!

At close range HE should be more effective than AP. But in longer range the HE shell will have a greater arc than an AP shell and will probably be very hard to get a slit penetration. But, if that shell does go through the slit then it would probably kill/wound all inside. Massive concussions for all who survived.

[Fernando]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Both tests you ran seem perfectly normal to me. You've proved that it takes about 5-6 shots to kill a bunker. What's so unusual about that?

The only thing unusual is the 2 bunkers killed in 3 shots.

Please check the tests again. Usually it takes just 2-3 shots to do some damage (gun damage, crew casualty or knock out)

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

I don't understand why you need AT rounds to kill pillboxes, if the only killing hits are firing slit hits. If the concrete is assumed to be impenetrable, but the slit is relatively open, then wouldn't a MG be the optimal weapon? (This assumes that the slit is completely open. I could be wrong about that.) But assuming the slit is open, I would think that a bunch of little MG bullets bouncing around in a pillbox would be much more dangerous than a single chunk of AP tungsten. If a tank fired at a pillbox, I would think that it would use HE, to cause an explosion inside. Pillboxes are currently modeled as stationary vehicles, but it seems that they would be better modeled as AT guns with really good cover.

A separate point: Pillboxes and bunkers give rise to some silly tactics. For example, you can place it on the side of the map, so that you can put one side of its firing arc down the edge of the map and the other side of the arc across the middle of the battlfield. There is no effective way for infantry to get around the pillbox's arc of fire.

It feels kinda strange to be able to carefully hand-place pillboxes. I assume they take days or weeks to construct. Placement would be based on assumptions about the direction of the enemy's approach. It seems to me that most of the time a permanent fortification like that would not be in the right place, or pointing in quite the right direction.

Yes, but that is why the enemy then uses Wire, Mines, Roadblocks, Dragoons Teeth, etc.. to funnel the enemy towards the bunkers.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[Polar]

As always,if you test any piece against its weakness, it looks weak.

When you use bunkers effectively, they are effective. When you place them on a firing range with a bunch of fast shooting and MOBILE tanks, they are toast.

Bunkers were not designed for the specific role of protecting the gunners from frontal assault. They were designed so that stationary artillery (and HMGs) were not sitting ducks to artillery.

The one knock that seems valid here is that there is really no smaller covered foxhole style bunkers. These types of bunkers acted primarily as camo for the gunner though, and really didn't offer any more protection from arty and groung weapons than a foxhole did.

But come on... given the design of these bunkers, an unmolested tank, or MG, or ANYTHING, should be able to put one through the slit in a few shots.

They work really well if you use them right. Don't use them if you don't... because you will be wasting you points.

Joe

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Jasper]

Personally I'm being ripped to shreds by 75mm cannons in bunkers in that 'Huge' scenario that comes with CM. Whoever made the thing should've put the German AT guns out in the open where it's easy to kill them.

Defensively the Germans used tanks as rolling pillboxes (or bunkers for this conversation) not sure about the point efficiency between a bunker and a tank.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Jasper:

Defensively the Germans used tanks as rolling pillboxes (or bunkers for this conversation) not sure about the point efficiency between a bunker and a tank.

That's why the effectiveness of tanks against pillboxes is so puzzling. A pillbox is a major investment of resources, and its immobile, which makes for a high likelihood that it will never see combat. If it also goes boom after three or four tank shots, why would anyone bother to build one? I would think that pillboxes should be like immobile ubertanks - the sort of thing tanks should stay away from. The only reliable way to crack a pillbox should be close range infantry assault.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Fernando:

Please check the tests again. Usually it takes just 2-3 shots to do some damage (gun damage, crew casualty or knock out)

Yes, I know. I read the tests carefully. I still don't see what's so odd about that.

It will probably take 2-3 shots for a tank to hit another hull down tank at that range. They are both similar sizes although different shapes.

[chrisl]

Here's a real life incident of bunkers being taken out by infantry teams with armor support-- they are far from invincible when approached with good tactics, and can be a major pain when approached with bad ones. The engineer teams were essentially extraneous-- once the bunkers were pinned, they could take them out however they wanted.

http://www.tankbooks.com/intviews/brown/brown9.htm

Edited to add this quote:

"The only casualty we had, there was one group of Germans who happened to be in a trench between two pillboxes, we didn’t know they were there, and the men they fired on were just slightly wounded. So we knocked out those ten pillboxes with a slightly wounded man or two."

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 02-05-2001).]

[Subvet]

Originally posted by chrisl:

Here's a real life incident of bunkers being taken out by infantry teams with armor support-- they are far from invincible when approached with good tactics, and can be a major pain when approached with bad ones. The engineer teams were essentially extraneous-- once the bunkers were pinned, they could take them out however they wanted.

http://www.tankbooks.com/intviews/brown/brown9.htm

You and I seem to have entirely different conclusions from that story and how it applies to this game.

1. The plan was that the tank would help cover the demolition team (infantry) that had to run right up to the pillbox and place a demolition charge.

2. "If there’s some foulup and it didn’t work, then the tank would run up and put his muzzle of the gun right at that pillbox, you can imagine what this will do to the troops inside." Ok, obviously this pillbox wasn't the AT type. And I don't think anyone hear would argue that a tank shouldn't be able to take out a pillbox at that kind of range. The arguement is how easy it is to take them out at 1,000 meters!

3. "The whole mission is to protect that demolition team." Right, as it is the infantry that were usually used to take the pillbox out. If it was easy to take them out at long range with tanks why do you think they usually used infantry?

4. And finally, when asked if these "knocked out" pillboxes were taken out because the Germans in them were killed or because they surrendered: "Some were killed, but most of them surrendered."

Nowhere in that story did he say a tank actually knocked out a pillbox from long range fire through a firing slit. In fact you could easily assume the infantry knocked them all out, because that was the way it was planned, although it wasn't specific.

The way things are now you have to protect AT pillboxes like they were as vulnerable as a thin skinned, immobile, and expensive TD.

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

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

[Lost Admiral]

Personally, I'm a big fan of pillboxes. I feel that surviving for an average of four shots against a single tank is pretty darn good. Especially considering that going head-to-head with an armed pillbox, your tank will rarely get off 4 shots before getting killed.

From my experience, when a tank drives into a pillbox's field of view (as opposed to starting the game with 3 tanks already having LOS on the pillbox), the pillbox almost always gets off the first shot and will likely kill the tank immediately at a range of 700 meters. The key is to utilize the pillbox's strengths when placing it; never allow it to be approached by multiple tanks and position it for an enfilade shot whenever possible. Using these tactics, my pillboxes routinely kill 2-4 tanks each. That is a good return on investment if you ask me.

[This message has been edited by Lost Admiral (edited 02-05-2001).]

[John Kettler]

I strongly concur with Tiger's position.

Failure to even attempt to model in CM the range cards which would be meticulously prepared for static emplacements like pillboxes seriously undercuts the effectiveness of the defense. Presited guns should have a significant advantage in hit probability and timeliness of fire over a recently arrived attacker.

Moreover, they should be able to place antiarmor fires even in smoke, rain or darkness on prezeroed points. These advantages relate directly to static defense combat survivability.

I would also reiterate my earlier request that some procedure be implemented to model such grazing fires for LMGs and HMGs under the above conditions. As it is, smoke is more powerful and prevalent in CM than in real life, since it lands, billows up and stays put, without regard to eddies or even high winds. There are no restrictions on its use, yet routine defensive techniques which somewhat offset smoke and degraded visibility are simply not modeled, therefore are unavailable to the defender in CM. This has the net effect of simultaneously weakening the defense while strengthening the attacker. This to me seems neither fair nor realistic.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

PS

Are PBs and bunkers in CM treated as being dug in such that the lower part of the embrasure is just barely above ground level? If not, maybe they should be. Some thought might also be given to better modeling how well camouflaged many such positions were.

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Subvet:

You and I seem to have entirely different conclusions from that story and how it applies to this game.

...

The way things are now you have to protect AT pillboxes like they were as vulnerable as a thin skinned, immobile, and expensive TD.

The point of the story isn't that tanks can easily hit the slits, but that you can easily suppress the pillbox crew to the extent that it doesn't matter what you use to kill it. There were 10 pillboxes, presumably with many interlocking fields of file. By maintaining fire on all of them at once, you can approach them one at a time and kill them with anything--engineers, tanks, grenades, flamethrowers, etc. Pills are more fragile than tanks-- they can't hide, and if you lay down enough fire on them the crew won't look out. Something that CM doesn't model that CPT Brown took advantage of is that the pillboxes have shutters that they close under heavy fire-- then you can't get a firing slit penetration, but you can waltz up and knock out the Pillbox.

The adjacent company didn't suppress all the pillboxes simultaneously, and presumably got clobbered in the crossfire.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Vanir]

Now just wait a second and think about this.

Madmatt has stated that the slit of a bunker is about the same height and width as a tank mantlet. I have not seen anyone dispute this. Fernando's tests have shown that a 76mm AT gun will hit the slit after about 2-3 rounds at 600-700 meters. How many shots does it take for a 76mm gun to hit a hull down tank at 600-700 meters?

Also, I see a lot of people saying the current model is wrong, but no one saying what would be right. If 2-3 shots at 700m is wrong then how many should it take and what do you base this upon? It's easy to sit back and critisise without offering alternatives.

Furthermore, this is already going to be tweaked in the next patch anyway. Last week Madmatt posted a preliminary list of changes for 1.12 which included this:

* Pillboxes have slightly better 'reaction time' and are slightly less

easier to spot at long range. It is also somewhat harder to hit their

firing slits from longer ranges.

I don't know why he didn't mention it here.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-06-2001).]

[Vanir]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Failure to even attempt to model in CM the range cards which would be meticulously prepared for static emplacements like pillboxes seriously undercuts the effectiveness of the defense. Presited guns should have a significant advantage in hit probability and timeliness of fire over a recently arrived attacker.

Actually, some of that was already added in 1.1. From the 1.1 Readme:

* Pillboxes:

- Acquire targets a bit faster than other guns (it's assumed that they've

pre-ranged to landmarks).

So the new changes in 1.12 (listed above) will be on top of this (presumably).

EDIT:

I also came across this in the manual. I'm pretty sure it applies to pillboxes:

Other on-map ordinance, like antitank guns, can use TRPs as well. When firing at enemy units on or very near a TRP, they gain a considerable accuracy bonus because they are considered to have "boresighted" or "ranged" their weapons to the TRP before the battle.

Remember that in 1.1 TRPs only cost 10 pts each.

Overall I think that saying BTS didn't even attempt to model range cards in CM is not entirely accurate.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-06-2001).]

[Subvet]

Well I'm glad to see that this is being tweaked in the next patch. These changes should help make the pillbox a viable option for the defender and make them more realistic in my opinion. Thanks BTS!

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

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

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Tris:

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

(ithinkiknow)

(inanyeventilltaketheansweroffline)

Ithinkitsbecausetheyarestilltestingthepatch.

(see my above post).

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Subvet]

Originally posted by chrisl:

The point of the story isn't that tanks can easily hit the slits, but that you can easily suppress the pillbox crew to the extent that it doesn't matter what you use to kill it. There were 10 pillboxes, presumably with many interlocking fields of file. By maintaining fire on all of them at once, you can approach them one at a time and kill them with anything--engineers, tanks, grenades, flamethrowers, etc.

Well, I don't disagree with anything you said there. My arguement is that that isn't how it's modeled in the game. The way it is modeled in the game is that tanks hit the firing slits from a long way off fairly easily. That's what my beef was. If they want to model the supression better, that would be great. Some of this discussion is a moot point now, as there are changes going in in the next patch, so we'll just have to wait and see how that turns out.

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

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