Bunker Bug?

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Vanir:

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.

I feel kinda weird quoting myself but after posting this I tried it out in the editor to see how much difference it makes. Unfortunatley, this function does not appear to be working as far as I could tell.

I set up 2 Shermans 1200m way from a 75mm AT gun. One of them was sitting right on a TRP while the other was quite a distance away from it (about 200m). There was no difference in the to-hit percentage between the 2 tanks for the 75. Either I am misunderstanding how this feature works or it is not working.

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

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).]

[Goanna]

Very interesting stuff guys. I am interested to see what the BTS staff have to say. One other comparison that I would like to see is a cheap tank with a turret (say a Mark VI) which is dug-in in comparison to the pillbox. Wouldn't that be a fair mantlet to firing slit comparison?

Personally I have never tried dug in tanks and have always lost my pillboxes way too quick as well, but I probably place them wrong.

[Dschugaschwili]

After reading this thread, one statement stayed on my mind: Shouldn't MG pillboxes have smaller (read: harder to hit) firing slits than those housing AT guns? While I don't know the answer, does somebody have any information on this issue?

Dshcugaschwili

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

After reading this thread, one statement stayed on my mind: Shouldn't MG pillboxes have smaller (read: harder to hit) firing slits than those housing AT guns? While I don't know the answer, does somebody have any information on this issue?

Dshcugaschwili

I just played All or Nothing [sPOLIER]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Those two damn mg pill boxes lasted for 2 rounds, and 1 round. What's the point?

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Subvet:

The way it is modeled in the game is that tanks hit the firing slits from a long way off fairly easily.

If you have 4 or 5 pillboxes with interlocking fields of fire, no tank will get 3 shots on the pillbox. If you have one lone pillbox without protective fires from others, it will die quickly. The ranges generally aren't all that large, and tanks have to be fairly accurate to be able to hit other tanks. If it takes on average four tanks for a shot to get through the slit, that's probably not unreasonable. Try setting up a staggered line of pillboxes covering each other and see what they do to the tanks.

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

"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)

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by chrisl:

Try setting up a staggered line of pillboxes covering each other and see what they do to the tanks.

I think part of the problem is, that to get 4-5 pillboxes, you have to spend a lot of your points, and this will weaken your force pool considerably.

Plus, from the scenarios that I have played so far, they only seem to give not enough, like the spoiler I mentioned above.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Holien]

I have followed this and it does seem that bunkers are not used by people because of the problems high lighted.

I can see that the positioning of the bunkers are key to their success. I don't know if anyone has done any tests but what are the chances of killing a bunker for a side on hit? Can they only be destroyed from rear or front on shots?

I have spent some time in Normandy and Europe clambering over in and around various bunkers and pillboxes. Also we have quite a few in the UK and they are a bit of a sad hobby for me.

What struck me about the German ones on the beaches are that they are often sighted side on to the beach. This means that the guns run the length of the beach rather than facing out to sea.

This makes absolute sense as the side armour is un-penetrable and one can only take the bunker out via a front approach. The slits are on the whole small affairs and even for AT guns I would say Matt's statement of a Turret Mantle correct.

You do have to bear in mind while the size of gap is correct; the angling of the gap is such that even though you might get a shot in the gap it has to be perfect level and at a right angle for it to go in as if it hit a side it would bounce back out. The Germans went to a lot of effort designing the bunkers to minimise the effects of hits.

I have some leaflets on the designs and will hunt out references tonight which will explain how this worked.

Anyway, to add weight to Matt's view that sighting is very important you should only employ them side on with side views of any approaches. This is how they were employed.

Also I do agree that if testing shows them to be easier to hit and knock out than a tank dug in then this would be IMO wrong. The article cited states that infantry were used to bust them and this stacks up with the view that you suppress them and then move in. Not blow them with easy hits from AP rounds from tanks.

HE would have minimal effect on the structure but certainly suppress the crew allowing Infantry to close with it and close assault it.

I will check on the designs tonight. Personally I steer clear of buying them because they are too expensive for what you get. I would consider using them if they were slightly more expensive than there non armoured counter parts, which at the moment do offer "better value for money", in gamey terms.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Vanir:

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.

A fair point. I'm no expert on pillboxes, but I think that the conclusion from this discussion is that tanks generally wouldn't try to take out pillboxes, especially those with AT guns. There is a chance that the tank will hit the gun slit, but it's a low chance. It seems that the only reliable way to kill a pillbox is to get right up close to it.

On the other hand, it seems that pillboxes are pretty vulnerable to supression from bullets. It's no fun to be in a concrete room when bullets are bouncing around.

It seems to me that the conclusion is for a new model for pillboxes. They should be virtually impossible for tanks to kill, but easy for MGs to supress. They have a shield that they can put over the firing slit when they get nervous - essentially the pillbox can button up, but then it can't see or fire as well, if at all. The pillbox should rarely become instantly disabled from one hit. That would only happen if the gun itself were hit. The way to kill a pillbox should be to keep it under MG fire while a squad approaches, and then assault it at close range. Engineers should do a better job than regular infantry. The pillbox should work like a MG squad - it doesn't die until the last crewman goes down, though it steadily becomes less effective with casualties.

[Maj. Bosco]

I'd like to point something out about pill boxes that were used at the level CM models: They weren't extremely effective. The 3rd army knocked out lots of them without sustaining significant casualties from them. Simply put static defenses are no substitute for tanks and infantry. The french learned how ineffective static defenses were against tanks at the begining of the war. Though the main thrust of the German offensive was from the north the Germans did attack at the Maginot line and passed through it pretty easily.

IMO pill boxes are nice for scenario designers but in QBs they're wastes of points. Buy the essentials, infantry, artillery and armor. A couple of flak guns can't hurt and neither can TRPs. Barbed wire, AP minefields, and pill boxes are all just wasted points.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

The 3rd army knocked out lots of them without sustaining significant casualties from them.

Given that they used the tactics described above (suppress and close for the kill), I'd guess they did suffer significant casualties in the form of spent ammo and time.

With bunkers the attacker has to chose if he wants to spend time, ammo and/or lives...

Cheers

Olle

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

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

Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker.

[John Kettler]

Vanir,

You make some excellent points, of which I was previously unaware.

There still remain some problems, though. For one, though you can get PBs and bunkers as part of your defensive force mix in a QB where the computer picks the forces (what I play), I have never seen a TRP provided at all. Thus the paper benefit gained from being able to use a TRP is really zero in the QBs I play.

I think BTS should seriously consider issuing multiple TRPs as an integral part of a static defensive scenario. This would definitely apply to PBs and bunkers (AT & MG) and might apply to towed AT, HMG and even LMG under certain circumstances. Maybe there should be two types of TRPs: one for indirect fire and the other for direct fire.

I don't know how big the PB homecourt aiming advantage is you cite, but it seems to me that it would have to be substantial to come close to modeling real world capabilities, let alone address the ubersmoke issue I mentioned.

I forget who wrote it, but it is true that a great deal of careful thought went into designing fortification embrasures to keep all but direct hits out. That is why seacoast gun emplacements like at Normandy had that reverse terrace effect. A simple inward slope would funnel the incoming projectile right to the gun. This way, though, the opening is progressively restricted without forming a shot trap and poses a whole series of barriers to shells, shell fragments and ricochets. The History Channel's Maginot Line program showed the same basic approach in the design of the various fortifications there. Get a direct hit or forget it.

Finally, someone screwed up on nomenclature. "Ordnance" goes boom. "Ordinance" is a municipal reg, the violation of which gets you a ticket and a fine.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

Though the main thrust of the German offensive was from the north the Germans did attack at the Maginot line and passed through it pretty easily.

Huh? It was all feints and screening attacks as far as I recall. Please provide a reference. I'd like to read how the German army thrust through (and rolled up, breached?) the Maginot. Thanks!

Brian

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!