AT Pillboxes in the West Wall--A Rarity?

[CombinedArms]

I've been reading Charles MacDonald's "The Siegfried Line Campaign," part of the massive official history, "United States Army in WWII". MacDonald states that because the Siegfried Line was built by 1939-40, when 37-mm antitank guns were "standard and effective", "few of the pillboxes could accomodate guns of larger caliber than 37-mm." He says there were SOME pillboxes that could hold 75 mm guns, but not very many. Also, embrasures couldn't accomodate the now standard 1942 MG, so the 1934 model had to be used. MacDonald ought to know. Not only is he a leading military historian, but he was a company commander in WWII whose company occupied a stretch of the West Wall for some time and he lived in one of those pillboxes during that period.

What MacDonald's observation suggests to me is that the 75 or 88mm AT pillbox, a major CM bugaboo for attacking Allied commanders, may be largely a myth, at least as far as the West Wall is concerned. We all cut our teeth on "Valley of Trouble," with its dominating 75mm AT pillbox--but how often were these really encountered?

And, beyond the Normandy beaches, where they no doubt were plentiful, I'm wondering just how many pillboxes were actually in existance elsewhere? It's hard to imagine the German army constructing them in random locations throughout rural France, on the off chance that an Allied armored column would be passing through in August 1944. Yet they certainly seem to show up a lot in CM scenarios, anchoring many an Axis defensive position. Does anyone have a more specific idea of how common they were in real life? (I also think they're too cheap at 130 pts, esp after the new version has made them virtually invulnerable to frontal tank fire.)

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

And, beyond the Normandy beaches, where they no doubt were plentiful, I'm wondering just how many pillboxes were actually in existance elsewhere? It's hard to imagine the German army constructing them in random locations throughout rural France, on the off chance that an Allied armored column would be passing through in August 1944. Yet they certainly seem to show up a lot in CM scenarios, anchoring many an Axis defensive position. Does anyone have a more specific idea of how common they were in real life? (I also think they're too cheap at 130 pts, esp after the new version has made them virtually invulnerable to frontal tank fire.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. The log bunkers though could be constructed with the help of engineers in a matter of hours. So they could be expected anywhere the line had been stable for a few days.

Positions improved with sandbags, bricks or other masonry or whatever came to hand were common too.

Michael

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Pzman]

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

I've been reading Charles MacDonald's "The Siegfried Line Campaign," part of the massive official history, "United States Army in WWII". MacDonald states that because the Siegfried Line was built by 1939-40, when 37-mm antitank guns were "standard and effective", "few of the pillboxes could accomodate guns of larger caliber than 37-mm." He says there were SOME pillboxes that could hold 75 mm guns, but not very many. Also, embrasures couldn't accomodate the now standard 1942 MG, so the 1934 model had to be used. MacDonald ought to know.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that dosn't mean that larger guns could not be put into those pillboxes. After all they could be modified... they did have two months before the Allies got there.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[CombinedArms]

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

Good point. The log bunkers though could be constructed with the help of engineers in a matter of hours. So they could be expected anywhere the line had been stable for a few days.

Positions improved with sandbags, bricks or other masonry or whatever came to hand were common too.

Michael

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but this is different from a concrete reinforced pillbox which, in current CM conditions, is virtually invulnerable to frontal fire. A log bunker for AT guns would be an interesting option for CM2--I wonder if it's being considered?