Bunkers! Too easy to kill?

[CRSutton]

Want some feedback here. The just seem to die too easy for the money spent-especially the concrete bunkers. Tanks with AP seem to take them out fairly fast. Should they be tougher?

[Nolloff]

Depends ..

I think the only way to kill a concrete bunker I´ve seen is to hit it through the firing slit or rout the crew.

With respect to the crew the experience level is determining how long they will remain inside when under fire (and also how good they´ll hit you).

In a battle where you fight tanks and infantry MG bunkers will not last but they´re deadly to infantry and will at least serve the purpose to strip tanks of accompanying infantry.

Also: I`m in the process of designing a scenario. When placing a MG bunker in the second row of tree tiles and testing the scenario I had some pretty frustrating experiences as the attacker. The bl**** thing was able to target and fire over very long distances while my (Soviet) tanks hardly ever were available to target it. So that left me with area fire to surpress it... Regarding placement there seems to be a certain "sweet spot" where cover can work absolutely in their favour.

Just my two cents

Nolloff

[Gpig]

OK! Just lookin for some more feedback from fellow players on this issue.

I played a quick battle versus the A.I. using Nippy's rules for fun QB's.

I was green allies (infantry) versus Veteran Axis Armored Assualt.

I picked a concrete bunker with a 76mm AT gun. Luckily, variable experience upped it's experience to Regular. SWEET! I was expecting good things from this bunker.

HAH!

Turn 5, the axis tankers (veteran) spotted my hiding concrete bunker (in scat. trees) at the back of the map. They were seperated by about 800m. They took it out in 3 shots. One shot missed. Two firing slit penetrations.

Ugh.

What a complete waste.

My bunker did not even get off a shot!

Does this seem right to anybody?

Or is this rare?

Gpig

[Fishu]

I made up a QB mission as russians and set up AT pillbox at the end of road.. it was very nice road going through the frontlines!

Indeed, a dozen tanks got piled up along the road, knocked out.

...albeit the pillbox got knocked out before hitting the first german tank.

In half a minute period, PzII knocked it out 3-4 times from +600 meters.

thats quite well for such a puny tank versus a pillbox from the range.

I also had an MG pillbox set up, then T26 stumbled across it 300 meters away and knocked the pillbox out in a single shot.

I replayed it just to see it again few times and every time it got knocked out within 3 hits.

It's a pillbox for crying out loud!

I find regular MGs and ATG's more durable...

Indeed funny that a tank can have several hits into such a small hole, but miss ATG several times, which has much bigger protective plate than the firing slit on pillboxes and unarguably a hit on the shield would have somewhat catastrophic effects.

Funniest is that the crews often leaves pillbox without or with just 1 casualty..?

[MikeyD]

Bunkers do seem to be awfully easy nuts to crack, but I suspect any changes would only be in degree. The life expectancy of a bunker being fired on at near-point-blank by multiple tanks SHOULD be rather short! Medium ranges and longer ranges where it's dueling cannons (not mg bunkers), I think the game definitely could be tweaked more in favor of the defender. After all, he would've had the time to measure out ranges from his firing position.

Have you ever tried setting up a bunker for city fighting with road blocks restricting enemy tank access to decent firing positions? But then again, having an anti-tank pillbox without giving it tank access would be a waste of points.

[ April 29, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Gpig]

From my (albeit limited) experience, I will never buy a pillbox again.

Except. Maybe if it's a late war Axis defence where I can get a 88mm pillbox.

Then, maybe.

Gpig

[Redwolf]

That discussion comes up every month for 2.5 years now.

The firing slit penetrations are easy to achieve with any high-ROF, high precision gun, that means 20mm or 37mm autocannons are extremly effective.

Many people claim that these penetrations from tiny rounds shouldn't knock them out. As a result we have pillbox killing miniguns for which no historical references exist.

[ April 29, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Gpig]

Oh, I should have noted that the Axis tanks that took out my bunker where armed with short 75mm. (Pz iv).

I was truly amazed.

My AT guns in woods indeed fared better than the pillbox.

Doesn't seem to square for me.

Just my opinion, I reckon.

Gpig

[Snowbart]

What do you guys think is the minimum caliber of Arty that can be effectively used to destroy/make abandon a pillbox?

I think the quality of the crew is the single most important factor in determining the life span of a bunker. Seams to me most bunkers will be abandoned, not KO'd.

[MikeyD]

I once got an 88 pilbox in a Quickbattle, placed him in the corner of an large open map and dominated the game til he ran out of AP. Nothin' could touch him. But that's not my usual experience with bunkers.

I'm getting nostalgic for the bunker on the hilltop in the old CMBO demo. Now THAT was a proper tough nut to crack!

[Oddball_E8]

I think that most people assume that pillboxes are the kind of bunkers you would find on the atlantic wall and other mega-fortifications... they are not... they are small concrete fortifications... and they can be knocked out by firing slit penetrations pretty easy... imagine being in a pillbox when tank shells start f*ckin up the inside... remember that the germans often used he-charges in their ap-shells... even a small charge would be nasty in a confined space like a pillbox... and i also think that people place them poorly... they should be placed in woods or tall pines... not scattered trees or any other terrain... scattered trees are just that... scattered trees... i sure as hell wouldnt think my bunker was well hidden if there were a small birch-tree or two close by... no deep placement in woods is the way to go... just at the edge of visibility... bunkers are alot like snipers... placement, cover and concealment are the key words here.

Making sure that there is a narrow firing arc is also a good way of defending your bunkers... it might mean that it wont see as many tanks, but it also means that not that many tanks will see it... if it is placed in a crucial bottleneck it can really do some damage... i have made a small scenario for my own pleasure where germans in ´41 face a fortified line with alot of bunkers and trenches... its a hard nut to crack i can tell you that...

But i have to admitt... i would take a gun in a trench over a pillbox with a gun any day... but thats something i think should be changed in the game... not to make bunkers tougher, but make guns in trenches a little less tough... i have pounded away with 8!!! sIG 150mm sp-guns at a russian gun in a trench for ten turns before it finally got abandoned... these were veteran sp-guns and a green ruskie... it kept firing back sporadically during all ten turns... :mad:

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Oddball_E8:

imagine being in a pillbox when tank shells start f*ckin up the inside

The shells we are talking about here are 20mm HE, and they hit the back wall. They don't mess up a pillbox's inside very much. In CM a penetration which hits the back side of a pillbox has the same change of abandonation as a shell penetration a tank turret.

Also see Madmatt's comment at the end of the 1.03c thread about 20mm HE effectivity.

[securityguard]

i've had great luck with concrete bunkers. even survived multiple 150mm rounds with one (although the crew wasnt so happy about it). however, wooden bunkers are quite worthless especially against german infantry. a well place panzerfaust will knock it out. its better just to get maxim MG's

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Oh, I should have noted that the Axis tanks that took out my bunker where armed with short 75mm. (Pz iv).

I was truly amazed.

the short 75mm is actually more accurate than the 37mm ..

However I don't know whether it is modelled into the game.

Oddball,

My 150mm guns have usually turned the whole area into dust by the time of 10th turn

Although I prefer the infantry guns.. higher RoF and cheap

Seems more accurate too :confused:

[JasonC]

CM pillboxes and bunkers completely suck because they are modeled as vehicles instead of as fortified infantry type positions. It is purely the model, reality has nothing to do with it.

The only pillboxes that stand a chance of doing anything under typical CM conditions are the German gun armed ones, with 75 or 88 guns. The reason is they can at least kill the things that can get firing slit penetrations on pillboxes. If they kill everything with LOS to them before the reverse, they might live. And stuff looking to get LOS to the firing slit comes into view, and at least gives them a chance to take something with them.

They can still be killed relatively cheaply by pushing a towed gun into LOS of the firing slit while still hidden by cover. Especially small caliber guns, which can remain sound contacts, while still being able to KO the 'box easily once they hit the firing slit.

MG armed pillboxes and MG bunkers are neutralized for effectively zero cost, with absolute certainty, simply by parking any tank within LOS of the firing slit.

Russian gun armed 'boxes do not have the survivability of German gun armed boxes. The guns in them are too weak to kill medium tanks. The 76mm pillbox does not use the divisional gun, with its moderate AP ability, but instead uses the short barrel infantry gun. Which is only an HE tosser, ineffective against all but the lightest armor.

Meanwhile the 45mm pillbox has AP that needs flank shots to hurt most tanks. 45mm AP will bounce from the front of even at Pz II C at 500m. Boxes never get side shots unless the enemy is brain dead, because boxes are spotted practically instantly at any range and in any cover (another side effect of being modeled as "vehicles").

The only other time MG bunkers, MG boxes, and Russian 76mm infantry gun boxes are effective, is when the enemy has no tanks or direct fire HE weapons, or none can possibly reach the area the boxes cover. This basically only happens on specialized maps, or temporarily (vs. leading scouts e.g.) on special bits of terrain on more typical maps.

You are essentially always better off buying an HMG and a trench, or a gun and a trench, and putting the weapon in the trench.

A trench even in open ground will not be spotted until enemy units come within 200m - 175m is the typical range seen in practice.

An HMG or very small caliber gun can fire from a trench for minute after minute, and leave only a sound contact to the enemy, even at 300m range. Larger caliber guns will be IDed, but at long enough range those too can remain sound contacts. (For an 88 FLAK it is around 1800m - but there is always some range).

The protection of the trench against MGs and infantry type fire is not absolute, but it is good enough than HMGs typically only give "alerted" at range, and need to be within 200m to get regular "pin" results.

The protection against off map artillery is comparable to that provided by a log bunker - 105mm and up stuff can break with a nearest hit. Occasionally a very close 81mm mortar round will get 1 guy and pin. But enemies can expend entire artillery modules and only get half the men in an HMG team. If they don't panic and run into the open at the wrong time, they will recover in a few minutes.

75mm and larger HE will KO the position once a full ID has been attained and several rounds have been fired, to get a nearest hit close enough. But the same shots would easily kill a bunker with a firing slit penetration.

The contents plus the trench are cheaper, stealthier, and in most respects give equal or better protection. Stealth is actually the best protection, and bunkers get none of it. Since their thickness is not adequate given the ease of firing slit hits, the loss of stealth is not really compensated by anything else.

[avedon]

The was a russian document on TV a while ago. They told about finnish bunkers called 'million fortresses' (they costed that much). These were quite modest concrete constructions, housing four MG's. During soviet assault one of the bunkers took 85 direct hits from a soviet field howitser shooting direct fire!

This makes CM bunkers look like they're made of paper...

[Serge]

Folks,

Just a reminder coming from reality:

- Bunkers and pillboxes are meant against infantry, not against tanks or other armoured vehicles.

- To be honest: firing split hit or not, I wouldn't stay longer than one hit from a tank in a pilbox or bunker ... I only have 2 ears and one heart ... plus too many nerves to break under such a blast.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I once got an 88 pilbox in a Quickbattle, placed him in the corner of an large open map and dominated the game til he ran out of AP. Nothin' could touch him. But that's not my usual experience with bunkers.

I'm getting nostalgic for the bunker on the hilltop in the old CMBO demo. Now THAT was a proper tough nut to crack!

OH yes

in the CMBO demo "the Valley of Death" that bunker was near impossible to take out

no amount of Arty would kill it.

I remember bitching quite loudly about how indestructible that damn CMBO demo bunker was.

Maybe thats the way they should all be? :confused:

I don't know

I don't have any experience with concrete bunkers in CMBB?

oh well

:confused:

-tom w

[SgtMuhammed]

My experiences with them have run the entire spectrum. I have had them die from the first shot and during the same fight take on entire platoons of Tigers and keep knocking out light vehicles. I think they could be improved by making them a terrain type feature rather than a vehicle but I have had generally good experiences with them.

As to firing slit penetrations, even a 20mm would be like a grenade going off inside a room not much bigger than the average bedroom. It is not a pleasant experience.

[xerxes]

The concrete bunkers do seem to weak and if you think getting them taken out by a 20mm autocannon is bad, ATRs can reliably KO them with enough shots. Since the ATRs are pretty much unspottable at 200m+ gun bunkers are a true waste in CMBB.

The more cost effective bunker is the lowly wooden mg bunker. Sure HE can take them out, that's why you need to place them in a covered postion. Reverse slope is idea or with a treeline that prevents afvs from getting to the bunker. You can also use the wooden bunkers as tank magnets to draw the enemy tanks into your AT gun kill zone.

[Silvio Manuel]

Xerxes,

Better than your Wooden MG bunker is to just buy a trench and put one or two HMGs in it. Great cover, it's harder to spot a trench than a bunker, and the bunker suffers from the "vehicle" modeling where the crew will bail out.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by JasonC:

.........Stealth is actually the best protection, and bunkers get none of it...........

I just read Blood Red Snow: The Memoirs of a German Soldier on the Eastern Front by Gunter K. Koschorrek.

He was a heavy machine gunner who often fought entrenched. His experience seems to indicate that getting spotted was tantamount to a death sentence. Upon being spotted by T-34's or other heavy weapons, he would pull his MG down into the trench and wait to die or have is buddies save him by eliminating the threat.

He also mentions how the "old hands" did not want to put their ATG anywhere near their bunker (where a new and inexperienced officer ordered them to position it) because the bunker would immediately draw fire. (Most of the bunkers I read about are more for living in, with protection from indirect fire).

While there is not much on tactics in this book, I still found it to be a good read, as CMBB seems to model much of his experience.

Ken

[Kurt Bullard]

I just read Blood Red Snow: The Memoirs of a German Soldier on the Eastern Front by Gunter K. Koschorrek.

Ditto on the insights this book provides into CMBB. Koschorrek spent his entire career on the Eastern Front. He started the war as a replacement at Stalingrad, was part of one of the 24th Pz Div units to escape, held the line west of Stalingrad, and was eventually overrun.

There are a couple of great scenarios in there, too.

Kurt

[xerxes]

Better than your Wooden MG bunker is to just buy a trench and put one or two HMGs in it. Great cover, it's harder to spot a trench than a bunker, and the bunker suffers from the "vehicle" modeling where the crew will bail out.

______________________________________________

Trench units are suppressable with small arms fire when under 100m. The advantage of a reverse slope wooden bunker is that it is impervious to small arms fire.

MGs in trenches are great, my point is that a wooden bunker has a definite useful role in building a defensive position.

[tar]

As to firing slit penetrations, even a 20mm would be like a grenade going off inside a room not much bigger than the average bedroom. It is not a pleasant experience.

It might be unpleasant, but 20mm is still pretty small. It is a lot smaller than a grenade. The current standard launched grenade is 40mm diameter, which gives it about 4 times the area and about 8 times the volume. Also, grenades tend to have thinner walls and thus more explosive than cannon shells.