Whats in a bunker?

[Marek_Tucan]

Just for perspective, the biggest weapons built into bunker in Czechoslovakia (I mean really built) were 85mm guns, used during refurbishing the pre-ww2 line on borders with Austria. Forts received modified 85mm tank guns instead of pre-ww2 planned 47mm-HMG combos, when not in use, almost entire gun was drawn back into the bunker.

The biggest caliber planned for pre-WW2 line was 120mm mortar, otherwise 100mm howitzers.

[PanzerBob]

As with most defences it depends a lot on the terrain and whom I'm defending against.

Since shelter bunkers are cheap and more realistic in any numbers than armed bunkers I buy 1 or two per trench line. I tend to put Hq units under this kind of cover Zugs and Kompanies.

I also find armour fare better dug into trenches, however if you move them DON'T try driving them back in as they will be disabled more times than not.

Generally speaking these kinds defences are more effective against Russian Assaults. Also don't forget to move the "sheltered" troops into the trenches once the enemy is within rifle range.

There used to be a bug years back that allowed you between battles in a campaign to buy bunkers as part of the core force and in one campaign I had enough shelter bunkers too put all Hq Gruppe under cover in a defence. Came in handy from 43 to 45 on the Ostfront.

[Marcello]

"Just take whatever old tanks you have lying around, dig a large hole, put your tank at the bottom and pour concrete over the hull!
You can pretty much put any tank (or other AFV) you want, even modern stuff even though it doesn't make sense stores-wise."


"You can consider your defensive line as normal troops heavily fortified. Therefore you can keep the same proportion of armor, infantry, artillery, air defense etc. (in fortified equivalent or fortification troops) as when buying for a regular defense. Replace one infantry squad/platoon with one LMG nest/ earthen bunker, infantry support with MG nests or ATGM positions, tanks with cannon bunkers...
You're free to customize, but IMO this could be a working basis for a balanced defence. Just food for thought."

I have to disagree. Things like modern AFVs and a lot of others of the things listed above would realistically be simply "dug in" and as such best represented in the game by using the entrenching option.

[Sniper23]

O.k I was wondering if it was a good idea to drive the tank back and forth,think I might use shelter bunkers against N.korea now because they use a lot of atty.

I remember that bug,once bought all the bunkers I needed for defense in my core force .

[PlasmaKrab]

Marcello said:I have to disagree. Things like modern AFVs and a lot of others of the things listed above would realistically be simply "dug in" and as such best represented in the game by using the entrenching option.

Depends on the defence you have in mind. I agree that, as Sniper23 said, it would be pointless to bury Abramses and such, but all users of modern material aren't masters of mobile warfare tactics. I'm thinking, why not, in 20 or 50 years, see Abrams turret dotted along ridgelines on potential border flashpoints of, say, Egypt, Quwait, Saudi Arabia...

As to modern equipment being more dug in that actually fortified, it depends on the delay you have in mind. Troops and vehicles can be hastily dug in in a matter of hours, and get out quickly to be moved somewhere else.

If you consider a really, really fixed defense (I agree, again, that there's little point to it in modern warfare), even modern material can be worth a decent preformed concrete wall and overhead cover. As I understand it, there is little more that this to ingame MG bunkers or ATGM positions. They are permanent in game scale but could probably be emptied from all their equipment in a matter of hours.

[hoplitis]

Actually after the last war in Lebanon the notion of "static defense" having no chance against a modern mechanized/armored army + total air superiority + high tech information gathering, took a blow. Of course that does not mean that we must rewrite the book, so to speak. The Hezbolah didn't build a "Maginot" line, they used "hit & run" (or hit & hide) tactics but they presented a form of "static" defense network in the guerilla sense, at least that was my (amateur) impression at the time. I'd really like some more "informed" feedback on this.
On the other hand even the most advanced army needs good and determined leadership and above all a plan (has anybody understood what did the IDF want to accomplish operationally? and I don't mean the whole plan eh! ).

[Marcello]

"Depends on the defence you have in mind. I agree that, as Sniper23 said, it would be pointless to bury Abramses and such, but all users of modern material aren't masters of mobile warfare tactics. I'm thinking, why not, in 20 or 50 years, see Abrams turret dotted along ridgelines on potential border flashpoints of, say, Egypt, Quwait, Saudi Arabia..."

The game deals with stuff up until to 2020. No way their Abrams would be released for such use by then.
The problem I have with this is that for a tank what you are looking for is already covered by the entrenching option, which models the whole affair much more realistically than the class 0 does, such as the tank being able to leave the position etc..

"If you consider a really, really fixed defense (I agree, again, that there's little point to it in modern warfare), even modern material can be worth a decent preformed concrete wall and overhead cover."

You can't give overhead cover to a turret without greatly diminishing its arc of fire.

[thatguy96]

Marcello said:
The problem I have with this is that for a tank what you are looking for is already covered by the entrenching option, which models the whole affair much more realistically than the class 0 does, such as the tank being able to leave the position etc..

I would say that depends. Buried tanks aren't going anywhere, and so entrenching there would give an unrealistic option. Also, a lot of seriously dug in positions have very limited ways of getting in and out, and are meant to be static positions (see revetments for AFVs in firebases in Vietnam), so being able to leave by moving in any which way is similarly inaccurate. In a prebuilt scenario, you could of course use terrain management to make this more realistic.

On the matter, what kind of protection is actually afforded when you entrench and get the little sandbag wall icon around the tank? Does it get HEAT armor? Extra armor? Reduced critical hit chance? Is that in the manual (I'm at work, so I can't check ATM)?

[Sniper23]

I have never seen it in the manuel but I think they get great bonus to steel armor(just looked in iraq oob and a t55 has a armor value of f=19 s=8 b=6, with it being in the cement it has a value of f=59 s=48 b=45.)

I also seen a t72 with a value of f=82 s=58 b=47 so it appears to drastically improve the steel armor at the cost of movement and it is a smaller size but the turret value is untouched.

[Marcello]

"Also, a lot of seriously dug in positions have very limited ways of getting in and out, and are meant to be static positions (see revetments for AFVs in firebases in Vietnam), so being able to leave by moving in any which way is similarly inaccurate."

Frankly I had in mind the more temporary dug in positions
meant for a prepared defense. I would guess you are right that there might be cases where getting on the move again isn't an immediate concern.

"On the matter, what kind of protection is actually afforded when you entrench and get the little sandbag wall icon around the tank? Does it get HEAT armor? Extra armor? Reduced critical hit chance? Is that in the manual (I'm at work, so I can't check ATM)?"

As I recall only the turret can be hit. Since the turret is usually better armored than the hull that is quite an
advantage.
Perhaps there might be a lower chance to hit the tank to represent the smaller target and/or spotting bonus or whatever but I don't know for sure about that.

"I have never seen it in the manuel but I think they get great bonus to steel armor(just looked in iraq oob and a t55 has a armor value of f=19 s=8 b=6, with it being in the cement it has a value of f=59 s=48 b=45.)"

I suspect that the original OOB designer meant for them to be heavily dug in tanks. Most bunkers in the game have unrealistic values anyway but with 92 nations in the game to deal with I doubt the design team will have time to look at it before the 2040s...

Speaking of iraqi bunkers, a few examples:
http://flickr.com/photos/75031815@N00/250765267/
http://news.webshots.com/photo/10968...16222121LCIdAw
http://www.flickr.com/photos/milans/28528251/

The great majority were however simple dug shelter like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12bravo...7594073501593/