Whats in a bunker?

[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/

[Marek_Tucan]

Yup, I take the "dug-in tanks" as heavily fortified and rather permanent forts.

[Sniper23]

wow those are very neat to see!

[Marcello]

The first, the turret bunker, was an one of a kind affair built after 2003 for the new iraqi army.
The second and the third were the typical bunkers built to defend the beaches of kuwait from an american amphibious assault.
From what I read and I have been told these were meant to house nothing bigger than machine guns and soldiers (no antitank guns or such). Construction was generally very light, with thin walls made out of precast concrete, concrete blocks and perhaps even concrete filled cinderblocks. Nothing strong enough to withstand direct hit with modern artillery.
As a general rule the iraqis relied, in practice and by doctrine, on earthworks rather than reinforced concrete structures. Probably because the latter were faster and cheaper to build and to repair (and if you had to advance, abandoning them would be no big deal). Given the power of modern weapons a bunker capable of withstanding direct hits would require a significant expenditure of resources, so that approach was not senseless.
The near totality of the bunkers were simple dug shelter like the one in the last picture. Meant to house a squad, they were built by digging an hole and putting in place a steel support structure which was then covered with a thickness of sandabags/gravel and such. If built to paper specs it was supposed to protect against some mortar bombs.

[Marek_Tucan]

Found some interesting info about post-wwII Czechoslovakian fortifications.
Pre-wwII forts were reactivated and rearmed, where deemed feasible (ie Western and Southern border, against Germany and Austria). Heavy fortifications got their 47mm AT guns replaced after some time by modified ZIS-S-53 85mm guns from T-34/85. Otherwise, the attempts to design mounts allowing either SG-43 HMG's or vz.52 LMG's were unsuccessfull due to perceived high costs. The forts remained till their deactivation in 1990s armed with pre-ww2 vz.26 LMG's and vz.37 HMG's, both in 7.62x57mm.
After war, manz projects were made but in the end, onlz two main fighting objects made it - KZh-1 which was generallz a basic prefabricated pillbox for LMG/MMG and KZh-2 which allowed limited use of recoilless weapons (T-21 RR and P-27 RPG). In limited (and uncertain) numbers, KZh-3 objects were built. These objects consisted of concrete underground base with a T-34/85 turret in a fully rotating mount.
Earlier experiments counted on Panzer IV's being buried in concrete, without engine etc. and with crew shelter, but experiments against a prototype revealed the construction to be too vulnerable to 85mm AT guns.

[Sniper23]

sorry it took so long to get back to you, havent been on here in 2 weeks and thank you for the info.