I have a book on WW2 fortifications (eg, Atlantic wall), and the impression I got from browsing through it is the fact that those little bunkers- many of them simply an artillery-proof concrete enclave with a single MG or single medium mortar/three men inside were meant to supplement the regular defense that was located very much in front of it.
The advantage of these little bunkers was the fact that they were still standing after an artillery or mortar strike, while regular troops in trenches around them would be heavily suppressed. So when the attack came, the bunkers could still open fire and buy time for the troops around them to reorganize, recover, and get back into the game.
On their own, the bunkers were not very formidable at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordKhaine
I find it's often a case of people not using them correctly. People always seem to sit right at the middle of the viewing port, which is begging to get a bullet in the head.
That said, many bunkers are placed in bad places. Seems a running trend in ww2 fps'ers to place defensive structures in places that are often no help at all. Indeed they often seem placed simply to look good, and often aid the attacker more than the defender. Presumably this is because a realistically set up defensive line would be quite impossible to assault with even numbers.
|
__________________
Thompson-30rd:Squad Leader; BAR foregrip-Slow Auto:Automatic rifleman
10-16-2012, 06:28 PM
Linear Mode
