"Pill boxes" Topic

I thought this link may be of interest, concerning pill boxed.

pillbox-study-group.org.uk

In my current parlous state we have been playing small games. This lead to an almost test case game based on the assult on 2 Type 24 pill boxes I printed many years ago. Each manned by a few rifles and an LMG (Type 24 pill boxes were designed for Bren guns not Vickers or similar SFMG's.

While the result looked pausible it was a bit one sided, the pillboes only had 1 LMG each and only 1 layer of barbed wire protecting them. The Pill boxes were suppressed by no means 100% effectively by massive MG fire as the apertures on the pill boxes from 600m range. However it did raise lots of questions.
Was this a real world approach or would tank support be called as a matter of course?
If not tamks would flame throwere be called with the resulting pause in offensive operations befor the flame throwers arrived?

How many layers of wire would be used typically?
Were the british artillery proof LMG pill boxes (Type 24) unique or did other nations use LMG's in pill boxes as opposed to the longer range and more sustained fire rates of an SFMG?

Assuming an invasion actually took place, I think armor support would be pretty sparse.

For a pillbox defending a section of beach, I imagine naval gunfire and air support would be at the top of the list. For boots on the ground, I think smoke, pioneers, flamethrowers and automatic weapons fire would be the order of the day. You could also look at ATRs, ATGs, and the 75mm infantry gun doing direct fire. At a certain point you can start bypassing pillboxes as long as you can detach troops to keep the defenders bottled up.

If the defensive plan was anything other than very hurried and inadequate there is no way you can assault only 2 pill boxes unless you have a lot of smoke on tap. The whole point of such systems, inherited from Vauban style artillery fortresses, is interlocking flanking fire so even if you do have lots of smoke you still have the problem that neighbouring boxes can fire on fixed lines into your attacking movement zone.

Proper concrete-cast pillboxes would take time and resources to build, so they would be placed in important locations that could be potentially expected to become under attack in the longer term, but were not close to the present front lines. In pre-war peace time conditions they were easy to construct, but during the war time it would be more challenging. Places where seaborne invasion was feared (English coast, Malta, German-occupied France etc.) are well-known, though Germans also constructed fortified lines in the east towards the end of the war.

Properly planned defensive lines would have multiple pillboxes with overlapping fields of fire covering each other. Possibly combined with gun pits and covered foxholes, all connected by trenches to allow movement under fire from one position to another. And with barbed wire, minefields, tank traps and other obstacles to the fore.

In the field, units would not typically have the time and resources to construct cast concrete defences at the front line, so you would be more likely to see bunkers constructed with logs, sandbags, soil, rocks and other locally available materials.

As for the armaments, most such defences would not have fixed weapons (though coastal artillery and other fortress artillery could be mounted so), but would be defended by whatever arms the defending unit would bring with it. So in case of a typical infantry battalion, this would be a mixture of rifles, light and heavy machineguns, anti-tank rifles, mortars and maybe anti-tank guns. However, various militaries also organised fortress units for manning defensive lines, and these would have higher than usual amount of heavy weapons, as they were intended for manning static positions rather than engaging in mobile warfare. Captured or older weapons could also be more handy on such positions than on regular units (logistics would be easier with static positions).

As for assaulting defensive lines, a well-prepared attacker would like to gather intelligence about their presence before launching an attack, so that the presence of such defences should not come as a total surprise, and the attacking forces would have assets on call to engage them.

As for means to engage them:

1.) For seaborne landings, naval gun support would be the first choice, though scoring direct hits on small pillboxes at long range on rough sea is not exactly easy.

2.) Air support (if available) might be of limited effect, at least if strafing with MG or autocannon fire. Dive bomber scoring a direct hit could be effective, but the pillboxes might not be obvious targets from the air if properly camouflaged.

3.) Tank and assault gun support for leg infantry units was historically much more limited than it is on our gaming tables, so could not be counted on too often. That said, tanks could be quite effective against MG bunkers, though keep a watch out for minefields, anti-tank gun positions and pre-plotted artillery barrages.

4.) Direct long range heavy weapons fire by infantry guns, anti-tank guns, light AA-guns or field artillery could be effective if they can be brought into a good firing position without being easily spotted.

5.) Flamethrowers, satchel charges and plain old hand grenades could be also effective if you could manage to get close enough – easier said than done, with overlapping fields of fire, minefields, barbed wire and pre-plotted mortar barrages. But an infantry unit expecting to assault a fortified line would likely be able to stock up on suitable close assault weapons – and might be assigned pioneers to held detect and clear obstacles.

6.) Long range fire with rifles, MGs, mortars, indirect artillery support etc. would help to suppress positions (and cause occasional casualty), allowing assault parties to get close by.

7.) Bunker crews may not be intended to defend their position to the last drop of blood, but may be instructed to disengage and move to a new position in the rear if the enemy manages to get too close. This might not be immediately obvious to the attacker, who might keep on attacking the position until they can be sure that it has been taken or destroyed.

Normally pillboxes are protected by interval troops in trenches outside, precisely to stop people from creeping up on them with demolition charges.

John Foley outlined the procedure used against Siegfried Line bunkers in his Memoir "Mailed Fist".

1. Infantry take out any protecting, AT guns (covered by tanks)
2. Isolate bunker with smoke
3. Shoot at bunker with MG and AP. See if they surrender.
4. If they don't surrender, blow a hole in it with an AVRE
5. If they still don't surrender, use a Crocodile to put flame into the breach. No further steps required.

Often the mere approach of a Crocodile would be sufficient to make the garrison surrender.

Flamethrower tank, such as Crocodile, could be quite effective against bunkers, able to pepper them from range with MG and cannon fire, and then roast them from close by with flamethrower – which also has a mighty morale effect.

That said, getting close enough to use that flamethrower may require a bit of work, needing to first deal with possible tank traps, AT mines and AT weapons in the vicinity.

That said, most units in WWII did not have access to flamethrower tanks (or AVREs). Did John Foley serve in a British tank brigade?

I read the US called up an M12 howitzer to take out some bunkers. They didn't even need to penetrate, the shell would ring the inhabitants' bell so bad they were incapacitated.

Murvihill – Interesting.

The Uk build Pill boxes early on in defensive lines (see the link). In addition there were isolated pill boxes. There are a few round where I live. They protected bridges, and transport nodes and in some cases provided observation posts that could warn of landings inland before they were eliminated.

All that I have studied and have manuals on are Soviet modern networks. I do not have any info on UK WW2 bunkers. Sorry.