Bunkers

How useful are bunkers in defending a strategic military position?

Attached: AlbanianBunkers.jpg (520x390, 55.51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

military.wikia.com/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You should've made a bunker general thread and used the question as a conversation starter.
>>>/halfchan/
>>>/auschwitz/

You got the "750,000 bunkers in Albania" click-bait in your youtube suggested as well?

Do you have a force to protect said bunker from invasion?

Not the people hiding inside…

sage

didn't see it between all the other soros shit like late night with colbert or moyers or noah (who are these people?), thousands of tribal niggertunes, or fake soyboy clickbait.

Eat a dick

Depends on the type of bunker, pillboxes? Good for slowing down enemy infantry but they are basically death traps once a proper offensive starts. In depth bunkers protecting from enemy shells and buried underground? I guess good enough if you want to protect your military command and vital supplies

In case of Albania, not useful at all. We can roflstomp their entire country in 1 week

You cant even sort out your economy let alone wage any kind of war

Attached: 8bf.jpg (264x249, 18.76K)

Tell me more big guy

Attached: Laughing Argentinian.gif (813x605 68.59 KB, 133.33K)

But Poleanon, they spend more percentage of their GDP to their army than most NATO members, why harassing them?

because we need to vent off anger after returning from work that pays 3$/hour

Where do you get these numbers from, user? There are 90,408 not including conscripts. If we include conscripts the number goes to 253.500
Army: 51.531
Navy: 16.722
Airforce: 22.155

I don't know about strategy, but it sure does wonders settling my schizophrenia down.

Attached: hoxha.jpg (958x1296, 256.17K)

THIS UGLY COMMIE FUCK is building MASSIVE AMOUNTS of BUNKERS and BASICALLY the GREEKS ARE UNDEFENDED

...

That's your problem right there.

Before you ask, it's not your fault.
Everyone trust those fucks (and others) when there is no reliable single source that properly congregate military forces from open data and just digging a bit will demonstrate they're wrong for about everyone (even UK)…

Interesting, i didnt know that.
I always though that its somewhat serious report since it costs >£405.00

Bunkers are pretty fucking cool since they're very dense and can block lots of radiation. the issue with any permanent defensive structure is that while no construction is flexible in the military sense, bunkers tend to be especially immalleable. Any enemy that can see your fortifications can, atleast in terms of the surface structures, begin to meticulously plan their attack in order to best defeat the sytem. on the other hand an earthwork system can change and evolve between scouting and assaulting, and during protracted conflict can be bolstered during the fight (usually in rearward areas). another disadvantage is that generally any area in your opponents control can be captured at any time, so long as you are willing to suffer the cost of taking it. many people through history have thought their fortifications to be impassable walls, when infact history often proves them to be wagers made in resources and bet against the opponents resources, manpower, wits, and willingness.

To sum up: Bunkers can range between the most useful of military installations which protect military and civilian lives from great peril, all the way down to lowly two man death cups which may at best make two lives cost three or at worst be a pointless unplanned wast of precious resources.

Depends. Who are you defending against and what else is supporting the bunker(s)?

so what's interesting about that is that is often pushed as a "lol Hoxha was paranoid lmao" point, but it does make sense from the standpoint that Hoxha feared a Yugoslav invasion that would tighten Yugoslav control over the balkans while also allowing Tito to further marginalize the Serbs.

Ok, I dare you to annex Epirus

Some of the bunkers did see use in the Yugoslav wars later on. I'd be interested in getting first hand reports of how useful they were in combat. I know they worked well for protecting the civilian population from artillery fire in a few anecdotal incidences.

You could just go around them. :^)

Have a German VPN on, but 8ch ruins everything.

Except bunkers were death traps because they were isolated and had no real way of getting out of them without being shot. And the yugos just developed their ground game to a ridiculous fucking level, there's a reason we never went in there on foot during the civil war.

Circumstances necessitated that you explain the joke but don't worry, I laughed anyway.

I realize this, but just as an open question does anyone have videos or documentation of Yugoslav/Serbian ground and infantry tactics?

Firstly they had survival education starting in middle school and arms education starting in high school. That converted into about 10% of the population being highly trained and well equipped members of the reserves, which actually had shoulder mounted launchers before regular army troops. Not a massively important thing, but as a factoid it shows you that a lot of their priority was with the reserves, due to some "Tito's partisans" romanticization.

Highly defensive mountain warfare with a focus on high explosives over bullets. High explosives are and always will be the most important killer in war, everything else falls a short second to it. A hundred snipers can't match the effectiveness of ten mortars, or a single minefield. They had more rocket launchers and grenades per fireteam than a military three times their size.
Another thing is that they're suited to mountain combat and we weren't. For example we don't have a ~70mm cannon which can be towed up a mountain by a motorcycle, we just don't have that ability.

Attached: Untitled.png (2560x3264, 447.74K)

Interesting question. if the US had gone into the civil war instead of avoiding & got curbed, would the US change how things are done for it's armed forces?

I get that gun culture was black and white different compared then and now.

Hey, why doesn't the US require it's males to train like the English did with the longbow men?

The mere presence of gun culture means that it would take 10x more troops to take USA than, say, China…. even though China is three times bigger! That's a 30x multiplication of power, person to person.

And guess what, they had 65% of American gun culture.
military.wikia.com/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
All things considered, by my estimation, it would take 5x more troops to capture Yugoslavia than it took to capture Iraq. Around 1.5 million troops, including 500k American and 1 million coalition.

That's the difference.

longbowmen is one word, don't let this gay Zig Forums spellcheck trick you. in regards to your question though, money and cucks. the cost of training with a longbow is actually quite low in terms of resources over time, sure the bow needs to be re-strung every so often and sometimes arrows break but the re-usability is very high. ammo is cheap, even cheaper in bulk, but it will never be bow cheap much to our eternal remorse

also keep in mind that the requirement was to be practiced in longbow, anyone that does tactical or competition shooting in the US is likely better with their rifle than a bog standard longbowman with his bow. a more comparable requirement would be requiring people to train mortars, since the main purpose behind required bow training was building the strength and motor skills of using the tool rather than being a tactimal bow opermarator.

Before WW2, pretty good. Ever since then, not at all.
Nowdays any stationary object anywhere within enemy's reach is an utter waste of money and personnel.