Talk:Bunker

The use of such units as PSI together with SI-units is questionable in the least. We need to change them all to SI. --Elmeri B. Suokirahvi 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I consider the stuff in the last section to be quite interesting and valid, it is a bit chaotic as well. I'll clean it up when I get around to it, unless someone beats me to it. Max robitzsch 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone how a bunker differs from a pillbox? thanks, Dori 05:52, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Is there any relation to the "Bunk Bed" ? where bunkbeds designed for use in bunkers ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.92.231 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bunkers are below-ground. In fact I believe the picture on the bunker page is actually of pillboxes. - Hephaestos 06:18, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, those in the picture also have a below ground part. Does it have to be completely below ground for it to be considered a bunker? I am confused. Dori 06:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, having just looked in the dictionary, which implies a bunker can have an above-ground part. In common usage I've heard (as well as what's implied in the Wikipedia article), a bunker is completely underground, used mainly for command and control, or for storage, whereas a pillbox can have an underground part but necessarily needs an above-ground part to fire a weapon out of. My dictionary on the other hand implies a pillbox needs to be completely above-ground, and that a bunker can have an above-ground part. I usually rely on the dictionary, but I've never heard this usage in military parlance. - Hephaestos 07:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not really an answer to the original question, but I now have an image in my head of two soldiers pinned down on a D-day beach, and one saying to the other "Technically, Sarge, the object that you are ordering us to charge in a heroic display resulting in a courageous but ultimately futile waste of human life is a bunker, not a pillbox". - Gandalf61 09:48, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

A pillbox was a cylindrical white card box, about 4cm high by 4cm in diameter, in which pills were dispensed. (cf pillbox hat.) It entered the language as a military slang term for small concrete bunkers of that shape. It is a common local term for such structures (most with no underground part and many square) on the North East coast of England, where many still remain from the last war. In the (British) army in the 1960s it was mocked as a "civilian" term, "bunker" or "machine gun emplacement" being considered correct. No idea what the current military usage is. Presumably the fuzzy dictionary definitions indicate the term has no clear and absolute usage. Anjouli 20:07, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the answer! Dori 03:29, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but is it shooting slits and not shooting slights?

In my understanding, the small holes for shooting through are neither. If you want to sound au fait it is loops and loop-holes means the same thing but sounds a little more pedestrian. However, the latter is probably more in tune with the original meaning. It appears to come from Dutch meaning spy-hole. In modern Dutch een loep is a magnifying glass. (RJP 20:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Which is of course our old friend, the loupe in French, and German Lupe. . Dieter Simon 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of Pillboxes in UKPalmiped 12:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any more information on the Americana aspect of bunkers? I'm working on a project about that specifically - how bomb shelters and bunkers became such an American figure. --Oddtoddnm 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Americana on "bunkers" should also include the 1980s and 1990s law enforcement sieges on "cults" in which tornado shelters, a shed housing an electric generator (MOVE), a fruit cellar (Ruby Ridge) or the concrete basement of construction for a new building (Waco Siege) were transformed into "bunkers" in the government press releases even though they lacked firing slits or other defensive or offensive features. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should these be mentioned somewhere in this article? Although not made from concrete (the spaces would be dug out of the ground, and due to the soil and climate the walls would set hard on their own). The chambers and access tunnels were too small for all but the smallest GI, who would have to leave most of his equipment and armour behind if he had to enter. Normally, if one was found, either GIs would be sent down to clear it, gas would be pumped in, fire/flamethrowers would be used, or high explosive would be put in. However, these methods often did not work - if the US had a bunker buster bomb, then it would almost certainly have been more effective at destroying/collapsing the bunkers. --80.41.47.33 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to write something up! Max robitzsch 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

expand the famous bunker section with a wider range of times like(ww2 ww1 ) and so on.

Another kind of Bunker semi-underground.

Exists in Australia, America and Britian, in Australia most of them were RAAF operations buildings built during 1942-1945 period and were built within a 6km area of an airfield. They were built of reinforced concrete (with steel mesh enforcement). The site of the bunkers were first dug out, generally it was dug at a ratio of 40/60 (60% below ground and 40% above ground) the bunker constructed, and then covered with dirt. The more well know of these bunkers is, Bankstown Bunker in Sydney and Coffs Harbour (now the bunker cartoon bunker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.133.4 (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section was removed without explanation, please do not just revert parts of an article without telling us why you are doing it. If the reverted section did not conform to proper Wikipedia standards, say so or edit the section to what it should be. Have now re-entered, but we need sourcing for this. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My father served in US Army Sixth Division in WWII, New Guinea and the Phillipines. Generally, a bunker was an earth and log emplacement, a pill box was a concrete gun emplacement. He described building bunkers as holes in the ground with room for about four soldiers, with a roof of logs and earth capable of resisting mortar fire (the best with at least two crossed layers of logs), firing slits facing the enemy, and a protected entrance/exit in the rear. American assault forces had to improvise; the Japanese defenders had the advantage of months or years of preparation in place. Also enemy pillboxes would be laid out so that making a direct gun or grenade attack with line of sight of the enemy machinegunners would put you in line of fire of the enemy machinegunners, making assaulting a pillbox with anything other than an indirect weapon like a flamethrower suicidal. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the text in the section Pillboxes into a new article called Pillbox (military) which previously was a redirect to British hardened field defences of World War II. I have done this because the sources tend not to include pillboxes as bunkers but instead mention them either as stand alone structures or as above ground protuberance from a bunker system:

At the time [the Maginot line] was constructed it contained state-of-the art weaponry, communications an armour all linked together through a vast network of underground tunnels, although concrete blockhouses and pillboxs peeked above ground at intervals.

— Richard Harold Schneider

• Schneider, Richard Harold; Kitchen, Ted (2002), Planning for crime prevention: a transatlantic perspective, RTPI library series, vol. 3 (illustrated ed.), Routledge, p. 87, ISBN 9780415241366

-- PBS (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why so much detail regarding bunkers under houses? Why so much stating the obvious (doors must be as strong as the walls....no kidding)? In general it is a rather scrambled article too. Yevad (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219002104/http://archives.queensu.ca:80/wwi/warfare.html to http://archives.queensu.ca/wwi/warfare.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629104708/http://bunkry.lubrza.pl/english-3/ to http://bunkry.lubrza.pl/english-3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply