How feasible? - Breakthrough Bunkers
Hey, so I've been thinking. How feasible is a mobile bunker? I've been thinking of adding it to my fictional army but im still thinking how practical/impractical would it be in real world and is there any examples of this? I know what you're thinking, isnt tanks already is a mobile bunker? I know, but would it be cool to have cheaper way to support defending infantry? this would be a lot cheaper than a tank since it has no engine and it has fewer components and it is towed by already existing vehicles.
Breakthrough Bunker
- Is a pre built bunker that is to be deployed on the tail of a breakthrough to enforce it. Basically a fortification on wheels. It can be deployed in 30mins and it can also be assembled again to move to a different vantage point. Typically deployed in flat terrains and roads. The size of these bunkers varies in size, there's the light bunkers which can be pulled by mules or infantry which is usually used in rougher terrains and it is armed with HMGs, LMGs, and light infantry guns. The next one is the heavy bunker it boasts a much heavier armor that is able to tank medium artillery and also armed with multiple machine guns or infantry support guns. Lastly, the medium bunkers, which combines the terrain mobility of a light bunker and the firepower of a heavy bunker, they may not be the best of both but it balances out their advantages.
Purpose:
- To accompany Motorized Breakthrough Infantry (Infantry that is used to either Defend the back of a breakthrough or support the advancement of the breakthrough) and provide them a mobile fort to aid their defense.
Advantage:
- Provides defensive infantry more firepower
- Quickly deployable when needed
- Thicker armor compared light armored vehicles
- Much less costly than armored vehicles
Disadvantages:
- Limited terrain mobility
- Weaker armor compared to static counterpart
- wont be able to retreat if the defense line falls
Edit: Additional information for my fictional army:
Historical era: in real history, the equivalent would be the inter-war period with a lot of countries vastly experimenting with their military.
Terrain: The terrain of the country is similar to west europe. (Vast open fields, occasional forest, but also small size mountains and hills)
Economy: it has a low tier manufacturing industry resulting in fewer armored production and limited to light armored vehicles and crude engines that are considered below average in performance.
Armored Doctrine: Assault Doctrine to use armored divisions of tanks and personnel carriers as a hammer to punch through enemy lines and pave a way for the infantry. (Armored divisions are often used to attempt breakthroughs and assaults)
Defensive Doctrine to reinforce defensive lines and pursue the fleeing enemy. (Armored divisions are used as a reinforcement in times of enemy assaults and pursuing enemies after failed assaults, bunkers are dropped as to not hinder the pursuit)
- Military The army is infantry centric but values the importance of the armored cavalry. They see them as a defensive tool and a devastating tool when attacking. Although they like to modernize their equipment, budget, and manufacturing capabilities are limited for them so they often try to improvise.
Edit 2: I just realized how stupid it is that a military that is under equipped and has a weak economy is attacking other countries. But hey, italy in ww2 would be a great comparison for this. Stupid decisions happen in history and it makes story telling on blunders in a fictional history more interesting.