Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[wiggum]

I must say I am very surprised that people find the bunkers too hard. Both my experience and Dog Soldiers demonstration shows that they are easily enough to take if you use the proper tactics. In Kursk the infantry were lacking in HA value so a combined arms approach were needed, but that is less a problem in Normandy.

Its not about "too hard", its more about strange and unrealistic results that seem to happen a bit too frequent.
Look at my example on the first page.
Its more about very small units that take casualties during a assault and still not become disrupted or "finished off" (although already down from 18 men to just 3 and now took a additional casualty). Its about the "feeling" that small units can hold out in a unrealistic way against overwhelming attackers on a regular basis (i tested it 20 times always the same result).

To my experience fatigue is already what balance the play. I find this good balanced and what usually is the downfall of defending lines are the disruption and surrounding of the defenders with the following surrender in the assaults. If more units disrupt I fear it will be close to impossible to hold a defensive lines against competent players. The attackers would also be more often disrupted in such a scenario, but with smoke screens and using the terrain I am quite sure it will favor the attacker.

Its quiet realistic that a attacker has a edge over a static defender.
He decides where and when to attack and holds the initiative.
Thats why the defense of the germans in WW2 relied heavily on fast counterattacks with mobile reserves.
Now you could argue that the AI is not capable of such a thing but a human player should.