THumpre Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 This is not a "Hey BFC, there is a great big bug thread" but.....What were the Russians thinking when they put a 76 L17 ATG in a bunker? I'm just curious since it seems like an awfullly short gun for a ATG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 In the German version it is just a '76mm gun bunker' - so the English version says 'AT bunker'? Funny. The L17 is the regimental infantry howitzer, like the German 75mm IG18. Just bigger and heavier, i.e. not as well suited for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THumpre Posted September 29, 2002 Author Share Posted September 29, 2002 Andreas, Nope, the English version just calls it a 76mm Bunker. My bad for figuring it would be an AT bunker like the German 75. Any ideas whynther are no Russian AT bunkers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Originally posted by THumpre: Andreas, Any ideas whynther are no Russian AT bunkers?Because prior to June 1941 Stalin didn't want' to provoke Hitler in any way, and forbade the building of fixed defence emplacements early on. To this extent, the defensive line on the Russian / Polish border was dismantled before a new one was built on the new Russian polish / German Polish line after 1939. In addition, Stalin had a military doctrine of defence by advancing into the enemy's territory. As a doctrine it sucked, but it also meant that building an AT bunker would be in violation of Stalin's doctrine and get the people involved arrested and likely shot. By the time Stalin realized his appraoch was not working too well (approximately 1942), the Russians were beginning to gain the initiative on the offence and this again made defensive bunkers obsolete in a practical sense. Unless of course I am full of crap and there is a Russian AT bunker in the game after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 As a doctrine it suckedWhich is why NATO adapted it? apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Originally posted by apex: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As a doctrine it suckedWhich is why NATO adapted it? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 Originally posted by apex: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As a doctrine it suckedWhich is why NATO adapted it? apex</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 Originally posted by OGSF: Those who fail to learn history...something something. Here's a scan from my old M1 Tank Platoon Book(Grog war gaming in its infancy). Looks a lot like the same "throw them peice meal into the grinder" plan that the Soviets used in the early war years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts