Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise? Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.
That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.
|
That's a very good point, Tony. I think that we agree that both sides are going to capture working (or repairable) enemy MBTs and use them against their former owners. My point- and I think you're more or less on the same page- is that it wouldn't be a common enough occurance for one side (or the other) to equip an entire armored regiment exclusively with first-line [former] enemy MBTs.
The WWIII battlefield is going to be very hostile to armor and I think attrition is going to be high, even before the stream of new and remanufactured tanks and spare parts dries up in early '98. In the v1.0 Soviet Vehicle Guide there's a plate (E4) of ex-Finish, Romanian-made M-81 (RW TR-85) in the service of the U.S. 6th ID in Germany c.'97. If the Americans are going to go to the trouble of shipping what's basically a glorified T-55 from Norway to Germany (and refitting it with a 120mm gun)
before the TDM, you know that armored forces are losing a hell of a lot of vehicles.