Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13
I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.
|
Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive. A Soviet tank division has more tanks, and while on a per-tank basis the Abrams is more of a fuel hog, the defender can sit with his engines off for longer (in a grossly overgeneralized sense). I'm not quite sure why US formations would be less consumptive of ammuntion, though. The Soviets planned massive bombardments. It could be that it was assumed that US guns would stay in action more continuously than their Soviet counterparts, given the superior ability of the US logistical system to keep ammunition moving to the big guns. On the other hand, all that movement of large-caliber ammunition would burn fuel, wouldn't it?
Webstral