Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Light vehicles would be extremely vulnerable to artillery fire.
The Soviets had butt-loads of artillery and knew how to use it. I can't imagine a TOW-armed Humvee or Jeep surviving very long in a hot sector.
|
Which is why they must practice shoot-n-scoot, just as artillery needs to do to try to avoid counter-battery fire. The point is, if the defender is matching 1 jeep to 10 tanks, and (only) kills 2-3 tanks before succumbing, the defender is dishing out a very disproportionate loss on the attacker in terms of cost of weapons. Even if the defender gets wiped out, he lost far less value of equipment, and less manpower as well. Plus it takes longer to train tankers than it does to train TOW gunners and jeep drivers.
The Soviets are good at using artillery as preparatory fire, not so much in the close-support role. Even the Soviets cannot maintain a rolling barrage at all times across an entire front as it advances, and nothing less will suffice to deal with the AT skirmishers.
The same skirmishers can be especially dangerous if they manage to avoid the leading tank waves and rip into the troop carriers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
A gun-armed TD is not as limited in terms of ammunition/shot per engagement, nor is it as vulnerable to artillery fire.
|
True, a TD will probably shrug off shrapnel that will KIA a soft-skinned vehicle. But if it was me having to decide how to spend a small country's very limited defense funds, and the choice was a few TDs or a bunch of missile jeeps, I know which I'd choose. Both will probably all be toast, but the jeeps are more likely (IMO) to inflict more losses on the enemy before they get nailed.
I should include the caveats that my opinion is based upon heavily wooded Scandinavian-type terrain and against 1990s Soviet gear (based on late 80s tech) and tactics. I wouldn't want to try it today. And I would very much not want to try it against the U.S. in any period after 1975.