Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Something else to keep in mind when relating Iraqi vs Soviet performance is that the Iraqi's did not hold the initiative and did not have the massive fire support behind it the Soviet would have been expected to use (air, artillery, etc).
Western tanks are certainly better than the Soviet models one on one, but proper application of the Soviet style doctrine calls for a much more combine arms approach to "suppress" the western forces while their tanks and infantry advance.
|
You're completely right. The Iraqis had no initiative and did not have the massive fire support of the Soviet army. However, I look at that effect and say that it becomes even MORE prevelant in the world of T2K.
However the soviets rely on massed artillery fire power, but now its limited because the US counter battery fire, nuclear strikes, and lack of ammo. The other big factor is use of rotory wing assets to strike at tanks, which are also mostly gone. The soviet style of massive frontal assaults followed up with echelons of follow on forces would fail, because there is no way to shock and supress the defenders and there aren't hordes of tanks to be used in follow on waves. They've got to conserve what they got and they've also probably learned to use what they have according to the limits of what they can do.