Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mohoender
I can see several good reasons. I'm not sure about this but I would expect AT gun round to be easier to manufacture than HOT, TOW, SS-4 Spandrell... AT round would be in short supply but missiles would have become a memory. RPG and carl gustav rounds will certainly be still available but I don't see how the US army would get replacement for their disposable M-72 (I'll rather be in the Marines).
Moreover, you need less training to fire an AT gun than to use a guided missile (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong). Again RPG and Carl Gustav are a different matter. In addition, an AT gun needs less maintenance.
Then, AT guns are great on well prepared defensive position and they can be used at much longer range or for other purpose such as regular artillery. In a cantonment organization they have their place. By the way trained AT gun crew in WWII were known to fire 4-6 round in a minute. I remember seeing a report on an M1 Abrams disabled (not destroyed) by an S-60 57mm gun used in AT role at Baghdad (2003).
|
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Soviets realize that they will never be able to keep up with AT missiles demands in a fighting war. Everyone does realize that most Infantrymen are too willing to use LAWs which were compact and light compared to such missiles as the Dragon, on any obstacle that needs to removed in their way. In Vietnam more than a few were used as bunker busters.
Where as the AT guns are basically the same guns that they had been in their tanks. So in theory they would get resupplied.
Yes, even the Soviet/Russia RPG-7/9s have been known to make M1 disabled for all practical purposes. Once you take away a Tanks ability to move, they are that much less of threat. Just a immobile pillbox with 4 soldiers who know all to well sitting ducks.