Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
What really matters is who holds the air space above those tanks. As we saw in '91 armor can be wreaked in mass by air power.
The west had some fantastic tank killing aircraft in the 1980s (A-10 and AH-64) that the Soviets didn't really have a proper equivalent for.
|
Other than ZSU23-4, and all those tactical SAMs - both MANPADS and vehicle mounted...
And the SU-25 is arguably a better ground attack aircraft than the A-10.
I'd also take issue with the assumption that NATO had a significant edge in armoured technology during the early 1980s. The majority of NATO armour had the 105mm L7/M68 gun, which is marginal at best using 1980's ammunition against the later T64B/T80B tanks of GSFG (The 120mm L11 was probably less effective, as it was still mostly using APDS). A proportion of hits would penetrate through weakened areas of the frontal armour - but equally many would not be capable of penetrating... forcing many re-engagements and increased vulnerability - against return fire an M60 or Leopard 1 is relatively vulnerable to any KE/HEAT round striking it - and the original M1 and Leopard 2A0-2A4(early) was only marginally protected against the more modern rounds used in GSFG tanks. The 'long range advantage' is eroded further by sight lines in a European context - the average is between 1-1.5 km and it is common to be able to approach to within a few hundred metres in some directions without intervisibility.
NATO also underestimated the effectiveness of dense fire concentrations of HE quick on armour and anti-armour systems. Their late cold war testing indicated that casualties would be around 50% for all types of equipment in the area of effect - although tanks would 'only' be damaged except by a direct hit, they were still vulnerable to mobility and firepower kills at rates similar to lighter vehicles.
Fighting equal numbers of early model T72 in open desert and with air-superiority after 30-40 days of the air-war is very different from being outnumbered and attacked by echeloned forces which have jumped over the border 'fresh' in a densely built-up and wooded European terrain.
Fortunately this wasn't tested, as
both sides would most likely have used Chemical and/or nuclear forces if the war had gone hot - either pre-emptively to aid break-in, or defensively to halt a successful attack/counter attack.