Yup, it certainly would have depended on the date of the war though……..After NATO had numerous 120mm barrelled tanks and TOW’s deployed to Germany, the utility of many of the older Soviet tanks would have been in question, and it’s not unreasonable to expect a similar ratio between NATO & Warsaw Pact armoured losses as those per historic between the Israelis and Arabs……As for nukes, they didn’t need them, they had divisional artillery……I wouldn’t have envied the troops and civilians on the ground.
The Russians have always been slow to mothball any particular machine. Plus, they've exported huge numbers of their older tanks/aircraft to the 3rd world over the decades post WW2. If one side has nothing...a T-55 can be quite daunting. But, the Israelis' armored force is half made-up of captured and converted T-55s/T-62s/T-72s courtesy of the Arabs...so there have been some positive side effects.
The TOW and LAW changed the battlefield...and the Sagger and RPG-7, of course. All those wires criss-crossing everywhere would have been disturbing, I bet.
The US has always been keen on the organic artillery support. Bullets before soldiers. The 155 is one of the finest gun lines ever made, in my opinion. Soviet artillery was often directed at corp level or higher without much input from the troops at the front. But, again...they had tens of thousands of artilley pieces, katyushas, FROGs, SCUDS and AT guns. The big hammer.
Edited by DogOnPorch, 10 April 2012 - 07:27 PM.