RedFive wrote:We don't have another example of a modern military in action during 1991, so it's all we have to go on. If we're going to get into hypotheticals, ATGMs would have rendered MBTs into death traps in WW3, IMO.
ATGMs were overegged as a threat in 1991. They can be suppressed by artillery and smoke much more easily than armor can, and by the end of the cold war, a lot of ATGMs in the stocks would have been unable to kill tanks in wide use from the front at all- with the exception of TOW-2A and really big ATGMs like Maverick, most of the ones that did were just entering service in 1991.
Likely not, but that doesn't change the tremendous effectiveness of ATGMs and other PGMs.
It... does? Relative to ground forces? If you keep the aircraft back for 96 days and send them in for 4 days they'll do a lot less.
So the PGMs would be even more important, then?
Not vs. tanks. Vs. SAM sites, artillery concentrations, supply depots, bridges, yeah. Except for Maverick, no US airborne PGMs were supposed to be used against tanks on a regular basis at all. There simply weren't enough of them.
If Wargame has taught me anything, it's that unsupported tank assaults are suicidal (one point I think WG gets right on), doctrine called for the M1s to be fighting in combined arms groups with Bradleys. Plus there would be more Bradleys than M1s in just about any plausible WW3 scenario you can name, so the point stands.
And the Bradleys would always
be in a support role, like BMPs and Marders. No IFV had the staying power to mix it up right up front. The primary weapon was always the tank.