Armor strength disparity on Hummel vs. Rhino?

[Jim von Krieg]

John,

These vehicles were virtually identical except for the gun system installed. I would say they should have the same defense rating. However, it shouldn't be more than a lower and smaller profile scout car. These are relatively large vehicles with thin upper hull armor around the gun.

Both vehicles you mention are not tanks, nor are they scout vehicles. These vehicles are open topped SP Arty and SP AT. The armor is to protect the gun crew from small arms fire and shrapnel, nothing more. Neither of these vehicles should be in a gun duel with enemy armor because they will lose if the enemy gets in range.

Some things to keep in mind when using these vehicles.

IMHO, if the Hummel is in direct fire mode, something is terribly wrong. It is artillery and shouldn't be risked in DF mode unless the enemy armor threat in the area is minimal.

As for the Rhino, it should use it range advantage. It should never get close enough for enemy armor to shoot them up. They won't live long that way.

Doctrinal usage of SPARTY would put it in an armored unit to enable it to keep pace with and support the tanks. It is tracked to enable it to keep pace with the type of units it would support. Towed systems generally have trouble keeping pace with tanks going cross-country.

As for the SPAT, it would be used to rapidly reinforce or establish defensive lines in the way of enemy armored formations. It is not generally an "offensive" weapon system. It is defensive in nature. Hang back out of range, using shoot and scoot to stiffen your defense. Used in conjunction with infantry or armor, they can really add firepower to your formation to establish fire dominance.

Just my thoughts on it.

Jim vK