Quote:
Originally Posted by Griefbringer
I would presume that most modern tankers would prefer keeping some distance to enemy infantry, thus limiting need for such close defense systems. Also, if you are operating in close proximity to friendly infantry (eg. providing close support in urban environment) such systems could result in friendly casualties.
|
I believe that the reason why Sweden would employ such close proximity defenses is evident when you try and look a satellite picture over North Europe. It's not like Central Europe where you have patches of forest between the fields but the opposite. And the norther you go the worse it gets. That's also why Nordic countries aren't exactly tank heavy and (partly) why Soviet Union failed in their mission to reach Helsinki in 2 weeks in WW2. Map generator doesn't work that well for either, but you could of course imagine that the meeting engagement or anything is in such a spot because nobody wants to charge with tanks in the forest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Sweden
Arable land: 5.80%
Permanent crops: 0.02%
Water: 8.7%
Forest: ~55%
Finland:
Water: ~10%
Forest: ~69%
Aaaand (off-topic) this just in:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...tary-pact.html
No surprise to anyone who's been looking into what goodies are the Swedes buying and what Finns are. They seem to have the same helicoptres, MBTs, IFVs, APCs, SP-mortars etc etc.