I don't know if Abe's around so much these days but years ago he posted an interesting article about the effectiveness of indirect artillery fires against armoured targets, complete with a picture of a splinter-ridden main battle tank that made it graphically very clear just how effective said artillery could be. Massed, accurate fires, particularly with the availability of new shells such as M982 Excalibur, are more than capable of shredding a MBT, let alone the potential effects of rocket artillery...
Anyway it's an interesting topic, if you're interested I recommend googling around a bit and sharing the results with us. I'm sure a number of us would be curious to see what's out there, and who knows, we might even summon Abe back into existence with all this talk of artillery...
I think you have the article
"Who says dumb rounds can't kill armor? in mind, which I posted here a long time ago.
P.S: Much of the location, identification and fire direction of massed, mostly ToT artillery against German armor was done from (artillery) observation planes. There are some highly interesting articles from the same journal with lots of stats, especially after the end of the conflict. Overall the Allied artillery was in a virtuous circle due to many advantages enabling more advantages and could thus get very good at engaging even moving armor.
P.P.S: Found the
thread in which I posted it first. The conflict in Ukraine, despite the favorable tank country or the partly understandable mistakes, certainly confirmed the opinion of the majority and showed the importance of the relevant military history.
Other conflicts, like the ones in Gaza confirmed the overall opinion that active defence has great merits in LIC and as
a part of the onion in HIC.
P.P.P.S: The use of a RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) with a sensor suite suited to the task can replicate to some degree the WWII artillery plane. Maybe in the future a stripped down version could be used to geolocate AFV using radar-based active defences.
