Sorry, I meant that currently Russian artillery seems to be predominantly using anti-personnel shells - stuff that blows up troops, probably makes mincemeat of lightly armoured personnel carriers, and wrecks civilian infrastructure. As you say, they would need ant-tank ordinance to take on a massed armoured offensive.
I was just wondering if such an offensive could "close the gap" on the artillery before they could switch rounds, maybe destroying it, or forcing the crews to abandon it.
Tanks should be advancing in combination with infantry, using cover. In any case, artillery generally fires at an area, not at targets. The area effect will marmalise anything unprotected in the open, so opposing infantry are forced to stay below ground to survive (why trench warfare happened in WWI). Once you have mobile firepower advancing, their accompanying infantry will make life unpleasant for anything anti-tank, while artillery doesn't have the leisure any more to just plaster an area in their own time.
Incidentally, despite what many historians and theorists say about watering down tank formations with non-tank soldiery, what every commander of an armoured formation in WWII wanted was:
1. More fuel.
2. More infantry.