AT fire in assault hexes

[cjsiam]

Which is interesting....Tanks were invented to clear trenches and machine gun nests.....

Combined Arms bonus, Leadership bonus  helps make them effective against defenders....
But they can suffer casualties while taking such positions.....

What I see is them driving up to units and firing their DF at Adjacent hex bonus....
and unless defenders have AT, it's pretty much invulnerable ....but, it can take time....
Does that reflect the tactics correctly? or were tanks sent in to crush the infantry(with infantry support)?

I read many occasions on eastern front where they assaulted AT guns at very close range---under duress probably....

Does the current interpretations (as we came to above thread) reflect Armored warfare circa WWII?
I'm not sure....
Opinions?

[plloyd1010]

I know a certain retired colonel who seems to think so.

[cjsiam]

what does that mean?
Can he confirm it?
How so?

Anyway---I think the consensus is -- AT Fire Does NOT happen in Assault.....it is separate and distinct.
Tanks or AT guns firing defensively in an Assault hex (or first firing in Assault) do so with DF fire....
AT fire would require separate activation.....and is not triggered by an assault attack on defending AT units--only their DF factors...(or 1....)

So be it.
cj

[plloyd1010]

what does that mean?
Can he confirm it?
How so?

You asked what opinions there were about the consensus point. You asked about the reality aspect (I understand that to be latent plausibility). Fred Schwartz,aka Blackcloud here, retired colonel, battalion commander, author of a book on Sherman tanks (probably others too), seems to agree with the latent plausibility of the consensus.

He might confirm it here. So might Greyfox and treadasaurusrex. There are likely others with professional credentials, rather than my academic, who may also respond.
 

Anyway---I think the consensus is -- AT Fire Does NOT happen in Assault.....it is separate and distinct.

The way I would put it is that AT Fire and Assault are distinct actions, except in the case of rule 12.12. (Technically that is not an action.)

[Hugmenot]

The author of the 4th edition was not, to my knowledge, involved with previous editions of the rules. 

I am friend with John and I suspect it was more his interpretation of the rule than a clarification. Keep in mind he was a bit rushed at the end to finalize the 4th edition rules because Avalanche Press was running out of 3rd edition rulebooks and did not want to print a few thousand more.

[Blackcloud6]

I read through this thread last night and also the one on CSW that covers the same issue.  I then went back and looked at the appropriate rules and thought about it.  I almost changed my mind because of this sentence in rule 11.0 "A unit with an Anti-Tank Fire value that occupies an assault hex may use Anti-Tank Fire against enemy vehicles in that hex instead of adding their Direct Fire value to the assault total."  This makes me think that the rules imply you have the option to use AT fire or assault fire when tanks are involved in an assault, which is true.  So I almost concluded that separate AT fire in an assault hex is not allowed and must be part of an assault, thus you trigger and assault if you do activate to fire AT Fire.  But before making that conclusion, I reread the threads again and the rules.  What I conclude is the rules do not say anything about AT Fire in an assault hex triggering an assault.  The rules are simply silent on this.  The rules do say using assault movement into a hex (unless reinforcing an assault), or activating to conduct Assault Fire, are what "trigger" an assault and thus the defenders get to fire.  

Rule 12.52 is explicit on allowing AT Fire in an assault hex and does not say anything about it "triggering and assault."  Assault Fire and AT Fire are two distinct forms of Combat in PG (see 7.1) and 12.52 simply allows AT Fire in an assault hex.  Thus by being a distinct form of combat, it can be fired without causing an assault to happen.  It can be part of an assault but does not have to be either when you actually assault or if you just fire AT Fire in an assault hex.

ASLers say, and it is part of the ASL rules: "Concentrate on what the the rules allow: COWTRA."   I think that applies here very well.

[plloyd1010]

ASLers say, and it is part of the ASL rules: "Concentrate on what the the rules allow: COWTRA."   I think that applies here very well.

Rather like an old general wargame axiom: " If it doesn't say you can't, you can. If it doesn't say you must, you needn't."

[Blackcloud6]

You asked what opinions there were about the consensus point. You asked about the reality aspect (I understand that to be latent plausibility). Fred Schwartz,aka Blackcloud here, retired colonel, battalion commander, author of a book on Sherman tanks (probably others too), seems to agree with the latent plausibility of the consensus.

Peter:

Thank you for the kind words.

A bit of clarification:

I did not write a book on the Sherman Tank.  What I have done is prepared, and have presented many times, a professional and comprehensive presentation on the Sherman Tank, covering its production, variants, and its threats.  The point of the presentation is to show that the Sherman was an excellent tank in WWII and skewer some of the myths surrounding it.

I did command at the Lieutenant Colonel level but it was an administrative command of a unit of Intelligence Analysts.  Although it was for evaluation and promotion purposes considered a battalion-level command, I do not wish to give the impression that I commanded a combat battalion.  I did, hover command line Infantry companies twice:  In Korea in 1985 I commanded a straight leg infantry rifle company.  In Germany, from 1986-89, I commanded a Mechanized Infantry Company that was equipped with M2A1 Bradley IFVs.  I also was a Command and General Staff College instructor for five years, teaching the Army reserve version of the course.  After that I was always assigned in my secondary specialty of Strategic Intelligence and not my primary branch which was Infantry.  I was regular Army for 11.5 years, and in the Army Reserve thereafter for a total of 34 years service, part of which was four years enlisted time prior to commission in the Ohio Army National Guard.  I also was a civilian Supervisory Intelligence Specialist for the US Army Tank-automotive Command.  So those are my creds, which along with  $1.50 can get me a cup of coffee. 

Since it was mentioned, the reality argument in allowing tanks to AT fire and not trigger in the assault hex is that, when they do so, they are using, albeit very close, ranged fire of their main gun to hit point targets (enemy vehicles) and are not moving with and supporting infantry in the assault, thus closing with the enemy and firing all their weapons, main gun and machine guns.  In the former notion they are not coming into direct contact with angry infantrymen with bundle grenades, panzerfausts, bazookas, can openers etc., but in the latter notion, they are and thus vulnerable to the wily ways of the infantry.

But then, reality arguments and rules don't always match-up.

[plloyd1010]

Fred,
Thank you for sharing. Regardless of my flawed understanding of your career, you still have done more for the country than I have. Medical reasons, when I was 17 and into my 20s, prevented me from taking a more active role. Otherwise I would have been in the Navy, like several members of my family had been. So I ended up being more in academic appreciation.

This whole thread has been an academic exercise. Of couple of people have commented on how the situation is not good tactics, game or otherwise. I never said it was good tactics, only asked the interpretation of the rules. Philosophically the situations comes down to what one sees the combat situation as being. I see it as everything from hand-to-hand to 100+ meter shots. As such, I have little problem visualizing squads of infantry 50ish yards apart with a couple tanks behind them. (which is where the tanks probably should be anyhow.) If I saw PG assault combat as a complete intermingling of the combatants, then I would have thought that any shot would set the whole thing off. Accounts that I have read don't seem to have that happening so much.

For those who denigrate Sherman tanks, I suggest looking at the knockout ratios, especially late 1943 and after. I would also point out that The Sherman tank was still viable in may armies into the 1970s, including with the Israelis who used them to take out an Iraqi armored brigade in the Yom Kippur War. If you want to read Fred's opus, it's still on the APL website.

[cjsiam]

Did we summarize this then?

AT fire, within an "Assault hex" (that being one with units of both sides) is allowed against vehicles inside said hex, and does NOT instigate an assault.

Tanks are only obligated to use ASSAULT combat if they are moving into a non-"Assault hex" (no friendly units were in the hex at the start of that activation segment)
...at that point they must do an ASSAULT combat
....if they move in later, or stay multiple turns, they may choose to attack or not, and may use AT in hex(via activation) or ASSAULT(offensively or defensively) if they do.

At no time does an ASSAULT combat, either offensively or defensively, involve or instigate any AT Fire.  AT Fire requires an activation independent of the ASSAULT, offensively or defensively.

This also means that if an AT gun is in a trench, or town---and a tank moves in---it only gets to opportunity fire IF there is no other enemy units in the hex at the
moment(can't fire out of Assault hex) of approach of the tanks....Thus, AT guns would never use their AT firepower in an assault hex defensively in ASSAULT, only
through activation to fire AT.

I think that's where we end up.