(08-18-2025, 08:00 AM)Blackcloud6 Wrote: (08-18-2025, 06:16 AM)treadasaurusrex Wrote: The good news for our countrymen is that by Dec 1944, self-propelled, American tank destroyers (M-10, M-18) in the ETO had traversable, open-topped, turrets and were under the command of both tank leaders - like Abrams in the Bulge - and also line infantry and artillery officers. US TD training & mission had certainly changed since Tunisia as you indicate. However by then, combat experience & evolving mounted combat doctrine had resulted in better-integrated, American and British TD units. They were now, operating as combined arms teams with tanks, self-propelled artillery and infantry, e.g., the assignment of closed-top, M-36 Jackson platoons in regular tank companies, akin to the Brits use of Firefly Shermans in their armed squadrons, etc.
Germans STGs and Jagdpanzers were mostly in the same boat, in terms of who had tactical command from 1941, on.
I did some digging on the TD units in Europe and one of the great complaints by TD officers, right up to the end of the war, was the infantry commanders did not grasp how to employ the TDs properly, if at all. The TD doctrine was to remain under TD command at all times and not be salami sliced out. Thus, for general game rules, the TDs should not be activated by infantry leaders unless in the very known situations where the units operated closely together over time (the 1st ID did so in Aachen). So, a scenario special rule would suffice, not a change to the game as written. Furthermore, the ability to activate both by having an infantry leader and the TD (tank) leader in the same hex will suffice for what you guys want to do.
Wow, another wet blanket purist!
Sure hope that APL is taking note of some of these (many) creative suggestions for improving the PG rulebook. It is beyond time for a new edition with better illustrations and includng more examples of play.
