AFV Leading activation questions

[plloyd1010]

Are you sure that is what is happening and also the doctrine?

Admitted it is only the expressions of Marshall and  Guderian in their manuals, and Timoshenko in pre-purge writing. Otherwise only expressing deployment at 100 meters/yards or less, not necessarily what one would call a PG assault. That was just what I could infer.

[cjsiam]

So---HT with infantry move into hex activated to Assault the hex.
They cannot unload---because that is a move activation, and they have a Fire Activation....
The Inf in the HT...if it had an Inf Officer also loaded---it could not unload in the Assault...
BUT--in a following activation --- I take it that it could also NOT unload that turn as the HT has activated and 
cannot spend the 1MP needed to unload, even if the Infantry does have the MP....

So it would have to be the following turn that the INF can unload with both INF and HT spending 1MP...

Blackcloud's discussion of doctrine and issues seems to ring true.....and reflects the unload adjacent tactic the game seems to require.

There does not seem an operational flow in the rules where the HT can provide covering fire to the Infantry unloading....
If the HT is going to unload it's a move, you don't fire....if you fire, you can't unload.....so...getting out of the HT to ground while
receiving covering fire doesn't seem to work....I'm thinking there is an anomaly vs. use therein....
Maybe the concept of unloading while HT provide covering fire is more Hollywood then Combat?
Am I missing a staging technique here, or is it only teams (1/2 fire, 1/2 unload) that works?

[treadasaurusrex]

I always unload my PG infantry outside the assault hex before attempting a close assault, and I use the (up to 3) APC's guns and my armored unit, plus infantrymen, plus an infantry leader, in the assault hex on the next activation.

 Works great most of the time, if one softens up the defenders before hand.

Alas, some math is required . . . .

[Blackcloud6]

"Alas, some math is required . . . ."

Hey Tread, this might help:

[Blackcloud6]

"Maybe the concept of unloading while HT provide covering fire is more Hollywood then Combat?"

Yes.  The HT is to provide protected mobility, the MG on it is more for defensive purposes or supporting by fire from range and defilade.  The HTs are an important and precious asset and since they are lightly armored, exposing them risks that asset.  That is why APC doctrine up until the advent of the IFV was to dismount in a covered and concealed position.

[Blackcloud6]

From FM 17-42, Armored Infantry Battalion, 10 November 1944

Excerpt from section 43 Method of the Attack:

e. USE OF VEHICLES. In the attack some vehicles may be placed in position defilade to support the attack by fire. Those vehicles of assault companies  which are not used for fire support are placed under  the best available cover and concealment in rear of  their respective companies and displaced, each platoon's vehicles being under control of a noncommissioned officer of that platoon. These vehicles are  placed to cover, by fire, the flanks of the assault companies. As the attack advances vehicles are moved  forward as directed by the company commander. In some cases vehicles may be grouped by battalion.  When covered routes are available and the terrain can be traversed, vehicles are used to move the support platoon when it is committed to action. The  reserve company usually retains its vehicles and moves in them either when following the attack or when moving to a line of departure.

Note that if supporting the attack, the HTs are placed in defilade to support by fire and/or placed in cover and concealment for protection.  They are placed to cover the flanks by fire (a defensive use).  Note the doctrine is not to use them to rush into the assault.

[Blackcloud6]

Things did not change much by the 1980s if you had M113s, FM 7-7 The Mechanized Infantry Platoon (M113) (1985):

5-12. ATTACKING MOUNTED 
Mechanized infantry platoons and squads attack mounted with or without tanks when — enemy resistance is light,
enemy antitank weapons are destroyed or can be suppressed, and the terrain allows rapid mounted movement to the objective

(Note that by 1985, infantry antiarmor weapons had increased dramatically with RPGs and ATGMs, thsus making attacking mounted unlikely)

5-17. ATTACKING WITHOUT TANKS 
A mechanized infantry platoon may attack mounted when there are no tanks attached to the company or when the company team is attacking along two different axes with tanks on one and APCs on the other. The reasons for attacking mounted without tanks are the same as when attacking mounted with tanks, but the effect of the attack will be degraded without armor. Careful analysis of the enemy capability is necessary. (bolding is mine)

further on in the text:

When attacking mounted with APCs, the platoon leader may elect to dismount before moving onto the objective. This may be necessary because the carriers would be vulnerable to close in antiarmor fire or because of obstacles that 
restrict movement. THE DECISION TO DISMOUNT MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO BEING COMMITTED TO THE FINAL ASSAULT. The platoon leader must not stop APCs in the final assault to dismount in front of an objective if the platoon is exposed to the full force of enemy fire. 
The platoon leader tentatively selects a dismount point that will provide cover and concealment for the dismount team while they get out of the APCs. He decides on the composition of the dismount teams, designates who is to control the dismount and carrier elements, and plans  how he will assault the objective. Normally the 
carrier element initially will support the dismount element by fire. When its fire is masked by the dismount element, it moves quickly onto, across, or around the objective. 

Attacking mounted depends on the enemy’s strength, capability and disposition. This may be when time is critical and the added risk is  warranted to accomplish the mission or when  supporting fire destroys most of the enemy before the platoon reaches the objective. The platoon leader still should have an alternate plan for dismounted assault

The points I'm trying to make are: 1. Attacking mounted is risky and should only be done if conditions are favorable and the enemy is suppressed. 2. Dismounting is done in covered and concealed positions. Understand that not only are the APCs vulnerable at this moment but so is the dismounting infantry.  3.  Support by fire from PC is done from defilade and range.

Even when we got BFVs, which provided much more firepower and protection, we still only assaulted mounted if the enemy was weak and suppressed.  The BFVs still supported by fire from defilade and range.

[Blackcloud6]

Remember in WWII, the HTs did not have overhead cover.  This made them very vulnerable in the close assault.  Also the MG gunner is exposed with only partial protection from a gun shield if it had one.

So, in game terms, driving mounted into the assault hex would be very risky.  But dismounted a hex away and assaulting with both the dismounted infantry and the HTs is better... if you have suppressed the bad guy like Treadrex says.  What is being replicated is the infantry leads with the HTs following.  But, if you don't suppress the enemy ATGs or supporting tanks, your HTs will be vulnerable in front of the hex you wish to assault.  Thus you need to asses the enemy well, just as the manual states, to come up with the plan of action that will lead to success.

If your HTs are going to be vulnerable, the dismount further back and use the HTs to support by fire from range or hid them to be used to later to drive deeper into the enemy and his rear.  This should all be taken into account in your overall plan.

[Blackcloud6]

As to this: "I further understand that the spirit of the question is about how tank leader, with no capacity command/activate infantry, can be for said infantry into a situation which would normally require a regular leader to activate them."

Again we must look at the design-for-effect intent.  Here the designer is forcing you, the player/commander/staff to plan your attack and make sure you got the right leaders in the right place.  This is subtle, and great aspect of PG.

[treadasaurusrex]

"Alas, some math is required . . . ."

Hey Tread, this might help:

Way too modern, and hard to use if one still drags one's knuckles.

The ancient Mayans had it right! Yes, there is a zero. Fractions are BAD, Oh, and limit your counting to 20, e.g.,  two hands & two feet worth of fingers . . .