Crossfire and Assault

[campsawyer]

Situation, an assault against an armored unit and infantry. The assaulting force has infantry and AT weapons ( Bazookas, PIAT, Panzerfausts, ATRs etc) but no armor. The assaulting force makes an AT shot at the armor and the armored unit survives. Meanwhile, lurking within range is another AT weapon ready to fire. On a subsequent turn it takes a shot at the armored unit still in the hex. Should it get the crossfire bonus, yes/no, you be the judge.

[Hugmenot]

Infantry assaulting armor with bazookas, PIAT, and panzerfausts is already deadly enough without giving them another desirable outcome in my opinion.

ATRs on the turn they launched or joined the assault from an hex which would have give rise to a crossfire bonus, maybe.

[Blackcloud6]

I say no because it does not meet the requirements of the rule where the two fires must go through two non-adjacent hexsides. BTW, if the target is still in assault hex, is it not legal for someone outside the hex to fire into it?

[vince hughes]

Alan,

Definately a no from me. Surprised this has not come up in one of our games before. Wayne and I certainly don't use the crossfire in such situations.

[upintheattic]

I say no because it does not meet the requirements of the rule where the two fires must go through two non-adjacent hexsides. BTW, if the target is still in assault hex, is it not legal for someone outside the hex to fire into it?

Agreed on the former point; the answer is no. On the latter, see rule 12.53; a unit outside an assault hex can fire into the assault hex with AT fire if only the enemy has vehicles in the assault hex.

[campsawyer]

Thanks all.

Just find it odd that all. If we add another variable such as a second AT shot from a non-adjacent hex that would qualify. Yet with the whole mess going on with the assault and the armor more focused on what is at hand would not expose more of itself to a vulnerable attack. I guess this can be chalked up as another PG v. reality issues.

[campsawyer]

As an aside, Doug, why wasn't the AT table configured like the DF or BF tables to account for the probability?

[upintheattic]

As an aside, Doug, why wasn't the AT table configured like the DF or BF tables to account for the probability?

AT fire is different because it's one unit's fire value going up against another unit's armor value. You don't get that with DF and BF, where all that matters is total firepower directed at a hex and the characteristics of the units in that hex have no bearing on the result rolled on the table. So it wouldn't make sense to put AT fire on the same type of table as DF and BF.

[davidthedad]

ATR fire within the assualt hex seems to me to qualify as the first shot of a possible crossfire since the target hex is never considered as a hex in which the first shot passes through. Therefore the second shot could come from any direction and get the bonus.

[armyduck95]

I judge yes - but there of course can be caveats that favor "no"

From a rules perspective it is still an AT shot, resolved as AT fire from an initial Hex 0 facing. The subsequent shot gets the crossfire advantage.

From a tactical perspective:
The Armor will focus on the closest threat and would focus facings appropriate to the assaulting infantry with AT weapons. Giving the crossfire advantage depicts the strength of combined arms tactics and having a supporting fire element that can pick off the armor as the infantry assault force draws them out from another direction.

In favor of "No":
Due to close quarters, there is an assumption of "danger close" of fratricide. While 12:53 allows the use of AT weapons to shoot only a vehicles in an assault hex, the "reality" is these weapons can still cause considerable collateral damage as friendly infantry maneuver around to assault/take bazooka shots. So, you could reasonably assume any crossfire advantage is negated by the outside AT unit needing to take additional measures to avoid fratricide... or the case that in a close assault scenario, the tanks are now mixed among the infantry and at varied armor facings to deal with the direct assault threat.