Extended Assault in PG (M) v. PG

[Blackcloud6]

I finally played a PG (M) scenario after a long long time not doing so.  I do find the system translates well to a more modern era, at least by the 1960 and i suspect it could go further too.  This is a result a good, no-so-complicated rule set that i think is one of the best features of the PG system and its spin-offs.  I do like having a rule set that can span many eras without major changes.  Thus, PG is one of my go-to games when I want to play something, especially solo (as it solos very well) and not fry my head.

In PG (M) has extended assault as a core rule in the game for APC s and helicopters, and transporting an efficient personnel unit, efficient personnel rules are another good innovation in PG (M) to make the game a bit distinct from PG.  To me the notion is, not only, in order to conduct efficient assault, not only do the infantry have to be in APCs, but they have to be well trained in the tactic, thus the need to be efficient.  This good because then the scenario designers can distinguish between well trained and not-so-well trained troops.

In PG, extended assault is an optional rule with no guidelines on how and when to use the rule, and it is for units loaded in APC and AFVs activated by a tank leader.  So, when do you apply it?   Is it used when the attacking player proposes to do so because he wants an advantage?  or should this rule and other optional rules be only applied by scenario special rules?  Unfortunately, I don't think many designers considered such us of optional rules in scenario design.  So, taking how PG (M) applied the rule, somehow players should only apply the rule if a force in the game was well trained enough to conduct, and importantly had the communications and ability to coordinate such assaults.   But then, how would you go about doing so?  This would imply the players need good knowledge of the capabilities of the forces actually involved in the fight.

Thoughts?

[plloyd1010]

This is going to sound paternalistic, but here goes. One needs to be very careful when extending the efficiency rating beyond the double-shot for tanks. The first thing players seem to want is split-move and fire, especially with armor. The arguments usually revolve around superior early training of German tank crews, gyro stabilization coming into widespread use in American tank, the stop-n-go drills of British tankers and a couple others. I try to tamp down that excitement, not because I see it as unrealistic, but because I've found most players in Igo-Ugo games don't really know what to do with or against such capabilities. If they insist, I suggest we do a couple of experimental games. If it still goes to jumping into a full game, I hand them their ass on a smokey silver platter. If an academic like me has delivered such trouncings, imagine what the actual takers here would do to those players. So, in a general sense, be careful what you wish for.

Infantry are less of a problem when it comes to game play. This is because of that seriously corrective +2 modifier for being adjacent and the high probability of getting less lethal results. With AT, the probability is 1 in 6 chance of a kill (all else being equal), with the probability at the high end of a bell curve. Direct fire probabilities are much more spread out. Still there are problems. Mostly in that efficient vs. inefficiency is going to exacerbate the morale advantage. Another problem is the spottiness of retro fitting efficient infantry.

Extended assault in PG Modern is better defined than in the 4th Ed options. Kind of odd when one considers that the optionals grew out PG Modern and other GSR's. In general I like it. I wonder how one squares that rule with assault being a fire activation, and the ruling that assaulting APC's cannot unload without taking a move activation. (Considering that Marshall's Infantry in Battle, published in 1920, talks about motor infantry assault, it looks like a badly written rule.) I think the PG Modern rule should be adopted over the 4th optional rule. I think it would also help clarify helicopter usage in Secret Weapons and Grossdeutschland '46.

[goosebrown]

I think we should have it in some form, but I am not experienced enough to know what level it should be.

The one area of efficiency I would really like to be generally recognized is for AT guns due to size and role. The only had to do one thing (for the most part)

For extended assault I think that for efficient armor that makes sense even if for a limited range. Perhaps half their movement (sorry tigers... you won't ever get to do it.. ) or for 2-3 hexes only. I don't have a preferred, but I don't think a herd of Stuarts going full tilt over a valley should be able to extended assault someone that has had 15 minutes to prepare and fire on them.

[Blackcloud6]

"The one area of efficiency I would really like to be generally recognized is for AT guns due to size and role. The only had to do one thing (for the most part)"

I would agree with this.  It does take some steeled balls to man an AT gun, relatively exposed protection-wide, as the tanks approach.  The US Tank destroyer Command talks about this in their manuals, how the TD crews, many of which manned AT guns, had to have discipline, elan and aggressive spirit.

[Blackcloud6]

Treadasaurus and I are almost finished with An Army at Dawn #27 Battle Group Gerhardt we have been using extended assault in the scenario and I think it gave the German an advantage among some built-in advantages already in the scenario.  Also, we both used it in an ahistorical fashion by leading attacks with just halftrack as they could run into a hex of a single infantry platoon and pin them down while the crunchies move up to reinforce. (no knock on my opponent because one should be able to use all the tools the rules give him to win)   In this scenario, the US have a lot of ground to cover and not all the infantry can get AT support, or the weak Halftrack mounted ATGs of the US get dispatched easy, so using the HTs this was makes sense, game-wise, but isn't doctrinally realistic in my view because the HTs are too valuable for mobility in the operational sense beyond the scenario.   I'm not likely to use this optional rue in the future unless there is a compelling historical reason for such, need for balance or the scenario designer invokes it.

[Blackcloud6]

And let's take a look at one Army's doctrine of the time.  From FM-17-40, Armored Infantry Company, November 1944:

f. Supporting Weapons...

(4) Vehicular Weapons.  Armored infantry normally fights dismounted. Under favorable conditions or in an emergency, either mounted or dismounted, is used to support the attack.  if mounted vehicular weapons are used, vehicle must be placed in position defilade and dispersed.  When not used for fire support, vehicles are kept in concealed and covered positions prepared to move forward upon call.  They should be disposed to protect the flank by fire against a counterattack from the front or flanks.

From pg 58 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc11807/

Nowhere in the manual is it suggested to attack mounted in the halftracks nor have the halftracks conduct the assault with the dismounted infantry.  If used in the attack, the HTs support by fire from protected defilades   So how do you do that in Panzer Grenadier?

[PzIVF2]

Admitting upfront that I haven't played PG sufficiently enough to have an intuitive grasp of the inter-relationships in the rules, it seems to me that the answer to the question:

"In PG, extended assault is an optional rule with no guidelines on how and when to use the rule, and it is for units loaded in APC and AFVs activated by a tank leader.  So, when do you apply it?   Is it used when the attacking player proposes to do so because he wants an advantage?  or should this rule and other optional rules be only applied by scenario special rules?"

- is to apply the same logic as 17.03 Efficient Unit Move and Fire (see reference text, below), that is: "This option should be reserved for 1944 or later, or for units with a morale of 8/8 or better in scenarios taking place earlier than 1944."  One would have to obtain mutual agreement to this before game start.  But I think it the best approach.  (I know that, in the RAW, this statement only limits Efficient Unit Move and Fire, but I submit that applying the same limiting logic to 17.05 Extended Assault makes sense.)

With respect to "Considering that Marshall's Infantry in Battle, published in 1920, talks about motor infantry assault, it looks like a badly written rule." - it seems by WW II the reality became one could only reasonably assault mounted onto the objective against very weak resistance.  Was it done historically?  Yes, I expect that it was done.  Was it done effectively against strong defensive resistance?  I very much doubt it.

In 1984 at the Infantry Officer Basic (LTs) and in 1988 at the Infantry Officer Advanced (CPTs) courses we were taught to dismount the APC's and/or IFV's at the last covered/concealed position such that the dismounts can directly assault into the objective, supported by the close-in direct fires of the IFV's/APC's.  This could be 200-300m away, if necessary.

Interestingly, I see more utility to assault into an objective with loaded APC's early in WW II rather than late, because early WW II anti-armor weapons - compared to late-war or the modern period - weren't terribly effective.

Thus, as for using loaded APC's in an extended assault - in PG, I do not see the utility, given that assault is a fire action and the infantry cannot dismount until the turn after the assault.  Better I think to get them up to the adjacent hex with a protected APC move and dismount, preparatory to an assault in the next turn, using the APC's to support-by-fire, which is the historical and doctrinal prescription.

If I don't use them to get adjacent, I usually group my APC's with the HMG's 4 or 5 hexes away to support-by-fire.  I am open to better ideas.

I have yet to play PG-Modern, so have no experience with that rule set's variation.  

rt

17.03 Efficient Unit Move & FireInstead of making two Anti-Tank Fire attacks, an efficient AFV may declare a move/fire or fire/move activation when activated. During that activation the unit may move up to half its printed movement allowance and fire once with a -1 modifier. It is then marked Moved/Fired. This option should be reserved for 1944 or later, or for units with a morale of 8/8 or better in scenarios taking place earlier than 1944.

17.05 Extended Assault
Similar to cavalry charge (15.31), an AFV unit activated by a tank leader (including loaded APCs, but excluding tanks with riders) may conduct extended assault from two or three hexes away. The AFV must have a LOS to the target from its starting position, and follow that LOS to the target assault hex. Inactive enemy units may conduct Opportunity Fire against an AFV performing an Extended Assault in any hex it enters before entering the assault hex. Units being assaulted may not undertake Opportunity Fire if other enemy units are already in their hex at the time of the Extended Assault. If an attacking APC includes loaded personnel, they may not voluntarily unload in the same activation as an Extended Assault; they may unload in subsequent activations.

[Blackcloud6]

Here is the excerpt from FM 7-7 (1985) THE MECHANIZED INFANTRY PLATOON AND SQUAD (APC), on fighting mounted:

5-12. ATTACKING MOUNTED
Mechanized infantry platoons and squads at-
tack mounted with or without tanks when —

    enemy resistance is light,

    enemy antitank weapons are de-
stroyed or can be suppressed, and

    the terrain allows rapid mounted
movement to the objective.
 From: FM 7-7J FEBRUARY 1986 The Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (Bradley) a. When to attack mounted.

(1) Because the BFV is not heavily armored, the decision to
remain mounted for the hasty attack is a critical one. The key
considerations governing the decision whether or not to
remain mounted are:

(a) Orders from the company team commander.

(b) Degree of enemy resistance (light).

© Trafficability (good without too much open exposure).

(2) If tanks are also participating in the hasty attack, they will
normally lead and the BFVs will follow 200 to 400 meters to
their rear suppressing known or suspected enemy ATGM
positions and protecting the tanks from dismounted enemy
AT teams. They will dismount only if the tanks to their front
require an area to be cleared or if an ATGM position to the
flank must be reduced to maintain the momentum of the
attack. Some degree of risk must always be accepted when
attacking mounted.

(3) If tanks cannot lead because of the enemy threat, then it will
not be prudent to attack mounted with BFVs either.

(4) The decision to attack mounted without tanks should only
occur with a BFV pure force against extremely light
resistance or when terrain precludes attacking with tanks.

(5) Once the decision is made to conduct a mounted hasty attack,
the Bradley platoon leader must still be prepared to dismount
if resistance stiffens, trafficability turns out to be poorer than
anticipated, or an unexpected threat emerges that can best be
dealt with by dismounted infantry. ----------

As a former BFV equipped company commander, after our first few exercises with the Bradley, I came to the conclusion that attacking mounted was foolhardy as the BFVs usually got "destroyed" (using MILES training devices) when attacking mounted or having the BFVs attack through the objective with the dismounted infantry.  They were better used to support by fire from an overwatch position with hull-down.  I would only order a mounted attack when the enemy position was very weak and unsupported. The difficult part was convincing the "Go! Go!" expressing small-minded tank battalion commander that attacking unmounted was an unwise expenditure of his limited infantry assets.

----------

So back to PG.  In the early war, many units were equipped with ATRs and Halftracks would be prime targets for these assets and machineguns, firing AP, ammo could do a number on them too.

I just don't see any realistic reasons for extended assault to be used in a WWII setting unless there is a documented use of such a tactic for a specific situation.

It also changes the dynamic of the assault procedure by allowing one to skip the dreaded portion of having to fight your way into the enemy's hex, thus, to me, extended assault could unhinge the already perilous balance that many PG have.

[PzIVF2]

"I just don't see any realistic reasons for extended assault to be used in a WWII setting unless there is a documented use of such a tactic for a specific situation." - I agree. 

My comment regarding the greater utility of assaulting an objective with loaded APC's early in WW II vs. late WW II was because of the relative weakness of AT weapons early vs late war.  Not that it is a particularly good idea.

Which is why I don't think PG (WW II) should use loaded APCs in extended assault.  As for tanks, I would limit it to the parallel logic of efficient move and fire for armored units (17.3)

Thanks for the walk down memory lane with the excerpts of FM 7-7.  I swear, I don't think most of our peers ever read much doctrine.  I was quite unimpressed by their performance in major free-play field exercises, especially the JRTC and NTC.

I miss that stuff.