I think there is another hole...

[plloyd1010]

Regular leaders can activate  APCs, self-propelled artillery, and engineering vehicle. Assault guns seem to have been left out. Isn't infantry support what they are trained for?

I think assault guns need to be added to the list.

[treadasaurusrex]

So true . . .

Here's one of the SEAB&JF house rules for your consideration.

German Assault Gun Activation
German Army, turretless STGs and Jagdpanzer units were typically crewed by artillerymen. Like halftracks, these units may be activated by ALL leaders, as well as Tank Leaders, unless prohibited by scenario rules. 

[plloyd1010]

Not so sure about Jagdpanzers. While crewed by artillerymen, There is quite a difference in their training and mission. This is especially true for the Americans, and largely for the British. I recall an anecdote (8 Days at Bastogne, I think) of a tank destroyer commander insisting that he and his men were going to fight like they were trained to. They did pretty well too.

[treadasaurusrex]

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.

[Blackcloud6]

Treat them like tanks.  Although the German assault guns were manned by artillery units, they were still formed into their own battalions thus they either are attached or simply ordered to provide fire support.  Their commanders would still position them and direct fires.

[Blackcloud6]

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.

[treadasaurusrex]

Interesting perspective and generally correct.

For more on this topic, checkout: 

Yeide, Harry
2007, The Tank Killers: a History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force
Casemate Publishers

[Dougal1951]

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.

[plloyd1010]

For more on this topic, checkout: 

Yeide, Harry
2007, The Tank Killers: a History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force
Casemate Publishers

Read it. He also wrote a book on independent tank battalions.

[Grognard Gunny]

Yeah, we fixed the problem now, but was it that way in 40-45? I think that there is a determined effort to "make over" some of the anachronisms into more modern warfare. If you want to play it that way...... fine, but it does not do justice to the times (WWII). Just sayin'.

GG