Quote:You asked what opinions there were about the consensus point. You asked about the reality aspect (I understand that to be latent plausibility). Fred Schwartz,aka Blackcloud here, retired colonel, battalion commander, author of a book on Sherman tanks (probably others too), seems to agree with the latent plausibility of the consensus.
Peter:
Thank you for the kind words.
A bit of clarification:
I did not write a book on the Sherman Tank. What I have done is prepared, and have presented many times, a professional and comprehensive presentation on the Sherman Tank, covering its production, variants, and its threats. The point of the presentation is to show that the Sherman was an excellent tank in WWII and skewer some of the myths surrounding it.
I did command at the Lieutenant Colonel level but it was an administrative command of a unit of Intelligence Analysts. Although it was for evaluation and promotion purposes considered a battalion-level command, I do not wish to give the impression that I commanded a combat battalion. I did, hover command line Infantry companies twice: In Korea in 1985 I commanded a straight leg infantry rifle company. In Germany, from 1986-89, I commanded a Mechanized Infantry Company that was equipped with M2A1 Bradley IFVs. I also was a Command and General Staff College instructor for five years, teaching the Army reserve version of the course. After that I was always assigned in my secondary specialty of Strategic Intelligence and not my primary branch which was Infantry. I was regular Army for 11.5 years, and in the Army Reserve thereafter for a total of 34 years service, part of which was four years enlisted time prior to commission in the Ohio Army National Guard. I also was a civilian Supervisory Intelligence Specialist for the US Army Tank-automotive Command. So those are my creds, which along with $1.50 can get me a cup of coffee.
Since it was mentioned, the reality argument in allowing tanks to AT fire and not trigger in the assault hex is that, when they do so, they are using, albeit very close, ranged fire of their main gun to hit point targets (enemy vehicles) and are not moving with and supporting infantry in the assault, thus closing with the enemy and firing all their weapons, main gun and machine guns. In the former notion they are not coming into direct contact with angry infantrymen with bundle grenades, panzerfausts, bazookas, can openers etc., but in the latter notion, they are and thus vulnerable to the wily ways of the infantry.
But then, reality arguments and rules don't always match-up.
