Extended Assault in PG (M) v. PG

[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.