|
RE: Extended Assault in PG (M) v. PG
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.
|
