Extended Assault in PG (M) v. PG

[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.