(01-10-2014, 04:35 AM)richvalle Wrote: Hey Armyduck95... meant to ask you this a while ago but been busy.
When you say "I agree, I can see where it would be a desirable tactic, and one that was sometimes used by forces that had little regard for casualties. " who and how do you mean?
I know the North Vietnamese had a 'fight by the belt' concept where they wanted to get in close to the Americans and try to reduce the Art/Air strikes they would suffer.
I could see the Russians or the Japanese with 'human wave/bansai' attacks. In those cases I'd see it more as a way to close the distance quickly and get into close combat vs a way to deny the defender hiding spots.
Thanks!
rv
Those armies that attempt to get in close combat and 'fight the belt' do so in order to deny the enemy the use of their Arty/Air because the risk of friendly casualties is too great.
Adding the +1 column shift to the defenders might further reward the gamble.
I was specifically thinking about North Vietnamese, Chinese (Korean War), and Russians.
But , the more I do think on it and read specific instances of this occuring in combat, the defending player still has advantage of being in defensive ground and the assaulter normally is attempting to maneuver under fire.