AFV Leading activation questions

[cjsiam]

I tried searching the forum, and could not find anything which really clears this up.

I begin with these observations of the rules (4th Ed.):
6.81 Effects
A tank leader can activate AFVs (including APCs) in his own hex and all six adjacent hexes. If an AFV is activated by a tank leader, it can initiate an assault (12.1) or move closer to an enemy unit that can spot it, has range on it, and could obtain a combat result on it through Anti-Tank Fire.


6.82 Limitations
Tank leaders have no rank, cannot activate non-AFV units, cannot activate other tank leaders through subordinate activation (3.2), may not spot for bombardment fire (9.1), and do not modify combat or morale.

Consider:
a. I have a PzIII surrounded by German Halftracks each with PzGren Inf in them.We are all adjacent to a town hex with a Russian Inf in it.
b. I choose to activate the PzIII inherent Panzer Leader to Assault.
c. I will then also activate two of the halftracks to join my Assault.

So far all that is clear from the above....
I could certainly Assault with PzIII+2Halftracks.....  The Russian would defend against unaccompanied AFV...getting a modifier...

But---what if:
d. The halftracks unload in the Assault hex....

This is based on this piece:
5.67 RestrictionsUnits being transported may not conduct any type of fire. If a transport has a fire value, the transport may fire even if it is loaded. In a hex containing enemy units, a unit being transported may unload as a movement action, but it may not load.
Example: The German player declares that an SPW 251 APC carrying an INF unit will conduct a Fire action, moving into an adjacent hex to initiate an assault. The German player may count the APC's direct fire value in his total assault strength, but not the fire value of the loaded INF unit. The next turn, the APC may declare a movement action and unload its INF unit. Because it was a movement action, neither unit may conduct an assault that turn (though they may defend against enemy assault).


Can they? the infantry units were in the halftracks--but no officer activated the infantry unit....???
Can the Halftrack choose to unload it's cargo--regardless of the activation status?
Would the infantry participate in the Assault? or would they impact the "unaccompanied" status only?

The status of a passenger (Infantry/weapon) and it's activation status when it's transport is activated could
be either way....
I'm asking to understand how most would assess this situation--or what we think the rules would intend--had they 
been clear about this.

So--the ideal Assault sequence is: Declare Fire activation for PzIII and 2 loaded Halftracks.....move into hex....unload Infantry....
The Pz and Hlftrks do assault...but the defender does not get the AFV alone....the unloaded infantry cannot Assault as it did not
get an activation to Assault an enemy---it was unloaded by the Hlftrk...at cost of 1MP...
?
?

[Umikaze]

 In a hex containing enemy units, a unit being transported may unload as a movement action, but it may not load.

You answered your own question. Assaulting is a fire action (12.11). So, no, you can't do it. The source of activation has nothing to do with it.

[Schoenwulf]

It would seem that they could be given a fire order in a subsequent turn, so they could participate once the hex is activated in the future.

[plloyd1010]

 In a hex containing enemy units, a unit being transported may unload as a movement action, but it may not load.

You answered your own question. Assaulting is a fire action (12.11). So, no, you can't do it. The source of activation has nothing to do with it.

Maybe the question be, if the half-tracks are activated to fire, can they ...
The fundamental question seems to be, could the tank order the loaded half-tracks in, and if so, what does that mean for the loaded infantry?

[Umikaze]

 In a hex containing enemy units, a unit being transported may unload as a movement action, but it may not load.

You answered your own question. Assaulting is a fire action (12.11). So, no, you can't do it. The source of activation has nothing to do with it.

Maybe the question be, if the half-tracks are activated to fire, can they ...
The fundamental question seems to be, could the tank order the loaded half-tracks in, and if so, what does that mean for the loaded infantry?

What I was driving at is this: you can't do it all in one turn/activation.

Activation 1: Tank leader activates the Pz and the two halftracks. Player calls a fire action, all units enter the target hex, and the PZ and halftracks conduct the assault. Infantry can't participate since they're still loaded.
Activation 2: The infantry units unload as a move action, but can't join the assault on the turn they unload ([5.67] In a hex containing enemy units, a unit being transported may unload as a movement action.) They can't assault as part of the same activation, since assault is a fire action. [5.61] also implies that the move action also applies to the halftracks, so they'd be unable to assault. But the Pz would be able to assault normally by itself.
Activation 3: The Pz, both halftracks, and both infantry units would be able to assault.

[plloyd1010]

I understand that this is a rules lawyer topic.
I also understand that assaults got thoroughly messed up in the 4th edition. 
I further understand that the spirit of the question is about how tank leader, with no capacity command/activate infantry, can be for said infantry into a situation which would normally require a regular leader to activate them.

[treadasaurusrex]

Amen Peter!

Yep, we are once again forced to split hairs . . . Trying to "rule lawyer" and seeking to interpret poorly conceived and written rules. Frustrating, que no?

Realistically, tank leaders SHOULD be able to lead combined arms, close assaults with AFVs carrying infantry.

Oh well . . .  so it goes.

[plloyd1010]

The infantry should also be able to dismount. That's just basic motor/mechanized doctrine going back to the 1920's. Expecting troops to sit in their half-tracks for half an hour while the battle rages close around them is unreasonable regardless. but, that's what the 4th edition makes happen.

[Blackcloud6]

The infantry should also be able to dismount. That's just basic motor/mechanized doctrine going back to the 1920's. Expecting troops to sit in their half-tracks for half an hour while the battle rages close around them is unreasonable regardless. but, that's what the 4th edition makes happen.

Are you sure that is what is happening and also the doctrine?  Up until the advent of the of the IFV, doctrine in most armies was for the infantry to dismount in the last covered and concealed position and then attack on foot with the APCs either overwatching with long range fires from the MGs or going into hide position depending on the AT situation of the enemy.  Only is resistance was light or suppressed would you ride right up to the bad guys and dismount.  The fighting mounted right up to the enemy and possibly right into their position was not a thing until the 1960s for the Soviets and the 1980s for the US and most other armies when received IFVs.  Furthermore, in US doctrine, fighting mounted from the BFVs according to FM-78 was only tot be done if the enemy was suppressed or weak.  WWII halftracks could be taken out by machine guns.

So the game mechanic of forcing you to stop and dismount before entering the hex replicates the vulnerability of the HTs and thus the attacker has to assess its risks.

Also, tank/infantry coordination was not as good in WWII as many think.  Only if the tanks and infantry were together for a very long time and trained together was this ability to happen.  So the notion, in the game, that you need a infantry leader and a tank leader in the same hex to order the assault of both types of units is valid.

[Blackcloud6]

Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to drive up in your HT next to an enemy occupied town and set there inside the HT for a turn, plan your attack accordingly to make sure you have the 1 MP left in order to dismount.  This is good play and the game mechanics work for the good player and not for the ones that don't bother to count... or can't.