Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[Cole]

Gordon,

I put your example of the half tracks finishing off the ISIIs down to this. The 1 assault factor of the half tracks does not represent them charging into the battle and destroying a IS2 by using well placed machine guns shots. Instead I take it to mean that there were half tracks in the area of the skirmish that helped support the assault in question, even by just helping to maintain a perimeter or helping with MG fire that kept the IS2's buttoned up. You just happened to bring more to the fight and those half tracks might of been the proverbial "stick of straw that broke the camel's back".
At the CS level it has to be abstract. To really play "historically" we would have to play Squad Leader.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Actually, Cole, if you used the half tracks to overrun the Stalin's then you would have broken most of the accepted personal ROE's at this club.
There really is no justification for using HT's only to assault armor. :chin:
Most players will let you use HT's with infantry and/or armor to assault enemy armor.
Fire is one part of the game and assaults are another?

If we ever play each other it will be after a serious discussion of ROE's? ;)

[Huib Versloot]

Fighting Vehicles, apart from Flamethrowers should actually not be able to assault any other fighting vehicles.
Infantry should be able to assault anything, Vehicles on the other hand should only be able to assault (= overrunning, melee or is there another definition) infantry, unarmored transports and guns. It's either this, or acceptance of the abstraction level of the game. There is really no difference in assaulting T34s with HTs or with PanzerI's. Yet the first is so called "not done" by a subjective ROE (For which I see no justification) while the second is excluded from that ROE. Both were fighting vehicles armed with machine guns and could never take out a T34 other than by making the T34's crew bail out for some mysterious reason.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

That is why everyone should discuss ROE's with their opponents? :)

There are many different opinions, which some players get quite fanatical over, regarding ROE's?

I like historical flare with gaming fun.
If anyone remembers the old Squad Leader board game. In my opinion they ruined it when they upgraded to Advanced Squad Leader (version 5. -whatever-). It became so less playable and certainly less fun.
The same things happen with miniature rules. When I see a thick booklet governing play I often will watch it played to see if it could possibly be fun.

To each their own? The club will not endorse specific ROE's that will govern anyone's play.

[Tide1]

To each their own? The club will not endorse specific ROE's that will govern anyone's play.

And that's as it should be Ed IMHO The club is not here to do such things and would only diminish the gaming experiance that it provides for it's members. It should always be left to the players to decide what ROE they want to use.

Gary

[Mike Abberton]

Fighting Vehicles, apart from Flamethrowers should actually not be able to assault any other fighting vehicles.
Infantry should be able to assault anything, Vehicles on the other hand should only be able to assault (= overrunning, melee or is there another definition) infantry, unarmored transports and guns. It's either this, or acceptance of the abstraction level of the game. There is really no difference in assaulting T34s with HTs or with PanzerI's. Yet the first is so called "not done" by a subjective ROE (For which I see no justification) while the second is excluded from that ROE. Both were fighting vehicles armed with machine guns and could never take out a T34 other than by making the T34's crew bail out for some mysterious reason.

Huib,

I am curious why you would say that AFVs should not assault other AFVs. While I agree that your example of a PzIs assaulting T-34s is probably not completely realistic, I can think of real-life examples of tanks engaging other tanks at point-blank range (i.e. at ranges less than 250 yards or less than 1 hex), particularly in cities and othe close terrain.

[Huib Versloot]

[
Huib,

I am curious why you would say that AFVs should not assault other AFVs. While I agree that your example of a PzIs assaulting T-34s is probably not completely realistic, I can think of real-life examples of tanks engaging other tanks at point-blank range (i.e. at ranges less than 250 yards or less than 1 hex), particularly in cities and othe close terrain.

1 hex is already point blank range and includes distances less than 250 meters; see the use of bazooka and Panzerfaust. So I'm not sure what a vehicle "assaulting" another vehicle is doing. How would I visualize that in real life? Suddenly smaller calibers can penetrate armor they normally can't during "assaults"?

[Cole]

Huib,

I would say that there were many armored encounters at less than 250 meters. We cannot shoot within the same hex in CS so the assault is the only option.
It was very rare but I have recently read accounts of Russian armor (during Kursk) ramming German panzers to disable, etc.

[Cole]

Road Runner,

Roger on the commonly accepted ROE. That's how I play and I think it was your's truly that first mentioned Leto's ROE for half tracks in this thread.

Just trying to discuss the game mechanics.

I'll say again I think the ROE that unsupported half tracks cannot assault armor is a good one but for the sake of argument (and if this is too pedantic then just let the question die) let's say you have the 5 strength points of IS2s. I have surrounded your units and have conducted a close assault with armor, infantry, and the infantry's half tracks. The assault results in 3 or 4 strength point loss of your armor and your remaining strength point(s) is disrupted. Only my half tracks have action points left. According to the ROE I cannot move them in to finish them off the remaining disrupted point.
What were the original half tracks doing in the original assault, less than six minutes ago, that the other half tracks can't do?

[Huib Versloot]

Huib,

I would say that there were many armored encounters at less than 250 meters. We cannot shoot within the same hex in CS so the assault is the only option.
It was very rare but I have recently read accounts of Russian armor (during Kursk) ramming German panzers to disable, etc.

So assaulting is ramming? That is not a good definition because assaulting in CS is much more common than 'ramming'.
What I'm trying to point out is that people invent so called realism ROEs while at the same time they can't even give a definition of an assault between armored vehicles. I don't have any problem with anybody's ROE as long as their mutually agreed. I for one find it acceptable that HTs assault armor, given the limitations of the game engine, and as long it is not clear what an assault stands for.
That doesn't mean I would use that tactic, since my HTs are usually behind the lines because I find their MG's too undergunned to provide fire support for my infantry. CM is modelled better in this respect. You can actually utilize the HT's MG, while at the same time the HT is unable to harm a tank. Vehicles can't "assault" in that game.