Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[McIvan]

To me the assault is closing with the enemy with the intention of driving them from their position or destroying them in place, and occupying that position yourself. It is the intention of taking ground that makes the difference. That definition, I think, defines assaults between AFVs just as well as anything else.

Huib makes a good point about machinegun armed tanks that are in reality not much better in terms of armour and killing power than halftracks. However at least the Halftrack rule keeps them used relatively historically as integral supports to the infantry they carry, a role not occupied by AFVs where it is the other way around (as a general rule that is, I'm sure exceptions can be dug up). An AFVs role includes conducting assaults, a halftrack's role generally did not, cavalier bren carriers aside. If you want to use them in the assault, they should really be full of infantry....and the points cost of losing loaded halftracks means the tactic is used sparingly indeed....it becomes self-regulating.

I disagree with Huib's point when you have anything larger than a machinegun. Naturally any sort of cannon will in fact be more deadly the closer it gets. You can get close enough to actually target specific vulnerable portions of the enemy AFV with some hope of hitting them. You can get round the sides and rear. It's up close and personal, and I think you have to go with the flow somewhat and allow as an abstraction that light tanks can take out a disrupted and panicky enemy heavy tank platoon at point blank range, whether in your mind's eye by disabling them, destroying them, or rendering them combat ineffective by hits to weapons, sighting sytems, tracks. A little abstraction goes a long way.