Supressing Fire, real or imagined

[Mowgli]

Yes, I think you're crazy (in a likeable way! :) ) as there is no rule to support your experiences as far as I know. I think you get carried away in the immersion!

My thoughts on PzBattles combat and "suppression" (note I'm not an experienced PzBattles player yet!):

Suppression as in "holding your fire"
One major difference compared to PzCampaigns seems to be that is very often more advantageous NOT to actively fire in your turn. Simply because it usually results in your enemy getting more fire actions on you than you get fire actions on him (due to unlimited opp. fires and long weapon ranges). So, just by amassing a lot of weapon systems within range of the enemy, you can convince your opponent not to fire in his own turn. Active fire just escalates the current situation (balance of fire power). If you have inferior fire power (or even just slightly superior fire power!), it's better not to escalate the situation. The more weapons are pointing at you, the more punishment you will take for firing actively in your turn.

Once the enemy is overwhelmed by all the guns pointing at him, it's up to you how much fire actions you give to your enemy by moving your units around within his LOS. Ideally you want to start with units that can get close without punishment (armored stuff) in order to get effective fire on the opponent to disrupt him. Once disrupted, it should be "comparatively" safe for the soft infantry to follow up.

Disruption as suppression
Of course you could also say that disruption represents suppression. Afaik, disrupted units have their movement halved, 50% combat power, and cannot assault. This should often stop an attack in its tracks. Reduced movement means that a unit might not be able to reach the next piece of cover.

Suppression implicit in assault actions?
Then again one would also need to ask whether suppression, as we tend to imagine it in our heads, happens on a smaller scale than the scale of Panzer Battles. Remember that a hex is 250m, so it's rather unlikely that units get pinned over such long distances? So maybe you could argue that suppression is just part of "assault actions"?