A question about the use of a Tank Platoon in battle.

[LotB]

I saw the movie "Fury", where it is showed that a Platoon of Sherman tanks is sent on a mission to support an Infantry Platoon (or a Company). I did not understand at that Division belonged. Perhaps an Infantry Division.
I have the following question:
- the use of a single Tank Platoon was it considered by the military rules of the time?
- The tanks were not used at least at the level of Squadron? If not a Regiment?
Someone would know to say if it is a "movie license", or if it is a representation of a real method of use of the tanks at the end of World War II?

Also it is showed the clash between the four Sherman survivors (that of the Lieutenant who commanded the Platoon had been destroyed previously) and an isolated Tiger. Even this could be a real situation? Or another "movie license"?

Many thanks for your help.


http://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/M/MakotoIshii/20141206/20141206013628.jpg




Sergio

[MartinR]

It was fairly common to attach a single platoon/troop of tanks to an infantry battalion for support purposes, in US/British armies anyway. If a whole squadron/company was attached they would usually be parcelled out as individual troops to support each company.

Depended on the mission and the tactical situation really.

As for small battles occurring, even in the largest battles, most of them ended up resolving as a series of micro platoon/section sized mini-battles due to limitations of visibility and unit dispersion. e.g. John Foley recounted his troop of Churchills engaging a single Tiger 1 during the (much bigger) battle of the Grimbosq bridghead, and in fact the fight occurred just after they'd been spotted by a dozen Panthers who then mysteriously disappeared.

David Rowlands operations research looking at hundreds of recorded NATO exercises using SIMFIRE demonstrated exactly the same thing happening even with modern weapons and visual aids. Lots of mini battles.

So maybe more realistic than you think, but of course mini battles also suit Hollywood financial controllers

Cheers
Martin

[Arrigo]

they wwere supporting one of the armored infantry battalions of their own division. Remember by 1945 even the two heavy Armored division were usually broken down to combat command with a mix of infantry and tanks. 2nd and 3rd had more ad hoc arrangements due to their different mix, but in the "light" the "norm" was to pair one tank company to one Armored Infantry Company. How the Tanks and tracks were mixed then was on the Task Force commander's shoulders, but usually a tank platoon could be attached to an infantry company. In the movie the Infantry CO send the platoon to extract one of his platoons pinned down. Actually that scene is quite good.

Platoons were supposed to be tactical units.

[Verderer]

Didn't US infantry divisions in ETO have an independent tank or tank destroyer battallion attached to them on permanent basis?

[LotB]

Many thanks, MartinR and Arrigo, to you both for your answers. You have been really kind.
The question interested to me because we (Naran Team) are carrying out a project based on the futuristic version of the wargame Fantasy Warriors. The futuristic version we have done is called Naran Future Wars.
We use it to play battles in science fiction scenarios, set from current times (Modern Times) to future periods, through the classic post-atomic (like Mad Max): Visitors, Predators, Aliens, and battles of the kind of WH40K.
The rules are also suitable to simulate battles of World War II at the level of Platoon, with miniature 28 mm. For the moment we made the armies lists forAmericans and Germans. Next  we will have British and Russians.We are working on the armored vehicles too.
From what you have said, I think that we can put the tanks to support the Infantry, in this scale also, keeping a certain adherence to the reality of how the fighting took place.

To Verderer:
unfortunately I cannot answer your question, maybe MartinR and /or Arrigo may do it.

Cheers

Sergio
Naran Team Turin
http://www.naran.it/naran

[Arlequín]

Platoons were supposed to be tactical units.

Certainly... in the real world you don't just have a tank or two, you have a platoon or platoons of them, or you have none.

Didn't US infantry divisions in ETO have an independent tank or tank destroyer battallion attached to them on permanent basis?

When they were available they had both, but they were 'non-divisional assets' assigned by the corps or army command.

[Etranger]

.....
When they were available they had both, but they were 'non-divisional assets' assigned by the corps or army command.

Thats true but they were often long term attachments to particular divisions. Its sobering to realise that the average US Infantry division with attached assests in NW Europe had more armour than most panzer divisions.

[ErikB]

For future gaming (and any old time in history), there is always the case of a commander, at any level, simply sending what he's got available at the time in an ad-hoc unit.  If there weren't reinforcements available in time for whatever needed doing, then whoever was around got to go.

That could be a single tank with a few guys, maybe a truck or a horse, whatever was available, mixed together in a Kampfgrueppe or a Task Force.  Maybe most of the tank platoon is busted and only one can go, and/or the accompanying infantry could be guys who are hanging out, unable to rejoin their normal units after being discharged from the field hospital.  Who knows?

So, I say, go for it, mix and match.

[Kommando_J]

From what I can see while still 'Hollywood' Fury was well done and realistic (cleaning gore out of tanks/treads etc), they did have vets in to advise.

Also some tanks are specifically designed with infantry support roles in mind.

[LotB]

Certainly... in the real world you don't just have a tank or two, you have a platoon or platoons of them, or you have none.

When they were available they had both, but they were 'non-divisional assets' assigned by the corps or army command.

[LotB]

For future gaming (and any old time in history), there is always the case of a commander, at any level, simply sending what he's got available at the time in an ad-hoc unit.  If there weren't reinforcements available in time for whatever needed doing, then whoever was around got to go.

That could be a single tank with a few guys, maybe a truck or a horse, whatever was available, mixed together in a Kampfgrueppe or a Task Force.  Maybe most of the tank platoon is busted and only one can go, and/or the accompanying infantry could be guys who are hanging out, unable to rejoin their normal units after being discharged from the field hospital.  Who knows?

So, I say, go for it, mix and match.

[LotB]

From what I can see while still 'Hollywood' Fury was well done and realistic (cleaning gore out of tanks/treads etc), they did have vets in to advise.

Also some tanks are specifically designed with infantry support roles in mind.

[Arlequín]

For future gaming (and any old time in history), there is always the case of a commander, at any level, simply sending what he's got available at the time in an ad-hoc unit.  If there weren't reinforcements available in time for whatever needed doing, then whoever was around got to go.

Or they would retire, re-group and reform the units so that they were combat-effective once more. The mix and match ad-hoc groups you talk about are only found on wargames tables... at least in terms of individual tanks and guns etc. added to an infantry platoon. You might possibly find a 'two-tank' or 'two-gun' section split off from a platoon, but I would be surprised to hear of individual weapons and vehicles used in the same way.

[ErikB]

Or they would retire, re-group and reform the units so that they were combat-effective once more. The mix and match ad-hoc groups you talk about are only found on wargames tables... at least in terms of individual tanks and guns etc. added to an infantry platoon. You might possibly find a 'two-tank' or 'two-gun' section split off from a platoon, but I would be surprised to hear of individual weapons and vehicles used in the same way.

All depends upon the mission, time, and what's available.

There was a movie called Jarhead 2 where there were some Marines, male and female, a SEAL, Afghan interpreter, Afghan police, and any vehicles they could find (okay, technicals, not armor), all operating together as an ad hoc unit to escort out a VIP.

Yes, it's a movie, but it's a good illustration of this idea.

[Arrigo]

Jarhead...

I side with Arlequin,  ad hoc stuff tends be extremely rare. Look if your platoon strenght is down to one tank, the platoon has no place in the line. Sometime it can happens, lie at Hue when Captain Bacheler met up with three M48 (ok an heavy section from a 5 tank platoon) that were going to the LST ramp in the new city for different reasons, but a commander do not put together one tank, one apco and so on... at that point the unit has ceased to be combat effective.