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

[ErikB]

Just curious how many here have had prior military service and have deployed.  I wonder, too, if different countries' militaries have different policies regarding this and if those policies vary between services (Luftwaffe Field Division vs. SS vs. Wehrmacht or US Army vs. USMC).

(To be clear, I never deployed anywhere).

My understanding is, at least in WW2, it was quite common for tank platoons to be composed of mixed tank types and to be composed of different numbers of tanks (see the FOW rules for examples of this, at least in game terms).  So, there could be a platoon of one tank or five, all depending on what was available.

That one tank could be mixed with other platoons once it was back under Company control, but this discussion was about at the platoon level, right?  And there would be a period during which it's platoon-mates were out of the picture and this lone tank had not yet been rolled back into a re-formed platoon.

I must be missing something because I cannot imagine there being no possibility of a lone tank being sent from Point A to Point B where some pinned down infantry needs some fire support.

[MartinR]

By and large, units operated as units in WW2. Yes, there are indeed instances of single vehicles being attached to a unit for specific purposes, but an isolated AFV is highly unlikely to wander off out of its area of operations to join up with a random infantry platoon unless "someone" tells it to do so and informs all the necessary parties, if only to avoid friendly fire incidents. Tanks don't like infantry close up, and tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

If they aren't on the same radio net (which they won't be unless one is already designated to support the other) or the infantry don't have any radios at all (functioning platoon level radios were a rarity in ww2), someone is going to have to physically walk up to the tank and ask it do something.

Wargamers just love to put together random collections of weapons and call it a task force, whereas in real life there genuine barriers to doing this effectively. An isolated tank is far more likely to sit tight, look for its pals or fall back to a rally point unless it is on a specific mission as part of its unit.

A reduced strength platoon is another matter of course, but it depends on the circumstances really and what we mean by isolated. All kinds of random stuff happens at the ultra tactical level which is incredibly hard to model in a war game. Once you go a bit more grand tactical it gets a bit more predictable.

Cheers
Martin

[Verderer]

In the case of US infantry divisions and their attached tank/TD battallions, I have understood the tanks available were deployed where they were needed, to bolster up defence & provide support or to fight any tank threats or hard points like pillboxes etc? In such case you might encounter situations where a battallion would be spread pretty thin, a platoon here or there? From what I have read of wartime descriptions (admittedly not a lot), these tanks would not operate as a whole battallion, so such scenarios might be entirely possible? Of course with the US army, one tank is pretty implausible, given their resources. But I guess the movie does try to give reasons why the single tank slugged on, even if they were tactical ones?

Also, it should be remembered, that such battallions would have other resources, and not just tanks/TD, like recon unit (jeeps & M8), light tanks, motorised mortar carriers, and so on. So an addition of such battallion to an infantry div. would give it a very nice boost? And nice variety for the wargamer?

[Arrigo]

Just curious how many here have had prior military service and have deployed.  I wonder, too, if different countries' militaries have different policies regarding this and if those policies vary between services (Luftwaffe Field Division vs. SS vs. Wehrmacht or US Army vs. USMC).

(To be clear, I never deployed anywhere).

My understanding is, at least in WW2, it was quite common for tank platoons to be composed of mixed tank types and to be composed of different numbers of tanks (see the FOW rules for examples of this, at least in game terms).  So, there could be a platoon of one tank or five, all depending on what was available.

That one tank could be mixed with other platoons once it was back under Company control, but this discussion was about at the platoon level, right?  And there would be a period during which it's platoon-mates were out of the picture and this lone tank had not yet been rolled back into a re-formed platoon.

I must be missing something because I cannot imagine there being no possibility of a lone tank being sent from Point A to Point B where some pinned down infantry needs some fire support.

now this is a serious confusion (FoW is not a reference). In WW2 except in specific situation mixed tank platoons were uncommon. Mixed company is a thing, mixed platoon is another. I have never deployed by I was in the Italian Army Cavalry. One thing you really want a s Platoon commander is even firepower (no one firing strange guns) and speed.  Platoon had a fixed ToE strength. Of course if the platoon was in combat strength could fluctuate (maintenance, losses).  Now if a tank platoon is down to one tank probably the lone tank will be placed in the company pool and reassigned to another platoon (possibly with exchanging crew), but face it, if your platoon is down too strenght 1, it means you got such a beating probably the surviving crews were not fit for duty. Now some organizations (notably the USMC in 1944-1945) had doctrine for attaching a single tank to a single squad, but again there was a single tank battalion per division so not so many tank even penny-packeting them. The german sometime were using Tigre in that way, but often it was a platoon stretching out to cover more ground. The fact that in a, for example, Chain of Command table we have a single tank does often mean that just off the table there is the rest of the platoon.

As why the single tank option was so uncommon... well it frankly stupid, bordering useless. A lone tank is more or less dead meat if you are moving in proximity of the enemy you rely on over-watch and bounds, alone you cannot do it. If you do not have a telephone you do not have even a way to communicate with the infantry. Then you have the fact that the tank TC has no idea who the infantry is or are, and the infantry has not even any idea the tank is coming.  It makes a good movie, it makes a dumb officer, you are in fact throwing good money after bad and increasing casualties. There is an oft quoted joke from the Frunze academy. The cadets are asked a question. "You are the commander of a motor rifle division attacking NATO. You have three motor rifle  regiments committed and a tank one in reserve. Regiment one has achieved a break-through; regiment two is fighting out, with more troops it can break; regiment three is losing. Where you commit your tank regiment?

Infantry Divisions:

Well the separate battalions were not that big. You have 3 medium and one light company. The additional support is 4 support tanks (M8 HMC early one, M4-105 later) and three 81mm mortars. Yes you have jeeps, no you do not have M8. You have halftrack. Here we are. Supporting 9 infantry battalions...  except the tanks not a lot. You provide just tanks and not so many. One company, on average, per regiment, one platoon per battalion.

[Verderer]

I beleive in the case of TD battallions, you would have both the M20 and M8 ACs, depending on the TOE?

[whiskey priest]

Late in the war, some british units mixed cromwells and sherman firefly's in the same troops. The firefly usually being the command tank.

[MartinR]

Yes, there are odd examples of (mainly British) units mixing in different tank types within a platoon in a desperate attempt to generate some anti-tank firepower. Fireflies, Challengers and 6pdr armed Churchills in with the 75mm armed tanks. Even then, some units concentrated all their Fireflies into single troops.

Early in the war some German light panzer company organisations had a mix of Panzer Is and II in the platoons.

Otherwise I can think of few/no mixed platoons. Mixed companies/squadrons, yes, but not platoons.


Cheers
Martin


 

[Arrigo]

Yes, there are odd examples of (mainly British) units mixing in different tank types within a platoon in a desperate attempt to generate some anti-tank firepower. Fireflies, Challengers and 6pdr armed Churchills in with the 75mm armed tanks. Even then, some units concentrated all their Fireflies into single troops.

Early in the war some German light panzer company organisations had a mix of Panzer Is and II in the platoons.

Otherwise I can think of few/no mixed platoons. Mixed companies/squadrons, yes, but not platoons.


Cheers
Martin

 

It was not a desperate attempt (the US did the same with 76 and 75mm). It was a reasonable answer to a conundrum. the 75mm had excellent HE and average AP, the 17pdr had excellent AP and crappy (if available at all) HE. The US 76mm had a slightly worse AP thant the 17pdr, but a better HE. The truth is that, except if you go to higher caliber AP and HE have different requirements. Going to  a larger caliber required larger turrets and rings. Because your tanks have to engage both targets you need a compromise. The British approach had the advantage to have a dedicated tank shooter. It also had the disadvantage that the shooter was easily recognizable and that you require proper training and proper fire discipline.

Or you can have the German way with the panther. Crappy HE that was even less powerful than the coax...

[Cubs]

I just finished reading a book about the Highland Division in WW2. The personal accounts are pretty revealing, specifically how far reality differed from the manual. It surprised me how often commanders on the ground would 'commandeer' tanks, guns, transport etc.. that just happened to be passing (plus captured stuff), in order to complete an objective. I guess you use what you have.

[ErikB]

Sounds like a good read.  What's the name of the book and who is the author?

[FramFramson]

There is an oft quoted joke from the Frunze academy. The cadets are asked a question. "You are the commander of a motor rifle division attacking NATO. You have three motor rifle  regiments committed and a tank one in reserve. Regiment one has achieved a break-through; regiment two is fighting out, with more troops it can break; regiment three is losing. Where you commit your tank regiment?

So what's the correct answer here? My guess: Reinforce the failing regiment. If the tank platoon can turn that front around, you will be doing well on all fronts and the troops are all mobile, so they might even be able to move to reinforce the breakthrough regiment afterwards, though maybe that's asking too much?

I suppose the answer could also be to reinforce regiment two so you will be clearly winning on two fronts but losing on a third... but that seems suboptimal.

(just quote my post to see it full size)

[MartinR]

So what's the correct answer here? My guess: Reinforce the failing regiment. If the tank platoon can turn that front around, you will be doing well on all fronts and the troops are all mobile, so they might even be able to move to reinforce the breakthrough regiment afterwards, though maybe that's asking too much?

I suppose the answer could also be to reinforce regiment two so you will be clearly winning on two fronts but losing on a third... but that seems suboptimal.

(just quote my post to see it full size)

Reinforce success. Shove the Tank Regiment though the gap made by the successful Motor Rifle Regiment, the flanks can take care of themselves. That is what the divisional tank regiment is for, deep operations to disrupt the integrity of the defence.

Cheers
Martin

[Arrigo]

Reinforce success. Shove the Tank Regiment though the gap made by the successful Motor Rifle Regiment, the flanks can take care of themselves. That is what the divisional tank regiment is for, deep operations to disrupt the integrity of the defence.

Cheers
Martin

Test passed    for Martin, test failed (by Frunze standards for Fram)

Reinforce success, the 2nd regiment fight it out, the 3rd regiment stay and die if the mission is critical, pull out if not.

Oh by the way... Tank Destroyer battalion:

6 M8
25 (more or less) M20 (but usually the M20 was not armed, it was not an armored car but an "utility car".

If you spread out this for the whole division you again remain with small numbers.

[Cubs]

Always reinforce success. Classic maxim.

[Cubs]

Sounds like a good read.  What's the name of the book and who is the author?

'Monty's Highlanders: 51st Highland Division in the Second World War' by Patrick Delaforce. It's expensive mind, 49p on Kindle.