Platoon size

[Jester_UK]

I've just been reading FM-17-15 and find the theory or using four vehicles in a two section leader/ wingman formation very rational (possibly due to my being a military aviation enthusiast).

This got me wondering, after the previous update, the default platoon size in SBPro PE was reduced to three vehicles as this formation (IIRC what Ssnake stated at the time) is used by some or most of ESim's military customers. I was wondering why.

It seems to me the three vehicle formation harks back to the "vic" formation used by the RAF at the start of WW2 where you have two vehicles formating on a leader and as such only have one crew fully able to look for enemies as the other two have to devote a fair proportion of their time to ensuring they hold formation. It also seems to me that having the ability to split a unit into two equally effective sections (leader/wingman) gives a four vehicle platoon far more scope to adapt to a situation than (what seems to me to be) an inherrently inflexible one such as a three vehicle "vic."

If the formation is popular in real world situations with various countries' military organisations, there's obviously a reason (or reasons) why the three vehicle platoon was adopted over the four vehicle formation. I just can't see the advantages. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[chappy]

3 vehicle formations are certainly not related to 'vic' air formations... Even those were proved inneffective in the first year or 2 of WWII.

Any armour formation is a fairly fluid type of method of movement. Whether it be in line, column, 2 up, 1 up or any other variation, the formation is heavily dependant on the terrain. A vehicle is not expected to hold station exactly 100m left rear of another vehicle but is expected to read the terrain and travel in a loose formation that provides mutual support while utilising that terrain for its own and the troop's survivability.

here's a link that has some interesting comparisons between different Doctrines around the world:
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/urban-armor-6.htm

[ShotMagnet]

Doctrine. The US Army uses a four-ship, but the Bundeswehr uses a three-ship and so do other militaries, to include the former USSR.

It really depends on how you plan to use your tanks, and what you the doctrine-creator believe is the right balance of numbers and managability. In the good old days the US Army went with five-vehicle platoons, the Wehrmacht had 4-vehicle formations, the Waffen-SS had 5, and the Russians had 3 per platoon.

Now the numbers are 4, 3, and 3, respectively. Smaller platoons are easier for a platoon leader to manage, but then how small is too small, and how many platoons are too many for a company commander to manage?

Looked at from this perspective, the US company formations are the largest, with 14 vehicles per company. The Bundeswehr has 13 per, and the Russians 10. The Amis clearly expect their company COs to do a lot more work, the Germans almost the same, while the Russians at least on paper ask a lot less of their company commanders.

But note that while the American company is 40% larger than the Russian one, it has an XO as well as a CO. What this really means is that an American company can split itself (at least on paper) into a couple of sub-entities which (again, on paper) should offer more tactical flexibility than a full company without having to create another full company.

Same for the Germans, if the details are different.

There's more to it than that, but you get the general idea.


Shot

[chappy]

One advantage of a 3 tank troop/platoon is how it is employed as part of a squadron/coy.
For instance, a tank sqdrn of 4x 3 tank troops plus HQ = 13-15 AFVs can move either with 3 to 6 tanks moveing while 6-9 are in fire positions.

Within the troop, the bounding and overwatch method of movement is still applicable, the only difference is that at one stage there is one tank moveing and in a second stage there is 2 tanks moving. If (for example) you were to be moveing in a caterpillar type of MoM, you can either move in a 2 up or a 1 up formation, depending on the threat and likelyhood of engagement and its direction relative to your AoA. 1up: ead tank advances, finds a position and the other 2 tanks move up roughly level with the lead vehicle.
2up: other way round, 2 tanks move first and the 3rd tank comes up level with them once they are positioned.
Typically if a 3 tank troop was to be broken down into smaller groupings (Afaik) the Sqdrn Cmdr would certainly consider combining the 3rd vehicle from 2 troops together into a paired section.
With a squadron of 4 troops of 3 AFVs each you still have that ability to pair vehicles due to the even number.

[Jester_UK]

Thanks for the input gents. That does help to make things a bit clearer. Great link BTW Chappy.

[HotTom]

Thanks for the link, Chappy! Lots of interesting reading all over that site...

S!

HT

[BipBip]

In France, we chose 4 véhicles platoons, and 13 vehicles per company (called squadrons). It's because there is 3 platoons of 4 (12 tanks) and the CO's one. The XO doesn't have a tank.

[3Star]

There's also, apparently an issue over redunancy. The 33% increase in numbers from 3-tank to 4-tank platoon does not result in a 33% increase in firepower for two reasons: Firstly, there's a greater chance that one of the four tanks is spread out far enough over a hill or whatever that he cannot see the same target as the others. The other issue is one of overkill: There is a greater chance of two tanks engaging and killing the same target as there is with three: You have 'wasted' firepower.

On the other hand, killing a tank out of a four-tank platoon still leaves the platoon with 3/4 of its firepower, as opposed to 2/3.

If you have three four-tank platoons, you have greater tactical flexibility at the platoon level, but if you have four three-tank platoons, you have greater tactical flexibility at the company level.

I think that about covers the most of it.

NTM

[Jester_UK]

Thanks 3 Star, that's very concise and clear.

The mistake I was making really was looking at the platoon as a single entity and failing to look at the bigger picture.


The XO doesn't have a tank.

Just out of interest BipBip, what vehicle does the X/O ride in?

[Froggy]

A VAB or a VBL

[Red6]

I've just been reading FM-17-15 and find the theory or using four vehicles in a two section leader/ wingman formation very rational (possibly due to my being a military aviation enthusiast).

This got me wondering, after the previous update, the default platoon size in SBPro PE was reduced to three vehicles as this formation (IIRC what Ssnake stated at the time) is used by some or most of ESim's military customers. I was wondering why.

It seems to me the three vehicle formation harks back to the "vic" formation used by the RAF at the start of WW2 where you have two vehicles formating on a leader and as such only have one crew fully able to look for enemies as the other two have to devote a fair proportion of their time to ensuring they hold formation. It also seems to me that having the ability to split a unit into two equally effective sections (leader/wingman) gives a four vehicle platoon far more scope to adapt to a situation than (what seems to me to be) an inherrently inflexible one such as a three vehicle "vic."

If the formation is popular in real world situations with various countries' military organisations, there's obviously a reason (or reasons) why the three vehicle platoon was adopted over the four vehicle formation. I just can't see the advantages. Anyone care to enlighten me?

In end effect, 4 allows you to truly maneuver, 3 does not. Tanks don't operate alone and a 4 tank platoon allows for a maneuver by section which is not advisable with a three tank platoon.

[LtHenkel]

Since 2002 the bundeswehr does also use 4 vehicle platoons. The number of platoons has since been reduced to three in each company. Also the XO now has his own vehicle.
Company total is therefore now 14 vehicles.
Personally I prefer the 4 vehicle platoon. The reasons have already been stated.
For the company commander it is not so good, reducing his maneuver elements to three.
Also the number of Marder companys in Panzergrenadierbattalions is being reduced from 4 to 3, and worst of all, because of lack of funds the Bttns have lost their mortar company...

[chappy]

In end effect, 4 allows you to truly maneuver, 3 does not. Tanks don't operate alone and a 4 tank platoon allows for a maneuver by section which is not advisable with a three tank platoon.

a 3 tank troop does not necessarily imply that a vehicle is operating alone. unless you consider a vehicle being 1000m away from the rest of its troop as
'alone'.. which it isnt.
Even within a 2 tank section, the movement of that section can and will involve one vehicle overwatch and one moving forward, generally either
a) to a max distance of half the effective weapons range of the tanks or
b) to the limit of LOS of the overwatch vehicle,
whichever is the shorter distance of the above 2.




For a 3 tank troop, it involves either 1 vehicle overwatch while 2 move forward, (2 up) or 2 overwatch while one moves forward (1 up). In both cases, the third tank is always within visual and at least half a weapons range from the rest of the troop.

If you mean a section goes off and operates alone for a protracted period of time, say a day or a few hours in support of infantry or another element, then in that case either u only require the one section of 2 afvs (meaning the third tank remains in situ with the rest of its squadron and hence is not alone) or you are requiring multiple sections to operate in multiple areas, in which case the squadron will simply pair up say 3 pairs of afvs from 2 troops of 3 tanks each. Or u could just send a 3 tank troop instead of a 2 tank section to do the job....yes economy of effort is a principle of war, but theres nothing wrong with overkill in my book ;)

An interesting experiment would be to have a 3 vs 4 tank on tank battle head to head.
The 3 player side is 3 troops of 4 vehicles. the 4 player side is 4 troops of 3 vehicles. play both sides each and see what advantages/disadvantages each has vis a vis the other. My money in this situation, personally, would be on the 4 troops of 3 vehicles.

[DrDevice]

Outside the actual number of vehicles/maneuver issue, comment's I've read from US tankers in resistance to 3 vehicles/platoon include the reduction in manpower too. Remember that as a unit, stuff has to get done: maintenance on the tank, security tasks, etc. I've heard this both from a tank crew level (vs. autoloaders) and the platoon level. Having 12 guys (or only 9 if you have no loaders) in a 3-tank platoon means everyone works harder and often, less efficiently. I also seem to remember and article that focuses on the long-term training benefits of a 4-tank platoon. I'll see if I can dig it up and post a link.

[Trekker]

Remember that as a unit, stuff has to get done: maintenance on the tank, security tasks, etc. I've heard this both from a tank crew level (vs. autoloaders) and the platoon level. Having 12 guys (or only 9 if you have no loaders) in a 3-tank platoon means everyone works harder and often, less efficiently. I also seem to remember and article that focuses on the long-term training benefits of a 4-tank platoon. I'll see if I can dig it up and post a link.

The number of tank is relative to the number of crew. How come everyone has to work harder and less efficiently with three tanks?

About security, the lowest level tanks operate by is by company, and at company level the number of crews are the same, since 3 tanks/plt often means 4plt/coy, and 4 tanks/plt means 3plt/coy.

[DrDevice]

The number of tank is relative to the number of crew. How come everyone has to work harder and less efficiently with three tanks?

About security, the lowest level tanks operate by is by company, and at company level the number of crews are the same, since 3 tanks/plt often means 4plt/coy, and 4 tanks/plt means 3plt/coy.

Lets see...
US: 14 tanks x 4 crew = 56 guys
Russian: 10 tanks x 3 crew = 30 guys (or even if they had 4 guys, still only 40 bodies.)

That was the comparison I was making. Obviously, German and UK versions are pretty close, with 13 and 14 tanks, respectively, and 4 crew per tank.

Since a platoon is responsible for it's own security at it's BP, the tasks roll down to the smallest level when executed. So, yes, companies are the manuver unit, but platoon leaders and thier personnel are the ones running the wire and posting the sentries. The guys have to come from somewhere, and if you have more hands, it makes light work.

re: efficiency: This was more directed at the "4 crewman vs 3 crewman" argument. The loader's extra hands come in handy, from everything I've read.

[Trekker]

Didn't thought we was talking about russian, but western organisations.
Where the number of soldier at a coy is the same if there is 3 or 4 tank platoons.

I never seen a tanker put down wire or posting sentries unless the tanks rolled into a camp with the rest of the coy.

And regarding the russian tankorganisation the number of tanks would depend on it it's a tankreg or infantryreg (and a bunch of other factors)..

But i agree with you, to me 4 tanks seems better then 3tanks.

[Red6]

a 3 tank troop does not necessarily imply that a vehicle is operating alone. unless you consider a vehicle being 1000m away from the rest of its troop as
'alone'.. which it isnt.
Even within a 2 tank section, the movement of that section can and will involve one vehicle overwatch and one moving forward, generally either
a) to a max distance of half the effective weapons range of the tanks or
b) to the limit of LOS of the overwatch vehicle,
whichever is the shorter distance of the above 2.




For a 3 tank troop, it involves either 1 vehicle overwatch while 2 move forward, (2 up) or 2 overwatch while one moves forward (1 up). In both cases, the third tank is always within visual and at least half a weapons range from the rest of the troop.

If you mean a section goes off and operates alone for a protracted period of time, say a day or a few hours in support of infantry or another element, then in that case either u only require the one section of 2 afvs (meaning the third tank remains in situ with the rest of its squadron and hence is not alone) or you are requiring multiple sections to operate in multiple areas, in which case the squadron will simply pair up say 3 pairs of afvs from 2 troops of 3 tanks each. Or u could just send a 3 tank troop instead of a 2 tank section to do the job....yes economy of effort is a principle of war, but theres nothing wrong with overkill in my book ;)

An interesting experiment would be to have a 3 vs 4 tank on tank battle head to head.
The 3 player side is 3 troops of 4 vehicles. the 4 player side is 4 troops of 3 vehicles. play both sides each and see what advantages/disadvantages each has vis a vis the other. My money in this situation, personally, would be on the 4 troops of 3 vehicles.

Ranges vary with terrain. In a city like Baghdad your LOS may be 10 (short - to your sides) to 400 meters (longest - down a road). Your sections may only be separated by 500 meters, and this could be really far. Bottom line, a 3 tank platoon acts like a big section.

Maneuver is “all” about the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and disrupts his ooda loop. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce ones own vulnerabilities if found off guard.

http://www.mindsim.com/MindSim/Corporate/OODA.html

Example: When a unit hit the enemy on his flank (Battle of 73 Easting) the enemy lost in maneuver and a numerically and in firepower inferior US unit obliterated a larger enemy Iraqi force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

In a platoon of two sections this is very basic and you essentially have two possible moving elements. A 3 tank platoon essentially has a single moving piece where maneuver begins with the company while with 4 tanks it begins with a platoon.

But that’s just my humble opinion.

[chappy]

i respectfully disagree that a 3 tank troop cannot manouevre and that it is only a single moving peice. I also disagree that manouevre starts at the squadron level for units of 3 vehicles per troop. A 3 tank troop can and will manouevre within its troop structure.
a 3 tank troop can be broken into 2 sections, just as a 4 tank platoon can except they are not equal in size but this does not mean u cannot do it. It is still just as easy (if not easier due to less vehicles under direct command) to move a troop in bounds.
Formations such as 1 up and 2 up allow for this freedom of manouevre.
a 1 up formation allows for 2 vehicles to be out of contact in an initial frontal contact situation for example.

[Red6]

i respectfully disagree that a 3 tank troop cannot manouevre and that it is only a single moving peice. I also disagree that manouevre starts at the squadron level for units of 3 vehicles per troop. A 3 tank troop can and will manouevre within its troop structure.
a 3 tank troop can be broken into 2 sections, just as a 4 tank platoon can except they are not equal in size but this does not mean u cannot do it. It is still just as easy (if not easier due to less vehicles under direct command) to move a troop in bounds.
Formations such as 1 up and 2 up allow for this freedom of manouevre.
a 1 up formation allows for 2 vehicles to be out of contact in an initial frontal contact situation for example.

A tank will not wonder off alone on a battlefield. Moving in a formation does not equate to maneuver.

A single tank or brad is vulnerable. He also lacks the combat power neccessary to be effective even if he reaches the flank of an enemy.

[TopKick]

I remember when the US Army TO&E was 5 tanks per platoon. We operated in sections with the platoon leader leading the "heavy" section of 3 tanks and the platoon seargent leading the "light" section of 2 tanks. The tank company had 17 tanks including the CO and XO tank. It was perfect. Plenty of fire power and options in the field for maneuver and overwatch. I was deeply disappointed when the Army went to a 4 tank platoon. There was nothing like watching a tank company or battalion 50+ tanks in the attack during a live fire exercise or demostration.

[chappy]

A tank will not wonder off alone on a battlefield. Moving in a formation does not equate to maneuver.

A single tank or brad is vulnerable. He also lacks the combat power neccessary to be effective even if he reaches the flank of an enemy.

And similarly, manouevre does not equate with being alone. particularly in a 3 tank troop. There are multiple situations in which a 3 tank troop can effectively manouevre to effectively close with and/or engage an enemy while remaining mutually supported by elements within the troop.

I agree a single tank is vulnerable, but so too is a 2 tank section in an uncertain environment with an unknown enemy. I would be just as cautious about splitting a 4 tank troop as i would a 3 tank troop to a point whereby the entire troop cannot provide mutual support to the other element(s)

[NEpi]

I think both Red6 and Chappy are right. it is possible because they discuss different situations.

on highly intensive battleground, a tank will not operate alone, since it does not have the firepower to deal with that much opposition. on the other hand, when battle is that intensive, units are more dense, and then using company-level as basic manuevering level is sound.

[Red6]

And similarly, manouevre does not equate with being alone. particularly in a 3 tank troop. There are multiple situations in which a 3 tank troop can effectively manouevre to effectively close with and/or engage an enemy while remaining mutually supported by elements within the troop.

I agree a single tank is vulnerable, but so too is a 2 tank section in an uncertain environment with an unknown enemy. I would be just as cautious about splitting a 4 tank troop as i would a 3 tank troop to a point whereby the entire troop cannot provide mutual support to the other element(s)

A. You're a TC. You hit a mine and are a mobility kill. You're alone and you're still in the kill zone. You're fucked. BTW, obsatcles that are overwatched by AT and direct fire weapons is the norm for all armies.

Same situation and I'm there as your wingman. 1. I ram your tank and push you through the kill zone into safety. 2. I can provide some protection from small arms fire if you dismount. 3. I can suppress enemy fires by shooting at them. 4. I’m actually able to tow and recover your vehicle 5. I can ram and create a hole in a building for you to enter and get out of the kill zone............ See a difference?

B. You break off into your one tank element and go off on Custer’s last charge. You're successful and meet the enemy in an engagement. Now what? You're one, he's three. After you blow your wad, you’re most likely going to die.

Same scenario with two M1's. You meet an enemy, surprise him and are reasonably capable of overwhelming him despite being outnumbered in shear numbers of tanks since in overall combat power you are very comparable. See a difference here?

[NEpi]

Since a platoon is responsible for it's own security at it's BP, the tasks roll down to the smallest level when executed. So, yes, companies are the manuver unit, but platoon leaders and thier personnel are the ones running the wire and posting the sentries. The guys have to come from somewhere, and if you have more hands, it makes light work.

what do you mean by "security at BP"?
you shouldn't hang out in a BP for long enough to start patrolling around the tanks.
if you mean security in parking, then IMHO there's no reason the 3-tank platoon should park alone. it's either with the rest of the company or with some other kind of force, like infantry. a tank platoon joined by infantry platoon won't usually take care of perimeter security, since the infantry guys have less maintainence, and they're supposed to be better at this ;-)

re: efficiency: This was more directed at the "4 crewman vs 3 crewman" argument. The loader's extra hands come in handy, from everything I've read.

a loader is very important on the tank level, since there's always a benefit to have another pair of hands for maintainence, and it's even more important in case of malfunction in the field. as a loader, I had to master the use of hammers to "fix" things on the move. no autoloader can do that.

[chappy]

A. You're a TC. You hit a mine and are a mobility kill. You're alone and you're still in the kill zone. You're fucked. BTW, obsatcles that are overwatched by AT and direct fire weapons is the norm for all armies.

Same situation and I'm there as your wingman. 1. I ram your tank and push you through the kill zone into safety. 2. I can provide some protection from small arms fire if you dismount. 3. I can suppress enemy fires by shooting at them. 4. I’m actually able to tow and recover your vehicle 5. I can ram and create a hole in a building for you to enter and get out of the kill zone............ See a difference?

Whether u have a second tank there with you, or not, you're stil probly fucked if the enemy is half decent, because (as u say) the Field is overwatched and ur gonna get hammered in the next minute. But the point is, you're NOT alone. The troop (if operating as a troop, be it 4 tanks or 3) will NEVER be split up to the extent that the remainder of the troop cannot assist with mutual support of some description. UNLESS it was specifically required to for a protracted period of time, in which case a 3 tank troop would combine with another troop and make 3 pairs of vehicles to perform the required section tasks.
The fact is, just because a 3 tank troop is an odd number, does not mean that a tank will inevitably left alone in manouevre. it wont. it can and will manouevre with the rest of the troop while maintaining mutual support within the troop.

heres the deconstruction of some of your options:
1: Sending a second vehicle INTO the same minefield (which as we have established is covered by obs and fire) as the first one is not something i would consider doing. Especially if the 2 tank section is operating alone. (you now have both tanks in a killzone with no Support) Ramming a vehicle THROUGH a minefield (which u dont know the dimensions of) is not a practical solution.

2: Providing mobile cover for a dismount of the immobilized vehicle, as above, involves moving into the same engagement area without any other support. What happens once the immob crew are dismounted? you're now a single tank in the very same killzone that is covered by obs and fire.

3: So can the immob tank theorectically, until help arrives.
4: towing and recovery of the immob vehicle, again, requires movement into the EA without any other support. (it would also, presumably, require time consuming activity to hook the 2 vehicles up, and movement would be quite slow while pulling the vehicle back out)
5: In an urban environment,(assumption based on your suggestion of buildings being rammed) i would be surprised if the tanks were operating without infantry in support. And there are things called doors and windows :D

In all of the above options, the second tank in the Section (assuming his other 2 tanks from the troop are no where nearby (but they would be)) is required to take action without any support, and all the actions suggested essentially place the second tank in the same danger that immobilized the first tank.

Now, the alternative, is that a troop/platoon is always mutually supporting. Even when manouevring in elements. Thus, in the above situation, be it a 4 tank troop, where the second tank will perhaps provide limited Fire support in addition to the striken vehicle, or a 3 tank troop, where the immob tank will provide its own fire support, The remainder of the troop really does need to arrive to assist. Once the other members of the troop have overwatch, then perhaps it would be time to consider dismounting the crew, or towing, or ramming or anything else. Sending the second of only 2 vehicles into the very same Killzone to me does not make a lick of sense.
General principles applied: Mutual Support and Security.

B. You break off into your one tank element and go off on Custer’s last charge. You're successful and meet the enemy in an engagement. Now what? You're one, he's three. After you blow your wad, you’re most likely going to die.

Same scenario with two M1's. You meet an enemy, surprise him and are reasonably capable of overwhelming him despite being outnumbered in shear numbers of tanks since in overall combat power you are very comparable. See a difference here?

Why would i go off alone in a single tank? Where's the rest of my troop? Wheres the rest of my squadron? Why isnt the rest of the troop nearby? Even in a 4 tank troop the 2 sections remain in positioning that allows for quick mutual support.

No one in their right mind is going to expect a single tank to assault a position that has 3 tanks in it. Or, for that matter, to defend a hasty position against a much larger force. If you KNOW there are 3 En Tanks out there, then you send the whole squadron to destroy them.
HOWEVER, based on doctrinal force ratios alone, a single tank is expected (in defence) to be able to destroy 3 en tanks for its loss. While 3 tanks (in the assault) are assigned for the destruction of one single en tank.

The only difference is that u are comparing sections/troops as independant entirely insulated entities. They operate within squadrons. By having troops of 3 afvs each, you have 4 manouvre elements, as opposed to 3, at the Company level for the same total number of afvs.

I will grant you that a section (if viewed as an insulated unit with no other support anywhere near it, operating alone and independantly) has twice the firepower than a one tank element. If one tank is immob. the second one can offer fire support perhaps for a short time (now that it is alone) true.

BUT

the reality is, a section is not an insulated unit with no other support. The troop is nearby ALWAYS, if the troop isnt, then combined arms support is (infantry in Urban environs), air support, arty. The Squadron/company is also most likely near by too.

[chappy]

Nepi summs it up and simplifies it quite well above too hehe

BTW it does seem that both myself and red agree a tank shouldnt be alone. But the issue im seeing above is an immediate assumption that a unit with uneven number of vehicles means one will be alone if broken into elements for manouevre purposes.

[Red6]

Nepi summs it up and simplifies it quite well above too hehe

BTW it does seem that both myself and red agree a tank shouldnt be alone. But the issue im seeing above is an immediate assumption that a unit with uneven number of vehicles means one will be alone if broken into elements for manouevre purposes.

"But the issue im seeing above is an immediate assumption that a unit with uneven number of vehicles means one will be alone if broken into elements for manouevre purposes." You wrote

3 - 2 = 1.

Yes, if you peel a tank away from a three tank platoon you have one tank by itself.

"immediate assumption that a unit with uneven number of vehicles " You wrote

It's not about semantics. Five tanks is an odd number and it's OK. I have no preference for even numbers. Our structure was designed around a “mobile defense” and the concept of maneuver warfare.

In certain missions it's acceptable to have three vehicles because you do not intend to meet the enemy in some sort of engagement. A Brigade Reconnaissance Troop for example. You might want to snoop and poop around a little but not really hang out and duke it out.

No- There are many examples where a mobility killed tank was pushed or recovered by a friendly tank in Iraq alone.

In simulations or even in real world training units will dare do things that in real life they would not. At NTC there is a knoll in a valley which is an awesome vantage point (Key terrain). From that position you can fire and kill the OPFOR very well. But…… real life you’d probably not put any troops there because there is no viable way to disengage from the fight once contact is made. Likewise, in real life, a three tank platoon fights like a single unit while a four tank platoon will split up and will maneuver by section where the other section can NOT mutually support them anymore. If one section is engaged, this section will no longer maneuver; it is the section that is out of contact that can still maneuver. It’s not different for a company (Usual scenarios in real life). The lead platoon gets engaged and tangled up, it’s the other two platoons that I can use to maneuver and kill the enemy with.

When fighting an opponent in combatives hand to hand it is no different. You want to get into his side or behind him ideally. Many of your moves are intended to reach this end. The real killing blows will come once you’re in this position since he’s more susceptible. Whether we are talking about a light infantry squad (“TWO” sections of FOUR, coincidence?) or an armor heavy Corps, the goal is to maneuver into a position of advantage and then kill.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg

A three tank platoon is inherently restricted to fighting a fight as a single element on the battlefield. Think of it this way: Fix and destroy.

[chappy]

well i had a large reply to this and then my computer ate it.
Suffice to say i think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I maintain (and will demonstrate it to you at some stage via stealbeasts in a 3 tank versus 4 tank setup) that a 3 tank troop can manouevre effectively against an enemy in order to fix and close with it.

I also maintain that sending ANY section (be it 2 tanks or 1 or 10) out into the middle of no where without any mutual support goes against a basic principle of tactics and is risky. Mutual support is a fundamental element of tactics.

If a platoon is to fix and destroy an en section, that platoon will maintain its mutual support at all times or risk falling foul of something bigger. Why? because guess whats near an enemy section? if the cmdr is half decent and he himself has followed the principle of mutual support, his platoon is nearby.

[3Star]

There was an interesting article in Armor magazine a whiles back about the disadvantage to the advantage of independent maneuver capability: That it's being devolved to too low a level.

The example given from experience at NTC: You have a battalion attacking. What usually happens is that one company is held behind as overwatch, two companies attack. The two attacking companies will keep a platoon each in overwatch, leaving two platoons to move forward. Each platoon leader will likely leave a section in overwatch as they go forward. All of a sudden, the battalion in attack has the effective strength of 8 attacking tanks. You can imagine what happens in the end. The argument in the article was that people need to stop doing so much overwatch, particularly at lower levels, and start moving around as one mass. Indeed, Archangel has stated that over at NTC, the Opfor does not maneuver in anything less than platoon strength: No section movement. It slows them down too much, and reduces their contact-strength firepower.

In such a case, a three-tank platoon is extremely viable. It reduces C&C requirements, and also stops the de-concentration of force that often happens.

NTM

[Norfolk]

I remember when the US Army TO&E was 5 tanks per platoon. We operated in sections with the platoon leader leading the "heavy" section of 3 tanks and the platoon seargent leading the "light" section of 2 tanks. The tank company had 17 tanks including the CO and XO tank. It was perfect. Plenty of fire power and options in the field for maneuver and overwatch. I was deeply disappointed when the Army went to a 4 tank platoon. There was nothing like watching a tank company or battalion 50+ tanks in the attack during a live fire exercise or demostration.

Apologies for the necropost, but I have a question about the old 5-tank platoon. Maybe some of the older tankers here can explain the tactical pros and cons of the current 4-tank platoon compared to the old 5-tank platoon.

The original masters of armoured warfare, the Germans, fought WWII with 5-tank platoons until losses late in the war dropped them to 4. The US Army likewise fought all its armour battles from WWI to Vietnam using the 5-tank platoon, and didn't scale back to a 4-tank platoon until the arrival of the M-1 in the 1980's. The M-1's advanced capabilities (well, its thermal sight wasn't as good as the M-60A3's until later versions of the M-1 came around) supposedly rendered the fifth tank in the platoon unnecessary. While the M-1's composite armour (amongst other things) certainly made it a very different animal from its predecessors, that increased ability seems simply to have served as a justification for reducing tank platoon numbers, not for tactical reasons.

The only tactical reason that I can see (I'm speaking as a former infantryman, not a tanker) for reducing to a 4-tank platoon from a 5-tank platoon is that it's easier to find firing positions for the whole platoon without someone finding themselves exposed. Other than that, a 5-tank platoon seems a little more robust and have a little more tactical potential than the 4-tank platoon.

What then are the supposed tactical advantages of the 4-tank platoon over the classic 5-tank platoon?