Formations - close, or spread out?

[112TYR]

You didn't reply about poor terrain or obstacles...

In my 9 years of tanking, I have NEVER seen an entire plt caught in the same marsh/obstacle. The speed of tanks during an advance is simply not high enough to allow it. Even in a close formation, the depth of the formation will still mean that the other tanks manage to stop before entering the same situation as the first tank. This is especially true about marshes and bad terrain; a marsh does not ambush you, it's not difficult to see.

[GH_Lieste]

But if you are moving slowly, you don't have the implied protection against air and artillery... and if you are moving fast enough for indirect shoots to be impossible to judge you are vulnerable to eg ravines/gulleys minefields etc.

It isn't unheard of for tanks to become bogged down... Especially with high mass high speed tanks I'm certain you can get yourself into terrain trouble much faster than you canget back out.

[112TYR]

Hitting a moving tank formation with arty is EXTREMELY difficult, even if the formation is travelling at a mere 10 km/h. How long does it take you to figure out the grid to the tank unit, to transmit that grid to the fire control officer, for the FCO to transmit that info to the guns, for the guns to align correctly, for the rounds to hit the target? How far has a tank plt moving at 10 km/h moved during that time?

And getting mired isn't a bigger problem for units moving together than it is for units bounding. It happens, but decent crews can usually spot trouble before they get into it.

[12Alfa]

In my 9 years of tanking,

Ok This much clearer now.:shocked::biggrin:

[TankHunter]

Ok This much clearer now.:shocked::biggrin:

12A, he probably didn't know that you were in when Centurion was a rank and not a tank. :biggrin:

[RENEGADE-623]

Terrain will dictate whether you want close spacing or wide spacing. Ideally you want a good amouint of space between vehicles but not too much space where one vehicle cant cover another vehicle to his left or right. But also remember that closely spaced vehicles are also easier to take out with one artillary barrage.

[112TYR]

Ok This much clearer now.:shocked::biggrin:

Do you honestly think your arguments will make any more impression on me because you have been tanking longer than me? This discussion is about discussing tactics, not about comparing service records. I feel that I have been doing what I do long enough for me to have a valid opinion on the matter.

[12Alfa]

Do you honestly think your arguments will make any more impression on me because you have been tanking longer than me?

No?

This discussion is about discussing tactics, not about comparing service records.

I believe it was you that posted service time.

I feel that I have been doing what I do long enough for me to have a valid opinion on the matter.

I would think so, but thats your call

Lets try to keep kewl here shall we?:confused:

In the original post you stated that you could not understand why the open formation. I and other have posted our views and past experience on the subject. It seems to me (and I my have this wrong) that you can't see what we are saying based on real world experience of others nations SOP's for their tank formations that have been used for years.

I fail to see how one could not come to the conclusion of mutual support from the others in his troop/ptl is vital for his survival, and this is best done from the halt for the reasons we have given.

However its you tank and you may operate it in any fashion that you want.

We can only lead a horse to water, making it drink is another mater.

[12Alfa]

12A, he probably didn't know that you were in when Centurion was a rank and not a tank. :biggrin:

Hey!! I resemble That!!:decu:

[112TYR]

I fail to see how one could not come to the conclusion of mutual support from the others in his troop/ptl is vital for his survival, and this is best done from the halt for the reasons we have given.

I am not saying mutual support isn't important, I'm saying bounding will reduce your overall ability to provide that support, because the leading element will be forced to open new terrain the covering element cannot cover. The purpose of moving to a new BP is usually to control a piece of terrain, meaning that terrain will be "opened" by the moving element either on its way to the BP, or in the BP itself. Because of this, the supporting element will not be able to bear against targets located in those new areas opened by the moving element. The "gaps" you spoke of are examples of this; obviously only one section will expose itself from the gap at a time. That means, you've only got 2 barrels bearing down the gap as opposed to 4.

By moving all 4 tanks together, your gunners will be slightly less accurate(although rucksteurung will help them quite a bit), but you're guaranteed to have 4 of them bearing on the enemy, as opposed to risk rendering 2 of them ineffective by having them stay behind to cover.

[Dachs]

By moving all 4 tanks together, your gunners will be slightly less accurate(although rucksteurung will help them quite a bit), but you're guaranteed to have 4 of them bearing on the enemy, as opposed to risk rendering 2 of them ineffective by having them stay behind to cover.

I doubt keeping your 4 tanks together will do much good, if all 4 end up driving straight into a well setup killzone! Or a guarded minefield? Then they will all be caught, with a stationary enemy blasting them from prepared positions. They will probably never know what hit them! Don't forget observation is much harder when moving, all depending on the terrain ofcourse!

If however two were left behind for cover, the two point tanks might have a slim chance of getting back out, depending on how quick the cover tanks spots the enemy moving into fire pos. and puts fire on him.

At the very least, the two surviving cover tanks would have a shot or two at the OPFOR, and coords for calling in arty. Then "only" two tanks would be wiped out, as opposed to getting the whole platoon killed, for no gain at all..

Ofcourse it all depends on what you expect to be facing, and what the priorities are..

[12Alfa]

Don't forget observation is much harder when moving, all depending on the terrain ofcourse!

If however two were left behind for cover, the two point tanks might have a slim chance of getting back out, depending on how quick the cover tanks spots the enemy moving into fire pos. and puts fire on him..

My point exactly, we are taught from the start that a object is seen by-moving,shine,silhouette,shape, ect.

Seeing anything while bouncing over ground at 30 km+ while reading a map, talking on the radio, crew, watching the rest of the troop to keep formation is a bit of a overload for the commander.:biggrin:

[Tacbat]

To answer the topic of this thread "Formations - close, or spread out?", the response is simply "yes". Situation dictates.

How far has a tank plt moving at 10 km/h moved during that time?

1 km every 6 minutes.

[112TYR]

If however two were left behind for cover, the two point tanks might have a slim chance of getting back out, depending on how quick the cover tanks spots the enemy moving into fire pos. and puts fire on him.

I think you are missing my point. In the case of the gap, for example, those two tanks would expose themselves alone against the enemy, and the covering tanks wouldn't have the slightest possibility to bear against the enemy. The 2 covering tanks would be no help at all, because they wouldn't be able to see the enemy, let alone fire on them.

Regarding the ability of the moving tanks to see and shoot the enemy; we are consistently hitting our targets during live fire exercises(yes, even off-road), and as long as you aren't going too fast, you'll still have decent observation capacities. The difference is; if one of those tanks exposing themselves in the gap is knocked out, you'll have 1 tank left to fire back on the enemy, since the covering two won't be able to bear. Move all 4 together, and you've still got 3 barrels which can fire back on the enemy.

[outontheop]

As to the air/ artillery threat, I suspect you've underestimated the danger greatly. While many air-to-surface AT munitions are point target missiles, one good stick of CBU-97, Mk20, or similar, and the entire platoon is quite, quite dead.

As for artillery, I'm an artillery officer, and I'll tell you that hitting a moving target is only difficult if a) the target is moving in a VERY unpredictable manner (like turning 90 degrees every 20 or 30 seconds) or b) if the observer is an amatuer. The trick is to quickly estimate a lead (typically 1-1.5 km) and send the data to the guns on an at-my-command basis (guns aim in, but do not fire until you tell them), then get a time-of-flight readback (how long it takes from you saying fire to the rounds impacting), and call 'fire' backed off about that long (usually about 45-120 seconds. Add 10 so the first volley hits slightly in front of the target rather than behind).

I don't know about other armies, but I know the US Army artillery (between our target location kit, digital commo, and INS-guided gun tubes) is quite capable of getting tubes layed and rounds out in under two minutes. I know because I've done it. In combat. On target. The hardest part is getting the clearance to fire. Usually our guns were up ready to fire well before the BN and BDE level FSOs cleared them to fire. Keep in mind this is Iraq, low intensity, and VERY tight on fire controls. In a full scale war, where it's more acceptable to accept a bit of risk in cross-boundary fires and collateral urban damage (or with more open field combat), I can easily see getting those rounds in less than two minutes.

That being the case, as a FIST team concealed in a good OP, I would love nothing more than to see a platoon of tanks moving in close formation, because I've got 528 armor piercing submunitions with their name on it. And that's just the FIRST volley.

[112TYR]

If a tank platoon is moving at, let's say 15 km/h, it will have moved 500 metres in 2 minutes. And if your army is capable of having arty rounds hitting a moving target within 2 minutes after you first SPOT the target(w/o pre-planned arty target), I have to say, I'm impressed. Regardless, that still means you need to add at least a 500 metre lead(providing the tanks are travelling at a cautious 15 km/h, more if they're going faster). Even so, tank plts do tend to move rather unpredictably. True, they do not turn 90 degrees every 20-30 seconds, but if your average lead is 1-1,5km, I'd say they'd be unpredictable enough to mess up your first volley-hit guarantee. Now, if the platoon is bounding, you'll have half of the tanks as sitting ducks at any given time, so you'd pretty much be guaranteed a hit on them. No trouble calculating lead on stationary vehicles.

Of course, once the plt. has reached a BP, they'll very quickly spread out to cover more ground.

[pamak]

I suspect this topic has been discussed before, but here goes:

What is everyones take on the distance between tanks in a platoon? I notice the germans tend to operate a lot more spread out than we do. I strongly favour tight formations(5-10 metres between each tank), unless the terrain is VERY open.

First i have to say that i am not a tanker, but as you said ,this is a matter of providing good arguments and not years of service, although it is true that the latter is linked with the former.

I read the whole thread and i understand your point that there are cases where your approach might be proved to be useful.

For example if the terrain feature is NOT recognizable, the covering force approach might be ineffective in the scenario you used

If it is recognizable , then the conventional approach will still be useful cause it will place the covering force in a most appropiate place so that it can actually cover friends against potential enemy units.

On the other hand , i think that doctrine is about the general case and therefore selective cases can not support an argument against it.

They do support though the observation , that everything is just guidelines and quite often you might need to deviate from them.

Bypassing the argument of obstacles or artillery , i can use the same approach you use to show that there are cases where your proposal will have negative results.

For example you assume that putting tanks closer together ,will result in having all friendly units, see and be able to engage the same enemy.

In fact there are cases when an open formation might be able to let all friends see the same target while the closed one will not accomplish it.

When you are talking about five and ten meters seperation, a simple example is the dust or smoke effect which will blind many more friendly units in a closed formation.

Even without considering dust or smoke, a very close formation will have negative results to the available open field of view of each tank in all sides except frontal and rear (assuming line formation).

What is the SA towards the sides when a friendly tank is located just five or ten meters away from your left or right?

I believe it is much less compared to having a friendly tank located fifty meters away from your left or right.

That is what geometry tells me with field of view angles and obstacles of certain dimension s along the way

So at the end I can easily post a similar picture to the ones you used as illustrating examples, to point specific cases where an enemy vehicle is located in such a way that can be observed (or engaged) by only one tank of a closed space line formation, while the enemy tank could be observed or engaged by multiple friendly tanks of an open space line formation.

In other words your solution can also be problematic in some cases,plus it has the disadvantage of obstacle or indirect fire vulnerability.

Unless you saw me that your types of scenarios are much more likely to be encountered than mine , i can not be convinced to accept your proposal.

[Tacbat]

In the case of the gap, for example, those two tanks would expose themselves alone against the enemy, and the covering tanks wouldn't have the slightest possibility to bear against the enemy.

Do you guys not use infantry when clearing a gap? I know that the infantry has a very inportant role to play within the combat team when conducting a gap drill.

[12Alfa]

Do you guys not use infantry when clearing a gap? I know that the infantry has a very inportant role to play within the combat team when conducting a gap drill.

Well yes, however given that a mission my be in "quick time" we would be forced to clear it our selves. The Gap drill is a proven method that if done right does provide a great deal of security.

If I were in a gap with a ATGM and was to engage any AFV's passing I would think my survival would not be all that great with 2 of the 4 tanks in a supporting position and the other 2 moving at high speed past with there tubes bearing down in my direction with the crews expecting fire from my direction and the possibility of smk being used.

[112TYR]

So at the end I can easily post a similar picture to the ones you used as illustrating examples, to point specific cases where an enemy vehicle is located in such a way that can be observed (or engaged) by only one tank of a closed space line formation, while the enemy tank could be observed or engaged by multiple friendly tanks of an open space line formation.

Please do. Specific examples are much easier to discuss than general principles. Don't get me wrong, I have tried bounding overwatch, and I have tried open formations.

The reason we no longer do bounds is that we consistently encountered an enemy that could not be engaged by the covering unit(because the enemy was actually smart when picking his BP). Our terrain is full of small and big gaps, and small height differences also enable the enemy to pick out hidden BPs with frontal cover. When one section is moving forward in our terrain, it WILL expose itself to terrain that the covering section isn't able to cover. Of course, the enemy is well aware of that. If you can achieve a semi-flanking position with complete frontal cover, you use it. I know I do. There is absolutely no reason to expose yourself to the covering element unless you have to. The idea that the covering unit should be able to maintain a 100% degree of control in the terrain the moving unit is exposed to is simply physically impossible unless you're in the middle of an open desert. Bounding overwatch may mean that you've got two stationary tanks that'll take care of the targets some times - moving together means you've got 4 tanks who can bear on the targets every single time.

In my experience, tank plt who split up into sections in an attack will end up in trouble. Overwatch is usually provided better by another plt.

The reason we no longer travel in open formations is that when we did that, our tanks consistently got picked off one by one before they had a chance to respond. Since they never had a chance to send a contact report, the rest of the plt was left in the dark wrt the enemy position until our next tank was knocked out. How's that for SA? Of course, the enemy is very well aware of this, and a decent enemy will usually try to pick a semi-flanking position. When moving around in the terrain we operate in, the difference between 10 and 30 metres between two tanks mean exposing yourself from a completely different sector. It basically means that there is no way our tanks can support each other on the move, let alone from a "covering" positions 100 metres further back.

Once we grouped ourselves close together, we found that we were able to hit back every single time, every tank knew the enemy position instantly, and the enemy generally lost, unless they had a VERY well prepared ambush set up. Rucksteurung helps our accuracy a great deal - if the terrain is smooth enough, it's quicker to hit a stationary target from the move than it is to hit a moving target from a stationary position.

So in my experience, in the terrain we usually train in, open formations lead to more trouble than closed, and moving together lead to less trouble than bounding. We made the same conclusions when training in Germany - I had no problem picking off single tanks in open formations on Munster Nord.

[pamak]

Please do. Specific examples are much easier to discuss than general principles. Don't get me wrong, I have tried bounding overwatch, and I have tried open formations.

Ok, here is one drawing i did to clarify my point.

For simplicity, i am dealing with a formation of two tanks in two variations.

Close formation with both tanks located near each other, and open formation, with tanks located farther apart.

I drew the field of view towards the right of friendly tank numbered 1.

Then i drew a friendly tank located near (number 2) and i present graphically the portion of the field of view which is blocked by its presence.

Then i drew a third tank located farther away (number 3) and again i present graphically the portion of the field of view which is blocked by its presence.

Notice that in the second case , a smaller portion of the field of view is affected.

At the end i drew an enemy tank which can be detected and engaged by both tanks in an open formation (1 and 3) but can be detected and engaged by only one tank in the close formation variation (tank 2)

P.S You have to click the picture to zoom in.

The second picture is exactly the same with the first one,except that i hatched the blocked field of view in both cases, for better visualization.

[outontheop]

I think you're vastly, vastly underestimating the lethality of artillery on moving targets. Terrain will often canalize your forces, and a smart observer will pick that as his intercept point. And even if the terrain isn't canalized, let's assume I chose an intercept point and then the target platoon IMMEDIATELY executes a 20 degree (approximately 360 mil) turn. In the 500 meters the target platoon will have moved during the two minute mission processing time, they will be only 200 meters from the center of the artillery target. A standard artillery target (6-tube battery) is a 300 meter circular target (300 meters from aiming point to aiming point. The effects of a DPICM round extend beyond that another 50-75 meters to each side). Now, the density of fire is such that there is an armor-piercing submunition hitting every 1.2 meters inside that 400 meter diameter circle (approximate; at greater ranges the density decreases but area covered increases). So any average tank size target within 200 meters of the point of aim will receive 4-6 hits from armor piercing top-attack warheads. That's only the first volley.

And that's assuming a) I can only call a single battery for the fire mission, and b) the target platoon executes their turn IMMEDIATELY when I finish my call for fire. If the platoon continued on course for 250 meters and then executed that turn, they'd be a mere 100 meters from the center of the target. You're also assuming c) the target platoon CONTINUES on the new course without turning back toward the original direction of travel.

That's also discounting the option of firing SADARM, which has a much larger area of effect. It's also discounting firing an immediate FASCAM minefield, which is a bit more flexible.

Now, I'll grant you, in TRAINING our arty takes a lot longer than 2 minutes due to the safety constraints, but a good FIST team and a halfway competent FDC will get effects on target that fast.

[outontheop]

On the maneuver side, I also have to agree with the post earlier about blundering into a minefield or well-developed kill zone. If you send 4 tanks all together into a well developed engagement area (kill zone), the enemy is pretty much certain to spot you before you spot them. And I have a hard time believing that even if all 4 of your tanks together attempt to engage the enemy, that they will successfully engage the enemy before the enemy successfully engages all 4 of your tanks. Even if only 2 enemy tanks engage your 4, what do you think the chances are thay your 4 will spot, traverse, range and engage them before they have fired, traversed the 2 mils between your bunched up tanks, and engaged the entire platoon? And with 4 tanks running 5 meters apart, all the enemy has to do is fire center mass of your platoon and they're almost guaranteed to hit a tank, even if they miss the intended tank!

So, sure, you have greater concentration of fire. But by blundering in as a whole unit, that engagement area has now killed your entire platoon. At some point you just have to do the cold calculus of battle and accept that at some point, your platoon will stumble into a superior force. Would you rather find that force with two tanks and preserve the rest of your platoon to disengage or maneuver on the enemy, or would you rather all four tanks brew up in the first 5 seconds of the firefight?

Even assuming you CAN effectively spot targets while you're moving, I have a hard time believing you, while moving, will spot the enemy- who is concealed and stationary- before the stationary enemy spots you.

So, you use bounding overwatch, and the lead element, rather than trying to fight it out with the enemy units, reports their location to your cover unit, pops smoke and moves to a hull down position- or moves into full defilade and maneuvers on the enemy themselves while the cover unit moves up to suprise the now located enemy unit.

[112TYR]

Ok, here is one drawing i did to clarify my point.

For simplicity, i am dealing with a formation of two tanks in two variations.

Close formation with both tanks located near each other, and open formation, with tanks located farther apart.

I see your point, but we do not operate in that kind of formation. Our line more resembles a wedge, so the view wouldn't be affected in that way. In addition, the PERI is actually able to see over the roof of neighbouring tanks, unless they're going over higher terrain, or the enemy is located lower in the terrain than we are. Anyway, a quick action right would give all the tanks a decent view of the enemy. If half of them were left behind or they were in an open formation, terrain features might(probably will) obscure the view to the enemy.

[112TYR]

And I have a hard time believing that even if all 4 of your tanks together attempt to engage the enemy, that they will successfully engage the enemy before the enemy successfully engages all 4 of your tanks. Even if only 2 enemy tanks engage your 4, what do you think the chances are thay your 4 will spot, traverse, range and engage them before they have fired, traversed the 2 mils between your bunched up tanks, and engaged the entire platoon?

It isn't the traverse time that determines the fire rate. In a modern tank, the TC will usually have aquired a new target well before the loader has loaded the next round, and the time spent getting the gunner on that target is measured in milliseconds, regardless of how far apart the targets are.

Your argument is basically that you risk losing your whole unit by sending it together, so you send in half of it at a time, in order to lose less of it in a kill zone. I see the point, but I believe your chances of survival are greatly enhanced when you can bring more barrels to bear against the enemy. In a 4 vs 2 scenario, chances are you'll have succesfully engaged the 2 enemy tanks immideately after they fire on your first 2 tanks. If you only send 2 at a time, and the covering element isn't able to see the enemy(as WILL be the case in our terrain), you lose your first two tanks, and if the rest of your unit feels foolhardy enough to try the same thing, they'll be knocked out in the same manner.

Even assuming you CAN effectively spot targets while you're moving, I have a hard time believing you, while moving, will spot the enemy- who is concealed and stationary- before the stationary enemy spots you.

It actually happens. Even so, as I've stated, in the terrain we're operating in, the covering tanks usually don't do much good because terrain features deny them a view of the enemy, so the 2 moving tanks are left all on their own.

So, you use bounding overwatch, and the lead element, rather than trying to fight it out with the enemy units, reports their location to your cover unit, pops smoke and moves to a hull down position- or moves into full defilade and maneuvers on the enemy themselves while the cover unit moves up to suprise the now located enemy unit.

If you expose yourself to an enemy with a tank plt., you'll only have a matter of seconds. Moving to a hull down position takes a LOT longer than it will take the enemy to fire at you.

If you plan to leave your leading enemy in the EA while your covering element moves to "surprise" the enemy, the leading element will be exposed to enemy fire for several minutes, and will most likely be knocked out.