Formations - close, or spread out?

[outontheop]

I suspect you did not closely read my post. The immediate action of the platoon in the EA is to pop smoke (obviously multispectral is going to do a lot more good here) and didy mao out of the EA. I said nothing about them hanging there to "distract" the enemy. The point is that once your lead element identifies the enemy, the supporting element can assault it from favorable terrain.

The same tactics apply as with infantry; initiate contact with the smallest possible element so the bulk of your force can retain freedom of maneuver. Would you bunch up an entire company of infantrymen just so that when they were ambushed by enemy crew served weapons they would be able to mass the largest volume of fire from inside the kill zone? Sure, your guys would mass a lot of fire on the enemy... for the ten seconds it takes the enemy to mow you all down.

No, you send two men ahead, and hope either a) the enemy declines to engage them (waiting for the main body) and your two guys spot them, or b) that if the enemy engages them, at least it's saved the rest of your command.

You're assuming a lot when you promote these tactics. You're ASSUMING a fair fight, 4 on 4. What happens when it's 12 on 4? Are those extra 2 tubes really going to help do anything in that case? What if you're engaged by manpack ATGM from outside the effective range of HEAT? If a couple ATGM teams pop off some rounds from outside a kilometer or two from a good fighting position, I VERY much doubt you'll be able to kill them before they kill you- they're not very big targets.

You're also assuming that you even SEE the guy shooting at you. Chances are you aren't going to even know they're there until they fire- and might not be able to identify the exact location until the second volley.

And I'm not talking about the mechanical limitations of turret traverse rate, I'm talking the whole engagement sequence. You mean to tell me that you believe your moving, bouncing vehicle crews can somehow spot, identify, traverse, range, apply lead, and fire faster than the stationary, concealed enemy can do the same? I would not be the least bit suprised to find that the stationary enemy got off 2-3 rounds each before you were able to return a single round.

[112TYR]

You're assuming a lot when you promote these tactics. You're ASSUMING a fair fight, 4 on 4. What happens when it's 12 on 4? Are those extra 2 tubes really going to help do anything in that case? What if you're engaged by manpack ATGM from outside the effective range of HEAT? If a couple ATGM teams pop off some rounds from outside a kilometer or two from a good fighting position, I VERY much doubt you'll be able to kill them before they kill you- they're not very big targets.

Well, hopefully we'll have some intel on enemy capacities before going into battle. And, our plt is by no means fighting alone.

If you're 4 on twelve, your pretty much screwed no matter what, unless you're technologically or tactically very superior. Bounding just means you'll lose tanks two at a time, a section won't win a situation where a plt loses. But, if having two extra tanks along with you gets you the fire superiority and allow you to defeat the enemy, you'll have lost fewer tanks than if you consistently feed your tanks piecemeal to the enemy. Having more tanks than the enemy means nothing if you're feeding them to him 2 by 2.

To me, it sounds like your platoon usually attacks with only half its force. You also seem to have a high degree of freedom of movement if your plan is to flank the enemy with your covering section. (I'm assuming you want to flank them with it, since a frontal assault would end up in the EA again) How often does this mean crossing paths with your neighbouring plt? Keep in mind, we are following the same basic prinsciple as you are, but we bound on a higher echelon. (Coy level)

I'm sure you've heard this before: Lets say we've got an armoured battalion, consisting of 3 armoured companies in addition to CS/CSS. Let's say each company has got 3 plts of 4 vehicles each. (I'll exclude CO/XO tanks for now) That means your battalion has got 12 x 3 = 36 vehicles. Pretty decent firepower. Let's say this battalion is to conduct an attack. The battalion CO wants some security as he attacks, so he uses one company in overwatching positions, and moves the rest of the battalion on the objective. Now we're down to 24 attacking vehicles. The 2 CO commanders decide they want some more security as well, so they use 1 plt as overwatch, and attack with the rest. That's 8 tanks less, and we're down to 16 attacking tanks. The plt leaders in each attacking plt also decide they need more security, so they do bounding overwatch. That means that out of 36 tanks, only 8 tanks will be attacking, the rest will be providing overwatch. That seems like a LOT of overwatch.

You're also assuming that you even SEE the guy shooting at you. Chances are you aren't going to even know they're there until they fire- and might not be able to identify the exact location until the second volley.

Yet your leading element is able to pop smoke before the enemy rounds reaches your tanks? If I understand your post correctly, your main supporting argument is that when you're bounding, you'll only lose two tanks at a time.

And I'm not talking about the mechanical limitations of turret traverse rate, I'm talking the whole engagement sequence. You mean to tell me that you believe your moving, bouncing vehicle crews can somehow spot, identify, traverse, range, apply lead, and fire faster than the stationary, concealed enemy can do the same? I would not be the least bit suprised to find that the stationary enemy got off 2-3 rounds each before you were able to return a single round.

Well, sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we don't show up where the enemy expects us to.

If the terrain is smooth enough, the moving tank will theoretically be the first to fire. Rucksteurung is instantaneous, dynamic lead takes time, so applying lead is in fact quicker in the moving tank. (At least in our tanks)

What seems to be a general rule though, is that the enemy will not position himself in a position where he has to deal with the covering element, unless he expects to be able to deal with them as well. In our terrain, the covering element usually can't do any covering, they can only wait for the leading element to stop so they can move as well.

Having the enemy getting of 2-3 rounds before we're able to fire seems excessive. A muzzle blast usually gets your attention, and even the DM54 is usually enough to reveal the enemy location. After that, it won't be many seconds before our own tanks are returning fire.

[pamak]

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.

Do not pay too much attention to the type of formation. Similar results will occur under any type of formation if you decide to locate tanks near each other. The geometric implications are still the same. The difference will be the azimuth where observation will suffer.

In your wedge for example , if you decide to close the seperation distance, the tanks in the rear of right and left wing will have a smaller obesrvation field towards their forward and left or right respectively.

I hope you understand what i mean. IF you do not agree, i will have to make a new sketch.

As to the Peri, although i do not have real life experience, i am going to assume that although you are able to see over the roofs of nearby tanks, you are not really able to observe the ground behind them up to a considerable distance. You are mostly able to observe the ground near the horizon . In addition your gun tube is blocked under any circumstances.

P.s I have not played SBPRO for a long time . I wonder if what i am saying about Peri is portraited the same way inside the game.

[12Alfa]

having two extra tanks along with you gets you the fire superiority and allow you to defeat the enemy, you'll have lost fewer tanks than if you consistently feed your tanks piecemeal to the enemy. Having more tanks than the enemy means nothing if you're feeding them to him 2 by 2.

Sitting back and letting this flow. I don't think we would be feeding the enemy tanks. As a rule once the contact is made the SQN and the rest of the formation if they can't see the fight will look to their maps.The overwatch fireteam will not ( as a rule) just seeing the front fireteam get brewed up will not move forward. You seem to be stuck on this point for some strange reason. Let me ask you this: would you move forward into a killing zone?

To me, it sounds like your platoon usually attacks with only half its force. That means that out of 36 tanks, only 8 tanks will be attacking, the rest will be providing over watch. That seems like a LOT of over watch.

This some what different. A attack is a fast, violent, fluid movement with no stopping. What we were talking about I thought was movement other that a attack. Yes in a attack one does not want to stop and another Troop or maybe two in in the firebase to give support. The two are quite different.

Yet your leading element is able to pop smoke before the enemy rounds reaches your tanks?

Its possible with some ATGM's

In our terrain, the covering element usually can't do any covering, they can only wait for the leading element to stop so they can move as well.

Not all ground is like yours, what may work there will not work somewhere else, and I think this has been said before. Getting comfortable with one kind of ground is dangerous.

After that, it won't be many seconds before our own tanks are returning fire.

Are they faster than a stopped covering team that has the primary task to watch your back and front, with the suspected areas already ranged and most probably given to a crewmember to observe while you are moving over rough ground?

still a good discussion, with many valued points.

[PS-SCUD]

You mean to tell me that you believe your moving, bouncing vehicle crews can somehow spot, identify, traverse, range, apply lead, and fire faster than the stationary, concealed enemy can do the same?

I can ;-)

[pamak]

I'm sure you've heard this before: Lets say we've got an armoured battalion, consisting of 3 armoured companies in addition to CS/CSS. Let's say each company has got 3 plts of 4 vehicles each. (I'll exclude CO/XO tanks for now) That means your battalion has got 12 x 3 = 36 vehicles. Pretty decent firepower. Let's say this battalion is to conduct an attack. The battalion CO wants some security as he attacks, so he uses one company in overwatching positions, and moves the rest of the battalion on the objective. Now we're down to 24 attacking vehicles. The 2 CO commanders decide they want some more security as well, so they use 1 plt as overwatch, and attack with the rest. That's 8 tanks less, and we're down to 16 attacking tanks. The plt leaders in each attacking plt also decide they need more security, so they do bounding overwatch. That means that out of 36 tanks, only 8 tanks will be attacking, the rest will be providing overwatch. That seems like a LOT of overwatch.

I understand the logic behind bounding in a higher level. I am going to assume that this forces companies to be more concentrated in order to have a stationary company in overwatch able to observe the ground in front of the moving one,ready to engage possible targets.

Do you also have a closer seperation distance between platoons?

Can you also clarify if this so short seperation distance of 5-10 meters between tanks is real life practice in your army or "personal preferance" ?

As to your example , i have a few observations.

I will assume that if a battalion commander assigns a whole company for overwatch, he will expect that his subordinates will concentrate more towards speed than security.

The coordination lines and times for advance will certainly reflect the commander's intentions clearly and will actually prohibit the subordinates to apply too much overwatch.

The way i see it, having a company advancing using bounding overwatch , takes at least twice as long compared to a continous advance of the same level element.

For every subordinate element adopting bounding overwatch, the time of advance increases.

So if a company using bounding overwatch, has its platoons using also bounding overwatch, it will need at least twice the amount of time to reach the same point on the ground, compared to a company using bounding overwatch only at the company level.

The other thing is that it is not exactly clear what is too much overwatch.

IF there is not a clear threat, then your example can be too much overwatch. It sacrifices speed for security and leads to an unacceptable slow rate of advance .

You can not acheive surprise and decisive results with such a slow tempo

If on the other hand there is a clear enemy resistance, then you do not really know what is the "appropiate" level of overwatch.

In this case , you go by the signs and feedback you get from the battlefield.

IF by bounding at company level you are able to acheive fire superiority and you are able to advance your platoons with an acceptable rate of casualties, then you have an "appropiate" level of overwatch.

IF you are not able to do so, then you need more bounding overwatch at platoon level and again you monitor for the results.

IF this is not enough ,then you go with bounding overwatch at a lower level and yes it might be the case where you might need to have 28 tanks engaging the enemy from stationary positions , in order to have only 8 tanks closing the distance with him.

It is true though that if the attack tempo becomes so slow, the attacker is in difficult position, since time in general works against him and in favor of the defender.

[112TYR]

Do you also have a closer seperation distance between platoons?

Actually, that depends. I'd say yes in most cases, but terrain may dictate otherwise. Having read most of the posts here, I get the feeling we use our plts like you use your sections, if you understand what I mean.

Can you also clarify if this so short seperation distance of 5-10 meters between tanks is real life practice in your army or "personal preferance" ?

Real life practice. In the last years, I haven't seen one single plt try an open spacing the way you guys define it. (200metres between each tank) The ones who have tried 50 metre spacing between each tank are usually having a lot of difficulties getting their tanks to bear on targets, and for that reason, most of our platoons do operate close.

So if a company using bounding overwatch, has its platoons using also bounding overwatch, it will need at least twice the amount of time to reach the same point on the ground, compared to a company using bounding overwatch only at the company level.

Yes. So the question is; do you not do overwatch at echelons higher than plt level, or do you simply accept that things are going to take more time?

IF this is not enough ,then you go with bounding overwatch at a lower level and yes it might be the case where you might need to have 28 tanks engaging the enemy from stationary positions , in order to have only 8 tanks closing the distance with him.

Provided the enemy lets you do so. In difficult terrain, it's EXTREMELY hard to utilise 28 vehicles efficiently as covering units. Most likely, the enemy will use concealed positions that will not be affected by the covering units field of fire. They will achieve this by using flanking/semi-flanking BPs with frontal cover.

[112TYR]

Let me ask you this: would you move forward into a killing zone?

Of course not. But the point we're disagreeing on is merely how many tanks we're moving out with - 2 or 4. Neither of us WANTS to be in a kill zone, I don't see any disagreement on that point.

Its possible with some ATGM's

If a section can pop smoke, a plt can pop smoke. If a section can maneuvre to outflank the enemy, a plt can do the same. I'm starting to realise that we're following the same principles, but at different echelons.

Not all ground is like yours, what may work there will not work somewhere else, and I think this has been said before. Getting comfortable with one kind of ground is dangerous.

Indeed it is not. However, I train to defend my own country from aggression, not to attack others. While I need to be aware that situations may change drastically, I feel that as long as you are aware of WHY you're choosing that particular spacing, and that particular method of movement, you'll be able to adapt just fine to new situations.

That being said, training in Munster Nord in Germany has done nothing other than confirm our theories. Picking a BP just behind Bunker Mitte, with the bunker working as frontal cover, I was able to pick off one tank after another when a plt travelled in an open formation, and a covering team would have been unable to affect me. (anyone who have been to Munster will probably recognize the BP)

Are they faster than a stopped covering team that has the primary task to watch your back and front, with the suspected areas already ranged and most probably given to a crewmember to observe while you are moving over rough ground?

If the enemy is smart enough to utilise frontal cover then yes, by a WIDE margin, since they will most likely not be able to bear on him.

[112TYR]

Do not pay too much attention to the type of formation. Similar results will occur under any type of formation if you decide to locate tanks near each other. The geometric implications are still the same. The difference will be the azimuth where observation will suffer.

In your wedge for example , if you decide to close the seperation distance, the tanks in the rear of right and left wing will have a smaller obesrvation field towards their forward and left or right respectively.

I hope you understand what i mean. IF you do not agree, i will have to make a new sketch.

I do agree, however, when travelling in an open formation, terrain features will work in the same way, and will inhibit your observation in a MUCH worse way than your own tanks will in a closed formation.

[outontheop]

Ok, well, that's different, there's nothing at all wrong with bounding by platoon or company- in fact, it's preferable, as the elements become easier to control. However, I still feel that gathering THAT closely together offers yourself as a juicy target to any area-fire weapon system, allows you to be decisively engaged too easily.

Gathering up also allows the enemy freedom of maneuver. By that I mean since your crews all essentially see the same thing, they also have basically the same dead space in their sectors of observation. It is very easy to find a route that cannot be observed from one point. It is not nearly so easy to find a route that is concealed from 4 points spread across 500 meters. So it becomes much more difficult for the enemy (either intentionally or by happenstance) to close unobserved with your platoon if you spread your tanks out.

Now, adding additional platoons or companies into the equation, they make up for some of the shortcomings of the tight grouping, but my experience (in actual combat, albeit at much shorter ranges, primarily an urban fight) is that if you gather close, an enemy system will engage all of you before you can identify it, and will deny you freedom of maneuver. And the enemy WILL close with you unobserver (both in urban and rural settings). Spread out, and your likelihood of spotting them while they attempt to maneuver into position increases greatly (on the defense) and your freedom of maneuver is enhanced (on the offense)

[112TYR]

Now, adding additional platoons or companies into the equation, they make up for some of the shortcomings of the tight grouping, but my experience (in actual combat, albeit at much shorter ranges, primarily an urban fight) is that if you gather close, an enemy system will engage all of you before you can identify it, and will deny you freedom of maneuver. And the enemy WILL close with you unobserver (both in urban and rural settings). Spread out, and your likelihood of spotting them while they attempt to maneuver into position increases greatly (on the defense) and your freedom of maneuver is enhanced (on the offense)

I definitely see your point regarding a higher amount of dead spaces, but in order to engage 4 tanks at the same time, you will need a decent amount of firepower. The enemy will definitely need to focus much of his forces to be able to successfully engage 4 tanks at once, which means he as well will have a lot of dead spaces. That is generally an even worse thing on the defensive than it is on the offensive.

Urban combat is a lot different, and the same goes for infantry. The amount of firepower you need to suppress infantry is a lot less than the amount you need to suppress a tank plt.

If you choose to go open, the enemy won't have to worry about dealing with 4 tanks at a time. He can just pick his BPs so that he'll only face 1 tank at a time, and so can spread out a bit more to cover more ground.

[Froggy]

As a platton leader, I will not put all my tanks in the same place.

Back in the 90' when I was on AMX30, A platoon will have to fight in a narrow place, about 200m for a platoon, to provide support as we could not fire on the move.

With Leclerc, a platoon can be divided in two section, and operate up to 1km between each tank, depending of terrain.

Usually, there is 200-300m between tanks, to avoid arty killing a whole platoon.

We use narrow formation only in woods or urban area, if we can't have infantry support.

[112TYR]

As a platton leader, I will not put all my tanks in the same place.

I'm a plt ldr as well, and I do. I can't see how you would be able to operate as a coherent platoon with a spacing of 4(!) km

[Froggy]

We do so for 14 years.

[112TYR]

We do so for 14 years.

That doesn't really give me any new information. If I position my tanks with 1 km between each tank, that means that noone is able to see any of the other tanks in my platoon. It also means that the 4 tanks will have completely different fields of fire, and will be completely cut off from mutual support within the platoon. The instant one tank is faced with a threat he cannot handle by himself, he will be in BIG trouble, as noone will be able to help him. That's not a platoon, that's just 4 tanks.

[Froggy]

If there is 1km between tanks, that because we can see the same terrain.

"Only one terrain compartment, the same ennemy" is the principe of platoon fight.

[112TYR]

If there is 1km between tanks, that because we can see the same terrain.

"Only one terrain compartment, the same ennemy" is the principe of platoon fight.

Then your terrain is radically different from ours. If we were to operate with a 4km spacing within the platoon, we'd see 4 completely different areas. If our spacing is any more than 250 metres, the same occurs. We need to go close to see the same terrain.

[Apocalypse 31]

I'm a plt ldr as well, and I do. I can't see how you would be able to operate as a coherent platoon with a spacing of 4(!) km

I'm a recon platoon leader, and I can tell you that it is very possible. You need good communication and coordination between sections..Also in the US Army we have a very good NCO Corp.

[Froggy]

You don't need to be an officer to be platoon leader in French Armor.

1/3 are NCO, as I am.

[112TYR]

I'm a recon platoon leader, and I can tell you that it is very possible. You need good communication and coordination between sections..Also in the US Army we have a very good NCO Corp.

Good communication and coordination won't help you one single bit if you can't see the terrain your neighbouring section is looking at. It's pretty easy math; if you leave the responsibility of one particular avenue of approach up to one single tank, and the enemy shows up with 4 tanks, you're going to have a problem. You can have as good an NCO-corps as you want; it still wont give you X-ray vision

[Gidenstam]

I think the problem is that you are talking about a very different type of terrain. The terrain in Norway and in Sweden is offen very hilly and largely covered with forrest. This result i a short line of sight, usually under 1 km. This terrain favors infantry and we used to be very infantry heavy.

As a result the Swedish army uses a armour company with 4 plt with 3 tanks. The plt moves as a unit and fairly closed 30-100m. Overwatch and support is organiced on company level. At least that was the doctrin when I did my service.

[Sabot_Up]

Good communication and coordination won't help you one single bit if you can't see the terrain your neighbouring section is looking at. It's pretty easy math; if you leave the responsibility of one particular avenue of approach up to one single tank, and the enemy shows up with 4 tanks, you're going to have a problem. You can have as good an NCO-corps as you want; it still wont give you X-ray vision.

I think you should note that Apocalypse-31 is talking about a Stryker recon platoon, not a tank platoon. His role is to scout, not attack, so spreading out makes a lot more sense.

[Norfolk]

I think the problem is that you are talking about a very different type of terrain. The terrain in Norway and in Sweden is offen very hilly and largely covered with forrest. This result i a short line of sight, usually under 1 km. This terrain favors infantry and we used to be very infantry heavy.

As a result the Swedish army uses a armour company with 4 plt with 3 tanks. The plt moves as a unit and fairly closed 30-100m. Overwatch and support is organiced on company level. At least that was the doctrin when I did my service.

Following this thread, 112TYR seemed to be describing more of an Israeli-style approach to handling a Tank Platoon, with the entire platoon (in the Israeli case, with 3 tanks) functioning much as a Section from a 4-tank platoon normally would. Gidenstam's post crystallized this in my mind. Tactics being of course METT-T dependent, sometimes the conventional approach is not the only, or even the best, one to take. And what he's describing may well work in conditions of very restricted terrain and close cover; what he described that worked on ex at Munster Nord may have been a rather more exceptional case though, as how often is cover for an entire platoon available in more open terrain? This approach may work when such cover is readily available; when it's not, or there isn't enough for all or even most of the other platoons in your company, it breaks down.

If 112TYR's (and the Norwegians') preferred platoon tactics work under the conditions he finds himself in, great. But, as Gidenstam points out, it does seem that what he is describing is more of a "special" case, in that it is most applicable under particular conditions of terrain and cover. It may have worked for his platoon while on ex in Germany, and 112TYR apparently (and naturally) sought out terrain that matched as close as possible what he was used to, and is much more readily available, in Norway; that sort of terrain is often in much shorter supply elsewhere to effectively pull off using a Platoon as a single Section, especially one in very close formation.

The Israelis adopted a 3-tank platoon, fighting it as a single section, especially for use in the tight terrain of places like the Golan Heights; Gidenstam's description of his own company and platoon in the Swedish Army is roughly similar in certain ways here, optimized as it is for very close country and cover. It seems to work for them under those conditions. But I doubt that it would be generally applicable to more open country, where fire-and-manoeuvre at the Platoon level is required to make up for the relative lack of cover that allows for fire-and-movement to be conducted mainly at Company level. Even in circumstances where the terrain allows for faster movement whilst still in fairly close country, leaping overwatch, with one section moving at a different speed than the other, is still preferable to moving an entire platoon as a single body.

But it's not entirely clear whether 112TYR is trying to say that tight formations are best for open-country as well as close-country, or that he is just saying that this is best suited for close-country.

[Gidenstam]

That is a good summary,Norfolk.

What tactics you use is alway depending on the mission, enemy, terrain. different terrain require different tactics.You organize and train your force in a way that gives you the best advantage in the terrain you are likely to fight in. Our smaller plt in closer formation works well in our close terrain. But probably not equaly good in the open terrain in Germany and France.

I appreciate and finds this thread interesting.To chose the right tactic is difficult. Offen there are many solution to each tactical problem. But I would like to see more detail in the discussion. We have different backgrounds and have different defenition of some terms which can make it hard for us to understand each othe. For a example: For me a tank plt is 3 tanks and a company is 4 tank plt, 2 command tanks and a cs-plt. For an american a tank plt is 4 tanks.

We need to get more specific.

In this situation,in this terrain, I would chose to do this, because... I think we all can learn something in discussion like that. I know I would, because I am not a pro at this things

[112TYR]

And what he's describing may well work in conditions of very restricted terrain and close cover; what he described that worked on ex at Munster Nord may have been a rather more exceptional case though, as how often is cover for an entire platoon available in more open terrain? This approach may work when such cover is readily available; when it's not, or there isn't enough for all or even most of the other platoons in your company, it breaks down.

I'll just clarify that moving the platoon as a closely packed unit is done on the attack, not on the defence. I include the description of the defending units actions to demonstrate how a smart defender can give you serious trouble if you choose the open formation where the terrain doesn't favour it.

Regarding the Munster Nord-example; that terrain is pretty well suited to messing up a tank unit moving in open formation, if you know what you're doing. There are several ridge lines that are INCREDIBLY hard to see from a distance, but will still give you decent concealment as a defender. The terrain also presents smaller and larger gaps which are hard to detect, but which still will mean that a defender is able to hit one tank at a time, often the tank scanning the opposite flank.(Meaning he won't even be scanning in the right direction). Munster Nord is what I would describe as open terrain(edit: I am specifically referring to the area from range 2/3, through Bunker Mitte, and down to Norddurchlass, as well as the areas west of range 5), but it still presents you with several problems if you do choose to go open. I do agree that in very open terrain, you might as well go open, but the terrain needs to be open both in the area the platoon is moving, AND the terrain that is able to affect the platoon. The terrain several kilometres away affects your choice of formation as much as the terrain you are currently positioned in. Your primary concern as a platoon leader should be, "how can I maximise the effectiveness of my units firepower in my area of responsibility?" If you're moving from point A to point B with the intention of being able to bear on point C, you will obiously sooner or later expose yourself to point C.(In addition to a bunch of other areas). If you are bounding, only 2 tanks will pass that point/line of exposure at a time. That means that the amount of firepower you're able to direct at point C at a time is reduced to half of its true potential.

It may have worked for his platoon while on ex in Germany, and 112TYR apparently (and naturally) sought out terrain that matched as close as possible what he was used to, and is much more readily available, in Norway; that sort of terrain is often in much shorter supply elsewhere to effectively pull off using a Platoon as a single Section, especially one in very close formation.

Actually, I picked Munster Nord because it was the most open terrain available to me during our stay in Germany. I did use the same tactics as I did in Norway, and the techniques I usually use as a defender against open platoon formations did have a good effect on platoons choosing to maneuvre with more spacing. As in Norway, I was able to pick of one tank at a time, even though the terrain was more open. (Of course, the attacking unit was used to "Norwegian" tactics.)

But it's not entirely clear whether 112TYR is trying to say that tight formations are best for open-country as well as close-country, or that he is just saying that this is best suited for close-country.

Obviously, in very open terrain, your formation can have a much wider spacing. However, terrain can be very decieving, and terrain that appears as open(such as Munster Nord), might still favour close formations because of "hidden" dead areas that will allow an enemy to hide and pick off your tanks one by one. Bounding overwatch on Munster Nord will only affect the enemy if the enemy allows you to, by ignoring frontal cover and going head-on with you. In that case, he will lose. If he manages to make good use of dead spaces(not hard to do at all), he'll render your covering teams ineffective, and you'll lose.