I agree that a 3 tank platoon is really a section+
It might seem counter intiuitive since you have more guns covering, but moving 1/3 of the force at a time vs half will slow you down. This gives the enemy more time. A tanks biggest weapon is mobility. As tough as they are they can be killed if the enemy can localize them. Moving your force 1/3 at a time presents several problems.
1- What if the increased time lets the enemy drop a FASCAM fiedl between your maneuver groups. You've lost 1/3 of available force your force. The 6 tanks on one side of the field can still fight, but the 3 on the other side are nearly useless.
2- Company team tactics, 3 tanks and 8-12 IFV's is an okay screen for a mech inf force, but 6 tanks-4 IFV's is not enough mass for a tank heavy force.
3- A 3 tank section that loses 1 member looses 1/3 of its firepower and half its over watch ability and each remaining tank now has 17%% more coverage to watch. A 4 tank platoon that loses one only loses 25% of its power and over watch ability only gains 7% to its coverage area.
4- A 3 tank section is over stressed in coverage it can watch front, right, left but cannot double up on threat areas like a 4 tank platoon can. A 4 tank platoon can watch front, front, left, right or left left, front, right etc as needed the extra thermal on the most likely threat area may be the difference between life and death.
I think a scripted exercise (move from A to B) may have something to do with it. Israeli Army experience isn't really all that worthwhile. They have never faced an equal foe on and equal footing. The closes tthey came were the Jordanians and they ended up getting roughly treated by them when comapred to the Egyptians and Syrians.
I have to admit zraver, you've poked, or rather blasted, some mighty big holes in my arguments for the tactical superiority of the 3-tank "platoon" over the 4- or 5-tank platoon. But, that's what happens when an Infantryman opens fire with a rifle on a Tank - slight mismatch!
Yes, I very much agree that a 3-Tank unit can hardly be called a Platoon; it is a Section, and statements to the contrary are statements of (and in, denial), and I don't accept German, Israeli/Russian arguments to the contrary or those same arguments for the necessity of an "officer" to command said "Platoons". Those are conscript Armies whose Lieutenants, good as many may be, are the "rough" equivalent of sergeants in English-speaking professional Armies (and their "sergeants" the "rough" equivalent of our corporals, well, those have have done their NCO course anyway).
Now to the gaping holes you've blown in my arguments zraver:
1. The 3-tank platoon, 11-tank company, used as intended, certainly sacrifices speed during travelling overwatch and it appears to sacrifce speed during bounding overwatch. As to travelling overwatch, the only remedy to that problem that I can see is for the 11-tank company to adopt the traditional "2 up, 1 back", rather than the "1 up, 2 back" tactical concept associated with this organization - with 6 tanks on the move, and 5 covering (2 HQ tanks), this formation achieves the same speed as the 4-tank platoon of the 14-tank company, but it clearly lacks the gun tubes on the firing line if bumped by the enemy that the 4-tank platoon of the 14-tank company has.
As for bounding overwatch, I am of two minds here. As with the travelling overwatch, the 3-tank platoon and the 11-tank company must sacrifice the vital element of speed (an essential component of surprise, and of course shock effect) unless it abandons its 1 up, 2 back formation and goes for the reverse. But once in contact, I suspect that the 1 up, 2 back formation may well pay off in a more successful attack and lighter losses - but I base that upon the two studies I cited in Post#5, and you have doubts about the reliability of those studies. You are the Armor Professional; I lack the professional training and experience you have in armour, and I have no clear sources to prove otherwise in this particular case.
2. You're certainly right about the danger of the moving element being cut off from the covering element by artillery- or aerial-delivered mines. No argument there.
3. Not much of an argument there, either, although if the 3-tank "platoon" and its 11-tank "company" are used as what they really are, a "Section" and a "Platoon" respectively, I suspect that such losses may not necessarily be as grievous as they would be if the 3-tank "platoon" and 11-tank "company" are really employed as just that, platoon and company, respectively. That said, it's one thing for a seasoned, senior sergeant to command a section of 3tanks, quite another for a young, new Lt to commence his armour career commanding 10 or 11 tanks when he's not even fully the master of his own tank and crew yet. 'Nuff said there.
4. Company Team Tactics. There's still a difference here, because in US doctrine, the Company Team is made up of 1-3 platoons of either mech inf or armour, and an inverse proportion of the other. In Commonwealth doctrine, it's a little more involved; a Combat Team may be organized just like as US Company Team, or it may be a full mech inf company anda fulltank squadron, with the infantry company commander commanding the Combat Team in close terrain, etc., and the tank squadron commander commanding the Combat Team in open terrain, etc, the company and squadron commanders switching between overall command of the Combat Team as circumstances require. Also, we still use 19-tank squadrons (4 tanks per troop, 4 troops per squadron, plus 3 tanks in squadron HQ (for Sqn OC, Sqn 2i/c, and Sqn Battle Captain - mech inf coy in Strykers similar). So rather than break up the Tank Squadron and the Mech Infantry Company and cross-attach, we'll just pair them together, less fuss and muss, and a bigger hammer.
When I was in the RCR, the approved basic tactical manoeuvre unit was the Combat Team, with a Mechanized Infantry Company paired with an Armoured Squadron, not that we couldn't or didn't cross-attached platoons between companies, we just preferred to attack an enemy position with both pure (more or less) - more speed and suppression, less disorganization, and everyone knew their place, their role: no confusion. Besides, what enemy platoon likes to be surrounded by a rifle company and a tank squadron? So for a US Company Team, the 3-tank platoon would have a BIG impact; for a Commonwealth Army Combat Team, the impact would be different.
5. I think (4) more or less covers the same ground as what you point out in #3. and #4.
I strongly suspect that your're right zraver, the 3-tank platoon, 10-11-tank company compromises the most powerful single weapon of the tank, speed. And without speed, armour operations aren't much better than foot-infantry operations over open ground. I can't say that I'm totally convinced that the 3-tank platoon is without merit, but, as you point out, the Israelis aren't exactly facing the first team in the Middle East, and the armies that do use the 3-tank platoon (except Brits) are conscript armies seeking simplification at every level for short-service concripts who just don't have the time to learn everything that long-service professionals can.
I guess the 3-tank platoon, 11-tank company is great for what it's designed for: defensive operations against hordes of mediocrely or poorly-trained Soviet-inspired tank formations. Not necessarily applicable to professional, Western armour formations. It's especially interesting that the Germans have given up their dalliance with the 3-tank platoon and moved back to the 4-tank platoon. I would like to know why (just as I'd like to know why the Brits went to a 3-tank platoon).
Good response zraver. Now I'll just crawl away to the nearest aid station and tend to these gaping wounds...
Last edited: