"Tactical role of US light tank companies" Topic

Inspired by the recent discussion on the use of M5 Stuarts by the British, and the upcoming PSC M5 Stuart tank kits, I would like to request for some info on the use of the US light tank companies.

In the late WWII, US tank battalion consisted of a headquarters/support company, three medium tank companies and one light tank company. However, the discussions here usually concentrate on the medium tank companies, with the light companies getting little attention.

What did the contemporary tactical manuals state as the role of the light company, and how well did they manage to fulfill these roles? I would presume that it might have had something to do with the traditional light cavalry roles like reconnaissance, screening and flank security.

Also, are there any interesting memoirs from men who served in these light tank companies?

Scouting. "Go up that road until you get shot at then report back."

I think you can also add in there infantry support as well as recon, screening, flank duty, etc.

Damon.

Griefbringer, you might want to take a look at Osprey's Elite 129, WWII US Cavalry Groups- European Theatre. It is really well done and discusses the roles , tactics and organization of theatre recon units. It may have you searching for some M-8's,M-20's and more jeeps to go with those tanks! Highly recommended!

Tom

"Rolling Thunder Against the Rising Sun" details the operation of light tanks ( Stuarts) in the early part of the War in the Pacific.

Given the comments of unit commanders from ETO, they didn't really know what to do with the light tank company.

It was considered too heavy for recon. A tank creates too much noise, and the crew's observational abilities are very limited while underway. The M8 armored car, for whatever else it's faults were, was noted for being a very quiet vehicle. This was a valued feature for recon.

It was considered too light for combat. Even in infantry support roles it was considered too light … at risk from auto cannon fire or HE rounds, with a gun that did not provide a particularly useful HE punch. It was a double loser in combat against AT guns … too light to survive even glancing blows, without enough gunpower to effectively engage a dug-in AT gun if it did survive long enough to spot its adversary.

And it was certainly too light for combat vs. armored vehicles.

Comments from the field commanders in ETO in the fall of 1944 and winter of 1944/45 mention several times the desire to lose the light tank company, and to have more 105mm Sherman assault guns.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Yep, pretty much everything you've mentioned.

In Flames of War, their role is to burst through a solid line of hub to hub Panthers that failed their Stormtrooper roll and shoot them in the ass.
That's the main reason I buy them.

I once used an M5 Stuart to KO a Tiger in a game of Battleground. It was one of those moments where you pop around a corner and see the back of a tank. Fire your gun and change your pants.

It was a lucky roll of the dice, but I tracked the tank, making it a stationary pillbox that was then assaulted by infantry to take it out.

Now mow John I thought your Doctor had told you to stop doing that………

In Flames of War, their role is to burst through a solid line of hub to hub Panthers that failed their Stormtrooper roll and shoot them in the ass.

No, in Flames of War the Stuies exist to slaughter infantry. ROF 3 main gun, plus co-ax, hull and .50cal AAMG = 6 dice. (Yes, I know it's not really supposed to work that way)

Griefbringer, you might want to take a look at Osprey's Elite 129, WWII US Cavalry Groups- European Theatre.

For clarification, I was mainly thinking about the light tank companies in tank battalions, not about the light tank companies in cavalry units. I would presume that the two were intended to be used in different fashion (even though organised the same).

"…with a gun that did not provide a particularly useful HE punch."

The canister round for the 37mm was very effective vs. infantry and there are a number of accounts of canister fire from Stuarts in support of infantry being credited with stopping German infantry attacks.

If I didn't know John better, I'd think he was thumbing his nose at the anti-FoW crowd with that post.

The canister round for the 37mm was very effective vs. infantry and there are a number of accounts of canister fire from Stuarts in support of infantry being credited with stopping German infantry attacks.

The canister round was very effective vs. infantry -- against dismounted infantry in close formation in the open. It was almost useless against infantry in improved positions.

The circumstances of German infantry advancing in dense formations in the open were not frequent enough to warrant equipping every US tank battalion with 17 tanks just to fire this particular round. And … a 75mm HE shot into the middle of a formation of advancing troops was pretty effective too!

The 37mm was not a bad gun … for a 37mm gun. US Army Ordnance provided a useful array of ammunition types. But a 37mm gun, in terms of weight of projectile, is little more than a grenade launcher. The infantry's 2.36in bazooka provided a more useful punch at the receiving end.

The French R35 in 1940 had about as much cannon firepower as a Stuart in 1944.

ROF 3 main gun, plus co-ax, hull and .50cal AAMG = 6 dice.

Does FoW really rate the Stuart that way? Just another reason to dismiss those rules as goofey non-sense.

If I may be so bold so as to suggest … my own personal experience in the TC's seat in an M5 Stuart tells me that you can't shoot both turret guns for any period of time in any one engagement. It is a 2-man turret. The commander is also the loader. Serving that 37mm gun to achieve that high ROF means that the commander is not doing anything else … not spotting for targets or threats, not issuing or responding to platoon and company orders, and most certainly not reloading and clearing jams of the co-ax.

Oh, and the M5 Stuart DOESN'T HAVE a .50 cal. Anywhere. At any time. Nope. Not there. Not issued, not supplied, not supported.

Those that did mount an AAMG mounted a further .30cal M1919, not a .50cal. But it was not very popular to keep it mounted, as it could only be fired to the side rear quarter by a crewman in a hatch … to fire it forward required someone standing exposed on the rear engine deck. So not very popular in ground combat, and so light of a caliber that it was pretty much entirely useless IF someone did try to shoot it at a plane.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Oh, and the M5 Stuart DOESN'T HAVE a .50 cal. Anywhere. At any time. Nope. Not there. Not issued, not supplied, not supported.

While I agree with this statement for the most part, .50 cals were sometimes scrounged and mounted. Squadron's Stuart in Action shows one such mounted on an M5A1 on pg 37. So while certainly I agree that I would never use that to justify it's inclusion in anything but a scenario game, I also wouldn't say never, ever either… :)

Damon.

Well, I found the 1942 Field Manual for employment of tank battalions:

PDF link

the only reference to light tank companies are the numerous references like "deploy tanks (preferably medium) to do X…"

So in this case it looks like the light tank companies (as opposed to recce platoons which do have a specific role) are just treated like tanks – which for the infantrymen, gunners, clerks and supply troops faced with the big armoured bullet spitting monster is probably fair enough.

The manual itself seems to date from the period when light and medium tanks were held in separate battalions.