advocate | 23 Jun 2014 2:27 a.m. PST |
How far apart would the vehicles in a 3-5 tank platoon operate? Lets assume the tanks are advancing, not in a static defence, and 'average' terrain – not urban or bocage, but not Russian steppes either. |
MajorB | 23 Jun 2014 2:31 a.m. PST |
I'd guess about 100yds apart. |
Winston Smith | 23 Jun 2014 2:54 a.m. PST |
Considering the ground to model scale in most WW2 rules, 100 yards separation is about
hub to hub. |
olicana | 23 Jun 2014 5:33 a.m. PST |
In the desert the distance was supposed to be 100 – 150 yards because of the effect of air attack. However, even here, in the 'absence of terrain', they tended to bunch. I'd say it was more like 25 – 50 yards under battle conditions. Remember, in a tank, you are less worried by HE fire 'blast radius' than direct AT fire; because AT fire is point to point spacing makes little difference to the aimer. |
advocate | 23 Jun 2014 5:46 a.m. PST |
Winston, I actually have in mind Chain of Command, which has a 1:120 ground scale, and as I have 15mm figures, it's rather close to a proper 1:1 scale. So no, I won't be putting tanks down hub to hub. Probably looking at a 3 metre frontage if I wanted to field a platoon of vehicles then. |
Lewisgunner | 23 Jun 2014 5:54 a.m. PST |
I think it is more important that visual contact is maintained and the terrain dictates that. If you are in steppes or desert then you can have a separation up to 100 yards, but if the terrain is closer then you'd need to be that much nearer to maintain visibility within the tactical sub unit. |
Martin Rapier | 23 Jun 2014 6:00 a.m. PST |
The prescribed assault formation for 1939-41 era panzer regiments was 50m between vehicles, 125m (iirc) between waves. The tactical manual for Tiger crews describes dispersion up to 400m between vehicles, but more commonly 100m. So it is really very variable, however anything closer than 50m is extremely vulnerable to AT fire as the range to one is essentially the same as the range to others , so an enemy gunner who hits one can hit all the others as fast as the loader can load. |
boy wundyr x | 23 Jun 2014 7:12 a.m. PST |
Interesting discussion – so for 6mm at approximately true ground-scale, that'd be 6" between tanks in "terrain", 12" in open terrain, about 15" between waves. |
Rrobbyrobot | 23 Jun 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
I would say the two most important things to consider regarding your question are the nature of the terrain. And just how are the tanks in your platoon are communicating. During WW2, and even much later, tank commanders within a platoon want to be able to see at least the tank on each side of theirs. The Platoon Leader needs to be able to see the whole platoon. An important consideration if the platoon are operating without radios. And this holds true even if they are equipped with radios as many forces operated with 'radio silence' in effect. Is that tanks in a platoon need to be able to see the Platoon Leader's tank to receive orders using flags or hand and arm signals. The above was true for me as a tanker in the '80s
|
Jcfrog | 23 Jun 2014 7:41 a.m. PST |
Welcome to the empty battlefield. of 20-21st century. Absolutely not what we see on tables,which most often look like a messy 18century close order. messy because another thing that is missing with armour: formations? which links to the question, it will be very unlikely, in non desert (even then, with dust etc), a platoon commander ( of 4-5)and certainly a squadron commander will see all his toys. hence the other need for formation, if you see a part you have a pretty good idea where the others are, or should be. Also a tanker in the 80s ;) |
GR C17 | 23 Jun 2014 8:04 a.m. PST |
Great info. How and when would infantry support be dispersed in those situations? |
Legion 4 | 23 Jun 2014 8:45 a.m. PST |
As noted it would depend on terrain
But you have to balance seeing the others in your unit/providing support with staying dispersed
Former Mech Cdr routinely attached to Armor Units
Now being a former Grunt, and starting out as an LT of a Rifle Plt in the 101, Infantry support would be dispersed, again, based on the terrain and situation. That would cover both mounted or dismounted. Again you need to be able to see/have a general idea where the tanks are. But in many cases you don't want to be too close, because MBTs are big targets [much bigger than your APC , if you are Mech]
But in urban terrain, you may want to be behind them, as they provide cover from SA, etc. if you are dismounted. We've also rode on the back deck of MBTs, for transport, like in the 101. But just like with riding in an APC. You want to jump off/exit near the closes covered and concealed position near the OBJ. So the short answer is you want to stay dispersed in most situations. As a Grunt knows he is a target for many various objects flying through out the battlefield. Good fieldcraft requires you to be covered and concealed in almost most cases
and use fire & movement
|
olicana | 23 Jun 2014 9:07 a.m. PST |
However, even here, in the 'absence of terrain', they tended to bunch. The above is a picture of German tanks knocked out during one of the Crusader Battles 1941. I reckon that's under 50m between vehicles. The British officer is looking to see if there is a German in the makeshift tent. |
donlowry | 23 Jun 2014 9:29 a.m. PST |
You don't normally pitch a tent during an advance or a battle. Caught napping? |
Legion 4 | 23 Jun 2014 9:42 a.m. PST |
Bunching up is a "human" tendency
hence you will frequently hear all levels of leadership repeatedly saying, things like
"
hold your intervals !" , "
spread out" !, "
stay dispersed !", "You want one grenade to take you all out !?!", etc., etc.
|
Jcfrog | 23 Jun 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
In case of inf-armour cooperation, another important thing is for the armour to know where the infantry is (again relative positions and formations, not a haphazard thing) to
not run them over . Tanks if buttoned up (and even when not---they hear not a lot) don't see much esp behind and sideways. That is why there is little chance of achieving much if they don't train together and follow doctrine/ procedure. In truth when we play napoleonics, we try to follow national org / formations and even some doctrine, but when WW2/ nothing of this. But is is just as important in simulation. Modern ( esp 120mm+) tanks would have the additional pb with dismounts, that no one should be within a 20+ m from them when they fire main armament, a bit like AA crews have to get inside when 406mm are fired in battleships: concussion. |
GR C17 | 23 Jun 2014 10:01 a.m. PST |
Thanks Legion 4. As much art as science it would seem. |
Legion 4 | 23 Jun 2014 10:20 a.m. PST |
In case of inf-armour cooperation, another important thing is for the armour to know where the infantry is (again relative positions and formations, not a haphazard thing) to
not run them over . You got that right
especially at night
And yes, don't go any where near the business end of an MBT's main gun. I've even seen an M1IP's front end of it's 105mm barrel crack off during firing and go flying across the area. The barrel had fired almost 4000 rds and was due to be replaced. We were safe in a bunker, thankfully
|
Legion 4 | 23 Jun 2014 10:23 a.m. PST |
GR C17 As much art as science it would seem.
Yes, very much so
we were told that from way back when I was an ROTC cadet
|
nickinsomerset | 23 Jun 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
GGR C17, have you seen the Troop Platoon tactics video, dated but it gives a good idea of how things were meant to work, Tally Ho! |
GR C17 | 23 Jun 2014 11:37 a.m. PST |
Nick, I've not. But will look for it, thanks. |
Andy ONeill | 23 Jun 2014 11:47 a.m. PST |
Just because dead tanks are close to one another, doesn't mean to say they were driving that close when active. Shoot one, it brews. A minute later another drives past. Shoot that. Bit odd how they're driving in different directions. |
Ron W DuBray | 23 Jun 2014 11:55 a.m. PST |
The photo looks like a over run repair/ maintenance yard |
Ditto Tango 2 9 Echo | 24 Jun 2014 3:57 a.m. PST |
"because AT fire is point to point spacing makes little difference to the aimer." Hello Olicana, It actually makes a very, very big difference; the closer targets are, the much easier they are to hit once you get the range of one of them. Consequences are disastrous which is why tanks must keep spacing. You also do NOT want to drive close to a knocked out tank unless it is impossible not to do so. If you have to, "you're gonna have a bad time" * * * * Some Guy whose name is really not Debbie |
advocate | 24 Jun 2014 5:31 a.m. PST |
Thanks for all the comments guys. Hopefully I can use it to inform my games from now on. |
Legion 4 | 24 Jun 2014 7:23 a.m. PST |
You also do NOT want to drive close to a knocked out tank unless it is impossible not to do so. If you have to, "you're gonna have a bad time"
Unless you want to use it for cover
AFVs can use other AFVs(KO'd) for cover, going hulldown, etc.
Of course if it burning and exploding, you may want to wait
Again
proper use of cover and concealment + fieldcraft[dispersion, etc.]
If you can be seen you can be hit
if you can be hit
you can be killed
Whether an AFV, Grunt, etc. you want to put something very solid(cover) between you and enemy fire. And BTW, a .50 cal will chew up a cinder block brick like cheese on cheese grater
|
olicana | 24 Jun 2014 9:54 a.m. PST |
"because AT fire is point to point spacing makes little difference to the aimer."Hello Olicana, It actually makes a very, very big difference; the closer targets are, the much easier they are to hit once you get the range of one of them. Consequences are disastrous which is why tanks must keep spacing. When the ranges are going to be 100m or less the spacing is not going to make much difference for range finding. Also, most AP kills were at ranges less than 1000m (half that early war). There is very little range finding required Vs a 10 foot high target at that range. The photo looks like a over run repair/ maintenance yard Nope, that is a picture of a line halted by AT fire. Tank formations were frequently reduced to remnants in a matter of a few minutes. In 7th Armoured Brigade's first few days of Operation Crusader it was reduced from 168 tanks to 28 in just a cuple of sharp actions. On 22nd armoured Brigade's first day it lost a third of its 150 tanks in less than two hours. As for not going near knocked out tanks, that assumes there is somewhere else to go to find better cover or restricted sight lines. Most of the escarpment on which most of the desert actions took place is dead flat and coverless – it's why infantry couldn't attack without tank or very heavy artillery support – it was like crossing an enormous football pitch – look at the photo, dead flat and coverless. As a by product of the lack of terrain (rivers, roads, woods, towns, etc.) there were no secure flanks in the desert. The enemy frequently came out of nowhere – sometime from the direction you came. That is why a lot of pictures showing knocked out tanks shows them facing in all directions. They also get shot at whilst retreating. |
Ditto Tango 2 9 Echo | 24 Jun 2014 10:01 a.m. PST |
"Also, most AP kills were at ranges less than 1000m (half that early war). There is very little range finding required Vs a 10 foot high target at that range." "As for not going near knocked out tanks, that assumes there is somewhere else to go to find better cover or restricted sight lines." Oh my goodness, who on earth told you such things? * * * * Some Guy whose name is really not Debbie |
olicana | 24 Jun 2014 10:07 a.m. PST |
Books, history, and Eric my tank driving friend. |
Legion 4 | 24 Jun 2014 11:06 a.m. PST |
Yes, Infantry or AFVs taking cover behind cold KO'd AFVs may not be one's first choice, as noted if there is a better option. But in some cases there is not
as I said, you want to put something very solid(cover) between you and enemy fire. |
Ditto Tango 2 9 Echo | 24 Jun 2014 11:22 a.m. PST |
Olicana, with all due respect to both you and your friend, I have to say this: If Eric is not gunner qualified, then his advice is not valid for gunnery. If he is gunnery qualified, then if he has had the opportunity to fire not sabot, but HEP – HESH over there – without a laser range and without the fire control computer he will realize "no ranging at 100m or less" is completely wrong. MBTs like the Challenger will have secondary sights that are meant to be used when fire control systems are wonky. Again, respectfully, your assumptions are quite invalid for both WWII and for a non-computer assisted shoot with a round that is not classified as hyper velocity. Books and veteran accounts will all indicate that range estimation was such an absolutely vital skill to master by tank commanders of all combatants. It's why defenders, both ATGs and tanks, in a prepared position were so much more accurate with their fire than attackers. All the best, * * * * Some Guy whose name is really not Debbie PS, love the picture you posted thanks, I don't recall ever seeing it before. |
Legion 4 | 24 Jun 2014 11:25 a.m. PST |
Deb, I take it you were a Tank Gunner ? Just asking, as I said, I was a Grunt and didn't spend much time in an MBT turret
|
Ditto Tango 2 9 Echo | 24 Jun 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
I was very qualified and a TC, an ossifer in fact (everyone hates ossifers). Rifled barrels. I'm not Deb, I'm some guy. Tanks space out today and then precisely to avoid being in the same view in the bad guy's sight when he pops one of your tangos. They avoid driving past a dead pal for precisely the same reason nowadays and back then because the bad guy had the range and is probably watching the dead guy's mates as they trundle about. Range Estimation was vital then and considered vital when I was in decades ago. * * * * Some Guy whose name is really not Debbie (cue "I'm not Lisa" – some country song from the 70s) |
Legion 4 | 24 Jun 2014 11:37 a.m. PST |
I was an "ossifer" too
|
Lion in the Stars | 24 Jun 2014 11:38 a.m. PST |
Winston, I actually have in mind Chain of Command, which has a 1:120 ground scale, and as I have 15mm figures, it's rather close to a proper 1:1 scale. So no, I won't be putting tanks down hub to hub.Probably looking at a 3 metre frontage if I wanted to field a platoon of vehicles then. Depends on your terrain. As mentioned by the former tankers, gotta stay within line of sight. You're going to be a lot closer together in Bocage than you will be in the desert. I'm honestly surprised that Chain of Command has a 1"=10ft groundscale. I'm much more used to a roughly 1"=10m or 12"=100 yards groundscale, and I kinda wonder how much of a battlefield you can play on a 480foot by 720ft table (160 yards by 240 yards). 240 yards is within rifle range, and you're getting within mortar minimum ranges. Heck, at that groundscale, individual hand grenades have a significant blast radius! |
Ditto Tango 2 9 Echo | 24 Jun 2014 11:42 a.m. PST |
Oh Legion 4, what you mentioned in what we used to call FIBUA is bang on. We still tried to maintain at least distance space when snaking through urban environments (Germany) or going down a road in a heavy woods. * * * * Some Guy whose name is really not Debbie (cue "I'm not Lisa" – some country song from the 70s) |
nickinsomerset | 24 Jun 2014 3:04 p.m. PST |
The photo does look very much like an admin area. Of course the clever Germans may have invented a tent that erects itself or a German crew of British decent who decided to pitch a tent and have a brew in the middle of the scrap! Tally Ho! |
Jemima Fawr | 24 Jun 2014 4:45 p.m. PST |
Is it possible that the tent was erected by bailed out crew after the battle had moved on? |
Martin Rapier | 25 Jun 2014 4:27 a.m. PST |
That is a zeltbahn shelter, usually assembled from the zelts carried by four men and sleeping two at a time. Hard to say if it was erected at the same time as being surrounded by burning tanks! I am sure we can all dig up photos of tanks very close together (some of the assembly area shots before Goodwood are just traffic jams of nose-tail vehicles) and others where they are more spread out. I like these Crusaders doing turret down:
whereas these Mark IIIs are bit more dispersed:
as are these knocked out Valentines
the problem is that lots of photos show march or pre-contact formations so are are quite bunched. Look how close the infantry are standing together here! They wouldn't be doing that if someone was shooting at them.
|
Lion in the Stars | 25 Jun 2014 9:09 a.m. PST |
Even if those Pz3s and Valentines are at a 100m dispersal, that's generally less than 10" center to center! I've seen some vehicle-centered rules that use 1"=100yds, and a 'proper' 100m space between vehicles would have 1/300 scale tanks nearly hub-to-hub. And hell, I've done the telescoping range math for Flames of War often enough, 4" is Pistol/SMG range, so 4" center to center is about 50m. Those Crusaders look to be 2-4 tank lengths apart, and a Crusader is 6m long. So that's 12-24 meters separation. |
olicana | 25 Jun 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
As WW2 AT guns used stadiametric sights, I can't see how knowing the range of a previous target would help all that much unless you just had your barrel trained on that point all of the time. I've always thought that stadiametric range finding was all to do with knowing target size within the the hair lines of the sights. |
donlowry | 25 Jun 2014 9:27 a.m. PST |
Pistol range is more like 25yards. |
Ditto Tango 2 9 Echo | 25 Jun 2014 10:58 a.m. PST |
Hi Olicana, Yes, we specifically called that the "mil formula" though I seem to recall we used target width. It's very effective for range estimation, but you still have to take a bit of effort to line up the marks in the sight with the target. That can be very iffy, though the result is better than just pointing and firing with no idea of the range. Nonetheless, it's still range estimation. It also takes longer, largely because of the above operation, but it's a good way to do it when you are buttoned up – estimating ranges from a periscope, because you've got to be really experienced to effectively estimate range from a gun sight. BUT
see my following remarks. You can't do the calculation in your head very well – we used to tape a small piece of paper onto the commander's sight (easier for the commander to do this in our vehicles) with two or three target shapes and then columns with mils (hashmarks) across the top then the calculated range below the hashmark numbers and across from the shape. In addition to figuring out how many hash marks (lines or little circles) the target covers, there's also the attitude (no, not in an Eddie Murphy vice saying "HEY YOU ->bleep<- FOR BRAINS YOU WILL NOT DARE TO AIM YOUR GUN AT ME, YOU ->bleep<-!", but how it's canted), how much is obscured by grass, is it hull down – if you have dimensions for the turret, then which way it the turret pointing – and, very importantly in the sun (it's worse and sometimes blinding with clear white snow), HAZE makes the target harder to define (as does camo and leaves) and GLARE off the surfaces makes things a but difficult to judge as well. It's not something I'd want to use in the heat of combat – perhaps in a defensive position where we are hidden and have not had the time to make range cards. But if you are advancing – in my humble opinion, forget it. You need to learn how to estimate range and practice it at all opportunities. Another thing to take into account – when I was blapping rounds down range, field of view and magnification definitely, and probably, I would guess, clarity of view and reticule had increased from WWII. I really don't think unassisted gunnery became less effective in the 70s and 80s than it was in WWII. :0 :) Closeness of targets at ANY range (except for very short range) made a huge difference for the above reasons. Once again, it's the reason why spacing is very important. All the best, * * * * Some Guy whose name is really not Debbie I really need to change my moniker. I don't understand all those tools out there on the internet who set up their name to reflect an opposite sex – you've got to be really warped if you don't feel a bit of discomfort with folks trying to be nice and using your opposite sex pseudonym
|
Legion 4 | 25 Jun 2014 11:50 a.m. PST |
Yes, Some Guy/Deb D, we called it MOUT. And I remember columns of MBTs, APCs etc. snaking thru those small German towns and villages
Just like moving dismounted, Infantry like MBTs/APCs again have to try to balance maintaining tactical spacing/intervals/dispersion and maintaining visual contact in most cases. After being deployed to Panama The CZ, CA, 3 times with the 101. It comes down to, being in thick jungle or [even an old forest in Germany, the US, etc.] your interval closes up to a few feet sometimes. I always attempted to avoid a break in contact especially moving at night dismounted. And we practice and have many SOPs to limit or prevent that. The same can be said about moving in PCs
My experience, having Commanded a Mech Company in the open desert. You can have a good interval between PCs moving in a a column or a lateral formation. As long as you can see the other vehicles of your Plt/Co. At night you still close up a bit especially when you set up an NDP. To provide mutual support, intelocking FOF, etc.
And even Mech Infantry IMO, does it's best work at night dismounted
at least that's the way I did it if given the chance
|
Lion in the Stars | 25 Jun 2014 2:41 p.m. PST |
Pistol range is more like 25yards I certainly can't hit squat with a pistol beyond 25 feet, but I was instructed that the effective range for a Beretta 9mm pistol was 50m. And effective range for SMGs is definitely 50+m. |
ScoutJock | 25 Jun 2014 6:04 p.m. PST |
Hub to hub is actually quite realistic. Everybody knows tread heads hate to get their boots muddy. |
williamtheconker | 01 Jul 2014 10:29 a.m. PST |
In the 70's we used a ranging machine gun (.50 ) the gunner would be pointed at the target by the comander and then the gunner would go through a set sequence on his sights, firing at cetain intervals until he had a strike on target, then he'd switch to firing the main gun, even then it wasn't perfect, the point i'm long windedly trying to make is that when we hit the target the gunner would try and remember his 'sight picture' anything would do, even a scratch on the sight and then he'd put the same sight picture on the next close (hopefully) target that was by the one he'd destroyed and hope for a first round hit could be very 'hit and miss' (sorry!)but a good gunner could get some very good results, especially with SABOT.The idea being if the Roosians came at us in packed formation we'd get a few, before being rolled over!! my two bits. |
UshCha | 01 Jul 2014 11:47 p.m. PST |
Even todat tanks in defence (US field manuals) surrest that minimum spacing for alternate possitions is 50yds and field trials indicate survivaility is enhanced at 75 yds. The issues here arethat at less than about 50 yds a second target is a "correction" and is equivalent to in World war II as the second shot which was typicaly a very high proability of a hit. At 50 yds you obscure both position if a smoke projector was used as uou re deployed. Its the one rule in hind sighrt we missed out of MG, second shot bonus immediately for new target within 40m of previous one. For combined arms we use 1mm to 1m ground scale and 1:144 scalew models, which gives 50mm spacing. At that scale if not in a super flat desert even this can be difficult to achieve in the presence of complex terrain like hedges. ditches houses etc. |
nickinsomerset | 06 Jul 2014 8:56 a.m. PST |
In relation to this quandary is there not an argument to use a single vehicle to represent a Troop/Platoon rather than 3-5 individual vehicles that move around the table "hub to hub" in a straight line? Tally Ho! |
UshCha | 07 Jul 2014 11:46 p.m. PST |
Nicksomerset, You could use a single vehicle on a plate 150 yds wide in attack (assuming line abrest) and potentailly 450m wide in defence if in line abrest with alternate positions. Then there is bounding overwatch where the tanks could be up to 400yds apart say 1 or 2 watching while 1 or 2 move to the next position. How would you denote road moves at 10 vehicals per mile to avoid damage in air strikes? Ther appears to be little logic applied in games that assume 1 tank is a platoon and so are a long way from plausible, at least from the games I have looked at. |