What's the story of the soviet tank platoon size?

[The_MonkeyKing]

I am wondering why am I seeing three tank platoons and also four tank platoons in many places and times? (Soviets/Russians)

[The_Capt]

Tank platoons in MRRs - 4 tanks. In TRs - 3 tanks:

Now why they did this is a good question that someone explained to me a long time ago but I cannot recall.  so for now:

"However, there was a distinction made between Tank Companies/Tank Battalions in the Motorized Rifle Regiments and those in Tank Regiments. Companies in the Tank Regiments fielded platoons of 3 tanks for a total of 10 tanks per company. Each company was typically supported by a platoon of Motorized Rifles from the Regiment-level. They were also the battalions to field the newer T-80/T-72/T-64 tanks (featuring 3-man crews), although the older T-62/T-55/T-54 were collectively more common. This was especially true for low-readiness units and units in military districts that didn't border NATO. Meanwhile, companies in Motorized Rifle Regiments fielded platoons of 4 tanks each for a total of 13 tanks per company, and also more commonly fielded the older T-62/T-55/T-54 tanks (featuring 4-man crews due to the lack of an autoloader). They differed from the Tank Regiments, in that these Tank Companies would be attached to Motorized Rifle Battalions rather than the other way around in support of the infantry.

 

This is likely part of the reason why these Tank Companies had 4 tanks, as 4 tanks can be more readily split into 2 even sections of 2 tanks each when deployed with infantry. Meanwhile, 3-tank platoons (and odd-numbered platoons in general) were more suitable for tank combat and mutual support, as well as allowing for the mobilization of more battalions by reducing the total number of tanks required."

https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-tanks-1980s

From memory it had to do with supported vs supporting roles and old doctrine on tank types.

 

[The_Capt]

Ah, ok I think I recall it now (a zipperhead is welcome to come in and correct)

TB platoons were designed to fight within the company so internal fire and movement would be coordinated between platoons, by design.  In short in the TRs and TBs these tanks were never designed to fight apart (i.e. Supported).

In the MRRs, the TB there would be broken up to support Infantry Bns and as such had to fight more distributed.  So the logic of the 4 tank platoon was to give the platoon and integral ability to do fire and movement on its own, which it would be expecting as there would be a company spread out across an entire MRB (i.e. Supporting).

[BeondTheGrave]

I wonder how much of it deals with command and control issues. Didnt the Soviets had problems training good officers and NCOs? 

Not that I've ever done it (except in CM lol) but I would think a 3 tank platoon as one maneuver element would be easier to control than two 2 tank elements. That would potentially help with training. Save the smarter leaders for the more complicated units. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by BeondTheGrave

[domfluff]

Aside from what The_Capt says above, there's also a mathematical reason why three tanks would be preferred for a platoon. The reason usually given is that three tanks are more efficient, because there will be less chance of two tanks targeting the same target at the same time (and therefore wasting shots).

One example of this kind of testing:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA395368.pdf

Where the three tank platoons were demonstrated to be more survivable, and of about equal effectiveness, despite their smaller numbers, although the conclusions were concerned with the noisy data.

Since the three tank platoons are supposed to be used as a single unit, on-line, it doesn't really make a ton of sense to go to four or five, in the Soviet context, where there is always going to be another unit available to support a move.

In the NATO context, this situation is reversed - the combined arms company is supposed to be able to fight independently (and possibly overrun), so it's very important that a tank platoon can operate without the requirement for external help - that means splitting into two groups (either 2/2 or 2/3) is much more important in that context.

So yes, mainline tank platoons were 3 tanks, because the minimum unit you'd engage with would be a tank company (and more realistically larger than that). The tank platoons that were supporting formations like the Forward Security Element would have to operate in a more flexible fashion, so four-tank platoons would make more sense.
 

[domfluff]

31 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

I wonder how much of it deals with command and control issues. Didnt the Soviets had problems training good officers and NCOs? 

General rule of thumb: Soviet training tended to be good, but only at perhaps one specific thing at once. Command and control was heavily centralised, so the top level was very sophisticated, and the lower levels necessarily simple.

That tends to mean that if you can control the operational tempo and structure of the engagement, Soviet tactics can be very effective. This will mean that the questions asked of the commander of a Soviet tank platoon are necessarily simpler than that of their NATO equivalent - they just aren't given as much to do.

[Redwolf]

To me platoon size (and the directly resulting squad size in infantry) reflects how robust the platoon is supposed to be.

How much of how heavy fire is a platoon supposed to take before it has to be replaced by the next platoon?
 

If you are part of a larger tank unit then there are more tank platoons readily available, whereas if you are part of a (motorized) infantry unit there are not.

The US always goes for robust platoons (in armor and infantry) because they want the more stable force structure for better planning stability. A platoon right now should still be a platoon 10 minutes from now, even if it is (somewhat) depleted.

[Halmbarte]

The way I internalize it is that the 4 tank platoons are designed to be split into pairs for mutual support. The 3 tank platoons are intended to be used together as part of a tank company. 

Where I'd send a pair of western tanks I'll send a 3 tank platoon of Soviet tanks. Same general principals apply but the level you're operating at is different. The Soviet 4 tank platoons can be split down into pairs for supporting mech infantry companies. 

 

H

[The_MonkeyKing]

Interesting indeed. Comprehensive explanation!

[BeondTheGrave]

Just found an interesting doc from DePuy about US tank platoon organization. No huge revelations but a little extra light perhaps.

Quote

Both the Germans and Israelis have three tank platoons instead of five. They believe that a platoon of five is too cumbersome and that only officers can command effectively on the fast moving battlefield. In short, they think we should drop out the two-tank light section in each platoon commanded by the platoon sergeant. They are both fighting in their own backyard and can replace faster. Incidentally, we have one officer for five tanks and they have one for three. This means we could create three tank battalions out of two of our currently larger battalions. This would be costly in officers at a time when we are cutting the number of officers overall.  Therefore, we are not recommending a change at this time. We will study the matter carefully and with emphasis on the best arrangement for the XM-1 tank.

-Depuy letter to Weyand, Feb 1976. 

An interesting if short description of the pros and cons. Interesting stuff. It also opens up the question why didnt the US move to a three tank platoon and I think that the line about the officers is important. Not only would that proliferate tank platoon commanders, but it would require incorporating those newly created platoons at higher levels too. If they use the leftover tank platoons to make new battalions, as Depuy suggested, that would increase the command burden of the brigade commander. Keeping the brigade stable and increasing brigades would put the burden on division commanders, etc. The Army had just come off a big post-Vietnam manpower cut and the majority of that in AREUR was from command staffs. Especially in brigade and higher echelons. So the idea of then proliferating command responsibilities at those levels would be tense, IMO, not to mention the ongoing AVF manpower crunch which would stymie efforts to recruit more officers in the Jr. Ranks. 

The Red Army, of course, didn't have those issues thanks to its more rigid conscription system. Reading all the other posts in this thread has convinced me that the 3/4 tank split they employed is actually pretty ingenious, but also something that really only Russia could pull off. 

[Bil Hardenberger]

The problem I see with three-tank platoons, is that you do not have the ability to separate into two-tank sections.  This is important and has important ramifications for bounding Overwatch, Fire and maneuver, etc.  I think the four-tank platoon hits the sweet spot... five is right out!

So to recap... "Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

While I dont know for sure, I would venture a guess that forces like the Bundeswehr would drill to do over watch by platoon rather than by section as you would see with the larger platoon size. This requires that at least platoons, but more likely the whole company, operate across a generally narrow frontage so they can remain mutually supporting. But at the company and battalion level this was already the case in both the US and FRG and so it doesn't seem (to me FWIW) to be that unreasonable an assumption. It seems to me that maneuver by section opens the light section up to some unpleasant 3 on 2 engagements whereas the 3 tank platoon concentrates greater power in the same move. Consider that a four tank platoon maneuvering would be outnumbered by two 3 tank (6 total) platoons. Because fair fights are for suckers and fools. 

Really though this seems like one of those things where the pros and cons always balance out. You can make strong cases for each platoon structure based on the factors which weight heaviest on your mind. Maybe its the robustness of the platoon, in which case 5 seems the right number. Or its speed and flexibility, in which case 3 is lighter and denser command wise. This, IMO, is why the Soviet design seems so clever. The downside to their platoon org, it seems to me, would be that the tanks from an MRB cant jump over easily to a TB and vice versa, at least without doing some kind of painful transitions. With the US Army this was not the case, and doctrine seems to suggest that the battalions were expected to be heavily task force'd with a lot of element swapping to tailor units for the mission. 

[MikeyD]

Ah, my 'Between Two Fahrbahns' scenario  uses tanks out of a motorized rifle regiment so fields four tanks per platoon. If I had gone with a pure tank regiment it would have been 3 per platoon and the fight would have looked somewhat different. I just looked in CMRT, no dedicated armor for  motorized rifles so no 4 tank platoons.

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

The problem I see with three-tank platoons, is that you do not have the ability to separate into two-tank sections.  This is important and has important ramifications for bounding Overwatch, Fire and maneuver, etc. 

For sure with a three tank platoon you are abandoning the idea that the platoon should be capable of its own independent fire and maneuver, and instead forcing the platoon to operate within the fire and maneuver capabilities of the company. Platoons bound within the company, but no subsections bound within the platoon. 

Having four tanks permits the platoon to conduct its own fire an maneuver, but only so long as it doesn't take any casualties. As soon as one tank is lost you are forced to operate as a single unsplitable three tank platoon. So perhaps a five tank platoon will give you the same fire an maneuver options as a four tank platoon, but with a greater ability to absorb casualties. I suppose a six tank platoon is an option, which could break down into two three tank sections, but at that point you might as well just go back to three tank platoons which rely on the fire and maneuver capabilities of the company.

The optimal tank platoon organization is turning out to be an interesting discussion. Have there been studies conducted on this? I know there were studies conducted in the 50's and 60's on the optimal infantry squad organization. So it would make sense if they did something similar for tank platoon organization.

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Ah, my 'Between Two Fahrbahns' scenario  uses tanks out of a motorized rifle regiment so fields four tanks per platoon. If I had gone with a pure tank regiment it would have been 3 per platoon and the fight would have looked somewhat different. I just looked in CMRT, no dedicated armor for  motorized rifles so no 4 tank platoons.

Just won this as the Soviets and it was super fun.  You really do have to play it doctrinally, take the losses but secure the objective.  It was a blast!

[BeondTheGrave]

Between to Fahrbahns was the first scenario that I won and I did it as the Soviets, it felt really good. I had some fairly gnarly losses at the end, but I essentially pushed up to the NATO highway position and just stormed it with tanks then infantry. Fantastic Hollywood-style shootout. 

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

The optimal tank platoon organization is turning out to be an interesting discussion. Have there been studies conducted on this? I know there were studies conducted in the 50's and 60's on the optimal infantry squad organization. So it would make sense if they did something similar for tank platoon organization.

Having read some documents around tank platoon org I think its highly likely that a study was done, probably in conjunction with the XM-1 project. I know that the XM-1 program files are not digitized yet, theyre also not really open yet (though they should be!). However there could be copies or tests done with other orgs on DTIC. I havn't come across anything via TRADOC except general discussion of the problem.

[MikeyD]

The America military 'imagination', if I can put it that way, seems to be platoon-based. Most-all of our popular media is squads-and-platoons (including a movie named 'Platoon'). Because a platoon is a manageable size for Hollywood to represent onscreen. Companies, Divisions, Brigades and Corps are too unwieldy to do on film. The Russian military 'imagination' appears to be larger-scale. In their popular media a platoon is merely a cog in a much greater machine. The Russians don't expect their infantry or tank platoons to 'do everything', they expect them t do their assigned task and contribute to the greater effort.

[domfluff]

10 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

The optimal tank platoon organization is turning out to be an interesting discussion. Have there been studies conducted on this? I know there were studies conducted in the 50's and 60's on the optimal infantry squad organization. So it would make sense if they did something similar for tank platoon organization.

I linked one above...

[BeondTheGrave]

Totally forgot! And your 2001 study does include a historical bibliography. There are two relevant reports from the 70s. 

Three Tank Platoon versus Five tank Platoon. TRADOC Combined Arms Test Activity, Fort Hood TX, Nov 1976. [it was! a TRADOC study!]

A Dynamic Analysis of the Medium Tank Battalion. Center for Advanced Research, Naval War College, June 1978. [link]

Plus more studies from the 90s. Seems like the boys in green have really gone back and forth over this subject. 

I still think one might find another study in the XM-1 program files, but those are totally inaccessible right now. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by BeondTheGrave