Tank Platoon Leaders in Front or Behind?

[Simcoe]

I know I’ve seen this topic before but I couldn’t find it in a search.

do you leave the tank platoon leader in cover to transmit C2 or do you put them in the fight?

[MOS:96B2P]

18 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I know I’ve seen this topic before but I couldn’t find it in a search.

do you leave the tank platoon leader in cover to transmit C2 or do you put them in the fight?

I generally have tank platoon leaders in the fight.  However they are almost always buttoned up.   

[domfluff]

It absolutely depends on context.

Fundamentally: two tanks working as a pair are significantly better than two tanks individually. This concept is what everything else is based on.

5-tank platoons (e.g., WW2, US Cold War), they split into two teams of two, with the HQ tank floating between them. This means that the platoon has the option of remaining behind as a C2 link, or joining one pair or the other to make a set of three (more on that later).

4-tank platoons (e.g., Modern NATO, Soviet tank platoons in the mechanised infantry battalions) obviously split into two teams of two, so the HQ tank needs to be part of one of those teams. In the case of the British Sherman platoons in WW2, the command tank would be the Firefly with the 17pdr, so they would be brought up to deal with heavier armour. Having two teams of two maximises small unit flexibility, and allows the platoon to act independently of other tank platoons.

3-tank platoons (mostly Soviets and Russians, but also BAOR and the UK sometimes, as well as others) can't be split into two pairs. Three is mathematically the most efficient number - the theory goes that there's minimal wastage, since the chance of two tanks targeting the same enemy are lower, whereas larger platoons get diminishing returns with each additional tank. Because the three tank platoon can't be split down, the three act as one unit, and you're relying on a second platoon to do your fire and manoeuvre. That kind of thing suits the Soviet fires-first mentality well.

So in general, there's a good argument for keeping your HQ out of the fight, but that's not always desired in practice. The five tank platoons give you diminishing returns, and everyone's moved away from that concept over time, so the platoon HQ is intended to fight.

That's not necessarily true for the company HQ or higher, mind you.

[Simcoe]

30 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I generally have tank platoon leaders in the fight.  However they are almost always buttoned up.   

What is your thought process behind buttoning them up? Wouldn’t that cause issues with spotting?

[Simcoe]

29 minutes ago, domfluff said:

It absolutely depends on context.

Fundamentally: two tanks working as a pair are significantly better than two tanks individually. This concept is what everything else is based on.

5-tank platoons (e.g., WW2, US Cold War), they split into two teams of two, with the HQ tank floating between them. This means that the platoon has the option of remaining behind as a C2 link, or joining one pair or the other to make a set of three (more on that later).

4-tank platoons (e.g., Modern NATO, Soviet tank platoons in the mechanised infantry battalions) obviously split into two teams of two, so the HQ tank needs to be part of one of those teams. In the case of the British Sherman platoons in WW2, the command tank would be the Firefly with the 17pdr, so they would be brought up to deal with heavier armour. Having two teams of two maximises small unit flexibility, and allows the platoon to act independently of other tank platoons.

3-tank platoons (mostly Soviets and Russians, but also BAOR and the UK sometimes, as well as others) can't be split into two pairs. Three is mathematically the most efficient number - the theory goes that there's minimal wastage, since the chance of two tanks targeting the same enemy are lower, whereas larger platoons get diminishing returns with each additional tank. Because the three tank platoon can't be split down, the three act as one unit, and you're relying on a second platoon to do your fire and manoeuvre. That kind of thing suits the Soviet fires-first mentality well.

So in general, there's a good argument for keeping your HQ out of the fight, but that's not always desired in practice. The five tank platoons give you diminishing returns, and everyone's moved away from that concept over time, so the platoon HQ is intended to fight.

That's not necessarily true for the company HQ or higher, mind you.

I always appreciate your write ups. Would you mind elaborating on the Soviet fires first doctrine?

[domfluff]

Core principles of Soviet everything is massed fires and speed of action - gaining overwhelming firepower against a minority of the enemy, and pushing before the enemy has a chance to properly react.

A really good example of this is the design of the BMP, with the BMP-3 being perhaps the clearest example of that. The BMP-3 has an obscene amount of firepower at all ranges, and a surprisingly decent amount of protection... but only from the front. It's designed to point at and close quickly with a defending enemy, and put out a ton of firepower whilst doing so. It's dominating when it's performing that specific role, but can be worse than useless when it has to act outside of that controlled context.

Compare with the Bradley - that's a vehicle with superb situational awareness, optics and comms, and a suite of weapons to be useful at any range, but not necessarily at the same time. It's very powerful, very flexible and very expensive. It's capable of dealing with any situation, but it's not specialised with a single purpose like the BMP is.

The same principle applies across the board - Soviet doctrine is quite mathematical, and a lot of it comes down to maximising the efficiency of engagements, and coordinating fires of all arms to create an overwhelming effect.

[Pelican Pal]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

What is your thought process behind buttoning them up? Wouldn’t that cause issues with spotting?

Presumably you don't want your platoon leader to get pegged by a riflemen.

Unless you have a tactical limitation (covering a flank, lack of physical space, reserve for some other action, etc...) I have a hard time finding a good reason to not have your PL's tank in the fight. N+1 tanks will spot better, be able to engage targets faster and more successfully, spread out ammo expenditure and so on. I'd be sure to put them in the most safe combat location, but having them out of the fight just for C2 means a fair amount of fire power and spotting power is being missed out on.

This is especially true in QB where a tank going to set you back 400-500 points regardless of whose in it.

[Simcoe]

21 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Presumably you don't want your platoon leader to get pegged by a riflemen.

Unless you have a tactical limitation (covering a flank, lack of physical space, reserve for some other action, etc...) I have a hard time finding a good reason to not have your PL's tank in the fight. N+1 tanks will spot better, be able to engage targets faster and more successfully, spread out ammo expenditure and so on. I'd be sure to put them in the most safe combat location, but having them out of the fight just for C2 means a fair amount of fire power and spotting power is being missed out on.

This is especially true in QB where a tank going to set you back 400-500 points regardless of whose in it.

That’s a good explanation. As for buttoning up. I treat all my AFV’s the same. Are they close enough to infantry to get picked off? Buttoned.

of course, this doesn’t count for Black Sea 

[Simcoe]

56 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Core principles of Soviet everything is massed fires and speed of action - gaining overwhelming firepower against a minority of the enemy, and pushing before the enemy has a chance to properly react.

A really good example of this is the design of the BMP, with the BMP-3 being perhaps the clearest example of that. The BMP-3 has an obscene amount of firepower at all ranges, and a surprisingly decent amount of protection... but only from the front. It's designed to point at and close quickly with a defending enemy, and put out a ton of firepower whilst doing so. It's dominating when it's performing that specific role, but can be worse than useless when it has to act outside of that controlled context.

Compare with the Bradley - that's a vehicle with superb situational awareness, optics and comms, and a suite of weapons to be useful at any range, but not necessarily at the same time. It's very powerful, very flexible and very expensive. It's capable of dealing with any situation, but it's not specialised with a single purpose like the BMP is.

The same principle applies across the board - Soviet doctrine is quite mathematical, and a lot of it comes down to maximising the efficiency of engagements, and coordinating fires of all arms to create an overwhelming effect.

Thank you for your explanation. Have you ever thought about writing a book?

[Vacillator]

Nice thread, good advice. Now to get my HQ tank further forward in the PBEM I'm playing . 

I was holding it back a bit as I was concerned that losing the leader equals losing morale.  Often in a big way .

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, Vacillator said:

Nice thread, good advice. Now to get my HQ tank further forward in the PBEM I'm playing . 

I was holding it back a bit as I was concerned that losing the leader equals losing morale.  Often in a big way .

That is a good question. I feel like morale is less of an issue with tanks. They seem to fight the same regardless until they get hit.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Simcoe said:

What is your thought process behind buttoning them up? Wouldn’t that cause issues with spotting?

This also depends on WW2 vs modern.  IN WW2 it's always better to have the TC unbuttoned (assuming not in small arms/sniper range).

In modern the tech/optics can be much better buttoned.  Here is a list of units that are better unbuttoned or buttoned:

Day optics or active-only IR (should not have "IR optics" night vision since active IR is not modelled)

T-55 (TPN-1 active IR / TKN-1 active IR)

T-55A (TPN-1 / TKN-1)

T-62 1972 (TPN-1 / TKN-3 active IR)

T-62 1975 (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-64A (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-72 (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-72A (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

BMP-1/1P/1K/PK (1PN22M2 active IR / TKN-3)

BTR-60PA/PB/PAK/PBK/PU (TKN-1)

BTR-70/K (TKN-1)

BRDM-2/U (TKN-1)

MT-LB (TKN-1)

9P133 BRDM-2 AT-3 (9S446 day-only ATGM sight)

9P148 BRDM-2 AT-5 (9S451 day-only ATGM sight)

9P149 Shturm-S (9S823 day-only ATGM sight)

---

*Day or Active IR only buttoned for both gunner and commander, but unbuttoned STANO at night for commander. The NVGs are, I believe, assigned directly to the crew via TO&E, but may not currently be working in game. Capability of AN/PSV-5 NVGs under light from a quarter moon is 300m tank-sized targets, 150m personnel targets (TM 11-5855-238-20)

M48A5 (M32 active IR, unbuttoned AN/PVS-5 passive)

M60A1 (M32 active IR / M36 active IR + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE (M32 / M36 + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE+ (M32 / M36+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

All other US vehicles not otherwise listed, I think

---

Soviet passive night vision (image intensification)

Actual capabilities of these systems (not performance in game):
500m starlight, 850m moonlight target recognition; 5.5x magnification for TPN-3 gunner's sight (T-80 1979 manual)
400m starlight, 600m moonlight target recognition; 5x magnification for BPK-1-42 gunner's sight (BMP-2 manual)

T-64B1 (TPN-3 passive / TKN-3 active)

T-64B (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-72A 1980 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80B1 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80B (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

BMP-2/2K (BPK-1-42 passive / TKN-3) NOTE: the Konkurs ATGM (AT-5) uses a separate 10x 9Sh119 optical sight without night vision.

---

US (and one Soviet system) passive night vision (image intensification)
Actual capabilities were: 1000m starlight / 1200m moonlight target recognition; magnification varied, see below (TM 11-5855-214-24; FM 17-12-4 M60A2 Tank Gunnery)

M60A2 (M50 10x / M51 10x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE Passive (M32E1 7.1x / M36E1 7.1x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A3 (M32E1 / M36E1+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M113A1 (AN/TVS-5 5.6x on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M113A2 (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M163A1/A2 Vulcan (AN/TVS-5 on gun mount)

M106A1/A2 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M125 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

Dismounted M2HB HMG team (AN/TVS-5)

Dismounted Mk19 grenade launcher team (AN/TVS-5)

1V14 (6.2x 1PN44)

---

Thermal

M60A3 (TTS) (2.67x/8x TTS thermal / commander M36E1 passive + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M1 (3x/10x TIS thermal / gunner's primary sight extension for commander + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M2 / M3 Bradley (4x/12x ISU thermal / gunner's primary sight extension commander+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) 

M901 ITV (4x/12x AN/TAS-4 thermal, usable by gunner buttoned)

M150 TOW carrier (AN/TAS-4, usable unbuttoned only)

M151A2 (TOW) (AN/TAS-4)

Dismounted TOW team (AN/TAS-4)

M47 Dragon team (4x AN/TAS-5) 

---

Radar / Soviet Passive unbuttoned

BRM-1 (1PN22-M2 active IR / commander buttoned and not moving PSNR-5K radar / commander unbuttoned 1PN33B passive binoculars with 500m tank detection range, 200m personnel detection range) NOTE: this should be BRM-1K if it has radar.

[Vacillator]

6 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

That is a good question. I feel like morale is less of an issue with tanks. They seem to fight the same regardless until they get hit.

I'm sure you're right, but I have had occasional battles where I've lost the HQ tank and then the others under it are unwilling to do much more (or not even available to accept orders).

Having said that I have had similar unwavering heroes losing their HQs but continuing even with their main guns and/or tracks disabled, so could just be random examples.

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

This also depends on WW2 vs modern.  IN WW2 it's always better to have the TC unbuttoned (assuming not in small arms/sniper range).

In modern the tech/optics can be much better buttoned.  Here is a list of units that are better unbuttoned or buttoned:

Day optics or active-only IR (should not have "IR optics" night vision since active IR is not modelled)

T-55 (TPN-1 active IR / TKN-1 active IR)

T-55A (TPN-1 / TKN-1)

T-62 1972 (TPN-1 / TKN-3 active IR)

T-62 1975 (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-64A (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-72 (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-72A (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

BMP-1/1P/1K/PK (1PN22M2 active IR / TKN-3)

BTR-60PA/PB/PAK/PBK/PU (TKN-1)

BTR-70/K (TKN-1)

BRDM-2/U (TKN-1)

MT-LB (TKN-1)

9P133 BRDM-2 AT-3 (9S446 day-only ATGM sight)

9P148 BRDM-2 AT-5 (9S451 day-only ATGM sight)

9P149 Shturm-S (9S823 day-only ATGM sight)

---

*Day or Active IR only buttoned for both gunner and commander, but unbuttoned STANO at night for commander. The NVGs are, I believe, assigned directly to the crew via TO&E, but may not currently be working in game. Capability of AN/PSV-5 NVGs under light from a quarter moon is 300m tank-sized targets, 150m personnel targets (TM 11-5855-238-20)

M48A5 (M32 active IR, unbuttoned AN/PVS-5 passive)

M60A1 (M32 active IR / M36 active IR + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE (M32 / M36 + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE+ (M32 / M36+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

All other US vehicles not otherwise listed, I think

---

Soviet passive night vision (image intensification)

Actual capabilities of these systems (not performance in game):
500m starlight, 850m moonlight target recognition; 5.5x magnification for TPN-3 gunner's sight (T-80 1979 manual)
400m starlight, 600m moonlight target recognition; 5x magnification for BPK-1-42 gunner's sight (BMP-2 manual)

T-64B1 (TPN-3 passive / TKN-3 active)

T-64B (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-72A 1980 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80B1 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80B (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

BMP-2/2K (BPK-1-42 passive / TKN-3) NOTE: the Konkurs ATGM (AT-5) uses a separate 10x 9Sh119 optical sight without night vision.

---

US (and one Soviet system) passive night vision (image intensification)
Actual capabilities were: 1000m starlight / 1200m moonlight target recognition; magnification varied, see below (TM 11-5855-214-24; FM 17-12-4 M60A2 Tank Gunnery)

M60A2 (M50 10x / M51 10x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE Passive (M32E1 7.1x / M36E1 7.1x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A3 (M32E1 / M36E1+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M113A1 (AN/TVS-5 5.6x on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M113A2 (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M163A1/A2 Vulcan (AN/TVS-5 on gun mount)

M106A1/A2 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M125 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

Dismounted M2HB HMG team (AN/TVS-5)

Dismounted Mk19 grenade launcher team (AN/TVS-5)

1V14 (6.2x 1PN44)

---

Thermal

M60A3 (TTS) (2.67x/8x TTS thermal / commander M36E1 passive + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M1 (3x/10x TIS thermal / gunner's primary sight extension for commander + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M2 / M3 Bradley (4x/12x ISU thermal / gunner's primary sight extension commander+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) 

M901 ITV (4x/12x AN/TAS-4 thermal, usable by gunner buttoned)

M150 TOW carrier (AN/TAS-4, usable unbuttoned only)

M151A2 (TOW) (AN/TAS-4)

Dismounted TOW team (AN/TAS-4)

M47 Dragon team (4x AN/TAS-5) 

---

Radar / Soviet Passive unbuttoned

BRM-1 (1PN22-M2 active IR / commander buttoned and not moving PSNR-5K radar / commander unbuttoned 1PN33B passive binoculars with 500m tank detection range, 200m personnel detection range) NOTE: this should be BRM-1K if it has radar.

Thank you for sharing. If I’m following right. For the Soviets, spotting is better unbuttoned except for their high end tanks at night?

[Sakai007]

@Erwinthank you so much for that info! This will be on my favorites tab for quick reference. The sheer volume of Soviet types can make it difficult when buying forces for a QB to know what has what capability. For US forces (armor at least) it's very often in the name of the variant. Again many thanks!

[Erwin]

You are every welcome.  Am glad my "hoarding syndrome" comes in useful to help others.