Realistic tank platoon? (US)

[Thermopylae]

Whenever i can, i like to buy my US armor in platoons. Could someone tell me if the following TO&E is realistic (i think it might be a bit overpowered, but then again I find a lot of panthters and tigers floating around...and very few Mk IVs)

1 lead tank:

Easy Eight or Jumbo (very rarely a 76 jumbo)

1-2 76's

Month dependenat but usually M4A3(w)(76)

2 - 3 75's

W or standard variants of M4A3

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

No thats totally unrealistic. umm 2 76 Jumbos, 2 76 M3A4s(76)W and a 90mm jackson TD would be move believe able. hehehe just kidding great defense again. I was afraid that you would have lots of big kittys so I bought all of that in a game aganst Thermpylae earily tonight, but I had lots of trouble with those 76s. Those HE rds are just not big enough with them. So just a reminder, bring the fewest amount of 76s as possible, or go the TD route and grab 4 M10s to cover your shermans.

[Thermopylae]

Heh...my two pantehrs didn't stand a chance..thnk god for shrecks.

[JeffRaider]

I'm not sure, but isn't a regular Tank Platoon just five tanks of similar type? A Sherman Platoon, for example, would have five Shermans. I think things get mixed up more at the company-level, like a M5 as the Company Command Tank.

Absolutely unsure about all of this, though . . .

[Thermopylae]

yeah I don't have much data on what the platons looked like after a few omnthes of action...oreven a few weks.

[John Kettler]

I think you might find a visit to www.tankbooks.com well worth your time. Be sure to read TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES, which is all about serving in a Sherman battalion attached to an infantry division, as described by the tankers themselves. The Interview section has all kinds of great stuff.

The participants specifically describe a mixed platoon with 4 x 75 mm Shermans and 1 x M-10 and a later war configuration with 4 x 75 mm Shermans and 1 x 76 mm Sherman. It is clearly stated that long gun Shermans were always scarce, even to the end of the war.

Obviously, the name of the game in either nonstandard configuration was to provide the tank platoon with better firepower vs. heavy German armor. The British solution was more formal, with the assignment of one Firefly in place of a 75 mm Sherman tank.

Hope this helps.

John Kettler

[Guest Big Time Software]

Generally a pltoon should be all of the same type of tank, but not necessarily the same exact model. So you might have two different M4 Shermans, but chances are both would be armed with the same type of gun.

Whenever possible, the US tried to model their platoons after the British method of one "hitter" leading the 4 standard shorter gunned tanks. At least this is what I have read.

However... as John said the longer gunned tanks were in very short supply. They were also not generally issued to some types of Sherman tank units. So it was not at all unlikely that you would see 5xM4A3 (75) making up a single platoon.

In general Tank Destroyers and Tanks did not intermingle organizationally. But of course, there are always exceptions for just as many reasons.

There were only a couple hundred Jumbos made, so they were very rare on the battlefield.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whenever possible, the US tried to model their platoons after the British method of one "hitter" leading the 4 standard shorter gunned tanks. At least this is what I have read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well you don't lead with your so-called 'hitter'. You overwatch with it. Therefore you have to make the distinction between the 75mm Jumbo which you might lead with and a 76mm tank which you might overwatch with.

As for the British their ideal tank mix was about 25% 17pdr armed. Impossible in mid 1944 (when it was about 20%)due to availability but more common in late 44 and 45. There was lots of variation between units however and 17pdr tanks may be deployed flexibly so that the HQ troop might have a few extras, or even all Firefly's concentrated in the HQ troop, also the squadrons which were 'up' might be loaned a few Firefly's from that in reserve. Also the British had a lot more of the 95/105mm support tanks (about 10% I think).

------------------

"Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

As for the British their ideal tank mix was about 25% 17pdr armed. Impossible in mid 1944 (when it was about 20%)due to availability but more common in late 44 and 45. There was lots of variation between units however and 17pdr tanks may be deployed flexibly so that the HQ troop might have a few extras, or even all Firefly's concentrated in the HQ troop, also the squadrons which were 'up' might be loaned a few Firefly's from that in reserve. Also the British had a lot more of the 95/105mm support tanks (about 10% I think).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe there is some confusion here. The British had tank and armoured units (tank brigades, and armoured brigades or divisions). From what I understand, the tank brigades fielded infantry tanks (Churchills in 1944). They would have a number of 95mm equipped Churchills but no Firefly Shermans. These tank brigades were assigned to work with the corps in 21st Army group and were parceled out one batallion to a division, I believe. A good read 'Tank Tracks - 9th RTR at war' about a Churchill batallion. Firefly Shermans were only in the Armoured Brigades and Divisions. Churchills were supposed to deliver tank support to the infantry, while Shermans and Cromwells were there for breakthrough and exploitation. So it would be more likely to encounter UK infantry with Churchills (from an attached Tank BN) or TDs from the integral SP TD Squadron/Troop than with Shermans or Cromwells.

Note - I do not know what happened to 7th Armoured 'Desert Rats', who were fully equipped with Cromwells. They may have had Sherman Fireflies (a TO&E for June 44 gives 36 Sherman VC, no idea if these had 17pdrs.), any confirmation most welcome.

Also, I have no idea whether in the Recce Regiment of the Armoured Divisions there were any Fireflies (these were equipped with Cromwells in the UK and Polish Armoured, but Sherman in the Canadian Armoured).

So - unless I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I would not mix Cromwells and Fireflies, and I would never mix Churchills and Fireflies if I want to portray an accurate UK tank/armoured platoon.

Does anyone know where the 95mm Cromwells were? I never heard of them, but that is more likely than not ignorance on my part.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

RE: the 7th AD.

According to The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division 1940-1945 by Robin Neillands, the 7th was re-equipped with Fireflies in early 1944, after its participation in the Italian campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Armoured Regiments received the new Cromwell tank, but to tackle the growing threat of the 88mm gunned Tiger tank, the Armoured Regiments were eventually equipped on the basis of three Cromwells and one 'Firefly' tank per troop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the Rats at least did officially comingle Cromwells and Fireflies.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

So the Rats at least did officially comingle Cromwells and Fireflies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspected that, but good to have proof - now does anyone know the TO&E of the Armoured Recce Regiments in UK and Polish Armoured? Cromwell only or a one in four mix with Fireflies? What about the Canuck Recce regiments?

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

About British close support (CS, the 95mm armed ones) tanks:

NOTE: Here I go from earler formations, possibly not fully applicable in the ETO.

Each tank squadron (company equivalent) had two (sometimes only one) CS tanks.

Originally they were supposed to provide some HE capability to the otherwise MG equipped tanks in the squadron. (Oh yeah, the standard tanks had a coax 2pdr ATG too...) Anyway, the 3" HE was found to be less effective than desired, so the CS tanks were mainly used to lay direct fired smoke screens for the squadron.

The later 95mm gun had a better HE round, and were therefore more used against infantry, as originally intended.

So a British tank squadron would typically have 17-18 tanks with 75mm or 6pdr (later 17pdr) main gun and 1-2 with 95mm gun.

Cheers

Olle

[Thermopylae]

Thank you everyone. I will now try to acheive the standard 4 x 75mm and 1 x 76mm mix when buying my platoons. Of course, i'll need to make sure my opponents hasn't decided that the 172 pt tiger is a good common tank

[stevetherat]

olle, you are spot on with squadron formation (although numbers were about 15-16 tanks organised in threes or fours).

the sherman vc was designated A3E8 (easy 8) and did have a 17 pdr.

btw, 17 pdrs are not 76mm but 77mm. BTS?

steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Each tank squadron (company equivalent) had two (sometimes only one) CS tanks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that in the Tank or in the Armoured units? Since there was no 95mm Sherman in the UK TO&E AFAIK (not sure if they had 105mm, don't think so), I would suspect that Sherman squadrons did not in effect have these 95mm tanks. Anyone knows different?

From my favourite source for this http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/21agt-1.htm , the following info: in June 44, no Churchills in ADs and ABs, Cromwells only in a number sufficient to equip Recce Rgt. in Polish 1st, 11th, Guards Armoured Divs. 7th AD fully equipped with Cromwells, and 36 Sherman VC, presumably Firefly.

Again, there were no 17pdr equipped tanks in the Tank Brigades, so no mixing of Churchill and Firefly tanks! To make up for it, 9th RTR had a Tiger for a short while though They had to abandon it before a bailey bridge that could not take it. No mention of combat use.

Edit: Dec 44 shows that 95mm Cromwells in the ADs, 23 in 7th, and 7 (5 for Polish 1st) each in the others, presumably Recce Rgt only (?). Also large increase in number of Fireflies.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

While most of the information given here is correct, some is incorrect.

It is correct that Churchill equipped units would not have Fireflys, sorry if I omitted to make this clear as I was really referring mainly those which had Fireflys.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From what I understand, the tank brigades fielded infantry tanks (Churchills in 1944).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is incorrect. There were a number of independent armoured brigades. Most had Shermans (including Fireflys), some (2-3 I think off the top of my head) had Churchills.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These tank brigades were assigned to work with the corps in 21st Army group and were parceled out one batallion to a division, I believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is incorrect. The tank brigades generally fought as units in support of a single division, usually in an attacking role. They had their own tank, artillery and infantry components, sometimes they fought independently but often they were used to "beef up" a larger unit. They definitely weren't "parcelled out" unless it was an ad hoc emergency measure.

I agree with Chup-a-chup the 7thAD definitely had Fireflies eg Villers-Bocage.

The Polish armoured had Shermans (and Fireflies) and also by late 1944 had 76mm Shermans since the British concentrated them in this unit (though I don't think the Brits get those in CM?).

The British definitely used the 105mm Sherman variant in Italy though I am not sure if they had it in NWE. Units which had access to the 95mm tanks (ie those with Churchills and Cromwells) can be expected to have about 10% as these. As Olle says those units which have CS tanks would have them in the squadron HQ troop, though in NWE I would expect 2 per squadron.

The recce regiments would have Cromwells (and Stuarts) but I don't think they had Fireflys (officially), they just had to make do until the Challenger (or later Comet) showed up.

Typically the British used regiment-squadron-troop though confusingly battalion is sometimes substituted for regiment and the 6th Bn RTR would be called a tank regiment. Troops would be 3 or 4 tanks but seldom 5. A squadron might have 4 troops of 4 and a HQ troop of 3-4 or 5 troops of 3 and a HQ troop of 3-4.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

From what I understand, the tank brigades fielded infantry tanks (Churchills in 1944).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is incorrect. There were a number of independent armoured brigades. Most had Shermans (including Fireflys), some (2-3 I think off the top of my head) had Churchills.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These tank brigades were assigned to work with the corps in 21st Army group and were parceled out one batallion to a division, I believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is incorrect. The tank brigades generally fought as units in support of a single division, usually in an attacking role. They had their own tank, artillery and infantry components, sometimes they fought independently but often they were used to "beef up" a larger unit. They definitely weren't "parcelled out" unless it was an ad hoc emergency measure.

I am quite sure we are talking about a very simple confusion due to UK unit designation here.

Tank brigade (6th Guards, 31, 34): Churchills, with no infantry, arty, other support. Used to support infantry. From what I can see from 'Tank Tracks: 9th RTR at war', a corps level or higher asset, given to divisions as needs be. Exception seems to have been the 1st with Shermans, which I find rather strange, it also only seems to have had 1/3rd the establishment in numbers that the other independent brigades had.

Armoured Brigade (4th, 8th, etc): Shermans (no idea about support), used for independent and/or breakthrough/exploitation tasks. No idea who owned them or where they were engaged.

So as far as I understand it, the word tank in the unit title referred to a designated infantry support unit. Armoured was more generic, and probably supposed to take the role of the cavalry in earlier wars. I could be totally off on this though.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-05-2000).]

[ropey]

I recommend the following site www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/index.htm#cw

It may answer SOME of these questions.

------------------

Never leave your mind so open your brains fall out.

[Simon Fox]

Ok Andreas, I thought you were lumping all the independant tank/armoured brigades together in your comments. Of course the "Army Tank Brigades" had a different organisation to the other armoured brigades. Even so I still question your comments on parcelling out battalions at the corps level. This seems contrary to what I have read regarding British practice and doctrine. Also I imagine a tank battalion would be insufficient to support a division. My understanding is that the entire brigade would support a divisional attack.

Furthermore the armoured brigades didn't really have enough infantry to operate independantly and seem to have been mainly attached to other units so I don't think the distinction between the usage of the tank and armoured brigades is quite as clear cut as you suggest, especially in the NWE theatre. Have you read "Black Rat and Red Fox" ? They seem to be mainly attached to infantry divisions in NWE from that account.

British practice in NWE seems to have always been to support infantry with copious armour when attacking. Typically from my reading you would have each tank regiment/battalion (confusing eh?) supporting an infantry brigade. Which gives you a squadron each for the attacking battalions (ie 15-20 tanks) which is a fair wack.

------------------

"Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

[Harry Yeide]

There is no one answer regarding what a US tank platoon looked like. "The Sherman Tank in US and Allied Service" (Osprey) notes that as of July 1944, 76mm Shermans made up as much as one-third of some battalions and nearly half by 1945. That booklet also relates several anecdotes. On pg. 27, a US tanker describes an action involving his platoon, which had three 76mm guns and two 75mm guns. On pg. 29, Col. Leach of the 37th of the 4th AD notes that each platoon in his outfit had at least one 75mm Sherman because the 76 had no WP round (irrelevant in CM). The 75mm Shreman would keep WP loaded and would instantly engage any enemy tanks encountered in order to screen the rest of the unit.

I will be posting soon over at TGN's Combat Mission HQ a scenario involving the fascinating case of the 740th Tank Battalion, which entered combat for the first time during the Bulge with line units using a mix of Shermans, M-10s, one M-36, M-8s, and even two M-24s. Truth is stranger than fiction.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Have you read "Black Rat and Red Fox" ? They seem to be mainly attached to infantry divisions in NWE from that account.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simon, I have not, but want to pick it up sometime. I have read exactly zero on the independent Armoured Brigades. I recommend 'tank tracks' - the only specialist one I have read on the topic, but that was about a Tank BN. Highly recommend it.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Conall]

I thought the following might clarify the issue re: British armour organisation.

British units were organised in the following manner:

Armoured Regiments (equipped with Shermans) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron (4 tanks plus Halftrack & two scout cars, 8 AA tanks, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars, Recce Troop 11 Stuarts M3/M5 & 1 Daimler scout car).

The Sabre Squadron consisted of 4 Troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks)

Each Troop consisted of 4 tanks

3 Sherman III/V's

1 Sherman Vc Firefly

The Troop commander used a Sherman III/V, with the Sherman Vc Firefly being commanded by his Troop Sergeant.

Armoured Regiments (equipped with Cromwells - only 7th Armoured Div) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron (4 tanks plus Halftrack & two scout cars, 8 AA tanks, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars, Recce Troop 11 Stuarts M3/M5 & 1 Daimler scout car).

The Sabre Squadron consisted of 4 troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks, of which one was a Cromwell VI CS)

Each Troop consisted of 4 tanks

3 Cromwell IV/VII's (every other Troop replaced one Cromwell IV/VII with a Cromwell VI CS)

1 Sherman Vc Firefly

The Troop commander used a Cromwell IV/VII or a Cromwell VI CS, with the Sherman Vc Firefly being commanded by his Troop Sergeant.

Armoured Recce Regiments (equipped with Cromwells) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron. (4 tanks plus Halftrack & two scout cars, 8 AA tanks, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars, Recce Troop 11 Stuarts M3/M5 & 1 Daimler scout car).

The Sabre Squadron consisted of 5 Troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks, of which one was a Cromwell VI CS)

Each Troop consisted of 3 tanks until August 1944

3 Cromwell IV/VII's (every other Troop replaced one Cromwell IV/VII with a Cromwell VI CS)

The Troop commander used a Cromwell IV/VII or a Cromwell VI CS.

After August 1944 1 A30 Challenger was added to each Troop, which were then re-organised along the same model 7th Armoured Division except that the Challenger substituted the Firefly. As before the Troop Sergeant commanded the Challenger, with the Troop Commander in either a Cromwell IV/VII or Cromwell VI CS. Each Sabre Squadron then had 4 Troops of 4 tanks each, instead of 5 Troops of 3 tanks.

Tank Battalion (Army Tank Brigade, equipped with Churchills) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron. (4 tanks plus 3 Churchill Bridge-layers, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars).

The Sabre Squadron consisted of 5 Troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks, of which one was a Churchill Mk V/VIII CS)

Each Troop consisted of 3 tanks

3 Churchill Mk IV/VI/VII (every other Troop replaced one Churchill Mk IV/VI/VII with a Churchill Mk V/VIII CS)

The Troop commander used a Churchill Mk IV/VI/VII or a Churchill Mk V/VIII CS.

This structure was later changed (possibly August 20th 1944 - see Patrick Forbes "6th Guards Tank Brigade" p.237), into one of 4 Troops of 3 tanks each plus an enlarged Squadron HQ of 4 tanks plus an OP tank.

Armoured Regiments in Independent Armoured Brigades were equipped with Shermans (or DD Shermans) in the same manner as Armoured Regiments in Armoured Divisions.

SP AT guns operated in Batteries of 12 Achilles IIC/Wolverine, with 4 Achilles IIC/Wolverine in each troop (only issued to Armoured Division).

I strongly recommend "The British Soldier, From D-Day to VE-Day" by Jean Bouchery ISBN 2 908 182 742 Histoire & Collections 1998 or

"British Army Handbook 1939-1945" by George Forty ISBN 0 7509 1403 3 Sutton Publishing 1998

Someone asked about the 17pdr (Firefly, Challenger etc) & the 77mm (Comet). Both guns were in fact 76.2mm, the 77mm was so called simply to avoid confusion with other 76mm guns. The 77mm was a Vickers 50 calibre 75mm bored out to take 17pdr ammo. However, the standard 17pdr ammo was too big, so it used 3in 20cwt AA cases with a 'hot' propellant charge. According to I.V.Hogg "it was virtually a detuned 17pdr" p 41 Allied Armour of WWII, Crowood Press 2000, ISBN 1-86126-325-2 Despite the reduced penetration, it was a well liked gun with better accuracy than the standard 17pdr and was much easier to observe fall of shot due to the reduced muzzle flash.

Best regards,

Conall

[Schugger]

Conall?!?

Are you, by any chance, the Conall from the PE board with the distinguished service career in the famous "Fallschirmpanzer" online regiment?

If so, do you still remember Lt. Schuggerbaby ( me ) who rather foolishly tried to stop a german tank offensive with his Greyhound ?

Anyway, a very warm welcome to the board.

Markus

[Conall]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger:

Conall?!?

Are you, by any chance, the Conall from the PE board with the distinguished service career in the famous "Fallschirmpanzer" online regiment?

If so, do you still remember Lt. Schuggerbaby ( me ) who rather foolishly tried to stop a german tank offensive with his Greyhound ?

Anyway, a very warm welcome to the board.

Markus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Schuggerbaby good to hear from you - it's been a while. Yup certainly remember the Greyhound incident - did the same last night tying to take on a pair of Panthers with a bog standard M4 - messy very messy (did bag two Panthers though).

regards,

Conall

[Chief]

To put in my 2 cents, I concur that Jumbos were rare. 76mm Jumbos were extremely rare. I've read that these tanks were used tactically as the point tanks in formations going up against fixed AT defenses. The official US Army histories suggest that they could take 75mm AT fire without much comment, and could even shrug off 88mm fire at reasonable ranges.

The other posts here square with my information on 76mm Shermans generally. I've never seen anything that suggests a standard official TO&E mixing 76mm and 75mm Shermans in set proportions, contrary to the British practice with Fireflies and Comets. No doubt individual units worked out doctrine on this. My impression is that tank battalions in US Armored Divisions had a higher proportion of 76mm Sherms at any given time than did their "independent" counterparts attached to Infantry Divisions.

------------------

Also los, Augen zu, und hinein!