Oddball_E8 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 You know what i mean... when you purchase tanks as units and not as part of a platoon... did the use of individual tanks exist in ww2? if so was it common? i cant really see a commander ordering out just one tank to a battle... "Obg. Hansel. Report to Hill 189. You are to help the infantry attack there. Leave the rest of your platoon here as we only need one tank." doesnt really sound plausable... a stug or marder i could understand... but not "tanks" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 If it's a "fire brigade" or ad-hoc Task force where they scraped up what was available, you might see individual tanks and/or mixed units running around to deal with an issue that has sprung up. Depends on what was there at the moment to deal with the threat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 It was against official doctrine, but by '44 a lot of the big cats were being hastily dispatched in ones-and-twos to plug leaks in the front. The reason why we have stories of single Tigers destroying T34s by the dozen is because a single Tiger was often all they could scrounge! And remember the Panther had only a 40% availability rate, or something like that. So after a hard month of campaigning your Panther company will get whittled down one-by-one due to mechanical breakage or combat losses til you're likely to find eight Panthers being worked on in depot and just two runners. Jentz lists (daily/ weekly?) Tiger and Panther availability rates for Eastern Front units and they can swing wildly, from every Tiger in the unit up-and-running to a single tank operational a couple weeks later. [ July 24, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Originally posted by Oddball_E8: i cant really see a commander ordering out just one tank to a battle... "Obg. Hansel. Report to Hill 189. You are to help the infantry attack there. Leave the rest of your platoon here as we only need one tank." doesnt really sound plausable Obg. Hansel was originally part of a 5 tank platoon, but yesterday's battle claimed two, and they haven't received any replacements. On the way to hill 189 his number three suffered a breakdown, and they had to proceed without him. Finally, they were within sight of the hill when suddenly an IL-2 screamed down and planted a 500lb bomb squarely atop his number 4. Now, all alone, Obg. Hansel reaches hill 189 just as the CMBB scenario begins. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Yeh, by the end of the war the Germans had to "dance with the girl that brung 'em". No pulling back and waiting for the next shipment of Tigers to replace those lost. Official Divisional TO&Es were pretty much fiction writing by then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 and maybe instead of 16 million in gold behind enemy lines, there's only 5 million. so oddball decides to send just 1 tank to help out kelly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three_Oh_Eight Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Going against the tide here, in the larger (2,000+) QB I've taken to buying formations, meaning infantry battalions/companies and tank platoons, as well as guns in groups of battery strength, in trying to increase the 'realism' feel. Of course, I fill in the blanks with individuals - tank hunter teams, trucks/prime movers for the guns/"motorized" elements, and the odd MG to use up those last few points. But overall I tend to agree with Oddball's point that it feels weird to buy the single stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halberdier Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 What Kingfish said. You can assume that they are part of a depleted platoon. For small QB's where you cannot even afford a platoon that lone tank can be either depleted or the rest of the platoon is "off the map". I'm not sure how spread out a platoon of radio equipped tanks can be, though. Both ideas are reasonable and realistic IMO. Cheers! -gabe- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 You can find all kinds of anecdotal accounts but it was never official practice if they could help it. I remember reading an account of a platoon that was down to its last two PIIIs being dispatched to clean up some T34s that were running around in the division rear. One of the tanks crapped out on the approach march and the lead tank was forced to continue the mission alone with a squad of infantry. It happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Read "Panzer Aces"..it seems like those poor guys were running around themselves a LOT. F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emar Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Another thing to consider is that many CMBB and CMBO battles and maps are on a small enough scale that even if a platoon of tanks was assigned to an area it would not be fully portrayed. It would therefore not be unreasonable to see only one or two of those vehicles on the battle map while the rest of the platoon operated unseen in an imaginary adjacent battlefield area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.