Wish List

[Yoozername]

The first one is a cut and paste from lonesentry.com and the second is from The German Panzer tactics in WWII

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Not only is use of sections (half-platoons) historical, its a great abstraction of the superiority of better C&C. 

No it doesn't. Russians could claim to be at the same level of C&C as they had 2 tank sections in their heavy tank platoons.

[Yoozername]

yes.  Its true.  You miss points.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
yes.  Its true.  You miss points.

In sketch 72 Right the platoon is doing 3 different actions. In fact you can order each tank to do slightly different actions with one order. There is nothing different in any sketch that a bound or an engage or defend order to the platoon wouldn't entail. In any of these diagrams the platoon elements are still within a close command distance of the platoon CO. To be at the level a seperate command unit the sections should operate indepenently.

Bil had a good idea in another thread. Where we move up the chain of command to somehow get the next level involved. For the Germans this would be the company command and for the Soviets this would be the battalion level.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

where is the disconnect?


Bil

He believes that the platoon is the smallest committed armored unit.

But as you have said, sections of that platoon could and would use seperate tactics, lines of attack, etc. They did not have to act robotically like they do in PC.

In wide open terrain, perhaps platoons did do text book wedges and such. But there is plenty of evidence of armor being committed piecemeal.

My definition of the smallest unit is one that has a two way radio. Many soviet companies might have one. Most German platoons had 2 or more. That is the difference I am trying to point out.

[Yoozername]

6. You must lead with strength. At least two tanks must be forward, and the trail platoons must be held far enough forward to support the lead platoon. The more guns that fire in the first minute, the quicker the enemy will be defeated and the fewer losses you will suffer.
 
http://www.feldgrau.com/pnzfwd.html
 

 

[Waffenamt]

[font="times new roman"]"The basic unit for a tank formation is the platoon. A German or American full strength platoon typically consisted of 5 tanks; for British platoons there were 4 tanks, and for Russian platoons there were 3 tanks. While tanks can operate in sections of two or three, it is preferred to keep the integrity of the platoon together if at all possible. This is extremely important in early war tanks that did not have radios - they basically became ‘dumb’ once separated, and so always tried to stay together as a group. If split into sections, typically one half is controlled by the platoon leader (the PL), while the other is controlled by the platoon sergeant (the PSG). Both the platoon leader and platoon sergeant, then, have at least one tank assigned as their ‘wingman’ that follows their orders and instructions, as well as protects the PL or PSG."[/font][/align][font="times new roman"][/font] [/align][font="times new roman"]What next Lewis - Wikipedia    [/font][/align]

[Yoozername]

Is that where your quote is from? It supports my argument.

If split into sections, typically one half is controlled by the platoon leader (the PL), while the other is controlled by the platoon sergeant (the PSG). Both the platoon leader and platoon sergeant, then, have at least one tank assigned as their ‘wingman’ that follows their orders and instructions, as well as protects the PL or PSG."

But I will re-iterate that the Soviets had inferior radio communications during the war. The Soviet 'platoon' is really a 'big' section with a command node (PL) and two wingmen. In reality, it may have had only a recieve-only radio.

The German 5 tank platoons had 3 command nodes, later reduced to two.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Nick Schieben
The basic unit for a tank formation is the platoon. A German or American full strength platoon typically consisted of 5 tanks...
If split into sections, typically one half is controlled by the platoon leader (the PL), while the other is controlled by the platoon sergeant (the PSG). Both the platoon leader and platoon sergeant, then, have at least one tank assigned as their ‘wingman’ that follows their orders and instructions, as well as protects the PL or PSG.

As modeled in the game by moving using the bound order for the platoon. Also, not abiding by a strict section structure in a platoon wingmen can be reassigned if one section of the platoon loses a tank.

What is not appreciated is the morale system works off the command system. The chance to lose morale is calculated by the % loss of the entire unit. Thus one tank loss of a 5 tank unit has only a 20% chance of morale failure. If the basic unit was two tanks then one loss would set this unit at 50% losses. Much better chance to break.

The losses then should (but don’t now) move up the food chain. The next higher level checks how many units of it have been lost or broken. An organization of only two subunits with one broken is at 50% losses. Again a good chance to fail morale.

[Yoozername]

That is a crude morale system

[Yoozername]

Note that I am not saying that ALL german tank platoons should be modeled as sections.  Some platoons, with less than fully-trained or staffed cadre, might be represented as they are now.

So a fairly good german tank company might be represented by 6 elements.  4 sections (making up the first and second platoon), one 'normal' tank platoon and the HQ section.

A typical soviet company may only have 2 elements.  One a six tank element representing two platoons and the HQ four tank section.  A bit of an abstraction but it limits the soviet player's C&C realistically (IMO). 

Note that, in real life, many platoons and companies may just be a gaggle of tanks after some combat/drop-outs.  After many sections lose their commander, they would 'join' into the other section. 

[pzgndr]

Bil had a good idea in another thread. Where we move up the chain of command to somehow get the next level involved. For the Germans this would be the company command and for the Soviets this would be the battalion level.

This would be good. I alluded to something similar regarding how command points were used in GDW's Assault series. Some better modeling of command and control differences between Germans and Russians would be a plus.

[Yoozername]

I agree.  Many aspects of the game are just too vanilla and mutual. The flavor of the game needs to distinguish between the opposing forces.