Saber Squadron Size

[Old Sweat]

The five tank platoon preceeded and outlasted the pentomic division, which was a creature of the fifties and early sixties.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I agree completely that four tanks should be minimum size for a platoon/troop.  How platoons are grouped is always debateable.  Do you want a large number of "smaller" units or a smaller number of "larger" units?  There are a host of factors at play, ranging from economics to span of control to flexibility.
 

 

[George Wallace]

Way back when, in '74, in Shilo when I was young, I was learning tactics from the ground up.  We started with basic Section, then Platoon and on to Company tactics.  It was the building blocks to how the Army does tactics.  Always "One Foot on the Ground".  We moved on to Mech Infantry Tactics at the Platoon and Coy level later that summer.  Once you had learned the basics literally walking, it didn't change much when you were mounted.  Box Formation on foot is the same in a carrier.  Formations in moving an Mech Inf Platoon are no different than those used by Tankers.   Those formations didn't change as you stepped up to Coy/Sqn or Bn/Regt tactics.  The basics don't change when you step it up higher to Bde, Div, Corps and Army levels either. 

Fire and Movement is very basic, and today we have broken it down from the Section, down to Teams.  In Mech applications, be it a Carrier or a Tank, you still move in Teams.  One covering the other.  With four tanks you have two supporting two as they move.  With odd numbers, you have a dilemma as to who moves and who covers, plus your rate of movement is slowed by compensating for the peculiarities of having to move an odd number or vehicles tactically.

It is a basic principle that provides good chances of survival.  It is what really dictates what our organizations should look like. 

Any soldier will tell you that if you see one tank, there is always another covering it.   Where there is one there are always more.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I think that company level operations have much in common with section level tactics.  A company attack looks alot like a platoon attack which can look alot like a section attack.  Battalion operations can look like platoon attacks writ large, or they may not.  Brigade operations are all about assigning objectives and enablers as opposed to controlling fire and movement.  Passing a battalion through another is a much different kettle of fish from passing a fire team through another, and its hard to have one battalion support another (range limitations and coordination nightmares).

As an aside, I found it interesting down south to experience the "travelling" and "travelling overwatch" methods of tactical movement.    There may be alternatives to the "bounding overwatch" that we teach exclusively, and maybe leapfrog and caterpillar are not the only options.  Time available can dictate movement techniques, and there are even times when it may be an advantage to have your entire force moving when you make contact.

Cheer,

R5

 

[George Wallace]

As an aside, I found it interesting down south to experience the "travelling" and "travelling overwatch" methods of tactical movement.    There may be alternatives to the "bounding overwatch" that we teach exclusively, and maybe leapfrog and caterpillar are not the only options.  Time available can dictate movement techniques, and there are even times when it may be an advantage to have your entire force moving when you make contact.

Actually, we didn't use much Caterpillar or Leapfrog in Recce in Europe.  Most moves were 'High Speed' at night, with no lights.  We used Snake Patrols quite often in daylight.  We used Snake Patrols alot in the early '90s also, here at home.  Well, actually we still do.  It works very well, with practice.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

While I was rereading the thread, I had a thought, and because that doesn't happen too often, I thought that I would pass this thought on.

We use half squadron forces to work with an Infantry company.  Normally because we assign a Squadron to a Battalion.  However, the entire world knows that the smallest size that armour can work is squadron size, because we cannot split the echelons in two, we cannot split the OC in two, and so on.  So, splitting the squadron to augment two companies instead of one is a short term ,temporary situation.  And this should only be done in an emergency. 

In an ideal world, we would never have to split a squadron.  We do so because we don't have enough armour.  You will recall that our buy of 114 leopards was solely to equip four squadrons.  You will also recall that 330 Centurions was enough to equip four Regiments, because the Armour School and the Schools in Borden do not require more tanks for training. 

I dislike the idea of splitting the squadron.  Having a 19 tank squadron permits this, however, and it is a useful tool to have in our tactical toochest.

My musings drifted toward the idea of incorporating 14 tank squadrons.  It could work, of course, but....imagine this, if you will.....

What if there were four 14 tank squadrons in a Regiment, each with its own echelon?  Impossible to split the squadrons, so each Infantry company would get the support of 14 tanks, instead of 9 or 10.  With an OC, and with an echelon.

How many times have we been attached the Infantry, and come resupply time, we see the company "echelon" show up with nothing we need, and if they had it, they had no where near enough?

Four 14 tank squadrons, plus RHQ = 58 tanks.  3 Regiments worth = 174 tanks.  Add reserves, plus Schools, I figure 220 tanks.  Still down from the old Centurion days, but.........

 

[George Wallace]

I would still stay with the 19 tank Sqn.  When looking at your numbers, I think back to the School.  It had approx four D&M Tanks, six to ten Gun Tanks and that was about it.  Most support for Tactics was supplied from the Independent Tank Sqn, C Sqn RCD/later 8 CH.  They would field tanks for three Phase Four Troops.  If a Phase III was being run in the Field at the same time, extra tanks would have to have been drawn from Gunnery Sqn.  At times there may be six Troops deployed in the Field between the two Courses.  This means a requirement of 24 tanks on the ground, not including spares for breakdowns.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Oh, I'm not arguing in favour of a 14 tank squadron.  I'm arguing that if we did go with a 14 tank squadron, we need four squadrons per Regiment.  Each, of course, with it's own echelon.

And, I also wanted to point out the severe limitations on sustainability there is once we split a squadron in two.  I suppose I am also trying to point out that basing a squadron on 19 tanks for the sole reason of it's ability to be split is not very strong .

An ideal tank unit (in my world) would consist of four fully independent 19 tank squadrons.  That way, we can have full squadrons train with full companies, the way it should be.  Instead of the piece meal half squadron bag of worms.......

 

[George Wallace]

I would still stay with the 19 tank Sqn.  When looking at your numbers, I think back to the School.  It had approx four D&M Tanks, six to ten Gun Tanks and that was about it.  Most support for Tactics was supplied from the Independent Tank Sqn, C Sqn RCD/later 8 CH.  They would field tanks for three Phase Four Troops.  If a Phase III was being run in the Field at the same time, extra tanks would have to have been drawn from Gunnery Sqn.  At times there may be six Troops deployed in the Field between the two Courses.  This means a requirement of 24 tanks on the ground, not including spares for breakdowns.

If we went to 14 Tank Sqadrons, it would mean that we would have to have two Squadrons posted to Gagetown in support of the School, above and beyond what D&M and Gunnery Wings/Sqns held.  That would mean two Squadrons tasked basically full time in the Summer supporting the Field portions of the Ph III and IV Crses.  That would free up the time for Gunnery Sqn to prepare for the Gun Camps that finished off these courses training schedules.  It would almost double the number of Tanks stationed in Gagetown.  

Would a restructure of the assets then dictate the formation of a "Training Regiment" to augment the School?  Remember that tanks would be required for at least two 6A Crses, one or two 6B Crses, one or two 7's Crse, two Phase III and one Phase IV Crses.  Not to mention Enemy Force tasks, Squadron Training and Live Fire Exercises.  Remembering my C Sqn days, the Sqn was in the field from the first week of January (6A Crse) through to the second or third week of December supporting Courses or doing Squadron Training.  There would be just as much demands on two 14 tanks Sqns as there would be on one 19 tank Sqn.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

That wouldn't be much of a change.  When I ran K-19, I had seven gun tanks, plus four turrets.  D&M Sqn had the four hulls, plus one gun tank.  C Sqn had 19 tanks.  That's a total of 31.

Two sqns of 14, or one sqn of 19, plus a bunch of odds and sods....right now the School has 8 tanks!

I don't think that the School requirement should have a bearing on the size of the squadron.  The size of the sqn should be based on tactical requirements.

 

[vonGarvin]

wars are won by logistics, and I think Lance has made an excellent argument. 

As an infantry officer, I would rather see a 19 tank squadron augment my company, commanded by a major and complete with echelon, than a squadron minus with a battle captain and no echelon.  The combat team is an excellent model ONLY IF both infanty company and armour squadron come with all assets.


Now, if a Regiment were to have four 14 tank squadrons, then that means four echelons, four majors, four sergeants-major, and so forth.  Could the squadrons be diced?  Naturally: we still have that tool, but for temporary use only!
Now, although the Regiment drops in TO and E by one tank, it gains a complete echelon, complete with spare crews.  Remember, even in WWII, tanks that were destroyed often were back up and running after a complete wash out with a garden hose and garbage bag:  the replacement crews coming from the echelon.  As Joe Dirt says "Bring Back up". 

 

[Red 6]

That was the so-called "Pentomic" division, no?  Base number of "five", to survive in a nuclear war, I believe.  5 platoons in a coy, 5 coys in a bn, and so on up the food chain?  I think it lasted in the 50s for a few years....not quite sure..

The Pentomic divisional structure was adopted in the mid-late 50s. It didn't last long. The idea was, instead of three regiments, to have five battle groups, each of which was a reinforced battalion with five companies. The theory was having the C3 spread across the battlefield would make the division more survivable in the nuclear scenario.

In the early 60's, the Army developed the ROAD (pronounded RO–ADD) division, which we used for many years with tweaks and new TOEs. This replaced the battle groups with three combat brigades, each with a variable number of line battalions. The division also had an artillery brigade, engineer battalion, and all the various slice elements.

A battalion with slice attachments for a combat/operational mission was called a "task force". A company with attachments and detachments was called "a company team". 

 

[George Wallace]

So, do you want to create a 'formal' (or actual) CP for the 2 i/c in B Ech to monitor the Battle?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I found it funny that I operated out of a hatch with a map folded on my knees asssited by the operator who was also loading the gun and generally helping keep the tank out of trouble while my counter-parts in other arms had nice LAV CPs.  Still, for what we do I wouldn't trade the tank for a CP.  Being in a tank meant that I could see what was going on and gain that finger-tip-feel for the situation.  Plus it meant I got to be in a tank. 

When I was in the A2 ech I had an LSVW CP variant, but you needed triple installations to be able to truly function as a CP for the whole Sqn and control/coord CSS (BG Admin, BG command, Sqn command), plus I was rarely in range of the F Ech folks.  The 2IC is normally moving around a fair deal doing tasks other than acting as a control station.  I was lucky to be able to talk to the SSM.

Someone suggested a CP with an "LO" a few years back to handle all the situational awareness stuff.  He would input the contact reports into the digital system which would then appear on everyone's screens.  Not a bad idea, although the normal bugbear of TO&E rose up.

A Canadian doctrinal tank squadron (three or four troops, prefer four but there it is) with its complete echelon is a great package.  The A1 and A2 echelons with the SSM and 2IC give you great control over sustainment and give you a plug-in to the supporting CSS structure.  The BC gives you a CP capability up front that can also fight when required.  I'm not a fan of half-squadrons.  Concentrate what resources you have.  If you are breaking down into half-squadrons then you really have a nine-tank squadron.

A TO&E Recce Sqn with its CPs and echelons also gives a tremendous capability beyond the recce troops.

To go back to the beginning, I'm more concerned about the loss of echelons than about the loss of the fourth troop.  I watched my A2 echelon dwindle away to nothing to feed the troops (ech guys moving up to fill holes).  We went away from jerry cans to FARs with all the problems that entailed.  Then the echelon disappeared entirely on operations.  In HQ Sqn we could cobble together one A1 echelon for one Sqn on exercises.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

I think we are going to have to clarify the fact that the Half-Sqn is not a long term option for any operations, but a very quick manoeuvre unit when used to split the Sqn in to Assaulting Force and Fire Base.  It should not be considered a 'permanent' fixture in any operation.

The question of a CP in a Tank Sqn should not really be an issue.  With the SA that we employ, and the improvements over time to it, it is easy for the Regimental CP's to keep track of where its' C/S's are.  Both the OC and BC are fighting the battle.  The 2 i/c is running himself ragged at times in a Rover, but also has the facilities to download SA from higher (RHQ), who has many other 'resources' available.  A CP in a Tank Sqn is not really necessary.

The Sqn's do have a requirement to have their own A Echelons (Plural) to remain effective.  HQ Sqn is located as B Ech with the Svc Bn and too far back to effectively resupply more than one Sqn in a timely manner.  The loss of the two A Echelons, has also meant the loss of several days worth of Resupply, which really brings the "Doing more with Less" home and puts a stopper in the initiative a Tank Sqn can take if an opening in the Offence occurs.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

George,

I haven't been considering the tanks in the firebase as a "half-squadron" and those in the assault (assault and/or intimate support) as another half-squadron.  To me, in square combat team attack all the troops and platoons are one entity on the BG command net.  They are under the combat team commander.  The tank troops that made contact are forming the firebase while the depth guys conduct the assault as opposed to deliberate taskings to separate sub-units.  They all reorg and replen together (not necessarily skirt to skirt but you get the picture).

I've been considering a "half-squadron" in this thread as the splitting of a squadron into two halves and then attaching those to different sub-units for prolonged periods of time.  I think we agree that is not an optimal move, but it does happen.  It is one effect of having a big squadron.  People can't resist the temptation to share sometimes!

Cheers

p.s. As an aside, I was tracking sub-units and enemy contacts in Helmand with stickies on a map and a single channel radio.  :warstory:

 

[Kirkhill]

So how do the infantry get their "penny-packets" of tanks for support in the Urban fight with this organization?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The same way they always have, through groupings assigned by the commander authorized to do so.

A troop can indeed be attached to a company or even a battalion in urban terrain.  I wouldn't go below two tanks in any one grouping, and I'd rather keep the four tanks together.  Still, a troop of four could be split two ways if you had to, and you would have a Tp Ldr or Tp WO in either grouping supporting a company or platoon.

The tempatation for an infantry company commander might be to take an attached Troop and give one tank to each platoon, keeping the troop leader's tank with him as a "reserve."  This is where lower-level attachments and an absence of doctrine that is actually followed can hurt you.  A young lieutenant can have a hard time convincing a determined major about how to best employ his resources.   

 

[Kirkhill]

I think infanteers might be able to understand that the "buddy" system applies to tanks just as much as it applies to siting machine guns and to their own operations.

 

[George Wallace]

I think infanteers might be able to understand that the "buddy" system applies to tanks just as much as it applies to siting machine guns and to their own operations.

This is also where talking about odd numbers should be taken into consideration, in all arms.