The "5 Sherman for 1 Panther" was nonsense, alright. But what makes i...
Дата: 21.05.2015 03:41:19
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, on May 21 2015 - 00:29, said: Are you sure they never got broken down into a heavy and
light sections and assigned to even smaller than company level
units? For example, say a generic independent
tank battalion was assigned to support an infantry regiment, and
each company in the tank battalion got assigned to an infantry
battalion, and then each platoon of tanks would be assigned to a
company of infantry, and then broken down even further on a
platoon/section level? I thought I’d read
about stuff like that in Harry Yeide’s books, but I can’t remember
for sure. . The_Chieftain: Certainly it was, and is done. My own platoon in Iraq
got parcelled out into sections as well for a while, but we still
didn't go in less than platoon size, with a mixed platoon of troops
and tanks. Some cav units in WWII took it down to the section
level, with one tank, one infantry halftrack, one jeep, etc. (Which
is problematic if a tank needs a tow). However, I think the
analogy fails here on two levels. Firstly, that the "5:1 ratio" as
quoted for cat-killing is predicated on a tank-pure meeting,
unlikely as it may be that nobody has infantry, AT, artillery, air
etc support to hand. Secondly, even a Panther probably has to
worry about a bunch of infantry going one way when tanks are going
the other, so a 2:1 ratio in tanks does not equate to a 2:1 ratio
in forces if the mixed platoons are considered.
The "5 Sherman for 1 Panther" was nonsense, alright. But what makes i...