Tank Lances / Tank Companies TO&E

[Hellraiser]

Nothing says there isn't a "Command Lance"

Just because a Company might be a formation of 2 platoons instead of 3 doesn't mean one of them can't be the "Command Platoon"

A Company of 2 "Demi-Companies" IE 6-tank Long Platoons, can still be 1 named "Command" with the CO & another named "Fire" with a Lt in charge.

[paladin2019]

IS standard formations take a more aviation-centric approach where supernumerary HQ platforms are restricted to much higher echelons than we use now. Hence why IS companies don't have separate command elements and you don't generally see those until regimental level.

digression As far as "demi-platoons" being "real-world" command section formations, that is highly dependent on base nation organization as to be  flat wrong. It also ignores that the purpose of is to have two separate command elements to deal with the tasks assigned to different sub-elements of the company. 66 and 65 (or 55) do not exist to be wingmen. Then you have Soviet-based formations with a single supernumerary command tank for a 3x3 company and understandably have a large influence on balance of armored formations worldwide. Also, a "demi-platoon" of infantry is fairly useless and just bad organization to begin with. You don't break up platoons. Western tank company teams trade a full tank platoon for a full mech platoon as the normal task organization.

[CarcosanDawn]

I guess I meant Demi-Platoon more in the sense of "a dedicated command element smaller than a full platoon that can focus on commanding the company as a whole rather than just his own platoon"

I can visualize how it works for mechs and aviation because those are single humans, I have a harder time understanding that a Captain of a company is also the Lieutenant of one of its platoons, I felt like he would be the premium of overtaxed, ergonomically.

Conversely, having a Command Lance for one other platoon seems excessive - that's an equal number of captains and lieutenants...

[Hellraiser]

I can visualize how it works for mechs and aviation because those are single humans, I have a harder time understanding that a Captain of a company is also the Lieutenant of one of its platoons, I felt like he would be the premium of overtaxed, ergonomically.

Conversely, having a Command Lance for one other platoon seems excessive - that's an equal number of captains and lieutenants...

1.  Nothing says a 6-tank formation can't have a Commander & a Sub-Commander.
For example.
You could have a Captain, 2 Sgts,  Lt., 2 Sgts, as your 6 Tank Commanders.
And in Platoon-6 #2 you could have a Lt.  MST-Sgt,  & 4 Sgts.

These SubCommanders can manage "Sections" the size of a Russian 3-Tank Platoon.
Also, a Tank Commander is likely less taxing a job at the CO level than a MW or ASF is.
The Driver/Loader/Gunner can operate the tank if needed while the CO is dealing w/ Radio Calls & giving orders.

I've done training exercises on a short crew before & its not ideal but you can do it w/o having both TC & Gunner slots filled.

[CarcosanDawn]

True, I was thinking traditional 4-tank lances for the heavy tank units, not six-tank units.

I could absolutely see a lance divided into sections that way, though it seems clumsier than just 3 tank platoons.

For my heavy tank regiment, should the companies be 2 platoons (more like ComStar Level IIs in the rules, with 6 units each, for unit construction) divided into 2 sections each platoon, leaving 3 three-tank units plus a 3 tank element with the Company Commander, or... what?

[Arkansas Warrior]

Nothing says there isn't a "Command Lance"

Just because a Company might be a formation of 2 platoons instead of 3 doesn't mean one of them can't be the "Command Platoon"

A Company of 2 "Demi-Companies" IE 6-tank Long Platoons, can still be 1 named "Command" with the CO & another named "Fire" with a Lt in charge.

One command element and one other element is a very strange organization.  Every theory of span of control I’ve heard would say that that’s too few subordinates.  3-5, or even up to 7 in some circumstances, is more normal.

IS standard formations take a more aviation-centric approach where supernumerary HQ platforms are restricted to much higher echelons than we use now. Hence why IS companies don't have separate command elements and you don't generally see those until regimental level.

digression As far as "demi-platoons" being "real-world" command section formations, that is highly dependent on base nation organization as to be  flat wrong. It also ignores that the purpose of is to have two separate command elements to deal with the tasks assigned to different sub-elements of the company. 66 and 65 (or 55) do not exist to be wingmen. Then you have Soviet-based formations with a single supernumerary command tank for a 3x3 company and understandably have a large influence on balance of armored formations worldwide. Also, a "demi-platoon" of infantry is fairly useless and just bad organization to begin with. You don't break up platoons. Western tank company teams trade a full tank platoon for a full mech platoon as the normal task organization.

You don’t break up platoons? What was the point of all those squad tactical exercises I ran in the Army?

[paladin2019]

You don’t break up platoons? What was the point of all those squad tactical exercises I ran in the Army?

No, you don't break up platoons. The squad attacks as part of the platoon's mission.

[Arkansas Warrior]

That feels like a bit of a cop-out.  By that standard, couldn't you say that you don't break up platoons, because they're all part of the company's mission, and on up the chain until you're saying that RCTs aren't broken up because they're all operating as part of the AFFS' mission.

[CarcosanDawn]

No need to fight about it, guys - I'm not planning to break platoons up in the operational or strategic sense, haha. Just a six-wide tank platoon splitting into 3-tank sections for tactical bounds, or a 4 tank platoon into two like modern western stuff.

Just worried about that command element, but willing to drop it if the wisdom is "there's no discreet command element, commanding a tank company in the future is far easier than modern ones"

[paladin2019]

That feels like a bit of a cop-out.  By that standard, couldn't you say that you don't break up platoons, because they're all part of the company's mission, and on up the chain until you're saying that RCTs aren't broken up because they're all operating as part of the AFFS' mission.

You don't break up platoons, but you you do cross level them to make company teams. The point is that the squad attack is a thing because the platoon's mission often has squads in attack, support, and/or reserve, depending on the mission. But a squad conducting a squad attack won't be doing it alone, the rest of the platoon will be part of the operation.

No need to fight about it, guys - I'm not planning to break platoons up in the operational or strategic sense, haha. Just a six-wide tank platoon splitting into 3-tank sections for tactical bounds, or a 4 tank platoon into two like modern western stuff.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The platoon isn't broken up, its parts are conducting mutually supporting tasks.

Just worried about that command element, but willing to drop it if the wisdom is "there's no discreet command element, commanding a tank company in the future is far easier than modern ones"

The default is that command elements are not supernumerary to the unit's fighting strength in IS organizations. If you want to spend some BV to have some extra units in excess of the /4 model that you define as command vehicles, that's how your force is organized and you do you.

[Hellraiser]

For my heavy tank regiment, should the companies be 2 platoons (more like ComStar Level IIs in the rules, with 6 units each, for unit construction) divided into 2 sections each platoon, leaving 3 three-tank units plus a 3 tank element with the Company Commander, or... what?

As I mentioned upthread, the Heavy Regiments only have 60-80 Tanks in them.
Personally, I'd just do a pair of typical 4-3-3 battalions of 36 for a total of 72 & call it a day.

The Light Regiments are where I think you'd see a lot of the bigger platoons used so thy bulk up firepower for a single platoon patrol.

[truetanker]

Long time Marik here, but:

I'd run two 6-tank Lights and two 5-tank Heavies per Platoon.

Given that the odd Infantry can be deployed as well, I'd give 2 Bulldog and 3 Goblin per "Lance" here. Going as far as making two of the Goblin LRM variants and a single standard as Command. If going by the classic 1-ton of Infantry, 7 being standard, while up to 10-troopers could be used as well. This unit would have heavy LRM support, and 3 LL to defend themselves, as well as Quad SRM racks to throw around. Infernos and Smoke anyone? Not to mention the preverbal MG stopping fire to hose the local scene with.

And as a precaution, 2 Platoons of Lights followed by a Platoon of Heavy in my Light Battalion units. Reverse this for the Heavier ones, but use the Combined arms in these.

Galleons and Harasser Mini-Peggy's are really good at these, but so are the standard Harassers as well.

What ever floats your ideal unit.

TT

[CarcosanDawn]

I always took that "platoon" (the 10-15 line) to be a typo/confusion with Company, given that 10-15 is a Company in the manual.

5-tank heavy lances is new... I do recall reading it somewhere but don't remember where. Possibly on a forum, haha.

[Hellraiser]

Long time Marik here, but:

I'd run two 6-tank Lights and two 5-tank Heavies per Platoon.

I always took that "platoon" (the 10-15 line) to be a typo/confusion with Company, given that 10-15 is a Company in the manual.

5-tank heavy lances is new... I do recall reading it somewhere but don't remember where. Possibly on a forum, haha.

I think what TT was saying is that for a Light Company, he runs 2 platoons of 6 Light Tanks.
For a Heavy Company he runs 2 platoons of 5-Heavy Tanks.


I assume the 10-15 variable # for a platoon is to allow for some flexible formations based on what any given unit has.

For Example:  Possible Configurations using 4-6/Platoon & 2-3/Company per FM:FWL

Company-10A  =  2x  Platoon-5
Company-10B  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-6
Company-11  =  Platoon-5 + Platoon-6
Company-12A  =  3x  Platoon-4
Company-12B  =  2x  Platoon-6
Company-13  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-4 + Platoon-5
Company-14A  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-5 + Platoon-5
Company-14B  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-4 + Platoon-6
Company-15A  =  3x  Platoon-5
Company-15B  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-5  +  Platoon-6

Any of those could be for Heavy or Light companies in theory.
The key is that by the time you hit Regimental Level that the total #s between Light or Heavy Regiments vary a lot with Heavy Regiments only being 1/2 to 2/3 the size of a Light Regiment in total #s but easily equivalent in terms of total firepower.

[truetanker]

I think what TT was saying is that for a Light Company, he runs 2 platoons of 6 Light Tanks.
For a Heavy Company he runs 2 platoons of 5-Heavy Tanks

Correct.

But I would also run 6 and 5 in my Companies as well and reinforce some of the more heavier ones once in a while.

I've done both 2 Platoons of either 6 or 5, I've combined 6 and 5 with Infantry and even ran three Heavy Platoons one with Infantry in support. This might be Demolisher, Parisan, Ontos or their LRM variants with the "classic" Bulldog/Goblin w/ Infantry combo.

I've run Harasser/Mini-Peggy and Heavy Hover APC and Jump as the Light unit while running Drillsons in the Heavy category. There's always different units that seem to work together.

One of the reasons I am called Truetanker. I've done pretty much every type unit combo out there, mostly got beaten up for my troubles. But surprises do happen. Once you get use to the idea, another tank or two does help.

Quick way and a reminder, if you can get use to moving with 2 tanks as "one", your halfway there to the Clan way of thinking. Buddy system all the way, you can even split the unit in half to cover more ground, on top of the Lance formation.

TT

[Hellraiser]

Bulldog/Goblin w/ Infantry combo.

I was using the 4th SW Atlas TO&E's one time to make up units.

The "Mechanized Infantry Regiments" are an interesting formation that I've never seen anywhere else in canon.

1 Battalion Foot Infantry
1 Battalion Motor Infantry
1 Battalion Light Tanks

For my Light Tank battalion I figured having IFV ability would be good since it was after all an Infantry unit as a whole.

Lots of Platoons were Heavy Tracked APC (Regular or LRM) pairs w/ pairs of Hunters/Vedettes/Goblins
Other combos were H-Wheeled APC (Any Model) with Hetzers/Strikers.

I liked that a single Motor or 2 Foot Companies were able to pair up with a Light Tank company for transport & still had some actual "Light-Tank" level of firepower in each platoon.

[truetanker]

Yeah, once upon a time, the Standard APCs was all we had... Now there are dozens of interesting designs that we can use.

VTOL, WiGE and even Submersibles. All have been retcon'd back. Still disagree to the 3039-restart date... but, eh, I get new things to play with!

TT

[Hellraiser]

Still disagree to the 3039-restart date

What's this?

[truetanker]

What's this?

OG was 3025-26.

NU is 3039.

"Start" date for Battletech Beginners Intro-dates.

Was a way to regroup the game so new players and older ones had a common start date, backfilling as they went along.

And as a way to separate them from "others" that shall not be named... previous employers.

TT

[CarcosanDawn]

I think two maneuver elements per company is way to small. If I wanted a 10 tank company, I would do 3x3 + 1 CO, but I think 12-15 with three maneuver elements each is sensible (4 tank platoons or five tank platoons).

A square company is unwieldy, but a line company is weak - one platoon forward with one in reserve just seems tiny. Two forwards and one reserve (the traditional triangular military unit) is superior.

If anything, I would expect the debate to be more "is it square or triangle based" - 2 maneuver units per company is really uncomfortable lol. For me anyways.

[thesilverback]

A square unit is more for 2 maneuver units forward to find the enemy weakness and once the weakness has been found 1 unit for the breakthrough, followed by the last unit to exploit the breakthrough.

A triangle unit lacks the exploitation force while still good.

A pair of units is just to constricting on what a commander can do.