Mounted Halftrack infantry under fire

[Sedak]

Hi

I noticed that when the German infantry in mounted on Sonder Kraftzeug, their heads are popping up. When I run even by accident too close to russian infantry with plenty of automatic weapons, they open fire and achieve many "head shots". I know from personal experience that german halftrack is surprisingly small. But there is still some room for infanty to shring so their heads are not above vehicle's surface in emergency. Could this be (easily) coded? I would do exactly this being a soldier Soviet SMGs cannot penetrate HT armor and it would save me few pixeltruppen by realistic way.

Thanks

[phil stanbridge]

The infantry within HT's are able to fire small arms at nearby targets but to do this they have to attain LOS - hence popping their heads up to fire. They are extremely vulnerable though as you have found. Maybe you should keep the halftracks further back

[GhostRider3/3]

Hi

I noticed that when the German infantry in mounted on Sonder Kraftzeug, their heads are popping up. When I run even by accident too close to russian infantry with plenty of automatic weapons, they open fire and achieve many "head shots". I know from personal experience that german halftrack is surprisingly small. But there is still some room for infanty to shring so their heads are not above vehicle's surface in emergency. Could this be (easily) coded? I would do exactly this being a soldier Soviet SMGs cannot penetrate HT armor and it would save me few pixeltruppen by realistic way.

Thanks

I to have noticed this as well. Our Re-enactment group used a sdkfz 251/1 and I don't remember any heads sticking above the roofline. like the OP, the halftrack can take pretty much all Squad weapons. I don't understand why I suffer 4-6 casualties driving by enemy forces... I understand the occasional casualty from well placed shots.

I had done a few tests regarding mounted infantry in HT.... 60% of the time entire infantry squads were getting decimated while within 50m of enemy Russian Infantry. The other 40% the HT Infantry would take only maybe 1-2 casualties and the track would back up change direction. I looked for grenade hits, did not find any, the casualties were coming from rifle and SMG fire.

I understand HT are not Tanks, however I think that the troops in the track under fire would have their heads down, "Cautious" to even "Nervous" status depending on their level. Veteran, Regular, Green, etc.

They have in my opinion been taking too many casualties... therefore my entire tactics have changed in dealing with soviet infantry.

Question?

When I have unbuttoned a HT so that the MG is manned, does that basically tell everyone in the HT to unbutton as well? Thereby exposing the entire track? Just wondering on the mechanics. I thought the entire point of Halftracks were to get troops from A-B more safely nullifying small infantry weapons such as Rifles, SMG, LMG, and shrapnel.. (obviously unless a grenade lands in the track). I know obviously you would not advance in trucks as they are soft skinned, but I never considered a Halftrack to be so vulnerable.. even the gunner has a small deflection plate protecting the MG gunner, although obviously its not a foolproof situation.

I have also noticed that German infantry casualties... the Leader usually gets injured first no matter what the situation.. It seems that when they are fired upon 60% of the time the NCO is killed or injured first. Is this simulating RL losses with the German NCO's? or is it pure luck of the enemy... or my Bad luck.. LOL

Thanks,

Semper Fi.

[womble]

It's because they are drawn sitting bolt upright, as if they were on parade for the inspection of the Fuhrer, and the bullet/pixel interaction is 1:1. One day, BFC will have them hunker down and we won't see this any more. Bear in mind, though, that if you're close enough for SMG fire you probably shouldn't be mounted any more, because there's other, worse, stuff out there (or there ought to be): organic ATGs are hard to spot and will kill entire squads, as will any plunging MG fire.

[GhostRider3/3]

It's because they are drawn sitting bolt upright, as if they were on parade for the inspection of the Fuhrer, and the bullet/pixel interaction is 1:1. One day, BFC will have them hunker down and we won't see this any more. Bear in mind, though, that if you're close enough for SMG fire you probably shouldn't be mounted any more, because there's other, worse, stuff out there (or there ought to be): organic ATGs are hard to spot and will kill entire squads, as will any plunging MG fire.

Yeah copy that Womble.. I know they are sitting strangely, when I had done about 12 different little tests.. they still took casualties from the enemy who was on parallel with them... no elevation... there were no grenades just SMG fire, and a few rifle shots.

Anyways.. from now on.. I will no longer "Quickly Bypass" Enemy infantry but dismount about 200m away.. that should be at a distance to void SMG fire at least. I had used the HT before to move lots of men to flanking positions.. and then to the rear etc.. but must be terrain, jacked up elevations I am not seeing clearly to warrant the quick deaths of many soldaten.. yikes... my bad. I just had the impression the HT mounted troops would fair pretty good at distances of at least 50-75m that's 150-200 odd feet away... but like you said, maybe they have angle Im not seeing.

[Fizou]

It's because they are drawn sitting bolt upright, as if they were on parade for the inspection of the Fuhrer, and the bullet/pixel interaction is 1:1. One day, BFC will have them hunker down and we won't see this any more. Bear in mind, though, that if you're close enough for SMG fire you probably shouldn't be mounted any more, because there's other, worse, stuff out there (or there ought to be): organic ATGs are hard to spot and will kill entire squads, as will any plunging MG fire.

But isn't there a dice throw save? Higher in a building.. and maybe also when sitting in a HT? If the pixel men where sitting upright like they are in kubels and jeeps they'd be shredded by mg fire - but they dont die like flies.. must be some sort of abstraction of micro movement there that saves them I believe.

[MikeyD]

Lets not forget half track armor is papier mache. Side armor was just 8mm, I believe, though angled at 35 degrees. Compare to a Stuart, for example, with its respectable 30mm side plate. They needed that amount of armor to keep full power steel-core 7.62 from punching through it. M18 Hellcat wasn't even armored enough to stop small arms penetrations.

[GhostRider3/3]

Lets not forget half track armor is papier mache. Side armor was just 8mm, I believe, though angled at 35 degrees. Compare to a Stuart, for example, with its respectable 30mm side plate. They needed that amount of armor to keep full power steel-core 7.62 from punching through it. M18 Hellcat wasn't even armored enough to stop small arms penetrations.

Copy that MikeyD. I know the Sdkfz 251 had between 6-14mm or armor protection. The vehicle was designed for easy egress for troops while under cover of the MG34 or 42.. the track provided good horizontal cover from small arms, grenades and the obvious.. downside as everyone knows is if the attacker is of higher ground. That is the point that gets me is I have seen troops in the tracks take heavy casualties being on the same level of ground... no advantage at all to the Attacker.. no grenades were tossed as well.. replayed them over and over. and its just SMG fire and rifle fire? Its not a game changer for me.. but I am just sort of bewildered at the ineffectiveness of armored transport. I hardly doubt the soviet SMG's could penetrate the side of a German track or visa versa Germans penetrate the side of a US halftrack with small arms fire.

Now if I was rolling tracks through an urban environment and their were enemy troops on 2nd floors and above.. yes totally agree... or even from slopes.. however they would have to be very steep slopes to cover the arc into the track.. so if the track is moving up the slop facing the enemy they would most likely be hitting the front of the track, unless the rounds strangely lobbed into the track? I understand a depressed Trajectory... and so far in all of my scenarios, NO track was ever at a disadvantage from being lower then the enemy, if anything the tracks were on the same level ground, or actually elevated on top of a slope.

Its hard to describe that.. if I could figure out how to take a screen shot.. LOL I would.

Also its interesting that the Sdkfz 251 has a wide track.. and in my opinion should be quicker in rough terrain.. but oddly enough sometimes it is just slow... but again not a game changer.. things are working out just fine and I am very happy.. just was a little baffled by the mass casualties on level ground from bullets... but then again, as a Marine, I would rather be on the ground then in a bullet magnet.

[womble]

Yeah copy that Womble.. I know they are sitting strangely, when I had done about 12 different little tests.. they still took casualties from the enemy who was on parallel with them... no elevation... there were no grenades just SMG fire, and a few rifle shots.

That's the consequence of the "formal" posture: their heads are above the line of the top of the walls of the passenger compartment. That, and penetrations of the armour.

...dismount about 200m away...

Practically, by this stage of the war, 200m isn't far enough; you're wanting full defilade, really. CM represents this quite well. Obviously there are exceptions, but in general, halfies aren't meant to get into sight of unsuppressed enemy.

I just had the impression the HT mounted troops would fair pretty good at distances of at least 50-75m that's 150-200 odd feet away... but like you said, maybe they have angle Im not seeing.

As has been said, full power rifle bullets will punch halftrack armour at those ranges, and static infantry has a more than fair chance of being able to aimed shot even "bomb-bursting" Landser.

But isn't there a dice throw save?

I don't know. It's one of the things I've wondered about when you see a single burst from an Sten 150m away drop the gunner on a 251 from same ground elevation and frontal aspect. If there is one, it's nowhere near as helpful as a large building, or even, it seems sometimes, open ground.

If the pixel men where sitting upright like they are in kubels and jeeps they'd be shredded by mg fire - but they dont die like flies.. must be some sort of abstraction of micro movement there that saves them I believe.

I'd say it's just that only the top handspan of their heads is poking above the armour (which does provide some protection against rifle-calibre fire, and excellent protection against SMG-calibre).

The vehicle was designed...

...in the '30s

...the track provided good horizontal cover from small arms...

This is only really true from the front. The sides were punchable by commonly available steel-cored full-power rifle rounds. And the Russians have ATR still in service in large numbers in '44, which can get in through the front plate too.

...I am just sort of bewildered at the ineffectiveness of armored transport. I hardly doubt the soviet SMG's could penetrate the side of a German track or visa versa Germans penetrate the side of a US halftrack with small arms fire.

Lead with steel jackets? Has a job getting through a Hanomag's sides, but AP ammo was, according to anecdote, readily available to the squishies (especially MG crews), and could penetrate. The Ami halftracks were less well armoured: thinner and not sloped, and really only gave protection against SMG and fragments. One thing also to remember is that the track doesn't have to be lower to be showing its top. If the terrain it's crossing undulates, it will be nose-down some of the time and flat-trajectory shots will go into the back. There's a reason APCs got given roofs and better armour post-war, and it's not to stand up to light AT weapons (cos they don't).

[Pelican Pal]

I'll generally agree with Sedak that HT mounted infantry seem too vulnerable.

MikeyD - I was under the impression that when a bullet penetrated the crew compartment there would be a "penetration message" popup. Or at least it appears that their should be because the game does track small arms hits on HTs.

Fizou - I believe there is one, but it is nowhere near as effective as the normal cover dice throws. Then again even with a throwing save it would be better if the troops hunkered down in the tracks some. They will fail saves eventually and it would be much better if they were not hit at all.

[Fizou]

Haven't played enough yet of either CMRT or CMMG to draw any real conclusions yet.. but my feeling is that the hanomag offers better protection in RT.

[snarre]

personaly i see only one problem whit ht;s . they start panic under fire too easy and stop assault or moving to place where they are in safe but what go to taking casualties in ht . only one or 2 get down under heavy fire sou ht give enough protection.

[GhostRider3/3]

personaly i see only one problem whit ht;s . they start panic under fire too easy and stop assault or moving to place where they are in safe but what go to taking casualties in ht . only one or 2 get down under heavy fire sou ht give enough protection.

Yes that has been noticed by myself as well... the gunner gets a head shot... lol and the entire half track crew goes into panic mode.

Im not sure if this is accurate.. but if the driver is green, or regular might have an effect on Panic vs Nervous, or even Cautious.

I am basically using HT infantry a lot differently now.... I am basically blasting everything with HE.. or I set up a couple tanks and MG (Target Light) the area where I want to assault, maybe drops some 81mm mortar in the area to suppress any infantry.. then send the tracks.. and let my infantry loose. Some off the issues is getting across all that open ground.... so Smoke has become a new friend as well.

[snarre]

yep thats good way to use them if you try to do close assault whit HT:s . yep i had to test litlebit whit more veteran crew if they dont panic sou fast and easyly then.

[bruno2016]

I also noticed the extreme vulnerability of HT personnel to small arms fire. Also I noticed how slowly and awkwardly the HTs are making turns when moving.

Vulnerability: even when the personnel is not "opened up" and at horizontal angle, they suffer from smg or ligh MGs up to more than 100 m away just as if they were sitting in trucks. That is nonsense.

As mentioned above in this thread, HTs provided full cover from the battlefield small arms fire and shrapnells. And the MG shield should provide a cover to the gunner like behind a small wall. For whoever like me has been playing ASL for years before the digital games arrived, remember the "+2" protection when firing from a HT / SPW...

Only when the angle of fire was steep (again in ASL, approximated by the the firer having to be 2  levels higher than the distance to the HT, in hexes) could it score hits inside.

Only ATGs and medium/heavy MGs could punch thru the HT armor thanks to their AP bullets at level angle.

Tactics wise, HTs were used to saturate the objective with MG fire (combined fire could also be done in ASL using adjacent HTs) while the personnel was dismounting.

 With CM, it is not anymore possible as HTs are as vulnerable as trucks. This is a misconception, not a bug.

Last, as to the slowness and awkwardness of HTs to perform quick turns especially around buildings or hedgerow paths, that is very surprising. It even leads often the vehicle to make huge detours or even reverse completely and then become vulnerable to fire. The only workaround I found was to micromanage the waypoints and this is not fully safe even. The game engine should be able to devise the best path from origin to destination without getting into convoluted and unrealistic moves.

Regarding slowness, I noticed that anything different from heavy tanks like the Tiger 1 or 2 which could pivot in their tracks using inverted track movement (see WoT), other AFVs are extremely slow pivoting, incl. the Panther (which could also invert track movement). That again is not realistic, they used to pivot quickly even if it took some radius when they had to block one track instead of reversing its movement. This can lead to artificial negative effects in critical tactical situations. To me this is another misconception to be fixed in the game engine.

[Rinaldi]

Wow, this thread is back from the dead, eh? Well its good to see @womble has been consistently helpful over the years.

Every time I see a thread complaining about Halftracks I always raise my eyebrows; and this isn't me being rude or judgemental - everyone has their own play style and I respect that but I have no trouble doing 'hot dismounts' and rapid entries with HTs when the situation calls for it. It takes a lot of preperation and an inordinate amount of firepower.

So, welcome bruno, and don't take this the wrong way. I'm going to be speaking from the other side of the fence as someone who uses half-tracks regularly and aggressively...

2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

I also noticed the extreme vulnerability of HT personnel to small arms fire. Also I noticed how slowly and awkwardly the HTs are making turns when moving.

That would be a result of the fact that they are half-tracks, suffice to say. Their turning radius is poor and you need to make fairly minute waypoint adjustments with them.

2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Vulnerability: even when the personnel is not "opened up" and at horizontal angle, they suffer from smg or ligh MGs up to more than 100 m away just as if they were sitting in trucks. That is nonsense.

 

I'm sorry this is objectively false; have you tried these maneuvers with a truck? I dare say you'll be recanting your statement that the vulnerability of the Haltrack is on par with the vulnerability of a thin-skin.

2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

As mentioned above in this thread, HTs provided full cover from the battlefield small arms fire and shrapnells. And the MG shield should provide a cover to the gunner like behind a small wall. For whoever like me has been playing ASL for years before the digital games arrived, remember the "+2" protection when firing from a HT / SPW...

Define "Full Cover." I don't think I've ever read any historical document that ever spoke about full cover while being in a halftrack, in fact German and American accounts, even the favorable ones, tend to say they were anything but. You'll find yourself reasonably well protected from sustained small-arms fire up to around 100m but if the HTs are getting concentrated on then the losses are going to stack up fast. There's a reason these units fought in conjunction with tanks, I suppose.

2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Only ATGs and medium/heavy MGs could punch thru the HT armor thanks to their AP bullets at level angle.

ASL got it wrong. The Ball type ammos in-game that are most common (8mm, 30 aught) can penetrate up to 10mm of steel at around 100m, and that's probably being conservative given the mixed manfacturing in game. I'm speaking more from the realm of the American halftracks, which were much zippier and than the Skdfz. 251s, but more vulnerable. All the same, sustained .30 cal MMG fire from close range (less than 100m) usually gives me spalling at least when I've been able to catch half-tracks flatfooted.

I've also consistently been able to see the MG gunshield do its job as intended...at around 100m or so. The KG Peiper campaign saw me putting a lot of fire down with my halftracks at little loss to myself; even when I got a lot of return fire back.

2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Tactics wise, HTs were used to saturate the objective with MG fire (combined fire could also be done in ASL using adjacent HTs) while the personnel was dismounting.

 With CM, it is not anymore possible as HTs are as vulnerable as trucks. This is a misconception, not a bug.

Still very much possible, and I must disagree. Rapid insertions and using the HT as MG platforms is still possible - in fact with the tweaks made to unbuttoned vulnerability even more so than before. My routine opponents can attest to this, and my use of HTs in SP (like in the AAR linked above) can also be used as evidence to the contrary.

Jesus I'm starting to sound like the geriatric grogs I make fun of, but the proof is in the pudding with this; 90 percent of these complaints come from overly-bravose use of their mounted infantry. While yes, the complaints about the stiff animations are 100 percent valid, suddenly extrapoloating everything else is just silly.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Rinaldi

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Wow, this thread is back from the dead, eh? Well its good to see @womble has been consistently helpful over the years.   <Snip> 

Yes @womble is a very knowledgeable, helpful CM player.  He has gone silent as of late.  But, maybe like Beetlejuice if we tag his name enough he will show up .    

[Rinaldi]

Haha, maybe! Perhaps we can finally kill this loud j'accuse over Halftracks not being proto-bradleys too with this excellent tutorial post by @George MC:

Who also reiterates the same thing I, and many others already have: HTs can't make fast dashes without inordinate supporting fire and tank protection, as God intended.

[Warts 'n' all]

Not only as God intended, I suspect it was probably what Guderian had in mind as well.

[c3k]

200m to 300m standoff range for halftracks is my goal. I'll try to sit them that far back and have them saturate likely points of resistance with area target firepower while the dismounts move forward. At that range my ht gunners tend to last longer.

 

[Warts 'n' all]

10 hours ago, c3k said:

200m to 300m standoff range for halftracks is my goal. I'll try to sit them that far back and have them saturate likely points of resistance with area target firepower while the dismounts move forward. At that range my ht gunners tend to last longer.

 

That sounds spot on to me. I certainly don't like to move them in any closer than 200m.

[John Kettler]

Bruno2016,

Welcome aboard!

It may or may not, depending on a number of factors, work in CMRT, but here is the official OKW how to film on using Panzer Grenadiers in Russia, summer of 1944.

Obviously, conditions will differ considerably in CMBN and CMFB. Does anyone know what the effective armor protection was for the steeply angled side armor of the SdKfz 250 and 251. Would've thought it would stop rifle and MG bullets as long as they weren't AP, but I never saw any actual protection spec discussion (based on original design requirements) on this matter. As far as keeping their heads down, the Landser, would simply hunch toward each other on their inward facing benches, which would drop their heads below the top of the armor. Seems to me this is something BFC ought to address, just as it addressed TC exposure.  Something I feel isn't well represented in the game is the morale impact of being attacked by armor, especially when not in strong field fortifications with lots of AT support. Consider this drawing by the meticulous WW II German war artist Hans Liska, who was doing his work with all sorts of different units during the war, over a vast span of distance.

If the above seems ridiculous, I should tell you Rommel's boys did much the same to a newly arrived American infantry unit in North Africa. the Panzer Grenadiers came roaring in out of the setting sun, blazed away with their MGs and small arms, threw lots of grenades and left the way they came, leaving stunned Americans in their wake. As one survivor wryly put it, it was their "Welcome to North Africa" and put the GIs on notice they were fighting the pros of the Afrika Korps. You may also be interested to know US Army Doctrine from 1943 envisioned MG fire from a moving halftrack and that plus individual weapons and the bazooka, if needed, from the halftrack while halted! That said, the GI name for the poorly protected US halftracks was biting: "Purple Heart boxes."

http://www.easy39th.com/files/FM_17-71_Crew_Drill_for_Half-track_Vehicles_1943.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by John Kettler

[Rinaldi]

17 hours ago, c3k said:

200m to 300m standoff range for halftracks is my goal. I'll try to sit them that far back and have them saturate likely points of resistance with area target firepower while the dismounts move forward. At that range my ht gunners tend to last longer.

 

 

7 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

That sounds spot on to me. I certainly don't like to move them in any closer than 200m.

That's best practices, for sure. Especially when the terrain and (lack) of information warrant it. I often, even when I do a hot dismount, actually pull the HTs back to these ranges so that they won't draw fire while near the dismounts.

[akd]

Found this poking around in NARA files:

[John Kettler]

akd,

Did you find that online or were you there physically? I know enough German to know that is what we would interpret as 20PD War Diary. Regardless of what the pub is, the artwork admirably reinforces my point. Great find!

Regards,

John Kettler