Mounted Halftrack infantry under fire

[Wicky]

More artwork evidence it happened all the time... 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Wicky

[akd]

5 hours ago, John Kettler said:

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

Digitized NARA files.  The difference between this and the comic books is the latter is popular culture, while the former is artwork generated within an actual unit in the field.  Now that doesn't mean that they actually operated that way, but it is pretty clear indication they conceived of themselves as operating that way, that the mounted attack was at least part of their esprit de corps.

[JoMac]

10 hours ago, Wicky said:

More artwork evidence it happened all the time... 

Actually, you are not to far off there, Wicky...CMx2 Soft Skinned Vehicle Crews tend to last longer then lightly Armored and can get in for close range support.

Joe

Edited March 10, 2017 by JoMc67

[RockinHarry]

Thought I´d throw that in here. It´s from a german Panzergrenadier training manual as of January 1944. The given chapter (6) deals with Panzergrenadier mounted attack situations, figured worth to be trained in the training schools. Unfortunately I lack time to make the translations, but maybe someone else can extract the more interesting and revealing info?

[John Kettler]

RockinHarry,

Some of this I could readily figure out, but the title was a bit too much.

Combat training of the Panzer Grenadiers

The second paragraph, with no reference to a translator program, has to do with training for the LMG section with 2 x LMG, the armored section (which has to be 251s as the standard) and the unarmored section, which is, of course in trucks.

By Helmut von Wahren

Major and Commander, Training Battalion

It's got 28 somethings (diagrams?), and is clearly not a date.

Publisher is "Offene Wort" in Berlin, and "W35" is likely a postal code.

Page 67

Chapter (or similar)

Armored Group in the Attack

Next line may be a reference to a prior manual, but there seems to be a deficiency in info if that's the case. The next part of that page is a list of relevant references.

Spot reading Page 68 goes something like

Training for Ground Action

From Vehicles

With the vehicles' MGs ("Bord" says it's mounted on the platform; see BK 37, BK50, BK 75 on German tankbusting aircraft), firing from the vehicles.

Riflemen, firing and smoke grenades

References (coordination?) with heavy weapons (presumably, organic  HMGs and mortars) and artillery

(More follows).

Combat on Foot. This is an explicit distinction from the previously and extensively described mounted combat.

If you had nothing else as an appetite whetter, just those pages alone would be enough for me to want as much of the rest of this as I could get, for this is gold! If you've got a link, can send me a PDF or something, I'd love to send it to brother George, the former Scout who was in Bradley CFVs in Black Horse in the Meiningen Gap just across the IGB for years (including when the Berlin Wall fell), who knows some German (especially military because he's a weapon grog) and would, in any case, go nuts over this. I am, and my German is all but nil.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by John Kettler

[bruno2016]

On 3/6/2017 at 6:55 AM, Rinaldi said:

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

[bruno2016]

sorry I sent the above msg wrongly by trying to quote.

So I will reply globally.

@Rinaldi. Thanks for your reply, I wont take it personally of course, Just I believe ASL was not wrong and also ASL never said HTs are assault guns either. As to why they were accompanied by tanks, I would rather say the other way 'round: tanks were accompanied by HTs to provide infantry support and eventual assault of the enemy positions, with mutual cover fire of course. 

Full cover does not mean impervious to any attack, it means that at - horizontal angle - the carried personnel, as stated in one the messages above, could hide themselves behind the walls of the HT without having their head exposed. MGs, ATRs and of course ATGs could penetrate 10 mm armor. but rifles and smgs? 

If you believe usual 9 mm  can easily penetrate 10 mm armor (please give any link to documentation showing this), then why doesn't the game show any armor penetration or spalling at least then? sorry this is not a consistent behavior, whatever the simulation of the game tries to do. As stated in older messages, that is probably because the game considers carried personnel have their heads exposed. Back to the discussion....

Now I agree with the statements that 200-200 m is a safe range and workaround for the behavior of the game, more than as a reproduction of reality. 

As to the turn radius of the HTs, even if it was big, in the game the HTs/SPWs are almost at idle speed when making a sharp turn. I have seen HTs in real life, they move much more quickly even with their radius. Consequence in the game: when you need to quickly escape, you get artificially exposed a long time.

I also mentioned the slowness of other AFVs turning (except surprisingly heavy weights like the Tiger II): have you seen quickly a real Panther turns on its tracks? or even a Stug to name a few ...even if of course its slower than a Leopard II pivoting and keeping its gun steady in its direction. Even in the footage of the running Porsche Jagdtiger made by the British at the end of the war, watch how quickly it turns on itself, with some radius yes, despite its 76 tons... Now compare with CM and tell me if again I got it wrong... 

I am not trying here to find the devil in the details, just that these shortcomings can have very surprising and negative tactical consequences where you dont expect them.

 

 

[kch001]

just looking at the first line paragraph of the manual.. it basically states that the squad will fight from vehicles as long as enemy fire, terrain and order will allow it. 

Seems a pretty strong indication that squad is expected to dismount in the face of determined resistance. In the diagram explaining the attack the squad is dismounting to fight and only using the vehicles to reach the next phase line where they again dismount to attack

[Ithikial_AU]

I think it's one of those things we'll get to appreciate more if CMx2 ever goes mid and especially early war, when the caliber of heavy weaponry and array of machine guns diminish compared to '44 and '45 we mostly play now where everything is a threat. Halftracks as armored transport with mobile HMG's could be incredibly versatile when you know you probably don't have bazookas, fausts and tanks with 75mm guns in front of you every battle. I think technology and weaponary simply overtook the concept of open topped halftracks pretty quickly and we've one seen the end game in the CMx2 engine.

Two cents from someone who's keen on mid and early war titles.

[Michael Emrys]

11 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said:

I think it's one of those things we'll get to appreciate more if CMx2 ever goes mid and especially early war, when the caliber of heavy weaponry and array of machine guns diminish compared to '44 and '45 we mostly play now where everything is a threat.

Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to me that rifle caliber weapons changed that much during the course of the war aside from the introduction of Kurtz type cartridges, and those were actually a bit weaker. Most armies finished the war with the same MGs they began it with, by an large. Maybe the biggest change was the lavish proliferation of .50 caliber MGs with their greater penetration, but early war light tanks, such as some British models, had .50 caliber MGs as their primary weapon. And there were also lots of ATRs which would have penetrated the armor of any HT around in those days. In short, aside from the increased chance of encountering a true ATG or a bazooka type weapon, I don't see the risk of operating close to the front as growing in late war situations.

If you have something more definite in mind, please share it.

Michael

[Rinaldi]

4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

sorry I sent the above msg wrongly by trying to quote.

So I will reply globally.

@Rinaldi. Thanks for your reply, I wont take it personally of course, Just I believe ASL was not wrong and also ASL never said HTs are assault guns either. As to why they were accompanied by tanks, I would rather say the other way 'round: tanks were accompanied by HTs to provide infantry support and eventual assault of the enemy positions, with mutual cover fire of course. 

Fair play, won't argue with this. In fact, I agree. So forgive the slew of qualifying statements I'm about to make about the rest of the post.

4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

If you believe usual 9 mm  can easily penetrate 10 mm armor (please give any link to documentation showing this), then why doesn't the game show any armor penetration or spalling at least then? sorry this is not a consistent behavior, whatever the simulation of the game tries to do. As stated in older messages, that is probably because the game considers carried personnel have their heads exposed. Back to the discussion....

So I'll preface the following with the reminder that I agreed the stiff animations were not something I was willing to hand-wave either, having said that:

This is for ball. Further reading that suggests stronger pen values. Whether you accept the source is your perogative, of course.

"The 1939 US Army specification for M-2 .30-06 AP penetration is .42" (11mm) of armor steel at 100 feet."

The M3/M5s were a bit more thin-skinned than the 251s (which had about 6mm at their lightest points). Well within parameters for punishment if you're trying a hot dismount. Doubly so given the proliferation of 8mm AP for sustained fire MGs.

Anecdotal and secondary sources are, at best, conflicted I will admit. Suffice to say however, that with notable exceptions (such as the much written about charge at Troyes and Assensois, covered in Armor in Battle) most US armored documentation I've read tend to stress dismounting your armored infantry in defilade rather than in the face of the enemy.

4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Now I agree with the statements that 200-200 m is a safe range and workaround for the behavior of the game, more than as a reproduction of reality. 

I understand you're arguing with good faith and your logic in the first paragraph is sound, but dismounting at stand-off distance isn't some expedient we're forced to accept for gameplay purposes; its just damned good sense. It's also more typical than atypical useage of these units.

Again I wish I could say I'm not arguing from experience but given I've linked to an AAR where I repeatedly dismount in the face of the enemy with no losses I'm not sure what to say. Hot dismounts, even in Black Sea where the Bradleys can feasibly shrug off 2A28 fire has a lot of planning and masking fires behind them.

I generally agree that the animations are utter trash, but they've never been too gamebreaking for me asides from losing the occasional one man or so from potshots at range. This is subjective, and you have every right to moan about it - you may have had a much more distasteful experience with them than I have.

EDIT: Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I think its agreeable to say that, you can get punished much harder than in reality for bravose use of halftracks. I can agree with that uncontroversially.

@JoMc67

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:33 PM, JoMc67 said:

Actually, you are not to far off there, Wicky...CMx2 Soft Skinned Vehicle Crews tend to last longer then lightly Armored and can get in for close range support.

Joe

This is a joke right? What an empty gripe.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Vanir Ausf B]

I really don't see passengers in buttoned HTs getting hit much. German HTs in particular do just fine in the assault if they are kept more-or-less pointed at the enemy and there are no 12.7 MGs raking them. 

The turn speed of vehicles is heavily abstracted and takes into account factors not specifically modeled. For example, every vehicle in the game can pivot-in-place but most could not in reality.

[A Canadian Cat]

@Rinaldi and @Vanir Ausf B have covered the half track stuff pretty well.

 

5 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

I also mentioned the slowness of other AFVs turning (except surprisingly heavy weights like the Tiger II): have you seen quickly a real Panther turns on its tracks? or even a Stug to name a few ...

 

58 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The turn speed of vehicles is heavily abstracted and takes into account factors not specifically modeled. For example, every vehicle in the game can pivot-in-place but most could not in reality.

I'll just add also that vehicle drivers do *not* move at maximum speed at all times for good reason. Take pivoting as an example. It is great that a vehicle can spin in place but during battle tank drivers in WW2 avoided doing that because if you think a tank is to slow to turn in a dangerous situation throwing a track would be worse. Same for crashing around through walls and fences. Tanks can only breach low walls not high ones, no driving over bocage with Churchill tanks even though it seems that was possible. Clearly there could be times when drivers would do things they cannot in game but BFC had to make decisions about how to handle what was usual vs what was extraordinary. They deiced to use a slower turning speed than the theoretical max. They did this for good reason. For historical reasons. To make the simulation better.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

...no driving over bocage with Churchill tanks even though it seems that was possible.

And, so I've heard, was actually done on occasion. And from what I read some years back, a Sherman could perform the same feat. The reason it did not in practice is that it exposed the bottom of the hull to all sorts of nasty counter measures.

Michael

[Warts 'n' all]

I have to concur with M.E. I've always thought that the main problem with mounting and breaking through earthen banked hedgerows within the bocage country came from exposing the tank's belly before it reached tipping point.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well sure that is the danger the enemy presents but loosing a track, wheel or just getting tangled up is also a real risk. Doing something like that under enemy observation would be very dangerous because no one could get out and clear the wheels and repair the tracks without getting shot up. Hence that was not a usual every day activity.

[c3k]

And, the steepness of the bank prevents a lot of vehicles from getting up and over them. (Talking non-tracked.) Otherwise, a lot of tracked vehicles have a limit on the vertical height they can climb. (Most seem to specify a 1m obstacle.)

[RockinHarry]

13 hours ago, kch001 said:

just looking at the first line paragraph of the manual.. it basically states that the squad will fight from vehicles as long as enemy fire, terrain and order will allow it. 

Seems a pretty strong indication that squad is expected to dismount in the face of determined resistance. In the diagram explaining the attack the squad is dismounting to fight and only using the vehicles to reach the next phase line where they again dismount to attack

Not exactly. There´s 2-3 training cases mentioned (5. Einlage p72, 3. + 4. Einlage p74)  that give good detail for particular situations for mounted combat, close and mid range with boarded Panzergrenadiers fully participating. With the manual published in january 44 (based on field regulation 299/4a from 1942), it can be assumed that the training situations are very much based on practical combat experiences on the eastern front prior to 1944. Though it can be doubted, that many of these training cases still could be applied practically in 1944 and later for various reasons.

[db_zero]

Ah yes the subject that never dies. If I were a betting man this will still be debated years from now.

[Ithikial_AU]

15 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to me that rifle caliber weapons changed that much during the course of the war aside from the introduction of Kurtz type cartridges, and those were actually a bit weaker. Most armies finished the war with the same MGs they began it with, by an large. Maybe the biggest change was the lavish proliferation of .50 caliber MGs with their greater penetration, but early war light tanks, such as some British models, had .50 caliber MGs as their primary weapon. And there were also lots of ATRs which would have penetrated the armor of any HT around in those days. In short, aside from the increased chance of encountering a true ATG or a bazooka type weapon, I don't see the risk of operating close to the front as growing in late war situations.

If you have something more definite in mind, please share it.

Michael

Sorry was thinking more generally back to the likes of 1941 where the Panzergroups had significant breakthrough power against the Soviets and the German warmachine could actually kit out a full Battalion of Panzergrenadiers with halftracks (but yes not full divisions). Terrain will also play a key factor considering we don't have many opportunities for fighting on the open steppe or deserts of Africa under current titles.

For small arms fire, the ability for passengers to duck their heads down when under fire would be nice. Sort of related to another long held wish of mine to one day see infantry be able to crouch move / duck and dash when under light surpression to get to the end of that waypoint. There isn't that nice in between mode for infantry between moving normally and going prone to seek cover and concealment.

[mjkerner]

29 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said:

For small arms fire, the ability for passengers to duck their heads down when under fire would be nice. Sort of related to another long held wish of mine to one day see infantry be able to crouch move / duck and dash when under light surpression to get to the end of that waypoint. There isn't that nice in between mode for infantry between moving normally and going prone to seek cover and concealment.

^^^ Yes, this!

[JoMac]

8 hours ago, mjkerner said:

^^^ Yes, this!

x3...I have always said that there needs to be a better Savings Roll for Passengers to represent ducking, etc...There needs something to combat the 'Bullet Magnet' effect.

Edited March 14, 2017 by JoMc67

[bruno2016]

On 3/13/2017 at 4:57 PM, Rinaldi said:

Fair play, won't argue with this. In fact, I agree. So forgive the slew of qualifying statements I'm about to make about the rest of the post.

So I'll preface the following with the reminder that I agreed the stiff animations were not something I was willing to hand-wave either, having said that:

This is for ball. Further reading that suggests stronger pen values. Whether you accept the source is your perogative, of course.

"The 1939 US Army specification for M-2 .30-06 AP penetration is .42" (11mm) of armor steel at 100 feet."

The M3/M5s were a bit more thin-skinned than the 251s (which had about 6mm at their lightest points). Well within parameters for punishment if you're trying a hot dismount. Doubly so given the proliferation of 8mm AP for sustained fire MGs.

Anecdotal and secondary sources are, at best, conflicted I will admit. Suffice to say however, that with notable exceptions (such as the much written about charge at Troyes and Assensois, covered in Armor in Battle) most US armored documentation I've read tend to stress dismounting your armored infantry in defilade rather than in the face of the enemy.

I understand you're arguing with good faith and your logic in the first paragraph is sound, but dismounting at stand-off distance isn't some expedient we're forced to accept for gameplay purposes; its just damned good sense. It's also more typical than atypical useage of these units.

Again I wish I could say I'm not arguing from experience but given I've linked to an AAR where I repeatedly dismount in the face of the enemy with no losses I'm not sure what to say. Hot dismounts, even in Black Sea where the Bradleys can feasibly shrug off 2A28 fire has a lot of planning and masking fires behind them.

I generally agree that the animations are utter trash, but they've never been too gamebreaking for me asides from losing the occasional one man or so from potshots at range. This is subjective, and you have every right to moan about it - you may have had a much more distasteful experience with them than I have.

EDIT: Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I think its agreeable to say that, you can get punished much harder than in reality for bravose use of halftracks. I can agree with that uncontroversially.

@JoMc67

This is a joke right? What an empty gripe.

Thanks for these details. actually my point was more on the resistance of the HTs, especially the thicker SPWs, to horizontal fire from non MG, ATR, ATG, energy or nuclear weapons, lasers etc for - buttoned up - personnel when they travel in the HT at non close range (i.e.>40 m let's say) than the vulnerability of dismounted personnel which to me is OK in the game (as it was in ASL with no special protection, jsut as if they were standing idle in the terrain they occupy)

And I can see by brwosing in this long thread that other players also find the vulnerability of travelling personnel excessive.

[bruno2016]

On 3/13/2017 at 7:13 PM, IanL said:

@Rinaldi and @Vanir Ausf B have covered the half track stuff pretty well.

 

 

I'll just add also that vehicle drivers do *not* move at maximum speed at all times for good reason. Take pivoting as an example. It is great that a vehicle can spin in place but during battle tank drivers in WW2 avoided doing that because if you think a tank is to slow to turn in a dangerous situation throwing a track would be worse. Same for crashing around through walls and fences. Tanks can only breach low walls not high ones, no driving over bocage with Churchill tanks even though it seems that was possible. Clearly there could be times when drivers would do things they cannot in game but BFC had to make decisions about how to handle what was usual vs what was extraordinary. They deiced to use a slower turning speed than the theoretical max. They did this for good reason. For historical reasons. To make the simulation better.

Fine, I understand the reason. Yet I disagree on the way the game factors in this "risk management" regardless of the situation and not in a consistent manner across vehicles.

For instance, why then in the game a Tiger II can pivot in its tracks so quickly, even in a non hard terrain, whereas the Panther does not? They both had the same engine and reverse track capability and the latter being 20 tons odd lighter than the former....

Turn speed: even when you micromanage the way points to make a smooth angled curve, a HT or a wheeled vehicle will often even stop at each way point to turn the wheels and move in a very weird fashion by hiccups, like you can see in some TV add showing an old 50's US sedan moving up and down on its brakes at a red light. Funny. I would get sea sick if I was a passenger in CMB lol

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The Panther had a notoriously weak transmission and the user manual advises against pivoting in place IIRC:

https://archive.org/details/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung

My German is a little rusty (non-existent TBH) but I suspect it may be in the section entitled 'Kurven'.....This is off the top of my head, I may well be wrong, I'll have a look in the relevant books and check if you want.

I'd guess all the same issues should apply to the Kingtiger as its transmission was every bit as overloaded, if not more so.

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead