Vulnerability of Hanomag halftrack gunners..

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for the spread range - I hate extremes! : )

You are right they did. I am just a completist: ) Especially if its not my time!

[akd]

Couple of questions then arise :

1) Since I thought the */3 model is the radio-equipped version, why does the Panzergrenadier Battalion HQ get a 251/1 ?

It is an error. Already corrected for Gustav Line content. Not sure if it can be fixed for the CMBN base game.

[akd]

bisu brought up, and baneman tested for, vulnerability of Hanomag gunners. Therefore, any outbound fire (from the halftrack) would skew any results. I may try an area target command and see if that changes anything. (And do the same tests w/the US halftracks.)

With your firing units 300m away, a short area target in front of the HTs should not add suppression to the firing units. However, it may shorten the time to spot the HTs, which might in turn shorten the time to achieve a hit, pushing more hits into first minute. I would suggest comparing unbuttoned, not firing to unbuttoned firing, as it is possible that the open driver's port could both influence the aiming of the firing unit and the terminal effects of hits.

p.s. I did a quick comparative test of unbuttoned, non-firing M2 HTs and 251s vs. LMG42s at 200m, and the M2s had noticeably worse survivability. That shield does seem to count for something.

[c3k]

yeah, I'm not too concerned with absolute vulnerability, or timing, right now. I'm more going for a relative check of the vulnerability of a gunshield protected gunner vice a gunner without a shield.

[akd]

yeah, I'm not too concerned with absolute vulnerability, or timing, right now. I'm more going for a relative check of the vulnerability of a gunshield protected gunner vice a gunner without a shield.

Sorry, you may have caught me mid-edit there.

Based on my quick comparison, I think this is the less important point. If there is a huge divergence between results when the gunner is unbuttoned and not firing and when he is buttoned/unbuttoned and firing, then this needs to be explained.

[c3k]

^^^

Exactly.

[JasonC]

Not to distract from the great testing (good stuff guys), but to answer Wodin -

You wrote "you quote these horrendous losses which sort of proves they where used more than a Bus". Um, you think that losses of 1.1% per day of Kursk style combat, merely damaged, with only 1/3rd of that figure total write offs, counts as "horrendous losses"? You think entire SS panzer dvisions going through 2 weeks of offensive combat at Kursk weapon densities, and reporting *3* lost SPWs, is a sign they had to be used as more than buses, because those losses are so *high*?

Anyone want to claim that their own SPWs in games of CM have an 98.9 out of 100 survival rate to the end of one scenario, when they do use them as front line MG nests for fire support?

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/motorized-infantry.html

20. Support the tanks as closely as possible with all weapons, in combat inside the enemy's defensive zone. Do not forget to provide protection to your rear.

21. The submachine gun of the driver should not remain on its support. It is a valuable weapon for close combat against vehicles.

22. The fire of rear vehicles ought not to be dangerous for the crews of forward vehicles that fight on foot.

23. When there is danger from mines, follow the tracks of vehicles that have just passed.

24. Every enemy antitank weapon has superiority over you because it is always ready to fire. Compensate for this superiority by rapid travel, by utilizing the terrain, making short stops to fire, and by actively concentrating your shots. When you have located an antitank gun close to you, charge it while firing and destroy it.

25. Do not give the order to alight from the vehicles until the fire from enemy antitank guns, or the terrain make it necessary, and at a time when you cannot be outflanked. Always utilize the protection afforded by your armor.

Obviously the Germans did not have the benefit of the forum gurus. : )

[ASL Veteran]

I found an interesting series of videos about halftracks and armored cars. Part 3 has the Hanomag in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62jVzEKIdU

[Erwin]

Interesting:

21. says the SMG of the driver. I didn't even know there was a "mounted SMG" for the driver. However, it does not appear to be referring to the MG mounted at the top for use by the commander.

[akd]

Interesting:

21. says the SMG of the driver. I didn't even know there was a "mounted SMG" for the driver. However, it does not appear to be referring to the MG mounted at the top for use by the commander.

There was an MP40 assigned to the SPW, for use by the SPW crew.

[Erwin]

Does one see that MP40 with the crew if they abandon the vehicle?

Also, I was referring to the "mounted" bit. Am still unsure if the MG we've been discussing stayed with the vehicle or was dismounted for inf use.

[JasonC]

Dt - they had better, they had enough front line experience to tell the manuals writers in the rear to stuff it. Entire SS panzer divisions didn't lose only 3 SPWs in two weeks fighting through multiple layered PAK fronts by "charging" every enemy antitank gun they located.

Next you will cite French 1914 field manuals to prove how decisive the bayonet was during WW I...

[dieseltaylor]

Dt - they had better, they had enough front line experience to tell the manuals writers in the rear to stuff it. Entire SS panzer divisions didn't lose only 3 SPWs in two weeks fighting through multiple layered PAK fronts by "charging" every enemy antitank gun they located.

Next you will cite French 1914 field manuals to prove how decisive the bayonet was during WW I...

I would do nothing so stupid as I do realise that conglomerated figures may hide differences of use over a six year period with changing weapon systems.

I don't suppose you will recall that earlier in the thread I made the observation that in the right circumstances the local commander would decide on the benefits or otherwise of using them. I think this link vindicates my view that in appropriate circumstances they would be used as fire support etc,.

Until such time as you produce something different in from the German Army - rather like the directive on Tiger use -this seems to be the proof. And I do mean documentation not aggregated figures from the entire Eastern Front in specific chosen years designed to support your position.

Against early Poles and Russians they would be sensible orders and with the advent of huge numbers of ATR and ATG they would be not so clever. In extremis one might use them even against heavier positions if you had the foresight to drop artillery on the positions you wanted to nullify and then use the Hanomags to provide heavy MG direct fire as the bombardment lifted. But then that comes back to German officers making the call and in fact having some documentation on use. Talking of minimal losses in some operation does not prove otherwise.

[Wodin]

OK so losses weren't that bad then (sorry I miss read or didn't read your posts fully I just thought your jist was lots of destroyed halftrack\APC's)...but you really can't say because they hardly survive in CMx2 then they couldn't have been used for suppressive fire in the war.

We all are on the same page they weren't used close quarters, but I beg to differ that they weren't used when tactically viable in a suppressive fire role.

Not to distract from the great testing (good stuff guys), but to answer Wodin -

You wrote "you quote these horrendous losses which sort of proves they where used more than a Bus". Um, you think that losses of 1.1% per day of Kursk style combat, merely damaged, with only 1/3rd of that figure total write offs, counts as "horrendous losses"? You think entire SS panzer dvisions going through 2 weeks of offensive combat at Kursk weapon densities, and reporting *3* lost SPWs, is a sign they had to be used as more than buses, because those losses are so *high*?

Anyone want to claim that their own SPWs in games of CM have an 98.9 out of 100 survival rate to the end of one scenario, when they do use them as front line MG nests for fire support?

[Wodin]

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/motorized-infantry.html

Obviously the Germans did not have the benefit of the forum gurus. : )

Can't argue with that.

[John Kettler]

I had high hopes for this clip, but the interior's too dark. Note, though, the driver's vision port is open. That said, this appears to be an administrative move, albeit under threat of air attack. Would say Normandy's a real possibility.

Here's the best I can find on the 251's driver's cab interior detail, in a piece on accurizing the Tamiya 251/C kit. Missing-Lynx is the home of grogs, to include some guy named Zaloga!

http://www.missing-lynx.com/articles/german/mm251/mm251.htm

It would appear that the 251 carried two SMGs in the cab, one on either side, together with spare magazines. Also of note, and viewable in pics I saw, was the addition of internal cab armor plate to the baseline design. Anyone with the splendid Bellona book can get us the answer in about ten seconds on vehicle issue of small arms. The Panzerwerfer 42 even has a Panzerschreck!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Redwolf]

Interesting:

21. says the SMG of the driver. I didn't even know there was a "mounted SMG" for the driver. However, it does not appear to be referring to the MG mounted at the top for use by the commander.

It's a clip on the wall, not a mount for shooting ou.

[JasonC]

dt - "Against early Poles and Russians they would be sensible orders". True. But then there weren't any SPWs built yet, pretty much. They really ramp up in numbers in 1943 and 1944.

And until you show me not training anything but actual combat reports - with matching accounts from the defending side, not limited to own-side claims - in which SPWs were fought against and mattered as fighting platforms, I will continue to believe all your rear echelon you know whater doctrinal dream stories are about as credible as French advice on decisive use of the bayonet.

As for my loss figures, I was not (only) comparing the real war to CM, but real war losses of much more heavily protected tanks - that all agree were actually used in the front line - with real war losses of SPWs. The SPWs with a quarter or less of the armor protection, instead of having equal or higher losses, have losses lower by a factor of 5 or more.

And those figures were merely a supplement to a review of all the occasions when German armor attacked the Americans in the MTO and west (and a few for the Brits), and SPWs as fire support are conspicuously just plain missing. E.g. when Lehr, with 600 SPWs on strength, attacked the US front in early July, the US side reports fewer than a dozen SPWs used up front (with a conspicuous lack of success, I might add) - and most parked behind the front, empty, directly observed there by US air. The one large scale front line use of light armor in those reports was against British paratroops (at Arnhem) with no heavy weapons (but with a bridge bottleneck to help them) - and it got slaughtered.

If they are doctrinally doing it all the time, wouldn't their enemies at least occasionally notice? I mean, French bayonet attacks never hurt a fly, but the Germans at least report slaughtering the attempts all through the battle of the frontiers.

[JonS]

It's a clip on the wall, not a mount for shooting ou.

also, it's SMG (sub machine gun, ie an MP40) not sMG (schweres machine gun, ie MG42)

[dieseltaylor]

JasonC

Originally Posted by JasonC

Dt - they had better, they had enough front line experience to tell the manuals writers in the rear to stuff it. Entire SS panzer divisions didn't lose only 3 SPWs in two weeks fighting through multiple layered PAK fronts by "charging" every enemy antitank gun they located.

Next you will cite French 1914 field manuals to prove how decisive the bayonet was during WW I...

The German doctrine is there in black and white. AND the main point is that it was up to the officer to decide when and if to use them. I am totally not surprised to find how absent they are in major combats you quoted previously.

It is not proof that they were not used in support of assaults in certain circumstances.

You yourself actually outlined the likely circumstances in one of your earlier posts. It was the use Kursk as an example and generalising that I found a stretch.

I hope all readers will now be on the lookout for examples of the rare halftracks in action : ) The best I have currently is a quad AA bouncing a Cromwell but thats not really the right sort of vehicle.

[George MC]

Peiper's use of SPW in Kharkov 1943.

Use of SPW during Kursk (they picked their fights mind but were overrun by T34s during Prokhorovka - I'd wager that is where their total loss SPW were suffered).

I'm bit tight for time but there is an account from Agte's Peiper biography, on page 516, of a 20mm drilling armed SPW leading a column of tanks, taking fire from a hidden AT gun and which they drove out, rolled over a HMG, pulled up a few meters from the gun and shot it at close range. Same section earlier page (512) description of SPW rolling behind panzers and providing supporting fire to suppress some AT guns whilst the panzers engage them. All this 1945 eastern front.

Proviso - SPW when used offensively are closely tied with armou, main point they are using their on-board weapons to engage enemy positions.

[womble]

...20mm drilling armed SPW...

The kind of SPW often referred to as a "reconnaisance halftrack"? The kind that would be a bit pointless as a "taxi", since it doesn't have passenger seats? Effectively a half track armoured car? Not a troop transport then, and not really the subject of the argument.

...SPW rolling behind panzers and providing supporting fire to suppress some AT guns whilst the panzers engage them. All this 1945 eastern front...

Were they the troop carrier types? What was the level of opposition? Were they surprised in movement? Were they able to avoid getting involved? Was it part of the plan?

[George MC]

Drilling was part of the SPW platoon at the time (anti-aircraft vehicle armed with a 2 cm KwK38 on a pedestal mounting with a small armoured turret to protect the gunner. Late war, it was issued as a platoon commander's vehicle to replace the Sd.Kfz. 251/10). You'll possible see em in CMX2 soon

Yes they were troop carrying types (251/1). level of opposition was described as PAK front. Yes it was part of the plan - assuming so from the description of their order of march. A lot more accounts throughout the book but I'm at work. I'd recommend the book - very interesting insight into SPW tactics from early 43 through to end of the war.

[JasonC]

George MC - yes, I agree there are SPW examples east front, especially larger formation directly behind armor, occasionally larger formations more on their own or with light armor (a full panzer recce battalion e.g., or a tank battalion with SPW mounted panzergrenadier battalion trailing it closely), that saw actual combat, especially against pure rifle forces in open steppe terrain (where armor of any kind is trump vs rifle forces), or penetrating a smashed AT network (leading tanks having done the smashing).

I tried to mention all of those uses I know of from actual battle AARs, above. (Night raids another, and tactical "lifts" of infantry into a city interior or across one area of open, up to a ridge or wood etc).

Most of those uses focus on the transport use and keeping infantry up with tanks. A few are just using light armor as "poor man's tanks" against weak infantry enemies, especially in the open.

But all of those are distinct from every SPW on the force being used routinely as an infantry fighting vehicle in tactical range of visible enemies, using its MG armament (perhaps along with mounted fire), as direct fire support of the infantry at close ranges (for MGs, say 400 yards and under). Against typical enemies (all arms, normal densities) I just don't find them doing it very often. Not in their own side losses, and especially not in the enemy side tactical accounts.

Recce force SPWs were more likely to brush enemy forces mounted, certainly, at initial contact I mean (just how they'd encounter them). But unless that enemy was quite weak, would tend to screen them or go around, not fight through them frontally with light armor. If they expected to have to fight through positions, they would typically be tasked with full AFVs of some sort instead, and let them do the punching, just trail them and mop up, etc.