Survivability of halftracks

[YankeeDog]

Again, I think the question is: at what distance?

Engagement aspect may be more important than distance. Most sources I have put the 7.92mm SmK round at about 8mm penetration vs. RHA on a 30 degree impact angle. The M3 Halftrack's side and rear armor plates, and actually a couple of the front plates as well, are only 1/4"(6.4mm). So the SmK round penetrates these pretty easily at close range, even accounting for engagement aspects other than normal.

I would expect the penetration to drop quickly with range, so I would not expect penetrations to be common at, say, 200m and 30 degrees. However, with "flat" engagement aspects near zero degrees, I would expect penetrations of the side and rear armor out to well beyond 200m.

And all this assumes that the M3 HT armor was RHA; some sources indicate it was not this good. If we assume armor quality of only 85-90%, then things get much worse for the HT.

They called them "Purple Heart Boxes" for a reason...

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have read that while individual SmK rounds were issued to infantry during the first few years of the war, by 1944 it was only used by machine guns. In any event, CMx2 appears to follow this convention since German infantry squads in the game do not have AP ammo.

Adding to the confusion, I have run across references to a SmE (Patronen Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern) round that was apparently introduced to save lead. It had an iron core and was "semi" armor piercing. I have no idea how common it was.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And all this assumes that the M3 HT armor was RHA; some sources indicate it was not this good. If we assume armor quality of only 85-90%, then things get much worse for the HT.

Only the International Harvester manufactured halftracks (M5 series) had RHA. The M3s were FHA. I don't know about quality, but against small caliber projectiles like bullets FHA would be more effective on a per-bullet basis, although it would be less resilient to repeated strikes.

[womble]

If halftracks were just "anti shrapnel trucks", I wonder why they bothered putting machineguns on them.

So that if they ran into a truck, they could shoot it up. And in the case of the .50cal-armed halfies, in case they ran into a german halftrack... The front armour of the US halftracks is just about good enough against MG42 fire, and the front of a Hanomag certainly isn't good enough to withstand Ma Deuce's little AP children.

[YankeeDog]

I'm not so sure the decision to give M3 & M5 HTs MGs had much to do with facing with enemy light armor or unarmored vehicles.

WRT enemy trucks, the chances of a HT running into an enemy truck column would be very small, and in any event the mounted infantry's small arms would be more than capable of dealing with a threat like this.

As far as light armor, IIRC, the reason the .50 BMG variants (M3A1 & M5A1) were originally deployed was to give HTs columns some measure of AA protection. Going into the war, the U.S. Army had a much higher estimation of the effectiveness of HMG AA fire than was probably realistic. This is also why e.g., Sherman tanks were originally given pintle-mount .50 BMGs.

Most of the accounts of U.S. Halftrack MGs actually being being used against ground targets are either (a) long range harassment/suppressive fire or ( dealing with snipers and other harassing enemy elements behind the primary line of contact.

In neither case is the thin armor too much of a liability. While German 7.92mm can penetrate M3 HT armor, the front armor especially is pretty good proof against even SmK ammo beyond about 400m. So, for example, once the true AT assets have been identified and neutralized, lobbing MG rounds into an enemy held town across the river while infantry on foot forces a crossing is relatively low risk.

And giving the HTs some MGs so supply columns can deal with solo enemy snipes also probably a good idea. They even mounted MGs on Studebaker trucks for this purpose.

[John Kettler]

US halftracks had FHA, not RHA. Base thickness was 0.25 inches, wit a few parts, such as the windshield drop-down armor being 0.5 inches. Having been practically inside an M15 AA HT recently, I can tell you the armor on one of these things is so thin as to be deeply disturbing. It's also vertical.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

US halftracks had FHA, not RHA.

Please read the thread before posting.

Also, where the M2 and M3 had squared-off rear corners, on both the M5 and M9 the rear corners were rounded. Less apparent was the fact that the IHC M5s and M9s were manufactured from 7mm to 16mm homogeneous plate instead of the 6mm to 13mm face-hardened plate of the M2 and M3. Although the armour of the M5 and M9 was thicker, it offered marginally less ballistic protection.

-- Steven Zaloga, US Halftracks of World War II

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

This thread started out with M2 and M3 haltracks under discussion. Next, it's M3A1 and M5A1. And now we're somehow on IHC M5 and M9. I did read the thread, both initially and just now. Evidently, I've become lost in a sea of previously unknown to me US halftrack data. Shall have to repair to the Standard Catalogue of Ordnance Items and see what it has to say. Had no idea the armor on US haltracks wasn't consistent across the board. Was under the impression the armor on our halftracks was standardized, but apparently it was not. Shall also have to revisit which halftrack models were Standard and which were Limited Standard or Substitute Standard. Believe I have those terms right.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bulletpoint]

I would be very interested if anyone could point me to some quotes from soldiers who have combat experience with halftracks in WW2. Especially about the ranges they would be vulnerable against machinegun fire at.

[c3k]

LOL. I think we'd be more likely to hear from them the ranges at which they WEREN'T shot by machineguns.

[Bulletpoint]

LOL. I think we'd be more likely to hear from them the ranges at which they WEREN'T shot by machineguns.

Well, given that we have survivor's accounts even from the worst hit assault waves of Omaha Beach...

[sburke]

Well, given that we have survivor's accounts even from the worst hit assault waves of Omaha Beach...

For some reason I think Omaha beach may be a bad example.... just a hunch

[Bulletpoint]

For some reason I think Omaha beach may be a bad example.... just a hunch

And why would that be, mr. green happy man?

[sburke]

And why would that be, mr. green happy man?

Plunging fire, AT guns and mortars on the ridge and they were never very far off from the German positions.

Anyone have figures on the number of halftracks unloaded during the assault phase. I can't seem to find any pics of tracks or wrecked tracks that don't look like they are actually landing after the heights have been cleared.

now I am blue

[YankeeDog]

Anyone have figures on the number of halftracks unloaded during the assault phase. I can't seem to find any pics of tracks or wrecked tracks that don't look like they are actually landing after the heights have been cleared.

No planned landings of halftracks or any other soft vehicles during the "Assault Phase" at Omaha -- the first hour was all assault infantry and tanks (DD tanks primarily).

AFAIK, first landings of softer vehicles (DUKWs, Jeeps, and HTs) were in the landings scheduled to start at H+90, or 0730, and this was only a few vehicles; much larger numbers of vehicles were supposed to start coming ashore from H+180 onward. Substantial numbers of vehicles definitely did get hit and destroyed by German fire either as they came in on the landing craft or on the beach, but by all accounts I've read many of them were also lost to the heavy seas and surf, either due to their landing craft swamping, or the vehicles themselves foundering as they tried to move ashore through the surf.

Bear in mind that for all of the chaos and blood, it was the first hour at Omaha from 0600 to 0700 that was really the worst. The bluffs had already been penetrated some places no later than 0730 -- records of comms between the German defenders on the bluffs and their command elements further inland specifically confirm this. Further penetrations were achieved from 0730 onward. Even though these initial penetrations failed achieve an outright breakthrough, they were successful in reducing the concentration of fire on further incoming waves as some of the German fire shifted off the beach to contain the penetrations.

[Michael Emrys]

Even though these initial penetrations failed achieve an outright breakthrough, they were successful in reducing the concentration of fire on further incoming waves as some of the German fire shifted off the beach to contain the penetrations.

And also some of those penetrations attacked the German positions from the rear and cleared them out, thus eliminating the fire on the beach from those sources.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

Plunging fire, AT guns and mortars on the ridge and they were never very far off from the German positions.

Anyone have figures on the number of halftracks unloaded during the assault phase. I can't seem to find any pics of tracks or wrecked tracks that don't look like they are actually landing after the heights have been cleared.

now I am blue

We misunderstood each other - I didn't mean to talk about halftracks at d-day, I meant that if we have survivors' stories even from the worst combat situations, such as for example the first landings at some beaches at d-day, surely we must have some survivors' accounts from soldiers in halftracks under fire too. An earlier comment from c3k implied that we shouldn't look for such stories, since the vehicle passengers would all be dead. He was joking I guess, but still.

[sburke]

We misunderstood each other - I didn't mean to talk about halftracks at d-day, I meant that if we have survivors' stories even from the worst combat situations, such as for example the first landings at some beaches at d-day, surely we must have some survivors' accounts from soldiers in halftracks under fire too. An earlier comment from c3k implied that we shouldn't look for such stories, since the vehicle passengers would all be dead. He was joking I guess, but still.

If they were C3k's guys they were likely all dead.

Sorry I did miss the change in direction. Still it provided an opportunity to chuckle over C3k having any survivors.

[John Kettler]

The Osprey book, US Halftracks of World War II, by Steve Zaloga, p. 7, states the M2 halftrack gave "reasonably good protection against 7.62 AP at ranges over 200 meters." Unfortunately, the angle of engagement isn't given.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bulletpoint]

The Osprey book, US Halftracks of World War II, by Steve Zaloga, p. 7, states the M2 halftrack gave "reasonably good protection against 7.62 AP at ranges over 200 meters." Unfortunately, the angle of engagement isn't given.

That would match the figures I googled up... But I think the halftracks in the game are M3, if that makes a difference..