Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[ChappyCanuck]

I am surprised this hasn't been fixed yet.

The German halftrack, carrying a squad with gunner at the ready (behind his parchment paper glacis plate), travels quickly down a road. The soldiers in the rear have, at most, their heads and shoulders exposed. A tiny target, protected by a metal wall, and moving at fairly high speeds. They are suddenly engaged by small arms fire at over 100 meters, and one by one (or more) the gunner and the squad are cut to shreds....sometimes a new squad member moves to the gunner position and one by one they are eliminated.

How silly. So much for an "ARMOURED" personnel carrier.  It would be safer to just walk, completely exposed, at slower speeds, without protection...at least then the soldiers could react and go to ground or something.

I play the Germans.....a lot. And time and time again this event has happened.  But never so blatantly ridiculous as the CMRT scenario, "Counterattack at Wilkowischken". As the German player, you have several companies worth of mounted panzergrenadiers...yes, halftracks everywhere. And the unbelievable begins as your infantry move forward in their paper mache vehicles. It really is ridiculous.  So ridiculous that once again I must repeat:  I am surprised this hasn't been fixed yet.

Anyone else feel my pain?

 

 

 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I am surprised this hasn't been fixed yet.

The German halftrack, carrying a squad with gunner at the ready (behind his parchment paper glacis plate), travels quickly down a road. The soldiers in the rear have, at most, their heads and shoulders exposed. A tiny target, protected by a metal wall, and moving at fairly high speeds. They are suddenly engaged by small arms fire at over 100 meters, and one by one (or more) the gunner and the squad are cut to shreds....sometimes a new squad member moves to the gunner position and one by one they are eliminated.

How silly. So much for an "ARMOURED" personnel carrier.  It would be safer to just walk, completely exposed, at slower speeds, without protection...at least then the soldiers could react and go to ground or something.

I play the Germans.....a lot. And time and time again this event has happened.  But never so blatantly ridiculous as the CMRT scenario, "Counterattack at Wilkowischken". As the German player, you have several companies worth of mounted panzergrenadiers...yes, halftracks everywhere. And the unbelievable begins as your infantry move forward in their paper mache vehicles. It really is ridiculous.  So ridiculous that once again I must repeat:  I am surprised this hasn't been fixed yet.

Anyone else feel my pain?

 

 

 

I feel your pain. I too lost halftrack gunners like flies, until I changed my tactics. I now consider any terrain within 400 meters that could be holding the enemy to be a no-go zone for my halftracks.  I park the halftracks in a great over-watch position and send the troops in to clear the area out. A platoon comes with 4 halftracks and 4 machine guns can lay down a lot of suppressive fire. I still lose a gunner or two but no where near as many. 

A good analogy would be to consider your halftracks like a ride home from a friend after sneaking out. This friends car has a loud stereo and an even louder exhaust. Do you really want him to pull up to the front door or would you rather have him drop you off a block away and walk home from there? 

[Stonecutter]

Although it is little consolation, the British and American half tracks offer the same level of non-protection :-) I long ago ceased using them as offensive vehicles and they are restricted solely to the role of battlefield taxi. The one saving grace for both the Hanomag and Allied half tracks is that they do offer some protection against artillery. The irony is that the open top bren/universal carriers actually provide good protection versus small arms fire and protect their passengers quite well. Not sure why it is modeled that way but as long as you realize their limitations, they can be useful but there are definitely times when walking is going to be a lot safer!!    

[Michael Emrys]

I play the Germans.....a lot.

Well, that's your problem right there!

Seriously, APCs have generally provided limited protection against small arms fire throughout the period covered. I kind of feel like CM exaggerates the problem a little, but there is no doubt that the problem existed. Presumably that's why the Brits started using converted tank hulls as APCs. Absent that, I endorse Heirloom_Tomato's tactics, which is BTW what the actual armies adopted. Debus while still out of range and let the infantry go in on foot.

Michael

[user1000]

A 1/2 track in the open is not good. The m1 garand can pick them off with iron sights at 100 meters. Seems hard but game allows it. Thompsons are iffy at that range. Now doing that with a moving vehicle with only tiny part of helmet exposed  is extremely hard to do. I wonder if the game implements some kind of accuracy reduction  when  vehicles moving with troops exposed are shot at it would be hard to hit them or even a vehicle moving over a certain distance. Thought about this as well with an AT gun and a moving tank. Maybe there will be a hide in vehicle option in the future? Maybe they can combine it with the move slow command. Or reduce accuracy of weapon hits on moving vehicles.

Edited March 3, 2016 by user1000

[MikeyD]

I have a vague recollection of reading combat doctrine that US truck-mounted troops should disembark a good 2000m before the front line. US Half tracks could get them closer, like 8-900m. But no further. I've told the story before about an old Pacific war coworker describing how after they disembarked (at Peleliu?) the CO gathered his men together and told them NOT to use their HTs as cover during a firefight. To prove his point he pulled his .45 and plugged a hole though the platoon HT as a demonstration. Scared the willies out of assembled men but it taught them a valuable lesson.

[iluvmy88]

I generally use them either as a transport only or if i have a good base of fire and fire superiority i will use them to cover large areas of open ground, often with smoke cover as well.The way i see it i would rather loose a couple men racing across then have them whittled down by infantry as they cross the field.

[gnarly]

Note that this very very old, but may be of relevance:

 

[ChappyCanuck]

I understand all of the game mechanics listed above, and I use the halftracks that way as well. But is it an accurate portrayal?

It really is uncanny how easily the crew members of these fast moving vehicles are picked off while they move during a game.

[iluvmy88]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzJHcWF4ya0 here is an example of a brilliant assault by ithikal utilizing the techniques i was talking about

[user1000]

^ no one would dare shoot at that 1/2 track with that many mk ivs around

[Michael Emrys]

But is it an accurate portrayal?

I wonder about that too. Could it be that they have taken the worst case penetration data (i.e. a bullet striking at 90°) and applying it to situations where fire is coming in at an oblique angle? Now, I would not expect BFC to make that kind of error; they are usually pretty careful about that kind of thing. But I have to wonder.

Michael

Edited March 3, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[iluvmy88]

^ no one would dare shoot at that 1/2 track with that many mk ivs around

but you get the idea, with fire superiority or concealment you can cover a lot of groud very quickly. he also had tigers shelling =D

One of my fav combos is sturmgeradiers with HT and tanks, these guys can cut some mofos down, just costs a lot of rarity

Edited March 3, 2016 by iluvmy88

[MikeyD]

This game is literally a tactical sim. If you think an assaulting HT 'should' be able to do x,y,or z give it a try to see if it feasible! Much of the time I find those vintage tactical manuals that stress élan, bravado and heroic fighting spirit turn out to be meatgrinders in real life. Gameplay experience most often tells you to suppress-suppress-suppress. Because if they're able to shoot back at you they will shoot back at you.

The game engine literally is measuring armor quality, thickness, and angle of individual plates dynamically in realtime. It tracks individual bullet/round velocities and trajectories in realtime. If your gunner's getting shot then he's getting shot. If your HT is getting holed then its getting holed.

[JonS]

I understand all of the game mechanics listed above, and I use the halftracks that way as well. But is it an accurate portrayal?

What you're not getting, though, is the game mechanics are depictions of reality which - not surprisingly - result in a reflection of reality. MikeyD has already pointed out that the US doctrine for them was to dismount ~2,000m behind the FEBA. They didn't do that because they thought the grunts were lazy, and needed a nice 2km jog to work up a killing rage before they closed with the enemy As another example, Panzer Lehr was the only panzer division in NWE in 1944 which had all its panzer grenadiers mounted in halftracks. Neat! And within days of arriving at the front in Normandy they sent the vast bulk of all those halftrack some 200km back to the divisional harbour areas around Paris because they were found to be useless.

Halftracks are not assault vehicles. You can certainly try to use them that way, and sometimes you'll succeed ... just don't be too surprised or disappointed when they end up like the ones in the CMFB Beta battle

Edited March 3, 2016 by JonS

[Bozowans]

What bothers me is that passengers just calmly sit there, bolt upright, like statues, with their heads sticking way up over the sides, even with a hail of bullets coming at them. It's always been a weird thing about the game. The game needs a "cower" animation for vehicle passengers and gunners. You should be able to suppress them and force their heads down just like any other man.

Let's ignore all the tactical doctrine and whatnot that says you shouldn't move halftracks forward into combat or closer than X number of meters or whatever. That's not really relevant to whether the game mechanics in themselves are realistic or not. What if a halftrack gets ambushed?

Look at the 15 second mark, and you will see passengers in the back of that halftrack sitting down with their heads far less exposed than how they would be in the game. The camera appears to be at a slightly higher elevation than the vehicle, and even then you can see only the tops of their helmets at best. If they're getting shot at they can just scrunch their bodies down a little bit lower and they would be fine.

I'm sure you could chew up the armor by shooting up the side of the halftrack with a machine gun or something, but vehicle passengers are far more vulnerable in the game than they would ever be in reality.

IIRC, BFC fixed halftrack gunners a bit in a patch by lowering them a bit, but they never did the same thing for passengers.

[JonS]

What if a halftrack gets ambushed?

Then the halftrack offers a better chance of survival cf. being in a truck. QED!

 

Let's ignore all the tactical doctrine

You know, I have to tell you; that's a terrible position to try and argue from.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JonS

[ChappyCanuck]

While I agree that halftracks are NOT assault vehicles, their use was/is to accompany said assault vehicles.  US doctrine was not German doctrine, and as you can see from the following passage on Hanomags, their design/protection was superior to US halftracks:

"The initial idea was for a vehicle that could be used to transport a single squad of 10 panzergrenadiers to the battlefield protected from enemy small arms fire, and with some protection from artillery fire. In addition, the standard mounting of at least one MG 34 or MG 42 machine gun allowed the vehicle to provide support by fire for the infantry squad once they had disembarked in battle. Later in the war, doctrine changed as they found they could fight the battle from inside the vehicle, and greater weaponry was added to increase firepower. Unlike thin-skinned US halftracks, the 251 could survive small arms fire on the battlefield.The armour plates were designed to stop penetration by standard rifle/heavy mg bullets (like the Mauser 7.9X57mm bullet) by using both metal thickness and armour sloping. The fairly vertical front-facing plates were 14.5mm thick; the sides were steeply angled, V-shape and just 8mm thick, saving weight. These plates were both safe against the normal (non-tungsten) rifle AP round which could pierce about 8mm of vertical armour. This German use of angled plate to reduce penetration, and on their similar armoured car designs, reveals that their military were fully aware of the benefits of sloped armour from early on."

Interesting stuff eh?

 

 

[JonS]

So why did Panzer Lehr send all theirs well away from the front line?

"their use was/is to accompany said assault vehicles" yes, but not through the depth of the enemy position. Follow the tanks cross country, get to within a reasonable distance of the FEBA (reasonable being measured in 100s of metres, not 10s), then stand off and support as they could. Being proof against rifle calibre fire and arty meant they could get closer than a Opel Blitz, but they weren't magic.

"Support by fire" Sure. The effective range of the MG42 is, what? 1500m?

Edited March 3, 2016 by JonS

[ChappyCanuck]

I imagine they sent theirs away because of the dominance of allied air power in the western theater at this time...any strafing activity at all would kill them and their occupants quite easily

[JonS]

Ok, so, the effects of air power is another thing you need to take a much closer look at.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JonS

[ChappyCanuck]

Back to my original post:  I think that the crews/passengers of halftracks take excessive casualties in this game...it's almost like the small arms arms fire coming at them are heat seeking rounds.  The fact that infantry soldiers, who are speeding along in a fairly well protected armoured vehicle, and presenting almost no target at all as they crouch down (exception plunging fire), really should have a much higher survival rate against small arms fire than illustrated by this game.  And that is my opinion.

[domfluff]

The main uses of the halftrack as a fighting vehicle are strategic (i.e., you can keep up with the tanks on a large-scale advance over rough terrain). Since that's not relevant to CM. a large reason for their existence is nullified. The armour does provide some protection against random small arms or mortar fire, but it's best to think of that as "resistance" - APC's of all eras are taxis first and foremost.

In game terms, Halftracks (or any of the early APC's) seem to have two main uses - they provide tactical mobility for a mobile reserve or flanking force, and therefore the tactical space that your reserve can control is increased tremendously. Foot infantry in the defence are often stuck in fairly stationary positions, but a reserve mechanised platoon can react to the area of the battle where they are required. This is tremendously useful, and has little to do with their armour protection - trucks are almost as effective as halftracks here, although their offroad capabilities are less.

The other main use is the machine gun, which is far more of a defence than the armour. Stationary halftracks provide a stable platform for an MG, which means it can project accurate fire over very long ranges (potentially 1-2 km). In the context of a mechanised infantry platoon reacting to fire on the move, the halftrack can often out-range and therefore win the firepower contest with the element it's come into contact with. The armour can help here, but the MG is the real star. For this to work, the halftrack needs to be at a significant distance - if you were encountering an enemy squad, you'd ideally want to only be in range of their LMG, if that. That immediately pushes you out to 400m+.

Full-on Panzergrenadier assaults, with suppressive MG fire and supporting armour ("shock and awe" if you like) can work, but they are usually a roll of the dice. They require correct assessment of the elements under attack, and the knowledge that your attacking force over-matches them significantly. It's very easy for this to go horribly wrong, and there isn't an easy way to stop this kind of attack once it starts - so you can easily end up throwing away a full platoon.

[Bozowans]

So why did Panzer Lehr send all theirs well away from the front line?

"their use was/is to accompany said assault vehicles" yes, but not through the depth of the enemy position. Follow the tanks cross country, get to within a reasonable distance of the FEBA (reasonable being measured in 100s of metres, not 10s), then stand off and support as they could. Being proof against rifle calibre fire and arty meant they could get closer than a Opel Blitz, but they weren't magic.

"Support by fire" Sure. The effective range of the MG42 is, what? 1500m?

So you're claiming the Germans historically never used their halftracks in an aggressive role? Where are you getting that from? "US army doctrine" doesn't count. German training and fascist ideology put heavy emphasis on individual initiative and aggressive, dynamic action during combat. They were taught to act quickly, often without waiting to be told what to do. Fascist ideology and everything that entailed -- its hero worship, parades, medals, self-sacrificing behavior, and sense of innate superiority led to highly aggressive, often reckless behavior on the battlefield, especially among the Waffen SS.

From the book "Soldaten" by Sonke Neitzel and Harald Welzer: "Wehrmacht soldiers generally agreed that the SS troops were 'bullish' extremists, heedless even of death, marching into the crossfire to the strains of 'Deutschland uber alles' and suffering 'terrible,' 'insane,' and 'senseless' losses." There is an account of Haupsturmfuhrer von Benden leading an attack in his car, with his battalion marching in step behind him under fire.

There are panzergrenadier training films that show halftracks literally driving right over enemy positions and firing down into them as they go past, at point blank range. The Germans had flamethrower halftracks for getting in close to burn out enemy positions, mostly issued to SS panzergrenadier units. Do you really think nobody ever drove their halftracks up close to their enemies? People were often literally run over and crushed by tank treads during that war. CM isn't always a realistic representation of combat, as much as we would all like it to be.

Really, all I want is some way for halftrack passengers to not stick their heads way up over the sides like they're trying to present themselves for target practice.

[JonS]

highly aggressive, often reckless behavior on the battlefield, especially among the Waffen SS.

From the book "Soldaten" by Sonke Neitzel and Harald Welzer: "Wehrmacht soldiers generally agreed that the SS troops were 'bullish' extremists, heedless even of death, marching into the crossfire to the strains of 'Deutschland uber alles' and suffering 'terrible,' 'insane,' and 'senseless' losses."

Am I to understand that you are now arguing that German losses should be higher, because Nazi recklessness? That's an even weirder position than ignoring doctrine.