Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[Bulletpoint]

If halftracks were always left behind before closing with the enemy in real life, BattleFront could have saved themselves a lot of time by not modeling them in the game. It's a bit sad to see all those vehicles just sitting around the starting line, wasting CPU cycles for nothing. Their included ammo could be automatically distributed among the squads.

[Bozowans]

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.

No, I'm talking about halftrack passengers in a video game, and whether or not they are too vulnerable. I said the Germans were often very aggressive historically. The player in this game can behave any way he chooses.

And you didn't answer my question. You seem to think that the Germans never used halftracks in an aggressive role historically. Why? Because US Army doctrine says they have to be 2000m away? You brought up one example of the Panzer Lehr division moving its halftracks back one time because they were supposedly "useless." What is your source for this?

[Bulletpoint]

 

 

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.

Soldiers in the open often survive getting shot, because they have a bonus from terrain. I have a savegame that shows a soldier getting about 10 bullets straight through his body at close range, without any damage. But the halftrack gunners seem to get no cover bonus from their halftracks. And they are unable to duck down behind the cover like soldiers in the open can do behind walls and hedgerows.

[Crinius]

 

Heres an nice example of how to use HTs in CM. They can be quite useful.

Start watching at around 06:30.

 

[Bozowans]

I've been trying to find information online about how the Germans used their half-tracks. After googling for a bit, I can't find anything that says they always kept them back, AWAY from the enemy. Everything I read seems to be the opposite. Here's a link referencing the US War Department "Handbook on German Military Forces" (Mar '45)

http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/offense.html

"The coordination between tanks and Panzer Grenadiers moving into combat on armored half-tracks is similar to the technique employed in a purely armored formation, since the armored half-tracks are not only troop-carrying vehicles but also combat vehicles. When the terrain is favorable for tank warfare, the Panzer Grenadiers in their armored half-tracks follow immediately with the second wave, after the first tank wave has overrun the opponent's position. A deep and narrow formation is employed. After the penetration, the main mission of the Panzer Grenadiers is to overcome the enemy positions which survived the first wave."

That manual also makes a reference to German infantry disembarking, "at the last possible moment."

Here's a link to a German field manual:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number04.pdf

1) "The possession of armored personnel carriers enables motorized infantry units to overcome comparatively weak opposition without dismounting. They can follow up tank attacks on the field of battle without dismounting."

2) "Firing from the carrier increases the effectiveness of the weapons. This improvement is due to the greater mobility, the constant readiness to open fire, the armor (which affords protection against enemy infantry fire), and the greater accuracy of fire."

3) "The cross-country performance and armor, of this vehicle, together with the possibility of fighting from it, make the armored personnel carrier the chief fighting agent of motorized infantry. It can cover long distances rapidly and at the same time conserve the energies of the men. It can travel on all roads in any season. Its fording, climbing, and crossing abilities combine to give a high cross-country performance. Providing the ground is firm and level, the normal road speed can be maintained off roads and tracks. Its armor gives protection against small-arms fire, light infantry weapons, and shell splinters. The vehicles can therefore be brought up to the battle area and moved about under fire from enemy infantry."

4) "In order to conserve the valuable fighting powers of the armored companies they should not be used as covering parties on the march, nor split up into separate reconnaissance patrols. It is equally inadvisable to weaken these companies by allotting single armored carriers to other units and headquarters."

5) "Unless otherwise ordered, the attack will be carried out on vehicles. Dismounting takes place when no further advance is possible. The decision to fight on vehicles or on foot is as a rule left to the company commander. When it appears impracticable to continue fighting on vehicles, a resourceful commander will always look around for the possibility of continuing the attack on vehicles at another point."

According to this, you should NOT dismount unless you absolutely have to. Half-tracks should be used en masse to overrun the enemy, driving right at them, and right over them, firing from the vehicle, preferably in coordination with tanks. The half-tracks should always keep up with the tanks, and the infantry should only dismount if necessary to clear some troublesome patch of resistance. Then they quickly get back into the vehicles and move on. Here's a training video, depicting half-tracks with flamethrowers overrunning enemy positions at close range:

 

 The way they make it look, it's like they're mowing the lawn or something. 

[JoMac]

l also agree with Canuck, Bozo, & Bullet in that Passengers in HT's receive far to many casualties then they should.

Yes, Mikey, we all know that ballistics play a roll and is one thing, but the above members are saying if BF gives HT Passengers a better 'Savings Roll' to represent them keeping their heads down, etc (micro-terrain), then the casualties would be better represented.  

I'm also with Michael Emrys and hope BF is modeling armor angles vs bullet trajectory correctly...The slightest armor angle ( anything over 15 degree off center ) will generally cause a bullet to ricochet (bullet penetration has different characteristics then gun penetration)  and so it would take several bullets to cause a penetration.

Joe

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by JoMc67

[Seedorf81]

Maybe the fact that practically EVERY sdkfz251 gunner gets shot immediately (even by stengun's more than 100 meters distance while they (the stengun shooters) are seriously supressed, and EVERY replacement gunner gets shot immediately, gives some players - like myself - the serious impression that something is wrong here.

Statistically SOME Sdkfz gunners should be able to survive, but it seems that in the game they have a 99,9% chance to get hit. Instantly.

That isn't believable to me.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Seedorf81
Just for fun? Oh no mistake. But why this question?

[ChappyCanuck]

Maybe the fact that practically EVERY sdkfz251 gunner gets shot immediately (even by stengun's more than 100 meters distance while they (the stengun shooters) are seriously supressed, and EVERY replacement gunner gets shot immediately, gives some players - like myself - the serious impression that something is wrong here.

Statistically SOME Sdkfz gunners should be able to survive, but it seems that in the game they have a 99,9% chance to get hit. Instantly.

That isn't believable to me.

Exactly.....there is no doubt, after playing this game for years, that there is something wrong with this game mechanic

[JoMac]

Seed & Canuck,

Yes, I know what you both mean...

BF did reduce the Gunners stance on HT's ( wish they do the same for all armored crewman such as TC's ) in previous patches to help alleviate the gunners casualty rate...Didn't help much as you still lost all your Gunners by Games End. The other issue, is how often Armor Vehicles become 'Bullet Magnets' in seconds of becoming in LOS,and it doesn't matter the Range or Condition of enemy Unit.                                                                                              

You should only loose about 25% of your Gunners by Games End...And that's a alot.

*Side Note*...Slightly off Topic.

In a past post, one Forum Member mentioned that the U.S. had a High Casualty rate, and lost somewhere between 50-75% of their TC's in the Normandy Campaign...I said, "Yeah, and you can loose that in just a one hour Game".  

Edited March 3, 2016 by JoMc67

[JoMac]

Now, don't get me wrong guys, but in RL having Lightly Armored Vehicles or unbuttoned crewman in front is still dangerous business ( Snipers, Close Range Combat, etc )...However, the way BF has it now these TC's and Gunners almost become useless. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by JoMc67

[JonS]

the Germans were often very aggressive historically.

Right. And what happened when they did that? Oh, right; "'terrible,' 'insane,' and 'senseless' losses."

The player in this game can behave any way he chooses.

Of course you can, that's sort of the point.

But if you choose to behave recklessly the game isn't going to save you from yourself, and you can't complain about the casualties you incur. Well, you can, but ... you know. You look like an eedjeet

Edited March 3, 2016 by JonS

[ChappyCanuck]

JonS:  you are missing my point entirely, and needlessly nitpicking Bozowans with generalities.  This is a game mechanic issue that makes a crew member/passenger ridiculously exposed. I get it that casualties occur, and there is risk in riding lighter vehicles. But this vehicle was a platform for getting the soldiers as safe as possible onto the objective. It is not made of cardboard, and it should provide far greater protection against small arms/arty fire than it does. There is something wrong when it is FAR riskier to ride a fast moving, metal plated vehicle onto the objective than to sprint/walk/crawl/run.  I mean really....what's the point?  Just produce trucks instead! The Germans developed and produced these vehicles to do exactly what we CAN'T do with them now in this game. I would say that in itself is worth BF doing a sober second look at this issue.

When I was an infantry officer, I much preferred riding in a M113 behind the tanks, versus running across an open "battlefield" to keep up - protection, protection, protection.

[A co]

It would be nice to have a 'button up' mode in which the passengers duck fully below the rim of the armor, and in which the MG will not be automatically re-crewed after the gunner is hit. And heavy fire should trigger this buttoned up mode, as it does with tanks. (I don't remember how buttoning up currently affects the gunner.) This might eliminate some of the multiple casualty events now happening with halftracks under small arms fire. 

But these issues have been discussed in very similar fashion and at length on the forums in recent years, and BFC seems to feel it's not important enough to address. 

[General Jack Ripper]

The game needs a "cower" animation for vehicle passengers and gunners.

This. 

 

[RockinHarry]

One way to give halftrack riders a slightly better protection stance while sitting, is to replace the standard "kar98k-seated.ani" file with the one beeing used for kubelwagons "kar98k-seated-knees-high.ani" (both in Normandy V200.brz). That makes the halftrack riders not sitting that straight upright as they do now and possibly adds -5 to -10cm better protection from the vehicles armor. I just tested the stance change in game and it works. I´ve not tested yet if that slightly better stance yields to panzergrenadiers catching less bullets. So far this only works for soldiers carrying a rifle. Those who carry a lMG use the "unarmed-seated.ani" file, but that can possibly be replaced with the "unarmed-seated-knees-highest.ani" file (both in Normandy V100a.brz).

Screenshot gives the general idea about the slight improvement. Compare soldiers with rifle (lower, borrowed from kubelwagon) and the two lMG gunners (standard).

 

[Bozowans]

 

Right. And what happened when they did that? Oh, right; "'terrible,' 'insane,' and 'senseless' losses."

Haha. You were the one who brought up doctrine. Well as I said, according to an actual German field manual captured and translated during the war, troops fighting from inside their half-tracks were more effective, more accurate, and less vulnerable than on foot. From the way that manual sounds, huddling up inside those carriers was the most effective way to avoid those terrible and senseless losses during a characteristically aggressive German assault. It said that mechanized troops should preferably only fight on foot if the ground is not favorable for vehicles, and that the vehicles should not be used to cover the march. Instead, they should be thrown right into the attack.

Here is another source. From the book "Schutzenpanzerwagon - War Horse of the Panzer Grenadiers":

"Later these vehicles [Sd.Kfz.251] were more correctly called riflemen's armored trucks [Schutzenpanzerwagen, SPW for short], since they were used - as it soon turned out - not only for transport, but also for shooting from the vehicle, and the grenadiers were unloaded only in country with a poor view, such as forest, town and night battle."

And another. From the book "Sd.Kfz 251 Half-Track 1939-1945":

"Important combat lessons from the Spanish Civil War showed, among other things, that in many cases tanks in restricted areas - towns, mountain passes, woods, etc - were vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons. In such circumstances, infantry support and protection were badly needed. Guderian submitted proposals to develop a specific vehicle designed to carry supporting infantry into action, allowing them to fight from the vehicle on the move if necessary, or to dismount and engage the enemy on foot."

These are infantry fighting vehicles, not trucks.

[sburke]

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.

well if the player follows the same tactical advice the SS frequently took, the in game effect is gonna be yeah they will take more casualties.  So in that sense CM is dead on.  You drive forward in a car and yeah my guys are gonna kill you.  You drive a hannomag near enough to my unsuppressed infantry and yeah my guys are gonna kill you.

My experience in CM is - if the enemy isn't suppressed, then I am dismounting. If the enemy is suppressed then I may consider other options.  I have often used them to drive forward and drop off teams at a hedgerow once I know whatever is behind that hedgerow is already cowering.  If they aren't a lucky grenade or zook is gonna deal me a whole lot of hurt. (hmm seems I recall certain truck in Bois de Baugin many years ago Jon.....yeah like that.)

If someone is contending here that the Germans willy nilly drove into the assault on halftracks as a regular practice, I'd need some actual evidence as I don't have much recollection of that.  There were a couple incidents on the Eastern front, but those were few and far between. On the western front, there'd be so many flaming wrecks and it wouldn't be coming from aircraft. A 57mm eats halftracks for appetizers. I could as easily point to the US push to the Rhine where they just hopped onto trucks and blew through the German lines and say- Hey US soldiers should be able to ride into battle on a deuce and a half...I know how that would end.

If you want BF to change this you'll need to convince Steve that -

1 it was German practice and

2 that they were able to do so without sustaining significant casualties. 

But you need to do more than say troops in a hannomag should duck and that the SS were stupid though individually both of those might be true.

[sburke]

Haha. You were the one who brought up doctrine. Well as I said, according to an actual German field manual captured and translated during the war, troops fighting from inside their half-tracks were more effective, more accurate, and less vulnerable than on foot. From the way that manual sounds, huddling up inside those carriers was the most effective way to avoid those terrible and senseless losses during a characteristically aggressive German assault. It said that mechanized troops should preferably only fight on foot if the ground is not favorable for vehicles, and that the vehicles should not be used to cover the march. Instead, they should be thrown right into the attack.

Here is another source. From the book "Schutzenpanzerwagon - War Horse of the Panzer Grenadiers":

"Later these vehicles [Sd.Kfz.251] were more correctly called riflemen's armored trucks [Schutzenpanzerwagen, SPW for short], since they were used - as it soon turned out - not only for transport, but also for shooting from the vehicle, and the grenadiers were unloaded only in country with a poor view, such as forest, town and night battle."

And another. From the book "Sd.Kfz 251 Half-Track 1939-1945":

"Important combat lessons from the Spanish Civil War showed, among other things, that in many cases tanks in restricted areas - towns, mountain passes, woods, etc - were vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons. In such circumstances, infantry support and protection were badly needed. Guderian submitted proposals to develop a specific vehicle designed to carry supporting infantry into action, allowing them to fight from the vehicle on the move if necessary, or to dismount and engage the enemy on foot."

These are infantry fighting vehicles, not trucks.

 

Bozowan, your sources are a mix of things that don't really prove much.  Descriptions in manuals and propaganda pieces about how a particular bit of equipment works are rarely true - hell check out the field training videos the US army put out in WW 2 on their MGs and the "ineffectiveness of the German MGS.  they are laughable other than telling people the exactly wrong info.  The Hannomag is not an IFV, it is a more mobile armored truck.  Being able to survive a rifle round isn't claiming much.

In terms of the tactical use

This - "Unless otherwise ordered, the attack will be carried out on vehicles. Dismounting takes place when no further advance is possible." Does not translate to this - According to this, you should NOT dismount unless you absolutely have to. When no further advance is possible could simply mean unsuppressed enemy that are gonna hurt your Hannomags.

You should have understood this in the above quote by Guderian "Important combat lessons from the Spanish Civil War showed, among other things, that in many cases tanks in restricted areas - towns, mountain passes, woods, etc - were vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons. In such circumstances, infantry support and protection were badly needed. Guderian submitted proposals to develop a specific vehicle designed to carry supporting infantry into action, allowing them to fight from the vehicle on the move if necessary, or to dismount and engage the enemy on foot."- Really? So Guderian would from that seem to be saying fight from a Hannomag in a built up area? Somehow I think Guderian would have taken exception to that.  if tanks have a hard time fighting in a town, what do you think is gonna happen to a Hannomag?

[ChappyCanuck]

well if the player follows the same tactical advice the SS frequently took, the in game effect is gonna be yeah they will take more casualties.  So in that sense CM is dead on.  You drive forward in a car and yeah my guys are gonna kill you.  You drive a hannomag near enough to my unsuppressed infantry and yeah my guys are gonna kill you.

My experience in CM is - if the enemy isn't suppressed, then I am dismounting. If the enemy is suppressed then I may consider other options.  I have often used them to drive forward and drop off teams at a hedgerow once I know whatever is behind that hedgerow is already cowering.  If they aren't a lucky grenade or zook is gonna deal me a whole lot of hurt. (hmm seems I recall certain truck in Bois de Baugin many years ago Jon.....yeah like that.)

If someone is contending here that the Germans willy nilly drove into the assault on halftracks as a regular practice, I'd need some actual evidence as I don't have much recollection of that.  There were a couple incidents on the Eastern front, but those were few and far between. On the western front, there'd be so many flaming wrecks and it wouldn't be coming from aircraft. A 57mm eats halftracks for appetizers. I could as easily point to the US push to the Rhine where they just hopped onto trucks and blew through the German lines and say- Hey US soldiers should be able to ride into battle on a deuce and a half...I know how that would end.

If you want BF to change this you'll need to convince Steve that -

1 it was German practice and

2 that they were able to do so without sustaining significant casualties. 

But you need to do more than say troops in a hannomag should duck and that the SS were stupid though individually both of those might be true.

Irregardless of what may or may have not happened in history...this needs fixing. It is blatantly broken. And if you cannot see that then no matter what training manual, historical document, etc that you, I, or someone else may quote, will make any difference at all. It's really, really dumb.

[sburke]

LOL okay I understand your point - you think the guys should crouch.  I get that, I don't disagree on a theoretical basis - but what you are asking for is BF to go back and create an animation and an AI routine to allow for a bit of behavior that frankly is once again a player doing something tactically wrong. 

1-Player puts Hannomag regularly in a position that was not a normal practice (no matter what some ubermencsh propaganda piece says)

2-The mechanics for CM - in this case positioning in a track and not reacting - have the infantry exposing themselves more than they should

3-The players troops suffer more casualties- whether they might of might not have suffered those in RL is debatable

4- The player requests BF correct the positioning in the Hannomag to facilitate ahistorical behavior.

I am all in favor of more and better animations- I would love soldiers to react differently to incoming fire whether that be in a foxhole, jeep, truck, halftrack or as a tank rider. I don't however ask BF to make changes to accommodate me doing stuff that creates a problem.  Instead I alter my behavior.  That doesn't stop me from wanting them to do stuff, but it does offer a different rationale.  Your request while specifically about a Hannomag isn't limited to it - what you want (and honestly I'd want) is soldiers in a vehicle to react and not just sit there like mannequins and die.  In the case of the Hannomag the best option MIGHT be to crouch lower.  It also might be to bail.  If you are going to request a change in behavior it should be a consistent request, not a request for one specific vehicle type especially if they are already going to have to do animations and AI behavior.  Personally I think you'd have a better shot at getting a change.

[RockinHarry]

I agree the automatic and immediate replacement of killed haltrack MG gunners can be a major annoyance, particularly in situations where it does not make any sense at all to get up and expose (enemy fire from the side or rear of the halftrack). Also when passengers are in "open up" mode and engaging from the halftrack, why should they expose in full upright standing stance, when kneel would be the more realistic and obvious choice for getting the most from the provided halftrack cover? 

Btw, old time community member TheDesertFox made a number of valid comments related to the topic in an old thread from BFC archives here:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/30465-panzergrenadiers/

 

[AttorneyAtWar]

Can soldiers fire from halftracks like they can from kubels?

I agree largely with whats been said here but I think the major thing I have a problem with is the vulnerability of tank commanders and half track gunners.

[Bozowans]

Bozowan, your sources are a mix of things that don't really prove much.  Descriptions in manuals and propaganda pieces about how a particular bit of equipment works are rarely true - hell check out the field training videos the US army put out in WW 2 on their MGs and the "ineffectiveness of the German MGS.  they are laughable other than telling people the exactly wrong info.  The Hannomag is not an IFV, it is a more mobile armored truck.  Being able to survive a rifle round isn't claiming much.

In terms of the tactical use

This - "Unless otherwise ordered, the attack will be carried out on vehicles. Dismounting takes place when no further advance is possible." Does not translate to this - According to this, you should NOT dismount unless you absolutely have to. When no further advance is possible could simply mean unsuppressed enemy that are gonna hurt your Hannomags.

You should have understood this in the above quote by Guderian "Important combat lessons from the Spanish Civil War showed, among other things, that in many cases tanks in restricted areas - towns, mountain passes, woods, etc - were vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons. In such circumstances, infantry support and protection were badly needed. Guderian submitted proposals to develop a specific vehicle designed to carry supporting infantry into action, allowing them to fight from the vehicle on the move if necessary, or to dismount and engage the enemy on foot."- Really? So Guderian would from that seem to be saying fight from a Hannomag in a built up area? Somehow I think Guderian would have taken exception to that.  if tanks have a hard time fighting in a town, what do you think is gonna happen to a Hannomag?

Why do you think those sources are "rarely true"? How do you know what is true then? They are training manuals. It's not an "ubermensch propaganda piece." That's what they are teaching their soldiers to do. The language is very blunt. Can you point me to something more convincing? I'm going to believe a wartime German army field manual more than some guy on the internet who says I should believe him because he says so. Where are you getting your information from that is more credible? Do you know of any good personal accounts or memoirs about panzergrenadiers? I am not an expert on this. I am only getting this stuff from googling for 30 minutes.

If you read those sources, they did not say that they always fought mounted. Only that they preferred to. They say that they dismounted often only when they had no other choice, such as going into a built-up area like a town or forest. It was very clear about that. You said "When no further advance is possible could simply mean unsuppressed enemy that are gonna hurt your Hannomags." The sources said clearly that they can drive around under enemy infantry fire and still be protected. Specifically small-arms fire and "light infantry weapons." That manual said that the carriers are "the chief fighting agent" of the infantry. If the enemy has anti-tank weapons, then yes, that would be a situation in which no further advance would be possible, and the troops would likely dismount to deal with them, or move to attack another, weaker area. 

In CM, half-tracks simply cannot stand up to small-arms fire. Why is it so realistic to have your infantry guys in a video game sit there with their heads poking up over the sides of a half-track like that, like they are posing for target practice?

[sburke]

Because I frankly don't even believe US training manuals of the period and I use some basic sense when I read something - so if it says they need to support infantry in a built up area I know it is an absolute joke to assume a halftrack is a good fighting vehicle in a town.

If you can't understand why someone would not take a training manual as proof of how something is used in combat then maybe you need to speak to some of the vets on this forum.  They can give you a MUCH better perspective than I can. That however is a separate subject.

As I said above I agree in principle the positioning and the animation could be better.  What I don't agree with is the effect on the players as being simply a result of that but primarily because players use their tracks wrong.  The problems with the positioning wouldn't show up if you dismounted when you should which is probably why BF isn't really reacting to this particular request.

I've put out there what I think you'll need to do to convince BF,  You are totally free to disregard that advice.  Beyond that I don't think I can contribute anymore to this discussion.  It will just go in circles and folks will get more frustrated and well you know how those threads kind of go.  I am not the one you need to convince, my opinion carries no weight.

 

 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

How close to the enemy do you think a halftrack should be able to drive and not suffer excessive casualties?