Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[sburke]

I don't drive my tracks at the enemy unless they are severely suppressed - if they are I'll roll right up to them.  Again it depends on the circumstances, but unless I am facing a time constraint in a battle or I know I have the enemy cowering and speed is essential to take advantage of it, I dismount with the track out of LOF.  The use cases where I don't tend to be more a result of the nature of CM time compression in battle and a disregard we have for casualties.

If we want to cite historical examples, the US has also driven tracks right into battle when deemed necessary - as an example Creighton Abrams push through Assenois to Bastogne.  Despite that you won't find me attempting that in CM.

Look at it this way- I try not to drive loaded Bradleys and BMPs into an engagement with an unsuppressed foe. Granted they face different AT capabilities, but even a rifle grenade can ruin your day and those are real AFVs.  To assume because the sides of a track could stop rifle fire means I can just roll on up is simply not facing the fact that even WW 2 infantry had enough weapons to make life suck. Grenades, Bazookas, heavy MGs.  I do read a lot - I don't think I have read of a single successful engagement by German troops going into battle on the western front in tracks.  The one that comes to mind is the ill fated attempt to cross the Arnhem bridge.  I can't even recall hearing that either Peiper's column nor the units of 12th SS attacking the twin villages doing so with track mounted infantry.  Perhaps I am remiss and someone can cite an example where they were successfully used in that manner.  I do know of some instances on the East Front, but those that I actually know of that got as close as we would tend to do are few and far between. So if you are interested in trying to change my opinion you could start by citing some actual examples.  Now keep in mind even if you do so, it doesn't mean squat for convincing BF, but consider it a practice run. 

 

[Seedorf81]

To me it looks like there are two discussions mixed up here.

One: Was it common practise to get close to the enemy in a halftrack and is the killing of the gunner to be blamed by the unwise use of the halftrack by the player.

Two: Those Sdkfz251 gunners get killed anytime, anyhow and anywhere and that doesn't look right. Even considered the stupidity of the player (me, for instance) who doesn't exactly know how far off the halftrack should be kept from enemy fire. (In my case off the map?!).

It is not the fact that Sdkfz gunners get killed, it is the near impossibility to get them NOT killed.

It is a problem that in my experience ONLY occurs with the Sdkfz251. I never complained about the US or Commonwealth halftrack gunners, though their job is risky. But their dying rate doesn't compare to that of the Sdkfz's.    

 

[c3k]

Seedorf81,

I understand your frustration with Sdkfz251 gunners being killed off, seemingly too rapidly. 

When you say that US halftrack gunners', "...dying rate doesn't compare to that of the Sdkfz's...", do you mean you don't compare them because it's apples to oranges, or do you mean that US halftrack gunners don't die as often/fast as Sdkfz's?

If the latter, I would suggest a controlled test. I would -think- that the halftrack gunners should die faster/more often that the Sdkfz, due to the gunshield on the German vehicle. However, that would only be beneficial at a certain range. (An unsuppressed rifleman should be able to hit a 6" target at 100 yards. Toss in whatever combat modifier to that accuracy you'd like (6" at 20 yards due to fear, excitement, adrenaline?), and adjust the test accordingly.) So, there would be no difference at a close range, but once the range increases, then that gunshield should help...a lot.

I like the suggestion of a cower animation to passengers to try to get them to duck down. It is my opinion/belief that the armor is correctly modeled for the various halftracks. Getting those heads below the rim of the armor would be beneficial.

[Seedorf81]

To be honest, my complaint isn't substantiated by any test. It's based on hours and hours (I own CMBN from the beginning) of playing the game.

I play German and US a lot, Commonwealth less, but as far as I know I use the same play style for everyone. And with US/Canadian/British/Polish halftracks I never experienced the hair raising horror that the kill rate of Sdkfzgunners gave me. Over and over again.

After some time one does try to be oh so carefull with those Sdkfz-thinghy's, but even with the greatest precautions those gunners get one in the head.

The title of this thread shows that I'm not the only one who thinks it's a Sdkfz problem, it specifically mentions the Hanomag. No other halftracks.

 

  

[A Canadian Cat]

Can soldiers fire from halftracks like they can from kubels?

yes, they can. In a situation like this they will die even faster, but it is really cool.

[c3k]

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but how often SHOULD hanomag gunner's die? I mean, how close do they get before they get hit? How many bullets needed for each head shot? Or, to put it another way, should they be invulnerable (except to a random lucky hit) at 100m? 300m? 500m? 

Sure, that charcoal sketch of a hanomag belching mg42 fire at trenches as the tracks crush the enemy sure looks cool...but we all understand that's artistic license, right?

Once you posit the distance at which you think the gunshield, and the way in which it limits the nature of the gunner's exposure, should render him immune to all but a lucky shot, we can move forward.

 

[ChappyCanuck]

To be honest, my complaint isn't substantiated by any test. It's based on hours and hours (I own CMBN from the beginning) of playing the game.

I play German and US a lot, Commonwealth less, but as far as I know I use the same play style for everyone. And with US/Canadian/British/Polish halftracks I never experienced the hair raising horror that the kill rate of Sdkfzgunners gave me. Over and over again.

After some time one does try to be oh so carefull with those Sdkfz-thinghy's, but even with the greatest precautions those gunners get one in the head.

The title of this thread shows that I'm not the only one who thinks it's a Sdkfz problem, it specifically mentions the Hanomag. No other halftracks.

 

  

Totally agree Seedor....even the small universal/bren carriers (that I think have better armour than the 251, but as a passenger you are sitting well up in the air) have better crew protection in the game. Even the other Sdkfz models are not a problem - the 75, 37 and 20mms...just the 251 (not sure about the smaller 250).

[c3k]

I'm willing to test this stuff...that is what I get paid for. 

Why do you say the bren carriers protect their crews better than 251s?

Let's make a list of what's "wrong" and then go from there.

[Seedorf81]

Totally agree Seedor....even the small universal/bren carriers (that I think have better armour than the 251, but as a passenger you are sitting well up in the air) have better crew protection in the game. Even the other Sdkfz models are not a problem - the 75, 37 and 20mms...just the 251 (not sure about the smaller 250).

Yes, and if the exposure of Sdkfz251 gunners is correct, why don't get the men on German and Allied AAvehicles the same near 100% killrate? They seem to survive unbelievable amounts of enemy fire if you compare it to the Sdkfz251. And some of those AAboys are as exposed, or even more so, as the Sdkfz gunners.

I use the US M15 a lot (love this piece of kit) at ranges that do not differ very much from the Sdkfz251's! But they can last the entire game..

Unfortunately, this is one of those things that most likely won't be changed by BF. We think it is not good, they think it is, end of discussion.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Seedorf81
Who f#cking cares?!

[ChappyCanuck]

I'm willing to test this stuff...that is what I get paid for. 

Why do you say the bren carriers protect their crews better than 251s?

Let's make a list of what's "wrong" and then go from there.

Within the game, they are better.  A common tactic that a friend of mine and I use is to load the univeral/bren carriers with sections and use them as a swarming mobile reserve. We do this often, and while there are sometimes casualties of course, the rate is nowhere near the Sdkfz rate. Once I watched three replacement gunners get killed in one turn on a 251...they weren't close to the enemy small arms fire, and they were moving.  This would make a great Monty Python skit as the 251 crew argues who has to sit in the gunner position next! 

I am currently playing a CMRT Grossdeutchsland assault scenario that is all halftracks (mostly 251) - no tanks or other vehicles. And I have watched 20-30 gunners/replacements die.  I suppressed, I prepped with arty, I flanked...I did all the correct tactical procedures, yet those Russian small arms were eliminating my 251 crews with ease...laughably so. And at distances over 150 meters. It was uncanny. It was wrong. So I hope that this thing gets corrected.  The 251 was designed as a fighting battle taxi and was employed as such. It was not meant to be a truck, it was meant to deposit the soldiers on or near the objective while maintaining high protection against arty shrapnel and small arms fire. The game does not portray this well at all at this time.

Thanks for reading

[domfluff]

I'm certain that Bren carriers protect their crews better than 251's - if nothing else, the Bren gunner doesn't need to expose themselves to fire, so they have increased protection and can suppress more easily (since there's no lag time with the gunner dying and being replaced). I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Universal carrier offers greater protection than the 251, quite aside from being a physically smaller and lower target.

I'm less convinced that the passengers are less vulnerable in the Universal Carrier, aside from the reasons noted above, and there being fewer of them to hit - a missed shot is unlikely to hit anyone else.

I've spent quite a long time trying to understand mechanised infantry in the WW2 CM games, and I think the outcomes are about what I'd expect. I've certainly had halftrack gunners be nearly invincible at times, with a combination of the protection of the gun shield, suppressive fire and a decent distance in between the halftrack and the target.

[PhilM]

Seedorf81,

I understand your frustration with Sdkfz251 gunners being killed off, seemingly too rapidly. 

When you say that US halftrack gunners', "...dying rate doesn't compare to that of the Sdkfz's...", do you mean you don't compare them because it's apples to oranges, or do you mean that US halftrack gunners don't die as often/fast as Sdkfz's?

If the latter, I would suggest a controlled test. I would -think- that the halftrack gunners should die faster/more often that the Sdkfz, due to the gunshield on the German vehicle. However, that would only be beneficial at a certain range. (An unsuppressed rifleman should be able to hit a 6" target at 100 yards. Toss in whatever combat modifier to that accuracy you'd like (6" at 20 yards due to fear, excitement, adrenaline?), and adjust the test accordingly.) So, there would be no difference at a close range, but once the range increases, then that gunshield should help...a lot.

I like the suggestion of a cower animation to passengers to try to get them to duck down. It is my opinion/belief that the armor is correctly modeled for the various halftracks. Getting those heads below the rim of the armor would be beneficial.

Does anyone know whether or not the modelled behaviour of the occupants - and the resulting losses calculations - are linked to the availability (or in this case, non-availability) of a cowering animation?

In most cases, CMx2 is mostly WYSIWYG: men cower to make themselves a smaller target, and we see them do it. But because there is no in-vehicle cower animation, are the occupants treated as if they never cower in the vehicle, for outcomes purposes?

I'm assuming that the resolution of rounds once inside the vehicle is abstracted to some degree: it is impractical to track the path of multiple (mostly deflected) penetrating rounds, nor is the exact position of all the occupants' limbs, etc, known?

So, if a Hanomag is spotted and taken out by an ambush, all of the occupants would be sat up as normal, and suffer the consequences.

But if the position is that it's already taking small arms fire (possibly with an already dead gunner!), then presumably the occupants will NOT just continue to sit bolt upright, heads exposed. But do they continue to be treated the same way in the game for casualty purposes as in the ambush? Because we cannot see them cower, they do not?? (Thus, is the same results abstraction for incoming fire applied to the vehicle occupants in both examples?)

[Splinty]

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/

 

Cause there's a good chance that in reality kneeling in a bouncing, rolling half track, would be difficult and very painful for any length of time.

[BLSTK]

The fact that we've yet to see "I Was a Halftrack Gunner" in bookstores might also be a clue as to how vulnerable these guys were. And to how so few of them survived the war.

[BLSTK]

 This would make a great Monty Python skit as the 251 crew argues who has to sit in the gunner position next! 

Too funny.

[Seedorf81]

The fact that we've yet to see "I Was a Halftrack Gunner" in bookstores might also be a clue as to how vulnerable these guys were. And to how so few of them survived the war.

That ain't no reasonable argument..

I can just as easy state: The fact that we've yet to see "I was an Army cook (or Army administrator or Army grave digger or Army dentist or whatever)" in bookstores might also be a clue as to how vulnerable these guys were. And to how so few of them survived the war.

 

[sburke]

 

Unfortunately, this is one of those things that most likely won't be changed by BF. We think it is not good, they think it is, end of discussion.

not true. Don't take opinions voiced by myself or others as representing BF. They take a lot of pride in what they have produced and are as much a stickler for correctly representing stuff as anyone here. There are however standards we need to meet to get changes done and constraints with the game we may not be aware of or appreciate the effort. 

I would suggest starting with the tests Ken has proposed. Prove with data what it is that is not being simulated correctly.  Other pieces like a potential cowering animation can be suggested based on that data, but I have no idea what kind of traction we would get on that. Only BF can speak to the effort that would take.  Lastly is the actual tactical usage. If all of this effort is to be able to do ahistorical usage it definitely lowers the chance of any effort being taken.  Actual examples in combat would have to be cited to even kick that off.  I apologize if in any way voicing my own opinion has given any impression of Battlefront's. I most definitely can not speak for them and unlike Ken. I don't get paid.  I am still not sure what he gets paid, but hey his intern probably negotiates better. 

[A Canadian Cat]

While what @sburke said is all true however this thread has wondered away from the original issue and right into the same old same old: HT usage and HT gunner exposure.  So, the thread has gone much the same way as the last 5 - 50 times it has come up:  Assaulting enemy positions with troops mounted in HTs in 1944 was not something the Germans did any longer at that time of the war.  For good reason.  And the gunner stance *was* adjusted to increase their survivability substantially - from the front: now when you use the HT in their secondary 1944 role, as a base of fire, the MG the gunner has much better survivability when you use the HT far back (400-600m) as fire support.  In fact now I have a lot of success using HT MGs from a distance.  It is bloody hard to take out a HT gunner from the front now - if the HT is well back and the fire is coming from the front where the protection is.

Now if Ken is going to test out the original question - lower that expected protection from the vehicle that would be interesting.  If it really is the case that walking down a road in the open while being shot at is better than riding in a HT then there will likely be a case for some kind of change .  It will be interesting to see what vehicle does offer more protection from small arms fire - the bren, German HT or the American HT.  Heck throw in a kangaroo too Ken that would be cool.

[Bulletpoint]

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)

Lots of things happen in war that are not supposed to happen. You're not supposed to let enemy infantry get close to your Panther Tank either, yet it has close defense grenade launchers. Battlefront coded that, even though if enemy gets that close, you should probably change your tactics.

You're not supposed to drive your German halftrack into an ambush, but if you do, I think it would be nice if the soldiers reacted in a realistic way and ducked down. That has nothing to do with Übermensh propaganda, and I don't think it's an unreasonable request to have aded to an otherwise very detailed and realistic game...

[sburke]

Lots of things happen in war that are not supposed to happen. You're not supposed to let enemy infantry get close to your Panther Tank either, yet it has close defense grenade launchers. Battlefront coded that, even though if enemy gets that close, you should probably change your tactics.

You're not supposed to drive your German halftrack into an ambush, but if you do, I think it would be nice if the soldiers reacted in a realistic way and ducked down. That has nothing to do with Übermensh propaganda, and I don't think it's an unreasonable request to have aded to an otherwise very detailed and realistic game...

fair enough, but we are still asking for a potentially substantial change involving AI behavior and animations.  Unreasonable is kind of an open question in that is it dependent on a bit of information we lack- what would it take to do this? At least that is true for one of the streams in this thread.  I still think we need to go back to Ken's suggestion and start there.

[Bozowans]

Assaulting enemy positions with troops mounted in HTs in 1944 was not something the Germans did any longer at that time of the war. 

You seem to take it for granted that this is true. You think the Germans never did that at this point in the war? Real life tactics are not always the same as wargame tactics.

Doing a bit more digging, I found a photo of a training exercise showing a half-track crew being trained to literally drive right over a simulated enemy trench while firing down into it. The half-track is literally on top of a slit trench, and as the description notes, the soldiers are being conditioned to fight from inside the vehicle.

The German field manual I posted as well as that panzergrenadier training film all demonstrate the exact same thing. This is what they were teaching their soldiers to do.

[JonS]

I found a photo of a training exercise showing a half-track crew being trained to literally drive right over a simulated enemy trench while firing down into it.

Back in the day, I was taught a drill for pepper potting; Up-Dash-Down-Crawl. I'm sure that drill, or a similar variant, is familiar to many here. The idea is to maintain forward momentum while minimising exposure, and as a training drill it seems to work great. I recall watching some soldiers conduct this drill whilst standing next to an old and grizzled SNCO. Turns out he'd previously been in the Parachute Regiment, and had been through the Falklands Campaign. He observed dryly that the soldiers were carrying out the drill well, but the drill itself 'were well fooked'. He noted that, after going through a couple of battalion level assaults on the two-way range, there were no fooking way he'd be doing the 'Up-Dash' part of the drill. Fook tha'. When the bullets start flying get on your guts and stay on your guts. Forward momentum can be maintained much better by live soldiers crawling than it can by dead soldiers standing up.

Which is a long way of saying; training != reality

Edited March 4, 2016 by JonS

[iluvmy88]

I dont think this is really a question of tactics, commanders make those decisions. this is a question of wethr it is realistic for a 30/6 round to penetrate a hanomags armor. after a little research 

hanomage had 14.7mm (.57 inch) armor

at a 90deg angle 100m target a 30/6 will penetrate up to 1 inch steel plate. i would say it could easily do the same up to 300m falling off after that.

an MG could easily tear these apart, concentrated inf fire as well. Although i belevie the vehicle would be destroyed before the inf would be as the engine block would take the brunt of the hits.

That said i believe there are just some quarks in the physics of the game and TBH the level of detail they put into this game is not easy and they are slowly working into a better and better product, for the time being it is up to the commander how to use his equipment.

Edited March 4, 2016 by iluvmy88

[Rokko]

A certain ingame test I would suggest or would go through myself if I have the time, is to take a single M1 shooter (a truck driver for instance) set at Regular/Normal/+0 and have him take a shots at halftracks from the front (that don't shoot back obviously) at various ranges, maybe from 50-300m and compare the number of rounds it takes to take out the gunner with the number of shots it takes to take out a single German (truck driver) set at fanatic behind a low stone wall at the same ranges. The German also gets a covered arc so he doesn't shoot back. The fanatic setting is to ensure he doesn't duck away, just like the halftrack gunners never "button up" on their own. If the guy cowers behind the wall it might ruin the effect of increased per shot accuracy on the same target.

My hunch, based on personal experience, is that it will take more rounds to take out the guy behind the wall at most ranges, despite him being way more exposed. I think the same might be true for tank commanders.

I have a feeling that the game handles aiming at men in vehicles differently than aiming at men in the open.

[sburke]

Could be, then again we have seen that armor fires center of mass, I honestly don't know what to expect as results of above tests. Which makes it all the more interesting as an idea.