Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[Bulletpoint]

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.

Where are those numbers from?

Wikipedia has this info, for what it's worth:

"With regards to penetration, the M2 ball can penetrate 0.4 in (10.16 mm) of mild steel at 100 yards (91 m), and 0.3 in (7.62 mm) at 200 yards (180 m). M2 AP can penetrate 0.42 in (10.67 mm) of armor steel at 100 yards (91 m)"

 

[JoMac]

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.

Oh, I think this may be the case...

Infantry behind a Wall relies more on how many Spotting Cycles it takes for the enemy to put Small Arms down at the Wall (sporadic small arms) ....HT's for example only needs to get spotted once during the turn and it will continuously receive Small Arms ( even thou you can't actually see Inf in the Vehicle...but can still see the Vehicle )...BF essentially makes Vehicles "Bullet Magnets".   

Edited March 5, 2016 by JoMc67

[JoMac]

Where are those numbers from?

Wikipedia has this info, for what it's worth:

"With regards to penetration, the M2 ball can penetrate 0.4 in (10.16 mm) of mild steel at 100 yards (91 m), and 0.3 in (7.62 mm) at 200 yards (180 m). M2 AP can penetrate 0.42 in (10.67 mm) of armor steel at 100 yards (91 m)"

 

Your figures, Bullets, are more precise, because there is no way In H that a 30/6 is going to penetrate 1" of Armor (unless it's an ATR).

Edited March 5, 2016 by JoMc67

[sburke]

okay so let's get back to reality here. 

I positioned an sdkfz 251 with an FO team on board approx 96 meters from a US infantry man with a rifle behind a wall.  I gave the FO team and the track a restricted arc and let the American have at it.  He ID'd the FO team in the track.  He did not fire  at all and I let it run several turns.  I then gave the track only an unbutton command.  The gunner took position behind the guns shield while one of the FO team stood up to return fire.  (That was a bit odd, will file that away.)

The FO guy got off one shot and got hit (his position standing to the side of the gun shield left him really exposed.  A side angle option might have altered this, but the test was to validate the gun shield and the magic bullet vehicle thingy claim.).  The MG gunner stayed behind the gun shield.  The GI emptied his rifle some 75 rounds and somehow proceeded to collect ammo from the jeep. (file that away ....)

After expending over a 100 rounds at less than 100 meters I then had the track button up.  The GI still ID'd the FO in the track that was still sitting.  He stopped firing.  I saw no evidence of this magic bullet magnet thing.

So can we now do some testing?.  I by no means state this is conclusive but the one and only test that has been run invalidated every claim on this thread.

 

Edit- as an additional test I had the track turn around so the gun shield was no longer blocking any view of the passenger - magic bullet thingy still not happening and the GI isn't even trying to shoot through the track. The GI is clearly spotting the passenger.

Edited March 5, 2016 by sburke

[ChappyCanuck]

You want a real test?  How about hundreds of hours of observation from many different gamers on this site playing dozens of different scenarios...and strangely enough we all have noticed the same observation. It is broken and needs fixing...now

[sburke]

fine make a claim that you have hundred of hours of observation, but don't run a single test.  I run a single stupid test that really proves nothing but is a factual point of data for BF to observe. My simple stupid test will carry more weight.  If you want to change the behavior you need to demonstrate data.  That simple fact has been stated innumerable times on this forum.  Chappy I really have a lot of respect for you and I love the stuff you have done on the campaign AARs and I don't doubt your experience, but if you aren't going to make the effort to get it changed, it won't change.  I don't know what else to tell you.

Stated observations without data will not get BF to look at this- simple fact.  Data backed observations will get their attention.  They have a million things going on all the time, they won't push this up their priority list without a reason to do so.  Give them a reason.

[BLSTK]

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.

All great titles. I have copies of all four of those books and would be happy to lend them to you after you've finished running your tests.

[BLSTK]

Interestingly enough, "I was an Army Cook" and "I Was an Army Grave Digger "were co-written by the same pair of authors.

Which makes me wonder about the ingredients of the Chef's Special Stew.

[Michael Emrys]

Interestingly enough, "I was an Army Cook" and "I Was an Army Grave Digger "were co-written by the same pair of authors.

Which makes me wonder about the ingredients of the Chef's Special Stew.

All that is known is that the ingredients had finally stopped moving. Most of the time.

Michael

[Bozowans]

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

Somehow I knew I would get this response. I'm sorry but that's not really an argument. You're not actually addressing the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of German half-tracks in WW2, you're flippantly dismissing it while bringing up a single unrelated anecdote from a different war and time period. Nobody in this thread has put up any authoritative source stating that half-tracks were ineffective in combat, and that the Germans always dismounted their mechanized infantry far away from the enemy, never actually using their half-tracks as assault vehicles because they were "useless." The only people I've seen argue this in my searching so far are wargamers on internet forums (not just this one).

All the evidence points otherwise. The Germans seem to have relied on them very heavily, not tucking them away out of sight the moment the shooting started. The main problems the Germans had with them were that there weren't enough of them. As I pointed out before, the Germans even had flamethrower half-tracks intended for assaults at close quarters (range of 40 yards). From what I've read of their flamethrower vehicles, they would operate in platoons behind normal infantry half-tracks. Covered by fire from the other vehicles, the flamethrowers would drive right up to enemy positions and blast them. Trenches would be crossed and engaged from the flank.

Why did the Germans train their troops to do this? Because they were stupid? They had years of combat experience. Why did they produce detailed manuals outlining this? For no reason? Mechanized panzergrenadiers were highly specialized units intended to follow closely behind tanks as they break through enemy lines as quickly as possible. The tanks would lead the way. These were shock tactics. They were used en masse, designed to move large numbers of infantry through ground swept by small-arms and shell fire as safely and quickly as possible.

According to the Osprey book on the Sdkfz 251, "The tactics employed by the Panzer Divisions were well thought out, and efficiently executed under the best of circumstances - good preparation, the element of surprise, and sufficient armoured infantry in SPWs to exploit the gains won by the tanks. More importantly, for much of the war these tactics were sufficiently flexible and effective that they usually worked under less-than-ideal conditions, and occasionally succeeded under appalling circumstances. Where they failed the cause was usually massive enemy opposition especially co-ordinated air cover - which caused such heavy attrition in men and material that the Panzer Division no longer had sufficient forces to carry out their assigned tasks."

That book even went so far as to describe in detail the distances and frontages the vehicles kept from each other while rolling over the enemy line. It's just not believable to me that the Germans conducted their famous rapid mechanized attacks by dismounting all of their infantry and then hiding their vehicles out of sight, while maybe having a guy in the turret plink away at the enemy from 1000m away.

I found another interesting picture. Most pictures of half-tracks have the men hanging way out of the cabin, on a road march. This one has the men sitting in the back mostly obscured, with just the tops of some of their helmets peeking out. If they were under fire, I would imagine it would be very difficult to cause casualties to the men inside with just small-arms fire if they had their heads down.

In CM, the passengers are so vulnerable with all their heads right next to each other at the same height, sitting like mannequins. I've seen three men get hit by one bullet.

[iluvmy88]

Where are those numbers from?

Wikipedia has this info, for what it's worth:

"With regards to penetration, the M2 ball can penetrate 0.4 in (10.16 mm) of mild steel at 100 yards (91 m), and 0.3 in (7.62 mm) at 200 yards (180 m). M2 AP can penetrate 0.42 in (10.67 mm) of armor steel at 100 yards (91 m)"

 

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-498219.html this was the first page i looked at among others, 3/4 inch steel plate full penetration through to the other side, the other site 

this video shows a full penetration on a mild steel target, I dont know if they whre using hardened steel back in ww2 but if it will penetrate that much even in mild it would likly penetrate metal of the day up to 1 inch, depends on metal quality and range.

Edited March 5, 2016 by iluvmy88

[Seedorf81]

Interestingly enough, "I was an Army Cook" and "I Was an Army Grave Digger "were co-written by the same pair of authors.

Which makes me wonder about the ingredients of the Chef's Special Stew.

,

The pair still had to be alive when I was serving in the Dutch Army in the early Eighties! I always wondered how they would get the food so horrible..

[RockinHarry]

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.

It´s about using an appropiate animation/stance from the available ones in the game, where kneeling is the next best. I´d already tested an animation change in the game and I´ve not yet received any complaints about hurting knees and such from the pixeltroopers. 

[JonS]

According to the Osprey book ...

Oh. Come. On.

[c3k]

You want a real test?  How about hundreds of hours of observation from many different gamers on this site playing dozens of different scenarios...and strangely enough we all have noticed the same observation. It is broken and needs fixing...now

And this will NEVER, in any venue, bring about desired change.

Inertia is not a bad thing. BFC created CM and it has specific characteristics. You "feel" one of those characteristics needs to be changed. "It is broken and needs fixing...now." Sburke ran a test, posted the results, and showed how it totally demolishes your stance. BFC relies on data, not "It is broken and needs fixing...now", statements.

You want to change something. I am willing to do the work. Like I said, as a beta, I get paid for that. (Crap. If sburke is reading this, that may cause issues. We all agreed to keep silent about the pay scale since he's the only one daft enough to do this for free.) I'm sympathetic, but if the problem doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. SHOW that it exists...

Do you have savegames showing 251 gunners dying like flies...when they shouldn't? See, that's the rub. I can a lot of savegames with 251 gunners dying. But, they're getting hit with ATRs in the gunshield, or from the side, or 37mm, or frags. It's hard to isolate down to a rifleman getting a lucky shot. That's what sburke tried showing. (FWIW, when I test, I'll run hundreds of iterations at various ranges. It'll take about 2+ weeks of free time. I'll test Bren carriers, 251s, 250s, M3s, and M5s. I think.)

So, "You want a real test?" was a nice intro to your post, but you then followed it with a non sequitur. Anecdotes and observations from uncontrolled situations are not tests. You need to control the variables to ascertain what's going on.

Upstream is a picture of a 250 crossing a trench. Look at how exposed those guys are. It would be child's play for anyone within 50m with an auto- or semi-auto weapon to kill them. "Ahh, but that's just training", you'd say. "In battle, they'd act differently". Yeah, like not cross a trench that may be occupied. Shrug. Training is not combat. As mentioned in a lot of other places.

 

 

[Pete Wenman]

(Crap. If sburke is reading this, that may cause issues. We all agreed to keep silent about the pay scale since he's the only one daft enough to do this for free.)

 

[Wicky]

"Training is not combat. As mentioned in a lot of other places."

Like batting training in cricket in nets when there's only the bowler to face.  In a real game the wicketkeer and fielders are also out to get you, and sometimes the umpires as well!

It might work aggressively charging the bowler in the nets but repeatedy try it in reality, it and you'll invariably get stumped > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTAB4qkPDVU

[JoMac]

 

 

And this will NEVER, in any venue, bring about desired change.

Inertia is not a bad thing. BFC created CM and it has specific characteristics. You "feel" one of those characteristics needs to be changed. "It is broken and needs fixing...now." Sburke ran a test, posted the results, and showed how it totally demolishes your stance. BFC relies on data, not "It is broken and needs fixing...now", statements.

 

 

Umm, No 3PO...

Many players complained about the lack of MG effectiveness & Gunner Stance in Vehicles, and we got that changed from BF and it wasn't through your testing. 

[JoMac]

Oh. Come. On.

Really, Jon...what sources would you prefer 

[ChappyCanuck]

"Sburke ran a test, posted the results, and showed how it totally demolishes your stance. BFC relies on data, not "It is broken and needs fixing...now", statements."

Yup, I'm totally demolished bahahahahaha

 

[ChappyCanuck]

In March, 1945, the US War Department published a very detailed handbook on German military forces (of which I own a modern, printed copy). It not only describes how the Germans trained, but also how they fought AND modified their tactics in great detail.  For example, on page 221:

"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 (150 meters behind), 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."

Like Bozowans, I have presented another reference to their use in battle

[JoMac]

"Sburke ran a test, posted the results, and showed how it totally demolishes your stance. BFC relies on data, not "It is broken and needs fixing...now", statements."

Yup, I'm totally demolished bahahahahaha

 

Yeah, 3PO's phrase of how a single test "Demolished your Stance" was quite interesting ( and coming from a Play Tester )...This, rather then just saying a Single Test is one element to consider, and many more tests are needed.  

[Macisle]

Hey, guys. Here is a quick and dirty test file:

1 HT vs. 1 leapfrogging Ami Plt across 600m of open ground.

It is a hotseat game save (no passwords) with 1 standard HT with an FO team as passengers facing off against an advancing platoon of Amis starting at 600 meters. The orders are all done, so just keep flipping turns and see what unfolds.

I did this as fast as possible, with the first idea off the top of my head, so it may not be a great test.

But it probably beats just talking past each other and offers a common starting point for discussion at least.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Macisle

[spawncaptain]

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.

Yup. And make everyone get up and fire at the enemy, ducking to reload, when in close contact.

[Macisle]

 I should have immobilized that HT...