Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[Bulletpoint]

Surely there must exist some diary or memoirs of a German soldier that can shed light on how these vehicles were actually used in battle?

[c3k]

"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

 

And at this point, why should I use 2+ weeks of my free time for, well, an asshat?

You're now on my ignore list. Thanks.

Ken

[Pete Wenman]

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.

Umm....

P 

[c3k]

Surely there must exist some diary or memoirs of a German soldier that can shed light on how these vehicles were actually used in battle?

Yes. The diaries read, "Dear Diary. Today is my first day as a halftrack gunner. I'm very excited! I'll write more, tonight, after the battle." The next pages are all blank, save for the blood splatter...

[AttorneyAtWar]

Yes. The diaries read, "Dear Diary. Today is my first day as a halftrack gunner. I'm very excited! I'll write more, tonight, after the battle." The next pages are all blank, save for the blood splatter...

You mean the blood splatter from the enemies his half track ran over right?!?

 

[c3k]

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.  

Joey boy, thanks for misquoting my username.

Demolished your stance is correct. 75 shots and no hits. Now, put my statement in context. Next, look at my other posts about how I'd test this. Next, look at the body of my work. Do you really think I'd consider a single shooter at a single halftrack in a single test to mean anything? OTHER than disproving that halftrack gunners always get shot? Really?

Finally, ask if you are being constructive.

 

 

[ChappyCanuck]

And at this point, why should I use 2+ weeks of my free time for, well, an asshat?

You're now on my ignore list. Thanks.

Ken

Fine be me...get off my forum topic then. Asshat? Well look who the classy guy is now eh?

[RockinHarry]

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.

 

 

+1

Amongst my books I have a german original (dated 1944), "Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere" (combat training of the Panzergrenadiere) from the author Helmut von Wehren, a major and commander of a "Lehrabteilung" (official army training and instruction unit).

"Ausbildungs-Lehr-Abteilung für Panzergrenadiere , Weimar
Mai 1942 - Aug 1944 OTL Helmut von Wehren"

See "Panzerlehrgänge Paderborn (Tigerlehrgänge)" on this site:

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/160-germany-military-other/schools-of-the-wehrmacht/4549-schools-of-the-wehrmacht-schnelle-truppen-panzertruppe

It´s not an official training regulation (yet based on the most important ones, like H.Dv 299/4a and 130/2a), but one of many the books that were published from professional and experienced army officers to supplement the regulations and help official army instructors to put the basics, as well as wartime experiences as effectively into practice as possible when training Panzergrenadiers.

I copied 8 pages from lesson #6, "the armored squad in the attack" (die gepanzerte Gruppe im Angriff), which includes the essentials of a typical Panzergrenadier squad with its armored halftrack in the attack, augmented with 10 common combat training situations and a map. Unfortunately I do not have the time to make any translations, but maybe some other german speaker can extract some the info that is debated here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2kmgj6bxxquwvph/GAdPzGr_Wehren.rar?dl=0

 

[c3k]

 

+1

Amongst my books I have a german original (dated 1944), "Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere" (combat training of the Panzergrenadiere) from the author Helmut von Wehren, a major and commander of a "Lehrabteilung" (official army training and instruction unit).

"Ausbildungs-Lehr-Abteilung für Panzergrenadiere , Weimar
Mai 1942 - Aug 1944 OTL Helmut von Wehren"

See "Panzerlehrgänge Paderborn (Tigerlehrgänge)" on this site:

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/160-germany-military-other/schools-of-the-wehrmacht/4549-schools-of-the-wehrmacht-schnelle-truppen-panzertruppe

It´s not an official training regulation (yet based on the most important ones, like H.Dv 299/4a and 130/2a), but one of many the books that were published from professional and experienced army officers to supplement the regulations and help official army instructors to put the basics, as well as wartime experiences as effectively into practice as possible when training Panzergrenadiers.

I copied 8 pages from lesson #6, "the armored squad in the attack" (die gepanzerte Gruppe im Angriff), which includes the essentials of a typical Panzergrenadier squad with its armored halftrack in the attack, augmented with 10 common combat training situations and a map. Unfortunately I do not have the time to make any translations, but maybe some other german speaker can extract some the info that is debated here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2kmgj6bxxquwvph/GAdPzGr_Wehren.rar?dl=0

 

Thanks for digging those up. Translations would make it easier.

 

Edited March 5, 2016 by c3k

[Bulletpoint]

Yes. The diaries read, "Dear Diary. Today is my first day as a halftrack gunner. I'm very excited! I'll write more, tonight, after the battle." The next pages are all blank, save for the blood splatter...

Interesting how many people seem to think the Germans were either superhuman soldiers or complete suicidal fools. I guess that's what happens to those who are defeated in war, they fade into history as carricatures...

My question was earnest though - surely there must be some historical accounts of how these aggressive halftrack tactics were trained, tried, and then the results?

[c3k]

^^^

That's the issue. DID they use tactics as aggressive as some players use? I (and others) don't think so. Remember, the CM games (up to now, with CMFI excepted) are all '44 and on. In '39, the Germans may have gotten away with close assaulting with halftracks, but by '44 the number of auto and semi-auto small arms was far higher than in '39-'41. Plus, halftracks weren't new anymore.

So far there's only been some vague "feeling" that it's wrong in-game. If halftrack gunners die at 100m, well, did they die at 100m in real life, as well? It's hard to prove one way or the other using training documents. A lot of training is used to promulgate aggressiveness. That may or may not be how it is done on the battlefield. It's one thing to run about shooting blanks with smoke grenades going off. It's another doing so with real bullets and having just buried your buddy who tried it for real yesterday.

A lot of players use bad tactics. A lot of players use ahistorical tactics. After doing that, they complain that something is broken. I wonder what that could be?

However, maybe something isn't as accurate as it could be. So....we're at the point where someone needs to show how late war halftracks were REALLY used and what the results were. If someone says that in "battle X" halftracks rushed up to defenders, well, I'd like to know what defenders, what suppressive fire, and what halftrack casualties resulted. That gets pretty detailed and the likelihood of a report like that existing is pretty small.

The question remains: how were hafltracks REALLY used in late-war, and what was the casualty rate/vulnerability of the gunners in that role? And then, does the game simulate that?

The 250 crossing the trench image: to me, that was just a demonstration of its mobility, not some sort of "how to assault dug-in troops" training. If I'm in a trench and the enemy has some mounted troops in 250s (or 251s), I'd say a prayer of thanks if they tried to cross the trench.

 

[sburke]

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.  

Well I for one would never claimed it demolished the supposed behavior.  I said it was a one off test and the response I got was just more resistance. Funny that you didn't feel you needed to qualify Ken's response with what went on between.  See that is called bias and context.  I appreciate what Ken is trying to say in that the stupid simple one off test demonstrated a completely different result than what folks are stating.  What he is expressing is frustration.  ALL we are asking is you demonstrate this purported issue in action.  My stupid little test indicated it might not be as simple as you guys claim and your particular claim of some magic bullet vehicle thing in particular is highly suspect.  You guys want to keep arguing fine, but if you aren't willing to run some tests then I am outta here.  I have not suffered from this purported behavior, my quick sanity check shows that to me that gun shield works as intended.  I have nothing to indicate there is an issue so I am moving on.  If you can demonstrate through testing I am wrong I will be more than happy to take that data and open a ticket on your behalf. I do that not because I am getting paid (... wait I am supposed to be getting paid?) but because I want this game to be as good as it can be.  If there is something to these arguments and it can be demonstrated then I would absolutely assist, but c'mon guys, give me something to work with.  Despite your claim that the MG gunner stance was not changed without testing - you have no way to know that.  There is a ton of discussion and testing by beta testers on issues behind the scenes.  JoMc67 you seem to have the penchant for making major unsupported claims- it doesn't help your cause.

@chappycanuck- yes I have that book as well, but it is a broad brush claim. C'mon man it really is a better use of time to run a test than to quote books. I'll ask you again- can you cite even one example of that behavior in successful action on the Western front? I can't.  I can not and will not try and create a ticket on that.  Charles would likely just fart in his bowl (.. or is that laughter... or maybe a belch.  It is so hard when you just see bubbles to know... ) and close it.

You also need to define what it is that is being proposed as I think I see about 4 distinctly separate issues

1 Vulnerability of sdkfz MG gunner

2 Vulnerability of sdfkz passengers

3 A request for AI behavior in firing from a track (honestly I see this getting the least traction simply because doing that animation and AI work work is likely a b**ch)

4 some magic bullet thing where small arms fire will continue at a track even after there are no passengers visible.

Good luck and be sure to include variations in testing- mine was on level flat ground, I suspect if the GI were elevated and could fire down into the track I'd see totally different behavior - which I should.

[RockinHarry]

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.

(Sorry, I meant to quote Bozowans posting, not C3k. Something went wrong.) So again.....

+1

Amongst my books I have a german original (dated 1944), "Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere" (combat training of the Panzergrenadiere) from the author Helmut von Wehren, a major and commander of a "Lehrabteilung" (official army training and instruction unit).

"Ausbildungs-Lehr-Abteilung für Panzergrenadiere , Weimar
Mai 1942 - Aug 1944 OTL Helmut von Wehren"

See "Panzerlehrgänge Paderborn (Tigerlehrgänge)" on this site:

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/160-germany-military-other/schools-of-the-wehrmacht/4549-schools-of-the-wehrmacht-schnelle-truppen-panzertruppe

It´s not an official training regulation (yet based on the most important ones, like H.Dv 299/4a and 130/2a), but one of many the books that were published from professional and experienced army officers to supplement the regulations and help official army instructors to put the basics, as well as wartime experiences as effectively into practice as possible when training Panzergrenadiers.

I copied 8 pages from lesson #6, "the armored squad in the attack" (die gepanzerte Gruppe im Angriff), which includes the essentials of a typical Panzergrenadier squad with its armored halftrack in the attack, augmented with 10 common combat training situations and a map. Unfortunately I do not have the time to make any translations, but maybe some other german speaker can extract some the info that is debated here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2kmgj6bxxquwvph/GAdPzGr_Wehren.rar?dl=0

and to add another source....

Issue Nr. 06 – Dec. 1943 from "Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppe" also contains an interesting article about a german combined tank and halftrack mounted Grenadier attack on a russian village.

http://www.sturmpanzer.com/Default.aspx?tabindex=5&tabid=620&item=3&sec=0

Too bad that many of the valuable sources that shed some light on Panzergrenadier tactics remained untranslated to english language. I could easily repeat what Bozowans posted above and there´s not much to add from my own reading and understanding. I could possibly try on some translations, but I do not believe that any the critics here doubting that mounted Panzergrenadier actions were different from what they derive from secondary sources, would change their minds. Maybe something like that is left to a Glantz, Creveld or anybody who enjoys some credibility in the english language world.

 

[ChappyCanuck]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that whenever someone quotes from a reference work it is always immediately discounted? Hmmmm

As for testing, I have tested extensively through the scenarios and battles. I have made my observation, as have many others on this issue. And I have reported it here. I am not getting paid by Battlefront to do any testing, etc... and as a matter of fact, I (and we) pay them to do this when I purchase their products.

Can the company really expect the gamers to do any more than that? Does any other gaming company expect this?

 

 

[sburke]

Is it just me or is just every time someone says you need to prove through testing, it is ignored.

chappy all kidding aside I don't get paid either.  I buy every single release just like everyone else. I have tested though scenarios and battles probably as much as you have, but at least in a close margin proportionally.  I don't see the issue, so now what do we do - observation vs observation without supporting data.  It is apparent you are unwilling to move this past "my experience in CM" to "if you look at this test you can see".  YOU seem to think something is wrong - so prove it. 

As to German Panzergrenadiers - my personal suspicion is you guys are confusing tactical with operational roles.  WTF would be the point of using your limited PzGr force to take the initial line of defenses. Who was supposed to be the breakthrough force then - you just spent your primary striking force. The tracks were to get the troops safely through the initial defense zone and into the enemy rear safely and at a pace they could keep up with the Panzers.  I could be totally off base, but that is my own personal hit on their use based on what I have read and the fact that I can't cite a single historical example of them being used in the manner you guys are suggesting in 1944 on the Western front.  Wasting your track trying to grind down infantry in a trench and fighting from the vehicle to boot just seems, well stupid.  You want to clear a trench- you dismount and you go into the darn thing.  But again that should be the follow on foot sloggers- the mounted troops should be heading into the rear to hit the artillery, supply and C&C units.

Honestly I think this whole discussion is getting way too out of hand and personal and most definitely not moving things forward the way any of us would like to see it go.  The behavior will not change if we can't convince BF there is reason to change.  The ONLY data for the use of Tracks in combat has been to cite training manuals and a reference that I do love but definitely suffers from too broad statements when it comes to actual practice.  The US  German tactics manual- please answer me this - if you nor I nor anyone else here can cite a single example of PzGR going into the attack mounted against the Western allies in 1944/1945 and most definitely not successfully- why is that in the manual?  It isn't like we lack sources, we have far more information at our beck and call than those guys did.

Edited March 5, 2016 by sburke

[Seedorf81]

I agree that this thread almost goes haywire..

Please people, stay civil. It's just a game..

Still, two remarks:

1. If one dismisses training and training manuals as being representative for "actual practice", how can a test be representative for the actual (gunners = dead) gameplay?  

2. Could it be that there is a difference in the death rate of Sdkfz gunners when playing against AI (I never played against a human yet) and when playing against human? Might that explain why some of us see the problem, while others don't?

[JoMac]

Joey boy, thanks for misquoting my username.

Demolished your stance is correct. 75 shots and no hits. Now, put my statement in context. Next, look at my other posts about how I'd test this. Next, look at the body of my work. Do you really think I'd consider a single shooter at a single halftrack in a single test to mean anything? OTHER than disproving that halftrack gunners always get shot? Really?

Finally, ask if you are being constructive.

 

Ok, and Fair Enough...I will just say this is an interesting thread that warrants further discussion.  

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I asked this question a few pages ago and no one has yet to answer: At what range do you think a halftrack gunner should be "safe" and at what range should he be "risking his life?"

[sburke]

I asked this question a few pages ago and no one has yet to answer: At what range do you think a halftrack gunner should be "safe" and at what range should he be "risking his life?"

not sure who if anyone you are directing the question at.  I honestly have no idea.  I am exactly the wrong person to answer that question (and if it were me shooting he'd be safer than the folks next to me most likely - oh I am Dick Cheney in case you didn't know) - however at 100 meters dead on forward facing that gun shield looks to be pretty good protection... in a single iteration test

Edited March 5, 2016 by sburke

[Bud Backer]

I asked this question a few pages ago and no one has yet to answer: At what range do you think a halftrack gunner should be "safe" and at what range should he be "risking his life?"

That's a tricky question to answer. I'd say, it depends on how you define safe. And that's not being snotty. 

Absolutely safe: I dunno, 3 km where no rifle or MG bullet will ever reach? 

Likely that's not what you mean - I take your meaning to be: safe enough that he has a reasonable chance of survival. What is reasonable? Let's say, 80%? 

You can see how my assumptions may not be yours, and it gets difficult to work with the same expectations on an issue one may even agree on! 

But to the issue that the OP raised, I've seen arguments both ways, and I'm honestly not swayed by either "side". My own experience is that halftracks will save a lot of lives if the men are in them rather than walking on the open. I've seen instances where a spray of bullets ricochets off the vehicle and everyone is fine. I've seen in my Rundstedt CAAR battle repeatedly two things happen:

1. Bullet ricochets off the gun shield on the half track

2. Bullet penetrates the gun shield on the halftrack. 

I'd be hard pressed to say one happens overwhelmingly more than the other, but on average, I'd be inclined to estimate that the penetrations are still noticeably fewer than the ricochets. 

But these are my impressions. Not test results. Impressions can be misleading. I'm sure some may even say - "well this isn't what I saw so you're wrong." Ok. I believe you. But all I'm believing is that you have a feeling for something, just as I do. The developer has changed things when shown they are wrong. Why do you think this would be any different on this singular issue? Why be averse to helping make that change by setting something up and giving everyone the evidence that is needed? 

Guys we've all been hanging out on this forum for ages together. Let's stop arguing and try to help out, please. 

[c3k]

I asked this question a few pages ago and no one has yet to answer: At what range do you think a halftrack gunner should be "safe" and at what range should he be "risking his life?"

Well, I asked a few specific questions and never got answers. Someone says "it's broken". Isn't that enough for you?

[sburke]

Taste's great!

Less filling!

Taste's great!

Less filling!

Taste's great!

Less filling!

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

My tiny digital Germans are allergic to bullets!  THIS IS TERRIBLE.

I don't know of many armies using any sort of APC/PC/Halftrack in a direct assault role and the same going well.  Virtually every manual, historical and modern emphasizes dismounting before the objective in a covered and concealed position, and the sheer amount of fire even real AFVs draw on the assault on more than a few occasions led dismounted units to reject armored support in world war two.

The PC assault isn't totally unrealistic though.  In cases where the enemy is fairly modest or disorganized, an aggressive posture might make sense, especially in the sense of conducting a bypass.

But by god you roll a halftrack at a position that's halfway dug in and you by rights should get your butt handed to you.  All halftracks had pretty serious protection issues, they were great at getting infantry as close as was safely possible in a semi-aggressive manner, but despite the wide availability of halftracks, there seems to be only some manuals and a few training photos.  

[Heirloom_Tomato]

not sure who if anyone you are directing the question at.  I honestly have no idea.  I am exactly the wrong person to answer that question (and if it were me shooting he'd be safer than the folks next to me most likely - oh I am Dick Cheney in case you didn't know) - however at 100 meters dead on forward facing that gun shield looks to be pretty good protection... in a single iteration test

That's a tricky question to answer. I'd say, it depends on how you define safe. And that's not being snotty. 

Absolutely safe: I dunno, 3 km where no rifle or MG bullet will ever reach? 

Likely that's not what you mean - I take your meaning to be: safe enough that he has a reasonable chance of survival. What is reasonable? Let's say, 80%? 

You can see how my assumptions may not be yours, and it gets difficult to work with the same expectations on an issue one may even agree on! 

But to the issue that the OP raised, I've seen arguments both ways, and I'm honestly not swayed by either "side". My own experience is that halftracks will save a lot of lives if the men are in them rather than walking on the open. I've seen instances where a spray of bullets ricochets off the vehicle and everyone is fine. I've seen in my Rundstedt CAAR battle repeatedly two things happen:

1. Bullet ricochets off the gun shield on the half track

2. Bullet penetrates the gun shield on the halftrack. 

I'd be hard pressed to say one happens overwhelmingly more than the other, but on average, I'd be inclined to estimate that the penetrations are still noticeably fewer than the ricochets. 

But these are my impressions. Not test results. Impressions can be misleading. I'm sure some may even say - "well this isn't what I saw so you're wrong." Ok. I believe you. But all I'm believing is that you have a feeling for something, just as I do. The developer has changed things when shown they are wrong. Why do you think this would be any different on this singular issue? Why be averse to helping make that change by setting something up and giving everyone the evidence that is needed? 

Guys we've all been hanging out on this forum for ages together. Let's stop arguing and try to help out, please. 

My comment was addressed to those who say the game is broken and the halftracks are not working properly. I have used them with great success at ranges greater than 400 meters. I will lose a gunner or passenger every once in a while but not to the same extent as if I try to drive them within 50 meters. At 400 meters the halftrack gunners can lay down a large volume of suppressive fire allowing my men to close the distance with relative safety. This is the range I say the gunners are safe. 

Well, I asked a few specific questions and never got answers. Someone says "it's broken". Isn't that enough for you?

C3K offered to run a test and asked all those who thought the game was broken to tell him how close the gunners should be able to be before they get shot. No one answered him. I am not trying to be snarky or a prick but am trying to help out. I am also willing to run a test or 5 to see what others are seeing and to improve my own game play.

So, to all those who say the game is broken, how close do you want to be able to drive a halftrack and consider the gunner to be safe?

[Bud Backer]

 

 

My comment was addressed to those who say the game is broken and the halftracks are not working properly. I have used them with great success at ranges greater than 400 meters. I will lose a gunner or passenger every once in a while but not to the same extent as if I try to drive them within 50 meters. At 400 meters the halftrack gunners can lay down a large volume of suppressive fire allowing my men to close the distance with relative safety. This is the range I say the gunners are safe. 

What you say seems to be about right. I ran a test...

I made a totally flat map.

14 halftracks, all immobilized, with infantry squads opened up in them, side by side, about 20 m apart. 

10 US squads, in trenches, at ranges in intervals going from approx 10m - 390m distance. No bazookas. The short range is meant to simulate close encounters and surprises. 

Ran for 5 min, with no input from me other than end turn.

Results: 

GE wounded: 20

GE killed: 7

GE OK: 88

German casualties were 0 for the 3 most distant halftracks - so 392m - about 300m. 

So this is all small arms, no MMGs, no HMGs, just rifles and BARs. I'm not sure this is unreasonable to expect the losses we see here. 

Please, I encourage anyone to make their own test to see what happens. I for one was surprised by the result - but for the Americans. Even in trenches, they had 82 killed, 32 wounded, 0 OK.

Likely someone can devise a comprehensive test regimen, I did this just on the fly to see what happens.

 

Edited to add:

I am not saying that this proves anything one way or another - but I am saying that, annoying as it may be to lose crew or passengers in the 251/1, the results to me do not seem to be wildly at odds with what I think to be realistic. Again, that is an opinion based on my own expectations, YMMV.

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Bud Backer