Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[MOS:96B2P]

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. <Snip>

Bud, Thanks for doing the test.  Interesting and useful information.      

[iluvmy88]

^^^

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.

This seems to be pretty damn close to what would happen considering real life ballistics test that i posted earlier. not everything is going to be perfect in a simulation but BF has done a good job so far. i do, however, think that inf can be far too accurate when shooting at moving targets. but like i said you cant get everything perfect.

[sburke]

This seems to be pretty damn close to what would happen considering real life ballistics test that i posted earlier. not everything is going to be perfect in a simulation but BF has done a good job so far. i do, however, think that inf can be far too accurate when shooting at moving targets. but like i said you cant get everything perfect.

LOL not mine! When I boot into a game and check my troops status - the icon for eyesight has a set of coke bottom glasses. I think it is a bug.

[MikeyD]

This thread reminds me of that old TV series "Rat Patrol". CM player 'of a certain age' were greatly disappointed to find machinegun-armed Jeeps weren't really the wonder weapons depicted in that 1966-68 series.

[iluvmy88]

^^^

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.

i can tell you from experience that it would be easy at 100m to take out a gunner with concentrated fire, 200 yes 300 your starting to get to an area where your aim really counts and ive had times where i had all my gunners(pixeltruppen/4 HT) get knocked out in 20 seconds at 400+m by rifle fire . this is unrealistic and i dont need some old war footage to prove that. ive been there done that. keep in mind this is with modern spring loaded AR15 which is a breeze to shoot compared to WW2 era rifles. 

also MG fire is not a sniper rifle. at longer ranges (300+) you generally have to walk up to your target (walking being watching where your fire hits and adjusting your fire based on that) and hope you hit something important. where i have had MG's burp out 4 rounds and they all hit the gunners point. 
 

this problem is really apparent in Black sea where gunners with an armored turret get hit by the magic bullet far too often to the point where they are usless against anything unless you bring them in after you have supressed the infantry which is the whole point of having a 50cal on a hmmv.

[Bulletpoint]

 

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.

 

That says a lot about trenches in this game...

[Bud Backer]

Bud, Thanks for doing the test.  Interesting and useful information.      

Its not a huge amount of data, but I did find it interesting that casualties were clearly proportional to distance from the infantry, and quite minimal until one got to less than 200m. Even then, we're talking about a man injured or killed, here or there. Only less than 50m were the casualties significant, but then, that's not strange as I was seeing grenades etc at close range, and infantry was disembarking the half tracks because they are immobilized, and caught in the open, which means the casualties were actually higher than they would be had they kept to the protection of the half tracks. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Bud Backer

[Bud Backer]

That says a lot about trenches in this game...

Yes, well, I've brought that back to the team too. 

[c3k]

i can tell you from experience that it would be easy at 100m to take out a gunner with concentrated fire, 200 yes 300 your starting to get to an area where your aim really counts and ive had times where i had all my gunners(pixeltruppen/4 HT) get knocked out in 20 seconds at 400+m by rifle fire . this is unrealistic and i dont need some old war footage to prove that. ive been there done that. keep in mind this is with modern spring loaded AR15 which is a breeze to shoot compared to WW2 era rifles. 

also MG fire is not a sniper rifle. at longer ranges (300+) you generally have to walk up to your target (walking being watching where your fire hits and adjusting your fire based on that) and hope you hit something important. where i have had MG's burp out 4 rounds and they all hit the gunners point. 
 

this problem is really apparent in Black sea where gunners with an armored turret get hit by the magic bullet far too often to the point where they are usless against anything unless you bring them in after you have supressed the infantry which is the whole point of having a 50cal on a hmmv.

No snark: Is the bolded part real life experience or in-game? If real life, were you taking out gunners or were you manning the gun?

[Heirloom_Tomato]

So I built a test map. It is 800 meters long and 600 meters wide. It is divided into four lanes about 150 meters wide and has two platoons of American Infantry against two platoons of German Panzergrenadiers in 251/1 AusfC halftracks per lane. All troops for both sides are elite fanatics with +2 leadership. The map is flat and has no cover except for at the American end of the map. The US troops are in a light forest tile with trees. This map will simulate a halftrack assault against a defensible position. My plan is to run this scenario a few times and then switch the Germans out for US troops and then British troops to see if the 251/1 is more vulnerable than any other halftrack.

TEST #1

All halftracks are set to open up,and given a fast order straight to the edge of the woods, right on top of the US positions. At the start of the turn the two sides are about 700 meters apart.

In the first minute the halftracks drive about 300-315 meters. The US troops open fire in the first 4 seconds of the battle, with the first casualty coming 13 seconds in. The victim?? A passenger, who was shot not in the gunner position but rather at the middle of the halftrack at a distance of about 650 meters. 

The next casualty is a gunner, shot at about 500 meters out. All the rest of the casualties are mostly passengers.  All were hit at distances greater than 400 meters. The US side suffered one KIA. Totals are 311 OK  and 1 KIA for the US, with 265 OK, 7 KIA and 8 WIA for the Germans

In the second minute the halftracks closed the distance and ended the turn right on top of the US positions. Lots of lead was flying. At the end of this turn, the Germans had 88 men OK, 58 KIA and 134 WIA with 4 halftracks on fire. The US had 298 OK, 6 KIA and 8 WIA. 

By the end of the fourth minute the battle was over. The Germans had 12 men OK, 82 KIA, 186 WIA and 12 of 32 halftracks were destroyed. The US had 289 men OK, 14 KIA and 9 WIA.

I was surprised to see so many passengers shot first. I had expected to see the gunners getting hit but not passengers. My expectations would be to see the halftrack provide better protection for the men out at these distances. Perhaps the men are indeed sitting up too high.

 

[iluvmy88]

No snark: Is the bolded part real life experience or in-game? If real life, were you taking out gunners or were you manning the gun?

This is real life combat exp with reguard to accuracy and probability of a hit, also have gunner experience but tbh terrorists arent exactly the most accurate bunch. i wasnt in ww2 so like everyone else here i cannot post to that reguard. i can comment on what happens in RL combat in the modern day. modern AR's are far easier to shoot and aim an have little to no recoil making it easy to hit out to 300m (what most people can acutually see someon at) and even out to 500m for an area target. this isnt the actual army specs for th AR but practical data from my experiences over the last eight years.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

TEST #2

All halftracks are given a fast order right on top of the US positions, however this time they are kept closed, ie not opened up.

The first minute passes without a single shot being fired. Nothing. The halftracks again cover about 300 meters and end the turn 390 meters from the enemy.

In the second minute, the first halftrack spots a US unit at 150 meters and opens up to engage them. Wrong move. Instantly all hell breaks lose. Every gun on the US side opens fire at once and the halftrack is riddled with bullets. Who dies? Not the gunner but rather three of the passengers in a 2 second span. All the other halftracks now open up in attempts to engage the US troops and Germans drop like flies.

Turn 2 kill count: US 303 men OK, 6 KIA and 3 WIA. Germans: 84 OK, 91 KIA and 105 WIA with 5 halftracks destroyed. Again the turn ends with the halftracks right on top of the US positions. Most of the German casualties happen with only 20 seconds left in the turn and with less than 50 meters to the US positions.

At the end of the third minute the battle is over. Final tally US: 299 OK, 8 KIA and 5 WIA. Germans: 29 OK, 130 KIA, and 121 WIA with 8 halftracks destroyed.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Heirloom_Tomato

[Heirloom_Tomato]

TEST #3

All halftracks are given a fast order right on top of the US positions. They are opened up and given area fire commands on top of the US positions. 

Minute one opens with the halftracks firing first but the US responds right away hitting once again 7 passengers before the first gunner is taken out. Seems an open halftrack is indeed a bullet magnet. Turn one ends with the halftracks at about 390 meters away and these figures: US 309 OK, 1 KIA and 2 WIA. Germans 261 OK, 9 KIA and 10 WIA.

The second minute once again proves assaulting unsuppressed positions is a bad idea. The turn ends with the halftracks right in front of the US positions. US: 295 men OK, 6 KIA and 11 WIA. The Germans have 54 OK, 81 KIA and 145 WIA with 2 destroyed halftracks.

Again the battle is over by the fourth minute.  The US side has 290 men OK, 13 KIA and 9 WIA. (turns out shooting the wounded happens a lot!!) The Germans have 18 men OK, 100 KIA and 162 WIA with 8 halftracks destroyed.

Next test is static halftracks and walking infantry. Will they survive better?  Will they even make it to the US positions? 

[JoMac]

Like I mentioned earlier...the instant the Gunner is exposed, the HT becomes a 'Bullet Magnet'. 

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by JoMc67

[Michael Emrys]

...with 8 halftracks destroyed. 

How is this being done? Bullet penetrations? Grenades? Man portable AT weapons?

Michael

[iluvmy88]

Can you tell how they are being hit, wether it be grazing the top actual penetrations, shots throught the drivers port ext. i would think they would be far more protected head on yet the vehicle would likly get immobilized as the engine block would get shot up before all the passangers where killed.

Edited March 6, 2016 by iluvmy88

[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.

Here's a screen of the test setup I made:

I did seven runs of it. I don't have time to collect and display detailed data, but the results seemed pretty consistent across all the tests.

Using a buttoned up HT facing towards the oncoming Ami platoon (2 Reg, 1 Vet squad) the gunner was much better protected than the FO passengers. The passengers usually started taking casualties when the range dropped to around 500 meters. The gunner still got taken out occasionally at 4-500 meters, but of course, casualties occurred more frequently as the ranged dropped, getting pretty hairy at around 300m. I should have made the HT immobile because it kept showing its side after taking casualties. I adjusted it back to facing forward each time. Most casualties taken during the tests happened across the forward arc of the HT.

The Amis took 0-5 casualties each time, with the HT usually being down to just the driver and perhaps one FO team member by the time the Amis got to around 100 meters. The leapfrogging Ami platoon was able to advance with no morale breaks (meaning order cancellations) each time. Between 5 and 600 meters, the HT didn't score any kills (and didn't always see any targets), but the Amis did fire and took out a passenger once (and another at around 450 meters that test). During two of the tests, it took three turns before HT casualties started, but in the other tests, they usually started on the second turn. The Amis move forward about 60-80 meters per turn in 10 to 20 sec bounds and are split into max number of teams. The Ami HQ has a 50 meter circular firing arc to limit his exposure.

I can't do any more testing, so if anyone wants to give it a go, please do. Just keep advancing the hotseat turns. Don't touch the Amis, but make the HT face forward again whenever it freaks out and shows its side/rear.

[iluvmy88]

This thread reminds me of that old TV series "Rat Patrol". CM player 'of a certain age' were greatly disappointed to find machinegun-armed Jeeps weren't really the wonder weapons depicted in that 1966-68 series.

 

They where used to great success by british special forces in africa to raid airfields.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

How is this being done? Bullet penetrations? Grenades? Man portable AT weapons?

Michael

The halftracks were taken out with grenades. The US side had no bazookas.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

TEST #4

In this test I had the halftracks remain stationary and did not give them any area fire orders the whole battle. I did open up the halftracks. The infantry were dismounted and ordered forward. For the first 300 meters they were ordered "quick" in 100 meter bounds as whole platoons. They were given a turn to rest between bounds. After this, the squads were split and ordered forward in leapfrog bounds for the next few turns. Once solid contact with the US was made, the Germans did not advance for three turns to open fire and try to suppress the US forces. The battle ended after 13 mins with the Germans 150 to 200 meters out from the US positions. If any of the halftracks fired, I missed it. They certainly did not fire very often, even though they were taking multiple hits each turn and even the odd casualty. 

The results: After the first two minutes the US side had still taken no casualties and the Germans had 276 men OK, 2 KIA and 2 WIA. After 4 minutes the German troops were about 375 yard out or approximately the same distance as they were in turn 1 while riding the halftracks. The casualty count: The US had 307 men OK, 4 KIA and 1 WIA. The Germans had 272 men OK, 4 KIA and 4 WIA. This shows that walking was indeed safer. The Germans suffered 3 less KIA and 4 less WIA walking 300 meters than riding the same distance in halftracks. 

The battle ended with 17 minutes left to play. The German troops were unable to advance any further. Any attempt to move was swiftly cut down and the troops left cowering. The US side had 275 men OK, 18 KIA and 19 WIA. The Germans had 74 men OK, 97 KIA and 109 WIA. Again the halftracks contributed virtually nothing to this battle. They seemed quite content to let round after round bounce off their vehicles and not return fire.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

They where used to great success by british special forces in africa to raid airfields.

There's a marked difference between "hullo Luftwaffe mechanic I'm a jeep covered in automatic weapons!" and "infantry with a variety of automatic weapons and explosives"

Gun trucks, MG armed transports and the like are great mobility assets, not so much great fighting platforms. 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

TEST # 5

This test had the halftracks again remaining stationary but this time they were given area fire orders to the edge of the woods. The infantry advanced just like last time, in blocks to 400 yards out and then leapfrogging forward from there. Each time a squad could not see any enemy they advanced 50 meters. The halftracks had their area fire commands adjusted to the known locations of the US as they were found by the infantry. After 10 minutes all halftracks were advanced 250 meters to help improve their spotting.

The result?? With 10 minutes left in the battle the US side SURRENDERED automatically. The final results show the US side with 65 men OK, 168 KIA and 79 WIA. The Germans had 246 OK 11 KIA and 23 WIA. The Germans managed to advance to within 150 meters of the US positions. 

My final analysis would indicate it is indeed a suicide mission to ride your halftracks into contact with the enemy. Your men are indeed far safer to walk under the protection of the area firing machine guns of your halftracks. As soon as you are able to spot your enemy, dismount your men, leapfrog them toward the enemy under the protective area fire of your halftracks.

This also shows a buttoned up halftrack is safe to drive to close to the enemy, so long as it stays buttoned up. You should be able to drive loaded halftracks across an open field in full view of the enemy and you men should stay safe, provided the enemy has no AT capabilities. In my test this was a safe thing to assume, in a real battle do you think it is a good idea to assume your enemy has no AT capabilities? I don't. 

It would also indicate passengers are susceptible to enemy fire out to at least 700 meters. Is this an accurate depiction of reality? I don't know. Maybe the position of the passengers needs to lowered when the halftrack is in the open state. However, this does raise a different question, do you want the passengers to be able to spot and engage the enemy while in the open state or do you just want the gunner to be engaging the enemy? If you want the passengers to fire over the sides of the halftrack, then they should be actively looking over the side, thus exposing themselves more. If you only want the gunner to engage, then the passengers could be lowered and potentially safer. Is it possible to add a third option to how we can manage our halftracks? Fully open, with everyone actively searching for and trying to engage targets, Gunner up with the passengers safely tucked down and finally fully buttoned?

 

[Bulletpoint]

Hello @Heirloom_Tomato, thanks a lot for testing, but don't you think testing with elite +2 fanatic troops could skew test results? I'd say the test would be more representative of normal gameplay if they were regulars with zero soft factors.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[c3k]

Hello @Heirloom_Tomato, thanks a lot for testing, but don't you think testing with elite +2 fanatic troops could skew test results? I'd say the test would be more representative of normal gameplay if they were regulars with zero soft factors.

Representative of normal gameplay is not the same as testing. Fanatic troops will do what you ask of them, every iteration. That makes it easier to duplicate the tests. Heirloom_Tomato is showing some interesting results with his runs. I wouldn't think passengers should ever be more vulnerable than a gunner, especially from the front.

[Bulletpoint]

Representative of normal gameplay is not the same as testing. Fanatic troops will do what you ask of them, every iteration. That makes it easier to duplicate the tests. Heirloom_Tomato is showing some interesting results with his runs. I wouldn't think passengers should ever be more vulnerable than a gunner, especially from the front.

Yeah but it depends on what exactly you're testing. If you're testing accuracy, setting troops to elite will make them aim much better than regular troops, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the test.

If you're testing whether doing aggressive halftrack attacks are viable in general, it's also better to use regular troops, because fanatics won't be suppressed, and suppression is part of the supposed halftrack attack plan..

Edited March 6, 2016 by Bulletpoint