Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

[Sailor Malan2]

We could of course look at the modern Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Pretty much invented by the Russians, who had some experience with fighting the German Half track. Fully enclosed, rather better armoured, fully wheeled or fully tracked, and definitely not open topped. Others have followed (M113 and Fv432, Marder then Bradley and Warrior). Now, given the well known Russian habit of over engineering crew/passenger comfort and massively compromising fighting effectiveness for luxury (After all, I think the T62 was described as an excellent tank for robotic dwarfs), I am kind of assuming that half tracks (even German ones) just didn't hack it in the assault role.

They are for advancing behind the battle though the mortar harassment, or keeping up with tanks cross country on the breakout, not driving right up to defended locales. If used carefully (well behind the advancing infantry I use them for fire support, but the infantry have to have basic fire superiority first and then the HT add insult to injury. 

 

 

[Sailor Malan2]

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.

1. OK, a flamethrower in a half track is a lot less vulnerable than a man carried one, and it is a lot more mobile, spending less time exposed. Flamethrowers are specialised weapons for use on very hard targets that cannot easily be destroyed by small arms, but which have been suppressed already (unless you want to die, HT of no HT). Thus the HT example is a bad one. The allies used armoured flame throwers with MUCH more armour (read tank conversions). Was this for fun?

2  "Mechanized panzergrenadiers were highly specialized units intended to follow closely behind tanks as they break through enemy lines as quickly as possible." This does not imply they were used for assault, this implies they were available and used for exploitation of a breakthrough. In CM terms they drive across the map as the scenario finishes and cover 10km or something before the enemy command knows it lost that scenario.

3 "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". You are mixing drinks in a similar way to point 2. A mechanised advance is not the same as the break in phase... In true ideal strategic style, an assault infantry unit would break in, and then the Panzer div would exploit, taking its infantry with it in HTs to hold the ground taken, protect the tanks at night, and generally add to combat flexibilty of the div.

 

No evidence of HTs as assault vehicles here...

 

[Macisle]

...I wouldn't think passengers should ever be more vulnerable than a gunner, especially from the front.

Try grabbing the file I posted earlier and running it a number of times. It should show this quite clearly. That was actually why I set up the test that way--to have the HT buttoned, with its front towards the enemy, starting at a range where both sides are beginning to have decent spotting. It seemed to me that if you establish a problem there, then making the HT more vulnerable with other testing is sauce for the goose.

The FO passengers were more vulnerable across the forward arc in all of the earlier seven test runs I ran, sometimes taking casualties from the platoon of advancing infantry (Reg 0, Reg +2, Vet 0) at over 500 meters.

However, I just ran three further tests in a row and the gunner got it first at around 450 meters. I'll do five more tests and drop another post.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Macisle

[Bulletpoint]

Also, if the AI won't shoot at buttoned halftracks, then you are in some way exploiting the limits of the AI. Against a human opponent it will be another story..

[Macisle]

Also, if the AI won't shoot at buttoned halftracks, then you are in some way exploiting the limits of the AI. Against a human opponent it will be another story..

AI won't shoot at buttoned HTs?

The AI is shooting the heck out of my buttoned HT. I just ran another test and finally lost a gunner first at 480 meters.

[Bulletpoint]

AI won't shoot at buttoned HTs?

The AI is shooting the heck out of my buttoned HT. I just ran another test and finally lost a gunner first at 480 meters.

It was in response to the test made by @Heirloom_Tomato:

"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".

[Macisle]

Okay, here are the results of two groups of five consecutive test runs each across the buttoned front arc using my file:

1. FO at 450m.
2. FO wounded first at 400m, then gunner taken out.
3. FO at 450m.
4. FO at 500m.
5. FO double-kill at 400.

Second group:

1. FO at 400m.
2. FO double-kill at 480m.
3. FO double-kill at 450m.
4. Gunner at 350m.
5. FO at 550m.

I stopped each test run after the first casualty was taken (wounded above is light wounds).

Edited March 6, 2016 by Macisle

[c3k]

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.

Okay...thanks. (I've got a  little bit of experience shooting with M16s and, now, AR15s, as well (5,000 rounds total?). Nowhere near the trigger time or experience a combat vet has. I also have fired about two thousand rounds through some Garands, so I've got a good bit of experience with how the two compare. The only stress firing was during several different "shooting village" training/timing runs. Nothing like combat. I totally agree with your range commentary. 300m is about the limit for aimed fire with iron sights at a targeted individual.)

Let me put it this way: modern US roof-mount weapons have as much, or more, protection as their WWII brethren. (Some are still unshielded, like some WWII US halftracks. Some have nice armor, sights, and ballistic "glass" on the sides and back.) In the modern-era, (including Somalia), how often have US gunners been shot? Yeah. You can denigrate the training of the US adversaries, and then counter it by saying they fired from unsuppressed, ambush, positions with weapons which are easier to fire than WWII weapons. All in all, it's VERY dangerous to be heads out in firefight. (Of course, it's less dangerous to be heads out and firing then to be turtled in and hoping for the best.) Given that modern US gunners get shot (with equal or better protection), we start getting into the ranges and circumstances when that happens. That would a be a possible comparison to the WWII 251 gunner. Imperfect, but better than just saying, "I think..."

Ken

[c3k]

Try grabbing the file I posted earlier and running it a number of times. It should show this quite clearly. That was actually why I set up the test that way--to have the HT buttoned, with its front towards the enemy, starting at a range where both sides are beginning to have decent spotting. It seemed to me that if you establish a problem there, then making the HT more vulnerable with other testing is sauce for the goose.

The FO passengers were more vulnerable across the forward arc in all of the earlier seven test runs I ran, sometimes taking casualties from the platoon of advancing infantry (Reg 0, Reg +2, Vet 0) at over 500 meters.

However, I just ran three further tests in a row and the gunner got it first at around 450 meters. I'll do five more tests and drop another post.

Thanks. Yeah, the buttoned-up passengers getting hits is odd. I can only imagine there's some sort of ballistic drop being modeled, as if the shooters are dropping their rounds in. Or there's something else going on.

[c3k]

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..

Yes, but testing versus sampling is different. We're not at the test phase yet. We're getting some behavior samples. Repeatable, and saved, and hence useful.

[RockinHarry]

Here´s bit of translated stuff from the Panzergrenadier training manual (Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere, Helmut von Wehren, 1944). The book is divided into various chapters, similar to manuals that deal with normal infantry combat situations (attack, defense, night and urban combat and so forth) from the perspective of a Panzergrenadier squad, the lowest level. For the purpose I only translate parts of the chapter, that deals with combat situations for the armored Panzergrenadier squad (squad + halftrack). The chapter starts with certain guidelines for instructors, general principles and then procedes with sort of a training session, sub divided into 10 subsequent parts that aim to portray the most important and to be trained combat situations for a mounted Panzergrenadier squad.

Exercise 6, The armored squad in the attack (Die gepanzerte Gruppe im Angriff), page 67

1. Training purpose: Squad (armored) in the attack

Reference field service regulations: H.Dv 299/4a, H.Dv 130/2a, H.Dv 472

Training principles

II, a - Mounted combat

1. The squad fights mounted from the vehicle, as long as enemy fire, terrain and mission permits. (H.Dv. 299/4a, no. 41)

2. The mounted machine gun (MG on pintle mount, MG on shoulder of another Grenadier) will generally be employed from short shooting halts vs. ground and air targets. It can also be employed from the moving SPW (vs. resurgent enemy units).

3. The riflemen participate in fire combat during the break-in or at nearby worthwile targets and complement the effects of the automatic weapons by throwing egg- (smoke-) hand grenades. Crushing (overrunning) the enemy complements the effects of fire (H.Dv 299/4a, no 42).

4. Terrain exploitation, quick changes of dashing moves and short fire halts. Cooperation with heavy weapons and artillery, as well as covering fire from units of the same formation (H.Dv 299/4a, no 43).

5. Effective accuracy in firing only from halting SPW, firing from moving vehicle (short bursts - near range) forces the enemy to take cover and hinders him from operating his weapons (exploiting a moment of weakness). Subsequent halt to fire, employment of aimed fire raises own combat morale (H.Dv 299/4a, no 44).

6. Firing position - (defilade firing position - vehicle deprived from enemy view) - frequent change of position - push forward into cover. Is some enemy to be suspected in confusing terrain (high grass, brushes, corn fields), a limited section can be ordered to be covered with stray fire. Enemy MG and rifle fire will be moved through at increased speed. Armor piercing weapons and mine obstacles can force to dismount, or by use of smoke force to drive into cover.

From here on the actual course of the training session with its ten sub situation parts would be described in some interesting details. That´ll be 6 pages to translate and probably worth 2-3 days of proper translation work. This map shows the 10 situations and include both mounted and dismounted combat of a Panzergrenadier squad, attacking into and through an enemy main defense area and gives the idea:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqq2a1v8wxsxe7s/Seite 71.JPG?dl=0

Off course the exercise does assume the Panzergrenadier squad beeing part of a larger force (company size), either in supporting or beeing supported role from other Panzergrenadier squads and heavy support weapons outside the map area. When this is the case, it will be briefly mentioned, but generally the exercise focuses on the single Panzergrenadier squads tasks and actions, since it´s a squad exercise.

The overall exercise gives examples when and why a Panzergrenadier squad fights mounted and dismounted in some detail. ATM I don´t care that the whole exercise appears to be based on wartime experiences from the eastern front until early 1944, but all that (incl. base doctrine) is what the germans went into the normandy fightings. Probable effects on combat techniques from changed combat conditions (allied air superiority, terrain, mainly defensive fighting) can be discussed thereafter, as can what actually works in the game, or not.

German readers still can grab the packed german language pages from here:

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

 

[MOS:96B2P]

Here´s bit of translated stuff from the Panzergrenadier training manual (Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere, Helmut von Wehren, 1944).     

Rock, thank you very much for taking the time and effort to translate and post this.  Very interesting information.  I may try to make a training map roughly based on that diagram if I get the time.  Thanks again. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

It looks to me that there is one obvious problem, that when the HT gunner unbuttons to fire the passengers do too. I don't know how hard it would be to separate the unbuttoned status so it's not all-or-nothing, although I suspect it may be problematic in situations where the gunner and the passengers are in the same unit.

There are a couple of ways to mitigate so that you should be able to use Hanomags offensively. One is to place covered arcs on your assaulting (moving) HTs so they don't unbutton. Infantry will not even fire at buttoned HTs under most circumstances, rendering them (mostly) immune to small arms fire. Second, if you want to use a particular HT for fire support, disembark any passengers first.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I have a save game file available showing a halftrack fully loaded sitting less than 30 meters away from at least 4 US units and they do not fire a single round at said halftrack for multiple turns. Open it up and everyone inside dies within minutes.  In this same file is another halftrack sitting the same distance away, also fully loaded and buttoned and it is fired upon constantly. However I have let the turns go for several minutes and the US squads are unable to cause a single casualty. Put that same halftrack 400 meters away and open it up and the passengers die pretty quick. This link contains the save game and also the halftrack testing file I used to create my earlier tests. Feel free to mess around and see what your results show.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xip790mmhih9rtn/AACdD_fyAaV8J_bcr2BOzsjja?dl=0

[Bulletpoint]

 

I have a save game file available showing a halftrack fully loaded sitting less than 30 meters away from at least 4 US units and they do not fire a single round at said halftrack for multiple turns. Open it up and everyone inside dies within minutes.  In this same file is another halftrack sitting the same distance away, also fully loaded and buttoned and it is fired upon constantly. However I have let the turns go for several minutes and the US squads are unable to cause a single casualty. Put that same halftrack 400 meters away and open it up and the passengers die pretty quick. This link contains the save game and also the halftrack testing file I used to create my earlier tests. Feel free to mess around and see what your results show.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xip790mmhih9rtn/AACdD_fyAaV8J_bcr2BOzsjja?dl=0

Sometimes, high accuracy means less kills. I've had a sniper shooting at a squad from 100 metres for many turns without causing casualties. Turned out his targets were slightly elevated and behind a low wall, and because of the high accuracy of the sniper, every single shot was hitting centre of body mass, which in this case was covered by the wall. A less accurate shooter would have missed a couple of shots so that the bullet went a bit high and would have found its mark. Haven't looked at your savegame about the halftrack, but maybe the same thing is happening there.

[General Jack Ripper]

"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."

I bolded those three segments because:

1. Tactics first thought up in 1935, first tried in 1939, and succeeded wildly in 1940-42, are old and decrepit in 1944.
2. "massive enemy opposition" Novel tactics work best against an unprepared enemy, as has been pointed out by people in this thread, even a modicum of preparation makes your "Panzer Wedge followed by Halftracks" into a completely suicidal maneuver.
3. The source you quote from even goes so far as to admit the tactics described led to enormous losses.

The trouble with trying to talk tactics, is you need to correctly place successful battlefield techniques within the context of their successful use. Before you can even think of using halftracks as an assault vehicle, you need to answer the following questions:

• Is the enemy dug in?
• Do they possess anti-armor weapons?
• Do they possess semi- or fully- automatic weapons?
• Is the enemy in an elevated position?
• Does the terrain support high-speed vehicle travel?
• What kind of artillery or tank support do you have?
• Can you call in a smoke screen to mask your movement?

I think you'll find the vast majority of casualties suffered by your halftracks and passengers are being caused by an incorrect tactical use of those vehicles. You can use halftracks as assault vehicles, but only under ideal circumstances, and only if your tactical plan makes allowances for doing so. You cannot use halftracks as assault vehicles if you simply look at them as "bulletproof trucks" or "invulnerable to small-arms".

 

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

If you want a problem to get fixed, first you must prove that there is a problem in the first place. Starting a thread that simply states: "My halftrack gunners and passengers are dying, when they're supposed to be invincible," doesn't prove anything.

Long ago, Battlefront changed the stance for halftrack gunners, lowering them slightly to be more protected by the gun shield. The vast majority of gunner vulnerability complaints disappeared after that. If you're going to bring up the topic again, at least have the decency to post some screenshots illustrating your complaint.

Well, that's all I have to say.

[RockinHarry]

From my observations, the AI appears to cheat on a number of things. The unbuttoned state of a vehicle is known to AI units in sight at the instant and it can pour accurate fire on unbuttoned crews and passengers like it has a TRP on them. The same can be observed for pillboxes, where the AI knows at the instant if a pillbox is occupied or not.

Quite similar to pillboxes (which are another kind of halftrack), the automatic assignment to a vehicles machine gun from any the crew (gunner/asst driver) or passenger, leads to a death spiral, that gets all pixeltroopers viable for manning the front MG killed quickly. Since morale state is entirely ignored for this procedure, even panicked passengers will keep going on assigning a (panicked) crew member to the MG, leading to further unnecessary losses. If the halftrack driver panicks also (which happens frequently if his assistant gets killed early), he will back up the vehicle and depending on threat and terrain, might turn the vehicle so that any the assigned machine gunner looses protection from the gun shield, while beeing unable to shoot back.

From repeated testing I also noticed that i.e a US MMG (M1919) shooting at the german halftracks lMG gunner from several hundred meters, enjoys something like ballistic computer accuracy for every burst, even if the halftrack is moving fast and sideways. This is for unsuppressed US MMG gunner. As soon as he gets suppressed, he will not even hit the halftrack at all. So it´s a matter of either hitting the german gunner (or unbuttoned passenger) at 100% accuracy, or miss the entire vehicle by a couple of meters (when suppressed). 

It´s pointless to discuss any real life Panzergrenadier assault techniques, cause BFC simply prevents (or punishes) any use of halftracks beside beeing a mere battlefield taxi by design!

It´s not that halftracks provide too little cover (accuracy and firepower of the halftracks lMG still can be debated), it´s the opposing (Tac)AI getting sort of unrealistic bonuses for hitting anybody who dares to unbutton.

For my testing procedures I always use regulars and normal morale troops. I follow each and every burst (tracers) fired in max zoom (x20) mode from the shooter towards its target. This allows accurately watching every bullet/burst fired and things like artificial accuracy bonuses become quite apparent this way.

So no wonder if Panzergrenadiers in halftracks die like flies if used in anything but buttoned state.

My next tests will reverse the situation to see if US halftracks and passengers fare the same fates vs german infantry defenders....

[Bulletpoint]

 

It´s pointless to discuss any real life Panzergrenadier assault techniques, cause BFC simply prevents (or punishes) any use of halftracks beside beeing a mere battlefield taxi by design!

It´s not that halftracks provide too little cover (accuracy and firepower of the halftracks lMG still can be debated), it´s the opposing (Tac)AI getting sort of unrealistic bonuses for hitting anybody who dares to unbutton.

Not just halftracks. All vehicle crew are extremely vulnerable if they unbutton. It's related to the other evergreen discussion here on the forum, about the vulnerability of tank commanders.

Your theory about an accuracy bonus against unbuttoned crew is very interesting, would like to see it elaborated further by testing.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Sailor Malan2]

"3. The riflemen participate in fire combat during the break-in or at nearby worthwile targets and complement the effects of the automatic weapons by throwing egg- (smoke-) hand grenades. Crushing (overrunning) the enemy complements the effects of fire (H.Dv 299/4a, no 42)"

 

But a grenade lobbed back by the enemy you are overrunning can quite spoil your day! This seems very odd advice. Even a molotov would kill the passengers quite easily

[RockinHarry]

I just made a test row with a platoon of US halftracks + mounted infantry vs. a german HMG42. Results are interesting. Unfortunately it would revive another evergreen. The one with effectiveness of HMG42 compared to a US M1919A4 in this case.

The "good" news is, that the US fare no better than the germans, but for some slightly different reasons. The US halftracks in AI hands appear to always start unbuttoned so will be a target quicker. Not having a gun shield isn´t much of a disadvantage, compared to the germans having one (beeing not much of noticable protection anyway). Standing upright when opening up makes all passengers a huge target likewise.

The main differences were the machine guns in use for both opponents. The M1919A4 gets a very high point fire accuracy, even vs. a fast moving target. No matter what protection the gun shield delivers for german halftrack, the US MG point fire accuracy will get some bullet quickly between the eyes of the german gunner. The same point fire accuracy oftenly delivers some plunging fire into the halftrack compartment, hitting some buttoned passengers. My test ranges were at 350 to 400m, so the US MG beeing at ground level has no height advantage, but plunging fire is a possibility.

The difference of the HMG42 is that it gets a terrible accuracy for its bursts, particulary the first one (the majority of bullets go always high). It´s also unable to follow a moving target with accuracy, like the M1919A4 can at same range. Also the german MG burst pattern makes plunging fire effects into the halftracks crew compartment far less likely in any circumstances.

Now that the different machine guns in use make such a big impact for testing passenger vulnerability in halftracks, I need to make new tests with defending forces that do not have machine guns and at ranges below 300m. Otherwise my tests achieve misleading results and lead to the MG topic again.

I made my test rows with these files. Select the HMG, move the cam at ground level right on top of the MG and zoom in at 20x toward the MG´s targets. Watch bursts in detail, accuracy, hits and enemy losses. It´s quite revealing.

German HMG vs US halftrack platoon (german vs. AI)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8oz2vwc6qnhculx/Halftrack test GE.btt?dl=0

US MMG vs German halftrack platoon (US vs AI)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8myqt818040sbh2/Halftrack test US.btt?dl=0

 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

After having run through a few more, what did c3k call them oh yeah samples, an unbuttoned halftrack up against infantry only will be fired upon once it reaches a distance where the infantry has a weapon system capable of hurting the halftrack. In the scenario I made, the first weapon system to able to hurt the halftracks are the rifle grenades. In my sampling when I run the scenario with the halftracks buttoned up with short covered arcs, every single time the first weapons fired are the rifle grenades. This is quite quickly followed up with rifle and smg fire and finally hand grenades as the halftracks come close enough. Why does the infantry not attack the halftrack when it is sitting out at 250- 300 meters? I think it is because nothing the infantry has will destroy the halftrack, and if the halftrack is able to bring its mg to bear on the infantry, then they are likely to die. Call it self preservation on behalf of the AI. 

If the halftrack is opened up, the AI knows the gunner on the halftrack can lay down some serious hurt on the infantryman and he will do whatever he can to take out that gunner. The platoon's BAR gunners open fire as soon as the halftrack enters their effective range. They want to kill that gunner as soon as is possible. The effects of plunging fire come into the equation and we lose a few passengers. As the opened up halftracks got closer to the US lines, they entered the effective range of more US weapon systems. As these systems became effective, they were brought to bear on the halftracks helping to rack up the casualties. Is the number too high? I don't know. I have no idea of what the actual casualty numbers should be for plunging fire onto an open halftrack at 400+ meters. In the first sample I ran, the Germans lost 5% of their total force to the effects of plunging fire. I have run this same sample again and had only two gunners get hit. I am not really all that interested in running 100 samples and coming up with a more statistical analysis. If it is possible to have a third option for halftracks, where the gunner can be up and at his position but the passengers are safely buttoned, I would be very supportive of having this featured in game. 

In the save game file I posted last night, the halftrack is sitting within hand grenade range of several US squads and they are not attacking it. Must be because it is buttoned up and the AI refuses to attack buttoned up halftracks right? Maybe not. A closer look at the US squads shows they have no grenades left. Their rifles and smgs are not likely to penetrate the halftrack so why give away your position? If the machine gun on the halftrack was brought to bear on them at that range the US squads would be decimated. Once the halftrack opens up, the US squads rifles and smg can harm the gunner and crew, so they open fire right away. With some 20 odd guns firing at a single target it is no wonder the Germans are cut down so quickly. 

The sample I did with the men dismounted and the halftracks providing covering fire, saw the US BAR squads focus on trying to shoot the halftrack gunners while leaving the infantry alone. Game flaw or sound reasoning? Which is the bigger threat to your current safety, the guys marching across the open field or the machine gun spraying rounds in your general direction? If you can kill that gunner, the bullets coming your way will stop and then the German infantry are sitting ducks. To me it makes sense, let the squad light machine gun try and take out the halftrack gunner and leave the advancing infantry to the rifle men. 

So is the game broken or is it like I suggested back in the second post of this thread, our tactics that are broken? To me, and I want to stress this, to ME I think the game has it correct. The tac AI is running a threat analysis and then checking to see if the unit in question can harm what it is facing. A Sherman tank will fire on the buttoned up halftrack every single time as it can kill it with ease at any range. A rifle squad with m1 garands and a few hand grenades? They are going to let that halftrack drive right on by and go become a headache for someone else. If the halftrack turns and heads straight for them, they will only engage as soon as the halftrack gets close enough for them to reliably harm it. 

It may seem excessive to have every available gun fire straight at the halftrack gunner but as the fifth sample showed, the halftrack machine guns can change the course of the whole battle. The gunner is a threat to every single rifleman within range and they will all attempt to kill him in a classic case of self preservation.

All my sampling has convinced me to use my halftracks buttoned as high speed battlefield taxis in areas clear of the enemy. When I am forced to engage the enemy, I will be unloading the passengers and using the halftracks to lay down serious amounts of area fire. The further away I can keep my halftracks, the better. Knowing my enemy and what his capabilities are, will help to determine how far back I need to keep my halftracks to not lose a gunner. 

[Bulletpoint]

If it is possible to have a third option for halftracks, where the gunner can be up and at his position but the passengers are safely buttoned, I would be very supportive of having this featured in game.

Might not be exactly what you're asking for, but I think that if you give a fire order to a buttoned halftrack, the gunner will man the gun and start shooting, while the passengers will stay seated.

[RockinHarry]

Interesting excerpt from US Intelligence Bulletin, Vol 1, No 11, July 1943, page 4

(Tunisian campaign, various actions as reported from the commanding officer of a US armored infantry battailon)

"In  this  operation  (see  fig.  1)  the  enemy  attacked  with  his 
infantry  and  was  successful  in  getting  some  of  his  infantry 
onto  A  Company's  position.  In  the  rear  of  the  position,  A 
Company  had  half-track  vehicles.  These  were  immediately used 
to  launch  a  counterattack; the 0.30 caliber  gun  mounted  on  the
half-track  provided  fire,  and  the  track  itself  was  employed  to 
run  over  the  enemy's  personnel  and  his  light  machine-gun 
positions.  The  use  of  these  half-tracks  in  a  counterattack  to 
regain  a position  proved  highly  effective."

Some interesting excerpt from a book "Kindler - Obedient unto death"

http://www.amazon.com/Obedient-Unto-Death-Panzer-Grenadier-Leibstandarte-SS/dp/184832734X

"SS-Corporal Günther Wagner,    No 13 Company, described the combat experiences of APC men as follows:

The rear door of the APC was completely blocked by ammunition and packs. If we were fired upon we had to leave over the sides. After the first few days in action there ensued practical completion of fitting out. Spare track parts were hung over the front section or sometimes an additional armour plate would be fixed with long bolts. Because we had many wounded in the elbow and upper arm from ricochets and splinters, we very quickly fitted beams or tree-trunks along the upper edge of the slanting side armour. This had the additional advantage of making it more comfortable for sitting during the long drives.

33. SS-Grenadier Kuno Balz, No 13 Company, remembered another innovation: The protective shields for the MG42 were very poor in our opinion, for if you were firing off-centre, the shield turned with the MG and rifle or MG fire hitting it would then ricochet into the wagon. Therefore in action we would site sandbags near the shields to prevent this."

[Bulletpoint]

the 0.30 caliber  gun  mounted  on  the
half-track  provided  fire,  and  the  track  itself  was  employed  to 
run  over  the  enemy's  personnel  and  his  light  machine-gun 
positions.  The  use  of  these  half-tracks  in  a  counterattack  to 
regain  a position  proved  highly  effective.

I think what some people forget is that machineguns on halftracks would be highly effective at suppressing the enemy as you drive forward. In the game, you can't suppress more than a single square at a time (with a small effect in adjacent squares). And suppression effect evaporates quickly.

I guess if halftracks were ever succesful in an assault, it was when used in a line and advancing while dealing out heavy suppression fire, which we cannot really recreate in the game. I don't think they were always succesful in this kind of assault, but I think they probably sometimes were used like this, and that it sometimes worked well. Especially against lower quality troops, suffering from confusion, low morale, and poor leadership.

[c3k]

Heirloom_Tomato: Nice job filling in the behavior patterns with your testing.

Inability to broad suppressive fire: 4 halftracks, each with 4 Target Brief commands per turn, means 16 separate area targets per minute if that's what the player wants to do. (If you assume a platoon of halftracks...)

Nice dig on the 251 mods and why they'd do them.

Edited March 9, 2016 by c3k