Halftrack--only a team?

[Guest Big Time Software]

The way people were positioned in a HT under combat conditions is not the issue. As you pointed out, nobody was neatly seated. This was as true for the M3 type as it was for the German SPW 251.

Every picture I can think of that shows unorganized transportation of men is taken in a non-combat situation. When the bullets started flying... do you really think someone would want to be STANDING with 2/3rds of his body exposed to enemy fire, when sitting or squatting would almost adequately protect your body for small arms fire? I don't think so. Your M113 was fully enclosed, which is a significant difference.

My readings suggest that guys sat/stood/whatever as was comfortable while moving from place to place. But when going into combat they assumed organized positions. Not only was this safer from a defensive standpoint, but it made for a faster and easier exit when the time for that arrived.

But the question you raised has been answered. The question of how many angles can fit on the head of the pin is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is how many were actually on the head of that pin under combat conditions. Or something like that

OK, so in your M113, how many men MORE than the standard load did you drive around with into combat? 70% more? I doubt it. But that is what you are asking to allow us to do for the HTs. So no go there. Vehicles should carry what they realistically carried in WWII, on avarage, in combat conditions. And that is the way it should be.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Every picture I can think of that shows unorganized transportation of men is taken in a non-combat situation. When the bullets started flying... do you really think someone would want to be STANDING with 2/3rds of his body exposed to enemy fire...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not. They won't be in the halftrack at all. That's what I'm saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your M113 was fully enclosed, which is a significant difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's no difference at all. As I said, we never, EVER, rode inside in a combat zone. It is SAFER up top in the open. To be inside an armoured box when the vehicle is hit or drives over a mine is to die or be horribly f&^%ed up. It makes little difference whether or not it has a roof. In the presence of the enemy, everyone is going to dismount immediately.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My readings suggest that guys sat/stood/whatever as was comfortable while moving from place to place...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...But when going into combat they assumed organized positions. Not only was this safer from a defensive standpoint, but it made for a faster and easier exit when the time for that arrived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the question you raised has been answered...OK, so in your M113, how many men MORE than the standard load did you drive around with into combat? 70% more? I doubt it. But that is what you are asking to allow us to do for the HTs. So no go there. Vehicles should carry what they realistically carried in WWII, on avarage, in combat conditions. And that is the way it should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not asking you to change anything. I'm just rattling the cage in the interests of accuracy. Based on observations of the smaller M2A1, you have taken the position that the M3A1 did not carry a full squad and are using a circular argument to support it. Maybe you're right. I don't know. I'm saying it could if it wanted to.

[Spook]

I think that Babra could relate this better than I could, Steve. But one of the notions I picked up from Vietnam-War history was that "mounted" soldiers rode on the tops of these vehicles not due to a lack of space (and the rooftops of the M113 are hatched to open up & out also), but that riding inside these aluminum-armored boxes hazarded life & limb in an RPG ambush. This is what I THINK that Babra is making the linkage to.

[Guest kking199]

What patch or future version of CM is going to have the Clown Car?!?!

(I couldn't resist... forgive me)

[Spook]

Oops, ya made my last post redundant, Babra, 'cause I was too slow....

Anyway, Steve, I don't intend to debate the M3A1 either; I think the allowance for only a HQ section (team or HS) is sufficient.

BUT....recall earlier the comment about there NOT being any "M5" halftracks for the Commonwealth forces in CM; only the M5A1. As such, Commonwealth squads now can't use the halftracks as a squad mount without an equivalent M5.

Per the ASL Notes, Sect. H:

"Another important role was as an APC for the infantry sections in motor battalions--mostly those employed in NW Europe. When equipped with halftracks, a motor battalion was the functional equivalent of a US armored infantry battalion. In game terms a 1944-5 motor platoon with halftracks contained four such AFV: three carrying a squad apiece, and the fourth carrying the platoon leader and two half-squads, a PIAT and a 2-in. mortar."

(Boy, that last track is pretty frigging loaded per ASL's assertion. Hmmmm....dunno about that in actuality.)

Now the following production numbers of the M5/M9 series:

"The British were Lend-Leased 5,690 M5 & M5A1 halftracks out of the 7,584 built, plus a large portion of the 3,433 M9 & M9A1 produced."

Hmmm. Seems that the British made quite a bit of use of the halftrack too.

Now on the M3(MMG), the ASL notes assert that one of these were normally available per US armored infantry PLATOON. (Each US ArmInf platoon did NOT have a towed 57mm AT gun, as suggested earlier.) The M3(HMG) was used in turn by the MG platoons of the US ArmInf battalion.

So what this sums up, in my view, is that the following vehicles SHOULD be added to CM at a later date:

-M5/M9 for the Commonwealth forces

-M3(MMG) for the US Armored Infantry platoon

-M3(HMG) for the US ArmInf MG platoon

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kking199:

What patch or future version of CM is going to have the Clown Car?!?!

(I couldn't resist... forgive me)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The college student version, of course. See my previous post.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[dalem]

Spook-

You are absolutely correct. I post this not because I think ASL's research beats CM's (I believe the opposite) but because I hate being the pusher of bad information. Actually reading the passage about late-war U.S. Armored Infantry from the ASL Chapter H gives:

1 x M3A1 with Leader and squad

2 x M3 with a squad apiece

1 x M3 with half squad and M2 60mm mortar

1 x M3 (3x MG version)

I was mixing the late war with the early war game platoons given in a previous note in the rulebook. I abase myself.

-dale

[Spook]

No prob, dalem. And I don't hold up the ASL Notes to be absolutely beyond error either. Given that most of its research was done in the mid-late 80's, maybe new source documents beyond the ASL Notes can provide updated (and possibly contradicting) information. But I am inclined to believe that Bob McNamara took his vehicle research quite seriously.

I just throw out references from ASL because it's handy to me now. And given that Babra mentioned earlier about a picture of a HT mounting three MG's, this correlates the existence of the M3(MMG) HT. So I'd like this vehicle to be added someday if possible (as well as the M16, ).

[Guest KwazyDog]

Guys, one thing I think is important here is not the fact that you could squeeze that many men into these half tracks, the question is would it really done under combat conditions?

I dont know the answer, but I hoenstly think that is the question at hand.

[Banshee]

The M113 tactics are Vietnam vintage (more for mines than RPG's, but all the same). But the employment of the M113's in Europe (for the cold war) the squads were to be transported inside (because artillery splinters were more prevelant and longer distances were covered, but in Vietnam there was less artillery, more mines). Just to make it a more apple to apple comparison.

The doctorine for both was pretty much the same IIRC, transportation NEAR the front lines (m113 was designed to get in closer than the M3), dismount and close the remaining distance on foot with the light armor backstopping you with machine gun fire.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Guest Napoleon1944]

According to the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WWII (Barnes and Nobel) Seating varied between models from 10 to 13. Page 81.

[Banshee]

Just a few pictures to see if this helps: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/vehicles/halftrck/m3.htm

thats a plain m3

this site is in Russian but has a great m3a1 layout: http://www.ipclub.ru:8101/arsenal/angar/WWII/army/usa/halftracks.htm

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Formerly Babra]

Good pics, thanks.

Okay, looking at it from another angle:

Advantages to the change: Players will be discouraged from exclusively purchasing M3A1s and neglecting the more common M3, which would otherwise lead to ahistorical OOBs.

Disadvantages: 6 men gotta hitch a ride somewhere else.

I can live with that. I still don't agree with the basic premise that there isn't room, or the reasoning, but the result seems reasonable enough. I'll go raise trouble somewhere else now

------------------

I remember it perfectly: The Germans wore grey; you wore blue...

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

Spook is right.

The motor battalions of the British (and Canadian?) armoured divisions and independant armoured brigades were mounted in M5/M5A1/M9 halftracks from D-day on and Kangaroos are less likely to be used by these units.

If the capacity of the only halftrack type available to the British is to be reduced then properly the vehicle availability needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the M5 capable of carrying a squad were used by these units. Especially since these vehicles were principally manufactured for lend-lease anyway. Otherwise scenarios like Villers-Bocage would be impossible to attempt to recreate.

------------------

"Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

If the capacity of the only halftrack type available to the British is to be reduced then properly the vehicle availability needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the M5 capable of carrying a squad were used by these units. Especially since these vehicles were principally manufactured for lend-lease anyway. Otherwise scenarios like Villers-Bocage would be impossible to attempt to recreate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it seems the current "cargo capacity" of "squad"/"something less than a squad which always equals half a squad" doesn't seem to be cutting it.

Maybe, carrying capacities of vehicles can eventually be represented in single-man increments. Then three bazooka teams can actually fit into an M3.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Man... I hate conflicting information. But more than anything, I hate US Army vehicle designations

I gotta disagree with Formerly_Babra on the HT thing. The way you describe their use you might as well be using trucks. HTs were designed to get troops, "safely", into the thick of the fighting, disembark them, and then provide covering fire as they advanced. They would probably do this a couple of hundred meters before the enemy's identified positions.

I suspect that M113 tactics you used in Nam were more of an adaptation to the particular conditions there. But the point about overloading the capacity of a vehicle is still valid IMHO.

The question of length difference between the M2 and M3 appears to be moot. According to the link above, the M3 was 2.5 inches longer. So I don't see how that matters.

So I guess what we have here is that there were DIFFERENT versions of the M3A1. Even though Charles has one of those Osprey books on the M3 family of HTs, the stupid thing doesn't mention this fact. So apparently there was one version that was a normal M3/M5 with a .50cal mounted, and another with a .50cal, radio, extra ammo storage, etc. The former would hold a full squad while the latter (which I have been discussing) would not. Interesting

And now it also appears that we need to add the M5 to the Commonwealth purchase list. I hope this won't be hard to do. I'll ask Charles.

But before we go running off to make further changes to HTs in CM... could someone PLEASE find a better source than ASL to determine TO&E use? As many of you know, we do not use other games as refference materials. Especially because we have found plenty of flaws with ASL's research in the past.

Thanks

Steve

[Spook]

OK, quasi-BUG ALERT!!!!......

I fired up, just now, one of the Commonwealth scenarios utilizing the M5A1 halftrack. Priorhand, these could carry a full squad, and the scenario thus started in v1.05 with squads loaded into the HT's.

Then I fired up v1.1beta and got the following......

1) The M5A1 HT's were still loaded with full squads in the pre-game setup. Then I would pull out one squad and place it on the ground. Sure enough, as planned for v1.1, the squad couldn't re-embark. But for these scenarios generated before v1.1, the CM1.1beta engine doesn't know how to get the "oversized" squad unit unloaded off of the M5A1.

2) Another M5A1 started with one PIAT & one 2-inch mortar loaded in it. I pulled both "teams" (2 men each) off of the HT and placed nearby on the ground. Then in trying to re-load, only one team was allowed to do so, although both teams were only two men.

So, in that case, the M5A1 was reduced to being able to carry only two men (with their support weapon) effectively. Hell, I could do that with a jeep.

So, in effect, until CM provides an "M5" HT, Commonwealth players will find the M5A1 too limited for use in the TO&E of a "motor battalion", and that's the only HT available to them. I would recommend, as what seemed to be priorhand, that HT's aren't limited in load capacity so much by "teams" than by headcount.

[Spook]

Just read your latest comments now, Steve. You posted while I typed. I MIGHT have something as an alternate TO&E source I can check over the weekend, but it's 1970's-era, and probably won't help much.

[Formerly Babra]

Nam? Who mentioned Nam? Not I...

Trucks, you say. That's just what they are. Wrap 'em in steel if ya want (6mm? Gee thanks - I'll be gettin' my soft ass the hell out now), mount a machine gun or three, put tracks on the back, call 'em an "armoured personnel carrier". It's still just a truck.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... someone else did So... where the heck were you bailing out of M113s?

Your point about the difference between a truck and an HT is, of course, largely correct. But of course trucks in WWII did not have armor plating and normally weren't kitted out with MG rings.

The tactical use of HTs in WWII combat is pretty well documented. They were used as I outlined above. A role that would be highly dangerous for a truck but only normally so for a HT. The mistake people make in CM is that they try to drive them right to the MRL and unload them. That doesn't work too well, unless you were counting on the bruning HTs to keep hands and feet warm at night

Spook, I will alert Charles

Steve

[Simon Fox]

Er, spook might have used ASL but I didn't

The Desert Rats at War George Forty

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sorry Simon, I meant for the US Army. You made the case for the M5 (standard) just fine Hopefully we can get it in without too much pain and suffering!

Steve

[Formerly Babra]

Lebanon.

You may find this article instructive or helpful.

http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/so99/5mudd99.pdf

Note how the American armored infantry squad details one man as the driver for the squad's M3 and he "usually remains with the vehicle". Maybe American squads should be eleven men, eh?

[stevetherat]

Hello chaps

I want to add something to the mix: the British never used the .50 cal MG in their HTs and dismounted them; you didn't give us any ammo for it. Plus, we were standardised on the .303 ammo anyway. So, WE could definately fit in OUR squads.

Could it be that you yankees dismounted your HMG also from your common or garden HTs when not in command or support mode?

Just throwing something in.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Formerly Babra,

Ah... Lebanon! I was racking my brain last night as to where M113s were used in combat since Viet Nam, but came up with nada. Sorry to say, Lebanon did not come to mind. Thanks for the clarification.

Unfortunately, that link of yours didn't work. But if what you say is true about the squad giving up a guy to drive the HT, that runs contrary to standard practice of the time as far as I know. The Germans for sure had dedicated crew members for driving. However, they were defacto members of the squad, so perhaps that is where things might be confused?

Steve, I am not sure what you are asking for. We don't allow any vehicle weapon to be taken off and used as a teams served weapon. I know in the US Army this was not standard practice and this is the first I have heard about it possibly being so for the British. What sources do you have for this? It would require storing a tripod in the vehicle and dedicating 3-5 men for its use. Where did those men come from?

Steve