The Great HT Capacity Debate Part II

[Juardis]

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

Hi

My only real concern as far as the game goes is that the British troops would lose their only squad level armoured carrier. If you were to change the British vehicle to the M5 rather than the M5A1 (as in one of the betas) then that's fine by me, and probably more realistic anyway.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The kangaroo is an armored squad carrier.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Big Time Software]

DraGoon, I missed your earlier post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I too have the Chamberlain/Ellis book and have interpreted the information differently than above. I believe that the vehicle you have modelled is the M3A2 and that the "movable stowage boxes in the rear hull" are the boxes that you have modelled at the front of the crew compartment and "Seats for from 5 to 12 men" are as displayed in the present model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see how you might think this. However, there are other things to look at in the same source. Piecing them together, I think, supports my take on it...

1. M3A1 specifically states the vehicle was used as "ambulances, command cars, and general utility and liaison vehicles". It does not state they were used for general troop transportation, yet it does state the previously mentioned roles PLUS a special case for British recovery use.

2. The above mentioned roles all involve reduced headcount needs. This supports the position that the seating capacity was in fact reduced by design.

3. Production figures... .50 cal guns were in no short supply. If the Army thought it could add a .50 pulpit mounted gun AND full crew capacity, without compromising either... why did they make so few "A1"s compared to the regular versions?

4. Why the need for the "A2" models, which were stated to be "universal" models? I mean, if the M3A1 was just a M3 with a .50cal gun, why the need for a new standardized vehicle to acheive the same thing?

5. And most importantly... this tidbit from the M3A2 descripton - "In appearance, this vehicle resembled the M3A1 but had an armored shield on the AA ring mount and movable stowage boxes in the rear hull which could be changed according to the role required for the vehicle." In other words, it specifically mentions that there were MOVABLE stowage boxes, which allowed it to change roles. The M3A1 therefore did not have movable stowage boxes, which meant that it could not be used for dual roles on the fly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are correct in your interpretation it means that many pictures of M3A1s in other publications are misidents...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you here. I have pics and detailed layouts of M3A1s that clearly show it has reduced seating capacity. And since it is VERY unlikely that there are TWO different "A1" models (see my first post), then someone has it wrong. This would not be the first time that one publication got something wrong and it was carried over into other ones. Perhaps field modified M3s were misidentified as M3A1s simply because they had the .50 mounted on them? It seems that is the most likely explaination.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Quick note...

I just cruised through a number of books looking for pics of M3A1s. I found about 5 or 6 right away, all non-combat with guys standing up. The most number of passenger heads I counted was 7 (crammed together) but most were just 3-4. Most were towing AT guns, either 57mm or 76mm.

Also, as stated in the last discussion, the pics I have of M3A1s clearly have the pulpit extending back into the passenger compartment by quite a bit. Just like the one we have in the game. I fail to see how you can infringe upon the passenger compartment like this without reducing seating capacity.

Oh... and also remember that one .50cal round probably takes up the same room as at least three, if not four, .30 cal rounds. So if you want to have an adequate fire support base (remember Chamberlain and Ellis state that the "A1"s are "gun towers") you are going to have to expand the storage capacity by 3-4 times to hold the same number of rounds, not to mention stowing more. Again, the only place to aquire this sort of room is the passenger compartment, which logical means a reduction in seating capacity.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Forever Babra]

My source (which I stated clearly in the other thread) is Zaloga's "M3 Infantry Half-Track 1940-73" It is completely unambiguous. Read it or don't.

[Forever Babra]

"Seating capacity was ten in the M2 and thirteen in the M3. The internal configuration was significantly different. Since the M2 was intended as an artillery prime-mover and ammunition carrier, two large storage bins were fitted in the centre of the hull, immediately behind the driver's compartment. These could be accessed through armoured doors on the hull side. These large bins created a barrier between the driving compartment and the rear troop compartment, with the narrow space between them occupied by forward and rearward facing set of seats. The two fuel tanks were located in the rear corners of the troop compartment. The M2 was provided with a skate race for the M2 Browning HD .50 cal heavy machine gun. The skate race meant the M2, unlike the M3, had no rear access door fitted."

Zaloga, p. 6&7

[Marco Bergman]

If you're going to quote a source, please quote the whole sentence, not just part of it:

"The M3 and M3A1 models were widely used by armoured units as ambulances, command cars, and general utility and liason vehicles."

Note that the quote doesn't say M3A1 only.

In fact, the entire article on M2/M3 doesn't state one way or the other that the capacity of the M3A1 was different. In fact, I refer you to the specification on page 193, which says:

"Specification

Designation: Carrier, Personnel, Half Track M3 or M3A1

Crew: 3 plus 10. Duties: commander, driver, co-driver plus 10 passengers."

Now, I would like to refer you to page 67 (page 80 in Acrobat) of:

Catalogue of Standard Ordinance Items, Second Edition 1944

(Office of the Chief of Ordinance Technical Division)

which can be downloaded from:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=710

This lists the following:

M2 crew 10

M2A1 crew 10

M3 crew 13

M3A1 crew 13

M3A2 crew 5-12

[This message has been edited by Marco Bergman (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Forever Babra]

I guess ordinance people didn't have access to Chamberlain.

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

Is "patheti-sad" a word?

[Gremlin]

Relying overly much on one source, however accurate it appears (Chamberlain and Doyle's Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II certainly appears accurate and is extensive; I assume the Allied book is too), is a fundamental no-no of any research. This is particularly true when you can't ascertain that work's original source material and how it was used. That's true of the German Tanks book, though I haven't ordered the Allied one yet and am admittedly only guessing they neglected a full bibliography and footnotes.

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Wilhammer]

Why would the US Army issue extensive manuals into the field that specifically explain weapons/vehicle usage employment?

I guess it is because the systems have a specific use. The manual as provided at the Carlisle MH site specifically states that the A1 varieties replaced the M3/M5 series in production for the purpose of transporting squads into combat and, incidentally, you gain a .50 cal mount over the assistant driver position.

Why would they do this? Did they intend to lie to the US troops in the field?

US soldiers bitch more frequently than most (must be that freedom of speech thing), and I do not recall reading about troops having been upset because the manual says you can carry a squad in a M3A1/M5A1 and they could not.

Why are foreign sources more valuable than official US Army sources?

I for one am very glad that the M3A1/M5A1 are correctly modeled in the current beta as concerns tranport capacity. Any change in the final release would be very wrong and very upsetting to the balance of many scenarios and the system.

A lot of hay has been made about how the guys would transport so much .50 cal ammo.

Hmm. External stowage box field mods?

Production external stowage boxes?

Trailers (not modeled in CM, but prevalent)?

The loss of the M3A1/M5A1 as squad transports

would seriously damage the realism of CM, IMHO.

I would not like it.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

Okay, let me interject. Since one of the main objectives of the US (and German) halftrack was to transport an infantry squad around, why on earth would the anyone make a halftrack that would not accomplish this mission, and break up a squad?

If you want to investigate, look at the TO&E for armored infantry in an U.S. armored division. It should be obvious, and answer all your questions, either pro or con.

It'll be obvious to infer the correct answer when 3 halftracks were standard TO&E for a platoon. Likewise, if the number was 6 halftracks, the answer is just as obvious.

See what they actually practiced IN THE FIELD.

I'm placing my bets on 1 halftrack per squad. I see no reason why they weren't crammed in there.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Spook]

To Steve/BTS:

If you are fixated in reconverting the M3A1/M5A1 back to having less than squad capacity, I personally don't have much problem, if indeed the weight of available evidence supports this choice.

But PLEASE, try this time to give the M3A1 some better carrying capacity than a jeep. If it's set again to carrying only a "team," then that'll mean that ANY team (even a two-man light AT team) will fill up the M3A1.

I think the M3A1 could carry more than a jeep. If it's a choice between "squad" or "team", then given Babra's & Marco's compelling counterpoints, the default seems to lean closer to "squad."

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 01-02-2001).]

[ChrisB]

What this discussion ignores, or rather bypasses is that seating capacity<>passenger capacity (or seating capacity is not passenger capacity).

Speaking as someone who has traveled 24 man in a 12-seater truck (+3 NCOs up front) (cannot remember what brand):

You have the floor, add combat packs and you get seating for some more people. You can probably fit more people into the "seat" area. And there is always non-seat area that can be used to sit on. Ok this was a truck, but it is amazing how many people you can put into a vehicle if the option is walking long distances.

So the question is more what is a reasonable combat zone capacity vesus emergency capacity, but I bet you it is more than the number of seats. You will probably have to go back and ask someone who was there (WWII) to find out the truth.

Geez, kids today needs so much elbow room.

[David Aitken]

ChrisB wrote:

> Geez, kids today needs so much elbow room.

Kids today will sue you if they don't get enough elbow room. =)

If the poor GIs don't have room to flex their legs, they'll develop Deep Vein Thrombosis and drop dead from blood clots as soon as they dismount. =P

[Major Tom]

The more packed the guys are in the Halftrack the better chance that one hit by a MMG will kill a bunch of them.

[dalem]

Hey, will all the guys who are so desparate to pack more dudes in their HTs please come roll around my battlefields? Pretty please?

-dale

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah... reminds me of the previous discussion Well... some interesting conclusions can be drawn from the following:

Forever Babra:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My source (which I stated clearly in the other thread) is Zaloga's "M3 Infantry Half-Track 1940-73" It is completely unambiguous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks like Zalaga and Chamberlain are at odds here, since Chamberlain is equally unambiguous. Quoted from Chamberlain:

"M2... It had seats for 10 men (ie, a full gun crew) plus seats in the cab for the driver, assistant driver, and commander."

It could not be any clearer that the capacity, according to Chamberlain/Ellis, is 13. Zalaga says it is 10. Although neither is beyond reproach (I have seen minor errors in Zalaga's works from time to time), it does appear that Zalaga is correct. Crismon's book also states that the capacity is "10, including driver". So Chamberlain/Ellis lose a point here.

However, the differences between the M2 and M3 are, for this discussion, irrelevant since we do not have the M2 or M2A1 in CM.

Gremlin wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Relying overly much on one source, however accurate it appears... is a fundamental no-no of any research.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. Unfortunately, we have only four directly related sources at our disposal right now. Chamberlain/Ellis, another book by Ellis, Crismon's "US Military Tracked Vehicles", and Zalaga's HT book (I don't have a copy of Zalaga's book, but Charles does). Unfotunately, information in three is rather sketchy (oh... Crismon details headlamps and fender styles ).

Marco wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you're going to quote a source, please quote the whole sentence, not just part of it:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, definitely my bad. Didn't do it on purpose as it is not helpful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, the entire article on M2/M3 doesn't state one way or the other that the capacity of the M3A1 was different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know. Thus the rest of my discussion in the previous posts were an attempt to read between the lines and tie together various bits of information from different sources. Unfortunately, we have to do this often since documentation of even the most common aspects of WWII often does not provide direct answers to the most basic questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, I refer you to the specification on page 193, which says<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I missed that bit since it was at the end of the section and looked to be (quick skim) related to one of the special purpose HT versions. Score another point for the full capacity argument, and deduct some points from Chamberlian/Ellis for not being clearer in previous sections.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I would like to refer you to page 67 (page 80 in Acrobat) of<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would love to look at this, but a 7 hour download for me is not going to happen any time soon

Wilhammer wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The loss of the M3A1/M5A1 as squad transports would seriously damage the realism of CM, IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the true capacity of the standard M3A1/M5A1 is in fact 13, then yes... reducing the capacity would be unrealistic. And obviously we would not do this, would we? The debate here is to figure out which capacity is correct, and THAT is what will go into the final patch. I mean, why do you think I reopened the debate?

Dr. Brian wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, let me interject. Since one of the main objectives of the US (and German) halftrack was to transport an infantry squad around, why on earth would the anyone make a halftrack that would not accomplish this mission, and break up a squad?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant logic since there were more models of HTs, both German and American, that did not cary full squads. The HTs were multiple use vehicles and therefore had a variety of roles, not just for transporting full squads.

ChrisB wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the question is more what is a reasonable combat zone capacity vesus emergency capacity, but I bet you it is more than the number of seats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never seen a picture of a M3 type HT with more than about a dozen men in it, even in non-combat rear situations. However, as you suggest you can certainly overload the capacity of any vehicle. The picture Jeff posted in this thread shows one example. But in combat situation, it would be near suicide to overload to this extent, therefore it is far less likely to have happened.

OK, check out next post...

Steve

[Wilhammer]

To chime in with another pro-American A1 Squad carrying HT point of argument;

Just how many M3/M5s became A1s in the field?

The .50cal ring mount was apparently a field kit as well as a production item. One could also guess and may find the factual evidence to show that they modified them for .50 cals in other ways in the field.

[Wilhammer]

Now, I would like to refer you to page 67 (page 80 in Acrobat) of

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

I would love to look at this, but a 7 hour download for me is not going to happen any time soon

BTS,

Does this mean you have not even read the US Manual referenced above? Man this is a rich source of information, and was issued directly to the troops that needed to know.

This selection of US Manuals cannot be overlooked; I might as well ignore the Chamberlain books because I don't have them

7 hour download time?!?!? My trusty roadrunner account grabs it in under 2 minutes. If you like, I will download the entire selection of manuals, burn you a CD, and Fed Ex it to you overnight.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Congratulations... I am now in the M3A1/M5A1 full squad capacity camp. Three things brought me around to this position:

1. The "Catalogue of Standard Ordinance Items, Second Edition 1944" - although I don't have access to this, it does appear to be very clear what is what with the two models.

2. Errors in Chamerlain/Ellis. The goof on the capacity for the M2 might have been a one-off, but since the rest of the section is rather skimpy on details, it is best not to rely too heavily on it. Since much of my prior reasoning was based on this source, I now question the validity of my initial conclusions.

3. Most importantly... Incidental, and in one case direct, statements that the M3A1 and M5A1 REPLACED the M3 and M5 production models.

My new thinking is that the "A1"s that I have seen, which CLEARLY have reduced seating capacity, were field modified versions of the standard "A1" models. Before I was thinking that they were the standard and ones like Babra were pointing to were field modifications.

Clearly one has to be a field modification, so I am now inclined to think it is the reduced capacity version. The cancelled "A2" models supports either assumption, but coupled with the other evidence it looks like the need for the "A2" arose because some uses required more storage rather than more seating.

I'll be recommending that Charles leave things as is, however I doubt we will change the existing M3A1/M5A1 model in the game to visually reflect this. As anybody can see, the current version graphically seats 6.

Thanks to all for the well thought out discussion. This is why we bother to run thigns by you guys BEFORE we make changes. Let any doubters that we value customer input, and only seek to do what is correct, read this thread and then kiss my butt Although very few people have been dumb enough to state this publically, I can think of one in particular (not from this thread) that should be puckering up right about now

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Wilhammer:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7 hour download time?!?!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I'm lucky to just have phone access, not to mention high speed Internet connection. People in urban areas of the US can't even conceive of how far behind the rest of the country, and world, is technology wise. Heck, my bank only started taking ATM deposits this year

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My trusty roadrunner account grabs it in under 2 minutes. If you like, I will download the entire selection of manuals, burn you a CD, and Fed Ex it to you overnight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but I think I know where I can pick up a physical reprint. For some reason I passed on picking it up a couple of years ago (probably had blown through my book spending money already ) and just haven't got around to getting it yet. I think Charles might have a copy of it though.

Steve

[Wilhammer]

You might be surprised to know that I live in a rural area of North Carolina.

My phone service was horrible online. All those hops and iron drops made my 56K modem feel damn lucky to connect at 21600.

I was shocked (and elated) when I found that Road Runner was available in the sticks O' Carolina.

[DraGoon]

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

Thanks to all for the well thought out discussion. This is why we bother to run thigns by you guys BEFORE we make changes. Let any doubters that we value customer input, and only seek to do what is correct, read this thread and then kiss my butt Although very few people have been dumb enough to state this publically, I can think of one in particular (not from this thread) that should be puckering up right about now

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not about to continue to post on this one as I reckoned the solution that you were suggesting would do fine, at least for the British troops.

However, thankyou, a). for listening and . for demonstrating that you can change a well held view when presented with reasonable argument.

I think you are quite unique in this and hope that you continue in the same way.

OK, the other things I would like to discuss are...........

[Gremlin]

...running machine gun teams

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[DraGoon]

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

The kangaroo is an armored squad carrier.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my gosh, so it is. Shame it was only available in small numbers (250ish) from two support regiments, one British and one Canadian, and eventually all pooled in 79 Armd division.

You will however be seeing them in one of my operations as 4 Armd Bde supported infantry mounted in them for various assaults during March 45.

[Lorak]

Wilhammer,

Nice to see another from North Carolina here.

Just picked up road runner myself not to long ago. This seems to surpirse people who don't even thing we have paved roads

**To the rest of you**

Thanks very much for a great discussion and for keeping it civil. Truly it is one of the best things I like about this forum. There are a lot of those (like myself) who basicaly lurk duing these topics, reading and learning,for those of us. I just wanted to say thanks.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

Combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX