250/8 or 251/9 You choose.

[Ricochet]

Does anybody have a feel for the difference in playing with the 250/8 or the 251/9 half-tracks? They both have

the same gun (75mm). The 251 is slightly better armored but slightly slower. The 250 has a smaller silhouette. You

can purchase three 250's for 140pts or two 251's for 120pts.

I lean toward 3 250/8's.

What do you think?

[Stalins Organ]

How much ammo do they each carry?

The 250's weer quite a bit smaller than the 251's, so a limited ammo supply might be animportant factor.

[Juju]

I didn't think anything, that was my tummy rumbling... Oh, pardon, ah, HT's yes. Well, as a matter of fact I'd have to say I'd lean to none of them. I have never bought any of them, and I don't think I ever will.

Why? Dunno. Just don't trust them halftrack buggers. One sneeze and they fall apart. Gimme a tank or a gun anytime.

[Abbott]

I use the 251/9 often. It fills a needed infantry support role. They also have knocked out their share of armor in my battles. I like them.

The 250's have a very small ammo load out, to small for my needs in an infnatry support role.

[JasonC]

I vastly prefer the 251/9. It has enough ammo to really do damage. The 250/8 is by comparison a pop-gun; it just doesn't have enough rounds.

[The Fetus]

I prefer the 250's even with the small ammo load. I find they generally don't last long enough to worry about extra ammo.

[Stalins Organ]

I've used teh 250 with the 20mm on board & run out of ammo with it - IMO if yo're getting these things shot up then you're not using them properly - they aren't MBT's, they're infantry support!

[MrSpkr]

I like them as part of the reserve (infantry support). By the time they are needed, I generally have a handle onenemy armor and can keep them alive long enough to hurt people pretty badly (right RobM?).

I prefer the 251 b/c of the larger ammo loadout.

MrSpkr

[Abteilung]

The Stug III, IV, and Stuh 42 are too close in price and are a far better value than the 251/9 when it comes to Infantry support. The 250/8 can be very useful for recon when paired with a 250/9 or something similar with a high rof. They make an excellent team.

[Redwolf]

I second the StuG/StuH remark.

The biggest problem with the 75mm Halftracks is that they are vulnerable to the allied .50cal MG, which you find standalone, on Halftracks and scout cars, secondary arnament on tanks, even on SP guns. Allies also have lots of mortars in infantry companies and mortar carriers. Insofar I think the german halftracks are overpriced, even if they have the same price as Allied halftracks, they are worth less because their battlefield movement is very resticted.

They make sense if you want blast-o-mania, already spent all you tank points and don't want to drive around towing guns.

One remark about buying the small one because the things don't last long enough anyway. If you calculate victory conditions through, you will find that throw-away units of any kind do a lot of damage for the resulting victory level. Flags are not all and the more losses the game has, the less important they become. Survivable units -what exactly that means depends on the player- are a requirement for continuous plays for points (for those who play for points, many do not).

[MrSpkr]

The onnly problem with the StuG / StuH solution is that it eats up armor points you might need elsewhere (like to counter that Firefly or Jumbo your opponent always seems to get).

The HT's are a great solution to this if used properly. If you rush into a situation without thinking, even a little Jeep mounted .50 can ruin your whole day (not that this has ever happened to me. I never lost a 251/8 and a 250/9 within 20 seconds to the same Jeep. Nope!).

However, if you lead in with infantry, then move the HT's up as a reserve (once the nasty .50 cals have been located and neutralized), you get much more bang for the buck.

MrSpkr

[Silvio Manuel]

If I'm out of Armor points and want some pop I get the 250/8...faster than the 251/9 and cheaper with its smaller ammo load...I don't mind because they're so fragile.

[Agua]

Screw 'em both. Get the PSW 253 for approximately 65 points. Will surivive small arms fire.

[JasonC]

MrSpkr said "I like them as part of the reserve (infantry support)"

Yep, that is how I use them too. The tanks or TDs get the armor first. The 251/9s (just 2 usually) come out after the enemy armor is dead, to raise the direct HE on the enemy infantry.

Do I buy them because they are better for the point cost than StuH or Hummels? No. I buy them because they are realistic. The Pz Gdrs used them instead of towed infantry guns. Two of them go along with 2 81mm mortars and 4 HMGs, as the "heavy weapons" component of the Pz Gdr company force. Combined with the 2 LMG infantry type in the platoons, the overall mix suppresses enemy infantry at range pretty well.

Compared to buying 1 Pz IV, you get twice the HE shells from 2 251/9s. About the same comparison for the StuG, which has a smaller HE load but isn't as expensive as the Pz IV. 2 StuH have half as many HE shells as 3 251/9 (same cost about), but they are bigger shells so the total blast is a bit higher with them - and of course they have tops and better armor. The 251/9s have more smoke though. Hummels have fewer rounds still, but much more powerful, giving more blast than the StuH for the cost - but low ROF, little smoke, etc.

If you want pure HE fighting power on a more survivable platform for a far, low cost, it is hard to beat the StuH, which is made for the job. The 251/9s are more realistic for Panzer Grenadiers, and they will give you another platform and more smoke. But if game effectiveness is all you are after, the StuHs are probably better.

[Abbott]

Do I buy them because they are better for the point cost than StuH or Hummels? No. I buy them because they are realistic. The Pz Gdrs used them instead of towed infantry guns-JasonC

I buy them for the same reason. The 251/9 actually (in game terms) can be a very effective weapons system when employed properly or one has a bit of luck.

Many times I have withdrawn them to the rear after they have fired their entire compliment of HE. They also offer a quick and effective smoke capability.

[ 05-04-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[boy_Recon]

The German support vehicles massively outclass the Allies'in CBMO. This isn't strictly realistic: there were several Brit AC's that carried a 75mm gun (both AT and howitzer), ie the AEC and the heavy Daimler, and the US mounted 75mm's on halftracks. All these, plus the 'Meatchopper' (q.v.) were used extensively in Europe.

[Redwolf]

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

The German support vehicles massively outclass the Allies'in CBMO. This isn't strictly realistic: there were several Brit AC's that carried a 75mm gun (both AT and howitzer), ie the AEC and the heavy Daimler, and the US mounted 75mm's on halftracks. All these, plus the 'Meatchopper' (q.v.) were used extensively in Europe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weren't there also british mortar carriers like the M21?

I think that that the Germans have the edge only in HE-capable vehicles, but on the other hand the Allies have the two-machinegun halftracks, the Kangaroos that are APCs as thick as tanks and fast. The carriers are nice flat MG vehicles as well. For fighting, I think the Greyhound and Daimler AC are better than the Puma, mostly for the latter's slow turret.

Since the Germans get less armour points in combined arms battles it is only fair that the Allied cheap HE delivery -the M8 hmc- is a tank, while the Germans can fill the role from vehicles.

Overall it looks even for me and I like the Allied choices more.

[ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]