Halftracks and the Panzergrenadier

[Cuirassier]

During my experience in CMBB (with the help of forums), I have learned that halftracks in combat are useless other than being utilized as heavy weapon taxis in dead ground or as mobile MG posts when the enemy AT defence has been neutrilized.

However, in books I have read and shows I have watched on TV, the halftrack was the tool of the infamous Panzergrenadier, used in fast actions with tanks to storm positions. In CMBB, this is not possible, as even weak AT rifles make short work of halftracks.

So, my question is, in the real war, how were halftracks used tactically? Were they just used in the unadmirable role as portrayed in CM, or did they have more important tasks on the battlefield, other than taxing MG's, mortars and PAK's around the battlefield or mowing down an already routed squad with the 42 when the battle is already won?

[JasonC]

They rode mounted behind large bodies of full tanks, which smashed the enemy AT network before they arrived. I don't mean a platoon, I mean a full tank regiment ahead of a battalion in SPWs.

They fought infantry only enemies mounted at times, particularly in open country. Occasionally they would be used mounted to "dash" into a large town or village, seizing a corner of it (frequently behind a small spearhead of full AFVs), then expanding from there dismounted. Or in night raids, a similar "coup de main" use.

The rest is mostly doctrinal story-telling, not field practice, especially in heavy fighting. If you look for SPW losses at Kursk you find they are handfuls only for entire PDs over the whole period of the heaviest assaults. (While half of the medium tanks are sent to the workshops, and the grenadiers lose 30-50% casualties).

Or you look at cases like Panzer Lehr's July counterattack in Normandy (the most heavily equipped with SPWs unit of the war), and most of the SPWs are parked under trees on the approach roads, with just 1-2 behind platoons of tanks on some roads.

[JasonC]

Halftracked infantry works with full armor in combined arms formations. And there is little a HT can do that a tank can't do better. There is, however, plenty that tanks can't do that dismounted infantry can do - pass various terrain obstacles, search through buildings, dig defenders out of trenches, exploit strong terrain defensively, scout or observe with great stealth, infiltrate quietly at night etc.

It is those roles that armor needs from its attached infantry, not more "tank - lights". And infantry can only deliver those things it is better at by dismounting. This doesn't mean vehicles aren't useful for infantry working with armor - they are. But their main role is operational not tactical, allowing the infantry to keep up with the tanks and go where they go.

In the case of armored HTs, they keep up better through barrage zones, and are less likely to be "stripped off" the tanks they are supporting by indirect fire or a few hold-out MGs. That delivers value not by razzle dazzle to 50m from a defended position, but by driving safely 500-1000m behind a tank battalion or more, that has already cut its way through the enemy's heavy defenses.

And that will matter 5 km up the road when the tanks come to a bridge, and want infantry to get across upstream to help flank the position. But they will do the last dismounted, not mounted. If they stay mounted, they aren't contributing anything a Pz IV can't do for itself, better.

[Cuirassier]

Thanks for the reply.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

shows I have watched on TV,

You should probably stop doing that, in all seriousness and honesty, if your priority is gaining historical knowledge as opposed to simple entertainment.

[Sergei]

The main use of halftracks in combat, to me, is supporting the advancing infantry with their machineguns from behind. Preferably area firing suspected enemy positions but so that the enemy can't return fire.

Better watch out for mortars, however.

[Joachim]

HTs come out late when my tanks are low on ammo, the enemy AT assets are gone. Before that I loose them even vs the AI.

They work great on big maps with covered communication lines. Shifting guns and heavy wpns on routes hidden from fire.

Speed, surprise and stealth are their assets.

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

Yes, their three main weapons are surprise, stealth and speed... and ruthlessness...

[JasonC]

What in who's name is stealthy about a halftrack? lol.

[Cuirassier]

You should probably stop doing that, in all seriousness and honesty, if your priority is gaining historical knowledge as opposed to simple entertainment.

You know, when I wrote this, I had an inkling someone would say a comment like that. Few shows on military history are accurate I have found, but the footage is nice. That is why I watch. I will just ignore the infor from them for now on.

[Christian Knudsen]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Yes, their three main weapons are surprise, stealth and speed... and ruthlessness...

And, of course, their fanatical devotion to the pope.

Speaking of which, do you think the Killer Joke will have been perfected for Space Lobsters of Doom?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What in who's name is stealthy about a halftrack? lol.

What is surprising about a HT? We all know what it looks like.

It is the proper tactics for HTs that use stealth, speed and surprise.

Gruß

Joachim

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What in who's name is stealthy about a halftrack? lol.

What is surprising about a HT? We all know what it looks like.

It is the proper tactics for HTs that use stealth, speed and surprise.

Stealth works best - if the opponent doesn't know they are there, he won't try to kill them. Guess that's why so few were destroyed at Kursk.

Gruß

Joachim

[vincere]

The fuller advantage of mech/motorised infantry should be better portrayed in the CMBB campaigns.

Mobile reserve, exploitation, flanking moves and other gaming goodies.

[Cuirassier]

Stealth works best - if the opponent doesn't know they are there, he won't try to kill them. Guess that's why so few were destroyed at Kursk.

If their best tactic is to be stealthy, then why put armor and MG's on them when infantry could just be loaded onto trucks or tanks that also try to be stealthy?

[Corvidae]

"If their best tactic is to be stealthy, then why put armor and MG's on them when infantry could just be loaded onto trucks or tanks that also try to be stealthy?"

lets see,

Shrapnell,

Stray rounds ,

Troop moral, (its armor so i'm gonna be safe)

Defence in the event of accidently meeting the enemy,

and my favourite..................

..........COMMON SENSE,

the point is that every army dreamed of having enought armored halftracks to move ALL their troops, but it was never feasable

[Cuirassier]

lets see,

Shrapnell,

Stray rounds ,

Troop moral, (its armor so i'm gonna be safe)

Defence in the event of accidently meeting the enemy,

and my favourite..................

..........COMMON SENSE,

the point is that every army dreamed of having enought armored halftracks to move ALL their troops, but it was never feasable

Um, the armor on HT's is practically useless. Lets see, what can penetrate and kill them.

Maxim at close range

DSHK MG

M2 MG

ATR

Any anti tank gun or recoiless rifle

Infantry guns

Mortars

Demo charges

grenades

molotovs

RPG-43's

T-34

Hmmm. Long list. So what advantage to they have. None really when compared to trucks, other than better mobility and shrapnel, small arms fire (as you mentioned)

Tanks work the best for moving infantry. Their firepower substitutes for the thin armor of HT's. As JasonC mentioned, HT's have only an operational use. Tactically, they can't to anything better than a vanilla Panzer III or IV.

[George MC]

Hi

I think Jason Cs post gives a good overall tactical doctrine for how SPW were used. I read Agte's biography of Jochen Peiper and the SPW battalion of LSSAH which has a great deal of combat reports regarding how SPW were used operationally and tactically.

In Peiper's SPW battalion hey day (winter 1943) they were used as a fast hitting mobile reserve, then as the spearhead of the German counter attack for LSSAH. At this period they were supported first, by Stugs from Rettlinger’s battery (as it appears the Stug crews were more aggressive than their panzer counterparts who’s CO at the time had a thing about losing panzers!), then towards the drive for Belgorod by Von Ribbentrops panzer company and some Tigers from the 4th Company.

Soviet AT assets were in evidence (and Peiper did lose SPW to them) but Peiper also made use of fast hitting night attacks on defended Soviet villages - an innovation for it's time but one which used the good comms and mobility of the SPW unit, and which reduced the effectiveness of nay Soviet AT assets. Plus used the speed of his unit to outflank or avoid Soviet defences before they could react or even be set-up. When it gets to a pitch battle, like Kharkov, they fought dismounted, and that is where their casualties were pretty high, as you’d expect being involved in street fighting.

When attacking during daylight it does seem like they picked their battles - there are several accounts where the unit hits strong AT defences, pulls back and lets the supporting armour deal with it, then go in fast and hard to mop up what is left. Or, alternatively outflanking the defence in a big sweep to take it from the rear - an option not available on the generally small maps the average CMBB action takes place on. It also appears the SPW used lots of smoke grenades to cover any mobile assaults, a technique unavailable in the CMBB battlefield.

A key element to their use was having space to manoeuvre, thus taking advantage of their ability to outmanoeuvre the enemy. Also the SPW battalion had a lot of mobile HE firepower, which could allow it to suppress infantry AT assets. Of course by mid 1943 this was all changing...

I guess the new CMBB campaign engine will allow SPW to be used more to their advantage at an operational level, and hence their true usefulness might be seen.

To summarise I agree with Jason Cs view, as Peiper's SPW unit pretty much always operated (a few exceptions but they were in the early stages of the Kharkov action where they were used to quickly garrison, dismounted, outposts in the German line) in battalion strength, with at least half dozen tanks/SP for dealing with AT nasties.

If you are interested in seeing how they could be used check out the Peiper series of scenarios at my website (link below).

Cheers fur noo

George

[David I]

In George Mc's "Railyard Blues" I was attacking the Soviet held Railyard. I was able to support an Infantry Platoon's assault on a building complex with a Platoon of Pz. Engineers who rolled up in their SPW, dismounted, and provided the muscle to force the Soviets out and into the flanking MG fire from SPWs. Leaving the Infantry to hold the buildings, I reloaded the Pz. Engineers into their SPW's (minus their Flamethrowers who I managed to get killed off) race them over to the far side of the battlefield and they again provided the umph to force the issue. The supporting fire from the Heavy Weapons Platoon (SPW 251/9's and 251/2's) added a great deal to the success.

So, in the right circumstances Half Track carried Pz Grenadiers/Engineers can be very useful.

DavidI

[Krautman]

Are halftracks the reason why the Soviets continued using the ATR until 1945?

[Sergei]

I don't know, but they're certainly a good reason for Germans to keep them out of the sight of Soviet infantry positions after 1941.

PTRD was also useful against armoured cars, light SPG's, entrenched positions & buildings, and organic creatures.

[George MC]

Originally posted by David I:

In George Mc's "Railyard Blues" I was attacking the Soviet held Railyard. I was able to support an Infantry Platoon's assault on a building complex with a Platoon of Pz. Engineers who rolled up in their SPW, dismounted, and provided the muscle to force the Soviets out and into the flanking MG fire from SPWs. Leaving the Infantry to hold the buildings, I reloaded the Pz. Engineers into their SPW's (minus their Flamethrowers who I managed to get killed off) race them over to the far side of the battlefield and they again provided the umph to force the issue. The supporting fire from the Heavy Weapons Platoon (SPW 251/9's and 251/2's) added a great deal to the success.

So, in the right circumstances Half Track carried Pz Grenadiers/Engineers can be very useful.

DavidI

Whilst David was zipping about the railyard my Ivans were running themselves ragged attempting to get into position to support their mates. A few times they ran head on into some armour...

Cheers fur noo

George

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Um, the armor on HT's is practically useless. Lets see, what can penetrate and kill them.

Maxim at close range

DSHK MG

M2 MG

ATR

Any anti tank gun or recoiless rifle

Infantry guns

Mortars

Demo charges

grenades

molotovs

RPG-43's

T-34

Hmmm. Long list. So what advantage to they have. None really when compared to trucks, other than better mobility and shrapnel, small arms fire (as you mentioned)

Tanks work the best for moving infantry. Their firepower substitutes for the thin armor of HT's. As JasonC mentioned, HT's have only an operational use. Tactically, they can't to anything better than a vanilla Panzer III or IV.

On tanks as transport:

APCs free tanks from moving them around. You have more tanks for combat duties. This allows you to hit harder with a given amount of tanks. APCs are cheaper to produce and they use less fuel. So combining HTs and tanks reduces cost in production and upkeep (->steel and oil).

On 10 mm of armor around the passengers:

The length of the list doesn't matter. Let's look at the effect of some weapons vs inf in APC, on trucks and on armor.

Squad infantry weapons

Distance below 30m:

SMGs or pistols don't work vs inf in HTs.

Anything else kills. Grenades etc need to hit the open top. So some of them might not kill inf in HTs. If one finds it's way it is much more leathel

Slight advantage HTs.

Distance 30m to 200m

Grenades etc are out of range.

MGs kill all

Small arms kill unarmored inf.

Advantage HT.

Distance 200m to 500m

Heavy MGs still kill

Small arms and LMGs kill unarmored inf, but not in HTs

ATRs are as effective vs HTs as vs trucks - and their passengers.

Advantage HT.

Distance 500m

Most heavy MGs stop being effective.

ATRs still can kill trucks, but have to hit HTs at flat angle.

Advantage HT.

Inf Guns/mortars:

"Close counts with HE"... but it must be closer to kill a HT than to kill a squad in the open or on top of a truck or tank.

Advantage HT.

ATGs:

Bad news for all. The tanks will hurry to get out of LOS. Same holds for APCs - but I'd prefer sitting on a bench in an APC to sitting atop a tank when they are moving full speed. I doubt a T34 can move at 30mph and carry a full squad of tank riders.

Slight advantage HT.

Please don't discuss effective ranges of weapons. The ranges above were just crude estimates. Replace them with effective ranges and my point will still be valid.

Gruß

Joachim

[Cuirassier]

Excellent points Joachim.

I agree halftracks are superior to trucks and maybe tanks in for moving infantry.

But is CM, infantry usually move around dismounted for the entire game, and a tank's covering firepower has far more use than the paper thin armor of an HT. Mounted troops have little use, so, on a tactical level, HTs aren't that important, IMHO.

[Guest ExplodingMonkey]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Better watch out for mortars, however.

I just keep my HT formations spread out when I'm using them as mobile MG support platforms. That way, my opponenet uses up all his mortar rounds on one or two HTs while my infantry advance without the mortar shells coming down on them.