Halftracks and the Panzergrenadier

[Ike]

My thought on the utility of HT's is that they provide cross-country mobility that the trucks cannot, capable of - designers hope! - keeping up with the tanks cross-country.

As several people have posted, the new CMC will hopefully give us a chance to use HT's to advantage.

Ike

[George MC]

Originally posted by 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.

A bit of a generalisation there - maybe if the CM battlefield is a small one say a kilometer or so, or perhaps a QB map rather than a scenario designed map - then arguably the SPW borne panzergrenadiers may have dismounted to tackle/clear the objective. As David I has pointed out though, even on a small battlefield (such as Railyard Blues) SPW with a bit of care can be used to good effect.

SPW units did take casualties, heavy at times in both SPW and grenadiers. Some AARs from the late 43/44 period talk about SPW companies that only have a handful of SPW and thirty men.

In Agte's biography of Peiper (lot's of great accounts of how SPW were used - many and varied) Guhl (the company CO of 11th Company) ordered that only six men were to ride into action in an SPW as there ws not enough room for a complete squad.

Re the ATR issue and small arms fire - all the SPW in Guhl's unit had extra armour welded onto the front, other companies reinforced the front part with by mounting track links there. Also many crews reinforced the inside of the SPW with tree limbs to reduce the effect of shell splinters in the open compartment.

Cheers fur noo

George Mc

[Joachim]

Originally posted by 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.

In CM the value of transport increases with map size and amount of heavy wpns - especially with guns.

One of my last PBEMs (Tebourba, NA, late '42, ME, me as Axis player) saw reinforcements on trucks or HTs. They had to move about 1km to the action. Those that walked came late. Some went ahead on tanks - but that cost the tanks 1 turn more to reach the position. On one rout I could use my HTs from the initial force and the first reinforcement as busses. The trucks lacked cross country ability but helped on a road in the first part of the journey.

My HTs were essential in the race for good positions. My weaker tanks meant I could not defend up but on reverse slopes. The availabilty of zooks meant I'd need inf ahead of my tanks. I achieved this with HTs - too few tanks in the initial force.

But my HTs moved behind cover. They did not take part in the shooting. IIRC I lost a mortar carrier, but not a single APC (a Kübel bogged and was abandoned). SdKfz 7 would have achieved the same as the 251s. Yet that 10mm of steel made me use them more aggressively in the first phase when I feared inf.

The enemy's plan was to win the armor war and race into the village with tanks first followed by mounted inf - at least he had his forces assembled like this in the later stages of the battle. If he had had won the armor battle, he would have succeeded with this plan. A plt of mech inf actually tried to reach the village behind a few Lees. I had MGs covering their route. Dismounted inf would have pinned and arrived piecemeal - no problem for my inf in the village. My remaining medium tanks were busy fighting his tanks. His HTs were stopped by my PzIIs and ACs. Glad I had parked those in good positions.

Both sides used HTs. For me they were decisive, to my opponent they offered his last chance to decide the battle.

So there are CM battles where HTs are valuable. But these are exceptions.

You're right that tanks offer more bang for the buck.

Gruß

Joachim

[Sivodsi]

Sure, I have no problems consigning the hts to the rear until the end, and I love the ht morter, but what about the more heavily armed hts?

Surely a more active role was expected of the upgunned hts. Has anybody ever used a ft ht successfully in CM? And how on earth was it used in RL? I can imagine that it would have been difficult to get people to crew them.

[JasonC]

Ah, now we've moved on from the history question to the CM question. General rule - halftracks suck. They cost too much without having the firepower and strength under fire of real armor. An infantry force tricked out with them will be vastly outnumbered by enemy infantry forces that don't bother.

There are only 2 things HTs are actually useful for in CM. One is moving heavy weapons. The Germans can get excellent use out of e.g. a single platoon of armored Pz Gdrs with the squads dismounted, and the tracks used instead to move the mortars and HMGs of a motorized Pz Gdr company.

Russians can reposition guns and MGs with carriers or M3 scout cars (or jeeps) - their 82mm mortars have 7 men so they require a halftrack. You rarely need more than 2-3 such repositioners, though.

The only other use is restricted to the Germans in combined arms force type games. They just don't get enough "armor" points, and need to make some use of the "vehicles" screen to keep up with Russians in the armor war. The gun armed HTs are one way to do that.

Personally I prefer the PSWs with 30mm fronts, as much more robust in the face of ATR fire and the like. But the 251/2 mortar HTs, with their excellent ammo loads and indirect fire capability, are well worth it (rarity permitting). And 251/9s, if kept well back early, can extend the impact of winning the armor war dramatically. (E.g. A platoon of StuGs as the armor, and 2 or more 251/9s as HE chuckers once those wipe out the Russian armor).

As ordinary squad infantry transporters, the HTs suck, because you simply can't afford to mount enough men to make much of a difference. You might mount one platoon - though those 'tracks have better things to do moving weapons teams around. (The uptick in mobility from slow and vulnerable to armored vehicle is worth a lot more than the uptick from fast full squads). Squads can ride AFVs, and they can use cover to the full.

If you've got enough to move a full platoon on top of a few for heavy weapons, the Russians in point terms get an extra *company* of infantry as compensation. There is no comparison, the company fights better.

As for the last fellow's question about how to use the thin HTs to get fire out of them (e.g. the gun armed, also the MGs on the movers to be sure), the main answer is keyholing. You need to pick spots with only very thin pencil LOS to a single enemy. Well back between two houses, or around the end of a thick bodies of woods, for example. If you put them anywhere with wide LOS to the enemy side of the map, they will just die. But they only need 1 target at a time. The Russians can't have a full tank, towed gun, or even an ATR next to every single unit.

It is true you will often run across an ATR even keyholed, but if that happens you just reverse out of LOS. Behind armor effect is so low it typically takes an ATR several minutes of fire to kill an HT, if there is only one and the range is long enough that half the shots are missing, etc.

Flame HTs don't have the range to keyhole successfully in open maps. But they can do it just fine in cities. To a lesser extent in woods. They outrange inherent infantry AT, that is they key to using them. You want to isolate on a squad or MG, and then run to 40-50m, where you can fire and they can't close assault. But they are marginal and expensive, except in these special terrain types.

As for the imaginary "advantage HT" nonsense, a platoon in HTs is crossing 60m of open ground before the next cover. The Russians have LOS to the area from one ZIS-3.

Dead armor doesn't rally. Infantry rallies. And HTs are not free - a single platoon with them has to fight as well as a company without, just to break even.

[JasonC]

July 1943, Germans take a single platoon of armored panzergrenadiers, regulars. They get one HQ, 3 squads with good FP, 1 37mm HT and 3 MG armed HT. Cost 288 points.

Russian infantry division force takes instead -

Recon A or standard infantry platoon

1 T-70 tank

1 MG carrier

1 12.7mm HMG

1 76mm mountain gun

2 ATRs

then choose one of the following

all infantry and teams are veterans (quality option)

-or-

add a second MG carrier (mobility option, lifts HMG and gun simultaneously)

-or-

add a second Mountain gun (firepower option)

Russian mech division takes instead

Heavy option

2 T-34

1 SMG platoon

-or-

Light option

T-70 platoon (5 tanks)

1 Motor Rifle Platoon (includes 1 ATR)

-or-

LL and Infantry numbers

2 Stuart

2 Motor Rifle Platoon (includes 2 ATRs)

-or-

SMGs (e.g. for woods or urban)

1 T-70

1 Mot. SMG Company

2 ATRs

Any of those Russian forces will beat the heck out of the mounted infantry platoon. Even a single actual tank, even if light, will be a terror to the tracks. Towed guns or extra tanks plus ATRs or 50 cal or both, will drastically restrict German track movements or kill the things. The Russians will have enough "lift" to move their guns and slower teams around. Where there is cover, their infantry will move just fine, and where there isn't, the German tracks will get wasted if they try to move.

[John_d]

In defence of HTs, I have had some good use out of them in the past. Firstly, it is sometimes possible to rapidly 'insert' troops. I have done this to great effect a number of times in order to either a) reach an objective before the enemy arrives reach an objective before a smoke screen or artillery barrage clears c)attempt to run 'under' enemy fire, basically just by charging recklessly across the enemy field of fire at range. The point here is that I'd rather do this at 30mph than 6mph.

HTs can also be used effectively on the defensive. They can be used as mobile MG positions- just put them in position, let rip and fall back. HTs are far more effective at this than MGs on foot. They can also be used to quickly ferry troops around your defensive line.

Nobody seems to have made the point yet that HTs are off-road vehicles. If you need to move your troops 2km to the front line, HTs are far and away the best way of getting them there, especially if the roads are mined or damaged. Try getting a load of trucks to go down winding, potholed, mined roads. You might as well forget it. Hitler will have killed himself by the time they get there. HTs on the other hand, can just go cross country. Providing you stop in cover and let your troops walk the rest of the way to the actual fight, this usually works out ok.

Also, I don't like using tanks to move infantry either. Can't remember who originally brought it up, but I wholeheartedly agree. Quite apart from the time wasted picking troops up, letting the embark, stopping in cover and letting them dismount, I find that it limits what I can do with my tanks and breaks up any kind of squad coherency. Suppose that I have a bunch of troops on the back of some tanks, when suddenly I notice that my opponent has messed up and left some of his tanks in an exposed position. Let's also suppose that the tanks currently on 'the school run' are the nearest units to this opportunity. Here you have a dialema. You don't really want to engage the enemy's tanks with troops on the back of your tanks (quite apart from the fact that the infantry could be doing something useful, rather than watching a tnak battle they can't contribute to other than by dying), but you don't want to miss this opportunity either. Even if you split some of the tanks off to join the battle, this will break the platoons up and then you have to dick around matching them up again, by which time they are probably several km apart. Basically, I would rather have dedicated AFVs and APCs than try to mix up the two roles

[JasonC]

The argument against tank riders is completely unconvincing. The tanks are the main element and they do what you want them to do. The infantry are with them to serve them, not the other way around.

If an opportunity arises, yes you engage with the infantry on their backs.

The infantry can dismount-advance off of them if you like, as soon as the tanks get to their firing position. And hide in open steppe if need be. (At long range, as soon as they go stationary they will become mere flags anyway).

The riders do not need to be coddled.

You don't have to stop in cover, they can dismount-advance to cover from the spot the tank wants. The tank wants to restrict LOS using the cover the riders are headed for, anyway. Tanks use cover too, they just use it differently.

At long range, weak fire won't even brush the men off. Fire strong enough to dismount them, you want to dismount anyway - and the tanks fire back. With a heck of a lot more punch than mere MG armed HTs.

No, the tank rider way is just superior, not for the infantry but because you get more tanks that can really fight, instead of wasting points on glorified taxis.

The reasons to use HTs anyway, sometimes, are armor point limits particularly for the Germans in a combined arms QB situation, and to reposition guns and slow heavy weapons teams. A German HMG can ride a tank, but a 81mm mortar can't. And if you can't buy any more tanks to fight or ride, then a few HTs may help more than another infantry platoon or medium FO.

I have the impression that some people just find it impossible to move their infantry around without armor protection. That's a sign of not knowing CMBB tactics, not a reason to take HTs.

Fire and rally are the real protectors.

[John_d]

Not a case of not knowing how to move infantry without armour protection, but more to do with the fact that infantry takes so bloody long to cover long distances. HTs win over trucks on off-road ability, infantry on foot over distance and tanks in terms of expendibility. Losing a HT rarely changes the course of a battle- losing a tank often does. If I do find myself in a situation where I am forced to use vehicles to move my infantry about, rather than letting them get around under their own steam, I'd rather use vehicles that don't have any other particular use. My tanks are better off doing what tanks do best- killing stuff. And besides, there are plenty of times where I don't want my tanks and my infantry going to the same destination. In these situations, HTs fill the role very nicely.

I see your point about HTs being expensive, but for someone who never plays QBs, I don't really consider it to be an issue at all.

[JasonC]

If you don't select your force, having preferences or not having preferences for specific unit types is completely immaterial. The issue only arises in the first place for players choosing their force composition. If you just take what a scenario designer gives you, then naturally you just use whatever you get, preferences be darned.

[Corvidae]

Cuirassier

my point is not that the armoured half track is a valid substitute for a tank,, far from it .

my point is that BY comparison the half track is MARGINALY better than an open truck

look at it this way, take 2 identical squads ,

put them in 2 vehicles set exactly 10 meters apart, one vehicle is a regular truck,, the other is a halftrack with that weak 10mm armour,

Now drop an 81 mm fragmentation round exactly between them, ie ; 5 meters from either vehicle,

Which squad would you rather be in?

Now ,, same 2 squads ,, same 2 vehicles , advancing along a road, ambushed by enemy infantry, at reasonable range,, ie; 50, to 500 meters,

which squad would you rather be in?

Would you rather be protected by a wooden frame or by 10mm of steel,

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for the imaginary "advantage HT" nonsense, a platoon in HTs is crossing 60m of open ground before the next cover. The Russians have LOS to the area from one ZIS-3.

Dead armor doesn't rally. Infantry rallies. And HTs are not free - a single platoon with them has to fight as well as a company without, just to break even.

Jason,

it was a comparison between passengers on tanks, trucks or armored carriers. Not between inf on foot or on HTs. The HTs have advantages vs trucks or tanks as carriers. Dear armor, dead trucks, dead HTs - none rally. No advantage.

The best buy regarding HTs is using the mot company of the PzDiv (before the 251/9 is available). HTs at company discount rates. If you need them or must spend on vehicles anyway.

Gruß

Joachim

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If you don't select your force, having preferences or not having preferences for specific unit types is completely immaterial. The issue only arises in the first place for players choosing their force composition. If you just take what a scenario designer gives you, then naturally you just use whatever you get, preferences be darned.

Ah, those QB players

Now go write a post in two parts:

a) buying HTs for QBs

HTs provided in scens and

and I bet most here will agree that HTs are usually a waste of points if you don't need to buy some vehicles anyway (yes, you're absolutely right on that).

Part will be controversial. It depends on the type of player, the type of scen he plays and the type of scens he already played. There is no absolute truth about the use of HTs.

Gruß

Joachim

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Ah, now we've moved on from the history question to the CM question. General rule - halftracks suck. They cost too much without having the firepower and strength under fire of real armor. An infantry force tricked out with them will be vastly outnumbered by enemy infantry forces that don't bother.

"General rule - halftracks suck."

Sorry, but I disagree with this. HT's do one thing better than any other unit - transport. And CM is a game of maneuver. Maneuver to get the maximum firepower advantage.

Undoubtedly, HTs are the best maneuver units in the game. That is extremely important. In large QBs - especially, but not limited to, ME QBs - they are one of the most important units on a map. In fact, in ME QBs with moderate cover, my first goal is to kill all enemy transport units. You can then use your transport to mass forces against stranded pockets.

Should you get one HT for every unit? No Should you charge enemy lines? No Are they useful in every scenario? No.

But they definitely dont suck. And they are not over-priced in most situations.

[JasonC]

"HTs are the best maneuver units in the game"

I simply deny it, again. Tanks are vastly superior maneuver units. A force that does not bother with more than a smidgen of transport, and instead takes additional tanks and infantry - or even teams and guns - will consistently outperform any force that overpays for mere transport ability, which is vastly overpriced in the CM pricing models.

A few HTs or carriers to reposition guns and slow mortars can pay for themselves, mostly staying in dead ground. But a few means on the order of 2 or at most 4 for an entire scenario. Lift for whole platoons can be achieved by riding your available tanks. And lift is not that important anyway, since most significant repositionings need to be conducted through dead ground, which infantry is perfectly capable of moving through rapidly without vehicles of any kind.

As for "isolated pockets", it is entirely voluntary to isolate one's own units and readily avoided. Infantry maneuvers in entire companies.

You mention first trying to kill enemy transport, without noticing how easy it generally is to do - not a sign that transport is important. Only assets robust in actual combat are worth anything in CM. And HTs are very brittle, while the hurt very little themselves. (Very late, the ones with large HE loads can help, and the MGs are OK against pure infantry - but a single real tank with functioning MGs readily outperforms the latter).

Infantry, on the other hand, performs a truly necessary combined arms role that tanks alone cannot perform. This includes scouting, holding areas of heavy terrain, finishing off broken units with very high short range FP, and general robustness through cover and rally, absorbing enemy firepower. HTs simply don't do any of this.

If you drop a platoon in front of a company, it doesn't help. If you already had a platoon there and double up with HT transported reinforcements, it helps only marginally - you still need first to win the firefight against that company with heavier weapons.

In addition, using the same infantry platoon on several enemy infantry formations in sequence is drastically limited by ammo. At most a platoon has two serious close engagements in it. You are better off having two platoons in the two places, than running one platoon from its first to its second. The HTs cost more than the platoon they are moving, and the move is hazardous if there are any enemy AT weapons left.

When you compare HTs to nothing, to having no extra manpower in place of them, or not alternate source of armor, then sure they are better than not having anything. But that is not the trade off test. They have to contribute themselves, or multiple the impact of the units they carry, by more than what could be bought in their place.

Repositioning safely and rapidly a few high firepower but low mobility guns or mortars can fit that bill. Just moving infantry from fighting at A to fighting at B basically never does. An infantry platoon at A, plus an infantry platoon at B, plus 2 guns interdicting the ground between A and B or helping to plaster either, cost the same and fight better.

I also deny that CM is primarily a game of maneuver. Some players may try to fight that way but it is purely optional. To me it is a game of firepower and attrition and combined arms - the allocation of units and ammo onto approriate enemies to trade less of yours for more of his until he is out and you aren't. And units that can't pull their weight in those terms are a waste in the decisive respect.

I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to give a sample force using many HTs for battlefield mobility. I will use the same points to construct a force I claim will outfight whatever you propose, using only an eyedropper's worth of light armor transporters for gun and heavy weapon repositioning, only.

So sample forces please, not just general principles.

[David Chapuis]

3000 pt ME QB June 43:

Pz Gren Battalion - 1475

Armored Pioneer Plat - 596

3 squads

3 FTs

1 AA HT

7 251/1 HTs (right at 300 points - 10% of total force)

Leaves 900 points to pick your flavor Armor/Art/Support.

Make contact with the majority of your troops. The 7 251/1 give you freedom to concentrate up two extra platoons to a given area in a hurry. What other units can give you that kind of maneuver flexibility for 300 points?

Trucks? No, their cross-country is too slow

Tanks? Not for 300 points. And it is too risky to tie them up doing transport in order to move troops, thereby not letting them perform their intended purpose of AT/ anti-inf duties

[JasonC]

Won't they actually be moving the guns and HMGs?

If the setting isn't combined arms, then take a single armored Pz Gdr platoon instead of the engineer one, and an extra platoon of StuGs.

If the setting is combined arms, so you've maxed armor, arty, and if you like support as well, then obviously you are forced to spend the points on the vehicle screen or take only more infantry. That is the second of the cases I covered, Germans maxed out on armor already. There the competition is one armored Pz Gdr platoon plus veteran quality for the whole battalion.

So are 3 extra MG only HTs and a couple FTs worth all vets vs. all regulars?

[David Chapuis]

yes, they will be moving guns/HMGs/Mortars. But they will also be moving inf sometimes too.

The regular vs. vet comparison is a good point. My maneuver units are always busy, and that is why I feel like I never have enough HTs. 3 HTs for a 3000 point ME isnt usually enough the way I play.

Anyway, I agree with 95% of what you have posted in this thread. But I do feel like purchasing HTs to move what I consider "reserve inf" can be worth the points.

[JasonC]

I agree the situation you give is the best time for them, and I might take 6 rather than 4 myself in such a situation. The reasons being to move the heavy weapons mostly, and also because the armor is already maxed out (assuming combined arms force type with mech division parent are the QB settings).

Here is a sample force and tasking I might use -

Armor - 2 Tigers, 3 StuGs.

Arty - 2nd 120mm mortar. Battalion comes with one of those and an 81mm FO.

Then I'd take 3 81mm mortars and spend the rest on schrecks - maybe one additional flakwagen if the opponent likes Sturmoviks.

The map in one of those is usually 2.4 km wide, much shorter on the axis of advance. That favors wing attack tactics. So a sample tasking might be -

Right 1200m, defend with 3rd company minus 1 Pz Gdr platoon, all 3 75mm PAK, 2 weapons sections each 2 HMG, one of them gets the 81mm FO. 3 MG SPWs go with these, to move the PAK initially. A company HQ leads the center one, and initially can take a squad from each of the regular infantry platoons, making 3 small 2 squad platoons. Their mission is to lead the heavy weapons into safe spots to set up. Then they hold between them and slightly forward. After the PAK are in position the SPWs can be withdrawn into overall reserve.

Far left 600m, 1st company and the 3 StuGs, plus half the engineers (their HQ, 2 squads, 2 FTs), and a single weapons section with 2 HMG, 1 81mm, and a 120mm FO. One MG SPW with them, initially moving the 81mm (HMGs, and if you want the FTs, can ride StuGs). Their mission is to attack clear to the back of the map then wheel right and proceed up its long axis.

Middle left 600m, the "pivot" of the attack, gets the 2nd company plus a 4th platoon, both Tigers, and 2 heavy weapons groups each 2 HMG, 1 81mm mortar, one of them with the second 120mm FO. Also the other half of the engineers, between the front platoons, lead by a company HQ. 2 MG SPWs move the mortars, HMGs ride the Tigers. AA SPW goes here too, with any additional Flak behind them.

These are initial deployed only 2 platoons wide with the Tigers, then a "second line" of Pz Gdrs behind those. Schrecks here too, as first priority for them. The mission to to advance half way across the map, facing both forward and half-right. The infantry depth here provides the overall reserve.

So there is plenty of work for 6 SPWs just moving heavy weapons. After the right side defensive screen is in place, those are freed up to help reposition HMGs or to lift a reserve infantry platoon or what have you.

If I only had 3 (armored Pz Gdr platoon instead of armored pioneer platoon), they'd have to lift the PAK initially and then move left to help the 81mms advance, after just overwatching initially. Or perhaps some of the PAK have decent LOS from set up locations. In return all the infantry would be vets.

Vets mean a lot of extra "rally power" throughout the battle. It is not clear to me an extra half ammo reserve platoon moved left to right late or what have you, is worth that. And this is about the best situation for the MG SPWs as just lifters, that I can think of. I might try either, both have uses. But I don't think I could strongly say the SPWs are always better, even in this best case.

Compare that to unit types that just rock when they have their best case - Tigers against enemies with mostly 76mm guns, Sturms against somebody without enough AA, StuGs, SMG companies in woods, pairs of sIGs with reverse slopes, etc. SPWs are not in that league. Best conditions might make them pay for themselves about as well as budget-limited alternatives. Less than best conditions, and they are overpriced and underpowered.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Vets mean a lot of extra "rally power" throughout the battle. It is not clear to me an extra half ammo reserve platoon moved left to right late or what have you, is worth that. And this is about the best situation for the MG SPWs as just lifters, that I can think of. I might try either, both have uses. But I don't think I could strongly say the SPWs are always better, even in this best case.

Compare that to unit types that just rock when they have their best case - Tigers against enemies with mostly 76mm guns, Sturms against somebody without enough AA, StuGs, SMG companies in woods, pairs of sIGs with reverse slopes, etc. SPWs are not in that league. Best conditions might make them pay for themselves about as well as budget-limited alternatives. Less than best conditions, and they are overpriced and underpowered.

Definitely agree with this. SPWs are definitely not a must have.

One other thing that reinforces not getting HTs, is that if you end up losing 300 points worth of them, it is like giving the opponent an extra large flag. I have a 3000 point ME going right now where I selected 8 SPWs. I will post some screen shots when the battle ends (probably a few more weeks).

[Cuirassier]

JasonC and David Chapuis,

Are you two actually going to play an ME against each other to validate your theories? I think the results would be very interesting to see.

[zmoney]

My two cents; I love HT’s. Now to be honest I don’t play QB’s. But I think all of this depends on your force composition. For example if all you have is HT’s vs T-34’s then obviously you wont have a chance. But for instance in a scenario called Maxdorf

Spoiler

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

David Chapuis and I played a few months ago I was Axis. I had at the beginning one crack King Tiger and a platoon of inf with HT support for that one platoon. He had like 1000 T-3485. I had to cross the inf about 1000m over damp ground to the town. The result was great, my inf made it to the town without a single loss. My King Tiger kept his tanks busy while I rushed my men to the cover of the town. There was no cover for my HT’s as they made their rush over the open ground, by the way they were in plain sight of his units. I think the only HT I lost on the way was one that bogged.

I’m not trying to dispute what JasonC says, because its true if you have 2500 points and you’re the Soviets then there’s plenty of great units to buy that will work instead of Ht. But don’t think they are worthless if you find yourself with them in a designed scenario.

[George MC]

If you are interested in playing a SPW heavy force try the Blowtorch Battalion series. These scenarios follow the combat actions of Peiper's SPW battalion through the fighting around and in Kharkov in the winter of 1943, to the Battle of Kursk, summer of 1943.

You can get em here http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Blowtorch/Blowtorch%20Series%20Main%20page.htm

[zmoney]

Originally posted by George Mc:

If you are interested in playing a SPW heavy force try the Blowtorch Battalion series. These scenarios follow the combat actions of Peiper's SPW battalion through the fighting around and in Kharkov in the winter of 1943, to the Battle of Kursk, summer of 1943.

You can get em here http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Blowtorch/Blowtorch%20Series%20Main%20page.htm

I've already played most of them. Great job. Unfortunately only against the AI. But still great scenario's and wonderfully put together maps.

[George MC]

Originally posted by zmoney:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George Mc:

If you are interested in playing a SPW heavy force try the Blowtorch Battalion series. These scenarios follow the combat actions of Peiper's SPW battalion through the fighting around and in Kharkov in the winter of 1943, to the Battle of Kursk, summer of 1943.

You can get em here http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Blowtorch/Blowtorch%20Series%20Main%20page.htm

I've already played most of them. Great job. Unfortunately only against the AI. But still great scenario's and wonderfully put together maps. </font>