Panzergrenadiers and SPWs'

[George MC]

Just found this reference in a book called Fighting Techniques of a Panzergrenadier by Dr Matthew Hughes and Dr Chris Mann. On page 27 they mention that –“It was only at the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 that large numbers of Sdkz 251s became widely available enough to equip full battalions of panzergrenadiers within panzer divisions. Now, the Germans could experiment fighting directly from their half tracks.” Before we all go off one the paragraph continues – “Due to the heavy losses suffered amongst the half tracks when accompanying the tanks into the heart of the battle, the Germans fairly quickly resorted to debussing at least 400m or so in front of the enemies positions, even when using the Sdkfz 251. Nonetheless, under certain tactical conditions, the halftrack could provide a useful firing position.

[Tom Murphy]

Haltracks can be very effective once AT assets have been cleared out in a combined arms attack. Of course it depends upon the terrain, but once your tanks stop taking AT Gun fire its a good indication you can send your Haltracks forward to use their machine guns on Infantry positions. Its not that hard to keep them out of range from Infantry small arms while the infantry remains within range of the haltracks guns. My biggest problem with them in CM is the Al can't figure out when to dismount the infantry. Either it keeps moving forward under fire until it gets hit and then the Infantry dismounts (whats left of it) or the halftracks pull back and the infantry stays mounted and out of the fight for the whole scenario.

[JasonC]

"once your tanks stop taking AT Gun fire its a good indication you can send your Haltracks forward"

Only against the AI. Humans are much cagier about showing their AT assets, holding something back, waiting for the right target picture before lengthening arcs or coming off hide. Besides such deliberate "slow playing" of their "trump", with humans the lighter AT assets may avoid revealing themselves to thick armor they can't hurt very much (ATRs, 50 cals, light FLAK, the smallest PAK if they don't get flank shots).

Yes you can bring out HTs to use their MGs after smashing part of the enemy AT net. But you have to be a lot more careful, assessing when you've done that, against humans. Just noticing that the fire taken by thicker AFVs has stopped is not remotely sufficient. And it is best to continue to use cover and keyholing, so you only have to be right about the enemy AT network being smashed over here, in this local area, instead of needing to be right about the whole map.

[Tom Murphy]

Jason, I don't think I said you can just mindlessly charge in.... I have no problems using a HT against the computer or human players. But then again a lot of people also can't believe you can take out a T-34 with a Panzer 38(t) either.

If you look at George's post above, I guess you would have problems with the German doctrine of dismounting at 400 meters. After all any AT gun can take out a HT at 400 meters.

As for the "cagey" human player. Notice I said combined arms. In the case of this "cagey" human player. If he was holding back an AT gun... Trading off a HT to find it and avoid losing a tank might be worth it. Just a thought.

Regards,

Tom

[ April 12, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Tom Murphy ]

[Tom Murphy]

Here is a link to a US Army intelligence bulletin from 1944 on German Flamethrower HT tactics people might find interesting. It also make reference to Halftracks using their machineguns against infantry at 400 meters.

http://www.lonesentry.com/flamethrower/index.html

[George MC]

Just caught the tail end of a documentary about the USMC involvement in the Battle for Baghdad (on Discovery). I'm not clued up on modern armour and stuff but you might get the picture - a battalion of marines are tasked with taking a bridge over the Euphretes then continueing on down a road flanked by a built up area.

The marines are carried in full tracked APCs. Along the way they are ambushed by Iraqi troops (not sure what type - Militia??)despite the firepower from the APCs the Milita started to take out the APCs with RPGs. They were successful to such an extent that the marine attack eventually stalled with each compnay pinned down at three sections on their attack route. Several aspects of this event struck me - first for the poor bloody grunts in the firing line the war experience has not changed from an infantrymans experiences in the Second World War - your mates are still maimed and blown apart right next to you whilst total chaos and noise rules supreme. second that it outlines some of the comments debated in earlier threads that armoured troop carriers are easy targets for a/t assets.

So it appears that the dilemma being debated is possibly still ongoing.

[flamingknives]

The USMC APC is fairly light as AFVs go. Bradleys and Warriors can take hits from basic RPGs without being KO'd.

[Panzerjaeger]

As my name suggests, I have an unnatural bond with armoured Infantry. Here´s how I use them.

1.) Flanking moves:

Halftracks are pretty useful in covering long distances with speed. They can be used to a great effect when flanking enemy, or even attacking them from rear. The main idea is to have a recon vechile preceeding them and scouting for an open gap or a lightly defended areas. HT´s are pretty useless used in small maps.

2.) Rapid support:

Keep you halftracks in reserve. When your infantry/tanks punch a hole into the enemy´s defences, immediately send the halftracks through the gap and expand it. This way you get reinforcements practically anywhere quickly.

3.) Support weapons:

Debark your Panzergrenadiers near the enemy lines, but out of LOS. Then assault with the infantry normally. When your infantry gets shot at by enemy troops, bring the halftracks behind your infantry just so they can let loose with their MG´s at enemy positions and therefore pin the defenders down. If an enemy AT gun fires, take it out with your infantry or with the concentrated fire from all the HT´s. No gun or squad will stay in MG fire from 4 HT´s.

Halftracks are vulnerable to HMG fire, AT weapons, grenades and tanks. Use their mobility to avoid these. Use them as very mobile MG´s with armour against small arms, with the infantry carrying ability. Never keep the infantry inside, should you face things that can hurt HT´s.

-Panzerjaeger-

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzerjaeger:

As my name suggests, I have an unnatural bond with armoured Infantry.

-Panzerjaeger-

Actually, your name suggests an anti-tank unit. Panzerabwehr (Tank defence) units were renamed Panzerjäger (Tank hunter) units about midway through the war. The term was officially applied to formed anti-tank units at regimental or divisional level and equipped either with towed anti-tank guns (PaK) or self-propelled weapons such as the Marder II. The term has nothing to do with armoured infantry, as even regular infantry regiments and divisions had Panzerjäger units under command.

[Panzerjaeger]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzerjaeger:

As my name suggests, I have an unnatural bond with armoured Infantry.

-Panzerjaeger-

Actually, your name suggests an anti-tank unit. Panzerabwehr (Tank defence) units were renamed Panzerjäger (Tank hunter) units about midway through the war. The term was officially applied to formed anti-tank units at regimental or divisional level and equipped either with towed anti-tank guns (PaK) or self-propelled weapons such as the Marder II. The term has nothing to do with armoured infantry, as even regular infantry regiments and divisions had Panzerjäger units under command. </font>

[Sergei]

I would have to take my brain out of the freezer to think about it properly, but weren't the AT battalions of the Panssaridivisioona known as Panssarijääkäripataljoona and a man in those units as "panssarijääkäri"? In modern Panssariprikaati privates are titled as "panssarijääkäri" to distinguish from others (nowadays every soldier is a "jääkäri" by name), but I think in WW2 the men of the 1. Jääkäriprikaati (the one subordinate to Lagus' Panssaridivisioona) were just plain "jääkäri".

At any rate, WW2 Finnish jägers didn't move in SPW's, they used bicycles, their feet, skis or if they were lucky, trucks. Finland didn't have any APC's except some Russian gun tractors (Komsomolets etc.) which the panssarijääkäri's actually did use.

So yes, it is complicated! But again, my brain's in the freezer at the moment...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzerjaeger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzerjaeger:

As my name suggests, I have an unnatural bond with armoured Infantry.

-Panzerjaeger-

Actually, your name suggests an anti-tank unit. Panzerabwehr (Tank defence) units were renamed Panzerjäger (Tank hunter) units about midway through the war. The term was officially applied to formed anti-tank units at regimental or divisional level and equipped either with towed anti-tank guns (PaK) or self-propelled weapons such as the Marder II. The term has nothing to do with armoured infantry, as even regular infantry regiments and divisions had Panzerjäger units under command. </font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Do you have any idea how many Finnish Army groupie chicks post here? You shouldn't limit yourself like that!

No, how many? Depending on their numbers I may just change my screen name to something containing a whole lot of letters using umlauts in sequence to see if I have any luck.

Regards

Jim R.

P.S. Does the Finnish language work something like the more letters with umlauts in your name the more virile you're supposed to be?

[Sgt AA]

At least some american/english rockgroup seams to belive that (Motörhead, Mötley Crew)

regards/

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

P.S. Does the Finnish language work something like the more letters with umlauts in your name the more virile you're supposed to be?

What makes you think so?

Sërgëï

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Just a hunch.

Regards

Jim R.

[Panzerjaeger]

Well, my name comes from my profession as a soldier. It has nothing to do with WW2. Now that is cleared out shall we get back to Armoured Infantry tactics?

[mrpwase]

Yes.

Since I don't have much experience playing against other humans (yet - I only got the game last Thursday), I can't really explain that side of using SPWs...but since most units have a different role (especially armour), it seems to be that HTs are simply for use against positions where you are sure there is no AT capability beyond grenades - and even then, the infantry trying to knock out the HT will be machine-gunned anyway. So if all the enemy's tanks and AT weaponry are concentrated elsewhere, use your HTs. Elsewhere, don't. Simple.

[Snorri]

imo, i think one HT/SPW platoon is capable to do the same job like two platoon of *normal* infantrie. the men go, the HT give cover (but fast, get-all-corners-n-ancle-support!)

[ May 21, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Snorri ]