Pz Gdrs not SPW hotrodders - US MTO experience

[JasonC]

In the tips forum, a conversation has been underway about uses of halftracks for mounted assaults, or lack thereof. The question arose whether they were actually used for this, offensively, in the real deal. It was acknowledged that conditions had to be favorable, and then the question was, when were they, actually?

I decided to answer this question for German offensive actions against US forces (and battles with US forces engaged, even if some of the fighters were Brits) in the MTO. This is a small enough set, as they were normally on the defensive. I used "army at dawn" and the US center for military history narratives. The result gives a picture of German offensive actions against US forces in the MTO that does not involve razzle dazzle in SPWs. Here are the details.

Kasserine -

Initial columns led by tanks but include halftracks and trucks. All the firing from them is from tanks and at range. The columns are avoiding enemy areas and simply passing between them.

A column heads up a hill led by motorcyclists. A few are shot, the rest retreat. They come back in half an hour, all on foot.

A column passing a hill is halted by fire from the hill. Tank, artillery, and mortar fire reply. (Dismounting and firing back with ranged heavy weapons). No infantry attack mentioned, no vehicle assault either.

A US counterattack is met by artillery fire, direct gun fire, and tanks. No mention of German HTs.

Germans attack 2 US battalions on hills. It is infantry on foot backed by tanks, as well as guns beyond small arms range. No mention of HTs.

Trucks, not HTs, bring infantry out to run down stragglers. The infantry dismounts to fight. Tanks drive behind the stragglers to herd them toward the infantry. No HTs mentioned.

A tank fight, stopped by close range tank fire. An hour later it returns from a flank. No HTs mentioned.

Recce battalion probes, encounters 75mm fire, immediately retreats. Artillery fire follows.

35-40 trucks bring up infantry. Not HTs. They are described continuing on foot, infiltrating along high ground, surrounding small outposts. Tanks work up the low ground after each position is flanked by the foot infantry higher up. No HTs mentioned.

25 tanks and trucked infantry checked by arty fire. Tanks and leg infantry approach to 600 yards out. Artillery breaks up the attack and they withdraw. Renewed attempt on a flank with 40 tanks and 2 battalions on foot fails.

A British tank rear guard is shot up by German tanks. No mention of infantry vehicles. The German column had them, 35 of them, but tanks led.

40 tanks and trucked infantry attack a strong hill position backed by 50 guns. Some Italians on foot are also mentioned. Infantry dismounts to fight, attack broken by arty, plus tanks and ATGs when the German tanks try to close. It is possible some of the "panzers" mentioned are really HTs, but there is no explicit reference to them, certainly not to getting close.

A night flanking movement takes out a few batteries and seizes a hill. A tank probe to exploit this fails. Arty then blasts everything - tanks, trucks, guns, men on foot.

The column with 35 HTs attacks Brits with numerous Valentines - the infantry are on foot, not mounted. Later a mounted ruse succeeds, but it is infantry riding tanks led by a lone captured Valentine.

Mounted halftrack assaults within tactical range? Zero.

El Guettar -

tanks in rectangular formation, followed by infantry in trucks, who dismount behind the tanks then go forward on foot. The tanks make smoke. Tanks, TDs, and arty eventually halt the attack, after the first few positions fall to tank infantry teams. Many tanks KOed.

Second try, the tanks hang back, the infantry leads - on foot. Artillery breaks them before they can get close. They rally in defilade. Arty finds the range and hits the reverse slope, breaking what is left of the attack. "Our artillery crucified them."

No mention of HTs, no mounted attack.

Salerno -

Initial tank counterattack at the beaches by multiple company sized formations of Pz IVs. Little infantry support for them is mentioned, beyond the continued low level sniper and MG fire from units already in the area. The attack was stopped by sundry weapons - a few 105s, a few cavalry vehicles, a few ATGs, zooks, etc. No mounted infantry recorded on the German side.

The later full scale counteroffensive has a higher level passage describing this use of HTs in support of tank-infantry attacks -

"The tactics employed by the enemy on these 3 days made full use of his advantage in position and in mobility. Tanks, followed by infantry carried in half-tracks, concentrated quickly at exposed parts of our line and made quick stabs. Whenever the positions reached did not offer opportunity for further exploitation, the enemy withdrew to original concentration areas, ready to strike in a few hours in another direction. If the position were important for future plans, the enemy immediately fortified it with a small group of infantry, strong in machine guns and mortars, and held it against all odds, even when bypassed by our counterthrusts".

That seems to describe a role for HTs in getting infantry to an objective taken by tanks, right along with them, then held by the dismounts. But it is not a detailed combat narrative, it is a summary. It may include elements of "doctrinal imagination" by the author or the participants, therefore. The tactical narratives make no mention of HTs supporting the actual attacks.

The first description of Panzergrenadier formation attacks is a night infiltration by dismounted infantry.

The next attack is delivered by tanks, trying to surround a defending foot-troop position while it is shelled by artillery. No infantry involved.

The next attack is by 8 tanks and 2 battalions of infantry. It is stopped by artillery and naval gunfire. There is no mention of mounts for the infantry.

Next is defensive and counterattacking hill fighting by (PzGdr) infantry with occasional arty or mortar support. No vehicles.

Next a two pronged attack with a feint by 6 tanks (see below), and a main body of 15 tanks followed by a Pz Gdr battalion in trucks. They dismount behind the tanks and come forward on foot to attack. Later one prong has 6 armored cars - probably the feint mentioned above - supported by 2 Pz IVs. These close to 150 yards (down a draw) before being spotted and caused a bit of a panic. Tank infantry teams surround a battalion and cut it up. A reserve line is formed on an artillery battalion and its direct fire stops the attack.

The US then pull back across an open plain, to let the Germans hit air and to force them to cross an open field of fire exposed through a wide arc. A leading half company of 8 German tanks are wiped out, infantry continues anyway, then retreats under arty fire. Individual tanks probe - obviously trying to find the new line. Numerous probes follow by half-companies of tanks, with infantry accompanying them in company to battalion strength. Gun line, tank, and TD fire wrecks the tanks. Arty and naval gunfire stops the infantry. A few tanks press farther forward only to be lost. No mounted infantry mentioned. The only non-tank kill claimed was one ammo carrier.

Anzio -

February, a KG cuts off a salient created by a previous Allied advance. Tank infantry teams. The largest group of armor mentioned is 6 tanks - but the armor includes Panthers. Small numbers of assault guns are mentioned working with infantry, which is one foot (a panzergrenadier regiment plus an infantry regiment and 2 pioneers companies are involved). The initial attack follows arty-supported feints elsewhere and is delivered at night. After it seizes ground that cuts off the salient, ATGs are brought up and, along with the armor, they defend against armor counterattack. The Brits involved cut their way out but abandon the position as untenable.

Next a night raid consisting of arty fire, then tank direct fire close, and attack by a single battalion on foot, hits a thin section of the line. The attackers do not press, pulling back after inflicting damage. Only tanks mentioned as participating vehicles.

Another night raid consisted of 800 rounds of arty fired at one battalion, followed up immediately by a single infantry company, at midnight. They withdraw within an hour. No vehicles at all.

Those were warmups. The next involves heavy arty, and night infiltration again. The description of how and why it worked is telling - poor fire discipline among the defenders defeated them -

"Small groups armed with machine pistols and light machine guns would infiltrate behind the forward British units, cut communications, and organize small pockets of resistance deep within the lines. After the defending troops had exhausted their ammunition firing on an enemy who appeared to be striking from all directions, the main enemy force would overrun the position."

Not exactly a razzle dazzle with SPWs is it? Small groups of tanks supported the "overrun" part, and helped defend the gains. The Brits counterattack (with a company of tanks and a platoon of TDs, to 2 infantry battalions) and take heavy losses recovering half the ground.

A German tank-infantry attack later achieves some tactical success, collapsing a few of the buildings Brit defenders were using with direct HE. Nothing major happens.

Next night, more infiltration, weakening parts of the front. At dawn, small groups of tanks push into the resulting "soft tissue" and link up with the Pz Gdrs. As soon as an area is cleared, ATGs are brought up and MGs dig in. It is a ratchet, and tanks aren't doing the pushing. Night is, stealth is. Tanks shove through the thin stuff. ATGs and MGs make it expensive to get back.

The allied response is massive HE escalation, logistics against tactics. Naval gunfire, hundreds of level bombers, corps scale artillery shoots - the area the Germans have set up the ratchet is turned into a moonscape. The Germans give up trying to take more, and retire to their dugouts and cellars, and wait for replacements.

The Allies counterattack. Dug in ATGs and superior tanks decimate their armor. But massive HE on the main objective silences the guns and forces the tanks out. Infantry swarms it, only to be ejected again by German infantry that was still there, just down in the cellars. This repeats before the Allies are exhausted and call it off. They leave the Germans the ground taken, and just bomb the hell out of it.

A week or two later the Germans try again on a much wider front with a massive infantry attack, in daytime this time, behind an arty barrage. On key sectors, heavy tanks (Tigers and Panthers) in platoon strength lead thrusts down roads, rapidly empty their ammo loads into Allied infantry positions, and go back for more. Infantry follow through each position after it gets its plastering. As I need hardly even say by now - on foot.

Allied artillery took a heavy toll, however. Massed shoots up to 144 guns on single locations, shoots heavy enough even some tanks are knocked out. Other tanks "exchange off" defending TDs and ATGs. MG fire plans and registered "final protective fire" arty stops most of the German infantry.

There is brief mention of the recce battalion of PD HG used as a second wave in one of these attacks. It is stopped mostly by artillery, losing 5 of their supporting tanks. "And *a* halftrack". Singular. Command vehicle or ammo, most likely.

The next day, 60 tanks in small groups support 6 battalions of infantry, hitting the same units, after a dawn air strike. They exploit seams cut into those units all the previous night. More air at mid-morning, but nothing compared to what arrives for the Allies by the afternoon, as they yank the chain for everything they can get. 288 heavy bombers, 240 medium and light bombers, 200 fighter bombers, 450 guns, and 2 cruisers, plaster the attackers. Initial aim points were only a few hundred yards beyond the front line.

Are the Germans sensible enough to stop in the face of that? If they weren't dumb stubborn, there wouldn't have been a war. They escalate, throwing in a total of 14 battalions by nightfall. These are cycling through the moonscape, one added as another withdraws shattered. Tanks can no longer maneuver off road - the fields are plowed to muck by the rain of HE. Allied tanks trying to counterattack along the roads can't get anywhere because the German heavies outclass them, and being road bound makes it impossible to flank or use odds. Night infantry counterattacks meet alert German defenders with arty support, dug in MGs, and flares, and fail completely.

Tactics against logistics. Nothing to do with razzle dazzle in SPWs.

Not only that, recon or light vehicles (motorcycles and scout cars e.g.) are very rare in the entire narrative history. Occasionally they lead but retire as soon as opposition is encountered. One occasion of 6 armored cars exploiting a probe down a draw at Salerno, is the only aggressive use of light armor leading I found - with 2 Pz IVs backing them up. And it was a probe that happened to find an undefended seam, not Pickett's charge in a thin tin can.

I hope this is interesting.

[ February 23, 2004, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Franko]

I read this passage with great interest..a worthy piece of scholarship. Thanks!

In a nutshell, using halftracks is "gamey."

Frank

[Soddball]

Yes, but in Real Life, tanks provide cover for infantry. In CM, they don't. I think I'll stick with "gamey" until my infantry can cower behind advancing tanks.

[Kapitein KAB]

is this true? that's too bad

why isn't this modeled in CM? I am a new player, so have not tried it yet,but inf should be able to follow tanks. Maybe the dev's could use a special command for it, "follow" command or something. Maybe you could model with such a command that the tank driver knows, that there is inf. behind him.

[30ot6]

What were halftracks good for then?

[Ant]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Yes, but in Real Life, tanks provide cover for infantry. In CM, they don't. I think I'll stick with "gamey" until my infantry can cower behind advancing tanks.

I remember reading somewhere that infantry advancing behind tanks..using them for cover..is a bit of a hollywood myth.

It may seem sensible initially but it's not a great idea in reality. Infantry bunched up behind tanks can make a better target than infantry spread out. Tanks also tend to attract a lot of fire, all of which will be lethal to infantry. In fact I remember reading a historical military document that specifically told infantry not to do this (it was ETO though)

This was discussed on these forums..either the CMBB or CMBO ones.

[JasonC]

Is it too much to ask people to read any of it and get the point? Cover is not the problem. Crossing open ground is not the problem. Getting infantry someplace when the enemy has rifles and MGs is not the problem.

Infantry attacks by using stealth. It defends by using cover. It is better at both than a big honking target with thin armor.

Tanks are worth being a large target because they kill things within sight of themselves, and not much can hurt them. Especially, arty finds it hard to hurt them. (Not impossible, but it takes larger amounts of it).

When infantry that knows what it is doing is stopped, it is first and foremost by artillery. Which forces it into a defensive posture.

Infantry that doesn't know what it is doing is stopped by anything. Nothing helps. But if you are rich enough in supply terms, you can always toss so much heavy stuff at the other guy that he will eventually run out of manpower.

[JasonC]

What are HTs good for? They are glorified trucks. Glorified, because units riding in them have some protection against indirect, scarcely aimed arty shrapnel during long approaches, and better off road ability than most trucks. That is all. If you want to attack, get out and sneak.

[Ant]

That is all. If you want to attack, get out and sneak.

The problem I have, and it may be one more of perception than reality, is that I get the impression that an average CM scenario doesn't give me enough time for the luxury of sneaking about everywhere. Infantry sneaking goes nowhere fast. I often look at the turn counter and think 'god, I've got to hurry this up'

Maybe that's why some people like the idea of HTs getting infantry to places quickly.

[dieseltaylor]

When I play 3000 pters on huge maps halftracks actually are of use simply to make use of the open flanks, thinner lines that exist. Sometimes the map is not very friendly having side to side views but light armour and scouting actually works when the terrain is "normal"

[JasonC]

People like fast cars, and think moving fast makes them powerful. People are thinking in terms of modern doctrine, and think it was already there in WW II and that the Germans invented it. People think anybody in his shirt sleeves is as good as dead on any battlefield with rifles on it, let alone MGs or artillery. "Panzerblitz" in phased wargames - not just that title but a concept it spawned - treats an unused movement point as a tactical crime, and thinks combat power equals firepower times velocity. None of these things is remotely true.

As for infantry in CM, it can attack, even across open steppe. I've shown how in clear examples, if anybody is having trouble noticing it for themselves. Real conditions to use infantry are better than that. Try night, with high ground, rough everywhere, or buildings, or woods. Do scenario designers also encourage players to rush, with 20 minute time limits? Sure. It takes 15 minutes to develop an attack (meaning set things up to really deliver it), which is plenty fast in any real terms. You won't learn that playing "race to the flags" in a QB ME.

In addition, though, wars are much longer scale things than CM firefights. Armies of millions were within a km of each other, often within half that or less, for years on end. Without all dying. People maneuvered each other out of position more. They crept to important spots. People tried this or that but often gave it up and got out of the way. Infantry action is not a bayonet charge. It is a "passive aggressive" sort of thing. Meaning, creep up and grab terrain annoyingly near an enemy, and settle down to stay. Shooting anyone who gets careless within sight of the new position you reached. And daring them to come evict you themselves.

[JasonC]

To Ant - when I say "sneak", I don't mean that literal order. Though much more use of it was made in the real deal than in a typical CM scenario, that is for sure. No, I mean use all available cover, use dead ground, use short advance and hide orders, have only some units move at a time.

I also mean things like - smash the enemy's eyes in some area to facilitate an intrusion. Don't try to run him off his feet in one go, worm in there and set up 360 degree shop in the middle of the left side of his position. If he wants to firefight because he is all set up for it, skulk out the back of the building, drop behind the crest, fade back from the treeline.

Stealth and cover. Not "Banzai", with or without pickup trucks. CM players use light armor like Iraqis tried to use SUVs in Iraq II. It does not remotely work in real life.

[Nidan1]

This discussion reminds me of one we had in previous threads (can't find them now), where the terms "Armored Fighting Vehicle" and "Halftrack" or "Armored Car" were used interchangably.

From what JasonC has been kind enough to dig up for us, we can see that in WWII MTO at least, most battles took place with dismounted infantry, tanks and artillery, with liberal doses of "piling on" to exploit perceived weak points.

Not a lot of finesse discribed here, brute force seems to be the rule.

Trucks and HTs bring the infantry somewhere near the battlefield, they walk the rest of the way, and the trucks and HTs wait in a safe place to bring the remaining troops back to the rear if needed, or advance to the new line if the enemy retreats. In CM the scale of the battles dictate that the "soft" vehicles are closer to the actual battle than they normally would be in real life, this is my opinion of course. Folks are then tempted to use them in assault roles, and they are usually disapointed with the result.

The true "Armored Fighting Vehicle" one defined to mean a vehicle that could survive on the battlefield, and allow infantry to fight from it without dismounting right away, didnt come along until the Bradley and related vehicles.

As JasonC has pointed out and demonstrated in his fine tutorials, infantry can survive and fight effectively in CM battles, if players are willing to perform some of the "micro-management" order giving that is required.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ant:

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

Yes, but in Real Life, tanks provide cover for infantry. In CM, they don't. I think I'll stick with "gamey" until my infantry can cower behind advancing tanks.

I remember reading somewhere that infantry advancing behind tanks..using them for cover..is a bit of a hollywood myth.

It may seem sensible initially but it's not a great idea in reality. Infantry bunched up behind tanks can make a better target than infantry spread out. Tanks also tend to attract a lot of fire, all of which will be lethal to infantry. In fact I remember reading a historical military document that specifically told infantry not to do this (it was ETO though)

This was discussed on these forums..either the CMBB or CMBO ones. </font>

[Sirocco]

As I mentioned in the other thread, the last place I'd like to be in the final stages of an assault is in the back of an open topped, thin skinned halftrack.

If you take Op WANDA at Korsun as an example, halftracks would have played a valuable role on roads that were practically impassable for lorried infantry.

The role of the halftrack was to accompany infantry using a measure of the cross-country mobility that tanks had. The armour was a secondary consideration after their tracks.

[Michael Dorosh]

One can look at Wilkowischken also; the GD launched a counterattack there in autumn 1944; they rode their SPWs (even GD the resource hog never had a full complement of them and had probably less than 20% of their authorized numbers of SPWs) through the opening phases (thick fog let them get away with this, though once it burned off they were exposed to Sturmoviks) but dismounted to fight (especially once they reached the town itself).

I hope somedays someone intimately connected with the German archives may show up here and be able to post some good AARs, translated into English, I am sure there is a wealth of nuts and bolts info out there that we simply don't have access to yet.

[MikeyD]

So it sounds like German practice mirrored Allied practice with half-tracks pretty much. Can VERY occasisonally be used aggressively (foolishly) in the right circumstances, and serves as a convenient base for suppressive support mg fire, but is not quite safe for passengers when within shooting distance.

Interestingly, this is pretty much where the modern ACV is heading too. The Bradley's gun ports were blanked off long ago and whenever you see film of them in combat the accompanying troops are most often spread out walking in the ditches on either side rather than shoe-horned into the thing.

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Infantry attacks by using stealth. It defends by using cover. It is better at both than a big honking target with thin armor.

Wooohoo! Me wants a mod that makes HTs honk when someone gets in their way!

[Hans]

What was the Israeli experience with HT's they used them longer than anyone else?

[fridericus]

their is a mistake in understanding. the allied used the haltracks only as battlefield-taxi, in this wrong way they built the m113. but the halftracks dont have only to transport the infantry, but also they have to support the infantry with fire and additional ammo. the haltracks of the wwii were well suitted for attack, but never for defense because of their lack of armor and weapons.

in an attack the haltracks drove with high speed in the enemy with all men firing from the car, when reaching the enemy positions, the men jumped off and the bloody melee started. the haltracks didnt have a top-armor, so in the late war too many of them were shelled by arty.

after the wwii the israelis mounted enough MGs on the little m113 and used them like the germans, as their whole army works. there are only little differences in the system of discipline.

in cmak and cmbb at least 1/3rd of my inf is mounted on halftracks. attacking with infantry on food in cmbb/ak is nearly impossible; only 1 MG delays an attack of a whole enmy infantry-company. so you stronly need haltracks to transport infantry protected of enemy small arms- and mg-fire.

in this way you can speed your infantry in a qb meeting eng. down to the flags/important positions, and hold them easy. when your enemy has to attack in a meeting eng. because you were faster to the flags, then he has the problemn of attacking with the same point value as the defender.

[MikeyD]

Israeli experience? They probably used old HTs so long because HTs were available. Beggars can't be choosers. HTS provided useable cargo space, a bit of armor, and a degree of off-road mobility. Good enough for supressing irate farmers.

Over time we see Israeli troop transport get progressively heavier in response to the evolving threat, up to the super-ICVs on tank chassis, which is as far from the lowly International Harvester HT as you can get.

[fridericus]

to the worth of haltracks:

i remember a hugh cmak-battle last week, in which on each side at least 50 tanks participated. the the match was reported, that 2 sdkfz251/1 killed 38 resp. 54 enemy inf!

[Michael Dorosh]

How much bonafide ground combat did the Israeli Army see from 1948 to, say, 1982? I am familiar with the Arab-Israeli wars, but did they not tend to be rather short in duration? Is there reason to believe that these short wars (widely spread out, to boot) form a better basis for doctrine than 4 continuous years of combat in Russia, Africa, Italy and the west?

[Andreas]

Would that not depend on the kind of war you want to fight?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by fridericus:

in an attack the haltracks drove with high speed in the enemy with all men firing from the car, when reaching the enemy positions, the men jumped off and the bloody melee started.

I hope you have some references to support that?

In all the reading that I've done, I can't recall a single incidence of halftracks being driven directly into the enemy MLR with the infantry dismounting to continue combat on foot.

I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but if it did I would expect it to be in exceptional circumstances. I don't believe that it was standard practise.

And there's an important point to make about your example above. Infantry in halftracks travelling at speed would simply not be capable of aimed fire. Even a mounted MG must have been of little use.