The point of half-tracks ?

[Kobal2]

I've been wondering about this for a while, and though I searched for it, I could only find data about how HTs were made, and never why.

Now, I thought about it, and can only find defects : a wheeled vehicule goes faster, but then, a HT will only go as fast as it's tracks go - the wheels won't drag the tracks .

The wheels turn faster, but then again, the tracks won't.

The tracks go fine on difficult terrain, but the wheels don't.

Can someone explain to me what the point of HTs is/was ? Whatever angle I choose to look upon them, they seem like the worst of both worlds... But maybe it's just an economic thing ? Cheaper to build a HT than to build a fully tracked APC ? That hardly seems logical to me...

[JonS]

cheaper than fully tracked, and allow inf to keep up with the tanks. They are just transport, not fighting vehicles.

[Pacestick]

They have the wheels so they can use a conventional steering system. Much simpler, easier to maintain and cheaper than a fully tracked steering set-up.

[junk2drive]

in night battles i lead with them. the resulting fires light the path for my survivors.

[Holman]

I've always wondered about the tracked APCs that can only tote half a squad: the German 250/1 series and the British universal carriers come to mind. Were these really economical enough to justify their existence? Why (especially) did the Germans go from the 251 to the 250 which (in CM at least) carries half as many men?

Was it a matter of ease of production somehow? If so, don't you still have to produce twice as many?

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

in night battles i lead with them. the resulting fires light the path for my survivors.

I like that. Sound tactics.

[JasonC]

Off road ability of a half track is much, much better than wheels. Wheels are only faster on hard surfaced roads. Wheels have awful floatation characteristics in mud, particularly if the vehicle weight is anything but tiny. As soon as you leave a hard road, a halftrack is much less likely to bog and will get there sooner, as well.

[JasonC]

Why (especially) did the Germans go from the 251 to the 250 which (in CM at least) carries half as many men?

They didn't "go from" one to the other. They made the smaller ones in addition to the larger.

For many purposes, you don't care about how many men fit in the back. HTs were used to carry commanders, to scout, to spot and use their radios, to get an MG to a particular location. None of these need a large cargo capacity.

Why go small instead of having extra unused space in the back? A dozen reasons. Uses less material to make. Smaller target. Uses less gas. Weighs less, so more bridges and softer ground are navigable, and it tears up a road less. If you need the capacity obviously you want it, but if you don't you'd much rather have a small vehicle than a large one.

Same reasons the US used jeeps in addition to 2 1/2 ton trucks, basically...

[Blazing 88's]

Posted by junk2drive:

"in night battles i lead with them. the resulting fires light the path for my survivors."

LoL

[Redwolf]

A half-track doesn't have to implement a steeing system for the tracked part, you just steer with the wheels and the tracks are passive, unsteered.

That is a lot easier and cheaper to produce, and you can reuse steering and front axle parts from trucks.

It also makes the vehicle a lot easier to drive. A halftrack has just a normal steering wheel. The first tracked vehicle to get that was IIRC the Tiger 1 but even then there's a lot more to know and to do when driving the tracked vehicle.

[Lord Harmes]

I find halftracks pretty useful in-game. I tend to use them to take a platoon of men to a good defensive postition, then as sort of mobile machine gun posts... of course they don't always last too long...

In fact I'm using them to great effect in a PBEM game at the moment... managed to ferry two platoons of SS onto an objective, using just three half tracks and a kubelwagon! Not sure I would ever buy more transport than that though...

[flamingknives]

The Universal carriers were most often used to carry weapons such as mortars, ATGs and machine guns, but also saw use as Recce vehicles. Their small size means that they are easier to hide once they've dropped off their weapons, are more maneuverable in close country and harder to spot when used for recce.

That said, the British also fielded a Loyd carrier (not in CM), most often used to tow battalion ATGs, but was originally designed as a troop carrier capable of transporting a full section.

[Sergei]

I normally use smaller APC's to bring more ammunition to the frontline... oh wait, that doesn't work! sigh...

Hey Flamingknives, did you get my message concerning "All in a Day's Work"?

[Kobal2]

OK, I see. I thought that half-track steering was done mainly with the track system.

As to their usage, I used them in a very satisfactory manner in one of my last battles, which featured an american Rangers company defending a small town against a reinforced SS company. I had trouble crossing the large areas of open ground separating the first houses from the last cover - not enough firepower to suppress them efficiently, and low inf ammo anyway (big problem with german infantry), and as to support I only had one Tiger left, my two StuG having been offed by TDs.

What I did was drop a thick cloud of arty smoke while the Tiger, the HTs and two platoons of inf peppered the buildings that housed ennemy inf, then raced the APCs to the town, behind the first line of defense - dropped a platoon of fresh infantry right next to the main flag, which close-assaulted an HMG nest and a platoon HQ, then the APCs doubled back 60m from the first line of buildings. The resulting suppression was far more efficient since it came from both sides, and it allowed the rest of my inf to reach the town almost unharmed a couple of turns later. My first frank success in using APCs, I might add (I must admit to having used them for recce-by-explosion before)

[Dandelion]

Why (especially) did the Germans go from the 251 to the 250 which (in CM at least) carries half as many men?

The 250 and 251 families had quite different specs when ordered in 39/40, and they were not ordered simultaneously. Its was only because the producer meeting these demands - the Hanoveranian Hanomag - got both contracts, that the 250 and 251 came to be so similar.

251 was meeting a demand for a "battlefield bus" specifically capable of carrying the infantry squad all the way to jump-off point for battle, with some protection from artillery and small-arm intervention.

250 was ordered by the armoured reconnaissance troops, asking for a vehicle capable of carrying the recon teams (halfsquads), providing light protection from shrapnel and small-arms. It was primarily intended for transport in exposed sectors, e.g. busing OPs back and forth etc. (The "recce-down-the-road" standard task of Amd Recce was intended to be carried out by ACs).

The 250 was very often replaced by Kübelwagen or Schwimmwagen, sort of proving Jasons point.

Appearances create an impression of sameness not entirely justified. 250 was considerably lighter, weighing slightly more than half as much as 251, and it was considerably faster, with better ground clearance. It had better fording capabilities and more favourable ground pressure ratings. It also consumed less fuel. All of it at the same armour level as the 251, and equivalent stowing capacity as well.

Neither vehicle was intended for combat facing direct heavy fire. The option of fighting from the troop compartment was however noted and troops were trained to do so, though intended only for situations such as speeding out of ambushes, forcing token resistance and the like.

And then of course there were artillery tractors, some of which had made room for the crew (only) aboard.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Hey Flamingknives, did you get my message concerning "All in a Day's Work"?

No, to which account did you send it?

[MadGav]

I talked to a reenactor about the OT-610 (ersatz 251) last summer. He said a halftrack is much easier to steer in a straight line than a full tracked vehicle because you naturally trim the wheels. With a full track, especially with a primitive gearbox you'll always be tweaking it a bit this way a bit that way.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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

Hey Flamingknives, did you get my message concerning "All in a Day's Work"?

No, to which account did you send it? </font>

[flamingknives]

I think that's happened before, for some reason. I'll send it directly.

[Sergei]

Swell, got it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

A half-track doesn't have to implement a steeing system for the tracked part, you just steer with the wheels and the tracks are passive, unsteered.

That is a lot easier and cheaper to produce, and you can reuse steering and front axle parts from trucks.

It also makes the vehicle a lot easier to drive. A halftrack has just a normal steering wheel. The first tracked vehicle to get that was IIRC the Tiger 1 but even then there's a lot more to know and to do when driving the tracked vehicle.

Ford Maultier, anyone? I know a fellow about 15 years ago who did literally that - took a Ford truck and mated it with his universal carrier tracks. No different than what the Germans did for real.

[Emar]

The original halftrack was a modification made for the Czar of Russia to one of his cars. This was done by replacing the cars back wheels with a track and bogie assembly in order to allow travel in Russia's extreme winter conditions. The modifications were performed by a fellow named Kegresse, a French engineer who managed the Czar's personal fleet of automobiles.

Interestingly the French, British and Americans all had Citreon-Kegresse halftracks in their inventory during the 20's and into the 30's but failed to exploit their military potential, with the British dropping the halftrack completely by the 30's.

Also, as previously mentioned in the above posts many halftracks used a simple wheeled steering system. This however was not the case for the the Sdkfz 251 and 250 family of halftracks as well as the heavier gun tractors used by Germany. They instead used a much more complicated "cletrac" controlled differential transmission attached to individual drum steering brakes on the drive shaft. These slowed the tracks to variable speeds on which ever side of the vehicle the steering wheel was rotated towards in order to turn the vehicle in conjunction with the front tires.

[ June 11, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

[sand digger]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I normally use smaller APC's to bring more ammunition to the frontline... oh wait, that doesn't work! sigh...

..................

The universal carrier in real life was often used for that purpose, as you probaly know. It was also used for assault purposes, which some don't believe I think.

[Hans]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I normally use smaller APC's to bring more ammunition to the frontline... oh wait, that doesn't work! sigh...

Hey Flamingknives, did you get my message concerning "All in a Day's Work"?

What? Another scenario called that? LOL I have a scenario in production also called that....oops

[Hans]

Note onf HT

I once worked with some Israeli officers who had amixed bag of response about the HTs used by the Israelis (this was 1983).

I seem to recall

1. They were good transportation, as discards they were cheap and the engines easy to maintain as they were very similar to a civilian truck engine.

2. They provided limited shell and MG protection.

3. Were deemed good for traveling over the rocky desert.

4. The troops in side could bail out fast or stand up and return fire

5. They were easy to ID on the battlefield - and less likely to be hit by target hungry Israeli tankers although they had problems with the BTR 152s.

6. The 50 cal was a wonderful support weapon, able to deal with enemy infantry from outside their effective range. Good too as a mortar track, command and medic vehicle.

7. (probably a joke) a AP round would go thru without doing any major damage!

So, easy to repair, good trafficability, cheap