MG's vs. Halftracks

[Col Deadmarsh]

What has been your experience regarding mg's firing at halftracks? How effective is each mg at doing so and how close does each truck have to be in order to be vulnerable to mg fire? Has anybody done any tests on this?

[dalem]

In the game, I rough it out as the .50 cal can kill German HTs under 500m, and probably will kill them under 200m. The MG42 can kill U.S. HTs under 200m, and probably will under 50m.

At least, that's what I think I've seen, and those are the "danger bands" I pay attention to.

-dale

[Redwolf]

http://thforums.com/CMBO/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=34

[AndrewTF]

In a waste-of-time QB vs. the AI I had an MG42 HMG hidden in a church (adjacent to the road) that popped 3(!) M3 halftracks in succession as they cruised past. They then proceeded to mow down the fleeing crews.

I was pretty surprised.

[Tarquelne]

redwolf: Doesn't CM model the tendency of Hamsterstruppen to button up with little provocation? That'd make a big difference with the anti-M3 tactics vrs. anthropoid troops, wouldn't it?

[ June 01, 2002, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

In short, German halfies - keep them from any area where they can take 50 cal or larger fire or they will die.

Allied halfies - keep them from any area where they can take 20 mm or larger fire or they will die.

When I get German halfies, I feel that they are of limited (to very limited) usefulness as support. I don't like them.

When I get Allied halfies, I feel that they are of fair, but very careful usefulness as support. I tolerate them.

Cheers, Richard

[coe]

Did the germans make any adjustments to their

half tracks to make them less vulnerable to .50

cal fire?

[Tarquelne]

When I get German halfies, I feel that they are of limited (to very limited) usefulness as support. I don't like them.

I like using them as extremely mobile sources of supressing fire. I need more than 1 for it to work well, since I like to have them stay well back, but I'll have them fire on a key infantry unit (an AT asset, generally) for a few turns, and then quickly move them (hopefully with cover) somewhere else, to supress another unit.

This has also, with fair regularity, often helped cause my opponent to use his armor less effectively. If I'm on the ball, any units dispatched to deal with the HTs should find them half way accross the map before being able to fire a shot.

[PiggDogg]

Tarqulene,

Good points. I have to agree that German halfies can certainly be of good use in the support role. However, one must be exceedingly careful with German halfies (and Allied halfies for that matter) because too many things can kill them.

I agree that your careful, stand back, and pack use of German halfies is right on. However, such use is pretty difficult, but by no means impossible.

Also, I do get irritated with well used halfies shooting up my infantry. Indeed, those halfies are easily countered. However, it does take time and resources to counter well used halfies, and those resources could be used elsewhere. Also, in the definition of well used halfies is the premise that those halfies do their irritating job and live to do it again.

Certainly, in tournament, human choose troops CM games, almost no one with an eye toward getting value for the point spent will buy German or Allied halfies.

If one is in a computer choose CM game, the computer frequently and graciously bestows halfies upon both sides. That is wonderfully great, & I love it.

However, if I were forced to have halfies, I would take Allied halfies before German halfies. At least the Allied halfies have a much better chance of killing German halfies than the other way around.

In all cases, I would prefer not to have any halfies and at least get an eggshell with a hammer instead of an eggshell with an eggshell which is what halfies are. Indeed, I don't like either side's halfies. However, if I am given halfies, I will use them with the best (I hope).

Cheers, Richard

[russellmz]

.50 cals are cool

[ June 01, 2002, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: russellmz ]

[M Hofbauer]

great article, redwolf. bene!

[patolino]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

I like using them as extremely mobile sources of supressing fire. I need more than 1 for it to work well, since I like to have them stay well back, but I'll have them fire on a key infantry unit (an AT asset, generally) for a few turns, and then quickly move them (hopefully with cover) somewhere else, to supress another unit.

I like the 75mm assault halftrack for some reason. Granted, you'll need to be quite careful when exposing it, but on the other hand I've found the gun to be pretty effective nutcracker for cases where infantry alone would have trouble. Working in pairs is even better.

And anyway, if a HT becomes a sieve it's still less expensive than exposing and risking the destruction of a real tank.

[JasonC]

The M3A1 is pretty fragile, but it has high firepower. It can often suppress things shooting at it, at least long enough to scoot away. A pair of them can be useful, not more. They can speed relocations of some slow teams, and hose things with their abundant MG ammo later on. Straight M3s are useless.

The SPW-251/9 has good anti-infantry firepower from its 75mm gun. It is vunerable to 50 cal fire, but can be useful. A typical use is one or two with platoons that aren't paired with real tanks, on the attack. German armor points are often scarce, and they are a way to stretch for more AFVs. Armored cars are a reasonable alternative, though, and less vunerable from the front.

The SPW-251/1 with just an MG has only one real use for me - hauling around 81mm mortars from weapons platoons. Because those don't fit on the back of tanks (transport class too high), and are too slow to get around well themselves. You can put 2 mortars in one 'track. Mortars tend to want to set up in places the 'track can stay alive, too.

All the standard Allied support weapons and German HMG teams fit on the back of tanks, and you are better off with half as many real tanks as twice as many fragile HTs with only MG armament. Transport ability is overpriced. Yes, they can be shot at on the back of a tank, but generally you want to dismount to fight when you get shot at, anyway.

[ June 02, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Russel, thanks for the pics. I find it hard to believe though that German mg42's can take out a M3/M3A1 at up to 250 meters. Is this correct?

Also, why does the diagram not show the penetration on a diagnal?

[Patgod]

i think the mg42 pic is scaled in inches :-P

[FFE]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Also, why does the diagram not show the penetration on a diagnal?

It is, it is! Very crudely; the angle shots are being deflected or fail to penetrate due to a horizontal sloping effect. The oblique angles offer greater resistance to incoming mg fire. This applies to all armored vehicles, too.

German halftracks can fire while buttoned. I find this extremely useful since a good sharpshooter can quickly null an unbuttoned halftrack.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Russel, thanks for the pics. I find it hard to believe though that German mg42's can take out a M3/M3A1 at up to 250 meters. Is this correct?

Also, why does the diagram not show the penetration on a diagnal?

the problem is not the MG42. the problem is the 1/4" armor on the HT. technically in theory, all it takes is a Mauser 98k to kill an M3/M3A1 HT.

[Tarquelne]

the problem is not the MG42. the problem is the 1/4" armor on the HT. technically in theory, all it takes is a Mauser 98k to kill an M3/M3A1 HT.

That's very true.

In fact, the Russians were experimenting with using sufficiently accelerated red meadow voles in the late 1930s. AP ammo was pretty difficult to manufacture, and rodents were seen as a possible cheap alternative for use against lightly armored targets.

They key concept was the creation of a sort of crude discarding sabot effect. A tapered barrel was used to increase velocity. This also squeezed and heated the flesh. This would loosen it, and the flesh would quickly fall away in flight, leaving the sharply pointed skull to strike the target.

They also tried augmenting the voles, of course. The most succesfull was probably the "penetrating suppository" (I forget the Russian term) applied to the animal just before firing. But they were almost as expensive as a normal AT bullet, and very unpopular with the troops, who at first misunderstood how they were to be used.

Apparently the program was going well, but when the war broke out they lost access to more of the voles, which are native to France. They then tried using desert hyraxes and several types of Siberian muskrat, but they never really worked out (the smell mostly, IIRC) and the program was abandoned.

There were a number of practical trials, though. They're rare, but you can still sometimes see modified Winter War AT rifles with the underslung "Rat Chucker" attachement.

[ June 03, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

In fact, the Russians were experimenting with using sufficiently accelerated red meadow voles in the late 1930s. AP ammo was pretty difficult to manufacture, and rodents were seen as a possible cheap alternative for use against lightly armored targets.

Ahh. Of course! Sufficiently Accelerated Red Meadow Voles! I wondered about the otherwise incomprehensible reference to SARMVski Guards Anti-tank Regiments in the magisterial 'An Illustrated History of Antitank Mammals in the Red Army' (Gerbil publishing NY 1988).

Thanks for clarifying that one!

[patolino]

Originally posted by Determinant:

Ahh. Of course! Sufficiently Accelerated Red Meadow Voles!

Surely they were no match for the infamous Rheingemüse 50mm Kartoffelgeschutz? It is an interesting weapon in the sense that its armour penetration improved drastically during the harsh russian winter, due to changes in the ammunition caused by the extremely low temperatures.

For current state of the art in this type of weaponry, see this page!

[Determinant]

Originally posted by patolino:

Surely they were no match for the infamous Rheingemüse 50mm Kartoffelgeschutz? It is an interesting weapon in the sense that its armour penetration improved drastically during the harsh russian winter, due to changes in the ammunition caused by the extremely low temperatures.

For current state of the art in this type of weaponry, see this page![/QB]

Words nearly fail me. It is with reluctance that I thank you for sharing that site. It is almost too strong for a family forum. I am shocked to the very core by the awesome power of this ammunition.

I now understand why it was that Kartoffelgeshutz gunners who fell into Soviet hands had as much chance of survival as members of the Waffen SS. The fiendishness of it is repulsive.

[Tarquelne]

For current state of the art in this type of weaponry, see this page![/QB]

As a matter of fact, SARMV was run under the same budget as the BVT (Ballistic Vodka Tuber) project. They shared a number of the same facilities, until the voles ate all the mashed potatoes, which scuttled BVT. (It probably wasn't an accident. BVT's administrator was a considered a Trotskyite.)

On a slightly different subject, I was re-reading R.K. Findminder's _The Mammals of War_ and it mentioned that the Soviet's planned to have paratroopers drop with several cows using double-paras. Supposedly the cows would be used either as mounts, food, or bombs. Anyone know anything else about this? I know the Sovs. didn't really get into airborne operations... The book doesn't give details.

[ June 03, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]