Use of HT, en mass - supression of enemy fire

[Agua]

What are peoples' thoughts on the use of HT in groups (2 or more) to surpress enemy fire in CM? In the campaign series (talonsoft's EF/WF/RS) community, the general concensus is that the use of HT for anything other than transporting troops is "gamey", and in that game, I agree. But here, the problem created by the use of HT in CS (i.e., wasting opponent's opportunity fire and blocking advance through certain hexes) isn't present. For instance, due to game mechanics in CS, a HT can overtake a Panther if that Panther is in a "disrupted" state. Consequently, generally, gentlemen's agreements in PBEM commonly include no use of HT in assault on any AFV. Further, the HT in CM actually have legitimate firepower whereas in the CS, the units really are little more than transports. They certainly are useful at supression in CM and I was just wondering if folks thought the use of these units en mass was cheesey.

Thanks in advance,

Agua

[109 Gustav]

No, I wouldn't consider it to be gamey, unless you do something like get 15 halftracks. Even if you do, I almost always buy 2 or 3 57mm AT guns, so I would more than welcome a group of halftracks.

------------------

The Last Defense- Mods, Scenarios, Classic threads, and more!

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

[grunto2]

i use halftracks to lead the attack.

i prefer at least 5 or 6 instead of 2.

the u.s. m3a1 is deadly against soft targets, and with 250 ammo it fires continuously if it gets the chance.

the m3a1 has the advantage of being able to take on - with decent odds of success - all german armored cars, open topped tracked vehicles, and halftracks.

the german spw 251/1 is not as good, but it is still good enough to run ahead and ferret out then suppress soft targets.

think of it this way... a halftrack at about 40 points is less of a potential point loss than to use an infantry platoon in the same role.

i have this new scenario, 'autobahn: quickness kills' which has 37 u.s. m3a1s. it also has 12 .50 cal jeeps, and 36 greyhounds. these units definitely lead the attack, with chaffees and m8 hmcs providing overwatch.

andy

[Agua]

Well, it seemed that these units are SOO effective at supression and smoking out the extent of an enemy's forces when their presence is suspected in an area that perhaps players looked at the use of HT for such purposes to be cheesey. I haven't engaged in PBEM on CM yet as I'm still learning the ropes of this thing, but I didn't want to jump in with a flanking manuever using 7 HT and have an opponent think I was cheesing out on him. I suppose more importantly is that I didn't want to waste my time trying to develop the most basic of skills v. a/i only to find that those skills are simply "cheats" based upon an unfair advantage gained through a bug in the game mechanics. I suppose that is the crux of my question: do folks look at the effectiveness of HT in the recon/supression role to be a bug in game mechanics?

[jmac]

myself personally, i love ht's in bocage country to ferret out anti-tank teams waiting to pounce my tanks. wether this is historically accurate in their use I do not know.

[Tao Xian]

I find that HT's have the same 'egg with a hammer' problem that all AFV have. A few good placed shots from infantry can stop cold the HT you had planned as the lynch pin for your attack. Often these HT's shrug off MG fire with the wonderful sound of ricocheting bullets, but it it no surprise to see one burst from an infantry squad or MG take out the HT. They are certainly not invincible.

I will admit that I have not tried using more than 3 HT's in any given scenario, as my most common game is a TCP/IP QB with 500-800 points. A company of infantry is my first pick. This leaves room for only a few mechanized units. This versatility of balance is a strong asset, if find. I am not sure what I would do with an opponent fielding 400 points in HT's. It would be possible to charge across the board in two turns with 10 units and 2,500 rounds of .50 cal ammunition. Unsupported by infantry, they might make easy targets. The combined firepower of 10 or more HMG's might also be overwhelming.

To answer your original point, all of the players I go up against would have no problem with 2 or 3 HT's acting in a suppression and scouting role, or even a strong offensive one; especially as part of a balanced force. I think the numbers of HT's involved really depend upon the size of the operation. In the scenario where the Tiger goes on a rampage in Villers-Bocage, there were ten or more HT's lined up and waiting for the next advance. If you were to be playing in an operation of many points with a large amount of mechanized support on both sides, mustering 7 or 10 HT's would be fine. One unopposed tank could make quick work of all of them, however. 400pt's could buy your opponent a Crack King Tiger.

[Guest ciks]

Things brings question in to my mind: what was the historical doctrine for halftrack use (U.S. and German)?

[Agua]

Thanks all. I think I get the point. Personally, I think if I were playing an opponent that chose a force with NO infantry support or even maybe a single platoon and about 15 HT's I'd think that was pretty cheesey myself and I'd either tell the player or refuse to play any more games with the fellow (probably both). But it appears that folks believe that in a combined arms attack as support for infantry and recon, the use of groups of HT is acceptable in the CM gaming community. I'm glad because they are very useful and effective in these roles.

Like I said, in the Campaign Series gaming community, the use of HT for anything other than troop transport was frowned upon. But, the problems in internal game mechanics that resulted in folks purposely wasting HT to draw OpFire (and the Uber HT that can kill ANY disrupted AFV) aren't present in CM, so it would make sense that their use in CM is not frowned upon.

As far as the HT's historical uses, that has been debated over and over on theblitz message board. I have no anecdotal evidence (gleened from books) to add here. I do recall many posters vehemently insisting that they were used in recon and supporting roles, but these fellows were generally shouted down by the masses of players who, rightfully, abhored the gamey use of these units in Campaign Series games.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

If this German halftrack tactic is successful, the Allied opponent did neither get a decent amount of .50cal MGs (as team or on transport vehicles, jeeps, halftracks, tanks) nor set up AT-capable guns so that they could shoot at things that annoy his/her infantry.

Such a player deserves to go under

Seriously, the German halftracks are very ineffective against typical historical western allies forces exactly because of the automatic high-rate-of-fire anti-tank rifle that the .50cal is.

It doesn't help that they are wide open on top are and can be killed with mortars in no time.

Historically the German halftracks seemed to be used very concentrated. In a regiment, give one battaltion enough halftracks for everyone and everything, the other battalion(s) are on trucks. They were not issued single-piece for special small units. Von Luck talks a bit abou this in his memoirs.

My impression is that their armor protection was not meant against small-arms fire like it is used in CMBO most often, but mostly against artillery. Remember that in reality you had much more artillery than in CMBO, CMBO games are assumed to happen after the bombardement. It was quite common that artillery decimanted units on their way to the front and that is what the halftracks seemed to counter, from my impression. No way they were risked within the enemy field of direct fire.

In a word, supressive fire from halftracks on the attack is probably unrealistic, but not a problem for the realistic opponent when he chose a realistic force, so no reason to complain, IMHO.

Some people think that halftracks are overpriced in CMBO. Maybe that is done on purpose to avoid that they are used as regular fighting vehicles - what they historically were not.

[This message has been edited by Martin Cracauer (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Immolator]

Agua, don't spend too much time dinking around with the AI. The human opponent can teach a lot more in much less time. A couple of antitank guns on the other side will keep those halftracks from charging across the board. I found that out the hard way and now use them to sneak around and snipe at infantry from time to time until the antitank guns have been dealt with.

[nedlam]

I use Ht's to move my troops to a position as quickly as possible. If there happens so unfriendlies in the area already the Ht's tend to make them duck as they swiftly advance torwards the area. A quick volley of smoke to add to the confusion right before my troops get there wreaks havoc with the defenders. Once the objective is taken, I load up and move them to the next spot (it's usually not that easy but that's the idea )

I've never used HT's enmass to assault a position alone. I have used them to quickly defend remote area's of the battlefield where there has been a break through (or where there is an eminent breakthrough)

Nedlam

[This message has been edited by nedlam (edited 03-29-2001).]

[LT. Homer]

I also find the British Ram Kangaroo APC to be quite effective in suppression roles.

Although, the HT's have served well in 1500pt QB's with combined arms. In particular too load a squad and send them on a flanking recon trip to root out arty spotters and other goodies nestled deep into enemy territory. The HT is most often taken out, but it ferried it's squad to the destination quickly and can disrupt the enemies plans rather effectively.

------------------

Dought!!! Landmines.