251/1 support or transport?

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

I never, abusloutely NEVER use them for transport, I learned early on about .50 and half tracks, not to mention what a HE round does to the squad inside. I basically send them up with inf to give them some HMG support while the MG42's are slugging their way up. Does anyone use them for transport?

[frankycee]

Hi,read boot camp half tracks... you'll find some interesting ideas on transport usage!

[CrapGame]

They seem to die just as quickly in the supporting role as they do in the transport role. Far too many ways for these guys to begin careers as dead half-tracks

[xerxes]

Good for finding mines and AT guns. heh.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Good for finding mines and AT guns. heh.

I don't think so. Too expensive in knockout points.

[xerxes]

Last I checked tanks were more expensive.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by CrapGame:

They seem to die just as quickly in the supporting role as they do in the transport role. Far too many ways for these guys to begin careers as dead half-tracks

I have an overinflated appreciation for HT's for both support and transport. That comes from doing an assault where I bought 4 251/1 to assist an SS Rifle Bn. I got a map where I could move the HT's up the middle and use terrain to mask them from likely ATG sites on the enemy back rank. They wound doing plenty of suppression work, then heading back to safely move up my HMG crews closer to the MLR after the SRE was dealt with.

OTOH, if my opponent had LOS w/ his three Company 2" mortars & their commanding HQ, or if he had a 6 pdr in his SRE, or if had his SRE Pn fall back behind a reverse slope-type blocking terrain feature, it would have been a different story (transport only or maybe they'd just have to hide). In fact, even given the good circumstances I had, German HT's don't have much FP, far less than an .30 & .50 toting M3A1. What the devil are the FP stats for the vehicle-mounted MG34's anyway? I guess I'll search for it.

HT MGs can be good for suppression, but if you leave them in place for more than a turn, they'll prolly be mortar fodder.

KvN

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Last I checked tanks were more expensive.

I am talking of a cost/effect rate, of course.

For me, 251/1, when I get many of them in scenarios, sometimes cross the fine line where it is worth hinding them all game unless I want to transport something inside cover. I mean you pay almost one purchase or knockout point for each MG ammo item.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

In fact, even given the good circumstances I had, German HT's don't have much FP, far less than an .30 & .50 toting M3A1. What the devil are the FP stats for the vehicle-mounted MG34's anyway? I guess I'll search for it.

The are between LMG and HMG. You can tell by the maximum range using the LOS tool.

HT MGs can be good for suppression, but if you leave them in place for more than a turn, they'll prolly be mortar fodder.

The mortars zero in.

Unless you want to increase your own hit probablity, which is usually not not pressing issu when firing HE on infantry and probably not modeled for MGs, you should keep AFVs moving.

[CrapGame]

Xerxes - That was funny. I don't think redwolf got it right away.

Silvio,

It seems to me that most Axis HT's are relatively expensive and very fragile. Especially in an assault, where a good defender will have defense it depth with multiple fire lanes, the length of survival for an Axis HT in an area where it can contribute suppressing fire is very low. Very, Very Low. This is usually due to an effective defender not leaving infantry hanging out in the breeze not supported by some kinds of heavy weapons. Most any variety of so-called heavy weapons will bring about the quick demise of the HT. Too expensive for me to do that. I'd rather buy an infantry or AT gun that will be more likely to eliminate its own cost(or more) in points before its death. Helps in winning the war of attrition.

[Spanish Bombs]

Does anyone else feel an almost overwhelming sense of acheivement when they run out of ammo on one of these HTs? It seems so rare that they survive long enough to use the ammo up that when it happens its pretty noticeable.

[flamingknives]

I've only used the things against the AI so I don't know how much my opinion counts (though the AI is pretty good at setting up AT guns, IMO)

Find a ridge about 1/2 way across the map, and you can run all the way up to it and get infantry/mortars/HMGs in position by the time the footsloggers turn up. That's one way to use them.

I think the problem is that people try to use them as assault vehicles, and they get toasted. If you can keep them covered from armour and AT guns, they enable you to take the initiative quite spectacularly.

I like using them in meeting engagements to get a platoon or two, with support, on top of the objective by turn two.

[xerxes]

Just jok'n with ya redwolf. I know you're looking at it from a QB purchase viewpoint. I don't do QBs so my tactics are based on using what I'm given in a scenario to maximize my force effectiveness(MFE).

MFE theory dictates HTs are used for rapid transport in the snow and on roads and finding mines, lastly for close support when there is no tank/AT gun danger.

Now allied M3A1 HTs are a different story. A pack of those chews up infantry like a five year old going through a bag of oreos.

- marc sullivan

[wbs]

I once played a TCP/IP scenario where I received 6 HTs and one tank in opposition to his two tanks.

We both had roughly the same amt. of infantry.

In the course of the game, I exchanged my one tank for his two, and THEN I brought up my 6 HTs.

At the time, I did not know that a .50 caliber could hurt HTs at anything other than point-blank range (<40m).

He had a .50 caliber MG on the 2nd floor of a bldg, and I brought all 6 HTs up to about a 100m range and laid down a blistering firestorm of German MG fire.

When the turn was over, the .50 caliber MG was still there, and I was scratching my head trying to figure out who had killed 4 of my 6 HTs in one turn. The answer of course, as I eventually figured out, was the MG.

I now NEVER bring my German HTs within 300m of a MG, and never into LOS of any blast weapon.

[Priest]

Just to chime in, I love MG HTs from either side. Now that CPX is over I can relate a little story.

I was caught against a BN of German infantry and and a platoon of Panzer V's. I had a small core of Shermans (mostly vanilla 75's). I only had about two platoons of infantry with some AT guns (76mm). I had some zook troops and a couple of MG teams. What I did have a plethora of was, M3 HT's and some T8 and M20 recce vehicles. My opponent was very cautious with his Panzers and it was evident very early in the game that the only way I was going to win this one was to strip his infantry away from his forces. This would cause him to bring up his armor to save his infantry, close enough where my 76's could ambush the hell out of him.

He moved two coy across a scattered tree area. I brought up 12 M3 Halftracks and some of the recce vehicles and let it rip. My MG teams opened up for a grand total of 18 or so MG's firing into his infantry. My platoon I had at the MLR opened up also. His infantry hit the deck. Truth be told he still did not want to commit his Panzers but I teased him with a couple of Shermans "showing" themselves and firing HE direct fire onto his troops. This was too much for him and he moved up his Panzers. I withdrew from the line my HTs and Shermans (and recce vehicles). My 76's lit up two Panthers and immobilized a third.

The battle ended shortly thereafter with him taking significant losses to two infantry companies and a loss of three tanks. I lost a couple of MG team members but no HTs and no tanks or infantry.

I have done some similiar things with German HTs in some of my private games. If used properly HTs (mg armed) can be devastating to enemy infantry. And HTs can make up for infantry lost to you.

Lastly, you do have to protect HTs, but then again you have to protect King Tigers too!

[HVAP]

HTs are also valuable in assaulting things en mass with tanks as they put down withering MG fire especially M3A1s along with the other tanks especially cause that .50 can take on those pesky marders seemingly better than a unbuttoned tank crew must be that realtively thin armor that makes them paranoid.

[WWB]

The trick to HTs is that you need to employ them en masse. While a platoon or so does not put out much supressive fire, a company strength detachment will pin just about anything in short order.

Of coures, the corallory to this theory is that one will rarely find them in QBs, only in good sized scenarios.

WWB

[History Buff]

Support role here. They seem to have a high rate to cause casulties than MG teams in CM, so I use em supporting my advancing troops. I think they were scaled down a bit after the beta demo, cause I remember they caused a heft amount of casulties. But still they are great in support and maybe stick a high ranking officer in the rear most one gives him a bit of extra protection while helping troops halt their rout.

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

The trick to HTs is that you need to employ them en masse. While a platoon or so does not put out much supressive fire, a company strength detachment will pin just about anything in short order.

Of coures, the corallory to this theory is that one will rarely find them in QBs, only in good sized scenarios.

WWB

As I have already pointed out in the HT boot camp - Halftracks and tracked P. carriers basically are always transport assets, not fighting vehicles. They are suited and intended to allow infantry to follow the speed of AFVs even in difficult terrain where trucks cannot maneuver. Their primary use is hence transport for larger scale (>Regiment) troop movement.

Historically, they were rarely used as support vehicles in the fight, but left behind. The infantry previously mounted on the vehicles engaged on foot, that's why it is infantry.

In consequence, I never buy such vehicles in QBs for the reason already mentioned by others:

they are vulnerable to HMGs and artillery, expensive and they reveal the presence of my infantry. I might consider to buy some, but then only to have them in MASSES, which in QBs usually is impossible.

If anybody gets the (not really great) idea to purchase a vehicle to find ATG positions, ambushes and minefields, then 4 Kübelwagen/Jeeps might help him more than one HT/Carrier and cost the same...

[ March 15, 2002, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

[Moriarty]

I learned to use HTs the hard way from a very knowledgeable opponent. I advanced my mounted platoons down a road (ground conditions were wet) and ran into a combination of mines, an MG, a zook and 2 forward squads. I took a beating. I mistakenly thought the HT armor would provide more protection than it did.

What I should have done was use them in both roles. I should have stop short , i.e. not under fire, of where I expected the enemy to be, dismounted the infantry and had them clear the area with the HTs' MGs in support. Once I determined that this was a forward unit and the area was clear, I could have remounted the infantry and proceeded to his next defensive position. Or, if the enemy was still in the area, continue the battle with infantry and HTs in support.