Halftracks / light vehicles vulnerability

[Kolyanich]

Halftracks / light vehicles vulnerability

I recall that destroying a halftrack in CMx1 by MG fire was a very rare with the exception of extremely close ranges of less than 100m.

As per manual the amount of threat from small caliber for Halftracks / light vehicles is “BAD” in front (small red “x” (not large “X” as in CMSF)) .

The definition of “small caliber” (page 196) is “small arms such as rifle or light MG”.

Would that mean that Halftracks / light vehicles would be easily destroyed by MGs, and even rifles? Is 5-level-armor grade system (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT) is enough to reflect the variety of WWII armor?

PS. [i understand that “Poor” (o) is being the highest threat as all unarmored vehicles have it “o” all around]

[stikkypixie]

Would that mean that Halftracks / light vehicles would be easily destroyed by MGs, and even rifles? Is 5-level-armor grade system (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT) is enough to reflect the variety of WWII armor?

CMSF and (I presume) CMBN do not use a (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT) armour-grade system. I believe the crosses are a graphical rule of thumb of how bad/good the protection is. From my experience in CMSF, this means that there are many situations that contradicted the crosses, but in general they seem to be accurate.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The vulnerability display is a coarse approximation.

Real damage is calculated with much more variables.

But there are halftracks with armour and without armour.

A 'halftrack/light vehicle' will reference unarmoured halftracks, I suppose.

[scottie]

Sorry, quick hijacking of your thread Kolyanich.

Re: (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT)

Just a quick point on the UI display , as a CMSF player i find it relatively difficult to figure out the + + etc... display indicators. Feel that numbering or a slightly larger icon space would help. I sure BF have spent many days/months making sure the method was intuitive so this is a difficult argument to win, i simply feel there are easier/quicker methods to display this information at a glance.

[Kolyanich]

Sorry, quick hijacking of your thread Kolyanich.

Re: (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT)

Just a quick point on the UI display , as a CMSF player i find it relatively difficult to figure out the + + etc... display indicators. Feel that numbering or a slightly larger icon space would help. I sure BF have spent many days/months making sure the method was intuitive so this is a difficult argument to win, i simply feel there are easier/quicker methods to display this information at a glance.

I feel the same. Never liked how it was presneted in CMSF

[Kolyanich]

The vulnerability display is a coarse approximation.

Real damage is calculated with much more variables.

But there are halftracks with armour and without armour.

A 'halftrack/light vehicle' will reference unarmoured halftracks, I suppose.

No - I was reffering to armoured halftracks - all have "BAD" protection against small arms.

I do hope there are more complex calculations behind it but to me "BAD" agains "light MGs and rifles" seems like they will not survive a volley from a inf squad, not to mention MG42 etc.

[stikkypixie]

No - I was reffering to armoured halftracks - all have "BAD" protection against small arms.

I do hope there are more complex calculations behind it but to me "BAD" agains "light MGs and rifles" seems like they will not survive a volley from a inf squad, not to mention MG42 etc.

From what I understand is that every vehicle will have the protection that its historical counterpart had, down to the mm steel. The calculations are based on where the bullets intersect the polygons of the halftrack and at what angle, etc... What Erik was trying to say is that the panel only gives general information.

If you don't like the look of the protection information tab, check this out:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1022

[womble]

No - I was reffering to armoured halftracks - all have "BAD" protection against small arms.

I do hope there are more complex calculations behind it but to me "BAD" agains "light MGs and rifles" seems like they will not survive a volley from a inf squad, not to mention MG42 etc.

BAD protection is better than NO protection. And I remember many occasions in CMx1 when light vehicles got knocked out (or at least mobility and weapon killed, even if they weren't burning wrecks) by heavy .30ish calibre fire.

[akd]

No - I was reffering to armoured halftracks - all have "BAD" protection against small arms.

I do hope there are more complex calculations behind it but to me "BAD" agains "light MGs and rifles" seems like they will not survive a volley from a inf squad, not to mention MG42 etc.

Of course this is all based on the assumption that halftracks provided good protection against direct MG fire. They did not.

[Magpie_Oz]

I do hope there are more complex calculations behind it but to me "BAD" agains "light MGs and rifles" seems like they will not survive a volley from a inf squad, not to mention MG42 etc.

WW2 Halftrack were designed to provide the infantry with a degree of mobility and protection to get to the battlefield and keep up with tanks on the move.

They were not designed to ride into battle a'la' a modern IFV, indeed APC's as recent as the M-113 would only provide fairly basic cover.

They "should" stop an SMG, assault rifle and shell fragments, "might" stop a WW2 rifle round depending on range, "probably wouldn't" stop a .30Cal MMG, MG42 or Vickers gun (lots of shots and longer barrels), "certainly wouldn't" stop anything heavier than that, a .50 Cal would easily penetrate.

The other thing to keep in mind is that tripod mounted MG's firing from range land a number of rounds in a beaten zone that can come from quite a high trajectory, no top on a WW2 Half track could lead to some major dramas in the back!

[GSX]

WW2 Halftrack were designed to provide the infantry with a degree of mobility and protection to get to the battlefield and keep up with tanks on the move.

They were not designed to ride into battle a'la' a modern IFV, indeed APC's as recent as the M-113 would only provide fairly basic cover.

They "should" stop an SMG, assault rifle and shell fragments, "might" stop a WW2 rifle round depending on range, "probably wouldn't" stop a .30Cal MMG, MG42 or Vickers gun (lots of shots and longer barrels), "certainly wouldn't" stop anything heavier than that, a .50 Cal would easily penetrate.

The other thing to keep in mind is that tripod mounted MG's firing from range land a number of rounds in a beaten zone that can come from quite a high trajectory, no top on a WW2 Half track could lead to some major dramas in the back!

I'd go along with that. Apparently in Normandy there was a real clamour for the few Kangaroos available to the Brits/Canadians due to the fact that they were much less vulnerable than the Allied H/T.

Guess we will have to wait for the next Module for that capability (if the RAM Kangaroo is in).

[c3k]

No references, but the US halftrack was called a "purple heart box", after the medal given to wounded soldiers. The gist of that nickname was that the soldiers did not have a lot of faith in the ability of the halftrack armor to stop rounds. In fact, they'd say that it had enough protection to let a bullet in and then keep it there as it ricocheted around.

I _think_ the German halftrack was considered less vulnerable.

Having said that, BF.C models armor thickness, metal quality, hardness, angled plate, impact angle, etc., etc. So, I'm willing to bet that at some angles and ranges the halftrack (of whatever variety) would protect the passengers, while at other ranges and angles it would not. It's a somewhat complex situation.

Regardless, neither side would purposely use a halftrack as an assault vehicle. For good reason.

Hence the Ram/Kangaroo. (And later vehicles such as the wonderful CMSF BMP-3, Bradley, Marder, etc.)

Ken

[Krilly]

À hanomag had 14.5 mm frontal armor. That could keep some .30 outside.

[MikeyD]

I read somewhere U.S. HT were only meant to transport troops to roughly 900m or so from the front (a lot closer than open trucks could go), not accompany them into battle. U.S. HT side armor was only 1/4 inch (6.4mm), and 6.4mm armor was as bad at stopping steel core rounds back then as it is today.

Sd Kfz 250 side armor was 10mm set at an angle. Its front plate was 14.5mm at 12 degrees (I think), while the US HT had 12.5mm windshield/radiator covers at 25 degrees. So the U.S. vehicle might be marginally better at taking a hit to the front.

[Andrew H.]

Halftracks / light vehicles vulnerability

I recall that destroying a halftrack in CMx1 by MG fire was a very rare with the exception of extremely close ranges of less than 100m.

I don't think this is right - it seems like my halftracks were destroyed by MG fire all the time. (Well, maybe not all the time, but it certainly wasn't "very rare").

[womble]

I read somewhere U.S. HT were only meant to transport troops to roughly 900m or so from the front (a lot closer than open trucks could go), not accompany them into battle. U.S. HT side armor was only 1/4 inch (6.4mm), and 6.4mm armor was as bad at stopping steel core rounds back then as it is today.

Sd Kfz 250 side armor was 10mm set at an angle. Its front plate was 14.5mm at 12 degrees (I think), while the US HT had 12.5mm windshield/radiator covers at 25 degrees. So the U.S. vehicle might be marginally better at taking a hit to the front.

Most of a klom sounds good. Some protection from incidental (battlefield) environmental effects, basically. And not much incoming from the sides, hopefully.

Edit: Of course, we'll push them much closer than that, relying on their bullet hoses and large ammo supplies to suppress anyone that's going to be rude enough to actually shoot at the vehicle. Probably best to have the crunchies dismounted though...

[RogCBrand]

Most of a klom sounds good. Some protection from incidental (battlefield) environmental effects, basically. And not much incoming from the sides, hopefully.

Edit: Of course, we'll push them much closer than that, relying on their bullet hoses and large ammo supplies to suppress anyone that's going to be rude enough to actually shoot at the vehicle. Probably best to have the crunchies dismounted though...

Also, in battle, you aren't always free to choose how close you get to the enemy- or rather how close the enemy gets to you!

[Magpie_Oz]

Also, in battle, you aren't always free to choose how close you get to the enemy- or rather how close the enemy gets to you!

True but on any of the WW2 Halftracks getting close was a bad thing, getting out was a real problem as it seems it was rare to use the rear doors, rather just jump over the side however that made you very obvious and also you were landing in the open.

It was the rash actions of Joachim Peiper that brought out this notion of driving through the enemy in a HT.

" Peiper developed a tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides by advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, while firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. "

But this was more about a surprise attack than the armour of the Sdkfz251

In short, Halftracks are Battle Buses, hop off at the nearest stop.

[Aldaros]

I don't think this is right - it seems like my halftracks were destroyed by MG fire all the time. (Well, maybe not all the time, but it certainly wasn't "very rare").

That was my experience as well. It seemed like my halftracks usually didn't survive MG fire-fights for more than a few minutes, even at a few hundred meters distance (for both German and Allied halftracks). They never seemed to get knocked out immediately, but they usually didn't last all that long, either.

[RogCBrand]

It was the rash actions of Joachim Peiper that brought out this notion of driving through the enemy in a HT.

He was an old time cavalry officer at heart! It sounds like something JEB Stuart would have done if he'd had the equipment.

[pagskier]

It was the rash actions of Joachim Peiper that brought out this notion of driving through the enemy in a HT.

" Peiper developed a tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides by advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, while firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. "

But this was more about a surprise attack than the armour of the Sdkfz251

In short, Halftracks are Battle Buses, hop off at the nearest stop.

12ss and I think 1ss too did that agaisn`t the canadians, and it didn`t give good result at all...

I think hts can be good for long range suppressive fire agaisn`t ennemy position. Otherwise it is not suited for combat. German stummel was the final product of this kind of tactic and there report of the AAA half tracks beeing used as well.

[MikeyD]

U.S HTs are festooned with machineguns. The .50 cal can of course stand off at a safe distance. Those side pintle-mounted .30 cal M1919 mgs tend to put your guys at considerable danger, though. Needing to turn broadside to the threat to bring the MGs to bear.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes the MG's on HT's can be useful for suppressive fire but they are still just a pintle mounted MG.

To get the full effectiveness of a SFMG (Sustained Fire MG) and fire at long range you need to have to mounted on a tripod, fitted with an "indirect" type sight and have a few barrel changes about in the case of air cooled MG's.

The German Hanomag had an HMG carrier version but for the MG to operate in a true HMG role it had to be dismounted.

Same too with the US M9A1 Halftrack which mounted a .50 Cal, 1 .30 Cal MMG and 2 browning HMG's.

The problem with using a halftrack as a MG's nest is that it is far easier to KO a HT as opposed to an entrenched infantry.

The Stummel was really developed to avoid the need to tow the 75mm IG, easier to have it mounted assault gun style and it was able to provide an effective support weapon, nothing like a Stug or Tank of course.

Many AA mounts on Half tracks had problems firing at ground level targets, some didn't of course, also in many instances the HT had to be halted and prepared before the AA mount could fire.

[Michael Emrys]

The problem with using a halftrack as a MG's nest is that it is far easier to KO a HT as opposed to an entrenched infantry.

On the other hand, entrenched infantry is relatively immobile. And the M16 seems to have come into its own as an anti-personnel weapon. It was called "the Meatchopper" for a reason.

Michael

[Kolyanich]

I don't think this is right - it seems like my halftracks were destroyed by MG fire all the time. (Well, maybe not all the time, but it certainly wasn't "very rare").

I recall Arnhem scenario / Campaigns from CMBO and Piper scenarios from CMBB - it was not easy to destroy a halftrack with MG. I could hardly count on MGs for that task.