Halftracks / light vehicles vulnerability

[olap]

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.

I had a chance to ride in an M3 a few years ago, and to be honest I used the rear door, as jumping from the side really looked dangerous as it was to high.

[Kolyanich]

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

No, this is under assumption that for example SPW series of halftracks having up to 14.5mm of front armour (page 181 of CMBN) with some sloped armour plates should hold themselves against small arms in MOST cases and not having the amount of threat at "BAD".

This questions the rationality of having a very simplified and overgeneralised 5 grade armour system of (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT).

For example as of now, in case of halftracks (SPWs for that matter) , the frontal threat is at “BAD” for 14.5mm of frontal armour – but it is also “BAD” for sides and the rear where the armour is as low as 5.5mm.

As I said I do hope there are much more complex calculations behind but we do not get to see it in CMBN. We have an abstract “threat” which in my view might be good for modern warfare but a lot less helpful in WWII environment.

The same goes for the threat itself (Anti-tank rocket- Large Caliber-Medium caliber-small caliber). For example, Soviet early 57mm can be viewed as small caliber but its penetration power is more superior than “large caliber” 76mm ZIS.

In short I will be missing the detailed information of the vehicles/guns we had in CMBO and CMBB /AK.

[stikkypixie]

No, this is under assumption that for example SPW series of halftracks having up to 14.5mm of front armour (page 181 of CMBN) with some sloped armour plates should hold themselves against small arms in MOST cases and not having the amount of threat at "BAD".

This questions the rationality of having a very simplified and overgeneralised 5 grade armour system of (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT).

For example as of now, in case of halftracks (SPWs for that matter) , the frontal threat is at “BAD” for 14.5mm of frontal armour – but it is also “BAD” for sides and the rear where the armour is as low as 5.5mm.

CMBN doest NOT use a 5-grade armour system, the ballistics are calculated using the ACTUAL thickness of EACH of the plates, the angle of impact, the quality of the metal and the projectile. The rating system you see is just a ROUGH GRAPHICAL representation of the REAL protection those vehicles have.

You can disagree with the presentation of the data but saying that the armour model is oversimplified is just wrong.

[womble]

No, this is under assumption that for example SPW series of halftracks having up to 14.5mm of front armour (page 181 of CMBN) with some sloped armour plates should hold themselves against small arms in MOST cases and not having the amount of threat at "BAD".

And yet, .30-06 AP ammunition (which is commonplace) is capable of punching through "more than half an inch" of plate at 300yd.

http://www.m1-garand.com/30_06%20Discussion.htm

I was an ammunition specialist in the army, 62-65. I recall the specs on the .30 AP as being required to penetrate 1/4 inch of face hardened armor at 30 degrees obliquity at 100 yards, and 25 inches of white oak at 300 yards. These were the minimums and by testing in the field, seemed low. The .30 AP would usually clean a half-inch steel plate at short range, and penetrated better at around 300 yards, after the bullet had stabilized.

Also, was that 14.5mm a 'headline' figure for that big flat plate on the nose? Was the rest of the frontal armour just as thick and just as sloped?

This questions the rationality of having a very simplified and overgeneralised 5 grade armour system of (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT).

Now, this might be semantics, but the armour system doesn't use grades. It's just a summary. It has to cover many factors such as the open top, what additional protection the driver viewing slit has, whether the armour had known manufacturing weaknesses, vulnerability of external equipment and drive components. Even a modern MBT can be damaged by small arms fire; its external sensor compnents aren't bullet-proof.

As I said I do hope there are much more complex calculations behind...

Ah reckon yew must be new heuh.

The USP of the CM brand is its detailed simulation. Especially of armour effects. Fret ye not: the 'poor-excellent' rating is just a very rough guide.

The same goes for the threat itself (Anti-tank rocket- Large Caliber-Medium caliber-small caliber). For example, Soviet early 57mm can be viewed as small caliber but its penetration power is more superior than “large caliber” 76mm ZIS.

In short I will be missing the detailed information of the vehicles/guns we had in CMBO and CMBB /AK.

You and many other people. Unfortunately, there are arguments for not including detailed information, ranging from the work it would take, through interface considerations, via it's inherent impossibility to account for all factors to the fact that even relatively experienced troops didn't have penetration tables at their fingertips.

[Kolyanich]

Guys,

Thank you for clarification – as long as “'poor-excellent' rating is just a very rough guide” and the real calculation is happening behind the scenes you made my day.

Having played WWII CM series since 2000 I have the feel what each vehicle / gun is capable of but I will have a trouble explaining this system to by girlfriend (she signed up for hotseat games with me)

[Magpie_Oz]

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

True but mobility is one of the sacrifices made for firepower. The main point I am making is that the HT gets the infantry to where they need to be, then they fight on foot. An HMG deployed on the ground I believe will be much more survivable than on in an HT.

If you look at the photo in the link to the M16, you can see that it will have difficulty engaging a target at ground level through the forward arc and also prior to firing the sides of the HT have to be lowered, later models removed this requirement by mounting the pedestle higher making the crew more vulnerable. In many circumstances the M16 is a formidable bit of fire support I mean 4 x 50 Cals is a world of hurt ! But is is highly vulnerable, a few airburst mortar rounds would see it out pretty quick.

Having said that the M16 is something of an exception to the rule as i was thinking more of the heavier AA mounts on HT's like the unarmoured 20, 37 and quad mounts on German vehicles.

I had a chance to ride in an M3 a few years ago, and to be honest I used the rear door, as jumping from the side really looked dangerous as it was to high.

Yes I think the problem was that it took so long for 13 people to get out through one door, later models of the M3 had dual rear doors which helped a bit. The Hanomag had a clam shell rear door but still apparently the preferred method was to go over the side so that the vehicle emptied in a few seconds.

To be honest tho' I have no evidence of the M3 being dismounted in this way but it seems standard procedure for the SPW251

[MikeyD]

The game doesn't just have the M3 HT, it also has the M2 which doesn't have a rear door! That must've been more than a litte awkward to get into and out of without a scraped knee or twisted ankle.

[sburke]

The game doesn't just have the M3 HT, it also has the M2 which doesn't have a rear door! That must've been more than a litte awkward to get into and out of without a scraped knee or twisted ankle.

Hence the development of the M3A1 stepladder.

[gunnergoz]

Funny, I don't recall ever seeing any M3's with dual rear doors...must have been a Brit modification to let them get the Bren Tripod out the back...

[Magpie_Oz]

Hence the development of the M3A1 stepladder.

- sigh - Here we go AGAIN !

"Ok, everyone grab their M3's and up the M3 to get out of the M3. Buck, you man the M3 and Billy-Bob, you stay here in case we need the M3. OK follow me M3n ! "

[Magpie_Oz]

Funny, I don't recall ever seeing any M3's with dual rear doors...must have been a Brit modification to let them get the Bren Tripod out the back...

You are correct I read "addition of a door" as "an additional door".

Guess the Kangaroos were preferred by the Brits as there is more room for the Bren Tripods. Any word on where they are being included btw?

[gunnergoz]

You are correct I read "addition of a door" as "an additional door".

Guess the Kangaroos were preferred by the Brits as there is more room for the Bren Tripods. Any word on where they are being included btw?

Probably right up there with the Goliath robot tanks and the anti-tank dogs.