Pros and cons with halftracks

[rocketman]

I haven't quite decided if I like transporting squads in halftracks. Sure, they are protected from gunfire and can use an MG for defense, but then they are all too vulnerable to an AT-gun that can take the entire squad out with one shot. Once I start a scenarion with squads in halftracks, I alway want to disembark them, but somewhere in the back of my mind I "know" this is the wrong way to go about things as compared to real life. But I'll rather "hunt" with a squad at foot than a halftrack not knowing what is in fron of me. How do you usually go about using them?

[George MC]

Depends on the size of map and what I'm facing. In 1944 you don't really want to be leading with half tracks.

On larger open maps I'd be leading with a few tanks overwtached by the main body. Half tracks and infantry sit tight until AT assets have been ID and supressed or failing that would dismount and enagage on foot.

If advancing with half tracks use dead ground, lot's of overwatch, smoke if you have it and move fast. Otherwise on your average CMBN size map what you are doing, in built up terrain sounds good.

[slysniper]

Halftracks are great tools. No I do not like scouting with them either. But My troops use them as much as possible.

If I have time infantry will lead the attack and ground troops on foot are used, half tracks stay behind cover and protect the troops in them from most arty.

If a larger map where time is short, I still rather see a halftrack smoke out the enemy instead of my armor. So I split the squad, only leave a assault team in the track and run it towards the next area that needs scouting, if they draw fire. I only loose the team, not a squad. if the enemy plays possum. Then I dismount the team into their lines which normally draws attention quickly. So my main force can start to deliver fire.

if the enemy has no real anti tank abilities, then my armor still is better staying back as supporting fire. suppressing the enemy, then a assault with my infantry in the halftracks over the open ground , getting up close and personnal. dismounting and assaulting. trying to leave someone in the halftracks to use the MG to support the assault. Great stuff.

[womble]

Once I start a scenarion with squads in halftracks, I alway want to disembark them, but somewhere in the back of my mind I "know" this is the wrong way to go about things as compared to real life.

Your gut instinct on this is, I believe, wrong. AIUI, IRL, halftracks weren't used as mounts once hotilities got under way. As you say, "too many eggs in one basket" and infantry AT is perfectly capable of cracking all those eggs at once. So don't feel bad about dismounting your armoured infantry and making them do the 'infantry' bit. The films of halftracks rushing pnazergrenadiers across the killing ground to assault the objective are staged propaganda movies.

[Erwin]

IIRC halftracks were simply for moving inf more safely than in the much less expensive trucks. Yes, they had 30 and 50 cal MG's as AAA (also used to to support the inf). But, I don't think they were ever intended to run alongside armor as in modern warfare like they were Bradleys etc.

[DavidFields]

As usual, I agree with Wombie. I regard HT as movile MGs, placed well behind the front line an often employed late in the scenario. This is one of the rare instances were coming to CMBN from CM1, rather than CMSF may be an advantage.

[c3k]

I like to keep the HT weapons manned, even if it means splitting off a scout team from the squad to do so. Then the HT stays back and provides fire support for the manuevering squad.

At least that's the plan...

[MikeyD]

There's a difference between US and German HTs. Its rare-if-ever that I get a hullside small arms penetration on a German HT. US HTs can usually stand up to fire from the front but from the side they're protection against nothing but splinters. I believe doctrine was that US HTs were to disembark approx 900 yards back from the forward line of contact. Any closer and you're asking for trouble. I'm not sure about German HT doctrine. People like to reference German 'blitz' manuals from 1941-2 that would be entirely inappropriate in 1944-5.

[LemuelG]

I admit I am prone to making glorious cavalry-style assaults if I am given 251s and a bit of armoured firepower, it's a gamble that can pay off - I mean, it can be worth the risk if you think you have local fire-superiority, sometimes better taking the chance of a bolt-from-the-blue than making your guys run across a large open space covered by enemy MG and mortars they'd all die crossing anyway (admittedly more something for the steppe than the bocage).

You could save lives and claim the initiative in one fell swoop; that's not to say you should cruise down the road in column looking for trouble - you gotta know what you're getting into.

[womble]

I admit I am prone to making glorious cavalry-style assaults if I am given 251s and a bit of armoured firepower, it's a gamble that can pay off - I mean, it can be worth the risk if you think you have local fire-superiority, sometimes better taking the chance of a bolt-from-the-blue than making your guys run across a large open space covered by enemy MG and mortars they'd all die crossing anyway (admittedly more something for the steppe than the bocage).

You could save lives and claim the initiative in one fell swoop; that's not to say you should cruise down the road in column looking for trouble - you gotta know what you're getting into.

This is a good point. If you've got local superiority and there's just some distant fire, tracks can help get across a gap faster than getting assets into position to suppress those fires. Just be very sure there's not an ATG that's not shown itself yet covering that gap

[LemoN]

I use halftracks similar to how they were used IRL (although they were used like that on a larger scale).

First wave is one infantry platoon to scout the enemy positions and draw fire, then I bring up the second platoon and the tanks to suppress and destroy the enemy and assault the objective. After the objective is mostly in my hands I use the first platoon to secure and hold the objective and bring the second platton to the staging area for the next assault. Now here is where the HT's come in. I use the HT's to quickly get my 3rd platoon up to the objective, protected from the occasional straggler or flanking units, and dismount them on the objective. I promptly bring up the second platoon to draw fire, bring up the third platoon and the tanks and assault the next objective.

[TheVulture]

I'm much like LemoN. My infantry are almost always dismounted. Half tracks are treated like trucks. They just happen to be a bit more forgiving if you run them into a surprise or you didn't notice that their route was briefly exposed to some enemy units. I almost never intentionally expose them to the enemy, and never when fully loaded. They do see some duty (once unloaded) as mobile MG units, firing from safe hull-down positions way back in the rear.

[Crinius]

Theres a nice training movie for Panzergrenadiers here. Its from 1944 and you can see how they fight mounted and dismounted. I think I can sum up German doctrin with

"Fight as long as possible mounted and fight as long as necessary dismounted." Thats still how it is doctrin today in the Bundeswehr.

[James Crowley]

IIRC halftracks were simply for moving inf more safely than in the much less expensive trucks. Yes, they had 30 and 50 cal MG's as AAA (also used to to support the inf). But, I don't think they were ever intended to run alongside armor as in modern warfare like they were Bradleys etc.

Just reading the excellent "No Holding Back" by Brian A Reid about Operation Totalize and that is almost exactly what they were used for in that instance; possibly for the first time by Commonwealth armies.

The overall distances were far larger than the normal CMBN battle but the mixed columns of armour and mechanised infantry were driving through enemy lines, to debussing points nearer their final objectives. As a consequence many came under fire and were destroyed.

So maybe not always wrong to carry the infantry into action; depends on the parameters of the scenario.

[BletchleyGeek]

First wave is one infantry platoon to scout the enemy positions and draw fire, then I bring up the second platoon and the tanks to suppress and destroy the enemy and assault the objective. After the objective is mostly in my hands I use the first platoon to secure and hold the objective and bring the second platton to the staging area for the next assault. Now here is where the HT's come in. I use the HT's to quickly get my 3rd platoon up to the objective, protected from the occasional straggler or flanking units, and dismount them on the objective. I promptly bring up the second platoon to draw fire, bring up the third platoon and the tanks and assault the next objective.

Similar tactics here, though depend a lot on the situation. I tend to use HT's though to provide mobile fire support while the infantry is charging, longer range wider calibers are used as overwatch when possible. Some are lost, but infantry losses are much lighter.

The inspiration for the above comes from how AI conducts assaults with mechanized forces in Pather Games' Highway to the Reich and Battle for the Bulge.

[A Canadian Cat]

I use halftracks similar to how they were used IRL (although they were used like that on a larger scale).

First wave is one infantry platoon to scout the enemy positions and draw fire, then I bring up the second platoon and the tanks to suppress and destroy the enemy and assault the objective. After the objective is mostly in my hands I use the first platoon to secure and hold the objective and bring the second platton to the staging area for the next assault. Now here is where the HT's come in. I use the HT's to quickly get my 3rd platoon up to the objective, protected from the occasional straggler or flanking units, and dismount them on the objective. I promptly bring up the second platoon to draw fire, bring up the third platoon and the tanks and assault the next objective.

Well said. More general I use my HTs to advance to staging areas (safe or at least safe ish) or for redeploying reserves (again I know the safe paths by then) since they move much faster than dismounted troops. Then I back them off a bit to more safety some times with their MGs on overwatch.

I have had several opponents do "the ride up like cavalry thing" and my US squads have brewed up a few 250s with just their rifle grenades. I am sooooo, not doing that:o

[Sgt Joch]

In RL, Halftracks were primarily used as transportation, but some commanders used them more aggressivily.

In CMBN, I never go into a combat situation mounted since it is too easy to lose a squad. I use the HT as infantry support, with a section mounted to man the .50, close to the squad and ready to dash in as required. It gives extra firepower in a firefight. Yes, they are vulnerable, but I would rather lose a HT than a tank.

[RockinHarry]

Theres a nice training movie for Panzergrenadiers here. Its from 1944 and you can see how they fight mounted and dismounted. I think I can sum up German doctrin with

"Fight as long as possible mounted and fight as long as necessary dismounted." Thats still how it is doctrin today in the Bundeswehr.

That also coincides with my original "Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere (combat training of the panzer grenadiers), Helmut von Wehren, 1944" training book.

http://openlibrary.org/works/OL1454235W/Gefechtsausbildung_der_Panzergrenadiere

Mounted combat from HTs was applied as oftenly as the combat situation allowed, not just in 1941, so anybody who says it´s propaganda, just knows half the story. Unfotunately it´s not modelled in CMBN, but yes....it´ll be a nightmare to code, so I leave it be asking for it.

From the mentioned training book:

Mounted combat will be (and was) generally applied, when AT opposition (incl. mines) was none or scarce, on course to the units objective, fighting enemy infantry at close proximity or good opportunity targets. Usually all squad weapons (mg, rifles, smg and hand grenades) were employed when applicable, either during movement or short halts.

So it´s all part of the practiced "doctrine" and not just a seldomly applied emergency measure or even "propaganda".

[Sgt Joch]

Troops did fight mounted in halftracks, but as you say, it was more in a recon role or against light opposition. On the Eastern Front, there were also German commanders who liked to charge into villages with their troops mounted in HTs to achieve surprise:

http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Blowtorch/Blowtorch%20Series%20Main%20page.htm

However, in CMBN, you are usually going up against well defended positions and going in hot in a HT may not be the wisest move...

[YankeeDog]

Theres a nice training movie for Panzergrenadiers here. Its from 1944 and you can see how they fight mounted and dismounted. I think I can sum up German doctrin with

"Fight as long as possible mounted and fight as long as necessary dismounted." Thats still how it is doctrin today in the Bundeswehr.

Eh? I just watched that whole movie, and I didn't see any footage of the actual infantry (as opposed to vehicle crews) fighting mounted. In the film, the HTs move quickly up to the objective area without any firing halts at all, dump off the infantry, and then the HTs move to a position to interdict enemy reinforcements while the disembarked infantry clears out remaining enemy resistance. But I didn't see a single frame of the actual infantry using the HTs as a fighting position, firing personal firearms the HT; they all hopped out once they got close to the objective area and fought from the ground.

The only thing I saw in that video which couldn't currently be simulated in CMBN was the Flammpanzerwagen.

In CMBN, if you want to send your infantry charging into close combat riding in HTs, you certainly can. Against an already disorganized and suppressed enemy (such as what's depicted in that training film), it can sometimes even be a good idea. Note how the German HTs in that training film don't close until after the JPz IVs have given the enemy a pretty good shellacking. But when employing such tactics, be ready to lose entire squads en masse if you judge the situation wrong, and there's a unsuppressed bazooka team or .50 cal MG that you didn't know about...

It's more of an option with the German 250/251 HTs, since their armor is somewhat better and can mostly be counted upon to turn back .30-'06 caliber or less. So as long as you're pretty sure the enemy is down to small arms, 250/251s are a relatively safe ride.

But the U.S. HT's armor isn't even thick enough to be proof against 7.92mm at typical combat ranges, so you have to be very careful with them.

Of course, if you want to talk about what actually happened in 1944 in the ETO, then the Panzergrenadiers often had only trucks, sometimes not even this; often, they had to ride on the tanks for lack of other transport. Only a few German formations actually had anywhere near theoretical allotment of HTs, even fewer once the fighting in Normandy had been going on for a few weeks.

[RockinHarry]

Troops did fight mounted in halftracks, but as you say, it was more in a recon role or against light opposition. On the Eastern Front, there were also German commanders who liked to charge into villages with their troops mounted in HTs to achieve surprise:

http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Blowtorch/Blowtorch%20Series%20Main%20page.htm

However, in CMBN, you are usually going up against well defended positions and going in hot in a HT may not be the wisest move...

Yep. Surprise charges are a possibility, but not advised as standard combat method and highly depended upon a particular leaders character and personal combat methods. If such a leader would sacrifice his valuable weaponry (tanks, HT´s, troops...) too often with such risky methods, he would not hold his command for too long usually. The better, more experienced commanders would know when to take risks/unusual combat methods and when not.

One can try it in the game, but usually it does not work and just produces high losses with appropiate end game scores. However, I played many of GeorgeMC´s CMBB Blowtorch scenarios and I remeber I had applied such a daring attack once or twice successfully, even vs. the master himself. This was under low visibility conditions, vs dug in russian infantry in open terrain and no AT opposition around. Moved a platoon of mounted Panzergrenadiers right into the russian positions and with some fire support of another platoon further back, disembarked the Grenadiers right into close combat with the russians, finishing them off in brutal combat and moderate friendly infantry casulaties. I had alternatives dealing with the given situation (flanking the russian position, or avoid it entirely), but I wanted to try and was successful, enjoying some quite intense game turns as well.

[George MC]

Yep. Surprise charges are a possibility, but not advised as standard combat method and highly depended upon a particular leaders character and personal combat methods. If such a leader would sacrifice his valuable weaponry (tanks, HT´s, troops...) too often with such risky methods, he would not hold his command for too long usually. The better, more experienced commanders would know when to take risks/unusual combat methods and when not.

One can try it in the game, but usually it does not work and just produces high losses with appropiate end game scores. However, I played many of GeorgeMC´s CMBB Blowtorch scenarios and I remeber I had applied such a daring attack once or twice successfully, even vs. the master himself. This was under low visibility conditions, vs dug in russian infantry in open terrain and no AT opposition around. Moved a platoon of mounted Panzergrenadiers right into the russian positions and with some fire support of another platoon further back, disembarked the Grenadiers right into close combat with the russians, finishing them off in brutal combat and moderate friendly infantry casulaties. I had alternatives dealing with the given situation (flanking the russian position, or avoid it entirely), but I wanted to try and was successful, enjoying some quite intense game turns as well.

Yup remember that moment well

[Sgt Joch]

Well I never got a chance to play George, but I did play most of the "Blowtorch" CMBB scenarios at one time or another.

[RockinHarry]

Eh? I just watched that whole movie, and I didn't see any footage of the actual infantry (as opposed to vehicle crews) fighting mounted. In the film, the HTs move quickly up to the objective area without any firing halts at all, dump off the infantry, and then the HTs move to a position to interdict enemy reinforcements while the disembarked infantry clears out remaining enemy resistance. But I didn't see a single frame of the actual infantry using the HTs as a fighting position, firing personal firearms the HT; they all hopped out once they got close to the objective area and fought from the ground.

Yup, it´s video #3 (of 4) and the mounted platoons main task was to cut the russians off and then drop at or near the breakthrough point to clean out the russians from the former MLR. No mounted combat scenes are shown, but that´s part of single mounted squad tactics, which is not the topic of this training video. If mounted Grenadiers had to bypass single russians in foxholes or in the open at close proximity, they could deal with them by use of handgrenades or SMG on the move, but usually would depend on mutual support of other HT´s nearby, blazing with MGs.

Of course, if you want to talk about what actually happened in 1944 in the ETO, then the Panzergrenadiers often had only trucks, sometimes not even this; often, they had to ride on the tanks for lack of other transport. Only a few German formations actually had anywhere near theoretical allotment of HTs, even fewer once the fighting in Normandy had been going on for a few weeks.

True generally. During the attack of Panzer Lehr on positions of 9th US ID on July 10, 1944, the division still could muster some 500 HT´s combat ready, but I have no data how many were actually employed during that attack and some reports tell that many Grenadiers rode on the tanks and not half tracks (Helmut Ritgen, History of Panzer Lehr Division in the west, 1944-1945). That surely was one of the last major opportunities for germans to use such a "mechanized" force in strength and breakthrough tactics applied on the western front 1944 though.

There´s surely few other examples and I remember about the Arracourt counter attacks with the newly built panzer brigades employed, but these stay exceptions for sure.

[gunnergoz]

Halftracks: mobility combined with the illusion of protection. To be sure, no modern army except perhaps the Israeli with their tank/APC hybrids have insisted upon infantry carriers that could really provide decent protection on a par with tanks. The WW2 dalliance with Kangaroos was a start, but the Kangaroo itself only had an early M-4 Sherman level of protection. I think most infantry would rather take their chances on foot when closing with the enemy - at least you can dive behind some substantial cover. There's also the feeling of powerlessness when you are being carried like eggs in one basket, with no say as to what the driver does next. They beat walking, but only up to the point of contact.