Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

The reason far having armored halftrack carriers was to have infantry be able follow tanks cross-country. That was the purpose of the exercise.

Brad

Yep.

The main reason for not using them in combat isn't even so much that they make their passengers more vulnerable (nobody is sitting inside a halftrack while it is being shot at) but because if that track gets destroyed, it cannot carry its passengers and keep up with the tanks anymore. Any nominal added combat capability (and lets be honest, it is VERY nominal) is not remotely worth the loss of operational mobility they represent.

I actually think the American halftracks were very superior to the Germans - they understood the point better. They were more mobile (their front wheels were driven, which made them much less likely to bog down), more reliable, and much more plentiful. Granted, they were not as well armored, but then, what difference does a little extra armor make when almost anything can destroy you anyway?

Also, the American halftracks could carry an entire squad - IIRC, the Germans could only carry a half-squad per track.

I actually think the American halftracks were very superior to the Germans - they understood the point better. They were more mobile (their front wheels were driven, which made them much less likely to bog down), more reliable, and much more plentiful. Granted, they were not as well armored, but then, what difference does a little extra armor make when almost anything can destroy you anyway?

The M3 had shorter tracks, but more theoretical off-road mobility due to the powered frontwheels. I'm not sure about the cross-country performance, but given the difference in track layout, I'd be surprised if the M3 was much better. Considering that there was no propulsion at all under the cabin, it looks like it could more easily get stuck than German halftracks.

The M3 was also half a meter higher and less well armoured, not a good combination. It was also 1.5 tons heavier than the Sd.Kfz 251.

It was faster, but the Sd.Kfz 250 had about the same maximum speed.

"A little extra armour" to protect you from machinegun fire makes quite a bit of difference. If you're going to drive up to the front, you don't want a machinegun to be able to be able of penetrating the armour of the vehicle you're in.

Whether something is plentiful isn't a qualification for its quality. At the start of the 1941 campaign, the Soviets have thousands of tanks, yet you'd be hard pressed to find much more than a 1000 good ones in service.

The variety of weapons that could be/were mounted on the Sd.Kfz 251 were also superior to what the Americans mounted on them.

Also, the American halftracks could carry an entire squad - IIRC, the Germans could only carry a half-squad per track.

Sd.Kfz 251's could carry an entire squad, the Sd.Kfz 250 generally only had room for half a squad.

Tarhunnas raised a good point that is getting lost in this Halftrack discussion.

Why does he have 877,000 men in his Manpower Pool?

The Armament Pool is nearly empty

This seems like a serious problem that needs investigating, way more than halftracks, which is mostly chrome

If that's going to happen in 1943, why do we care about halftracks?

I think we need to know the Soviet numbers to see if it is a general problem our specific to the axis.

Meh, I don't think either was vulnerable to machine gun fire except at very short range, or rather heavy machine guns. I would be much more concerned about MG fire in a german track going up against the Americans than vice versa - the Germans did not use heavy caliber machine guns, and the Americans (and to a lesser extent the Russians and brits) did. I'll take my chances in an M3 being fired at by a MG42 than in a Sdkfz being fired at by a .50cal. Although I imagine neither is going to be particularly pleasant. The German tracks were certainly better designed from a sloping armor standpoint.

And I would very much disagree that something being plentiful isn't a qualification for its quality, especially with an item that is needed in massive quantities, like halftracks. I would much rather have enough good halftracks to mount my entire armored divisions infantry than a few nominally better ones that can only mount 1/3rd of them. I think the rejection of cost and ease of production when discussing design is a rather interesting (and telling) comment. Successful weapons systems should be evaluated on their ability to solve the problem they were intended to solve - if they cannot do so because they are too expensive, difficult to produce, or not reliable, then all the whiz bang capability on the battlefield is not really relevant.

And the Americans generally did not use their halftracks as mounts for heavy weapons to the extent that the Germans did - this was a doctrinal decision, not one based on capability. But needless to say the American certainly mounted plenty of weapons on their halftracks when they had the need to do so. I am not aware of there being any actual design limitation on the M3 that kept it from mounting weapons that would otherwise be desirable.

I am not trying to bag on the Sdkfz - it is actually a rather rare German design that I think was actually an excellent combination of capability and design in a package that actually got the job done without being an over-engineered mess. I imagine because halftracks are non-sexy enough for Hitler to leave the eff alone.

But I do think it suffered from being a little too capable - much of that capability was not that useful (because tracks really could not stand up in combat anyway), and was expensive enough that the Germans were never able to produce enough to actually solve the operational problem of how to keep the infantry up with the armor.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Tarhunnas raised a good point that is getting lost in this Halftrack discussion.

Why does he have 877,000 men in his Manpower Pool?

The Armament Pool is nearly empty

This seems like a serious problem that needs investigating, way more than halftracks, which is mostly chrome

If that's going to happen in 1943, why do we care about halftracks?

I dunno. I ramble on about halftracks because I find the discussion interesting.

I think the rejection of cost and ease of production when discussing design is a rather interesting (and telling) comment.

Who is rejecting it? I'm rejecting your implied statement that plentiful equals good. Neither you nor me mentioned cost and ease of production, you were just saying that plentiful is good. I raised you the AFV's the Soviets start with to show that plentiful doesn't automatically equal good.

Why does he have 877,000 men in his Manpower Pool?

The Armament Pool is nearly empty

I think the answer to the problem is in the armaments pool. The 1942 doesn't start with any in the pool for the Axis, at least not in my version. That would explain a lot.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I think the rejection of cost and ease of production when discussing design is a rather interesting (and telling) comment.

Who is rejecting it? I'm rejecting your implied statement that plentiful equals good. Neither you nor me mentioned cost and ease of production, you were just saying that plentiful is good. I raised you the AFV's the Soviets start with to show that plentiful doesn't automatically equal good.

The fact that plentiful does not ALWAYS equal good does not refute the observation that plentiful is good. My statement listed several reasons I considered the M3 to be a superior design, and the fact that it was plentiful was one of them - obviously I was not arguing that the design was crap, but there were lots of them therefore it actually wasn't crap.

So yeah, plentiful does not *automatically* equal good, but since I listed a bunch of other reasons I thought the design was superior, your pointing out that the Soviets had lots of crummy tanks doesn't really mean much. Because the M3 was not a crummy halftrack by anyone's measure, and certainly performed its function. Therefore, the fact that it did so while also being simple and cheap enough to produce in the number necessary to actually do what it was needed to do (something the German HTs never managed at any point, I might add) is certainly a (strong) point in its favor.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I think we need to know the Soviet numbers to see if it is a general problem our specific to the axis.

I'll ask my opponent if he would like to post them.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I actually think the American halftracks were very superior to the Germans - they understood the point better. They were more mobile (their front wheels were driven, which made them much less likely to bog down), more reliable, and much more plentiful. Granted, they were not as well armored, but then, what difference does a little extra armor make when almost anything can destroy you anyway?

The M3 had shorter tracks, but more theoretical off-road mobility due to the powered frontwheels. I'm not sure about the cross-country performance, but given the difference in track layout, I'd be surprised if the M3 was much better. Considering that there was no propulsion at all under the cabin, it looks like it could more easily get stuck than German halftracks.

The M3 was also half a meter higher and less well armoured, not a good combination. It was also 1.5 tons heavier than the Sd.Kfz 251.

It was faster, but the Sd.Kfz 250 had about the same maximum speed.

"A little extra armour" to protect you from machinegun fire makes quite a bit of difference. If you're going to drive up to the front, you don't want a machinegun to be able to be able of penetrating the armour of the vehicle you're in.

Whether something is plentiful isn't a qualification for its quality. At the start of the 1941 campaign, the Soviets have thousands of tanks, yet you'd be hard pressed to find much more than a 1000 good ones in service.

The variety of weapons that could be/were mounted on the Sd.Kfz 251 were also superior to what the Americans mounted on them.

Also, the American halftracks could carry an entire squad - IIRC, the Germans could only carry a half-squad per track.

Sd.Kfz 251's could carry an entire squad, the Sd.Kfz 250 generally only had room for half a squad.

ComradeP got the point no doubt. I might add that the angle of the armour and not just the armour thickness of the German H-Track made a huge differance Vs all Allied small arms including SCW's at range beyond 50 Meters. Not just almost anything or at any range could you take out either the M3 or the German Tracks, what gave you this idea?

BTW Berkut, IIRC you can see via U-Tube footage that has been uploaded of the various tracks in war time action and not just German. Some of which is period training films and others are news releases such as "The Front Show" (German), etc. The tracks of all sides were used in combat whether at times they liked it or not of course, however it was common practice to have the tracks close to the Tanks, SP's TD's and such to protect from "close in Infantry attack" since most of the aforementioned Armour was vulnerable.

There are 1000's of different situations in combat no doubt that can arise, Infantry fought from tracks all the time and bailed out of them as well to fight....Duh, tracks were used in combat...nuf said on this I think.

as requested

Hmmmm... interesting - we have Pavel looking into this.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Hmmmm... interesting - we have Pavel looking into this.

Aw, don't do that! What is interesting? [&:]

Tarhunnas, could you post a rifle squad summary screenshot as seen in the blizzard survival guide thread, as well as your current OOB.

Thanks.

What is interesting is the Soviets have men and armaments points in the pool.

edit: can you sort by GE only rifle squads.

dont have trucks to send anything to the front :p im like (58k) 116k

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Tarhunnas, could you post a rifle squad summary screenshot as seen in the blizzard survival guide thread, as well as your current OOB.

Thanks.

What is interesting is the Soviets have men and armaments points in the pool.

edit: can you sort by GE only rifle squads.

I'm playing as soviet against Fiva in a 42 campaign too(theres an aar on it) and i'm having surplus of both manpower and armaments too, could this be because of the terrible truck situation as gids said?

The truck situation is pretty standard for Soviets in 1943, they can generally only support 2/3 of the front being active with the rest static. Truck numbers are also affected by the number of tank/mech corps in action. If you have more than 30, they will be sucking vehicles out of the pool.


I'd need to see the current TOE%s of the Sovs to see if there is a problem. Once the Soviets get their offensive rolling their casualties will increase and this should suck up the manpower, and by 1944 when the recruitment multiplier drops, they may start seeing shortages.

i can send you a save file of mine plus pass from 2 turns ago just pm me your mail

Aw, don't do that! What is interesting?

Having seen the save from gids, I think part (and it is only part) of the reason for the disparity is that you didn't go for the historical option, and take out the manpower and resource centres around krasnador (sp), maikop and Novorissiyk(sp). This has given the sovs more manpower and resources, and less resources for the Axis. I am pretty sure Pavel's production system does assume historical resource availability, so if you don't get what they got historically, Axis production could be reduced accordingly.

It will be interesting to see if fiva55 has similar issues in his game, because he didn't go for the resources/manpower either.

Regarding the micro-management of TOE%s, the developers view is that the max TOE% mechanic was put in to allow players to re-create the case Blue situation(50% TOE for AGN&AGC, AGS at 80%), but have the flexibility to rebuild the army to suit whatever strategy players want to follow in 1942. It is clear that after the blizzard it is impossible to have every unit at 100% TOE.

Taking the Historical gains toward the Caucausus is pretty tough. If missing that means the German production system results in that type of deficit that Tarhunnas is seeing, I'm not optimistic that an "average" game will result in anything other than a collapse in 1944.

I think Tarhunnas has played pretty well, and so his has opponent, which has limited his gains. An alert Soviet player should be able to prevent the Germans from reaching Stalingrad, Mt. Elbrus, et al.

Am I off base?