"M3 armour and HMG fire" Topic

So letīs turn to the other side.

Iīve read that the M3 Halftrack wasnīt entirely bulletproof and MG shots could penetrate the armour and then the bullet would ricochet inside. This was true?

In gaming terms a .30 MG couldnīt deal damage to a german halftrack but their equivalent (MG-34/42) could isnīt?

The M3 was known as a "purple heart box" for a reason. I have no hard scientific data to back up the point, except to say that most of the veterans I've talked to about it say it was better than nothing, but only just.

Do what you will with that bit of insight.

-Aurelian

Non-Military tests I have seen photos of, done by P. O. Ackley on a section of M3 half track armor – .30-06 armour piercing round left a nasty smudge ( .220 Swift left a 1/2 inch hole right thru'). The danger would be rounds that just missed the top edge of the armor and were dropping, they would just bounce around inside.

Another point would be that almost no-one shooting an MG at an M3 would be using anything bigger than rifle caliber rounds – they skipped .50 and went to 20mm+ (OK, the Italians had some low powered 12mm and the Germans had 15mm AA)

Ouch an M3 and 20mm round.

The M3 always seemed even less of an 'assault vehicle' than the 251 with low sides etc – I normally treat it as just a bit better than soft skins by giving the troops hard cover rather than armoured protection (depending on the rules of course).

Really need a way to stop the ex 40K players at our club thinking the 251 is a 'rhino' and running it up into melee range and trying to jump the Panzergrens over the side straight into hand to hand. Keep telling them that they debussed a way away (even showed them the 'manual') and then, if anything, used it for longer range MG support – but they like the look of it I think !

In 1940 the jerries tried using their half tracks to roll right over the enemy. If they were completely in disarray already then it worked. They often took pretty bad losses since you only need a few of those mmg or ATR to be still manned and your 251 will have some extra holes.

The M3 is proof against shell splinters, it wasn't designed to be particularly bullet proof. IIRC a .50 cal would penetrate at up to 1000m, and rifle calibre rounds from MGs at 200m or so.

These are not IFVs, they are lightly armoured trucks designed to traverse the enemy defensive artillery barrage, having done so, the infantry dismount.

If you want a well armoured APC, use a Kangeroo.

Really need a way to stop the ex 40K players at our club thinking the 251 is a 'rhino' and running it up into melee range and trying to jump the Panzergrens over the side straight into hand to hand.

Getting their halftracks blown up on a regular basis should teach them, I would think.

Points out the problem many gamers have. How many of us have seen players, regardless of the rules, use halftracks as though they were designed as assault vehicles or even as cheap recce vehicles!

The M3 Halftrack and upgrades were never meant to be assault vehicles. They were a battle taxi. The idea was a vehicle that could deliver combat troops to the edge of a battlefield as well as provide minimal protection against things like shell fragments. The M3 was designed for use with Armored Divisions so the infantry could keep up with the tanks (remember US tank doctrine, it was to penetrate and exploit taking out artillery, supplies, communications and headquarters, NOT to battle enemy armor). That is why Armored Infantry had halftracks while leg infantry relied on trucks for transports, not halftracks.

The M3 was never meant to be assault vehicles and thats one reason many gamers get frustrated with their relative vulnerability when they try to use them that way or drive them up and try to use their MG for support in an assault.

I've done this in tactical computer games, and learned very quickly how to use halftracks properly :) Run in, drop the troops, get out, plink with the MG at long range.

From what I have read lately, the M3 had in general an armour thickness of approximately 6mm on most surfaces – so could possibly be penetrated by a proper rifle round at close range.

Still better than going around on foot, horse-drawn wagon or by truck.

Griefbringer

I think most gamers though of halftracks as assault vehicles because they are armoured and have a nice MG on top (Us ones have such nive MG that it even seems like a small cannon).

I think that, if vehicles doesnīt have that MG they would start thinking about them as mere transports.

Or just blow them away while trying to charge the enemy!

Argh! I don't know if it's someone in the US Government's fault, or Ruben Megido's fault for being imprecise, but it's taken me until Marc33594's post to realise you were talking about halftracks, and not Stuart light tanks.

Well, it could have also been about the Grant/Lee medium tanks, or about the Grease Gun SMG.

Griefbringer

You gotta love the Ordnance Department ID system –

"What do we call these helmets?"

"Well, how about M, cos Most everyone wears one, and 1, cos you can only wear one. Say M1?"

"OK. What about these rifles?"

"Well, M, cos most everyone carries one, and 1, cos you only need one?"

"OK, M1. Hey, won't that be confusing?"

"Nah, we won't call EVERYTHING an M1. What's next?"

"Erm, carbines?"

Both the German and American half tracks had about 8mm armor in most places. According to most sources i'm familair with, that is just enough to stop a a regular rifle round fired at about 100 yards.

M3 armor was 1/4 inch (c. 6-7mm) everywhere except the armored windshield, which was 3/8" (c. 10mm). it was bolted onto a frame, not a structural component.

What hurrahbro says sounds about right. A booklet I have about the M3 says that they could be easly penetrated by anything from .50 caliber on up. (Fortunately, the Germans used 7.92mm MGs.)

The booklet also says that the M3s were seldom used in actual combat, just as "battle taxis" to get the infantry to the jumping off point. Also as mobile homes, carrying all the men's personal effects.

Gary Kennedy: Reminds me of the story one of my uncles told about the old lady who canned her own fruit. It was all label "TP." Some stood for "tis peaches," and some for "taint peaches."

The M3 was much better to hide behind or under than a 2.5 ton truck, or a Jeep.

Let's call it "bullet resistant".
-Kle.

Hmm. German machineguns, notably those in the German tanks, had armor piercing ammunition. The FMJ standard rounds might not penetrate but the AP rounds did, at about 250 meters. The German design also had better armor slope then the US and I don't think the 250 and 251 models had the gasoline tanks located on each side of the rear hull on the inside in the crew compartment.

Germans did use tanks as battle taxi but those would be behind the tanks they were supporting and firing to prevent enemy (Soviet) from getting to the tanks. A 251/1 could have 3 machineguns firing off it. Vehicle MG behind the shield and one of the two squad LMG firing over each side. At 100 meters that could be pretty effective. Against any kind of effective anti-tank defense the half-tracks were too dangerous to stay in and the Germans would get out to fight on foot. US AI would dismount their half-tracks and ride on the tanks to get into combat, dismounting as soon as contact was made. TD