mwindsorfw | 16 Nov 2016 7:27 p.m. PST |
How are APCs and half tracks used? Are they used like trucks, where they drop off the infantry and then stay out of the way? Are they expected to stay close to the infantry and provide close support? Or something else? In games, I tend to use them as weapons platforms that plink away from long range, but I have no idea how to to really use them. |
Extra Crispy | 16 Nov 2016 8:16 p.m. PST |
In general yes, they are more transport than fighting machine. They are lightly armored and armed to protect the troops until they get to where they need to be. Then they dismount and fight on foot. I games I do the same thing you do |
Narratio | 16 Nov 2016 8:21 p.m. PST |
Keeping it simple, half tracks are not APC's and they're from different eras. With the improvements in wheeled ATV's, there are not that many half tracks in use these days. The original idea of a half track was to keep up with the tanks over rough terrain, drop the infantry and them provide ranged fire support for them. None of them had armour worth talking about and getting them up close and personal was just an invitation for a grenade or two. Boom, no half track. A modern APC is just that, an Armoured personnel Carrier. Not a tank but much better armoured and carrying a plethora of weaponry than the old half track, so it can get close and really support the infantry it carried, or they may fight from inside the vehicle. But again, it's a largish vehicle and an easy target, although tougher than the half tracks they replaced. |
Yellow Admiral | 16 Nov 2016 8:21 p.m. PST |
They're extremely useful for suicide charges, spotting for artillery, blocking roads, providing repositionable cover, and as deadly mobile bases of heavy fire support. But I assume you meant "in real life"…. :-) - Ix |
miniMo | 16 Nov 2016 8:47 p.m. PST |
They are useful for getting troops closer to the battle than trucks, and then getting out of the way. Or for accompanying an armoured drive that is bypassing enemy positions. Then unloading the troops where they are going to fight, and then getting out of the way. |
Yellow Admiral | 16 Nov 2016 8:58 p.m. PST |
A question for the peanut gallery: how reliable were WWII half-tracks? A little-attended fact of mobile warfare in games is the high intensity of maintenance required for tanks in the field. Besides POL, they needs parts, tune-ups, repairs, and constant fiddling to keep them going. The length of an armored drive has always been limited by the availability of parts and attenuation of vehicles. The length of this "leash" was generally shorter the farther back in history one goes (with some exceptions), and also varied by nation and vehicle. I don't have a clue how this principle applied to half-tracks. On the one hand, tracked vehicles have special wear problems that wheeled vehicles on pneumatic rubber tires don't share, and it takes a lot more work to fix the track system too (if only because of many many many more pieces!), so they must have a shorter tether than trucks. On the other hand, half-tracks were lighter and clearly designed with mobility in mind and without the extreme weight heavy armor and huge guns, so I'd expect them to be able to go farther than tanks. Can anyone here speak cogently about this topic? - Ix |
Fatman | 16 Nov 2016 9:50 p.m. PST |
My two bobs worth. From all I have read, and many discussions with veterans, "almost" everybody used their 1/2 tracks as protected transport. As has been noted the British didn't even officially fit MGs to their 1/2 tracks. So commonwealth forces usually rode the M-5's to the start line then left them behind. Motor Rifles might have used them to keep up with the tanks but even then would dismount to fight and keep the 1/2 tracks under cover. The Soviets tended to use their lend lease 1/2 tracks as "Command & Communications" vehicles or tractors. Very few were used by front line troops. I could be wrong there and if someone knows better please chime in. US forces were very heavily armed with MG's and AT weapons but again were not, officially, expected to ride their M-3's into the enemy. However the 1/2 tracks were expected to carry them closer to the enemy than the British and to supply some fire support when feasible. However if the opposition was light or retreating US Mech Rifle companies did carry out mounted attacks punching onto the target and then dismounting while the gunners kept the enemy under fire. This could be very successful it could also be a complete ClusterBleep and I suspect it was not as common as the movies would like us to believe. Now the Germans did actually train for mounted attacks and were far more likely to carry them out. However these assaults were only to be used in the most favourable of circumstances and I doubt if they happened much after 1942 when the increase in infantry anti tank weapons would have made favourable circumstances rare. Otherwise they tended to operate in a similar way to US half tracks. As I said above this is just my opinions gained over several decades of reading about this stuff but I hope it helps. Fatman |
Rod I Robertson | 16 Nov 2016 9:57 p.m. PST |
mwindsorfw: Half tracks were mostly used as transport due to the added armour protection that would protect the vehicle and passengers from artillery shell splinters and small arms fire. Their purpose was to carry mechanised/motorised infantry in support of tanks through a dangerous battle space in order to deliver the infantry passengers on or near their objective. As they could not withstand fire from large caliber support weapons, infantry anti-tank weapons or direct fire from artillery or tanks, they were seldom used in a direct fire supporting role unless surprised by enemy troops while en route to their objective or in desperate self defence. They were used to add to suppressive fire by their accompanying tanks as the approached their objectives. Usually most or all of the MG's arming the half track were dismounted and deployed in support of the infantry. Only in desperate circumstances would they be used as fire bases. They were delivery vehicles which scooted back out of harm's way as soon as their passengers debussed. Of course this was doctrine but there are plenty of examples of troops ignoring SOP's and improvising new tactics. There were very few APC's used in WWII. Defrocked Priests (AKA Kangaroos) which were M-7 SP Howitzer gun-carriages with extra armour plating and their main gun and ammo racks removed were used by Commonwealth troops from August 1944 onwards. Later they were replaced with turretless Ram I and Ram II tanks also called Kangaroos in October 1944. The Ram Kangaroos were armoured enough that they would sometimes stick around for a while and shoot their infantry onto the objective with direct and indirect supporting MG fire. But even they would scoot rather than fight. Amphibious tractors like the LTV-2 or the LTV-4 were more lightly armoured than Ram Kamgaroos but did nonetheless offer supporting fire for debussed troops advancing on an objective if pressed to do so. Cheers and good gaming. Rod Robertson |
Martin Rapier | 17 Nov 2016 12:02 a.m. PST |
Even more modern APC (M113, FV432, BTR) are more used as battle busses. Genuine IFV (BMP, Marden, Warrior, Bradley) are actual combat vehicles. |
Vostok17 | 17 Nov 2016 12:18 a.m. PST |
Actually, an armored personnel carrier task – bring infantry on the battlefield with the least loss of any kind of trouble (fragments of shells, bullets, etc.). In Soviet instructions – armored personnel carrier normally goes behind the advancing infantry, supported it with fire, and if necessary forwards infantry across the river. Another thing, when to use nuclear or biological weapons – there infantry can fire from an armored personnel carrier. Sometimes, of course, an armored personnel carrier used as ersatz tank (in Grenada, for example). But this is of extreme poverty or ignorance. P.S. I speak about 1950-1980-s |
goragrad | 17 Nov 2016 12:46 a.m. PST |
Actually, Zaloga in one of his works notes that in Nam M-113s were used as AFVs. Al least by the ARVN. In the AF Profile on the Ram, it stated that Kangaroos at least on occasion carried the troops to the point of opposition before dropping them. One problem the Kangaroo had was the fact that the infantry had to exit over the side from the opening where the turret had been removed.. Would make for a fairly long exposure under fire. It was also noted that Kangaroos ended up sporting a significant number of automatic weapons mounted on the old turret ring to provide suppressive fire for the infantry. |
UshCha | 17 Nov 2016 1:08 a.m. PST |
The most fundamental point about an APC is that it can pass through artillery fire with minimal risk. This gets the infantry close to there objective. The distances quoted seem to vary wildly from as little as 100 yds. If it's you own artillery this is proably OK as the enemy will be suppressed and you get out immediately it stops. Beyond 25mm the risk if being hit by hand held anti tank weapons is much reduced. With mortars you are just about safe to debuss from it and set up you final fires for the assault. Beyond 400 yds the risk from infantry weapons is dimimishing and you should be at taking under a barrage. You do have to watch wargame designers. In reality getting machine guns closer than 400 yds m ask es them no mor effective. This nears that hand held at G's are minimal risk while the fire support is good. You should have tanks around to occupy the heavy infantry weapons that would take the APC's out. IFV's like the Marder come into there own in dense terrain and FIBU where it's mor difficult to get out of range or suppressed hand held. |
Broglie | 17 Nov 2016 4:13 a.m. PST |
Another thing to remember is that the half track or truck was not only the infantry transport but also their base or home if you like. It not only transports you into battle but also out again if you have get away quickly. This is a great comfort if you are wounded, the weather is bad or you are in the middle of nowhere. No infantry willingly exposes their 'home' or lifeline unless they have to. I think the original post has the right idea for wargames. |
Griefbringer | 17 Nov 2016 5:15 a.m. PST |
Actually, Zaloga in one of his works notes that in Nam M-113s were used as AFVs. Al least by the ARVN. Entirely possible, and there even exists an M113 variant that features a light tank (or armoured car) turret on the top. Not to mention the version with extra MGs mounted around the big rood hatch. That said, it probably tells more about the character of the Vietnam war than about the conventional role of M113. Both the nature of the opponent and the operations was quite different from the conventional role of armoured infantry. |
Blutarski | 17 Nov 2016 6:39 a.m. PST |
Numerous M113s in Vietnam were outfitted with multiple MGs (and sometime other items of armament) topside and operated as light AFVs. Some sources credit ARVN with the original idea, but the US ultimately manufactured standardized M113 conversion/upgrade kits. Nomenclature for the upgrade was commonly M113 ACAV. One of the interesting issues was that, while the M48 tanks were good jungle busters, they were bog risks in rice paddy terrain – particularly during the wet season. The M113 was too light to knock down biggish trees, but its lower ground pressure could allow it to traverse soft ground that was impassable to the tanks. Google – M113 ACAV in Vietnam – for more details. B |
robert piepenbrink | 17 Nov 2016 8:17 a.m. PST |
Just FYI, I did run into attacks bu US half-tracks in North Africa in 1942 and I think into 1943. This was, you understand, by drivers and presumably machine-gunners after the infantry had dismounted and gotten themselves into a bind. As a wargamer, I'd allow it as a desperation move, but you'd want to make sure the rules didn't make it a regular tactic. The Yellow Admiral's right: too much of that sort of thing goes on. |
mwindsorfw | 17 Nov 2016 8:38 a.m. PST |
Thanks guys. I'll try to use them a lot more like trucks. On a slightly different note, I have seen M3 half-tracks and White Scout Cars (also open top) used as part of WW2 recon elements. Did they play the same role of hauling scouts forward, and providing some extra punch if they came under fire and needed to pull out? |
Weasel | 17 Nov 2016 11:05 a.m. PST |
I've pondered for a long time to simply restrict transports from moving too close to enemy forces. Reduce the distance for half-tracks a bit (two thirds of that of a truck?) and you should see the game be a bit more representative. There's plenty of instances in books and accounts where a half-track provided supporting fire with its machine gun, but when it happens it seems to be at a pretty respectable distance from the action. If it takes direct anti-tank fire and the crew has dismounted, force it to bug out to a safe location. |
UshCha | 17 Nov 2016 11:30 a.m. PST |
I think half the problem is the rules. Most rules are range paranoid. Actually a Ma Browning would do a perfectly good job beyond 1100m. The paras in the Falklands complained that their Gimpies tracer ran out making it impossible to see fall of shot beyond this, wheras the .5 cal tracer ran out at 1500 yds. Non linear range system make this worse. Again it's compromise. If you have 28mm figs, you in the real world, would often have even machine guns off table. Real but maybe spoils the "theatre" of it all and hence a Holywood approach. You pays your money and takes your choice. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 17 Nov 2016 2:46 p.m. PST |
There are numerous memoirs by Vietnam-era ACAV and mech infantry indicating that they were indeed used in combat (even close combat) and not merely transports to reach a combat zone. Their mobility and HMGs were popular with dismounts. Several memoirs from Iraq also indicate that Bradleys and Strykers were not used as mere battle taxis but also as combat support vehicles. I know that we gamers often think about these things in terms of "doctrine" and/or like to think we're knocking down old wives tales. But when you read these memoirs it makes total sense they way APCs are used in actual combat. Just as humvees were pushed into tactical roles for which they were not intended, APCs are frequently the heaviest and most mobile weapons platforms and mobile protection available to infantry. They take what they can get. And if that means advancing INTO (not merely to) contact with Iraqi insurgents in the middle of a city, that's what they do. Check out "Stryker: The Siege of Sadr City" for an excellent account of APCs in combat. link The author notes what many have stated here: Strykers are not meant to be AFVs for sustained combat. But the enemy has a say in the matter and often that's all you have so you make do. Or, let's say your Stryker falls in a hole in the road and breaks an axle, then it becomes a pillbox until towed out by another Stryker while under intense fire. (Actual incident in the book). On YouTube there are numerous videos of lightly armored vehicles rolling into and through Mosul. In many cases they're engaged in long range firefights. In a few others, they're in close urban combat. One particular video shows a CNN reporter with an Iraqi unit of "armored" humvees and other light armor being ambushed in a city. They're surrounded and forced to dismount into buildings. All of the vehicles are disabled or destroyed but not before exchanging heavy gunfire with ISIS fighters. From what I can tell, APCs and other light armor are fine for long range exchange of mostly small arms fire. They provide mobility for HMGs and AGLs that would otherwise prove too unwieldy for light troops. And they can whisk you through a small arms kill zone (move fast!). But you do NOT want to bog down in a close range sustained firefight at close quarters. Even in Nam ACAVs were fine as fire support vehicles but they needed to be protected from close assault. Unlike tanks they were not quite capable of "scratching one another's backs" given their thin armor/. |
Legion 4 | 17 Nov 2016 4:05 p.m. PST |
A lot of those comment are pretty accurate. |
Rod I Robertson | 18 Nov 2016 1:03 a.m. PST |
VIS: Bradley's and Strykers are AIFV's or ICV's and are expected to fight with their infantry mounted much of the time. They are not APC's. Your point about HMMWV's is a good one however. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 18 Nov 2016 9:58 a.m. PST |
try to use them a lot more like trucks. APCs are more well armored than trucks generally. However, in all cases, all vehicles should use terrain masking, camo, cover and concealment. Infantry in either should be dismounted in a cover and concealed position if possible. As near to the Objective as possible. APCs because they are better armored and in some cases armed. Should move into a Support by Fire Position to cover and support the dismounted Infantry. As it maneuvers on the enemy. APCs have armor, trucks don't. APCs primary design and function is to move Infantry along with the Tanks. So they can provide mutual support. And is the basis of the Combined Arms Concept. APCs could survive an artillery attack … Trucks … NO. The is one of the reason why you had APCs. To move Infantry to keep up with armor. Trucks generally don't have the cross-country mobility of Tracked APCs. An APC is also not a Tank. To use it as such is an error. Generally based on the enemy. As we saw in SE Asia when going against VC. And maybe NVA. But both packed RPG, etc., type AT weapons. So things could go bad rather quickly if you are not careful. WWII Halftracks are in a similar situation. The Halftrack was the prime mover for Armored or what is called "Mech" Infantry today. But in both cases they don't have the armor protection as an MBT, etc., … Use terrain masking etc., … Flash forward to today. An APC normally does not have the armor protection or firepower of an IFV. An IFV is an improved version of an APC. An provides more protection and firepower for the Infantry they support. And more firepower to a Combined Arms unit. I.e. Tanks and Infantry working closely together. An IFV has firepower, but again, should not be used to go toe2toe with MBTs. Bradley's and Strykers are AIFV's or ICV's and are expected to fight with their infantry mounted much of the time. They are not APC's.
M2 Bradleys are IFVs. And operate as I described like an APC. However, the concept of fighting from the IFVs was quickly found to be of limited use. For the primary reason that Infantry is most effective dismounted on the ground. The firing ports were covered with armor to improve protection and survivability. And the M231 Firing Port weapons system was scraped. The Stryker was a unique creation. Really like an armored truck. So that the Infantry could move faster than on foot. With a higher survivability than a truck. And as noted it is not an IFV but an Infantry Carrier Vehicle. And again, it is not meant for the Infantry to stay mounted and fight from. For the same reasons as the M2. Again Infantry is most effective, once near or on the Objective, dismounted. Plus the Stryker is lighter than and IFV/APC. So it can be more rapidly deployed by air. The Stryker unit is a new unique concept. Similar but different than Mech Infantry. It gave the old "Leg" Infantry a vehicle to improve their mobility and protection. HMMWVs were the replacement for the Jeep. However as we see it became a personnel carrier and there is an armored version. If you watch the news. Used as a Light APC. It moved beyond it's original design concept. And it being so lightly armored if at all it generally does not do well in urban warfare. The same actually goes for most IFVs/APC/ICVs and even MBTs. In urban or closed terrain dismounted Infantry is very effective. Any vehicle is an easy target with the proliferation of Infantry AT weapons. From what I can tell, APCs and other light armor are fine for long range exchange of mostly small arms fire. They provide mobility for HMGs and AGLs that would otherwise prove too unwieldy for light troops. This is generally true as I already said. there are numerous videos of lightly armored vehicles rolling into and through Mosul. In many cases they're engaged in long range firefights. In a few others, they're in close urban combat. They are shooting at suspected or known enemy positions. Once the enemy is pinned, suppressed etc. Then Infantry should dismount to clear them out. In theory. The part that is missing from the combined arms concept is the FA[or even CAS] firing before the vehicles and Infantry go into the urban terrain. However, but for fear of causing CD we see what happens, as noted here : an Iraqi unit of "armored" humvees and other light armor being ambushed in a city. They're surrounded and forced to dismount into buildings. All of the vehicles are disabled or destroyed but not before exchanging heavy gunfire with ISIS fighters. I saw the report, it was not a situation I would want to be in. Without the ability to call in FA or CAS. Daesh knows that and is using the civilians as "human Shields"/hostages. But the enemy has a say in the matter and often that's all you have so you make do. Or, let's say your Stryker falls in a hole in the road and breaks an axle, then it becomes a pillbox until towed out by another Stryker while under intense fire. Yes that is true with any armored vehicle. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 18 Nov 2016 1:12 p.m. PST |
Bradley's and Strykers are AIFV's or ICV's and are expected to fight with their infantry mounted much of the time. They are not APC's. Your point about HMMWV's is a good one however. Thanks for pointing that out. A 14.5mm round or an RPG simply doesn't care what we call an AFV: APC, IFV, or ICV. In fact, one could argue that the M113 is a much better support combat support vehicle for infantry than the Stryker since its cross-country mobility is so much better. Terrain that an M113 can cross will quickly bog a Stryker. One advantage that the Stryker had is the RWS. Where MGs mounted on M113s often required the gunner to be exposed, the RWS allows the gunner to fire from inside the Stryker. But even this advantage has been reduced over time as many M113s have been equipped with turrets or even the RWS. Whether something is called an APC, IFV, or ICV, you have an armored box with varying levels of protection from various angles (7.62mm to 14.5mm), varying carrying capacity (usually 6 to 9 soliders), a heavy automatic weapon (HMG or AGL) and either wheeled or tracked mobility. - Upgraded M113 and Stryker protection is comparable (early M113s were not as good as Strykers when they were first introduced). - Armament is essentially identical. - Carrying capacity is comparable. - The Stryker has better road mobility while the M113 is better cross-country and across broken urban terrain. - The Stryker comes with better C3I systems but also higher maintenance requirements. The M113 is a workhorse that continues to serve in many variations all over the world. At the end of the day, if dismounts can have a mobile, armored box with an automatic heavy weapon in support, there's little to choose between the two of them outside of differences in mobility. |
nickinsomerset | 18 Nov 2016 1:52 p.m. PST |
FV432 would drop the chaps and withdraw, to a position of cover. Definately an APC not IFV. Tally Ho! |
Legion 4 | 18 Nov 2016 4:10 p.m. PST |
A 14.5mm round or an RPG simply doesn't care what we call an AFV: APC, IFV, or ICV. Yep ! In fact, one could argue that the M113 is a much better support combat support vehicle for infantry than the Stryker since its cross-country mobility is so much better. Terrain that an M113 can cross will quickly bog a Stryker. We used to say the best armor on an M113 is the front … that is where the engine is ! Whether a truck, APC, IFV, ICV … You have to use terrain masking, camo, cover, and concealment. Only been in a Stryker once. It did remind me of an APC. But like an APC, it's armor will stop shrapnel and most small arms. MGs/HMGs will probably penetrate it. A US .50 cal will punch holes in the flank of a BMP[is an IFV]. We used to practice on wooden 2D mock up targets. Whether something is called an APC, IFV, or ICV, you have an armored box with varying levels of protection from various angles (7.62mm to 14.5mm), varying carrying capacity (usually 6 to 9 soliders), a heavy automatic weapon (HMG or AGL) and either wheeled or tracked mobility. Bingo ! FV432 would drop the chaps and withdraw, to a position of cover. Definately an APC not IFV. Same as the M113 … Here is the bottom line IMO with Troop Carriers no matter what type . You have to stay and move under cover as often as you can. That's good advice for any thing on the battlefield. Infantry, AFVs, trucks, anything … And Infantry does it best work dismounted on the ground. Not locked up in a vehicle. The Vehicle is to get them as near to the objective as it can. And if possible use the Carriers' Heavy weapon for fire support … |
Mark 1 | 19 Nov 2016 12:11 a.m. PST |
Just FYI, I did run into attacks bu US half-tracks in North Africa in 1942 and I think into 1943. This was, you understand, by drivers and presumably machine-gunners after the infantry had dismounted and gotten themselves into a bind. I'd be interested in any of those accounts that you can pin-point for further reading. I too have seen references to US Half-tracks playing very aggressive roles in North Africa in 1942/43. But my readings show this as a doctrinal role, rather than improvisation by the drivers. As I understand it, the US Armored Divisions initially practiced tactics that were very cavalry-like in regards to the "big charge" on to the enemy position. Doctrine anticipated, in the right circumstances, using the speed of the light tanks and half-tracks, festooned with MGs, to suppress the enemy and charge right into the their position, where they would disgorge their fresh and enthusiastic armored infantry troops to mop up a shocked and dispirited enemy. To this end the US Armored Divisions in 1942 had more light tanks than medium tanks. And the tanks had scads of MGs, generally including at least 2 fixed forward-firing hull MGs that the driver could operate as he drove helter-skelter for the enemy's trenchline. The armored infantry formations also included MG support tracks, which had the familiar M2 .50cal and two M1917 .30cal water-cooled MGs. Combat experience in Tunisia pretty quickly dis-abused the US Armored Force of this notion, and tactics shifted to using the APCs as battle-buses that could provide long-range automatic weapon fire-support (as others have described). -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mark 1 | 19 Nov 2016 12:16 a.m. PST |
On a slightly different note, I have seen M3 half-tracks and White Scout Cars (also open top) used as part of WW2 recon elements. Did they play the same role of hauling scouts forward, and providing some extra punch if they came under fire and needed to pull out? The US Army had 3 levels of reconnaissance ground units that might have been equipped with armored cars. Each Infantry Division had a Cavalry "Troop" (a company-sized formation, in MTO/ETO generally Armored Cavalry). Each Armored Division had a larger Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (later Squadron). Armored Reconnaissance (in Armored Divisions) were a part of the Cavalry Branch of Service, and were identical in equipment and doctrine to Armored Cavalry (in Infantry Divsions), although Armored Reconnaissance Troops often had 1 more platoon than Armored Cavalry Troops. At the corps level there were larger Armored Cavalry Groups, regiment or brigade-sized units which were generally 2 Armored Cavalry Squadrons. Each "troop" (company) had 3 (or 4) platoons. Each platoon had jeeps and armored cars. The Squadron (battalion) also had a company of light tanks and a troop of assault guns. In Tunisia, the armored cars would have been M3 Scout Cars. The Assault Guns would have been T30 Half-track 75mm Howitzer Motor Carriage (mounted on an M3 half-track). There were no basic M3 half-tracks in reconnaissance units. The M3 "White" Scout Car was indeed seen as a fighting platform. It mounted an M2 .50cal and two M1917 water-cooled .30cal HMGs, similar to the MG support half-tracks in the armored infantry formations. Each M3 Scout Car carried a half-squad of scouts, who were expected to man the guns in mobile actions, and to dismount for more deliberate scouting on-foot.
Always liked the M3 Scout Car. Here are some of my 6mm models.
I enjoy playing with them at larger scales, too. The T30 HMCs, in the assault gun role (also in tank formations in this role) were expected primarily to provide direct-fire support with HE. So, in both cases, the vehicles were indeed expected to fight. After Tunisia the armored cavalry formations were re-equipped with the M8 "Greyhound" armored car, and the M8 75mm HMC on the M5 Stuart light-tank chassis. The M8 crews were also expected to fight from the vehicle in mobile actions, and to dismount for more deliberate on-foot scouting. Interestingly the M8 was not developed by for the recon / armored cavalry role. It was developed as a light tank destroyer by the TD board, to replace the M6 "Fargo" 37mm AT gun on a 3/4ton truck chassis, which was always seen as a stop-gap. By the time the M8 was ready, the TD board had abandoned the concept of "light" tank destroyers on wheeled chassis with 37mm guns. But the cavalry had concluded that the M3 Scout Car had both insufficient cross-country mobility and insufficient mounted firepower. And so the cavalry picked up the TD's orphan armored car child and ran with it, after flirting with the concept of using the M20 scout / utility car (which did not require a reduction in scout car crew, as the M8 did). In the end, the cavalry rejected the M20 scout car and went with the M8 abandoned by the TDs, while the TDs picked up the M20 scout car abandoned by the cav to form the basis of their own recon elements. Didja' all get that straight? Good. It'll be on the quiz next week. ;-) -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
uglyfatbloke | 19 Nov 2016 2:25 a.m. PST |
..and your starter for ten….. |
badger22 | 19 Nov 2016 8:27 a.m. PST |
One big difference between the M2 and the Stryker I have not seen mentioned is noise. Many of my grunt buddys have told me that the stryker can get right up on somebody because it doesnt sound like a fighting vehicle, where the Brads, and most probably M113s make noises no civilian vehicle do. numerous times they would catch somebody who was not anticipating an armored vehicle coming around the corner. Apparently their opponents really harted strykers because of that. Owen |
Legion 4 | 19 Nov 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
That is a good point … Any tracked Vehicle generally makes a lot of noise. You can usually hear the engine roaring and tracks squeaking from a long distance. Plus a well trained dismounted Infantry patrol especially in the dark. Can be on top of an enemy position before they are aware of it. |
Rod I Robertson | 19 Nov 2016 9:37 a.m. PST |
Mark I wrote: I too have seen references to US Half-tracks playing very aggressive roles in North Africa in 1942/43. But my readings show this as a doctrinal role, rather than improvisation by the drivers.As I understand it, the US Armored Divisions initially practiced tactics that were very cavalry-like in regards to the "big charge" on to the enemy position. Doctrine anticipated, in the right circumstances, using the speed of the light tanks and half-tracks, festooned with MGs, to suppress the enemy and charge right into the their position, where they would disgorge their fresh and enthusiastic armored infantry troops to mop up a shocked and dispirited enemy. To this end the US Armored Divisions in 1942 had more light tanks than medium tanks. And the tanks had scads of MGs, generally including at least 2 fixed forward-firing hull MGs that the driver could operate as he drove helter-skelter for the enemy's trenchline. The armored infantry formations also included MG support tracks, which had the familiar M2 .50cal and two M1917 .30cal water-cooled MGs. Combat experience in Tunisia pretty quickly dis-abused the US Armored Force of this notion, and tactics shifted to using the APCs as battle-buses that could provide long-range automatic weapon fire-support (as others have described). I did not know that such brash tactics were doctrinaire in the US Army of 1942-1943. Thanks for teaching me something new. I stand corrected. Cheers and good gaming. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 19 Nov 2016 9:51 a.m. PST |
The .50 cal on the Halftracks is "man eater". brash tactics Patton comes to mind … |
UshCha | 19 Nov 2016 2:25 p.m. PST |
Wargames rules need to be or rent for these systems to work. There accuracy must not fall to a level that makes fire support from a distance minimal. Generaly accuracy is good for most of its effective range. Exponential range bands can cause issues here. They reduce the available cover as, using a simple analogy as a thought experiment, if an area of ground has cover equally spaced a rifle at 300 will have say 4 pieces of cover in range. An MG with 1200m range will have 36 pieces of cover. If you halve the effective range To 600 yds) due to exponential range definition the MG will have only 16 pieces of cover. Working the other way you limit the available positions a vehicle an use if you get the range representation wrong. War games give the wrong answer if you don't get the basics right. This is the inevitable incompatibility between what a gamer may want and what a simulator may want. They are often mutually exclusive requirements. Neither is wrong they are just incompatible requirements. |
Blutarski | 19 Nov 2016 5:42 p.m. PST |
There is no substitute for R E A L terrain. When I was playing WRG armor-infantry rules with intensity, I had a 6ft 8in x 15ft game table with a complete stretch of real topographical terrain (taken from US WW1 Meuse-Argonne tactical maps) laid out at 1in = 25m (i.e., about 2km x 5km). It included great stretches of dense woods impassable to vehicles of any sort, steep sided creeks and rivers that could only be crossed via existing bridges or engineer bridging equipment, villages/towns that stretched for 500m of built up area, roads whose drainage ditches restricted soft vehicles from moving off the road, and plenty of elevations providing positions for artillery observers, HMGs, mortars, etc. To that we added options for hidden units in defense. It dramatically changed the play of the game. B |
UshCha | 20 Nov 2016 2:42 a.m. PST |
Blutarski, some of us could only dream of that. Even with Kallistra hex there are limits, physical and financial. We do somtimes use Google maps to remind us how much terrain there can be in Europe even on the flatter bits. Much,much more than a lot of wargames rules stipulate. |
uglyfatbloke | 20 Nov 2016 4:40 a.m. PST |
We generally use a map to generate the major features – roads, rivers, towns – then fill up the table with as much scenery as we can muster to keep LoS to a minimum – most of almost any vista you can find in N. Europe is chock-full of dead ground. You may get good visibility to some point 1000 yards away, but a lot of the space in between you and that point will be obscured by minor elements – often too small to register on a contour map, but more than big enough to hide a tank, let alone a prone soldier. |
Legion 4 | 20 Nov 2016 8:56 a.m. PST |
Yes very true. Europe has a lot of "ground clutter", cover and concealment, limited LOS/FOF and "terrain masking". Not to mention a lot of rivers and streams that may influence movement. As in some cases a bridge or ford may/can channelize your Axis of Advance or Withdrawal, etc. Along with towns/villages that can be a Choke Point or even "Strong Pointed". |
UshCha | 20 Nov 2016 9:54 a.m. PST |
'Brasses' tank and anti tank quotes typical ranges for Europe of 500 to 1 500yds. Positions beyond the this have to bellowed v or or even in part engineered. |
Rudysnelson | 22 Nov 2016 4:52 p.m. PST |
I am talking modern Cold War doctrine rather than WW2. I wish there had been two separate entries. The USA doctrine varied between infantry assigned to the Armor dominated task force/ combat group or one dominated by the infantry or even Armored cavalry. I am more familiar with the armored cavalry but working with the others in the Division Restructuring tests of the late 1970s. In the AC the M113 transported the infantry to the blocking position to be manned by the infantry squad (a common assignment on an advance or defense). The squad dismounted aqnd assumed a protective hasty position. The M113 was regarded as the heavy firing platform for the squad. The position was established so that the squad could be out of position and rolling in less than 3 minutes while less than 2 would earn a higher SQT score. On the advance the security assignment was often to protect a ford, bridge, the Mortar and HQ position while the scouts and tanks did the advancing. |
Rudysnelson | 22 Nov 2016 5:00 p.m. PST |
In the Armored dominated combat group (2 tank companies and one infantry company) the infantry tended to be tasked with a supporting role in the advance. They were to secure the objective or key intermediate terrain after the tanks had captured those positions. One platoon would provide security for the battalion HQ, logistics and combat support such as the mortars. On the defense, they were assigned a position to hold to act as an anvil, so the tanks could maneuver hinged to the position. Especially in the advance the infantry were expected to remain mounted longer than they would like. Under an Infantry dominant battle group (2 infantry companies and one tank company) the M113s were used to transport the infantry and dismounted them for action. the use of it for heavy fire support was still key. On the advance, these units conducted a lot of clearing operations in rough wooded terrain and urban areas. |
Rudysnelson | 22 Nov 2016 5:07 p.m. PST |
In regards to the Soviet doctrine which I worked with the OPFOR at Fort Riley/ 1st ID. the USSR doctrine was one of one the advance to remain mounted until the objective was reached. Soviet artillery did not use danger close calls and would bombard a position until the tanks and BMPs had reached it. Once the objective was reached the infantry squad was expected to dismount and secure the area even as the Soviet artillery continued to fall. On the defense the Soviets preferred to fight in platoon/ company size strong points. Other defensive actions were regarded as temporary until the Soviets could resume the attack. The BMPs were expected to give fire support against both dismounted enemy attacks and AFV attacks with the Sagger ATM. |
Major Tom | 23 Nov 2016 12:58 a.m. PST |
Original Heer training film from 1944 for Panzergrenadiers. YouTube link |
Legion 4 | 23 Nov 2016 8:47 a.m. PST |
Under an Infantry dominant battle group (2 infantry companies and one tank company) the M113s were used to transport the infantry and dismounted them for action. the use of it for heavy fire support was still key. On the advance, these units conducted a lot of clearing operations in rough wooded terrain and urban areas.
Yes, that is called cross-attaching between Armor and Infantry units. My Mech Company(M113s) was usually cross-attached to a Tank Bn. I'd trade one of my Mech Plts to a Tank Company. For a Tank Plt in return. As Rudy pointed out. 2 Mech + 1 Armor = a Mech Heavy Company Tm 2 Armor + 1 Mech = a Tank Heavy Company Tm M113 transported the infantry to the blocking position to be manned by the infantry squad Did that a few times. Putting the M113 in a covered and concealed position in close support of the dismounts. With it's .50 cal. And close enough for the Infantry to remount the M113 quickly if need be. |
number4 | 09 Dec 2016 11:32 p.m. PST |
They're extremely useful for blocking roads, providing repositionable cover A role usually taken by styrofoam coffee cups, soda cans,tape measures or piles of dice on the traditional wargame table |
uglyfatbloke | 10 Dec 2016 2:46 a.m. PST |
Ashtrays are good for that too, wineglasses not so much since the enemy can see through them. |
Legion 4 | 10 Dec 2016 8:39 a.m. PST |
Where do you guys play war games ? The local pub !? |
uglyfatbloke | 10 Dec 2016 12:54 p.m. PST |
You can't smoke in pubs in Scotland, however we have the luxury of a wargames room. maybe I should make a scenic ashtray. |
Legion 4 | 10 Dec 2016 1:01 p.m. PST |
Same in the US, which is fine … I don't smoke ! |