"Skafizz 251 question" Topic

On the one hand I understand that vehicles like the Skafizz 250, 251 etc were barely armoured and mostly couldn't have kept out a machine gun bullet. They were not IFVs and therefore their crews would dismount at some distance and not usually drive into battle in them.

On the other hand they were often equipped with close support weapons such as machine guns, quad 20mm, and so on that could only have been useful if they came right up close to the line.

What was the rationale exactly? How were these variants intended to be used?

As I understand it, the Germans were much more willing to ride their halftracks right into a fight than other armies. The Americans would generally dismount and fight on foot with maybe the halftracks providing some fire support from their machine guns (although American halftracks only had the one driver and no gunners, so some of the infantry would have to stay behind to fire the guns). not sure what British doctrine was.

Quad 20s and MGs were mainly for anti-air duties (which would be more necessary in the late war German army). They did have other variants that were meant for direct fire arty support roles.

Quad 20s and MGs were mainly for anti-air duties (which would be more necessary in the late war German army).

Not on the 250/251. The MG mount on the 251 in particular was intended to be used with an infantry squad's MG34 in a direct fire support role. IIRC the gunshield/mount was fixed rather than being rail mounted, so it could only be used to fire on ground level targets in front of the vehicle. Some pictures show a second MG mount on a 251/1 at the rear, which looks like an AA mount -- but I don't know how commonly used that was.

ScottWashburn – British doctrine was to use halftracks for emergency tea distribution…

A fair few of the SdKfz 251 & 250 variants that mounted a support weapon should have been able to operate from a reasonable distance.

251/2 and the 250/7, both had the 8-cm mortar, fired from the vehicle so a mobile version of the standard 8-cm.

251/9 and the 250/8 both had the 7.5-cm L/24, same as the early Stug (I think).

251/17 with the 2-cm.

251/21 with the Pak40 that reflected the late war mentality quite well I think.

Pretty much all models had the mount for a forward firing MG over the driving compartment (likewise I think it was a restricted left/right firing arc, not a rail like some US vehicles had). The rear mount was the AA station, in the Squad role one of the two MGs of the Squad was to be used there prior to dismount as I recall.

The big AA pieces, like the quad 2-cm Flak, were normally mounted on the unarmoured halftrack types and intended for air defence rather than ground support, unless there was an absence of return fire.

Gary

If you can find the clip of the M3 vs 251/neu half track race on combat dealers its most enlightening

Then there was the flame thrower mounted 251. Clearly intended to get stuck right in.

As I recall from reading somewhere, at first the Germans tended to ride into battle in their HTs, with MG providing cover fire when infantry dismounted for assault. As war progressed and HT losses mounted, doctrine changed to getting close but staying out of the fight with infantry dismounting to move into contact. Darned if I can remember where I read this!.

251s were far more heavily Armoured than M3s and would certainly keep bullets out. German PG training films show mounted assaults against enemy infantry even in 1944, but only if they'd been thoroughly prepped with artillery fire first. Otherwise they debuted.

Yea, originally, perhaps, though as the war went on, MGs and heavier weapons would be a real threat.

Not too likely to penetrate through the front into the troop compartment, but from the sides, even LMGs and MMGs would do that, and HMGs even easier.

Doctrine does seem to indicate the troops riding mounted into combat, and even firing from them. The Germans also did that in Normandy, IIRC, in 1944, in a night attack, with troops riding on tanks like the Soviets did.

Probably a lot safer to do that at night than during the day.

IIRC, they were assaulting a village or town, in that night attack.

They did protect from shell fragments (8mm of well sloped armour to sides and rear), and frontally, with 14.5 mm of armour and the engine up front, they provided substantial protection vs small arms, and even a reasonable chance of deflecting fire from anti-tank rifles.

That said, they were seen more as transport, able to traverse rough ground and keep up with tanks, than as close assault vehicles.

That said, they were seen more as transport, able to traverse rough ground and keep up with tanks, than as close assault vehicles.

On reading "SS Panzer-Aufklarungs Abteilung 11" by Poller, Mansson & Westburg, you get the impression that they (or at least some units) did treat them as vehicles you could conduct assaults in. Fighting from their SPWs is mentioned several times, being trained to fight from SPWs is stated, as is the frustration when ordered to fight on foot (because SPWs were becoming rare beasts) and suffering high casualties as a result.

Yes, German Doctrine was initially to fight from the SPWs, rapidly moving along with the Panzers, overrunning enemy resistance quickly, in the close assault, etc. However, the reality became with the increase of effective AT weapons, etc. The lighter armored SPWs became easy prey.

However using them for transport to keep up with the Panzers was a standard for armor Inf/mech units. But don't expose yourself too much. You don't have the armor protection …

As noted they took high losses as the war continued. And couldn't be replaced quickly, if at all. Like many German combat assets …

If they were going to dismount before entering the fight, why have armor at all? It would have been cheaper to use unarmored halftracks.

If you are a footslogger facing intense small arms and MG fire a bit of steel plate around you until the last possible moment must be nice.

The point made above is they could not stand up to any level of A/T gun of course. At least with an open top you are less likey to be incinerated inside. It was noticeable in VN how US chose to ride on top of M113s and Amtracs, if at all possible

Oddly enough the question of dismount distances for both armoured and motorised Panzer Grenadier units came up on the Axis History Forum a while back, and no one could provide an answer.

There's a short series of schematics on the germandocsinrussia website that illustrate various situations. If I could recall where it was in that deluge I'd link to it, likewise I'd post it here but I don't have a photo host…thingy…

It shows a recommended formation for an armoured battle group, with a leading frontage of 1400m widening out to 2000m at the tail.

The leading element is two Pz Coys, side by side, each with two Pls leading and a third Pl on the open flank. Following directly behind is the Armd Pz Pio Coy, from the Pio Bn proper, not the Pz Gren Regtl one. On either flank of this Coy are the remaining two Pz Coys, each with one Pl up, one Pl flank and one Pl rear.

Following behind the Pio Coy is an SP Bty from the Arty Regt, though it doesn't really indicate whether these were Hummels or Wespes, but I'd guess from other images it was the 15-cm weapons.

The final block is the armd Pz Gren Bn, with two Coys up, each with its three Rifle Pls abreast and the Hvy Pl following behind, somewhat spread out. The Hvy Coy proper is out on the right, in extended order. Following behind the group are the two remaining SP Btys, again abreast, and finally guarding the tail is the third Pz Gren Rifle Coy.

If I'm reading the scale correctly, the two leading Pz Coys could be some 400m deep, and separated from the second group by anywhere from 200-400m.

The second group is shown as around 600m deep, with a further 600-1000m between it and the third group (Pz Gren Bn). The two Pz Gren Coys are around 400m deep, with the SP Btys and Hvy Coy the same again, and likewise the third Coy as tail end Charlie. All told the leading elements could be anywhere from 3000m to 3600m from the tail.

Also from the same site there's a late 1944 manual outlining the roles of the various elements of a Panzer Div. For the Pz Gren it says this;

""Panzergrenadiere folgen aufgesessen dicht hinter dem vordersten Panzertreffen. Sie kampfen Paks, Widerstandnester und Panzernahkampftrupps mit Bordwaffen nieder. Zum Beseitigen starken, mit panzerbrechenden Waffen geführten Feindwiderstandes und zum überwinden von Hindernissen sitzen sie vorübergehend zum Kampf ab."

Running that through translate and making some 'adjustments' it would seem to translate as;

"Panzer grenadiers follow close behind the foremost tanks. They defeat Paks, Resistance Nests, and Tank Combat Teams with on-board weapons. To eliminate strong enemy resistance with armor-piercing weapons and overcome obstacles, they temporarily fight off."

The last sentence is quite important as I 'think' it would be said in English as 'they temporarily fight off vehicle'. I reckon someone here can straighten out the meaning. All in all it does appear the halftrack units were expected to fight more on vehicle than off, while the motorised units, which of course were the bulk, simply deployed on foot once they reached the point it was too dangerous for softskins to pass.

Gary

The front MG on a 251/1 APC was for offensive work. The rear mount was usually the transported squad's MG for AA work.

triple MG151s or a Flak38 20mm were intended to be short-range AA vehicles, though at least in one organization the MG platoon was carried in Flaktracks. link

If they were going to dismount before entering the fight, why have armor at all? It would have been cheaper to use unarmored halftracks.

Ah … No … APCs are lightly armed and armored, designed to have the Infantry move along with Tanks. Cross country or otherwise. They are part of the combined arms team.

APCs also give you a modicum of protection from SA and Indirect fires.

Infantry must dismount to clear, secure & hold OBJs, etc.

Infantry dismounts on or near the OBJs, using cover & concealment, fire & maneuver, with supporting fires from their APCs.

Trucks are not armored, and don't have the same cross country mobility as an APC. Or in some cases the firepower.

f you are a footslogger facing intense small arms and MG fire a bit of steel plate around you until the last possible moment must be nice.
The point made above is they could not stand up to any level of A/T gun of course. At least with an open top you are less likey to be incinerated inside. It was noticeable in VN how US chose to ride on top of M113s and Amtracs, if at all possible

Yes …

triple MG151s or a Flak38 20mm were intended to be short-range AA vehicles, though at least in one organization the MG platoon was carried in Flaktracks. link

The triple MG151s were on the SdKfz 251/21. The 251/21 and the 251/17 (but not the ones illustrated in the link above) served as platoon leader's vehicles in the LSSAH at the time of the Ardennes offensive. The 251/17s shown in the link are the wrong type. The ones illustrated were specifically made for the FlaK component of the "Herman Goring" and were crewed by the Luftwaffe. Only 10 were made, with a further 2 made without armament as command vehicles.

"Schutzenpanzer" by Culver & Feist also makes reference to 251 crews being trained to fight from their vehicles. In the early stages of the war the 251s were treated as just another form of transport. But by mid-1942 combat experience revealed that the training emphasis needed to change. As such the panzergrenadiers were taught to fight from the vehicle whenever possible. 251 drivers also needed to transition from simple truck drivers to tactical experts in the handling of their SPWs.

"If they were going to dismount before entering the fight, why have armor at all?".

Also, one must remember that 50% – 80% of casualties on the battlefield are caused by mortar and howitzer fire, and the shrapnel those spread. Most accounts seem to be at the higher end of that, e.g. 67% – 80%, so having an armored "battle taxi" to prevent against that is an excellent idea.

Sadly, as mentioned, they were too few in number. Usually, only 1 in 4 companies of the Panzergrenadiers, if that, would have halftracks. Frenquently, only 1 in 8 companies (two battalions worth).

"Schutzenpanzer" by Culver & Feist also makes reference to 251 crews being trained to fight from their vehicles. In the early stages of the war the 251s were treated as just another form of transport. But by mid-1942 combat experience revealed that the training emphasis needed to change. As such the panzergrenadiers were taught to fight from the vehicle whenever possible. 251 drivers also needed to transition from simple truck drivers to tactical experts in the handling of their SPWs.

Yes, the key words there are "fight from the vehicle whenever possible".

Plus hopefully the driver would have a Sqd Ldr, NCO, etc. to tell him where stop allow the dismount of troops. Ideally behind some form of cover or concealment. Then as today …

Also as I said as the war progressed more AT weapons were introduced to the battlefield. Making staying too long in and APC a bad choice. Hence "whenever possible" to fight mounted less and less a "good" tactic.

In the early day of the war AT weapons were generally not as numerous as later. E.g. most Infantry Sqds & Plts in 39-41 not only had few AT weapons available to them. But were of limited effectiveness generally, e.g. an AT Rifle, was probably better than nothing in many situations.

As well as with the German Blitzkrieg/Combined Arms concept. With enemy positions being suppressed and attrited by FA, CAS, etc. In theory you could stay mounted longer and fire from the SPW. With those supporting fires being effective. Allowing the Tanks & APCs to continue to move, by-passing some enemy positions, and drive into the enemy rear areas. Disrupting LOC, C3, etc.

But again as AT weapons' lethality increased. Staying mounted too long could give the enemy a "2 for 1 shot", so to speak. KO'ing the APC and inflicting losses on the troops being carried.

You dismount too soon you lose your mobility.

The situation always comes down to those choices with Armored/Mech Infantry. Then as today …

Also as I said as the war progressed more AT weapons were introduced to the battlefield. Making staying too long in and APC a bad choice. Hence "whenever possible" to fight mounted less and less a "good" tactic.

And yet it was from this time, mid 1942, that fighting from the SPW became a tactic that SPW crews and drivers were trained in. The book on SS Panzer-Aufklarungs Abteilung 11, that I mentioned earlier, had the crews fighting from, and wanting to fight from, their SPWs right up until almost the end of the war.

If they were going to dismount before entering the fight, why have armor at all? It would have been cheaper to use unarmored halftracks.

That wouldn't have protected the troops against random artillery showers. The primary purpose of the armored halftracks was to be able to keep up with the tanks across-country while protecting the grunts inside from artillery, mortar, and grenades at the closest.

The 251/17s shown in the link are the wrong type. The ones illustrated were specifically made for the FlaK component of the "Herman Goring" and were crewed by the Luftwaffe. Only 10 were made, with a further 2 made without armament as command vehicles.

Those pictured are the 251/17C. The /D is a very different shape, I think the pedestal under the Flak 2cm is taller to get it clear of the sides.

And yet it was from this time, mid 1942, that fighting from the SPW became a tactic that SPW crews and drivers were trained in.

Again, wanting to fight from the SPW would be in an optimal tactical situation. E.g. "the panzergrenadiers were taught to fight from the vehicle whenever possible." Which may not always be possible/tactically sound. And again the AT capabilities of the Inf Squad, etc., of '39-'41 were limited compared to all the later war AT tech. E.g. Panzfaust, Bazooka, Panzerscheck, PIAT, etc.

Not to mention the bigger & better AT guns that came about later. Save for the German 88 in the early war years. Most other armies didn't have anything that effective until much later, say '43 on.

But I don't have to repeat everything I said in my previous post. You may want to reread it ? But if they stayed mounted in many tactical situations the SPW again maybe become KO'd with crew & troops losses as well.

wanting to fight from, their SPWs

I was not there obviously, but from my over a decade of being in the Infantry in my youth, '79-'90. Both Light & Mech. Most Grunts would rather ride than walk.

Of course I could be wrong about all of this … But I did/do have extensive training & experience in all forms of Infantry tactical operations. Along with considerable study of WWI & WWII German Infantry and the later combined arms tactics, etc. So take my comments and opinions with the level of credibility/ veracity/accuracy as you wish …

Those pictured are the 251/17C.

Indeed they are, but they are the wrong 251/17C for a generic organisational chart. The illustration that should have been used is the one at the top of this picture

link

Some information which may clarify mine and others comments about German WWII mounted Infantry TTP. This basically is a good brief synopsize of this topic, IMO. Again, not only based on history but my training and experiences as an Infantry Officer in my youth.

From one of my books in my library, "Infantry Tactics 1939-1945", by Farrar-Hockley.

The motorized infantry moving among or close to the tanks, were to be ready to dismount into action whenever the armour was held up by anti-tank weapons sited in cover, attacking their crews by a process of infiltration from one or another flank, help forward by their own mortars, directly observed tank fire and whatever air and artillery sources were immediately available.

German motorized infantry were also taught to apply the principle pf quick reaction to overcoming opposition to advance on minor routes or those running through close country …

That is how Infantry mounted or dismounted in combined arms warfare works. Then and now …

Ah … No … APCs are lightly armed and armored, designed to have the Infantry move along with Tanks. Cross country or otherwise. They are part of the combined arms team.

But an unarmored halftrack can do that just as well.

APCs also give you a modicum of protection from SA and Indirect fires.

But if they dismount before the fight that protection won't be there.

donlowery

Please (re)read my posts above, dated :

16 Oct 2019 6:17 a.m. PST

16 Oct 2019 3:05 p.m. PST

17 Oct 2019 6:35 a.m. PST

But again …

An unarmored vehicle does not have the survivability of an AFV.

The APC will dismount the Infantry from a covered and/or concealed location. Closest to the OBJ. And then the APC from that dismount point will provide supporting fires. For the dismounted Infantry maneuvering & firing, etc.

Generally the APCs do not drive away and leave the troops unsupported. That is what e.g. MG(s) are for mounted on the APC. Provide supporting fires for the dismounts as well as AA, etc., as needed.

You don't want to take unarmored vehicle that close to an assault. Again, because they don't have the survivability that an AFV does.

Armoured APCs let infantry traverse the beaten zone of enemy defensive area fires (generally arty, mortars and HMGs firing on fixed lines) anything up to 2000 yards in front the MLR.

When they get a bit closer, they may or may not dismount.

A rapid approach through the defensive fire zone in a truck doesn't work too well, and doing it on foot risks the attacking infantry being delayed or pinned by the long range defensive fires before they can get close enough to advance by fire and movement.

So with APCs – be they M3s, 251s or kangeroos, you get tracked cross country movement and the added bonus of being proof against shell splinters and long range MG fire. That was also my armoured vehicles were used as ammo carriers and ambulances.

Yep ! That is similar to what I have said, repeatedly. Along with pzivh43, Thesher, olicana plus what you said previously Martin. Dismounting is really situational as I said. But in many cases it occurs or does not for all the reasons I and others have already posted.

Any Infantry Ldr that does not understand all that needs to go back to school … if he survives while making poor tactical decisions …

Rereading my posts makes me think I'm back teaching a class at the INF Ofc Basic or Adv Courses or Combined Arms School !

Legion 4, please re-read my original post:

If they were going to dismount before entering the fight, why have armor at all? It would have been cheaper to use unarmored halftracks.

Note the word "if."

Everyone keeps saying they dismounted before the fight but also that the armor protected them. Which was it? Since all but the Soviets produced armored infantry carriers (and they used U.S.-made ones when they could get them), they evidently felt there was a need for the armor; which tells me that they did NOT always dismount before coming under fire.

Well it sounds to me like I can totally justify having guys in Skafizz 250s and 251s hosing down the opposition from their vehicles….

For what it's worth Don, I think I got what you meant. If you mount troops in vehicles that offer some protection, but then have them debus before the vehicles become vulnerable to enemy fire, to go the hard yards on foot, doesn't that denude them of said protection at the most critical moment? So if that's the tactic, why go to the expense and trouble of putting them in APCs if they are to be handled as you would softskin transport?

There is a trade off of sorts to be had I think. An armoured carrier that can withstand rifle calibre rounds and splinters from nearby shell bursts can get your troops a lot closer to an objective in a lot quicker time than if they were advancing from a forming up point on foot. And when they do get to the dismount point, you'll likely have more of them there alive than if they advanced on foot.

Any position that's armed and equipped to resist tank attack can equally do so against halftracks, Kangaroos or boldly handled Universal carriers. The closer you push your armoured carriers forward, the greater the risk of losing a vehicle and its infantry load to an anti-tank weapon (gun, projector, mine). Depending on the circumstance, a unit might still suffer fewer casualties by fighting from their vehicles, retaining speed and mobility and rendering the most numerous enemy weapons, MGs and mortars, far less effective than they would be against men on foot.

Gary

don, as I said,

The APC will dismount the Infantry from a covered and/or concealed location. CLOSEST to the OBJ. And then the APC from that dismount point will provide supporting fires. For the dismounted Infantry maneuvering & firing, etc.

Generally the APCs do not drive away and leave the troops unsupported. That is why e.g. MG(s) are for mounted on the APC. Provide supporting fires for the dismounts as well as AA, etc., as needed.

When I say closest to the OBJ. I not talking a great distance. Which as always is terrain dependent and situational.

tells me that they did NOT always dismount before coming under fire.

No they don't, never said they did.
I said Again, wanting to fight from the SPW would be in an optimal tactical situation. E.g. "the panzergrenadiers were taught to fight from the vehicle whenever possible." Which may not always be possible/tactically sound.

You don't want to take unarmored vehicles that close to an assault. Again, because they don't have the survivability that an AFV does.

The armor provides a the modicum of protection for the Troops in the APC. From SA, mortars, FA, etc. As it moves towards an OBJ., etc. This why you don't use unarmored halftracks.

And again you don't dismount a klick or two away, generally. But in the assault, at the closest cover to the OBJ as possible, depending on terrain.

Well it sounds to me like I can totally justify having guys in Skafizz 250s and 251s hosing down the opposition from their vehicles….

Yes and No … that can happen, if not directly but in supporting fires for the dismounts … Infantry can overrun a position mounted or dismounted depending on the level of suppression and resistance.

Depending on the circumstance, a unit might still suffer fewer casualties by fighting from their vehicles, retaining speed and mobility and rendering the most numerous enemy weapons, MGs and mortars, far less effective than they would be against men on foot.

Yes that may occur. If the enemy has been suppressed and has taken some losses.

It is harder to kill individual dismounted Infantrymen. Who are using good fieldcraft, cover & concealment, fire & maneuver, etc.. Than to take out an AFV in the LOS of enemy heavy weapons, etc.

Everyone keeps saying they dismounted before the fight but also that the armor protected them. Which was it?

Again, as well as with the German Blitzkrieg/Combined Arms concept. With enemy positions being suppressed and attrited by FA, CAS, etc. In theory you could stay mounted longer and fire from the SPW. With those supporting fires being effective. Allowing the Tanks & APCs to continue to move, by-passing some enemy positions, and drive into the enemy rear areas. Disrupting LOC, C3, etc.

But again as AT weapons' lethality increased etc.,. Staying mounted too long could give the enemy a "2 for 1 shot", so to speak. KO'ing the APC and inflicting losses on the troops being carried at the same time.

You dismount too soon you lose your mobility and that modicum of protection.

That is the reality of the situation.

"Which is it?"

It as always, depends on the terrain & situation. There is No Right one answer all the time. A Good Ldr knows when it is best to stay mounted and when to dismount.

We were trained, tested, and eval'd on this.

IF you keep your troops always mounted that may not always be tactically sound.

IF you dismount too soon, in the wrong location, etc. that probably is Not the right answer.

Generally the "right" solution includes:

Prep and suppress with SA, Mortars, FA, CAS.

Dismounting at the closest cover and concealed position near the OBJ. With the APC providing supporting fires to the dismounts. While they moved from cover & concealment using fire & maneuver.

On a rare occasion I didn't dismount but stayed mounted and fought thru the situation. At that certain case it was the Proper tactical decision.

Many times that would not be.

A good experienced leader, like a gambler, knows when to hold'm and knows when to fold'm.

I guarantee if as a tactical leader you always stayed mounted you probably would fail more often than not.

Any decent WW2 game will show why the 250's and 251's have to be handled carefully. Drive into range of an AT weapon and kiss the APC goodbye; you're lucky if any riders survive. BUT, no AT weapons and it's a bulletproof moving machine gun. That's the challenge as a player, when to use them and when to hide them behind something solid.

Yep ! I've been saying that in many of my posts … And yet some don't believe me ! Or understand(?) the dynamics and the proper tactical employment of Mounted Infantry in AFVs during combined arms operations. As I have been saying … It applies to WWII thru today …

I am "fortunate" to not only to have read about it, studied it, war gamed it. But was actually trained to do it and did it as an M113 Mech Co. Cdr on active duty during my decade + of serving in the US ARMY, '79-'90. Commanding for 19 months, '87-'89. In Europe and even the Desert at the NTC, etc. Having served in 3 Mech Bns and 1 Air Assault Bn … So … ?

For what it's worth Don, I think I got what you meant. If you mount troops in vehicles that offer some protection, but then have them debus before the vehicles become vulnerable to enemy fire, to go the hard yards on foot, doesn't that denude them of said protection at the most critical moment? So if that's the tactic, why go to the expense and trouble of putting them in APCs if they are to be handled as you would softskin transport?

Exactly! And I think the Germans proved that an armored division could get by quite well with mostly unarmored infantry-carrying vehicles.

Well again I have to say no … for all the reasons I've stated previously. The simple fact that almost ALL armies saw the need to have APCs in WWII and still do. No one then or today uses unarmored transport in the assault.

Seem that Fact appears to be ignored or not understanding the dynamics of APCs in the assault?

Fact:

An APC had and does have a higher survivability then an unarmored vehicle. The APC will stop most SA, FA, fires etc. than an unarmored vehicle …

So Don do you have more training and experience than all those military leaders in WWII to now ? About the use of APCs in the assault …

To continue with the thought that unarmored vehicles are the same in the assault as APCs. Would probably be laughed out of a class in any armies' Infantry schools. I know at the US ARMY Basic and Advanced Infantry Officers Course and at US ARMY Combined Arms school. That concept was never taught, simply because is goes against the reality of the TTP of mounted Infantry in APCs working with Tanks, etc. as part of the combined arms team.

If you mount troops in vehicles that offer some protection, but then have them debus before the vehicles become vulnerable to enemy fire, to go the hard yards on foot, doesn't that denude them of said protection at the most critical moment? So if that's the tactic, why go to the expense and trouble of putting them in APCs if they are to be handled as you would softskin transport?

When the Infantry dismounts, it is very near to the OBJ. And uses suppressive fires from all available sources, fire & maneuver, moving from cover to cover. Exposing themselves to as little as enemy fires as possible.

An unarmored vehicle would not even get the Infantry close in a large number of situations. The Infantry would have died in the unarmored vehicle long before it even got far enough to go into the assault.

The Germans, US, USSR, etc. proved that you won't get by with out armored PCs. Again, because everything on the battlefield can destroy an unarmored vehicle. And that is not the case with an APC.

Again from

"Infantry Tactics 1939-1945", by Farrar-Hockley.

The motorized infantry moving among or close to the tanks, were to be ready to dismount into action whenever the armour was held up by anti-tank weapons sited in cover, attacking their crews by a process of infiltration from one or another flank, helped forward by their own mortars, directly observed tank fire and whatever air and artillery sources were immediately available.

By disregarding those Facts is like saying Infantry should still move in block formations like in the ACW.

So Don do you have more training and experience than all those military leaders in WWII to now ?

Nope. And I'm not doubting the usefulness of APCs, just wondering why an army would go to the trouble and expense of acquiring them and then treat them as if they were not armored. It would make more sense to -- as you say -- at least get the infantry up pretty close to the objective before they dismount. (But I agree that the idea of the infantry actually fighting from the HT is overly optimistic.)

I would think, btw, that the major short-coming of the armored halftracks of WW2 was the open top. Don't most APC/IFVs today have overhead cover?

Btw, I remember reading (online somewhere) a report by some U.S. general, after first getting some combat experience in north Africa, recommending that the halftracks be replaced with 2 1/2-ton trucks, as the road columns were too long with halftracks. (So, presumably, more men could be carried in the trucks.) Wish I could remember where I saw that.

As a Napoleonic obsessionalist…can I again put in my penn'orth?

The art surely is teamwork and combined arms assault.

What do tanks fear? (other than A/T PAK at a mile range of course). Infantry, which the crews cannot see, with the latest developments in easily handled close range weapons…but they work poorly against frontal armour. Better once the tanks have rolled over them. So the tanks need immediate infantry support.

What do infantry fear? Crossing a long strip of open land on foot, exposed to MG and artillery fire. So, put us in an armoured vehicle, in close support of the tanks. Give us an open top for easy exit, if things do go wrong. We will take the risk of an airburst. Grenades and Molotov cocktails…no worry. We will be out of there long before they become an issue.

Transporting men strategically …trucks sure (actually ships are better). But tactically APCs were surely of value back in WWII…funny thing I will concede, is that no Allied nation, including USSR seemed to realise that.

So maybe I am wrong anyway……..Oh heck.

The open top was rarely a negative.
Air burst artillery was only significant quite late war.
Against regular artillery the open top was supposed to be an advantage. And the idea of the armour was primarily to protect against artillery rather than bullets.
Improved spotting, being able to fight out the vehicle and reduced effect of at weapons were amongst the significant plusses.

And I'm not doubting the usefulness of APCs, just wondering why an army would go to the trouble and expense of acquiring them and then treat them as if they were not armored.

Again FACT :
Armored vehicles have a higher survivability than unarmored …

It would make more sense to -- as you say -- at least get the infantry up pretty close to the objective before they dismount.

Yes, that is not just doctrine but logical.

(But I agree that the idea of the infantry
actually fighting from the HT is overly optimistic.)

Yep … that is why it is not always done for the reasons I
mentioned above.

I would think, btw, that the major short-coming of the armored halftracks of WW2 was the open top. Don't most APC/IFVs today have overhead cover?

Generally yes, but air bursts shell were not available until later in the war. Most FA, Mortar, air dropped ordinance was point detonating. So unless they hit the APC directly. Or very near those inside would have some protection. Again I use the term a modicum of protection. So it's important for mounted or even dismounted Infantry to use cover & concealment, terrain masking, etc., to block enemy LOS/FOF.

But even saying that many SA rounds would not penetrate the armor of an APC.

And Yes almost All modern APCs/IFVs have enclosed/armored troops compartments.

a report by some U.S. general, after first getting some combat experience in north Africa, recommending that the halftracks be replaced with 2 1/2-ton trucks, as the road columns were too long with halftracks. (So, presumably, more men could be carried in the trucks.) Wish I could remember where I saw that.

He was fighting the last war. The number of troops carried in trucks would take very heavy losses compared to those in APCs, overall. Once the shells started falling, SA opened up, etc. He was still thinking how Infantry was used in WWI was a "good" idea. He should have been relieved for incompetence, IMO. Some were !

The art surely is teamwork and combined arms assault.

Yes, as I said repeatedly.

But tactically APCs were surely of value back in WWII…funny thing I will concede, is that no Allied nation, including USSR seemed to realise that.

Yes very valuable on a tactical level. However, I think as the war progressed all Allies saw the tactical advantage of using APCs in the assault. We learned from the Germans like we did Blitzkrieg, i.e. mobile combined arms warfare.
Again, it may have happened assaulting from trucks, but trucks in the assault turn into burning wrecks along with many of the troops inside. Fairly quickly I'm pretty sure.

I could go into detail how dismounted troops execute Movement To Contact, etc. e.g. like paratroops, Light Infantry, etc. do. But that is another topic. It is similar to Armored Inf/Mech but they generally have a much longer to move to get to and assault the OBJ. I was a Plt Ldr in the 101 Air Assault Div. Once we got off the choppers generally we may have had a long tactical movement to the OBJ.

And to only way for Light Infantry to keep up with tanks, like Armored Inf/Mech does. Is the Light Inf to hitch a ride on the back of a AFV/MBT. In both cases … been there, done that … often in 10+ years in the Infantry.

So what you're telling me is that this idea that the halftracks were only used as taxis to get the infantry to and from the battlefield is wrong.

Indeed they are, but they are the wrong 251/17C for a generic organisational chart. The illustration that should have been used is the one at the top of this picture

Huh, I have never seen the straight-sided /17C version before! Thanks for that, though I wish I had found out before I bought all my halftracks!

Ah … No … APCs are lightly armed and armored, designed to have the Infantry move along with Tanks. Cross country or otherwise. They are part of the combined arms team.

But an unarmored halftrack can do that just as well.

An unarmored halftrack cannot protect the passengers from artillery fragments.

APCs also give you a modicum of protection from SA and Indirect fires.

But if they dismount before the fight that protection won't be there.

Artillery can reach out well past rifle and MG range. Armored halftracks were there to get the infantry up to about 2000yds (or closer, if possible), while keeping up with tanks on the advance.

So what you're telling me is that this idea that the halftracks were only used as taxis to get the infantry to and from the battlefield is wrong.

Not entirely. There were times when troops would ride their halftracks right into close assault. (usually before the widespread deployment of infantry-portable AT weapons)

There are probably a lot more times when the infantry got out of the halftracks (or even full-tracks) out of range of the AT weapons and walked the rest of the way.

BMPs/Bradleys are better protected against infantry AT weapons so can get a lot closer before letting their infantry out.

So what you're telling me is that this idea that the halftracks were only used as taxis to get the infantry to and from the battlefield is wrong.

Lion's answer to your question Don is correct. As I have said similar before. And remember halftracks have MGs to provide direct fire support to the dismounted Infantry. From their armored vehicle.

Again as Lion posted …

There were times when troops would ride their halftracks right into close assault. (usually before the widespread deployment of infantry-portable AT weapons)

There are probably a lot more times when the infantry got out of the halftracks (or even full-tracks) out of range of the AT weapons and walked the rest of the way.

So yes Don welcome to the wonderful world of the Infantry ! A lot of ways to die and not many guarantees …

So you're telling that, yes, they did only use them as battle taxis … except when they didn't?

Basically again, terrain & situation dictates many things. And where and when you dismount is based on those factors. No absolute answer, that is one reason Warfare is described as both an Art & Science.

What the ground Cdr does can decide victory or defeat, obviously.

E.g. Having been a Plt Ldr in the 101 where we didn't have APCs or MBTs. Save for the very rare times we were attached to a unit that did. We were "expert" at dismounted Infantry ops. Moving stealthfully, using terrain, cover and concealment and even doing night attacks to obtain our OBJ(s).

Don't want to confuse, but even as a Mech Cdr I'd sometimes do dismounted night movements to get close to an OPFOR location. Then attack using surprise and deception. My tracks were back in a concealed location then come up to meet us later. When I called them forward.

This worked out well in West Germany for me during a REFORGER. They were expecting a Tank/Mech Assault. The Tanks were there in cover to provide support as needed. Or even advance along with our M113s up to our location once we secured the area, etc.,.

Other times it was a full on Deliberate Attack or Movement to Contact, etc., with calling in FA, CAS, etc., as required. The M60 MBTs advancing with our M113s right behind them. Each providing support for the other. With my M113s dismounting to clear out enemy locations as required, etc. Remounting and moving on if need be, etc.,.

If you want me to give you a 100% solid answer to guarantee when to dismount and when to not … there is none. It depends on the factors I mentioned. And the Cdr's & his troops capabilities …

If you want a 100% guarantee … go to Walmart … Generally it won't happen in warfare.

If you want me to give you a 100% solid answer to guarantee when to dismount and when to not … there is none. It depends on the factors I mentioned. And the Cdr's & his troops capabilities …

No, I just want people to stop making absolute statements, such as: WW2 halftracks were only used as taxis to and from the battlefield.

Well you won't get that from me !!