It used a truck chassis. It was easier to train drivers as it drove just like a truck, as well as using the same parts, making it easier to make and making the logistics easier.
the word comes from the french "tire," meaning dress or accourtement for a wheel. the british fricked up the spelling in the 1840s and just ran with it. tires of course had been used for centuries on carts, wagons, etc
> US half track were basically truck with track instead of rear wheels, make sense, give better traction still use front wheels to steer still cheap and siple to build > UK basically use either truck or full tracked APC, make sense you get what you can for the cheapest price > German half track are basically full tracked APC with useless front wheels with double the complexity
this is why you can't win war on autism alone
US halftracks were derived from a 6x6 scout car with independent power to the front 2 and rear 4 wheels. That made it really easy to use as the basis of a halftrack.
Sd.Kfz. 251 was much more complex and expensive than the M3
it was much nicer to drive when everything worked, but it was also more prone to problems due to a more complex design.
M3 was much simpler in construction, much cruder to drive, but much more easy to maintain.
quite obvious which was the better design for an industrial world war of attrition.
there's a good YT video comparing the two but it's only in German and I doubt subtitles in English are available, anyway: https://youtu.be/LOAWo2pVgak
Because modern engineering and material science enabled all wheeled to have better traction and mobility. The benefits of halftrack fading into irrelevancy.
The Germans obviously had the coolest and sexiest (not to mention they had a ton of different models). As far as effectiveness though, the US M3 was pretty cheap and reliable even if it was a bit uglier.
If we speak of APCs, M3 Scout car is underrated.
If we speak of heavily-armed cars, I think Puma is the best. Soviets stopped bothering themselves with heavily-armed armoured cars around 1942, sticking to tanks, SU-76s and machine gun cars like BA-64
you have 5 seconds to explain why these have tyres
It used a truck chassis. It was easier to train drivers as it drove just like a truck, as well as using the same parts, making it easier to make and making the logistics easier.
>It used a truck chassis.
no it didn't
the front wheels were supposed to steer on paved roads
>tyres
Yes tyres, UK invention, UK spelling, frick you.
the word comes from the french "tire," meaning dress or accourtement for a wheel. the british fricked up the spelling in the 1840s and just ran with it. tires of course had been used for centuries on carts, wagons, etc
If they didn't they would be full-tracks, not half-tracks.
It allows to turn(slightly) it without using a break for the track. It just werks.
?t=1022
>tyres
> US half track were basically truck with track instead of rear wheels, make sense, give better traction still use front wheels to steer still cheap and siple to build
> UK basically use either truck or full tracked APC, make sense you get what you can for the cheapest price
> German half track are basically full tracked APC with useless front wheels with double the complexity
this is why you can't win war on autism alone
may I present for your consideration: French autism
US halftracks were derived from a 6x6 scout car with independent power to the front 2 and rear 4 wheels. That made it really easy to use as the basis of a halftrack.
they were similar to the scout car m3a1, which was of course 4x4
Idk but the Germans had a coolest looking one
Basically you are asking about the best of a wide range of vehicles, from battlebuses to combat units to towing equipment. That's not really fair.
The Hanomag on your picture was created to be a battle bus. The US equivalent of that was the M3 Halftrack. They have a lot of similarites.
>Pop up for World War 2
>Completely vanish after
Even casemate tank destroyers stayed around for longer
Sd.Kfz. 251 was much more complex and expensive than the M3
it was much nicer to drive when everything worked, but it was also more prone to problems due to a more complex design.
M3 was much simpler in construction, much cruder to drive, but much more easy to maintain.
quite obvious which was the better design for an industrial world war of attrition.
there's a good YT video comparing the two but it's only in German and I doubt subtitles in English are available, anyway: https://youtu.be/LOAWo2pVgak
The israelites are still using the M3 in various role until 2000s. A proof of how awesome American made M3 is.
A bunch of South American countries still use it today
Well it is awesome. But also, to the Israelis, it was free.
The Germans. Give me a hard one next time.
can you say why?
>Halftrack
M3
>Armored Car
Daimler
Why don't we see half tracks more these days?
Because modern engineering and material science enabled all wheeled to have better traction and mobility. The benefits of halftrack fading into irrelevancy.
Did they factor in the rule of cool into their formulas?
Modern AWD wheeled vehicles have enormous horsepower and better tires so the track is unnecessary
You dont have to dance anymore to steer an all-tracked vehicle.
The Germans obviously had the coolest and sexiest (not to mention they had a ton of different models). As far as effectiveness though, the US M3 was pretty cheap and reliable even if it was a bit uglier.
If we speak of APCs, M3 Scout car is underrated.
If we speak of heavily-armed cars, I think Puma is the best. Soviets stopped bothering themselves with heavily-armed armoured cars around 1942, sticking to tanks, SU-76s and machine gun cars like BA-64