>is significantly more armored than a truck
>is equally, if not better, armored than the universal carrier
>still called a purple heart machine
did it deserve it?
>is significantly more armored than a truck. >is equally, if not better, armored than the universal carrier
slow as frick, easy to hit with mortars and once disabled it's a giant tomb
wheeled vehicles can generally still lope along even with flat tires, but tracked vehicles are fukt if a track breaks
>slow as frick
its actually faster than the universal carrier
>easy to hit with mortars
harder to hit, since the armored sides and cab means that straddling shots would have no effect
whereas a truck could be ventillated by shots that didnt land anywhere close to it
>once disabled it's a giant tomb
its not any harder to bail out of than a truck or the universal carrier
>wheeled vehicles can generally still lope along even with flat tires
tracks are more resistant to damage than wheels, though
>tracks are more resistant to damage than wheels, though
this is false and please stop spreading it, not to mention a wheel is far easier to fix than a broken track
I've seen a tank track get damaged by a long pointy rock....
No. A lot of these gripes you hear are because people just like to complain no matter what.
>everyone who got fricked in one
>not bad luck, vehicle was bad
>vast vast majority of people who we're shuttled around in them
>nothing happened everything's fine
guess who fricking whines about it relentlessly and loudly?
>open top
Rick O'Shay
Troops just loved to complain back then
>my tank caught on fire? it's a zippo (even though we all survived)
>APC? I heard some guys died in one of those. purple heart machine am I right
>*misses emaciated chinaman five times in a row* man, these M1 carbines don't have enough knockdown power!
Correct. Soldiers are typically low iq, especially so for infantry.
Why did halftracks fall out of wide military usage anyways? Is it one of those jack of all trades master of none kind of things?
high maintenance schedules and shorter service life, tracks last a tiny fraction of the time that wheels do before they need replacing and they're harder to maintain
jack of all trades worst of both worlds affair
wheels were faster and cheaper, tracks carried more shit
the world decided to split that way
in WW2 halftracks were a compromise, less expensive than fully tracked APCs, more protected than trucks
Tires in the 1940s sucked ass and trucks can go a lot of the places that required a halftrack back then. Anything more difficult like Ukrainian mud and you can send in an M113
Modern 6x6 and 8x8 are just better. You no longer need a compromise design.
it's easy to train drivers since the steering is just like a truck. other than that they don't really offer any advantages over fully-tracked APCs, but those hadn't been conceptualized yet
>Why did halftracks fall out of wide military usage anyways?
advances in both wheel and track technology
modern wheels are much less hard and narrow than they used to be
and wheels can now automatically adjust tire pressure, hard on roads and soft on mud
so you can have decent 8x8 designs that can take a lot of weight and dont have to choose between road or offroad tires
tracks were originally hard to drive, they used a two-lever brake system to steer and the lost a lot of power when turning, so the experience was akin to driving a 16-wheeler that would lose 90% of its speed if needed to turn a corner
modern tanks are basically driven like a car and its not half as strenuous or difficult to use
the M3 existed in a period of time when trucks universally had hard tires for use on roads and tanks really were very cumbersome to drive
but as soon as the M113 rolled off the assembly line, the M3 had no real advantages
>hard tires
They are. Try driving a Willys jeep with those tires on a snowy road and you'll break your neck.
M75 was earlier and was made out of commonly-available components during the 40s. US could had been fighting in this instead of a truck with tracks and sheet metal stapled to it.
>The approximate cost of the vehicle was $72,000, which contributed to the early halting of production
It costs more than a fricking Sherman.
You act like that's a problem for the largest economy in the world at the time
>halftracks are cheap and plentiful, a major selling point
>dude america best country ever can spend millions of dollars on armored coffins and shermans too!
are you serious?
America’s economy was also stretched to the absolute limit with two major wars and no manpower reserves because the army physically could not raise more than 90 divisions without damaging economic output from pulling people off assembly lines. There’s a reason America didn’t field much experimental wunderwaffe stuff despite having the ability to build it
>America’s economy was also stretched to the absolute limit
they had war production to spare
they actually had to wind production down in 1944 because it became obvious that the war would be over before anything built ever got to be used
they never instituted rationing anywhere even remotely close to what even britian had, never mind the USSR or germany, because their capability to produce things was far in excess of what was needed
>and no manpower reserves
they literally had 40M men on the draft list that they never had to muster because the war was over
which was more men than they actually had in uniform at the time
they could literally have doubled their army
a "stretched thin" US would have looked like the UK during the blitz
>KAMINA
>Finnish and Estonian word meaning small fireplace
Why were cheap fully tracked APCs so difficult to make? Were they flooded with ridiculous requirements?
>Why were cheap fully tracked APCs so difficult to make?
Their transmissions were more complicated. The M3 Halftrack uses its front wheels to steer.
Basically what everyone else has said regarding tech advancing plus at the time knowing how to drive was not a near universal skill like it is now. The half track was a neat little way to take the small(ish) pool of preexisting drivers and use them for other things that would normally require lots of training now only require a little
They're pretty bad, they have all the disadvantages of a wheeled and a tracked transport with only some of the advantages. The main reason they were so common is because they were easier to drive which was nice when you were recruiting millions of soldiers and wanted a vehicle as easy to learn with anyone who'd driven a truck being almost able to drive it without being taught.
>M3 halftrack
>worse armor
>cheaper price, longer range, more cargo capacity, faster, more off-road capability, only one gun but it goes 360
>hanomag 251
>better protection, more effective armor layout
>expensive, harder to drive, more guns with gun shields but worse coverage
has any strategy game really made did justice to how they were employed, instead of just being model swaps of each other with slightly altered stats?
with the 251 being very specialized as a troop carrier, but being very good at it with its better protection
but the M3 being more of a utility vehicle with troop carrying as just one of its many jobs
>only one gun
son
this thing was the absolute bomb in COH
>weak-ass M13 playable but the famous M16 isnt
>soviets get the M3 half-track while the US only get the studebaker, even though the allies sent the M9 and M5 as lend-lease and not the M3
enlisted has such questionable vehicle choices
It's gaijin, of course they're going to give russia better shit.
gaijin also has a strange obsession with the M4A2
warthunder has both the M4A2 and M4A2 76mm in the US tech tree, even though the former was only used by the marines and the latter was only used by the soviets
the M4A1 76mm HVSS and M4A3 75mm are both totally absent despite seeing way more use than the M4A2
enlisted has the M4A2 instead of the M4A3 as well, for unfathomable reasons
>British also have the M4A2 Sherman instead of M4A4
>Despite the M4A4 being in war blunder and in the Chinese tree
My grandfather served on an M16 in Korea. He had lots of stories from over there. He sadly passed away a little over a decade ago now.
>He had lots of stories
oo share
There were a bunch from training, and his time in Korea. Which would you wanna hear about?
>m3 halftrack
>only one gun
4 mounting points for machine guns Black person.
they were usually only issued an M2 or an M1917 for use
only machine gun platoons had enough machine guns for the other mounts, unless the riflemen went around looking for spare MGs that werent nailed down
Sdkfz.250/1 & Sdkfz.251/1 also only is equipped with a single machine gun for the vehicle. The rear machine gun mount can be used with one of the squads compliment of machine guns.
>unless the riflemen went around looking for spare MGs that werent nailed down
Sounds exactly like what a GI would do.
I did a thesis on American doctrine in ww2 and the amount of weapon trading over a pack of smokes or outright theft to get as many automatic weapons as possible was insane
>fixed mounting points instead of a skate rail
Pathetic.
>has any strategy game really made did justice to how they were employed, instead of just being model swaps of each other with slightly altered stats?
Men of War games are a good example of that.
the superior half-track.
why settle for two wheels and two tracks, when you can have four tracks instead?
>Turret
>Tight engine compartment
>4 sprockets (4WD)
>4 sets of tracks
Yep, it's a maintenance nightmare.
apparently the M3A1 used after 1943 had two MG mounts in the cab to take additional M1919s or M1917s
and while the MG platoon was supposed to dismount to support the riflemen, doctrinally they were expected to use their half-track in the field instead of marching like the riflemen so they would still be inside the vehicle when they took fire
surely there must be at least one account of a halftrack with the MG section still inside it
firing all 3 machine guns + their SMGs and rifles out the sides
The army don't have fire inside their pants anymore.
No they have femboi penis instead
It was probably called that due to all the crew getting hearing loss from it.
I saw one of these at Tankfest a few years a go and not only did it drown out the sound of the 50. cal blanks, but it was significantly louder than the Tiger that came after it.
The best way I can describe the sound would be if you take all of the saucepans from your kitchen, chucked them into a zorb and then rolled inside that thing through a construction site.
It was horrendous.
Maybe it wasn't in great nick
Arms pool system
>Arms pool system
they dont seem to have any free MGs at the battalion level
though it isnt unlikely for them to "find" some, since BARs keep showing up in armored infantry units despite not being issued any
Trucks weren't only cheaper, but also much more fuel efficient.
fartsniffer thread
These vehicles were made under the assumption that someone couldn't spend a couple of days learning how to steer a tracked vehicle and were what kept the US from fielding modern APCs during WWII.
Burgerbros?
like they mentioned above, 251 was just made for a different purpose
it has more armor and slightly sloped sides to prevent grenades from being thrown in and it has brake steering to allow for tighter turns at slow speed
but its way heavier and more mechanically complex, so it slower, carries less, and has more downtime
so the 251 is really just made for troop carrying, even the numerous 251 variants are straightforward combat variants like the rocket launching one
while the M3 is more versatile and has more uses in logistical roles, and its variants can be more extreme thanks to its higher load limit
>it has more armor and slightly sloped sides to prevent grenades from being thrown in
I have never heard that claim for the side armor. Do you have a source for it? I'm looking at the design documents and its never mentioned as a reason.