M3 halftrack or Hanomag - which was better?

M3 halftrack or Hanomag - which was better?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hanomag looks cooler but the US halftrack was likely much better designed and easier to produce & maintain.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Latter was much less suitable for direct assault for panzer grenadiers, the former was more adaptable as a platform for a variety of uses and existed in a structure that didn't require it to. Horses for courses.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M3 was a truck that they put on a track and the 251 was a track that they put on a truck.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Which leads to the question why they didn't make it a full track, like the RSO.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The company that build these Sdkfz?

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The frick's a hanomag, did you mean the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251/1 Ausführung A?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The best transport was the Universal Carrier because it actually was fully tracked. But the true best transport were the Kangaroos. Since they were literally just tanks that had their turrets and ammo removed and bench installed in-field and were infinitely more effective than M3's or Type 1 Ho-Ha or 251's.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So that would make the Ho-Ki superior to both 251 and M3?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Technically yes, but the Ho-Ki was built in extremely limited numbers and was originally built to be a artillery tractor that could carry the artillery battalion along with them. But Japanese commanders were weird and preferred normal trucks over APCs because they were too slow.

        But that's looking at them as purely transports, you then got shit like what weaponry they have and their use in combat and that skews things massively to the other systems.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hanomag was designed as an IFV, the M3 was more of a truck.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M3 was more mobile, simpler to use, and lighter
    The sdf351 was more armored and had actual brake steering

    So the M3 was superior as a pure transport or as a base for specialist purposes and benefitted from being able to be driven by Anyone who could drive a lorry
    The sdf351 was better when taking fire or moving under fire and it could turn more tightly

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >sdf351
      I keep seeing this, it's 251. There was no 351. There was 300, 301, 302, 303 and 304. No 351.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there's a good video comparing the two, but it's in German

    essentially the Hanomag was way nicer to drive, but also way more complex and harder to maintain, and way more expensive

    the M3 was very crude and harder to steer, but it was far cheaper, far easier to maintain

    overall the M3 was by far the better weapon for an actual war

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muffled HON HON HON in the distance

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hanomag has higher performance in a lot of areas but M3 is easier to produce and maintain. Classic clapper vs kraut design dichotomy. If I was to own one, I would prefer the Hanomag, if I was to procure one for my military, the M3 is just the easier option, but you can't go wrong with either. Honestly, the Hanomags disadvantages would probably be greatly diminished in the US was the one using and producing it.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the germans built the slopiest halftracks and armored cars but boxiest tanks

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares, halftracks are stupid

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't we have halftracks nowadays?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      as soon as wheeled vehicles got good at doing off road they became obsolete

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who would win, 10 SdKfz.251/1 or 10 M3A1.
    No special variants and no outside support.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wait I asked this a silly 1v1 matchup question, but the M3 has the .50cal doesn't it?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        supposed to have, but not always
        M3A1 was equipped to hold the M2 (preferably), the M1917 (as a replacement), or the M1919 (so infantry could mount their MGs or take the MG off the M3 and into battle)

        TOE actually mentions almost as many M1917s as M2s for armored infantry, though seemingly used rarely since most photos of the M1917-equipped M3s are of the early variants instead of the M3A1 that they ended preferring

        the sdf251 is more armored, specified to resist .30cal at all ranges and has a more damage resistant track assembly, the gunners were also provided with small gunner shields
        the M3A1 was mostly only intended to stop artillery splinters, so .30cal could penetrate it at below 200m, and its single solid rubber track would be immobilized if it ever snapped

        but in terms of firepower, we will have to make a distinction between standard and theroetical max
        sdf251 would usually have either an MG42 or MG34 on the front, while the M3A1 had either an M2 or a .30cal, though the .50 on the M3A1 had a very wide arc as a result of its ring mount
        the sdf251 could mount a rear-MG, it was not issued as standard and would usually just be the MG42 of the passengers
        the M3A1 had 4 gun mounts and were intended to be manned by the weapons section if they did not want to proceed on foot, 2x side and 1 rear mount, and would thusly be 2x M1919s and either an M1919 or M1917 on the rear

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hanomag copies were in use in hungary and czech republic till the end of the cold war, 90s.
    m3s were not reproduced and used by the israelites / austrians during the 70s afaik.
    hanomag was more versatile from tank hunter to apc to flak/radar carrier.
    nerver seen anything bigger than a mortar or an mg on m3 tho.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >from tank hunter
      M3 had a tank-destroyer variant, it was just phased out because actual tanks were available

      >to apc
      this was the base form of the M3, but the M3 was better in logistical roles thanks to its higher mobility

      >flak/radar carrier.
      AA versions of the M3 did exist, they were just never pursued because anti-air was not a priority

      >nerver seen anything bigger than a mortar or an mg on m3 tho.
      they got as far as a 105mm armed M3
      like with the 75mm M3, it was just superfluous once the M7 priest was available

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *