Ground snow - extra mf cost applies for halftracks?

Fiedler

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
668
Reaction score
142
Location
Malmö
Country
llSweden
E3.724 VEHICULAR MOVEMENT: The minimum Road Entry MP cost in Ground Snow is one MP—not 1/2 . All non-tracked vehicles [EXC: sledges] must expend one extra MP (or MF) per hexside crossed/bypassed. Both effects apply even on plowed roads.

I,e are halftracks tracked or not?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Yes, ht's are tracked.

All the vehicles that have tracks only, are 'fully tracked', i.e. tanks and carriers.
All the vehicles that include tracks to move them, are 'tracked', i.e. half tracks, carriers, and tanks.

von Marwitz
 

Fiedler

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
668
Reaction score
142
Location
Malmö
Country
llSweden
Yes, ht's are tracked.

All the vehicles that have tracks only, are 'fully tracked', i.e. tanks and carriers.
All the vehicles that include tracks to move them, are 'tracked', i.e. half tracks, carriers, and tanks.

von Marwitz
Thanks! Any rule reference for illiterate me?
 

macrobo

King of Boxcars
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
622
Location
Geelong Melbourne
First name
Rob
Country
llAustralia
Hi
My Two cents is that my understanding from a recent Modelling Mag article (Though please I am not Paul W so ask him for a more elaborate comment) that the WW2 HT was basically thought of as the solution for the muddy roads and snow covered dirt tracks of Europe!! - Half tracks (a real WW2 mainly transport vehicle) was also mainly to solve two problems (a) they needed two many Tanks produced for full tracked troop carriers to be done instead and take up the assembly lines and (b) they had lots of "truck drivers" as well and they needed a steering wheel driven vehicle for them since they did not have enough skilled to drivers to use for full tracked vehicles like troop carriers.

Rob :)
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
D1.13 defines fully-tracked.
D1.14 defines half-tracked.
"Tracked" cannot be limited to one or the other and the rules make the difference between "tracked" and "fully tracked" in many places, so even if you don't find the exact definition of "tracked", logics lead to see the adjective as including fully and half tracked vehicles.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The main thing was cost and ease of manufacture. For this post I will ignore all except the German and US lines, other nations followed one or the other's line of development.

Germany: Designed from scratch. Front (steering wheels) unpowered, thus no need for a steering axle transmission. Steering was done like a truck up to a point after which further turning of the steering wheel applied a brake to the track on the side to which you wished to turn. The track suspension while using interleaving wheels, unusual for the late '30s, really is nothing particularly complex, just more wheels. The engine drove a transmission that only drove the tracks, with the only complication being the hard steering braking. The tracks were steel plates with rubber pads, connected by pins seated in oil filled needle bearings which produced less 'drag' than plain shoe and pin types but had higher maintenance. The front axle being unpowered was more akin to a simple truck front axle and cheap. Most nations' truck/bus manufacturers were used to unpowered front wheels. Germany was no different and seemed to unable to convert all lines to all wheel drive (4x4 or 6x6).

US: The US basically took a 4x4 chassis (M3 Scout Car) and replaced the rear wheels with a Timken (a development from the Kégresse system) bogie unit and fiddled about with the hull/armour arrangement. The front axle was already powered, so better than the German equivalents for ditches and low obstacles, but with the shorter track a bit more likely to bog. The track mounting and bogies were somewhat flimsy and the track which was a one piece rubber moulding with an embedded steel ropes and plates "ladder" wore and shredded far easier than the German ones. The US with it's industry was far better able to produce all powered wheel vehicles (4x4 or 6x6) with less hassle. Unlike the German H/T, track steering didn't contribute to vehicular steering.

The Germans could be said to have taken a simplified tank track transmission with a long track base and added a front unpowered truck steering system while the US took a 4x4 and replaced the rear wheels with a shorter track unit.

As for steering wheel vs levers: Levers are simpler to implement for tracked vehicles, though the Tiger I was one of, if not, the first to give the driver a (truncated) steering wheel. As for the US and German H/T, the initial (German) or all (US) steering was done using a truck type steering axle (US: powered, German: unpowered), so a normal steering wheel was the sensible choice from both the production and training aspect.

As you can see, H/Ts used as many old components or designs available to produce the cheapest vehicle to do the job. By war's end both nations had intended to replace H/T with fully tracked vehicles due to their inability to consistently keep up with tracked vehicles over all ground conditions and obstacles. Better than trucks but not as good as tanks, mobility wise.
 
Last edited:

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
How very, very stupid of me, I forgot one important thing with regard to H/T design.

I mentioned that the US H/T tracks were basically a rubber band with a pair of steel cables and spacer plates moulded inside and the Germans used individual steel links with rubber pads. Despite being totally different in construction and durability, they had one thing in common. The material that contacted the ground was Rubber!

Rubber surfaces don't tear up roads anything as bad as metal. Both sides saw their H/T (armoured or not) as being better off road versions of trucks. They were seen mainly as road vehicles that could go cross country if needed, unlike tanks, etc that were designed for mainly cross country and capable of quite bad country at that.

That is reflected in the roles they undertook: gun tractors, light AA, battle taxis (APCs), mortar carriers, etc. They were not intended as front line combat vehicles and did not need the full off road ability of tanks, assault guns, tank destroyers, etc. Most Self Propelled Artillery were mounted on tank chassis simply because of the weight of the artillery piece and ammunition, the extant H/T were just not up to the job. Recon H/T were the exception (US M2, German SdKfz 250 series), but remember that recon units are supposed to see, hear and report, fighting should be a very secondary function.
 

BigAl737

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
1,269
Location
AK
Country
llUnited States
Always learning from you Paul. Thx for your comprehensive answers. You’ve piqued my interest in AFVs. I used to be solely an airplane guy.

Al
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
AS I said - The Master would Chime in and clarify my simple Modelling magazine summary

Rob :thumbsup:
I sort of took your earlier post as a hint ;). The main thing is you did raise an aspect that has not been covered here in GS, so well, well worthy of further consideration and discussion.

I won't pretend I have entered the mindset of those in the '30s and '40s, all my comments are based on working backwards from what eventually emerged from their design efforts. I suspect that either the end users and/or the designers would have preferred fully tracked CT vehicles. Some '30s designs were fully tracked like the British Dragon (OT, based on the Vickers 6 Ton) and both the artillery tractor and APC based in the Soviet T-26 chassis (CT). Such vehicles would have been as maintenance heavy and as short ranged as contemporary tanks and have cost from half to three quarters that of a tank.

So I suspect the design process would have been roughly:

Desired: A vehicle to transport infantry and/or tow/carry artillery anywhere the tanks can go with the same level of protection.
Downsides: High production and maintenance costs, weight and short range.
Compromise: A vehicle capable of keeping fairly close to tanks, proof against 12.7/13.2 mm HMG and shell splinters. The pluses gained were lower cost and weight, greater range and speed. While troops sometimes could not be dropped on the objective, they could still be dropped close to and would have avoided the worst of the artillery and MG beaten ground on the way.

Remember that towed artillery can be some distance from the combat and that infantry still have legs for the final step whilst the gun on a tank is useless without the rest of the tank.
 
Top