The German Position
by Mark McCall

The following debate was a result of the game played above - it arose due to a confusion about the role of armoured infantry and how they were being used in wargames.

I cannot remember ever saying that half tracks were there to attack tanks, although the 251/10 was specifically designed to do so, but experience showed that it could only be effective at close range and that was a risky endeavour!

The half-tracks conceived by Guderian as he recognised that tanks could not work alone, were designed to carry infantry within tanks formations, to provide the ability to mop up pockets of resistance, and provide a fair degree of protection against small arms fire hence I maintain that they are armoured transport rather than AFVs.

Having looked at the history books, the tactical use varied during the war. In Poland, they were merely used to transport infantry up to the edge of battle and dismount to continue on foot. In May-June invasion of France and the Low Countries, they were used with the tanks to provide useful fire support with the vehicle MMGs and infantry passengers. Often they screened the flanks of the advancing panzers and disembarked in the middle of battle to mop up pockets of resistance. The speed and use against unprepared allied armies meant that few casualties were incurred in the 251s.

However, when they tried the same tactics in Barbarossa, they found a more able opponent and the lack of firepower and armour became painfully clear. The design meant that little could be done to increase armour and maintain the fighting mobility. Barbarossa exposed the 251s weakness, despite trying to upgun it, losses were still heavy. However, the threat of infantry anti-tank weapons like the bazooka, compelled the Germans to use the 251s in the van of the battle.

By 1944 the 251s even pushed forward in front of armour to neutralise enemy tank destruction squads by using their machineguns. By 1945, the German reliance on static defence meant that APCs reverted to 1939 tactics in transporting infantry to the edge of battle and the heavy weapon APCs withdrawing to provide fire support from the rear. The APCs without cannon would accompany small groups of tanks to act as mobile counter-attack forces. (Source; Fighting Techniques of a Panzer Grenadier, Hughes and Mann)

I fully agree with your arguments about the consequences of tank Vs APCs and that as seen above is something that was considered by commanders in the field, a risk to take. What I do not accept in your argument is that the right for a commander to choose to take such risks is removed by a game mechanism. As above, sometimes need overtook caution and this should be able to be reflected in the game. If the APCs get destroyed and infantry get killed, then the force becomes less effective and eventually morale tests take place.

Secondly, if I were a tank commander faced with a choice between firing at a half track that can't hurt me or a Mark IV that can, I'd choose to fire at the tank. Therefore why can't APCs advance against tanks in the melee of battle, particularly when they are in woods, therefore short range visibility and supported by Mark IVs! As the French Captain Bernard Brezet said during the French drive towards Cassino in 1943, "To take risks is a matter of honour."

The British Reply
by Shaun Groves

Mark, I think you should refer to military tactics and doctrines of the period! I doubt if anybody envisaged putting a half track up against a tank!

We all know (and agreed) that in 9/10 cases Armoured Infantry dismounted when engaging the enemy and there half tracks were certainly not ordered to go forward it would have been sheer suicide! (incidentally it's still the case).

The whole idea, I agree, is to get infantry up quickly, while avoiding unnecessary casualties from mortar and artillery fire (take a look at the modern day stuff like the warrior, the role is still the same, or at least it was when I worked for the manufacturers). I think they may have even tried to simulate this by giving such high mortality rates for those in half tracks hit by AP rounds (believe me it's messy I've seen the inside of a BMP hit in the side during the Gulf) Anyway I digress.

I think you may have missed the fundamental point I m trying to make, a half track or lorry (even a few of them) would absolutely shit themselves if suddenly faced by a tank, and would be extremely unlikely to ignore it.

I strongly disagree with your argument about tanks "ignoring" trucks half tracks and the like. They might if running low on ammo. The literature is littered with incidents of tankers chewing up these "softer" targets. One gruesome tale tells of an American tank crew slamming a round into the back of a German truck trying to make its escape, only to watch in horror as German "Waffs" fell out of the back burning and screaming...none survived the event as the hull machine gunner hadn't noticed!!! They did not ignore them!

I think there is a strong argument to introduce stiff penalties against players utilising armoured (other otherwise) personnel carriers in unrealistic roles! People simply use them as armoured cars at the moment.