I worked on one of these in the later 1990s trying to get it, and keep it running. I was a full time military mechanic for the US Army at the time. The vehicle belonged to a *large* group of historical reenactors in the area of the US I lived in at the time. They had acquired it from some Eastern European country (can't remember for sure which) who had used it as a firefighting vehicle from after WW2. Just the historical significance of the vehicle kind of excited me at the time for lack of a better term. I love history, and my military job was fixing tracked vehicles of the US Army at the time. This same group had obtained an M42 Duster Self Propelled Anti Aircraft gun. I was able to make the M42 run myself, and that was such great fun and rewarding. Took a number of us to get the Sd. Kfz. 251 running again, including some folks that had to explain some maintenance techniques/specs translated from old German manuals from the era. Sorry for the long comment, but this was an incredible period in my life that provided me so many opportunities that I find it hard not to share a bit from time to time. :)
That would have been cool just to crawl through.😀 I would have loved working on it. Would need you to tell me what to do from time to time. Just a shade tree mechanic, not a pro like you
What are your opinions on maintaining the Sd.Kfz.251 over one of the allied halftracks/troop carriers? If you have anything else to share, maybe something we wouldn't expect about the vehicle, I think we'd love to hear more about your time with this vehicle!! What an awesome experience.
Never knew that the right side tracks were longer than the left. Although given the torsion bars that makes sense. And those measurements in millimeters... so German, so precise. Another informative video as always.
I think the reason the Germans didn't deploy enough mechanized infantry is because it costs 5 times more than motorized infantry for only a 20% increase in effectiveness. You're better off putting the factories into more tanks. The Germans also effed up in using their research focus on super heavy tanks. And don't get me started on the synthetic refineries not producing enough fuel. I mean 48 fuel base, that won't even give me enough fuel to retreat. WW2 was a very bad patch, allies OP.
Yes indeed, the German army was far less mechanized than most people think, and given Germany's chronic shortage of oil, it could never become a highly mechanized army. There simply was not enough fuel available at any one time to run even a 50% mechanized army. Germany's linited mechanization was not an issue early in the war, because 'blitzkreig' tactics only called for a limited number of armoured & mobile divisions exploiting holes in the enemy's defensive line. However, Germany's lack of fuel & mechanized forces became extremely problematic once the Soviet Union's factories were able to manufacture at their maximum output & the western Allies were joined by the Americans, whose huge manufacturing sector had copious amounts of raw materials available nearby & was free of any Axis military threat. At that point, it became impossible for the Germans to adequately defend everywhere on the Eastern, Western Front, and North African/Sicilian/Italian fronts., nor were they able to adequately counter any breakthrough by enemy forces. At that point, total defeat was inevitable.
@@derekbaker3279 I agree with most things in your comment, but it's good to remember that Nazi Germany failed to conquer Soviet Union (with the lend-lease deal) *before* the western front opened. There was also only 2 divisions in Africa, so the other fronts were irrelevant to Nazi Germany's demise, the Soviets with their own, American, and to a way lesser extent British supplies were enough to stop the German advance and punch them back to Berlin, and without the western front opening, to the Atlantic.
The problem wasn't the cost, but as you pointed the lack of oil. Oil should be saved for the more important role of panzers and aircraft. Had the germans gotten the caucasus they'd probably have employed more of them.
@@urishima Torsion bars. The Sd.Kfz 11 and its 251 derivative was one of the half track family where torsion bars where used. The basic design of the whole half track family was designed by Ernst Kniepkamp and the designs where then turned over to specific companies for detail development and production. They can't be symmetric because they get in each others way, nor can you use one bar for a set of opposite road wheels. Every torsion bar system therefore is asymmetric. Now Kniepkamp might actually have been the most insane "suspension Nazi" you can think off. He pushed those overlapping road wheels and torsion bars on pretty much everything he could in his role at the Heereswaffenamt. The best example would be the Panther. That tank has a downright insane suspension system. Basically the entire floor is just one big double torsion bar per wheel. Yes two bars per road wheel. 😅 See: i.redd.it/qi4u8sijd6o11.png
@6:44 Woah! Hold on a second there!... German engineers SIMPLIFIED something?!?! You mean like, voluntarily?! I'm gonna need to seem some source documentation on that one...
I doubt the engineers simplified it on their own. They were most likely TASKED to simplify it by the Reich Ministry of Armaments and War Production Hence, the German engineers are innocent of the absurdity of simplification :D
Look at Jagdpanzer IV. Some consider them as superior to Stugs. In fact they are simplified so much, they dont even have a copula. And they did poorly in roles other than a tank destroyer. But the first place for the cheap nazi crap title should go to the wooden mine. So unpredictable, allies let captured german engineers (in return for better treatment) disarm them, tho thats against the Geneva convention.
High Command: "Sie müssen dieses entwurf vereinfachen!" ("You must simplify this design!" Engineer: "...Ich verstehe nicht..." ("...I don't understand...")
This brought to mind one of Bill Mauldin's WW2 Willie and Joe cartoons: Willie and Joe are sitting in a foxhole watching a Sherman tank drive past. Willie says, "I'd rather dig. A movin' foxhole attracks the eye."
I love that and those cartoons. Him and Ernie Pyle would make a great subject for a history class if there are any teachers or Profs out there reading this!
My favourite is the one with them in a foxhole with a STUG parked over them and they are saying 'Yes, we have a target for you but you need to be patient'.
Always thought these were the best looking, and probably performing, halftracks of WWII. However, that quad .50 US HT was a beast. My uncle called it the half inch artillery vehicle.
No, you wouldn't. They are loud, uncomfortable, rough-riding, complicated to start and operate, require constant maintenance and care, voraciously thirsty for fuel, oil and lubricants, unreliable as hell, cold in the winter and hot in the summer, terrible visibility, and very difficult to maneuver in tight areas. Not to mention impossible to park. Daily commuting in one would be fun for maybe the first week, after that it would be a nightmare. Even assuming you can actually afford to cover all the costs of fuel and maintenance, which I doubt. You mean you like the idea of driving one down a public highway and having people think you look cool. You would not actually enjoy having to own and operate one of these on a daily basis.
Drinking game idea: Go through a list of german vehicles and take a shot every time a vehicle was repurposed and used for a role it wasn't designed for. Last one to die of alcohol poisoning wins.
Yes and no. There's no reason to armor a utility transport vehicle. Make them cheap, and make a lot. Whenever armor is added, some combat role is assumed, but probably not direct head on assault. You have to keep in mind the flat plains of the eastern front. There's not a lot of cover, and you can be seen from miles away. So if you are under fire at 2km, you will be under fire at 1km, and 100m. So that armor becomes very useful for keeping your troops alive.
@@Ph33NIXx Well more akin to the M-113 APC. Which by the way didn't have a gun shield either until sent to Vietnam. The term given to them was a "battle taxi". To deliver troops close to the action and to deploy the troops out the back. But in Vietnam, a lot of the time it was used as a mobile bunker. The first IFV to appear (the Soviet BMP) and later the Bradley fighting vehicle were used to support the tanks in offensive operations as well as delivering troops. Similar to the later variants of the SdKfz 251 (anti-tank, flame-thrower, AA, cannon-mounted recon. etc.).
I thought so too; my friends and I had a model kit of one of these before I joined the US Army and we all called them "Hanomag" because that's what was on the kit box. There was technical data about the vehicle on the instructions, but they were in Japanese. So, when I was in the US army, I was stationed in Mannheim, where the Hanomag factory was. When I asked a German friend about Hanomag, he showed me a picture of a 1920s-looking car and he called it a Courier; I thought that was wrong; I knew that Ford sold a Mazda pickup truck and called it a Courier(my Dad had one) and so I was confused. He told me about the Hanomag company, and that they were just one of the makers, they had designed it but weren't the only manufacturer. It was an Allies, post-WW2 thing to refer to them as Hanomags. I was corrected in 1978, but I was glad to see this video - at last - anyway. I have to wonder about the German military's reputation for genius and infallibility, where did it come from, unless it was the Allies propaganda network attempting to explain the poor performance of the Allies military actions. There were some genuine debacles early in the war, but these could have been bad luck, or the unfortunate fact that the Germans had started preparing 10 years ahead of everyone else. It may have been the influence of Herr Hitler, who is more and more appearing to be the secret Allies MVP. Thanks for all your work, Bernhard. This video is another great job. Good Fortune attend you, always.
With no front wheel drive it greatly simplifies the drive train, and has the benefit of keeping the engine and therefore the hood and the rest of the vehicle lower. Slightly harder to mount banks of streams etc. For the time it was a better solution than the Brits having 'infantry' tanks as unbearably slow, which they learned wasnt a good thing. For the yanks they developed from the 2 and a half ton truck so it was simpler for chassis production, likewise the DUKW Of course 6WD trucks changed everything, but did cut up dirt roads a lot making it harder for lesser vehicles. This is why today the Hummer or Humvee is so wide, and why smaller vehicles like Jeeps are no longer used in theater
"Brits having 'infantry' tanks as unbearably slow". Apparently so they couldn't move faster than the group of people they were supporting as opposed to dominating the battlefield and supporting everyone. Hey, it sounded good to some idiot.
@@ABrit-bt6ce presumably some idiot that wasnt running behind the tank uphill I guess The thing was they persisted with this late into the war when they knew the answer was a better Cromwell, which resulted in the Comet But it was the British disposition to bracket development out in several directions, and really their development was sound and resulted into good answers, even if only eventually.
Excellent presentation. I sincerely appreciate this. I've always thought the Sd.Kfz 251 to be one of the unsung workhorses of the German military machine in WW2. It performed many roles and it did them very well. I'm most impressed with the Sd.Kfz.251/22 w/ the 7.5cm PaK 40 mounted in the compartment.
The CSLA nicknamed the OT 810 “ Hitler’s Revenge “ I have been told by a Czechy veteran of the progressive era of post war Czechoslovakia. The Allies during the war had a driving course for this vehicle, my Grandfather was a Driver Mechanic of the Rece Corp that took it, it rather liked driving it.
Yes, the 251 lacked a driven front axle, but it also had a far larger contact patch under its tracks. It was really more like a 3/4 track thank a half track, while the M3 has a very short contact patch, pretty much a larger version of one of the rubber track assemblys you can bolt onto you quad or 4x4. The 251 is much closer to being a fully tracked vehicle, and I am sure that makes up for the loss of a pair of skinny rubber drive wheels.
The M3 was cheaper, easier to maintain, and far less complicated generally. German half-track had all the disadvantages of a tank, right dorn to steering by braking the tracks
There is nothing advanced about an overly complex vehicle that's a nightmare to maintain and repair. To quote Kalashnikov "Any fool can engineer complex stuff. It takes a genius to make functional simple things" and "Anything that is useful is simple".
@@majungasaurusaaaa Well, let's put it this way. Suppose you were born in the early 30s and as a young man you saw all the vehicles of that time (1938-45), you would have had no choice with that kind of technology, you would have seen it as advantaged, because that half-track was quite unstoppable on terrain that tanks would be easily bogged due to lighter weight (tanks are heavier). And, that's exactly what I was referring about. Of course, today, 2020, that technology is obsolete. I hope you got the picture now.
@@mickcarson8504 Imagine you were a GI fighting in the european theater. You've captured an abandoned Skdfz-251 and compare it with your own M3 halftrack. Upon inspecting its tracks you've realized that it's far more complex and time consuming to maintain, having all the drawbacks of a tank's tracks while offering no cross country advantage over your M3. You wouldn't call that advanced.
Thank you for another informative and interesting video. I have been a history buff my whole like but your channel helps put the true history into the story of WWII. Thank you.
Your presentations are detailed and well supported by source material. I really appreciate the work you put into your content. As Always, TY for this upload.
Excellent video. Would also enjoy a comparison of the Sd. Kfz. 251 with its smaller brother, the Sd. Kfz. 250 in terms of design, production, and combat usage. Thanks!
Excellent video. What I’d like new enthusiasts and viewers to walk away with is that these vehicles were very much in their infancy in the beginning and their role was a bit fluid through the middle and late war. The dark grey 251 Ausf A’s and B’s of the 1940 French Campaign appeared far different from the dunkelgelb and camo line painted 250 neu’s and 251 Ausf D’s of the latter half of the war. These characteristic changes are quick reference clues when determining what year or battle a particular photo was taken. Daimler had been watching companies like Citroën who had been playing with the idea of an armored halftrack since 1919 and began work around 1921. The Sd.kfz. 7 and 8, like most early German halftracks were conceptualized by Ernst Kniepkamp of the "Military Automotive Department" (Wa Prüf 6) before the Nazis took power in 1933. The theory being that at such and early stage, their development and infancy came as a convenience during the 30’s since factories focusing on commercial farm equipment could prepare and develop within the parameters of the treaty, and be easily up-tooled. As far as the Sd.kfz.251 and 250 (my personal favorite). I theorize that the French Unic P-107 had served as at least some of the concept inspiration for a true Schützenpanzerwagen. Moving onto the war, the 251 Ausf C and D were easily the most produced of the 251’s with the D being the workhorse. These vehicles were expensive and extremely valuable since they were often pressed into many different roles during the mid and later years when quick movement under pressure made them worth their weight in gold. I like that this video emphasizes that these vehicles were not the norm among infantry units, despite their abundance in footage. Pioneer units in particular were usually outfitted with their own organic halftracks, often in the form of the Sd.kfz.251/7. Whether it was light fire support with the 3.7cm pak, 8cm mortar, 2cm schwebelaffette, observation or just being pressed into pack mule service during a panicked retreat, these vehicles were a big assets, the loss of which was hard to make up for in both time and money. Leon Degrelle’s SS Wollonien Division lost a bunch of Ausf D’s to fuel shortages and enemy fire while escaping the pocket at Cherkassy. These Ausf D’s were credited with getting a large number of men into position where they could at least attempt the remaining rush rearward with a chance. It’s an excellent example of a role these machines found might have found themselves in rather than charging into enemy positions along side speeding Panthers as we might imagine. I built a 1:35 scale model of one of Wallonien’s Cherkassy Ausf D’s to search as a desk model in my office. Fantastic video, thanks for the wonderful content!
Thank you. That was a terrific explanation of that vehicle's role. The Panzergrenadier squad had a lot of machine guns! The Tiger tanks had anti personnel mines attached to them. Any mention of those on these half tracks?
No reason for mines, since you can fire light weapons in any direction. The area is more likely to have exposed infantry, so such a weapon would lead to more damage of friendly troops than enemy. Also, you shouldn't be charging into massed infantry with a half track. You also shouldn't do that with a tank, but it was more common.
I love the slopes on this guy's armor, but the american halftracks always seemed more "Strong jawed" and have those armored louvers for ventilation which are really cool.
Would love to see a video on the M3 comparing and contrasting design and usage of the two armored half tracks. would be interesting to see how one learned from the other and what influenced the different design choices.
It seems like the battle taxi concept never quite worked out in practice. Troops quickly found out that they were better off fighting mounted as long as possible.
The lack of a powered front axle wasn't actually a disadvantage compared with the M3 Halftrack, the reason being the Sdkfz.251 featered much larger tracks and thus actually had better traction and less ground pressure, providing better performance in really tough terrain like mud etc. than the M3. The M3 was probably more mobile on roads however.
lol lol lol I like alot the reference you made about the motto "The Emperor Protects !!!" taken from the Warhammmer 40K lore !!! I am a fan of it too !!!
10:54 Why the uneven links? ruclips.net/video/60oHeCZHtvI/видео.html Length difference between the left and right is a mere 140mm, and divide by 2 (because it is circumference) there is only 70mm (3in) for a torsion bar or other suspension device, which I do not believe is sufficient space. I believe primary reason for link quantity difference is minimize harmonic frequencies from each link hitting ground at same time. Even today's road tires often have asymmetrical threads to reduce road noise. I can imagine being a passenger a synchronized thumping of both tracks at same time would drive everyone nuts.
Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford are in a DVD which is one of 2 DVDs in a set entitled "The Lady Vanishes". It, "Crook's Tour" is a spy story in which these galoots travel through Iraq (wearing suits and ties). They are traveling in a half rack, a civilian version of something Citroen produced in the 1930s . I remember reading about the Americans getting hold of it and beefing it up into that military half track used by the US Army in WW II. The Germans must have known of this vehicle. You can research it if you care to. www.imdb.com/title/tt0031192/
Like so much the Sdkfz 251, remember few years ago : from east countries ( Tchekia ) it was sold for around 25 000 euros in working state, now prices have been increased I suppose..Anyway many thansk for sharing the Star of the german motorisiert infantry.............Take care : )
I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly the half-track was used during a "mounted" attack. Would the vehicle's occupants which constituted one platoon of panzer support soldiers basically fire their rifles/assault guns from the top side of the vehicle? If anyone would care to expand on this I'd be most appreciative.
I think they threw hand grenades while driving threw the enemy line. But i dont know how they prevented the enemy from throwing hand grenades inside the vehicle.
@@pavelcheckov9288 likely through suppression. When under MG42 fire it is unlikely you take the time to throw a grenade at a moving target with sufficient accuracy
Yeah, I mean I can't see the platoon offering anything close to what it could do when dismounted and deployed on the ground where it could utilize its weaponry from a wider spanse of territory using the defensive features of the terrain, etc. The halftrack was the same thing as an armored personnel carrier whose main purpose was the timely delivery of close infantry support to the panzers deployed on the field. I dare say if these vehicles got anywhere close to an active combat zone the vehicle would stop and deploy the platoon to support the armor. Treating it like it's just another tank wouldn't be too smart as it would make for a handsome target to the enemy and a chance to take out not only a vehicle but upwards of 12 soldiers. Anyway I was kind of struck by what was said about the increased practice of using the carrier in combat with the platoon essentially being "mounted" within the vehicle.
If the vehicle was designed merely as a transport then why use slopped plate? Every other vehicle designed as a transport did not need, nor have, visions slits and an encased radiator. It is pretty obvious the SDKFZ 250 and 251 were meant to go in harms way, especially since the idea of using aircraft in the role of ground attack was vague at best during the late thirties. The LVT's used by the US Marine Corps were originally conceived as transports, with mild steel plate, but the fight at Betio (Tarawa) led the switch to armor plate and the LVT 4(A) with a 37mm gun and later a 75mm.
I find it interesting that the half track was called a moving fox hole. The idea of using it as a fighting platform instead of only a troop carrier makes sense to support the tank attacks.
Why? Tanks can't support themselves? They are the ones with thick armor, MGs, cannon, and mobility. Why would adding a less-armored, less-well-armed, less mobile AFV help the tanks in any way? What tanks need for support is infantry, to do the things an AFV cannot do. A smaller AFV cannot do what infantry does, it can only do what tanks do, but worse. It CAN bring infantry into battle quickly so they can keep up with and support the tanks more effectively...which is to say a troop carrier. It was obviously meant to bring troops right to the front linel or they wouldnt have armored it. But as an AFV it would not help tanks at all (it would serve to support *infantry* quite well in the absence of tanks)
15.252 = rare?!, they built 7500 SdKfz 251 in 1944 alone. Total Panzer IV production was about 8500 between 1938 and 1945 . They could have used more of them for sure, but it was not rare for german wwii standards. If we speak about tank production in total, we also have to conisder other Halftrack types. Other Wehrmacht models were: 1-ton class, Sd.Kfz. 10 produced by Demag, Berlin; Adler, Frankfurt am Main; Büssing-NAG, Brunswick; Phänomen, Cottbus and Saurer, Vienna, a total of 25,000 vehicles - its drivetrain was used for the Sd.Kfz. 250 3-ton class, Sd.Kfz. 11 produced by Hanomag, Adler, Auto-Union and Skoda from 1938 to 1944, a total of 25,000 vehicles - its drivetrain was used for the Sd.Kfz. 251 5-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 6, manufactured by Büssing-NAG, Berlin-Oberschönweide; Daimler-Benz and Praga (Czechoslovakia), about 3,500 vehicles in total 8-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 7, production was of about 12,000 vehicles 12-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 8, some 4,000 vehicles were produced by five manufacturers 18-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 9, a production of only 2,000 vehicles Then we have the trucks from Opel, Mercedes and Ford which were also converted to Halftracks by the thousands. I am pretty sure the Wehrmacht had way more Halftracks than tanks! But unlike the SdKfz 250/251 most of these variants weren't armored. The US M3 Halftrack combines the disadvantage of a tracked vehicle and an normal truck without any benefits. The short footprint of the tracks and the missing steering system for the tracks doesnt let the M3 perform any better than a regular 6x6 truck like the Studebaker, while its vertikal armor layout doesn't even protect against rifle calibers (unlike the Sd.Kfz 251). The russians recognized this and put an Sd.Kfz 251 styled body on an american 6x6 Studebaker chassis. The result is known as BTR 151/152. The SdKfz 251 had better armor protection, better ground clearance, smaller turning circle and could cross trenches up 2 m wide (US M3 only 1 m). The M3 on the other hand was simpler, had a better power to weight ratio and a greater internal volume.
first, pay attention to context, I am talking about early war and contrast them with number of Panzers built. second, pay attention to wording, I talk about armored halftracks, most of those you listed were not armored.
Thanks for the numbers. You rarely see people pointing out how many tractors an army had. I heard that Germans fought savagely over knocked out tanks. Might be also cause they had equipment to pull that tank to repair.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized You are absolutely right. Excuse me! But after the first few minutes into the Video, for me it sounded like that halftracks in general were overrepresented in the media and not as common as one could think. Like the Tiger tank for example.
In your conclusions about the use of these vehicles regarding mechanized infantry warfare you seem to forget other vehicles like the sdkfz 250. In your video it seems like the entire German doctrine is based on the 251, but armored infantry vehicles were used within the German army before the birth of the 251. Your conclusion therefore isnt complete in my opinion. Keep up the good work, love your vids.
It would have been interesting to see some direct comparisons with the American M3 Halftrack, since while widely used, Americans didn't seem to like the M3 very much (I've heard it referred to as a "Purple Heart Box" due to its poor armor).
100hp is less than my humble car... I feel that this engine should have an enormous amount of torque, otherwise it wouldn’t move such weight. Am I wrong?
Can you start series about covering major WW2 battles in this channel? I have been following this channel for a year and I think you have the potential to create WW2 battle series and cover the developments of the major sieges between Germany and the Soviet Union. There's hardly any channels left that are allowed to talk about these topics in RUclips so I believe that it is a great idea. Keep up the good work!
can yes, will unlikely. I don't care enough about battles. I care about understanding systems, doctrine, stactics and other crucial core aspects. Of course, once I know them, battles might be far more interesting, since then I can compare were there was a diversion and match.
Most games get this vechile wrong by modelling it as an infantry transport where infantry unloads and fights unmounted while vechile itself continue to operate as an independent combat vechile giving machine gun support. In reality the vechile was integral part of panzergrenadier squad (including vechile's driver, mg operator, co-driver, who was squad leader) and the crew in whole was either mounted or unmounted. If you unmount panzergrenadier squad you cannot operate the vechile more than driving it to cover near by because the driver had position in the unmounted squad
You actually didn't cover how the German panzergrenadiers (gp) used the half-tracks. How they fought with them? I pictured, modeled actually, them with the MG mount with shield firing to the front and a Panzergrenadier firing a LMG over the side of the vehicle on the left and right. Another threw grenades from the rear. Something like that?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Why not? Next question is why the 250/1 and supporting version in the Aufklarungsabteilung? The vehicle was used as an ammunition and command vehicle for StuG III early in the war but then its use expanded to where a Panzergrenadier company was in the Aufklarungsabteilung. Why? Was that company broken up into individual vehicles (250/1) to support the armored cars in the battalion such as the 250/9? The company had the 250/7 and 250/8 as support vehicles and 250/10 and /11 as platoon command vehicles. Was tactical use of the 250/1 companies any different than of the 251/1 equipped companies? There was one of those in the battalion as well. The two grenadier companies (gp) supposedly were used as regular panzergrenadier (gp) in helping armored cars from the battalion to penetrate Soviet lines and get into the Soviet rear. The 250/7 and /8 make sense for that as well as the heavy weapons company (gp) in the battalion for support. But information of tactical use in English appears rare. I would like to see a video covering what I think I just described as material for three videos. Not to mention the difference between US M3 half-track tactical use as taxi cabs and the German use as IFV.
Trial and error. It was thought at the time that combining half track and wheeled steering would give the best of both worlds and the pressure of war hadn't fully exerted itself yet. It was found that it didn't improve anything in cross terrain handling nor did it help in on road performance while at the same time being more expensive and time consuming to build. That's why no one uses half track vehicles anymore. Either fully tracked tanks/APC's or fully wheeled vehicles are the norm. Half tracks are basically a failed experiment. An intermediate solution to a problem that wasn't efficient. All the same they are nice looking and interesting vehicles.
That's the wrong concept. The half track grew from the idea of making a wheeled vehicle better on rough terrain. Remember, armored infantry was a new concept. For a fully tracked APC, see the Japanese Type1 Ho Ki Armored Carrier.
The final account suffers somewhat from the reduction to mere production figures. In the total account of the tanks with 16000 there are a lot of tanks which became obsolete during the war, for example tanks 1 and 2 and finally also 3. These tanks were withdrawn from the front service. But nothing comparable happened with the half-track vehicles.
So if no German soldiers called it the Hanomag, I'm even less convinced they would use its proper name, otherwise the battle would be over before orders were even issued. Do they refer to it as simply "251"? Even just saying "Zwei Fünf Eins" seems too long in combat conditions, so what did the troops call it?
> Even just saying "Zwei Fünf Eins" seems too long in combat conditions, so what did the troops call it? likely SPW and previously MTW. Also in combat, I don't see how you would call out a vehicle designation. You would call for Panzergrenadiere or Infanterie or Panzer etc. Or a unit etc. doing its thing. Also "Zwei Fünf Eins" is very short, "MG, neben Haus, 300 m, Feuer" whereas 300 is "dreihundert".
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes and no, my logic is that the infantry came up with nicknames or shortened titles for other types. Stug, Stupa, Stuka zu fuss, etc. I agree in German it's already longwinded enough to say certain phrases so I would argue that means when there is the option to shorten or rename something it is taken.
"No evidence has been found in primary sources that these armoured troop carriers were ever referred to by the name Hanomag - not even as a nickname by the troops. If the name "Hanomag" had been mentioned during the war to these troops, they would have thought that you were referring to the heavy trucks or buses for which this company was famous." Jentz, Thomas. Doyle, Hilary. ''Panzer Tracts, # 15-2: Mittlere Schuetzenpanzerwagen (Sd.Kfz.251)''. Panzer Tracts, 2005. ISBN-9780977164318 Wikipedia: "German officers referred to them as SPW (Schützenpanzerwagen, or armored infantry vehicle) in their daily orders and memoirs."
I would guess it would be more effective to simply weld lightly armored skirts on the sides of trucks for the panzer grenadiers, did the Wehrmacht use lightly armored vehicles to make up for the lack of half track numbers for mobile infantry units?
Did the Germans ever give any of these various half-tracks actual names or nicknames or were they always referred to by their Sdkfz number or as light, medium, heavy halftrack, etc.? One last things, more German half track and armored car videos, please. While I love tanks, I feel that the various half tracks and armored cars that the Germans uilt and used don't get near the attention they deserve, esp. since there seems to be a lot more different types of them than all of their tanks, Stug, SPAs, and JagdPanzers combined.
As far as I know SPW (Schützenpanzerwagen) was the most common designation for these half tracks with mittlerer Schützenpanzerwagen (Mi. SPW) referring specific to the 251
@@reteip9 So, no real names then, just designations. I guess that it makes sense since they didn't bother naming their tanks until the Panther came along.
Steering a tracked vehicle becomes a difficult exponential ratio with speeds beyond 25 mph. That is the reason for the front steering wheels with Ackerman design. (castor, camber and toe in). Certainly, powering the front wheels is an advantage in soft material because the vehicle is overloaded to start with when empty. Anytime you can move soldiers by carrying them in a vehicle, it is a hell of a lot better then walking. My opinion is the half track was a good vehicle for troop movement as a result was taken into combat situations for which it was not designed. It becomes a desired target for the enemy because of the ratio of the number of soldiers in a single box. Iguana
Maybe I'm very dumb... but why are the tracks not symmetrical... why 55 links on the left side and 56 on the right side.... can anyone explain this to me?
Probably because of torsion bars, wheels on both sides aren't mounted paraller to each other but at an offset so you can put sets of torsion bars interchangeably under the floor of the vehicle. I'm pretty sure drive wheels aren't offset so gap between one of them and coresponding road wheels is bigger than on the other side.
Thanks a lot... it still is a bit too technical for my brain, i got a degree in education not engineering. Thanks for explaining it, I look forward to learning more in the future! Sincerly Jonathan
Only the first battalion of the infantry rifle brigade were equipped with half tracks. There just wasn't enough of them to go around. Most of the wehrmacht were still horse drawn with only few having trucks for transport. The Grossdeutchland division was a elite wehrmacht division and even it only had the first battalion equipped with half tracks. The rest were lucky enough to have full motorized transport in the form of trucks. Other wehrmacht divisions were not so lucky. They marched on foot and went into battle on foot. Their gear was all horse drawn. The higher the divisional number the worse it got for the troops and no, contrary to popular belief the Waffen SS were not better equipped then their wehrmacht counterparts. They had the same equipment layout and in some cases wehrmacht units were better equipped than the SS. Only difference was the SS seem to have more anti-tank gun assets. The Grossdeutchland had its on integral Tiger Regiment! No other unit in the German line up could boast that. All other Tiger Battalions were independent Heavy tank Battalions. Notice the size difference. The vast majority of the German line up was still existing on WW1 horse drawn logistics when far enough away from intact rail lines. Even the Russians were more mobile than their German counterparts, particularly as the war progressed. The American army was fully motorized.
It's another classic well engineered German vehicle, US half tracks look cheap in comparison, and probably were. As always a great presentation and subject matter, thank you.
And as usual the US variant was vastly superior. Better manoeuvrability, simpler maintenance, faster, heavy 360 degree machine gun mount that could engage light armour and simple to produce. In ww2 all equipment you field will be destroyed/damaged no matter what. If your equipment is also overly complex and hard to produce while offering no benefits your design is shit
@@itsa_possum - I do like the look of the German half track, but you win. And at that time the US manufacturing capabilities were the largest in the world and could produce large quantities of M3 half-tracks. And as the saying goes "quantity has a quality all it's own."
Marten Trudeau yeah except in this case it was both quantity and quality as with most US equipment in WW2. There is a reason the allies were the only fully motorized forces and that’s not only due to American factories. I think many people mistake complexity for quality for some reason, and while a panzer 4/ nazi halftrack might look better to some, I’d much prefer serving in a far safer Sherman or a halftrack with available spares. Anyhow, here’s to hoping that the optics of war machines be relegated to fiction in the future
Considering it seems like half-tracks of varying descriptions were more complex than tanks in terms of mobility while also not being quite as mobile, I have wondered why they never just made their APCs full-tracked. It doesn't seem like anyone's half tracks did anything particularly vital.
I would like to put a question out here, my immediate reaction to the origins of half track, was to ask what was going on in the Spanish Civil war with regards to the use of armed trucks and their deployment as on the face of it 1920s versions at least, they appear similar.
Good to see the proper equipment on the vehicle especially the ramps which is extremely rare a British military dealer bruce Compton did manage to get many original bits for his 251 he has 3 and please check out his programme combat dealers
I've never used them. Once late game while naval crawling towards the US set up production as I had more factories than I knew what to do with - but completely forgot to insert them in the template once the fighting began
They planed to built a full tracked APC but then the war was over , googl Kätzchen Auto Union/ Audi they a had a mock up or Proto with a Pz 38 (t) Chassis and with overlapping wheels
@@erichvonmanstein1952 it would be interesting to see if these were influenced by early German propaganda films or not. The M3 and M5 were definitely inspired by the Hanomags and the Americans made good use of them, but after WW2 everyone dropped the concept of a halftrack it was just a too complicated vehicle.
3:13 or so. Seems logical to me that it was originally intended as a good off road vehicle to keep up with tanks going cross-country, throw on some armor for rifle caliber rounds to protect against random fire from overrun enemies as the panzers are pushing deep into the enemy's rear. Then soldiers being soldiers, decided hey we can ride these things a lot closer to the enemy than official doctrine says and be better off. We can even fight from these things sometimes when the situation is right. Heck if you're not facing AT guns or tanks slap a shield on the mg and you've got a mobile armed mg nest. And that draws rifle fire away from the poor bloody infantry.
Too small and by then way outdated. Wouldn't have been efficient to have done so. Most were either destroyed, scrapped or working occupation duties (policing) by 1943. In hindsight they would have been better off converting their 8 wheel armoured cars into armoured troop transports. Big enough, fast enough with good terrain handling characteristics and fantastic operational range. Also reasonably cheap and fast to build.
@@gothamgoon4237 I meant designing a Pz II-based APC in the late 30s instead of a new halftrack, they did create a widened and elongated version of the Pz II intended to carry a 15cm infantry gun, but it ended up being too heavy, but a crew of 12 would have been far lighter than that. Eventually they would do just that with the Katschen, only that in 1944 and using the Pz 38t hull.
@@LucioFercho Actually, the "Wespe" was a very successful 105mm SPG based on the Panzer II chassis. There were also 75mm armed "Marder II" tank destroyers. Decisions on what to use for whatever role need to take things like existing production lines into account. So it's not just "what is the best way to build this vehicle," and more "what can we do to produce a lot of these things as quickly as possible."
@@princeofcupspoc9073 I am sorry, but you are confused, I am not talking about the well known Wespe, I am talking about this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33_auf_Fahrgestell_Panzerkampfwagen_II_(Sf) So I was wondering whether they ever considered turning the Pz II into an APC as they eventually did with the Pz 38: strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Katzchen.htm It would have made sense, from the production and logistical point of view.
I am guessing that the variants took away from the total numbers available to transport troops. The steering mechanism sounds complicated... mechanics must have had fun.
A battalion had three companies and a Battalion HQ plus a heavy weapon company. Platoon leader vehicles may have mounted a Pak 36 or Pak 28/20 gun instead of the shielded MG34. Each company was supposed to have 2 x 251/2 with an 8cm mortar and 2 x 251/9 with a 75mm L24 gun. 1941+ they would also have two 251/1s for heavy machineguns, the 251/1s being modified so one gun could be fired as a HMG (MG34 on a heavy mount) from the vehicle. A tripod for that MG and a second HMG with crew were carried. Late war units dropped the Pak guns and were supposed to replace them with 251/17 plus have one in the HQ section and three in the heavy weapon platoon replacing the 251/1s. HMG was reduced from 4 to 3 HMG teams, one per 251/17. The 251/17 mounted a single Flak 38 20mm AA gun. The Heavy Weapon Company had either six 251/2 and six 251/9 or 4 251/4 towing 12cm mortars and the six 251/9 plus command and FO vehicles. Roughly 4-8 specialized 251 and 10 standard 251/1 per company (gp). (gp) identified gepanzert or armored infantry in armored half-tracks and (mot) identified motorized panzergrenadier (mot) in trucks.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Mehr Infos zur Panzerkonferenz findest du hier: www.startnext.com/CZ9
Türkische Untertitel bitte
Na dann muss ich Mal sehen ob ich es nach Innsbruck schaffe. Werden die Vorträge auch für RUclips aufgenommen?
@@papaaaaaaa2625 Vielen Dank für Ihr Interesse
talk about the horses and types of wagons they used , more common . never seen a ww2 german wagon very much
@@papaaaaaaa2625 aufgenommen ja, aber nicht für RUclips, es gibt Video-Tickets, sonst leider nicht finanzierbar.
I worked on one of these in the later 1990s trying to get it, and keep it running. I was a full time military mechanic for the US Army at the time. The vehicle belonged to a *large* group of historical reenactors in the area of the US I lived in at the time. They had acquired it from some Eastern European country (can't remember for sure which) who had used it as a firefighting vehicle from after WW2. Just the historical significance of the vehicle kind of excited me at the time for lack of a better term. I love history, and my military job was fixing tracked vehicles of the US Army at the time. This same group had obtained an M42 Duster Self Propelled Anti Aircraft gun. I was able to make the M42 run myself, and that was such great fun and rewarding. Took a number of us to get the Sd. Kfz. 251 running again, including some folks that had to explain some maintenance techniques/specs translated from old German manuals from the era. Sorry for the long comment, but this was an incredible period in my life that provided me so many opportunities that I find it hard not to share a bit from time to time. :)
Great story. How lucky you were to get to work on some beautiful, classic vehicles !
Thank you for shäring! 👍
That would have been cool just to crawl through.😀 I would have loved working on it. Would need you to tell me what to do from time to time. Just a shade tree mechanic, not a pro like you
Awesome!
What are your opinions on maintaining the Sd.Kfz.251 over one of the allied halftracks/troop carriers? If you have anything else to share, maybe something we wouldn't expect about the vehicle, I think we'd love to hear more about your time with this vehicle!! What an awesome experience.
The coolest looking WWII vehicle
If it got the fame of the heavies we’d know much more about them
Not inside. Take a look at a video on it.
I always liked the looks of the 251, but with my size (6'4", 300lbs.) I simply wouldn't fit in it! The White M-3 would fit me better.
@@lepmuhangpamodern tractors are like luxury sedans compared to these!
Never knew that the right side tracks were longer than the left. Although given the torsion bars that makes sense.
And those measurements in millimeters... so German, so precise.
Another informative video as always.
Yep. Panthers and Tigers have the same asymmetry.
Thank you both.
That answered my question about the difference in track lengths.
yup 113 series vehicles have it bad on hard ball roads you drive with one stick ..its fun driving anyway
Nope, neither did I. It does make sense.
So, I guess all of their torsion-bar suspensioned vehicles would have different track lengths. Wouldn't they?
@@imdeplorable2241 yes its not hard to compensate for it but i think most use different length tracks,im sure there are some exceptions,
I think the reason the Germans didn't deploy enough mechanized infantry is because it costs 5 times more than motorized infantry for only a 20% increase in effectiveness.
You're better off putting the factories into more tanks. The Germans also effed up in using their research focus on super heavy tanks. And don't get me started on the synthetic refineries not producing enough fuel. I mean 48 fuel base, that won't even give me enough fuel to retreat. WW2 was a very bad patch, allies OP.
Yes indeed, the German army was far less mechanized than most people think, and given Germany's chronic shortage of oil, it could never become a highly mechanized army. There simply was not enough fuel available at any one time to run even a 50% mechanized army.
Germany's linited mechanization was not an issue early in the war, because 'blitzkreig' tactics only called for a limited number of armoured & mobile divisions exploiting holes in the enemy's defensive line. However, Germany's lack of fuel & mechanized forces became extremely problematic once the Soviet Union's factories were able to manufacture at their maximum output & the western Allies were joined by the Americans, whose huge manufacturing sector had copious amounts of raw materials available nearby & was free of any Axis military threat. At that point, it became impossible for the Germans to adequately defend everywhere on the Eastern, Western Front, and North African/Sicilian/Italian fronts., nor were they able to adequately counter any breakthrough by enemy forces. At that point, total defeat was inevitable.
XD love that hoi4 reference
20% is kinda a lot manpower wise
@@derekbaker3279 I agree with most things in your comment, but it's good to remember that Nazi Germany failed to conquer Soviet Union (with the lend-lease deal) *before* the western front opened. There was also only 2 divisions in Africa, so the other fronts were irrelevant to Nazi Germany's demise, the Soviets with their own, American, and to a way lesser extent British supplies were enough to stop the German advance and punch them back to Berlin, and without the western front opening, to the Atlantic.
The problem wasn't the cost, but as you pointed the lack of oil. Oil should be saved for the more important role of panzers and aircraft. Had the germans gotten the caucasus they'd probably have employed more of them.
10:54 That is completely and utterly unacceptable. This is the kind of nonsense that would drive every German insane and would lose you the war.
I desperately want to know why the tracks are not the same on both sides.
@@ulrichkalber9039 I am no longer desperate. You have my thanks.
Also the same on Citroën berlingo vans and Renault cars. They have torsion bar suspension. One back wheel is slightly ahead of the other.
@@urishima Torsion bars. The Sd.Kfz 11 and its 251 derivative was one of the half track family where torsion bars where used. The basic design of the whole half track family was designed by Ernst Kniepkamp and the designs where then turned over to specific companies for detail development and production. They can't be symmetric because they get in each others way, nor can you use one bar for a set of opposite road wheels. Every torsion bar system therefore is asymmetric.
Now Kniepkamp might actually have been the most insane "suspension Nazi" you can think off. He pushed those overlapping road wheels and torsion bars on pretty much everything he could in his role at the Heereswaffenamt. The best example would be the Panther. That tank has a downright insane suspension system. Basically the entire floor is just one big double torsion bar per wheel. Yes two bars per road wheel. 😅
See: i.redd.it/qi4u8sijd6o11.png
@@mogwaifan7094 It's the same for every torsion bar vehicle. Even the Leopard 2 today
I really just wanted to see that Half-track going around the track, more of that please.
Its not like he has one.
Would love to see a Part 2 covering all the different variants and weapon options for the 251.
@6:44 Woah! Hold on a second there!... German engineers SIMPLIFIED something?!?! You mean like, voluntarily?! I'm gonna need to seem some source documentation on that one...
I doubt the engineers simplified it on their own. They were most likely TASKED to simplify it by the Reich Ministry of Armaments and War Production
Hence, the German engineers are innocent of the absurdity of simplification :D
Look at Jagdpanzer IV. Some consider them as superior to Stugs. In fact they are simplified so much, they dont even have a copula. And they did poorly in roles other than a tank destroyer.
But the first place for the cheap nazi crap title should go to the wooden mine. So unpredictable, allies let captured german engineers (in return for better treatment) disarm them, tho thats against the Geneva convention.
High Command: "Sie müssen dieses entwurf vereinfachen!" ("You must simplify this design!"
Engineer: "...Ich verstehe nicht..." ("...I don't understand...")
That was a last-ditch effort to confuse the enemy. Regrettably, it only confused the own mechanics.
Pretty much all German weapons were simplified as the war went on. I don't understand why this should be a surprise.
The suspension working on the first clip is just extremely satisfying
This brought to mind one of Bill Mauldin's WW2 Willie and Joe cartoons: Willie and Joe are sitting in a foxhole watching a Sherman tank drive past. Willie says, "I'd rather dig. A movin' foxhole attracks the eye."
I love that and those cartoons. Him and Ernie Pyle would make a great subject for a history class if there are any teachers or Profs out there reading this!
My favourite is the one with them in a foxhole with a STUG parked over them and they are saying 'Yes, we have a target for you but you need to be patient'.
@@williambodin5359 Why STUG and not ISU152
Always thought these were the best looking, and probably performing, halftracks of WWII.
However, that quad .50 US HT was a beast. My uncle called it the half inch artillery vehicle.
armored Sd Kfz 7/1
I'd love to have one of those for my daily commute.
No, you wouldn't. They are loud, uncomfortable, rough-riding, complicated to start and operate, require constant maintenance and care, voraciously thirsty for fuel, oil and lubricants, unreliable as hell, cold in the winter and hot in the summer, terrible visibility, and very difficult to maneuver in tight areas. Not to mention impossible to park. Daily commuting in one would be fun for maybe the first week, after that it would be a nightmare. Even assuming you can actually afford to cover all the costs of fuel and maintenance, which I doubt. You mean you like the idea of driving one down a public highway and having people think you look cool. You would not actually enjoy having to own and operate one of these on a daily basis.
Ahhh, so a utility transport vehicle that got pressed into a direct combat role that was never intended.
Kinda like a Humvee :)
Drinking game idea: Go through a list of german vehicles and take a shot every time a vehicle was repurposed and used for a role it wasn't designed for. Last one to die of alcohol poisoning wins.
Yes and no. There's no reason to armor a utility transport vehicle. Make them cheap, and make a lot. Whenever armor is added, some combat role is assumed, but probably not direct head on assault. You have to keep in mind the flat plains of the eastern front. There's not a lot of cover, and you can be seen from miles away. So if you are under fire at 2km, you will be under fire at 1km, and 100m. So that armor becomes very useful for keeping your troops alive.
Kinda like a Bradley 😅🤔
@@Ph33NIXx Well more akin to the M-113 APC. Which by the way didn't have a gun shield either until sent to Vietnam. The term given to them was a "battle taxi". To deliver troops close to the action and to deploy the troops out the back. But in Vietnam, a lot of the time it was used as a mobile bunker. The first IFV to appear (the Soviet BMP) and later the Bradley fighting vehicle were used to support the tanks in offensive operations as well as delivering troops. Similar to the later variants of the SdKfz 251 (anti-tank, flame-thrower, AA, cannon-mounted recon. etc.).
I was waiting for this since some time now, the most iconic ww2 land vehicle beside panthers, tigers, t34s and shermans. great job 👌
I thought so too; my friends and I had a model kit of one of these before I joined the US Army and we all called them "Hanomag" because that's what was on the kit box. There was technical data about the vehicle on the instructions, but they were in Japanese.
So, when I was in the US army, I was stationed in Mannheim, where the Hanomag factory was. When I asked a German friend about Hanomag, he showed me a picture of a 1920s-looking car and he called it a Courier; I thought that was wrong; I knew that Ford sold a Mazda pickup truck and called it a Courier(my Dad had one) and so I was confused. He told me about the Hanomag company, and that they were just one of the makers, they had designed it but weren't the only manufacturer. It was an Allies, post-WW2 thing to refer to them as Hanomags. I was corrected in 1978, but I was glad to see this video - at last - anyway.
I have to wonder about the German military's reputation for genius and infallibility, where did it come from, unless it was the Allies propaganda network attempting to explain the poor performance of the Allies military actions. There were some genuine debacles early in the war, but these could have been bad luck, or the unfortunate fact that the Germans had started preparing 10 years ahead of everyone else. It may have been the influence of Herr Hitler, who is more and more appearing to be the secret Allies MVP.
Thanks for all your work, Bernhard. This video is another great job. Good Fortune attend you, always.
Thé jeep?
Very stylish, I love the German Half-tracks.
Me too. Like most WW2 German stuff it has a timeless style about it that draws the eye.
Unless you're the mechanic.
Such a beautiful vehicle.
With no front wheel drive it greatly simplifies the drive train, and has the benefit of keeping the engine and therefore the hood and the rest of the vehicle lower.
Slightly harder to mount banks of streams etc.
For the time it was a better solution than the Brits having 'infantry' tanks as unbearably slow, which they learned wasnt a good thing.
For the yanks they developed from the 2 and a half ton truck so it was simpler for chassis production, likewise the DUKW
Of course 6WD trucks changed everything, but did cut up dirt roads a lot making it harder for lesser vehicles.
This is why today the Hummer or Humvee is so wide, and why smaller vehicles like Jeeps are no longer used in theater
"Brits having 'infantry' tanks as unbearably slow". Apparently so they couldn't move faster than the group of people they were supporting as opposed to dominating the battlefield and supporting everyone.
Hey, it sounded good to some idiot.
@@ABrit-bt6ce presumably some idiot that wasnt running behind the tank uphill I guess
The thing was they persisted with this late into the war when they knew the answer was a better Cromwell, which resulted in the Comet
But it was the British disposition to bracket development out in several directions,
and really their development was sound and resulted into good answers, even if only eventually.
@@z_actual i thought churchills had good torque
Excellent presentation. I sincerely appreciate this. I've always thought the Sd.Kfz 251 to be one of the unsung workhorses of the German military machine in WW2. It performed many roles and it did them very well. I'm most impressed with the Sd.Kfz.251/22 w/ the 7.5cm PaK 40 mounted in the compartment.
The CSLA nicknamed the OT 810 “ Hitler’s Revenge “ I have been told by a Czechy veteran of the progressive era of post war Czechoslovakia.
The Allies during the war had a driving course for this vehicle, my Grandfather was a Driver Mechanic of the Rece Corp that took it, it rather liked driving it.
0:56
Ok , NOW i start to regret i did not treat german more seriuslly in highschool....
@Falkrim use duolingo
Great video. It's so hard to find accurate info on these. They're my favorite vehicle and my dream car.
I have a winter setup for my truck, where I turn it into a halftrack
@konig spooky www.pthproducts.com/images/pth/products/tracks/tracks_popup/tracks_popup5.jpg
@@weltarchiv4 woah :o
Yes, the 251 lacked a driven front axle, but it also had a far larger contact patch under its tracks. It was really more like a 3/4 track thank a half track, while the M3 has a very short contact patch, pretty much a larger version of one of the rubber track assemblys you can bolt onto you quad or 4x4. The 251 is much closer to being a fully tracked vehicle, and I am sure that makes up for the loss of a pair of skinny rubber drive wheels.
Correct! The Emperor Protects! ( As always, a fantastic video. May you have endless success and many happy trips in the coming days! )
What a beautiful and advanced vehicle. Those Germans surely had real brains.
The M3 was cheaper, easier to maintain, and far less complicated generally. German half-track had all the disadvantages of a tank, right dorn to steering by braking the tracks
There is nothing advanced about an overly complex vehicle that's a nightmare to maintain and repair. To quote Kalashnikov "Any fool can engineer complex stuff. It takes a genius to make functional simple things" and "Anything that is useful is simple".
@@majungasaurusaaaa
Well, let's put it this way. Suppose you were born in the early 30s and as a young man you saw all the vehicles of that time (1938-45), you would have had no choice with that kind of technology, you would have seen it as advantaged, because that half-track was quite unstoppable on terrain that tanks would be easily bogged due to lighter weight (tanks are heavier). And, that's exactly what I was referring about. Of course, today, 2020, that technology is obsolete.
I hope you got the picture now.
@@mickcarson8504 Imagine you were a GI fighting in the european theater. You've captured an abandoned Skdfz-251 and compare it with your own M3 halftrack. Upon inspecting its tracks you've realized that it's far more complex and time consuming to maintain, having all the drawbacks of a tank's tracks while offering no cross country advantage over your M3. You wouldn't call that advanced.
majungasaurusaaaa yeah the M3 half track was one of the best (or the best) armored personal carrier of ww2
Thank you for another informative and interesting video. I have been a history buff my whole like but your channel helps put the true history into the story of WWII. Thank you.
Your presentations are detailed and well supported by source material. I really appreciate the work you put into your content. As Always, TY for this upload.
Excellent video. Would also enjoy a comparison of the Sd. Kfz. 251 with its smaller brother, the Sd. Kfz. 250 in terms of design, production, and combat usage. Thanks!
Excellent video. What I’d like new enthusiasts and viewers to walk away with is that these vehicles were very much in their infancy in the beginning and their role was a bit fluid through the middle and late war. The dark grey 251 Ausf A’s and B’s of the 1940 French Campaign appeared far different from the dunkelgelb and camo line painted 250 neu’s and 251 Ausf D’s of the latter half of the war. These characteristic changes are quick reference clues when determining what year or battle a particular photo was taken.
Daimler had been watching companies like Citroën who had been playing with the idea of an armored halftrack since 1919 and began work around 1921.
The Sd.kfz. 7 and 8, like most early German halftracks were conceptualized by Ernst Kniepkamp of the "Military Automotive Department" (Wa Prüf 6) before the Nazis took power in 1933. The theory being that at such and early stage, their development and infancy came as a convenience during the 30’s since factories focusing on commercial farm equipment could prepare and develop within the parameters of the treaty, and be easily up-tooled.
As far as the Sd.kfz.251 and 250 (my personal favorite). I theorize that the French Unic P-107 had served as at least some of the concept inspiration for a true Schützenpanzerwagen.
Moving onto the war, the 251 Ausf C and D were easily the most produced of the 251’s with the D being the workhorse. These vehicles were expensive and extremely valuable since they were often pressed into many different roles during the mid and later years when quick movement under pressure made them worth their weight in gold. I like that this video emphasizes that these vehicles were not the norm among infantry units, despite their abundance in footage. Pioneer units in particular were usually outfitted with their own organic halftracks, often in the form of the Sd.kfz.251/7. Whether it was light fire support with the 3.7cm pak, 8cm mortar, 2cm schwebelaffette, observation or just being pressed into pack mule service during a panicked retreat, these vehicles were a big assets, the loss of which was hard to make up for in both time and money.
Leon Degrelle’s SS Wollonien Division lost a bunch of Ausf D’s to fuel shortages and enemy fire while escaping the pocket at Cherkassy. These Ausf D’s were credited with getting a large number of men into position where they could at least attempt the remaining rush rearward with a chance. It’s an excellent example of a role these machines found might have found themselves in rather than charging into enemy positions along side speeding Panthers as we might imagine. I built a 1:35 scale model of one of Wallonien’s Cherkassy Ausf D’s to search as a desk model in my office.
Fantastic video, thanks for the wonderful content!
Thank you. That was a terrific explanation of that vehicle's role.
The Panzergrenadier squad had a lot of machine guns! The Tiger tanks had anti personnel mines attached to them. Any mention of those on these half tracks?
No reason for mines, since you can fire light weapons in any direction. The area is more likely to have exposed infantry, so such a weapon would lead to more damage of friendly troops than enemy. Also, you shouldn't be charging into massed infantry with a half track. You also shouldn't do that with a tank, but it was more common.
I love the slopes on this guy's armor, but the american halftracks always seemed more "Strong jawed" and have those armored louvers for ventilation which are really cool.
Not to mention those handsome 50cals vs 42s
Would love to see a video on the M3 comparing and contrasting design and usage of the two armored half tracks. would be interesting to see how one learned from the other and what influenced the different design choices.
The M3 was influenced by French half track designs, so I would start there.
Princeofcups Poc I have this book on American half tracks and I never seen if the French inspired it. Is it true?
This proves that they knew about sloped armor and it still took them forever to make tanks with it.
It seems like the battle taxi concept never quite worked out in practice. Troops quickly found out that they were better off fighting mounted as long as possible.
The lack of a powered front axle wasn't actually a disadvantage compared with the M3 Halftrack, the reason being the Sdkfz.251 featered much larger tracks and thus actually had better traction and less ground pressure, providing better performance in really tough terrain like mud etc. than the M3. The M3 was probably more mobile on roads however.
Wish I could join the conference but at least this youtube video is in english & got to enjoy another fine episode of military history visualized.
I read somewhere that the sdkfz251 was based on the sdkfz10, and that it was the single most produced armored vehicle of Germany...
Fascinating video
Thanks for making yet another great video!
This vehicle should be mass produced again and made available for sale worldwide as a private motor vehicle.
I'd prefer this to a boring commuter car.
THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!!!
For Armageddon! For Krieg!! For the Emperor!!!
@@batman9592 THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD DID
The Flesh is Weak! ( Don’t look at me like that, of course the Iron Hands are getting in on this)
Ave Dominus Nox!
lol lol lol I like alot the reference you made about the motto "The Emperor Protects !!!" taken from the Warhammmer 40K lore !!! I am a fan of it too !!!
Super nice keep the good work up man!
10:54 Why the uneven links? ruclips.net/video/60oHeCZHtvI/видео.html
Length difference between the left and right is a mere 140mm, and divide by 2 (because it is circumference) there is only 70mm (3in) for a torsion bar or other suspension device, which I do not believe is sufficient space.
I believe primary reason for link quantity difference is minimize harmonic frequencies from each link hitting ground at same time. Even today's road tires often have asymmetrical threads to reduce road noise. I can imagine being a passenger a synchronized thumping of both tracks at same time would drive everyone nuts.
That's really interesting, thanks
Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford are in a DVD which is one of 2 DVDs in a set entitled "The Lady Vanishes". It, "Crook's Tour" is a spy story in which these galoots travel through Iraq (wearing suits and ties). They are traveling in a half rack, a civilian version of something Citroen produced in the 1930s . I remember reading about the Americans getting hold of it and beefing it up into that military half track used by the US Army in WW II. The Germans must have known of this vehicle. You can research it if you care to.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0031192/
Like so much the Sdkfz 251, remember few years ago : from east countries ( Tchekia ) it was sold for around 25 000 euros in working state, now prices have been increased I suppose..Anyway many thansk for sharing the Star of the german motorisiert infantry.............Take care : )
I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly the half-track was used during a "mounted" attack. Would the vehicle's occupants which constituted one platoon of panzer support soldiers basically fire their rifles/assault guns from the top side of the vehicle? If anyone would care to expand on this I'd be most appreciative.
Normally they should dismount and use terrain as cover
I think they threw hand grenades while driving threw the enemy line. But i dont know how they prevented the enemy from throwing hand grenades inside the vehicle.
You should watch his video about Sturmgrenadiers. It's showed in there.
@@pavelcheckov9288 likely through suppression. When under MG42 fire it is unlikely you take the time to throw a grenade at a moving target with sufficient accuracy
Yeah, I mean I can't see the platoon offering anything close to what it could do when dismounted and deployed on the ground where it could utilize its weaponry from a wider spanse of territory using the defensive features of the terrain, etc. The halftrack was the same thing as an armored personnel carrier whose main purpose was the timely delivery of close infantry support to the panzers deployed on the field. I dare say if these vehicles got anywhere close to an active combat zone the vehicle would stop and deploy the platoon to support the armor. Treating it like it's just another tank wouldn't be too smart as it would make for a handsome target to the enemy and a chance to take out not only a vehicle but upwards of 12 soldiers. Anyway I was kind of struck by what was said about the increased practice of using the carrier in combat with the platoon essentially being "mounted" within the vehicle.
If the vehicle was designed merely as a transport then why use slopped plate? Every other vehicle designed as a transport did not need, nor have, visions slits and an encased radiator. It is pretty obvious the SDKFZ 250 and 251 were meant to go in harms way, especially since the idea of using aircraft in the role of ground attack was vague at best during the late thirties. The LVT's used by the US Marine Corps were originally conceived as transports, with mild steel plate, but the fight at Betio (Tarawa) led the switch to armor plate and the LVT 4(A) with a 37mm gun and later a 75mm.
I love these weheeclee videos.
;)
I find it interesting that the half track was called a moving fox hole. The idea of using it as a fighting platform instead of only a troop carrier makes sense to support the tank attacks.
Why? Tanks can't support themselves? They are the ones with thick armor, MGs, cannon, and mobility. Why would adding a less-armored, less-well-armed, less mobile AFV help the tanks in any way? What tanks need for support is infantry, to do the things an AFV cannot do. A smaller AFV cannot do what infantry does, it can only do what tanks do, but worse. It CAN bring infantry into battle quickly so they can keep up with and support the tanks more effectively...which is to say a troop carrier. It was obviously meant to bring troops right to the front linel or they wouldnt have armored it. But as an AFV it would not help tanks at all (it would serve to support *infantry* quite well in the absence of tanks)
I just love the thing, it's one of those vehicles if i won the lottery I would buy in a heartbeat, just awesome 👍
Imagine they put a Pak38 on it.
wait....
I want one just for my daily commute!
Then you would want the tracks in front to climb over cars in your way.
Pioneer Wagon. SDKFZ-251-7. Kind of a military engineer halftrack.
15.252 = rare?!, they built 7500 SdKfz 251 in 1944 alone. Total Panzer IV production was about 8500 between 1938 and 1945 .
They could have used more of them for sure, but it was not rare for german wwii standards.
If we speak about tank production in total, we also have to conisder other Halftrack types.
Other Wehrmacht models were:
1-ton class, Sd.Kfz. 10 produced by Demag, Berlin; Adler, Frankfurt am Main; Büssing-NAG, Brunswick; Phänomen, Cottbus and Saurer, Vienna, a total of 25,000 vehicles - its drivetrain was used for the Sd.Kfz. 250
3-ton class, Sd.Kfz. 11 produced by Hanomag, Adler, Auto-Union and Skoda from 1938 to 1944, a total of 25,000 vehicles - its drivetrain was used for the Sd.Kfz. 251
5-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 6, manufactured by Büssing-NAG, Berlin-Oberschönweide; Daimler-Benz and Praga (Czechoslovakia), about 3,500 vehicles in total
8-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 7, production was of about 12,000 vehicles
12-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 8, some 4,000 vehicles were produced by five manufacturers
18-ton class. Sd.Kfz. 9, a production of only 2,000 vehicles
Then we have the trucks from Opel, Mercedes and Ford which were also converted to Halftracks by the thousands.
I am pretty sure the Wehrmacht had way more Halftracks than tanks!
But unlike the SdKfz 250/251 most of these variants weren't armored.
The US M3 Halftrack combines the disadvantage of a tracked vehicle and an normal truck without any benefits. The short footprint of the tracks and the missing steering system for the tracks doesnt let the M3 perform any better than a regular 6x6 truck like the Studebaker, while its vertikal armor layout doesn't even protect against rifle calibers (unlike the Sd.Kfz 251).
The russians recognized this and put an Sd.Kfz 251 styled body on an american 6x6 Studebaker chassis. The result is known as BTR 151/152.
The SdKfz 251 had better armor protection, better ground clearance, smaller turning circle and could cross trenches up 2 m wide (US M3 only 1 m).
The M3 on the other hand was simpler, had a better power to weight ratio and a greater internal volume.
first, pay attention to context, I am talking about early war and contrast them with number of Panzers built.
second, pay attention to wording, I talk about armored halftracks, most of those you listed were not armored.
Thanks for the numbers. You rarely see people pointing out how many tractors an army had. I heard that Germans fought savagely over knocked out tanks. Might be also cause they had equipment to pull that tank to repair.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized
You are absolutely right. Excuse me!
But after the first few minutes into the Video, for me it sounded like that halftracks in general were overrepresented in the media and not as common as one could think.
Like the Tiger tank for example.
In your conclusions about the use of these vehicles regarding mechanized infantry warfare you seem to forget other vehicles like the sdkfz 250. In your video it seems like the entire German doctrine is based on the 251, but armored infantry vehicles were used within the German army before the birth of the 251. Your conclusion therefore isnt complete in my opinion.
Keep up the good work, love your vids.
The 250 was more of a command/radio/observation vehicle. They serve different roles.
250 mainly used by guy in Armored recon battalion usually recon squad are smaller than regular squad so there no need for full size 251
Well done, sir!
It would have been interesting to see some direct comparisons with the American M3 Halftrack, since while widely used, Americans didn't seem to like the M3 very much (I've heard it referred to as a "Purple Heart Box" due to its poor armor).
100hp is less than my humble car... I feel that this engine should have an enormous amount of torque, otherwise it wouldn’t move such weight. Am I wrong?
CapFreddy or maybe your car has too much hp *thinking*
300torks at least id say...
Military gearboxes often have much shorter ratios, as they expect to pend a lot of time offroad, unlike most civilian vehicles
10k panzers from 1938-42.
There's no way i can match that production in hoi4
Can you start series about covering major WW2 battles in this channel? I have been following this channel for a year and I think you have the potential to create WW2 battle series and cover the developments of the major sieges between Germany and the Soviet Union. There's hardly any channels left that are allowed to talk about these topics in RUclips so I believe that it is a great idea. Keep up the good work!
can yes, will unlikely. I don't care enough about battles. I care about understanding systems, doctrine, stactics and other crucial core aspects. Of course, once I know them, battles might be far more interesting, since then I can compare were there was a diversion and match.
Most games get this vechile wrong by modelling it as an infantry transport where infantry unloads and fights unmounted while vechile itself continue to operate as an independent combat vechile giving machine gun support. In reality the vechile was integral part of panzergrenadier squad (including vechile's driver, mg operator, co-driver, who was squad leader) and the crew in whole was either mounted or unmounted. If you unmount panzergrenadier squad you cannot operate the vechile more than driving it to cover near by because the driver had position in the unmounted squad
You actually didn't cover how the German panzergrenadiers (gp) used the half-tracks. How they fought with them? I pictured, modeled actually, them with the MG mount with shield firing to the front and a Panzergrenadier firing a LMG over the side of the vehicle on the left and right. Another threw grenades from the rear. Something like that?
cause this is no Panzergrenadier Tactics video.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Why not? Next question is why the 250/1 and supporting version in the Aufklarungsabteilung? The vehicle was used as an ammunition and command vehicle for StuG III early in the war but then its use expanded to where a Panzergrenadier company was in the Aufklarungsabteilung. Why? Was that company broken up into individual vehicles (250/1) to support the armored cars in the battalion such as the 250/9? The company had the 250/7 and 250/8 as support vehicles and 250/10 and /11 as platoon command vehicles. Was tactical use of the 250/1 companies any different than of the 251/1 equipped companies? There was one of those in the battalion as well. The two grenadier companies (gp) supposedly were used as regular panzergrenadier (gp) in helping armored cars from the battalion to penetrate Soviet lines and get into the Soviet rear. The 250/7 and /8 make sense for that as well as the heavy weapons company (gp) in the battalion for support. But information of tactical use in English appears rare. I would like to see a video covering what I think I just described as material for three videos. Not to mention the difference between US M3 half-track tactical use as taxi cabs and the German use as IFV.
Really Good looking beast of an sdkzf!
one day we will all have our own half tracks
My wife’s favorite German Armored Vehicle is the Stug, the Stug Life chose her.
Such a pretty piece of kit, but I've always thought a fully tracked vehicle in it's place would have been cheaper to produce and more effective.
Trial and error. It was thought at the time that combining half track and wheeled steering would give the best of both worlds and the pressure of war hadn't fully exerted itself yet. It was found that it didn't improve anything in cross terrain handling nor did it help in on road performance while at the same time being more expensive and time consuming to build. That's why no one uses half track vehicles anymore. Either fully tracked tanks/APC's or fully wheeled vehicles are the norm. Half tracks are basically a failed experiment. An intermediate solution to a problem that wasn't efficient. All the same they are nice looking and interesting vehicles.
That's the wrong concept. The half track grew from the idea of making a wheeled vehicle better on rough terrain. Remember, armored infantry was a new concept. For a fully tracked APC, see the Japanese Type1 Ho Ki Armored Carrier.
"The Emperor protects against everything." Lol...
"Yes, he does"
The final account suffers somewhat from the reduction to mere production figures.
In the total account of the tanks with 16000 there are a lot of tanks which became obsolete during the war, for example tanks 1 and 2 and finally also 3. These tanks were withdrawn from the front service. But nothing comparable happened with the half-track vehicles.
So if no German soldiers called it the Hanomag, I'm even less convinced they would use its proper name, otherwise the battle would be over before orders were even issued. Do they refer to it as simply "251"? Even just saying "Zwei Fünf Eins" seems too long in combat conditions, so what did the troops call it?
> Even just saying "Zwei Fünf Eins" seems too long in combat conditions, so what did the troops call it?
likely SPW and previously MTW.
Also in combat, I don't see how you would call out a vehicle designation. You would call for Panzergrenadiere or Infanterie or Panzer etc. Or a unit etc. doing its thing.
Also "Zwei Fünf Eins" is very short, "MG, neben Haus, 300 m, Feuer" whereas 300 is "dreihundert".
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes and no, my logic is that the infantry came up with nicknames or shortened titles for other types. Stug, Stupa, Stuka zu fuss, etc. I agree in German it's already longwinded enough to say certain phrases so I would argue that means when there is the option to shorten or rename something it is taken.
"No evidence has been found in primary sources that these armoured troop carriers were ever referred to by the name Hanomag - not even as a nickname by the troops. If the name "Hanomag" had been mentioned during the war to these troops, they would have thought that you were referring to the heavy trucks or buses for which this company was famous."
Jentz, Thomas. Doyle, Hilary. ''Panzer Tracts, # 15-2: Mittlere Schuetzenpanzerwagen (Sd.Kfz.251)''. Panzer Tracts, 2005. ISBN-9780977164318
Wikipedia: "German officers referred to them as SPW (Schützenpanzerwagen, or armored infantry vehicle) in their daily orders and memoirs."
@@arkaitzetxeandia7542 SPW makes a lot of sense, quick to write and rolls off the tongue "Say-Pay-Vay".
Would love to take the White Halftack chassis and shape the armor like sdkfz 251.
I would guess it would be more effective to simply weld lightly armored skirts on the sides of trucks for the panzer grenadiers, did the Wehrmacht use lightly armored vehicles to make up for the lack of half track numbers for mobile infantry units?
How expensive was this to produce for the Germans compared e.g. to a Panzer III?
If I remember correctly these were something like 30000 RM a piece and Panzer III 80000 RM a piece
Did the Germans ever give any of these various half-tracks actual names or nicknames or were they always referred to by their Sdkfz number or as light, medium, heavy halftrack, etc.?
One last things, more German half track and armored car videos, please. While I love tanks, I feel that the various half tracks and armored cars that the Germans uilt and used don't get near the attention they deserve, esp. since there seems to be a lot more different types of them than all of their tanks, Stug, SPAs, and JagdPanzers combined.
As far as I know SPW (Schützenpanzerwagen) was the most common designation for these half tracks with mittlerer Schützenpanzerwagen (Mi. SPW) referring specific to the 251
@@reteip9 So, no real names then, just designations. I guess that it makes sense since they didn't bother naming their tanks until the Panther came along.
Steering a tracked vehicle becomes a difficult exponential ratio with speeds beyond 25 mph. That is the reason for the front steering wheels with Ackerman design. (castor, camber and toe in). Certainly, powering the front wheels is an advantage in soft material because the vehicle is overloaded to start with when empty. Anytime you can move soldiers by carrying them in a vehicle, it is a hell of a lot better then walking. My opinion is the half track was a good vehicle for troop movement as a result was taken into combat situations for which it was not designed. It becomes a desired target for the enemy because of the ratio of the number of soldiers in a single box.
Iguana
Maybe I'm very dumb... but why are the tracks not symmetrical... why 55 links on the left side and 56 on the right side.... can anyone explain this to me?
Because of torsion bar suspension. 2 galets on different part can not be in same line so, the right one is a little back and right track is longer
Probably because of torsion bars, wheels on both sides aren't mounted paraller to each other but at an offset so you can put sets of torsion bars interchangeably under the floor of the vehicle.
I'm pretty sure drive wheels aren't offset so gap between one of them and coresponding road wheels is bigger than on the other side.
It's obviously to infuriate people with OCD.
Thanks a lot... it still is a bit too technical for my brain, i got a degree in education not engineering. Thanks for explaining it, I look forward to learning more in the future! Sincerly Jonathan
I'd like to know how many sdkfz 251s should be in one panzer grenadier division/panzer division in theory.
Only the first battalion of the infantry rifle brigade were equipped with half tracks. There just wasn't enough of them to go around. Most of the wehrmacht were still horse drawn with only few having trucks for transport. The Grossdeutchland division was a elite wehrmacht division and even it only had the first battalion equipped with half tracks. The rest were lucky enough to have full motorized transport in the form of trucks. Other wehrmacht divisions were not so lucky. They marched on foot and went into battle on foot. Their gear was all horse drawn. The higher the divisional number the worse it got for the troops and no, contrary to popular belief the Waffen SS were not better equipped then their wehrmacht counterparts. They had the same equipment layout and in some cases wehrmacht units were better equipped than the SS. Only difference was the SS seem to have more anti-tank gun assets. The Grossdeutchland had its on integral Tiger Regiment! No other unit in the German line up could boast that. All other Tiger Battalions were independent Heavy tank Battalions. Notice the size difference. The vast majority of the German line up was still existing on WW1 horse drawn logistics when far enough away from intact rail lines. Even the Russians were more mobile than their German counterparts, particularly as the war progressed. The American army was fully motorized.
@@gothamgoon4237 I already know all of that, what I want is the exact number of the half-track in one division.
@@gothamgoon4237 Panzer-Lehr division had also integral heavy tank abteilung
@@yinranzhang1908 in theory around 350
@@ninaakari5181 There are 350 sdkfz 251 in one battalion? Can I see the source of the number?
13:54 Nice 40k Reference!
It's another classic well engineered German vehicle, US half tracks look cheap in comparison, and probably were. As always a great presentation and subject matter, thank you.
And as usual the US variant was vastly superior. Better manoeuvrability, simpler maintenance, faster, heavy 360 degree machine gun mount that could engage light armour and simple to produce.
In ww2 all equipment you field will be destroyed/damaged no matter what. If your equipment is also overly complex and hard to produce while offering no benefits your design is shit
@@itsa_possum - I do like the look of the German half track, but you win.
And at that time the US manufacturing capabilities were the largest in the world and could produce large quantities of M3 half-tracks.
And as the saying goes "quantity has a quality all it's own."
Marten Trudeau yeah except in this case it was both quantity and quality as with most US equipment in WW2. There is a reason the allies were the only fully motorized forces and that’s not only due to American factories.
I think many people mistake complexity for quality for some reason, and while a panzer 4/ nazi halftrack might look better to some, I’d much prefer serving in a far safer Sherman or a halftrack with available spares.
Anyhow, here’s to hoping that the optics of war machines be relegated to fiction in the future
It wasn't "well engineered". The tracks were a nightmare to maintain for no gains what so ever.
Nice video. It shouldbe interesting auch a video about it's variants. Thanks.
I loved the "what for is a--" phrasing. So German. :)
Meanwhile, me who doesn't have english as primary language hearing german
*cries in spanish*
Considering it seems like half-tracks of varying descriptions were more complex than tanks in terms of mobility while also not being quite as mobile, I have wondered why they never just made their APCs full-tracked. It doesn't seem like anyone's half tracks did anything particularly vital.
Ich liebe es wenn du "kroftfohrzeig" sagst ^^ LG aus der stmk ;)
Don't forget the "veheekl". And "neinteenfoadi".
I would like to put a question out here, my immediate reaction to the origins of half track, was to ask what was going on in the Spanish Civil war with regards to the use of armed trucks and their deployment as on the face of it 1920s versions at least, they appear similar.
1:52 Where do you have the word "medium" in "Mannschaftstransportwagen"?
"mittlerer", probably was lost
Great fellas, could you do more on light armoured reconnaissance vehicles.
7:05 was the apc manufactured by hanomag?
Thanks Gerhard. That was interesting.
.
Eine Bemerkung; blitzartig ausnutzen, hießt immediately exploit (the situation), oder immediately seize the advantage. Latein "Carpe diem".
Good to see the proper equipment on the vehicle especially the ramps which is extremely rare a British military dealer bruce Compton did manage to get many original bits for his 251 he has 3 and please check out his programme combat dealers
so its not just me who dosnt build enough mechs in hoi4^^
Lmao so true I don't either. 😂
Lol, Even in HoI2 mechs were the right way to go. Far less expensive than armor, only a bit more expensive than slower motorized.
@@Paciat Did you brigade them, and if so, how?
I've never used them.
Once late game while naval crawling towards the US set up production as I had more factories than I knew what to do with - but completely forgot to insert them in the template once the fighting began
12:45 How small is that shovel if you use it to take a grain of salt?
Love these video’s! If I have extra cash I’ll join the Patron.
The Emperor Protects 🤣.... brilliant, you snuck that one in... Only in death does duty end!
thanks, once I saw "protects" in big letters... it just kicked in :)
Why did they build halftracks? Why not fully tracked armored personal carriers or infantry fighting vehicles?
US made halftracks too.
They planed to built a full tracked APC but then the war was over , googl Kätzchen Auto Union/ Audi they a had a mock up or Proto with a Pz 38 (t) Chassis and with overlapping wheels
@@erichvonmanstein1952 it would be interesting to see if these were influenced by early German propaganda films or not. The M3 and M5 were definitely inspired by the Hanomags and the Americans made good use of them, but after WW2 everyone dropped the concept of a halftrack it was just a too complicated vehicle.
Seht Ihr mein Sonderkraftfahrzeug? Er fahrt sonderkracht HAHAHA!!
3:13 or so. Seems logical to me that it was originally intended as a good off road vehicle to keep up with tanks going cross-country, throw on some armor for rifle caliber rounds to protect against random fire from overrun enemies as the panzers are pushing deep into the enemy's rear.
Then soldiers being soldiers, decided hey we can ride these things a lot closer to the enemy than official doctrine says and be better off. We can even fight from these things sometimes when the situation is right.
Heck if you're not facing AT guns or tanks slap a shield on the mg and you've got a mobile armed mg nest. And that draws rifle fire away from the poor bloody infantry.
Did the Heer ever consider simply turning the Pz II into an APC for more efficient production and logistics?
Too small and by then way outdated. Wouldn't have been efficient to have done so. Most were either destroyed, scrapped or working occupation duties (policing) by 1943. In hindsight they would have been better off converting their 8 wheel armoured cars into armoured troop transports. Big enough, fast enough with good terrain handling characteristics and fantastic operational range. Also reasonably cheap and fast to build.
@@gothamgoon4237 I meant designing a Pz II-based APC in the late 30s instead of a new halftrack, they did create a widened and elongated version of the Pz II intended to carry a 15cm infantry gun, but it ended up being too heavy, but a crew of 12 would have been far lighter than that.
Eventually they would do just that with the Katschen, only that in 1944 and using the Pz 38t hull.
@@LucioFercho Actually, the "Wespe" was a very successful 105mm SPG based on the Panzer II chassis. There were also 75mm armed "Marder II" tank destroyers. Decisions on what to use for whatever role need to take things like existing production lines into account. So it's not just "what is the best way to build this vehicle," and more "what can we do to produce a lot of these things as quickly as possible."
@@princeofcupspoc9073 I am sorry, but you are confused, I am not talking about the well known Wespe, I am talking about this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33_auf_Fahrgestell_Panzerkampfwagen_II_(Sf)
So I was wondering whether they ever considered turning the Pz II into an APC as they eventually did with the Pz 38:
strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Katzchen.htm
It would have made sense, from the production and logistical point of view.
I am guessing that the variants took away from the total numbers available to transport troops. The steering mechanism sounds complicated... mechanics must have had fun.
A battalion had three companies and a Battalion HQ plus a heavy weapon company. Platoon leader vehicles may have mounted a Pak 36 or Pak 28/20 gun instead of the shielded MG34. Each company was supposed to have 2 x 251/2 with an 8cm mortar and 2 x 251/9 with a 75mm L24 gun. 1941+ they would also have two 251/1s for heavy machineguns, the 251/1s being modified so one gun could be fired as a HMG (MG34 on a heavy mount) from the vehicle. A tripod for that MG and a second HMG with crew were carried. Late war units dropped the Pak guns and were supposed to replace them with 251/17 plus have one in the HQ section and three in the heavy weapon platoon replacing the 251/1s. HMG was reduced from 4 to 3 HMG teams, one per 251/17. The 251/17 mounted a single Flak 38 20mm AA gun. The Heavy Weapon Company had either six 251/2 and six 251/9 or 4 251/4 towing 12cm mortars and the six 251/9 plus command and FO vehicles. Roughly 4-8 specialized 251 and 10 standard 251/1 per company (gp). (gp) identified gepanzert or armored infantry in armored half-tracks and (mot) identified motorized panzergrenadier (mot) in trucks.