Why did these things exist? Couldn't they just fully

>>31866535
Yes, but at the time, the full tracks wouldn't have lasted as long, and steering systems for full tracks weren't fully developed.

>>31866535
Steering systems for fully tracked vehicles require dedicated training. Shit that only tankers have time for.

Meanwhile halfies, you can just learn how to drive a car and be done with it.

>>31866535
Versatility

It could be a gun truck, mortar carrier, SPAAG, SPG, or APC all with little modification and no special training to the crew.

>>31866535
>>31866588
>>31866682
>double the maintenance of either wheels or tracks alone
>none of the benefits of either
>all of the negatives of both rolled into one convenient package

>>31866588
>Steering systems for fully tracked vehicles require dedicated training. Shit that only tankers have time for.

How hard can it be to use two levers?

>>31866940
Think about how few people can properly use a steering wheel

>>31866535

I'm curious as to why you're wondering so hard why they existed, when they no longer do.

Tons of different things have been tried, and there's a reason for the ones that aren't still around. It's kinda how we figure out what sucks and what doesn't

>see: all the cold war shit we didn't keep using, vs all the cold war shit we still use

>>31866535
Aesthetic reasons obviously

>>31866898
Actually as the tracks provide power, I'd imagine they get bogged down much less easily than wheeled vehicles, and since the track isn't full length they can weigh less than an equivalent tracked vehicle.

>>31866898
Also while true you're maintaining both tracks and wheels in one package, it would be part of a convoy or group with tracked vehicles and wheeled ones. Halftracks didn't operate alone like some tanks did so the maintenance people would be platoon or company ones familiar with tracks and wheels.

What did the halftrack in wasn't it sucking, but wheels and tracks getting to become better options over time.

>>31867076
This, German equipment was required to look as cool as possible

>>31866535
>>31866898
>More surface area less sinking into mud
>able to mount: 81mm mortar, 37mmpak 36, 75mm gun stug gun, flame throwers, 2cm KwK38, 15mm mg151 x3, 75mm pak 40, rocket artillery, infrared equipment, mobile medical, command and toe about any indirect or direct fire weapon in the German arsenal.
>drives like a regular truck for the most part
>Can comfortably haul 10 soldiers cross country

I guess that makes it shit. How about you design, or even mention, a vehicle that is as versatile or effective as the SD. Kfz 251 before you shit post this garbage and or make a thread that is this fucking retarded.

Wasn't it also ridiculously expensive? I remember reading that most all Panzergrenadier groups ended up dinking around in Opel Blitz trucks most of the war

>>31867076
Because Citroen popularized the shit out of them in like the 20's or 30's. This when there were some oddball prime movers that existed in WW1 that could be considered like a halftrack.

>>31867474
Boom. Despite what slightly edgy /k/ommandos are saying, you get the benefits of a truck handling with the cross country ability of tracks.

Full tracks existed (see the Bren and Kangaroo), but the idea didn't really catch on until post-war when everyone realized that a fully-tracked, enclosed armored vehicle could maneuver with the tanks and had enough armor to get the passengers to where they needed to go, and carry some support weapons for after they drop the infantry off.

>Despite the fact that they do have some shielding and thicker plate involved, half--tracks from all nations are not particularly well armored.

>>31867494
By the TO of the German Army only the first battalion of each regiment in a PzGdr division was actually "armored" and rode the tracks. All the other battalions were really motorized.

>>31867017
He's probably used to a modern procurement environment, where there is time to evaluate which programs are most effective.

>>31868058
Interesting to think about.
CAD didn't fucking exist.

>>31866940
>>31866996
Many tanks of that period already were steered with a wheel.

File: Halftrack Minitipper.jpg (85KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x720px

>>31867017
>I'm curious as to why you're wondering so hard why they existed, when they no longer do.
Chinese farm equipment still use halftracks. In damn almost anything.

File: Soviet_cavalry_tank_BT-7m.jpg (34KB, 484x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 484x331px

>>31866535
In my opinion, all APCs should have been like the soviet BT series, i don't know why the idea didn't catch on.
>Fully tracked design, for maximum traction off-road
>Able to steer and move without track on it's rolling wheels as well, for high speeds on tarmac and dirtroads

>>31866940
They had steering wheels

>>31869168
>soviet BT series
based on the proven christie suspension.

>>31869168

Because most of the hull was taken up by a giant engine.

Best versions were prototype Lorraine French APC's (later versions), Italian armored trucks for personnel and the Kraut "Katzen" prototype.

>>31869168

Soviet BT series - tin foil level armor and shitty off-road mobility.

>>31868257
No, only German ones did at the time.
And even then, that was only with the Tiger I and II, and the Jagdtiger.

Anything that was a Panzer II-V had sticks.
The Panther had sticks, and could also neutral steer.

Most tanks kept sticks/levers whatever you want to call them until the bigger, heavier, hydraulically assisted once came out. Those ones had wheels.

>>31866535
I would drive one if it got good gas mileage

>>31867474
>a vehicle that is as versatile or effective as the SD. Kfz 251

i've read somewhere the kfz 250variants and 251 had inadequate armor, less than the m3 or m2 halftracks which the germans preferred.

>>31867540
>Kangaroo

that was literally just a Sherman chassis without a turret. It's not on the same level as other purpose-built APCs of the time.

I don't think any other nation even did that with tank chassis.

>>31868337
Because they have such shit roads.

File: rtxf5ky.jpg (327KB, 2048x1138px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 2048x1138px

>>31867474

>>31866535
Well of course they could, but where's the fun in that??

I`m guessing because they figured out how to make wheeled APCs not get stuck.<

From wikipedia:
>The Cavalry branch of the US Army found that their wheeled armored scout cars had trouble in wet terrain due to their high ground pressure.

>>31866535
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-track#Advantages

File: pzinz 222.jpg (142KB, 1024x500px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x500px

>>31869168
>been like the soviet BT series, i don't know why the idea didn't catch on.
Because it was retarded. Russians tried to do everything to make it work, but it just didn't - overly complex, prone to braking, worst of two worlds.
Other countries tried to adopt it too, USA, UK, Poland.

>Why did these things exist?
They ware much cheaper than fully tracked vehicle. You could just use regular truck factory production line with minimal changes.
That's a gigantic advantage.

They ware durable, light, relatively simple, universal, had decent off-road performance, lesser fuel consumption, etc...
To be honest, I'm rather surprised that they are completely gone by now. I would see some use for them in the civilian market, in tough environments, for logging or oiling companies.

However, I'm still wondering how common was damage to the front wheels during use in combat. Probably quite common...

>>31877613
>prone to braking

one would hope that any vehicle would be prone to braking

>>31867566
This. They unloaded the Blitzes and used the Halftracks to taxi troops from a staging area to the front after the initial push

>>31877648
Well, you know cars back then ware much less reliable, and heavy military vehicles even more so.

Interesting fact I learned - in pre-war Europe there ware very few heavy truck designs, (that could later be incorporated into military use), because there ware high taxes that prevented development of such vehicles. They ware instituted to protect the roads, for heavy trucks would do a lot of damage to them.
This is one of the reasons UK & France had gigantic problems in finding decent engines for their tank designs - no heavy vehicle engines ware being developed at that time.
That's why so many designs tried to incorporate airplane engines, some with great success.

File: missing the point.jpg (7KB, 470x412px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 470x412px

>>31877713

>>31877713
Panther tried to run on aeroplane engine.
It would catch fire.
They modified it.

>>31877724
I'm not missing the point. Lack of reliable, already-in-use truck designs had to lead to more malfunctions in those that ware designed later on.

File: over your head.gif (808KB, 952x734px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 952x734px

>>31877736
>I'm not missing the point.

yeah, you are

>>31877768
Fucking children... Fuck off.

File: laughing hips.png (127KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 480x480px

>>31877791
>he still can't figure it out

File: Rso_1.jpg (23KB, 550x326px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 550x326px

Fully Track exist Op.

It's a lot faster to engineer together the front half of a truck (which is quite complex) with a new rear end than to engineer a totally new vehicle.

There is also a saying about "if it ain't broke.." that even the Germans follow sometimes.

They probably tossed out this odd looking but functional design and didn't see it fail too much within its specified mission set so they devoted their engineering resources to somewhere else they were needed more, like to actual potentially war winning technology like the MP/STG 43/44 or the ME 262, but more likely they devoted it to the tank program to stroke Hitler's dick and get him off their asses by showing him a shiny new tank every couple months.

>>31877713
>ware
I just can't take you seriously, sorry.

>>31877854
>potentially war winning technology like the MP/STG 43/44 or the ME 262
>potentially war winning

File: 1475221630707.jpg (52KB, 364x322px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 364x322px

>>31877713
>>31877736
>>31877791
>this guy

>>31866535
Steering, numbnuts

>>31875071
I believe they used M3 Medium Hulls too.

Regardless, I was just bringing it up as a similar point to yours, with purpose built APC's in mind.

>>31866940
You've never driven a tracked vehicle have you?
If you just hope in and try and maneuver it like a car you're likely to throw a track, especially with the older systems.
A wheeled vehicle you can turn to the extreme, but a tracked vehicle you have to be somewhat careful when doing tight maneuvers

>>31877854
>potentially war winning technology like the MP/STG 43/44 or the ME 262

These came far too late to "win the war".

By that time, Germany's problems were a lot bigger than a plane or a rifle.

>>31877854
>wars are won by what rifle you arm people with

nigger germany didnt even have a functioning steel industry anymore by 1940 and was already an economic basket case before the war

>>31868080
you know that drafting has been a thing since before computers right

>>31867474
all those things describe literally any pickup truck

File: 1456857835792.jpg (45KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 554x439px

>>31866940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DitM7binckM

>>31866535
Germans did it because German military procurement was insane. America copied them because - hey why not, I don't see anybody else conquering France - and everybody else got lend-lease half-tracks.

>>31880934
how

>>31880883
Not any pickup truck from those times dude.

>>31880934
Lol

>>31875615
tip pained orange, obviously a toy gun

>>31866535
With the tracks you can carry a greater load spread across the road wheels, it'll also go over shittier terrain than a strictly wheeled vehicle.

>>31877736
>>31877724
>>31877713
>>31877648

Feast your eyes upon pure autism.

>>31866588
>require dedicated training

Sure, if you're not a farmer that hasn't been using a tractor his whole childhood.

>>31874680

Actually, from what I understand, the 251's armor - while thin overall - utilized angled slopes to a significant degree.

>"The armor protected the entire length of the engine, radiator, driver and the open top rear compartment. It was 14.5 mm (0.57 in) thick, with a 14° slope at the nose, 10 mm (0.39 in)/80° for the glacis (engine cover), 8 mm (0.31 in)/35° for the side and rear panels and only 6 mm (0.24 in) for the flat bottom."

Taking a look at the side armor, which is probably what one would consider as the most important consideration for the infantry inside, 8mm angled at 35 degrees comes out to 14mm effective. Impervious to pretty much all regular rifle ball ammunition used by any belligerent in WW2. The M3, by comparison, had an unsloped side plate of .25" (or 6.4mm) for protection; thin enough to be legitimately vulnerable to regular rifle and MG fire at closer ranges.