So the Germans invented the Infantry Fighting Vehicle in WWII with the Hanomag Sd.KFZ.251 half track. This was designed to accompany tanks in combined arms warfare and deliver a ten man squad into battle and support them with MG fire. It was successful and popular. Yet the Allies did not copy the concept. America had the M3 half track and Britain the Universal Carrier but neither were true IFVs, they were utility vehicles sometimes pressed into that role for want of anything else available. Late in the war the Allies cobbled together makeshift APCs by taking the guns out of SPGs and removing the turrets from Hellcat tank destroyers. Was it not a disgraceful oversight that purpose-designed vehicles were not built? It's not as if combined-arms warfare came as a surprise or something. Putting the infantry in trucks to keep up with the tanks left them highly vulnerable.
When was the first true western IFV - the M113 Gavin? Or was that just an APC "battle taxi" rather than an IFV?
M3 halftracks were used in a similar manner to the Hanomags, some were even served as tank destroyers as well. The MGC's were also available to the US army when they'd entered the war, they weren't a late war addition.
Matthew Nguyen
t-34 with handles for sovie infantry to hang onto and ride on top of, pretty much doctrinal to the point they didnt bother using halftracks checkmate faggot
Michael Morales
The Soviets had the same thing with the BTR-40 or whatever it was called
Ayden Long
>BTR-40 That wasn't until the 1950s.
Aiden Torres
The M8 greyhound was kinda an IFV. Started as a TD, then recond, then back to TD. Still allowed decent support with it's 37mm gun and HMG
Jacob Long
I think that was more of a "we need more armor on the tank" as opposed to "lets move infantry around quickly"
Chase Mitchell
>opened top barely armored halftrack >IFV Lol
Levi Russell
no, it was to move infantry, it did function as ablative armor, but not in the sense of meat to stop tankshells and more infantry support to root our panzerfausts and AT guns
Tyler Reed
Those half tracks were not very common for the Germans and were more intended for Grenadiers who were supposed to move with the armor in making pushes. It was not something the a regular soldier would be riding around in everyday. The Heer as a whole was relying on carts and trains to move beyond the immediate battle area. American soldiers would be moved to the front on trucks, dismount with their equipment, and then move on foot with the tanks, artillery, and aircraft supporting them. If there was a longer march then they would load back up on the trucks.
Andrew Cox
It's not called a gavin goddamnit. Stop encouraging literal autists.
Another problem is that the German halftracks were actually tank treads. Meaning you needed tensioning, spare links, pins, and oil. So have fun doing that. Oh and: This damn halftrack smells like Volksgrenadier!
Caleb Watson
It should be. Then it would be capable of anything.
Levi Perry
the germans were much more aggressive than the americans were with theirs. the germans used their half-tracks as support ,while the us intended theirs as protected transport only
Zachary Moore
1. Tech wasn't there
2. Pointless given the kind of war it was and given 1.
No it was moving men around. Every thing with an engine was meant to move men around, freed up machines to move ammo and fuel around. Very efficient, especially since they only ever went in one general direction. West. So there wasn't any back and forth nonsense unless the vehicle was scrap.
Hunter Young
i refused to accept that anyone actually believes this
Carson Sanchez
>251 >IFV >Germans invented IFVs
No
Samuel Gutierrez
Do you genuinely believe this or are you retarded?
Jace Young
If it brings infantry to the battle and hangs around to support them it's an IFV.
Grayson Walker
Only in the sense that having testicles makes you a man, sissy boy
William Walker
>the germans were much more aggressive than the americans were with theirs.
That's because it usually wasn't a good idea use them aggressively.
Henry Nelson
The allies used plenty of armored cars, "heavy" half-tracks, and light tanks. Stuff like the M20, the Staghound, the Chaffee, the AEC, the Greyhound etc.
The roles of those vehicles were not to carry infantry along with the tanks, put them into the fight then support them. they're not IFVs.
Michael Torres
>So the Germans invented the Infantry Fighting Vehicle in WWII with the Hanomag Sd.KFZ.251 half track Why the fuck were there any replies to this.
Christopher Davis
The image of the German Army racing forwards in mechanised vehicles is pure propaganda. Germans never had a lot of these and relied on millions of horses to move around.
Jayden Nguyen
Then why are UCs and Halftracks disqualified from the title of IFV by this definition? The allies had vehicles to move troops and support them in combat (UCs, Halftracks, Assault Craft), they also had vehicles meant to keep up with and support infantry in combat (Armored Cars, Light Tanks, SPGs). And both categories had examples from the interwar period as well as the early war, so don't give me the "they were only present at the end of the war" horseshit when even the woefully unprepared pre-WW2 US military was dicking around with them.
it was such a bad idea that when the us was writing its postwar mech in doctrine that the aggressive use of german half-tracks in world war ii was one inspiration
Colton Edwards
I'm confused as to what metric you judge the 251 by to deem it an IFV that also leads you to the conclusion that the M2/M3 were not. I mean I can understand the fact that German armored units were using mechanized infantry support before some other nations, and that perhaps that by your arbitrary judgment the 251 was the first to fill this role, but it wasn't like the US didn't have armored units doing the same exact thing with M3s. It should also be noted that the 251 was no more an IFV in the true sense than something like an ACAV M113. While it had the firepower to support infantry units on the front line along side tanks and other AFVs, it lacked both the durability and tactical flexibility of a true IFV.
>If it brings infantry to the battle and hangs around to support them it's an IFV. >HMMWVs are IFVs >Technicals are IFVs I feel like a big problem here is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the neuances of what "IFV" means, and also just aren't very smart.
Luis Hernandez
>When some cheeky GI in a bush lobs a grenade right into the top
Cameron Perez
why didnt they put a roof on it?
Xavier Roberts
A handful of panzer and motorized divisions did just that and they were the ones that did the damage while the bulk of the bulk of the army marched and used horses came up to consolidate.
Isaiah Reed
>using cold war terminology and doctrine >for ww2
and the panzer III is an emm bee tee too amirite guys?
