# Best Halftrack/tractor of WW2 ?



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

So which is it in your opinion ?

I'll list the info for some of the more famous ones, but there are plenty others:

*Sd.Kfz.9*
Weight (with fuel and equipment): 12,130 kg
Engine power: 250 hp
Range: 250 km
hp/t: 20.61 
Armor: None.

*Sd.Kfz.10*
Weight (with fuel and equipment): 4,900 kg
Engine power: 100 hp
Range: 285 km
hp/t: 20.4
Armor: None.

*Sd.Kfz.250*
Weight (with fuel and equipment): 5,387 kg
Engine power: 100 hp
Range: 320 km
hp/t: 18.56
Armor: 6 to 15 mm

*Sd.Kfz.251*
Weight (with fuel and equipment): 7,810 kg
Engine power: 100 hp
Range: 300 km
hp/t: 12.8
Armor: 6 to 15 mm

*M3A1*
Weight (with fuel and equipment): 9,300 kg 
Engine power: 143 hp
Range: 282 km
hp/t: 15.37
Armor: 6 to 12.7 mm


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

*RSO 0/1*
Weight (with fuel and equipment): 3,500 kg
Engine power: 85 hp
Range: 300 km
hp/t: 24.3 
Armor: None.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2009)

Think.....that I'll have to go with the Sd.Kfz.251 and the improved Ausf D version Soren.


----------



## Amsel (May 7, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Think.....that I'll have to go with the Sd.Kfz.251 and the improved Ausf D version Soren.


I like the Hanomag my self, also. The Sd.Kfz.251/22 with the Pak 40.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2009)

The -251 set the standard for WW2.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 7, 2009)

SdKfz 9 if one wants to haul a really big load and have plenty of money; if the money is problem M3/M5 are the answers.

RSO is not a half-track though.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

tomo,

That's why the title says Halftrack/tractor


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2009)

Soren, the armor thickness only tells half the story. The German designs made more use of angled surfaces which improved ballistic protection.

The M3 was all "box" and suffered because of it.

The -251 was at least a generation ahead of the M3.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 8, 2009)

-251 with a short 75mm assualt gun.


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Syscom,

Yes the Germans emphasized protection a lot, but while certainly important it is far from a halftracks only job. The American design emphasized using as small amounts of plates as possible and made sure that weight was kept low compared to engine power, which is also good, and productivity high. 

The only real critizism I'd give the American desgin was the actual track system used, it offered far too little traction and gave to high a ground pressure. To try and compensate for that they powered the front wheels as-well, but it made no difference as they have no traction in knee deeb mud and thus provide no help at all. The Germans instead left the front wheels unpowered and made the tracks much larger, concentrating all power to the tracks, this gave better cross country performance. 

Interestingly Wikipedia states otherwise and claims that the powered front wheels were an advantage and actually also claims that the German halftracks were less mobile.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> tomo,
> 
> That's why the title says Halftrack/tractor



Oops, my bad 

In that case, I'll vote for 'Voroshiliovetz' prime mover; capable enough to tow the 203mm B4 howitzer in single piece:

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Heavy Tractor Voroshilovez

Many great airbrushes at the site, so be sure to take a look at other stuff!


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Not at all a bad choice if you want to tow great loads, a very big beast though.


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Can anyone ID this vehicle?:


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Here's a funny picture I found, German troops with a RSO 01 STZ-5 side by side:





Here's a technical comparison:
RSO 01 / STZ-5
Gasoline / Gasoline
3,500 kg / 5,400 kg
85 hp / 52 hp
30 kph / 21.5 kph

On the eastern front the German army came to utilize lots of captured STZ-5's, which quickly became popular with the troops, so much so infact that they soon demanded to be equipped with a similar vehicle from home. The German motor companies went to work and the end result was the excellent Raupenschlepper Ost 0/1 0/3, the first being a 85 hp Gasoline powered type while the second was a 66 hp Diesel powered type. Basically it was just a much improved STZ-5.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 9, 2009)

When it comes to not-so-heavy logistical tasks, the Opel Maultier was the way to go. 
Notice the wheels from captured British vehicles.


----------



## davebender (May 9, 2009)

Here are prices for the German half tracks.
Product prices

It's interesting that a full track Panzer Mk II costs less then the Sd.Kfz.9 half track. I wonder if you could use a variant of the Panzer Mk II for towing heavy artillery?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 11, 2009)

The best way to utilize the chassis of Pz-II in the artillery arm was to create a SP artillery piece.
The Germans produced Wespe, one of the best AFVs in the war. Too bad for them it was available only from Kursk on.

Methinks that if one wants to motorize the towing of artillery pieces, the right step is to make them mechanized (= self-propelled) ASAP. The smaller demand for crew to man the pieces comes to mind right away, with other benefits too.


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

The RSO equipped with a PaK40:


----------



## davebender (May 12, 2009)

Wirbelwind Lite armed with a flakvierling for AA and infantry support. Superior to the historical SdKfz 7/1 which had the weapon mounted on a SdKfz 7 half track.


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

But that's not a tractor or halftrack.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 12, 2009)

Since it took a Pz-IV chassis to house the FlakVierling, I doubt that the Pz-II/Vierling combo would've been prudent. 
But, a single or twin Mg 151 (-20) does look better in my eyes there, esp. since those are belt-fed (= greater practical RoF) .


----------



## pinsog (Jan 12, 2011)

Best prime movewr of the war, in my opinion, was the US M4 High Speed Tractor. It was full tracked instead of half or 3/4 track, which means better mobility, and it had quite a bit more horsepower, 210, than its German counterpart the Sd Kfz 7 which had only 140.


----------



## davebender (Jan 13, 2011)

Mittlere Sch
This strikes me as an inexpensive yet relatively effective weapons system vs both aerial and ground targets. Unlike some of the earlier and more common German flak vehicles the gun crew are well protected against small arms fire.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 13, 2011)

I don't believe I would refer to any German halftrack as inexpensive. The tracks were tank tracks, all steel, expensive hard to get steel pins and bearings in between every link. The US halftrack was an inexpensive alternative to a tank, with the German vehicle you might as well build a full tracked light tank.


----------



## davebender (Jan 14, 2011)

> I don't believe I would refer to any German halftrack as inexpensive


Product prices
Many WWII vehicle prices are readily available on the internet. The Sd.Kfz251 wasn't terribly expensive.

103,163 marks. Panzer Mk III Auf M.
115,962 marks. Panzer Mk IV Auf G.
22,560 marks. $9,024 @2.5 marks per American dollar. Sd.Kfz.251 Halftrack.

Unfortunately I don't have a WWII American half track price for comparison.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 14, 2011)

I couldn't find anything either. Wonder why the Germans didn't power the front axle? It wouldn't have cost that much more. Seems like America was the only country in WW2 that powered the front axle on almost everything.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2011)

Take look at the track assembly: tracks associated parts of the suspension were taking almost all the load in German Htracks, relegating wheels into much more secondary role than it was at US half-tracks.


----------



## davebender (Jan 14, 2011)

M16A2 WWII Army Half-Track
COST TO US WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1943: 
$10,310. USD (Excluding Weapons)

A bit more then the German Sd.Kfz251.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 14, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Take look at the track assembly: tracks associated parts of the suspension were taking almost all the load in German Htracks, relegating wheels into much more secondary role than it was at US half-tracks.



In that case, and you are correct they didn't carry as much weight, why didn't they just go with a full track vehicle such as a US M4 high speed tractor? At least in there prime mover version. Being stuck with a non-driven front end hampered mobility and steering.


----------



## davebender (Jan 14, 2011)

Cost. 

Half tracks are less expensive to produce, operate and maintain.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> M16A2 WWII Army Half-Track
> COST TO US WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1943:
> $10,310. USD (Excluding Weapons)
> 
> A bit more then the German Sd.Kfz251.



Very interesting, as the US halftrack was a much more simple design. A frame, square box on the back, and rubber bands for tracks. The German design being essentially a light tank with a steering axle out front. Makes me wonder if the exchange rate quoted is correct. Maybe the American machine was built with Union labor and the German by slave labor!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2011)

pinsog said:


> Very interesting, as the US halftrack was a much more simple design. A frame, square box on the back, and rubber bands for tracks. The German design being essentially a light tank with a steering axle out front. Makes me wonder if the exchange rate quoted is correct.



The exchange rate is official and thus "Correct" but actually doesn't reflect the true cost of items in the two countries because the exchange rate was artificially "fixed". A bit like now with the American and Chinese Currency's. 

Throw in the fact that in both countries labor wages (forget slave labor for now) were either fixed or under government control and price comparisons get really difficult to do.


----------

