Half Tracks: SdKfz 251 vs M3A1

Which was superior, and which filled its role best, all factors taken into consideration?

Statistics and info for the SdKfz found here: http://wwiivehicles.com/germany/half_tr ... fz251.html

For the M3A1, here: http://wwiivehicles.com/usa/half_tracks/halftracks.html

 

I would probably say that the M3A1 - for the simple reason that it was more adaptable.

Why do I say that? Because the rear 'cargo' area was a more efficient shape - basically a big square box as opposed to a relatively narrow floor with convex sides. Thus the M3A1 was able to be used for things like mounting a heavy mortar, or carrying a lot of supplies, in addition to the standard APC duties.

I know that the SdKfz251 had a bewildering number of varients & jobs, but the M3A1 could do them all, and more.

 

The Sd.Kfz 251 seems to have been highly adaptable, accomodating infantry support guns as well as AA and AT weaponry, heavy rockets and so on. I don't think you can claim either was more adaptable than the other - however, as usual, the American M3A1 was much easier to make and maintain due to the simplicity of the design. American industry then assured that the vehicle was always available in sufficient numbers to serve as transportation, infantry support, field ambulance etc.

I would put this one down the usual alley of Allied vs German weapons. In some of its specialized forms the SdKfz251 could wield firepower Allied halftrack crews could only dream of, and the "standard" was on par with the America/Allied equivalent in most ways. However, the M3A1 had all the economical advantages.

 

But the M3A1 could have mounted similar rocket systems if the Allies had had them (land mattress is not counted ). And the SdKfz 251 could not have effectively mounted a heavy mortar (somebody will now provide pictures of the 251/1,000,000,001 with heavy mortar ).

It remains my view that the M3 family was a better overall design for adapting to a range of tasks.

 

For someone who's been inside a moving SdKfz 251, I must add that it wasn't at all uncomfortable to have convex sides, and it didn't impede the mobility of the passengers at all.

The heavy mortar may not have been mounted, but what about a 75mm gun instead?

 

The M3A1 also mounted 75mm guns.

 

Ah, so you mention the mortar because it's the only thing the SdKfz didn't mount where the M3A1 did! That's a bit weak...

 

And you did the same with rockets!

But seriously - the mortar was the only example that sprang readily to mind.

Besides, it is more 'couldn't' that 'didn't', AFAIK.

 

Which had superior mobility? The M3A1 had both wheel and track drive, while the Sdkfz. 251 had track drive only.

(Throwing in random questions here)

 

Yay!

SdKfz 251/2 mittlere Schützenpanzerwagen (Granatwerfer), Gerät 892:
81 mm GrW34 mortar was installed in the floor with 66 rounds. Also a 7.92 mm MG34 or MG42 with 2,010 rounds. A baseplate was also stored so that mortar could be removed from vehicle and fired. Only had rear MG.

From http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/hal ... fz251.html

That site also claims there was a flamethrower version of the 251.

 

i've seen the flammenwerfer versions in close combat
(the game i mean)

 

I knew that would happen...

 

The M3 had superiour mobility to the SdKfz 251 by a good margin. The latter had 25% less horsepower despite being of similar weight and the lack of powered front wheels caused mobilty and steering problems in mud and snow. The interleaved road wheel could cause mud to build up which could cause shedding of the tracks.

The SdKfz 251 had the advantage over the M3 in protection with it's angled armour layout. But the M3 had 20% more internal volume. The M3 was more reliable and maintenance was easier. And something tells me that the M3 was easier and less expensive to produce as well.

 

In BF1942, the Sdkfz. 251 is faster... that's tripe, I take it?

 

If Battlefield 1942 was a dependable source, the M10 would be the equal of the Tiger, and both would be available in 1941. :-?

The two vehicles' top speeds were roughly comparable, but as Skua noted, the M3A1 had more horsepowers. Hence it was more reliable in rough terrain and more suited for pulling loads.

 

I ahve also seen em in that game but i forget which version.

 

The M3 had the highest road speed by 45mph compared to the SdKfz 251's 32.5mph. Cross-country speed is a completely different matter of course*, but I would say that the M3 was most likely faster than the SdKfz 251 in any kind of terrain.


* The M18 was a lot faster than the Sherman on the road, but had no marked speed advantage over the Sherman off road.

 

I like both of these machines... and have no idea how their reliability compared. My gut-feeling is that the germans were guilty of adding complexity and resulting in maintanance problems.
The M3 halftrack in comparison looks as simple and sturdy as a farm-tractor.
The M3 had a fuel-tank located on each side of the 'hull' behind driver and passenger-seats. I always felt this to be a vulnerable location.
The SdKfz 250/251 design went to a lot of trouble to provide sloped armour, though it wouldn't stop much past small-arms fire. I think they would have been better advised to design for added cargo-space and efficiency.
Both APCs were made in many variants, but the M16 (Quad .50s) is my most favorite M3-variant. It was a death-dealer both to low-flying aircraft and ground-troops.
It was devastating against NK and ChiCom troops in Korea, and found new life yet again during convoy-escort duties in Vietnam. Quite a remarkable span of service if you ask me.

Tim

 

it's the typical german-us differnce in equipment.

German: Technically excellent on paper if less so in practice, difficult to build, maintain and use tough
US: The M3 series was rugged, simple and you had many more of them...

Performance wise the M3 might even have been a bit better than the 251 in spite of its simplicity but AFAIK the big differnce between the two was that the sdkf 251 had real protection from small arms while the M3 had splinter protection only (if i remember correctely the M3 could be penetrated by rifles and machine guns)

So its the usual quality versus quantity argument again. Now for a tank one can argue wether quality is preferrable over quantity. On the other hand a vehicle meant only to be used in a supporting role and that had to stay out of the line of fire to survive anyhow, i think i will prefer quantity any time. (and it might be argued that the m3 was superior anyhow)

Aglooka