At least this APC can carry troops. The 37mm gun-equipped Sd.Kfz. 251 currently stuck in the editor will also be an APC in the future. As for the variant fitted with the long 75mm cannon, I hope it gets added as a tank destroyer at BR 2.
It was a horrible mistake the devs made it an APC in the first place. I assume they did it out of laziness without caring about history. If they don’t learn from their mistake they’ll make the M3 GMC and many others APCs too!
No, it shouldn’t be an APC! I already said only the original Sd.Kfz.251 was used as an APC, ifs variants were used as support vehicles!
Don’t you think that would be pointless? No one would bother using it even if it’s moved to BR1, since it’s inferior to the Panzer III E.
1 Like
The same thing can be said for tons of vehicles. You have to look at it from two points, for history, and for variety.
Historically these vehicles were not APCs so they should be properly represented.
Second, there are so many vehicles from WW2 that should be in game. Frankly I want all of them! Many of them may seem pointless, but we can’t just exclude any vehicle that isn’t a Tiger 2 or a Meta vehicle otherwise we might as well say don’t bother adding in anymore vehicles because we already got the best stuff. Maybe some people just particularly like a certain vehicle so they play as it anyway.
Me personally I make my loadouts chronologically and I choose my units randomly. My classes and vehicle types (light tank, medium tank, heavy tank, artillery, tank destroyer, AA, flamethrower). So I certainly don’t mind having another artillery vehicle for 1943. I maximize history and variety.
Sometimes I use a Marder 3, sometimes I use a Marder 3 H, because I just feel like it.
You can hope they add a historical mode that restricts weapons by year. Historical photos show trucks carrying as many as thirty extra US soldiers riding on top, and regular jeeps sometimes held thirteen people. This vehicle is only armed with a 37mm cannon. After accounting for ammunition and its six crew members, it could definitely fit a large group of troops.
A historical mode sounds cool, but I don’t necessarily want that. I just have my own personal rules for immersion. I don’t care if you have a Tiger 2 in Stalingrad, all I care is that my loadout is good for the year 1942 if I get Stalingrad
Yes soldiers will cram themselves onto anything for a ride, but we have to look at designated roles otherwise they might as well make every vehicle including tanks APCs. The fact is these special half-tracks were not APCs, the original model was but it’s variants were used as support vehicles
On another note jeeps should be Rider 2 that gives them a few extra soldiers
For better or worse it is still a support vehicle (like a tank), not an APC.
Alright. I can only say this vehicle is a pretty rare market-exclusive ride in War Thunder. Its battle rating is low enough that it can face opponents you’d never run into in the Panzer III E. Right now though, the BR spread across the ground forces tree is far too cramped. We need to introduce BR 6 to split up BR 5, and rebalance BR 2 and BR 4. That way we can carve out a proper place for this vehicle.
I do think eventually we may need a BR 6. There are certainly some late war prototypes that I think eventually will be in game that might be a bit too much for BR 5
1 Like
That’s for sure. Vehicles like the KV-85 and VK 30.02 perform poorly at both BR 3 and BR 4. We need a dedicated bracket for 5.0 vehicles.
no, add equivalents like su57 and m3mgc
Yes but those vehicles are “tanks” (combat vehicles) not APCs
I already want them to correct this mistake, we shouldn’t add more mistakes
Got it. I agree that the following four should be classified as tank vehicles, since they can’t carry extra infantry.
1 Like
Exactly, the original half-tracks were APCs designed to carry an entire infantry squad of about 10 men.
They thought it was a good idea to modify half-tracks to fulfill different roles to support infantry like anti-air, tank destroyers, etc. They were no longer APCs.
In this game the “tank” slot is just any combat vehicle that is designed to support the soldiers. There’s no point in needlessly dividing vehicles. What is the point of a Stug being in one slot, a Marder 3 being in one slot, a Sd. kfz.251/22 in one slot, and a Sd.Kdz.234/4 in some other slot if they all have the same exact gun and the only difference is one is built on a medium tank chassis, the other a light tank chassis, the other a halftrack, and the other an armored car. That’s why I say just spawn as whatever vehicle and do your job to support the infantry.
1 Like
Simple answer — no.
The funny thing is that there is actually no contradiction in the current game design. You can still “spawn” an Sd.Kfz. 251/9 as a magical mushroom (extremely historically accurate, of course…) and support the infantry just fine.
In practice, you can grey-zone camp with it, and the best part is that it belongs to a separate vehicle pool. APCs have their own limit (3 per team) and do not interfere with the regular tank slots (2 per team), so you will be able to “support” your infantry even better. Historically, the 251/9 “Stummel” was part of the Panzergrenadier (gepanzert) battalions, so I see no contradiction with its current classification.
As an added bonus, someone can technically “spawn” in it - although realistically, if you are grey-zone camping with a 251/9, it will probably be far enough from the frontline that nobody will actually use it as a spawn point anyway.
And if someone you are really obsessed with “historical accuracy,” you can simply ask a friend to spawn a say 2-man motorcycle squad and permanently occupy your Stummel. Thus effectively disabling the APC spawn function and makes the setup even more “historically accurate.”
Another point: why should we force the developers to rework something that already functions perfectly well instead of adding new content or fixing bugs?
The 251/9 is currently the only BR III APC option- mostly because some players complained that it “was way overpowered”, but honestly, the thing is extremely vulnerable. I also see little practical reason to use it for fire support when vehicles like the StuG III A (BR II), StuG III F (BR2), Panzer IV E (BR II), Panzer III N (Stalingrad), etc. already perform that role much better…
Yes Germany particularly used these half-tracks to support Panzergrenadiers, but it was not a true APC. They were not used to transport a squad of soldiers. They were purely support vehicles
In this game support vehicles are everything from tanks to self propelled guns.
There was literally no reason for it to be incorrectly implemented in the first place as an APC. It was taken straight from Warthunder, like most vehicles, and should’ve been added like every single other vehicle.
Mistakes should always be corrected.
Doesn’t matter. It is a combat vehicle. For better or worse. Whether someone wants to particularly use a vehicle that is up to them. That’s variety.
If we want to get technical the RT is a ladder, so you would unlock a light vehicle such as this before better options.
and make opel or mercedes apc. YES
1 Like
The armored Panzergrenadier battalion contained troop carriers, command vehicles, mortar carriers, anti-aircraft variants, and gun-support variants built on the same Sd.Kfz. 251 chassis. The 251/9 was part of this family and was intended to accompany the infantry, providing direct HE fire against strongpoints, machine-gun nests, and anti-tank guns.
Historically, the Germans did not separate every weapon carrier into a completely different organizational branch simply because it carried a gun.
The Sd.Kfz. 251/9 was indeed a dedicated support vehicle rather than a troop carrier, but historically it was still an organic component of armored Panzergrenadier battalions and operated within the SPW system. The Germans did not treat it as a separate tank or assault-gun branch. If historical organization matters, the vehicle’s association with Panzergrenadier formations is actually an argument in favor of keeping it within the APC/SPW family rather than moving it into the tank lineup.
In Enlisted, the APC category is fundamentally a gameplay role rather than an organizational one. The defining feature is the ability to function as a mobile spawn point.
I don’t see any mistake here that needs correcting.
Exactly. Having the spawn function is not in contradiction with its role either → it simply adds another layer of utility and variety.
From what I have observed, very few players actually use these vehicles to “transport” and “ride” their squads to the front. In most cases, players spawn on them and immediately move on. That is essentially how all mobile spawn-point vehicles are used in practice, regardless of whether they are trucks, half-tracks, or APCs.
The Sd.Kfz. 251/9 is no exception. The presence of a spawn function does not prevent it from being used as a fire-support vehicle; it simply gives players an additional option.
That is not my point. My point is that in this game the vehicle slot covers various types of vehicles from actual tanks to self propelled guns and various others. So this vehicle should be in the vehicle slot.
Yes and these vehicles were not the real life equivalent of the mobile spawn point, carrying a squad of troops.
The APC squad is an Infantry squad with a mobile spawn point. Players are not correctly using them as combat vehicles in the first place because they will just park it somewhere and fight on foot; and that is no fault of their own because the devs made it an incorrect vehicle type in the first place.
You certainly wouldn’t use the Tiger 2 as a taxi and park it somewhere to fight with your crew on foot. Well this lowly halftrack is supposed to be the same thing. It is a combat vehicle meant to support the infantry, not a vehicle designed to carry soldiers.
If you want to move away from half-tracks I could say the same thing about an open topped self propelled gun on a tank chassis.