Tactical use of Mortar Carriers

[domfluff]

Matching a mortar with a mechanised platform makes a ton of sense in general - strategically, but also tactically, in the form of mobility, better radio comms, and ammunition stowage (as well as limited protection), all of which can apply to Combat Mission.

In CMFB and CMBS (and probably CMSF 2) there are mortar carrying halftracks and other vehicles, which can fire without dismounting (the same sdkfz 251/2 appear in the earlier titles, but without the same functionality).

Other than reducing visibility (or getting away from the big metal explodey thing, when AT fire is possible), is there any good reason to dismount these mortars?

[domfluff]

(You could imagine a loss of rate of fire due to limited space, or a loss of accuracy due to the need to stabilise and level the thing after every move, but I have no idea if those are modelled at all, or even all that reasonable).

[Kaunitz]

Hypothetically, I suppose that a dismounted position would be easier to camouflage against ground and, especially, air observation? The first type of observation shouldn't happen to your mortars in a CM game. The second type of observation doesn't really matter in CM? (Do you know, however, how air assets in CM titles pick their targets?)

[domfluff]

"Shouldn't happen" is a bold statement there  (You're quite correct though - if you're worried about mortars being seen, you probably have other issues).

Air observation is an interesting thought though - I don't think there's been a large amount of testing of this.

With both drones and attack aircraft (in all periods), it does seem like vehicles are spotted more easily than infantry, especially whilst moving. It also seems like wooded cover helps.

With the limited information about LOS that we have, I'd guess that this was based on three major factors - unit height (we know there are five levels - prone infantry. walking infantry, and three kinds of vehicles), movement and terrain tile type. On-foot mortars would definitely allow for both using more restrictive and concealing terrain, as well as being spotted as infantry.

It's obviously not clear if aerial LOS is drawn from an imaginary aircraft point, or whether this is essentially just top-down and abstracted. On a similar level, I'd like to know if smaller Observe missions by drones spot things faster in that area.

Hmm.. might knock up some testing later.

[Pete Wenman]

It might be worth checking as to whether rate of fire is different for mounted mortars ??

Just a thought

P

[domfluff]

Right, did some testing:

(Tested using CMFB, the German halftrack mortar carrier. 0 Leadership, Regular troops - experience matters a huge amount here, Veteran mortars can lay down many more rounds than Regular.)

Unmounted mortars fire at nearly twice the rate! It's clearly worth unmounting them, but there will be situations where it's useful to have the mobile firepower.

That's pretty clear then...




Also some testing of CMBS drones (Raven Drone, Regular JTAC) and aerial observation - there was a lot of variability here, but I think things were mostly what you'd expect - smaller arcs usually spotted faster, and "point" targets are actually 50 radius area spots. Moving armour was spotted before stationary armour, and actual-trees hid them better than wood tiles (but both hid them better than open ground), but in most tests armour was spotted within one minute, so it doesn't make much practical difference, given that WeGo is a thing.

Infantry were a lot more difficult to spot - stationary infantry in the open were usually spotted around the 5-15 minute mark, stationary infantry in wood tiles or actual-woods were regularly not spotted before the timer expired (30 minutes).

[MikeyD]

Mortar/artillery involves a more than bit of surveying, precisely locating you position on a map and orienting yourself to accurately drop ordinance onto map coordinates. Pre-GPS, this was a special skillset. Driving a mortar HT around the map  randomly then stopping to receive a fire request from a spotter is somewhat ahistorical. The position would need to be surveyed first and if you're going to do that might as well dig yourself a couple nice cozy foxholes while you're at it.

[Erwin]

In playtesting MOS's Tactical Ops Center scenario I had to use drones a lot.   

Found that even an Elite Drone with an Elite JTAC never spotted moving vehicles, or any infantry (in cover).  (Not sure there were any enemy inf in the open at any time.)  Drones did spot stationary vehicles even in cover.

Using a drone as a FO spotter for artillery was also unsatisfactory.  The arty was inaccurate - a point target functioned as if one gave a wide target area.  However, using a drone with precision ammo was more effective - but still took a couple rounds to hit close enuff to an enemy vehicle.

 

[Bulletpoint]

They seem to be a bit buggy currently, restricted to firing at Target Light slow speed. Also they can't be given a fire order in combination with a move order. I reported both issues before.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Michael Emrys]

18 minutes ago, Erwin said:

...using a drone with precision ammo was more effective - but still took a couple rounds to hit close enuff to an enemy vehicle.

This is consistent with what I've been noticing in my games. Lately I've been wondering if I would have better luck with precision munitions if instead of using a drone to spot, I had someone on the ground with a laser designator. And would the laser detector on vehicles not warn them of the fact that the laser was being used?

Michael

[DerKommissar]

I don't really see any cons to keeping your mortars mounted in WW2 setting. A hanomag is a very safe place for a mortar team. It's immune to small arms, resistant to artillery fragments and can get out of a hairy situation -- with all the ammo intact. The only con comes in on the logistical side -- halftracks being in-demand for moving troops and supplies. Considering IL-2 or HS-129 strikes are rare, they are pretty safe from bullet strafing from the air. I even found myself using mortar halftracks in a direct fire mode, they were safe from MG fire and could deliver surgical mortar barrages on occupied buildings.

In BS, the widespread use of RPGs, ATGMs, autocannons, optics (TI especially) and airborne assets makes APCs very vulnerable, indeed. I tried using an M113 mortar in direct fire and ended up with a melted can. I hid another behind a building, but it was spotted by a rolling BMP3 and easily toasted with a Bastion. This being said, the vast use of air-burst munitions is a big reason not to leave any personnel stuck outside when its raining shrapnel on their heads.

[MikeyD]

I believe there are two (or more) types of 'precision weapon' in the game. One is the traditional laser designated target. The other is a GPS coordinates weapon that doesn't require a laser spot. The GPS weapon will precisely hit the SPOT that's designated but not necessarily the vehicle sitting on the spot.

Even for WWII vehicles you need a big enough map with enough terrain masking to stay safe. While refurbishing a scenario for the upcoming CMSF2 I wanted to place a British mortar vehicle on-map but there was virtually no place I could place it that was secure so I gave up. Someone recently discovered a very interesting AI orders technique that involved on-map mortars, AI triggers and the new 'area fire' AI movement command. If implemented together it adds a whole new dimension to AI-controlled on-map mortars.

[domfluff]

There are more than one type of precision round in CMBS - the US 155mm and 120mm mortar "Precision" rounds are pretty different in practice, with the 155mm precision being a lot more... precise.

The Russian and Ukraine precision rounds need laser designation (it's the reason why the US liason team has laser designators, for example), but the US use GPS, so don't need to laze a target. I suspect they won't help you with US artillery either.

Since mounted mortar fire has (apparently!) a much slower rate of fire, then I think that's reason enough to differentiate them - obviously rate of fire is not always what you want with artillery of any size, but sometimes it definitely is. Obviously you're giving up mobility and protection when you dismount, so that's your trade-off. Call-in time seems to be the same in any case.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

...the US use GPS, so don't need to laze a target.

That's what I had always assumed, but my precision strikes miss so often that they don't seem very "smart". So I wondered if they had any capacity for terminal homing on lazed targets.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, domfluff said:

Since mounted mortar fire has (apparently!) a much slower rate of fire

Until they fix the bug, hopefully..