Mortars with squad or not

[ebphoto]

I have a question regarding the use of on map mortars. So I've always used the on map mortars as a support weapon that I hold in the back of the map in a designated area with a leader with comms gear. My question: is it better to keep the individual mortar teams, if in a squad, moving up with the teams? Or is it better to use them like I have in one big pool? I know the small mortars that are in the British squad you have to keep with the team moving up etc. But the larger mortars that require deployment I wasn't sure if it's better to keep them semi close to the action. Are they more accurate and faster to get rounds on target? Your thoughts and tactics would be appreciated!

Thank you,

Eric

[Michael Emrys]

For a long time, playing as the US, I would group the company mortars (60mm) together and use them as on-call artillery. However, for the last year or so I have been keeping them up on or near the front because that gets quicker and more accurate fire from them. The trick there though is keeping them alive by protecting them from counter fire. So, there are trade-offs and how to use them is a judgement call based on whether there is terrain where they can shoot from but not to be easily shot at.

Michael

[ebphoto]

I have been doing exactly what you have done and grouped them all together, but after seeing the British small mortars work, I started thinking it might be better to keep them up close with the squads. Thank you for the input. I was wondering if it would make them more accurate. So I'll have to give it a go.

Thx,

Eric

[Erwin]

The smallest mortars are best used in "direct fire" mode.  (Some can only fire "direct".)   81mm and larger you want to keep safely in the rear.  60mm could do either depending on situation.. 

[domfluff]

I general, I think it's useful to think of Platoons as individual units, with varying tools and options, potentially with attached assets.

Platoons can generally achieve one objective ("take that hill") at a time. If they run into difficulty, you can abandon the attack, or halt it and bring in a second or third platoon (a company attack).

There's a couple of reasons for doing this, but one is that it achieve economy of force - anything you do runs the risk of taking casualties, so minimising the area in contact is the best way to control the tempo of the engagement, and how much risk you're choosing to take on.

This means the US 60mm platoon mortars are a platoon asset, and are supposed to be part of how they'll achieve that objective - their actual use may depend on the situation, and the ability to maintain C2 links. US 60mm do not have smoke rounds, so they're a suppression tool. That means that if you're using them to gain fire superiority in a firefight, you may well want to use them in a direct-lay mode, risking the mortar team to enemy fire for the sake of speed. If instead you're using them to prepare an attack or deny an area of ground, then indirect might be the better choice - keeping the valuable asset safe, and controlling rate of fire.

[A Canadian Cat]

I agree with @domfluff and @Michael Emrys keep them close to the action (not right at the pointy end mind). 60mm, 50mm I like to have right up close so they can be brought forward to target an enemy position directly. This can work with 81mm too but they are bigger and slower so my preference is not have 81mm mortars on the map - keep the off map where they have more ammo.

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, IanL said:

...my preference is not have 81mm mortars on the map - keep the off map where they have more ammo.

Good point.

Michael

[domfluff]

US platoon organisation depends on armoured or leg infantry - the former has a 60mm mortar and two MG teams per platoon, whereas the latter has a seperate weapons platoon, with the mortars and MG's combined into one.

Organisationally, this means that the armoured infantry is already "pre-split" - the assets are already doled out to the platoon.

In both cases, the mortars teams do not have radios, so you will need a unit to be within C2 that has a radio, to use them indirectly.

That means that I'll usually keep them close to the platoon (or company, if I'm using the leg organisation as a combined weapons platoon, but often out of Line of Sight, until needed.

By way of example (indirect role, US Armoured platoon):

Scenario is something like a deliberate attack on a barn, containing an enemy MG. There isn't sufficient cover to get the platoon in place first, so the intent would be to suppress the barn with mortar fire as cover to bring up the MGs, and then progress into the assault.



HQ in an armoured platoon is a full squad. This has been split to create a four man HW platoon, with radio operator. This would have a short covered arc to hold fire, and would Slow move to crest the hill. HQ unit will have binoculars, and a radio, so spotting contacts can be reported up to the Company HQ. Rest of the platoon is out of line of sight behind the camera, set up to provide some security if things go horribly wrong.



View from the HQ unit - the barn is in sight, and the 60mm mortar is within close visual and audio contact. Call-in time for this is something like 5 minutes.

Edited October 31, 2018 by domfluff

[DerKommissar]

There's an MG-42 lighting up my squads advancing through a field! I don't have 5 minutes for spotting -- I need direct fire NOW! That's when you want a light mortar (glorified grenade lobber), most likely company asset, with your infantry, on overwatch. 2 or 3 shells should obliterate any heavy weapon that is giving your infantry a hard time. Meanwhile using a light mortar for saturation fire is as effective as throwing french insults at the buggers.

80mm mortars are much more effective in saturation fire. It's good for them to have LOS on some of your mental targets, but moving them is a hassle, deploying them takes time and they are fairly vulnerable. If you're playing as Jerry, you have garbage light mortars but fantastic medium mortars, so the medium mortars are more likely to be pushed into direct fire role. Heavy mortars are even more precious and capable in bombardment. Off-map has the distinct advantage of your mortars being 100% safe. No counter fire or ambushes -- just bombardment.

Recently, I fell in love with mortar half-tracks. I often saw them as novelty vehicles of questionable utility. When I got to play with them, I acknowledged them as the superior mortar platform: a tin can that carries all your ammo and your radio. I'd park them on the reverse slope of the cliff, just to give the mortar guys LOS, and they can let off a few 8cm rounds and collapse a building that's bothering your guys. Then you can instantly relocate, get a better position with almost 0 setup time.

[domfluff]

2 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

There's an MG-42 lighting up my squads advancing through a field! I don't have 5 minutes for spotting -- I need direct fire NOW! That's when you want a light mortar (glorified grenade lobber), most likely company asset, with your infantry, on overwatch. 2 or 3 shells should obliterate any heavy weapon that is giving your infantry a hard time. Meanwhile using a light mortar for saturation fire is as effective as throwing french insults at the buggers.

True, which is why the above example is more for setting up a deliberate, planned attack, rather than as a way to win a firefight, and react to the enemy. Light mortars are pretty good (and the British and Italian mortars in particular are *excellent*) at this more reactive role, in a direct fire capacity.

British light mortars, by doctrine and by use, are more about smoke than HE though - their ammunition load is very low (there are universal carriers that carry more two inch mortar rounds), so they'll only really be useful for a single target in a battle, usually. The abiltiy to deploy smoke (offensively or defensively) is very powerful though. Naturally you *can't* fire the two inch mortars in an indirect role, so that isn't really a question.

[Bil Hardenberger]

My preference is to have my mortars on map, always, if at all possible.  They are much more responsive (much faster reaction times and can be devastating because the enemy does not have the spotting round warning you get with indirect fire) than off map mortars are in my opinion.  Nothing worse than plotting an off-map mortar mission, only to have it fall on empty positions because the enemy pulled out when they identified spotting rounds...

Also, mortars can "cheat" a little on LOS/targeting (allowing for some local indirect fire)... for example, the following image from one of my AARs shows a mortar, with no direct LOS, firing on an enemy HMG team.. this was direct targeted.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bil Hardenberger

[domfluff]

One issue I had recently with on-map 120mm mortars in CMBS - they have a fairly hefty minimum range! Definitely worth keeping in mind, depending on terrain.

[ebphoto]

So if I get this all right, light mortars like 60mm, should stay with the platoon but stay safely away from enemy fire. Move them up along with the squads to suppress individual targets that hamper the platoons ability to complete its mission. They can be brought up and used for direct fire missions as well as indirect pending on terrain etc. Larger mortars should be used as indirect assets and kept in the rear with Comms but will have a longer wait time for rounds on target? I hope I got all that.

I'll definitely have to give it a go, as far as keeping them with the platoon. This makes sense. I started thinking I was using them wrong when I saw the British light mortars taking out a anti-tank position. I also noticed in a few AAR videos and reports the mortar teams being taken out in a counter attack and wondered why they were so close.

Thanks for all the input guys. This has been very helpful. Now to put it into practice!

E

[Michael Emrys]

29 minutes ago, ebphoto said:

I'll definitely have to give it a go...

That's the best attitude to take. Everybody's got their own individual style and what works for one person might not work as well for another. So the best course is to keep trying different things until you find what is best for you. Most CM battles are not designed so that there is one magical solution that will guarantee you a stunning victory. There is usually more than one way to skin the cat, albeit some work better than others with fewer losses on your side.

Michael

[ebphoto]

Okay I just tried a mission and kept the 60mm mortars up with the squads. We came under heavy fire from a trench line, so I ordered the motar team up semi close and tried to get Los but couldn't do I got them up closer and as soon as they took fire they bolted. So next I tried calling in a strike while they were behind cover & it said 6 minutes! By the time that happens my men will be toast! I thought having them closer would make it a lot faster getting rounds on target? What gives? Now granted these were Canadian troops

E

Edited October 31, 2018 by ebphoto

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, ebphoto said:

Okay I just tried a mission and kept the 60mm mortars up with the squads. We came under heavy fire from a trench line, so I ordered the motar team up semi close and tried to get Los but couldn't do I got them up closer and as soon as they took fire they bolted. So next I tried calling in a strike while they were behind cover & it said 6 minutes! By the time that happens my men will be toast! I thought having them closer would make it a lot faster getting rounds on target? What gives? Now granted these were Canadian troops

  Never as easy as it sounds.  

The map location of on map mortars does not effect the indirect fire Fire For Effect (FFE) time.  If the mortars are at the back of the map or in the forward edge of the fight the indirect FFE time is the same.  Having a Forward Observer (FO) make the request and/or using a Target Reference Point (TRP) will generally shorten the FFE time (If the FO is suppressed or not in a good location the quicker FFE time a FO gets can be negated).

However using a mortar for direct fire (I like Target Light) is quicker than using the same mortar for indirect fire.        

Edited November 1, 2018 by MOS:96B2P

[domfluff]

There is another factor - better C2 links will speed up indirect response times, with some rounding.

This is one of the many reasons why British Universal Carriers can be really useful - not only do the right ones carry more medium mortar ammunition, they also have a radio which can remove a minute or so from call-in times.

Obviously direct lay is still significantly faster. Definitely a risk/reward though, since you really don't want to come under fire.

As before, indirect fire is not something I'd do as a response to incoming fire, but only as part of a planned assault. Waiting five minutes is fine when you have control of when the attack begins.

Keeping the 60mm mortar with the platoon gives you the option of doing both direct and indirect, which is the important bit - if you thrust them onto the line or keep them well behind the lines then you lose the other option.

[Warts 'n' all]

Yes, I always check what ammo my carriers have during the Set-up Phase. 

[Erwin]

15 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Nothing worse than plotting an off-map mortar mission, only to have it fall on empty positions because the enemy pulled out when they identified spotting rounds...

That is usually a very desirable result.  Don't always need to kill.  Kinda like smoke can sometimes be more effective than HE depending on what the ultimate objective is.

[Michael Emrys]

13 hours ago, ebphoto said:

Okay I just tried a mission and kept the 60mm mortars up with the squads. We came under heavy fire from a trench line, so I ordered the motar team up semi close and tried to get Los but couldn't do I got them up closer and as soon as they took fire they bolted. So next I tried calling in a strike while they were behind cover & it said 6 minutes! By the time that happens my men will be toast! I thought having them closer would make it a lot faster getting rounds on target? What gives?

Heh. In this situation what you need is a tank or assault gun, which is why the Soviets built lots of both. They also had lots of artillery, but lacked the communications gear or the doctrine that would allow much flexibility in using it. Mostly they seem to have relied on preplanned fires. In order to put HE on suddenly appearing targets, they needed direct firing mobile weapons. And for those to survive, they also needed to be armored. Now, the Western Allies had more responsive artillery, but as you are discovering it was not exactly instantaneous either. Sometimes minutes matter, and in order to maintain the momentum of an attack, it's nice to have some of that armored, mobile, direct firing weaponry at hand. So the Western Allies built lots of tanks too.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

21 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

2 or 3 shells should obliterate any heavy weapon that is giving your infantry a hard time.

That's a bit optimistic

[SimpleSimon]

Michael is right, that your infantry are coming under heavy fire is why the assault gun was invented.  The US and Russians also tended to distribute light tanks or obsolete ones to the infantry for use supporting infantry for which personally I really like the Stuart. 

The American toolkit is not very sophisticated but it has lots of stuff. Because of that the US Army was able to put weapons that would normally be reserved at the Company level down to the Platoon's level. It is not abnormal to see freaking squads trudging around with the Browning M1919, with the M1917s supporting it not far behind. This is where that whole "typhoon of steel" stuff the Japanese complained about all the time came from. The Americans just always seemed to have fire support normally reserved for a higher level, made organic to squads! A Private was actually pretty likely to see the entire "Arsenal of Democracy" in his career. 

[Bulletpoint]

I'm still hoping for an optional game mode where on-map mortars can only fire at a spot if they have received an enemy contact marker close by.

[DerKommissar]

22 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

That's the best attitude to take. Everybody's got their own individual style and what works for one person might not work as well for another. So the best course is to keep trying different things until you find what is best for you. Most CM battles are not designed so that there is one magical solution that will guarantee you a stunning victory. There is usually more than one way to skin the cat, albeit some work better than others with fewer losses on your side.

Michael

Amen to that! That's the beauty of it. One thing I always struggle with is deciding which optional objectives are worth losses and which aren't.

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

That's a bit optimistic

Maybe. That number came from my experience fighting against poorly led Georgian auxiliaries. A single direct hit and they'd ditch the weapon and run.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

The US and Russians also tended to distribute light tanks or obsolete ones to the infantry for use supporting infantry...

The Soviets used a lot of Su-76s in that role.

Michael