StrykerPSG
-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by StrykerPSG
-
-
I've heard the stories about charlies and the competitions they'd have over accuracy against each other. I also heard a lot of b!tching about lugging baseplates around iirc.
Divisions used to routinely hold Division level mortar competitions. Those events, with all the OPTEMPO in OIF/OEF have sadly been relegated to BDE level competitions now mostly, but still very fiercely competitive.
As for the baseplates, yes, they inheritently suck to lug around and would routinely leave our larger baseplate with the XO and keep our smaller patrol plate on for most missions. The limitations were smaller footprint, so have to be careful about number of rounds fired as it buries quickly. Also, without U shaped rotatable socket, limited firing arc.
Matt
-
This.
I've found them to be very hard to suppress too.
The accuracy seems fair enough (and I've seen what they can do first-hand).
But the guys seem to stick to the tubes even with incoming fire in abundance and re-orient to attack targets faster than the targets can move.
We also seem to be getting a lot of tree-bursts from mortars which increase their deadliness even more. I have no idea how it's modeled but hidden/prone units seem to be slaughtered in any case.
Germans were infamous for bursting their indirect fires into the tree lines, where you get amplified shrapnel in the form of shell casing and splinters. Remember the scene from Band of Brothers and they are occupying the fighting positions in the woods? It has got to be a horrendous experience.
-
Just a general point and speaking as someone trained in Mortar Fire Control, back in the day, I'm not entirely convinced by the Point, Linear and Area Targets, as concerns realism.
I can't ever remember designating a pattern of fire, and if we wanted to cover a wider area, we just gave corrections such as "Plus 50, Right 50."
Mortars like any ballistic weapons disperse over range. You'll have a higher CEP at 5,000m on a high charge, than 2,000m on a low charge. I actually think the dispersion and call for fire, (as concerns effect) was more realistic/accurate in CM1.
Guns are a different issue, but again, I'm just not convinced about being able to define a "linear" target unless you were giving separate data to each gun on the line. I don't see that being done in a battery (6-guns). A formation level barrage could mass 3 x 6 guns and that could address a "linear target," but that would be by giving three separate target datums.
How guns are arranged on the gun line, does have an effect on their coverage, and that alters very slightly given the pattern and the direction they engage in.
This was something that concerned me back on CMSF. Personally, I'd opt for just being able to designated a target point, and then apply number of guns/tubes to increase the area effect. - SO providing the initial Tgt Pt was visible, corrections should be able to put the fire into dead ground. You can for real.
...just a thought.
True, dispersion would have an effect over longer ranges, but when engaging in direct fire mode, you are talking a danger close mission not being fired at maximum range, where suppression and destruction are more vital than avoiding contact to fight another fight. Meaning, I think the AI is prudent to engage if they(mortar crew) can see the enemy and advantage favors the bold. It is equally prudent for the crew to lay low if that target of opportunity is not a high pay off target and they are not in threat of compromise.
As far as adjusting 2 guns or even 1 gun on a linear target, it's very doable and is just a matter of adjusting elevation, charge(if applicable) and traversing the hand wheel. I would consider most linear missions as more masterful than any of the basic grid, shift or polar plots. However, what isn't practical is doing a linear target with a non-vehicle supported mortar and a reserve of ammo. I would rather use my scarce supply on higher targets of opportunity. Also, in a 60mm basic load, there may only be a small handful of WP available, so a smoke screen would be marginal unless it was part of the original OPORDER or Fires planning.
Anyway, the one thing very difficult to replicate is the amount of kit for the gun that must be packed and unpacked if fighting or flighting. I can remember many missions where we were more than happy to expend most of our rounds to free up weight in our rucks. While it was a momentary reprieve from a 120 pound load on your back, the younger crew members would then get to experience cache finding and hauling 30-40 rounds on a skedco or emptyed rucks.
I think BFC did a great job with the AI in CMSF and again, today versus back then technologies and implementation are night and day, but yet still have many basic similarities. I can still plot using only a map, protractor and charge wheel, without having to carry the IMBC, batteries and M19 plotting board.
-
So, I'm confused, was I correct or not? Did US mortars have delay fuzes in WWII? As admitted in my last post, assumed because we were training with what we thought were WWII stock piles, that they all had that option.
Matt
-
US artillery had time fuzes, and towards the very end of the war, proximity fuzes, but US 60mm and 81mm HE mortar rounds only had point-detonating fuzes with one exception: the 81mm M56 "HE-Heavy" demolition round had a time fuze.
No delay with point detonating? I was pretty certain they were standard fare, however, wouldn't be the first time being incorrect. I have fired quite a few 60mm rounds in South America, using the older M2's with Panamanian and Honduran forces and their stocks were from the 50's with both options built in. Anyway, nothing worth arguing over. OK, posted while I was composing, so if they had 50's ammo, explains why they had delay and impact. Thanks for the clarification.
Matt
-
I'll take your word for that, but I think contact fuses are all that was available during WW II.
Michael
Contact and delay were standard fare from WWI until now. Multi-option were later available during WWII but were usually additional fuzes that had to be mounted as an additional exercise, so not always available from the ammo guys. Luckily US/NATO mortars and artillery now have these options built into one fuse and with more reliable safeties built into them, preventing premature detonation.
It was also the Germans that routinely used the delay option when troops were hunkered into treelines and used not only the rounds shrpanel, but the massive amounts of wood splinters to their advantage as well.
-
Another former 11C here. Yes, the mortars can really be that accurate. And in direct lay it's pretty easy and fast to hit precise targets repeatedly.
Even more accurate now with GPS and Improved Mortar Ballistic Computer. We routinely put first round everytime on target or within lethal effects and second volley is always fire for effect.
-
Although the post by Krilly quoting Ian Hogg suggests that the accuracy of WW2-era mortars was significantly lower that modern versions.
The accuracy in a direct fire/ direct lay mode wouldn't change much from WWII to now. It's a very simple process where the gunner aligns the sight perfectly with the cannon and estimates the range from him to the target. That principle hasn't changed since the inception of the mortar and accuracy would only change now a days if using a GPS to plot your exact spot on the map, though not necesary and a rangefinder to know your targets range. Bottom line is as long as the gunner or crew are highly efficient at range estimation, and most company mortarmen are, then direct lay would be highly lethal to the recipients. Factor in the multi-option fuses of then and now, with delay(.8 seconds), impact, Near Surface Burst (0-3 meters) and Proximity (3-8 meters) and you've got a recipe for multiple casualties/fatalities. Please note that multi-option fuzes have been around for quite some time, just much more reliable now and safer for the crew.
So, company/platoon level mortars were game changers when coordinated properly and have found that their usual in-effectiveness is more based on the commander's lack of experience or ignorance of it's capabilites. I spent most of my time in BN/BDE Orders always interjecting my capabilites to both the company commander and BN/BDE commander, ie squeaky wheel getting the grease. I also took every opportunity to invite the CO/BN/BDE leadership to all of our mortar shoots, which became even more fun in the Stryker BDE's with each vehicle squad having two mortar systems per vehicle. Anyway, off my soapbox.
-
Nice to hear from them from the "real world" that has BTDT and got the T-shirt to prove it! Thanks for your service, gentlemen!
Gunner, thank you for the kind words and support. Admittedly took a bit of leave from the forums when continuously arguing the tracked vs. wheeled debate when BFC released CMSF. While I will never pretend to know all the answers, can indeed tell you that BFC truly does their homework on their subject matter. I think they did the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (my alumni) much justice in their CMSF series and am confident they will do the same for WWII. Now, if we could only get them into the 50's and 60's.........
Matt
-
Gentlemen, I would like to offer up my real world experiences as a former 11C (Army Indirect Fire Infantry). I spent 13 years as an 11C, firing all systems from M224 60mm to the M-120/121 120mm guns. With the 60's we were always jokingly referred to as oversized grenade launchers, but can tell you, with the multi-option fuze, we were truly a God send to the supporting main effort, always within a few hundred meters of the supporting elements. Our only weakness is the number of available rounds, so we truly took much efforts to maximize our accuracies while in a garrison firing point.
There are two means for mortars to engage, direct lay and direct alignment. Typically, direct alignment allows you more cover and concealment, but less accurate as you are adjusting to a spotters corrections, one that hopefully knows what they're doing. Things to factor are angle of observer to target, elevation of target to gun line and observers experience. These are the majority of your missions.
Direct lay is a teams emergency mission. This is either a target of opportunity or suppress long enough to live to fight another day. In direct lay, the rounds are generally much more accurate, because the gunner has direct sight alignment and the engagement is generally under 1000 meters, therefore eliminating much of the guess work involved during a spotter involved mission. Because the gun and target are aligned, it usually just comes down to range estimation, which is far easier to eliminate and therefore able to put greater effects onto target much quicker. I would argue that the game portrays this mode quite well.
Arguably, the current set of 21 Century mortars are far differerent than when I was a squad leader or gunner, where we now utlize the 120mm far more than our 60's or 81's because of the bigger guns linkage to GPS and the mortar ballistic computers. Gone are the heady days of adjustment, now we have second round fire for effect.
Anyway, not wanting to regurgitate doctrine of then versus now, but feel the mortars are getting beat up a bit, unjustifiably. They are not sniper rifles, but they do have the capability to suppress and destroy quickly and can traverse a wide area of coverage rather quickly, just a matter of shifting the bipod onto the new direction of fire. Thanks BFC, I think you've done an outstanding job, not only with the CMSF series, but with your latest incarnation of WWII.
Matt
-
My mortars don"t always show in contact and then cannot shoot. What do I need to do to maintain contact and firing capability? I agree, the mortars are very accurate in direct fire mode. Thoughts?
-
So, I have Windows 7 64 bit on all of my pc's and the original release worked fine. Is there an update with South Gambit that woudl change anything as far as playability? I was looking at this one, as I want the editor and new material. Anyone with accurate info?
Matt
-
Hi Matt,
NATO is not a standalone. It requires the base game to be installed AND PATCHED TO v1.21. You do not need to have any other modules installed, but you do need the base game.
Still, your problem led me to find a little bug in the installer! It affects people who do not have one or both of the other modules, and *may* lead to an error similar as you reported. Not too many people should be affected, and a hotfix is forthcoming.
Martin
LOL, well I did help solve an issue before it became an issue, so you're welcome. : ) Again, big apologies for assuming it was a stand alone, in which case will not need another elicense for CMSF, as the new one for the module works with the base module. I think I was thinking about the upcoming PT boats South Gambit, which doesn't require the base game to operate. Thanks and will uninstall-reinstall tonight when I get home.
Matt
-
Hi!
The problem is not with Norton or administrator privileges. You get what you describe when one of the game components/modules is broken.
It's unusual that you had to enter keys for British and Marines. Did you have British and Marines installed before? Did you have patch v1.21 installed before you installed NATO? (that's required)
The http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk is the best place for quick support (it's where your email automatically goes, to, btw, if you email "support").
Martin
Martin,
Thanks for the quick reply. I do have the Marine, British and CMSF installed on my desktop, but not on my new laptop. I haven't installed them because I had my other laptop stolen and have not taken the time to request new elicenses(which I since have via a support ticket). I thought it was bizarre too, that it requested elicenses, unless it's basing that off of previous orders.
With regards to patch v1.21, it was my understanding the NATO module is a stand alone. If so, would the patch still be needed? If not a stand alone, will install the base after I get another elicense from support. If it's my mistake it's because I installed the sequence incorrectly, my humblest of apologies, been a long month.
Anyway, looking very much to trying this game out.
Matt
-
Battlefront team,
First, congrats on the release. I have been awaiting this release since the beginning. I downloaded this release last night, installed it and entered the elicense without issue. When I elected to start the game, was asked for elicense's for the British and Marine Modules before progressing(email sent to your support about my elicenses). I then get a black screen after selecting cancel for both of those elicense installs. There is a NATO icon on the bottom of the page, but no menu items or mouse movement. I have turned off Norton, run as administrator in the properties shortcut, changed windowed mode to full screen and still nothing. ANy help greatly welcomed.
Matt
-
I know the 5-2 BDE leadership well and can say with great certainty that COL Tunnell and CSM Prosser are both highly decorated and the right people for the job. It is most unfortunate that 5-2 has suffered the casualties they have. The one piece overlooked was the fact that the BDE and most SBCT's train thoroughly for the MOUT fight, as Iraq demanded, however a bit under trained for the more open mountainous terrain that Afghanistan has continued to build upon. The insurgents have also had ample time to prep their defenses, very much like the Bocage comparison mentioned earlier.
I am certain the BDE/BN leadership will react to the change and agree with the earlier post, it's pretty brazen to go against higher's directives of how to fight, but as the Commander on the ground, COL Tunnell probably has a decent grasp of the fight around his BDE.
My hopes are they are able to recover and carry the fight successfully to the enemy.
-
Yeah, that "not really a battlefield" thing struck me from the first time I saw this years ago. But like I said, one of them really looks like a person. In any case, my point about the target exploding is still valid even if it is a very large rodent :-)
Steve
Steve, you're lossing it to have thought the yahoos in that video were actual Soldiers shooting taliban or people and that it would need debunking. Definitely a rodent and certainly hitting with a large bore weapon. Can tell you a .50 cal would certainly rip someone in half, they do not explode as seen on that video. Yet again, another dirtbag looking to claim heroics from the safety of his/her home. You could also guage the size of the target versus local vegetation, note the scrub around the video and scale it next to the flying pieces.
-
SDSmack, it's always great to look at your past and get a good laugh. Ironically, it's never funny as it's happening. Needless to say, we spent the rest of the rotation walking and getting rides where we could. There's much to be said for an organization that has organic transportation, beit helos, wheels or tracks.
-
No problem Slap Happy....just thought the slides looked familiar.
-
This PPT slideshow from geocities:
http://www.geocities.com/ibctcliffnotes/sld001.htm
mentions the composition of an IBCT company in one of the slides, but indicates that the unit is supplemented with a platoon (3) of MGS. The PPT is dated early '08, so it is fairly recent info. Can anyone verify the 105 strykers in the official TO&E?
That slide set was what was used during the early briefs of the IBCT, now known as SBCT's. IBCT was the initial name given to Stryker development and if you note on the bottom of the slides, they re dated 2002, so not a current template, though very close to current SBCT MTOE. The date reads 8 JAN, 2002, not 2008 JAN 02.
-
This does bring up an interesting area. As for the modern era most western armies ride iINSIDE the vehicle where as we have seen others (most recently in the Russian/Georgian conflict) troops riding on top of their BTRs and BMPS. Im not sure if this is a normal technique used by the Syrians or not. Regardless, in game they do not. As for US troops I think it would take at least 15 PT belts and 5 SGMs having a corinary per soldier for that to be approved.
But as for CM: Normandy I fully expect to see the ability of troops to ride on tanks as this was a very normal practice in that time.
Steve
Any of the units I have seen where they are riding on the exterior of the vehicle were mostly former Soviet Bloc countries and as such were using Soviet Bloc equipment. I believe it was for two reasons: first being their entry/egress hatches were not user friendly, such as those on the BTR series and secondly the vehicle design doesn't incorporate many survivability features so safer on the exterior.
You're right about the SGM/CSM's having coronaries about approving riding on the exterior of the vehicle.....would be out of control. We did have a similar experience when I was stationed with 25th ID in Hawaii. We were going to NTC and were looking for quicker ways around the battlefield. While some will thump on their chests about how great it is to be a light fighter (realities of walking versus someone that just wears the patch) the truth is no one was wanting to move around NTC on foot with 100+ pounds of kit so DIV thought we could link into M1 Abrams with snaplinks and rope attached to various anchor points on the turret. After all, the Heavy Team that was attached to our BN wanted additional light fighters to support their movement. Well, that may brief well and if the turret never traverses and if the sun continues to shine......you get the message. Anywho....we tried it without coordinating with the unit about their TTP's and it was hilarious, watching a fireteam moving with the turret, avoiding deck fixtures and such. We didn't realize that the tankers would constantly be traversing their turrets, searching for targets. Bottom line, it sucked!
-
What treaty ays that .50 is banned for use against personnel? I've never been able to find it.
I think wehad this debate before too and it came down to an old wives tale because I can say with high certainty that I never stopped my gunners from shooting insurgents with the .50 cal and RWS on the trucks. It's not much different then using the M82 or equivalent sniper weapons system, while great at anti-material, even more devastating against flesh and bone.
-
Exactly, WP used offensively is a chemical weapon classed as a terror weapon, and banned as such.
Mmmm, meaning not used by US military banned? We use it all of the time for screening, obscuration and equipment/pax destruction, doctrinally not banned.
-
I've not been able to reconcile the scientific data on 5.56 wounding with those old anecdotes heard from the Falklands war of Brit soldiers feeling compelled to to pick up discarded Argi 7.62 FN rifles in preference to their 5.56 FNs and M16s. One (exaggerating) comment was the advance couldn't have been sustained without those 'recycled' 7.62 FNs. Along a similar line was the rush shipment into Iraq in 2004(?)of ancient mothballed 7.62 M14s in an effort to bolster Army Reserves firepower (here's an excuse to post a pict!)
The M14's were brought on board for the squad designated marksman. This person's role was as an overwatch (counter ambush) and engage the longer range shots. The only times we ever used the M14's in a regular fight is if they were already part of your loadout when you exited the vehicle, otherwise stuck with M4's. Most of the M14's have been replaced by either the M24 or M16A4 (w/scope and free floating barrel mod).
US 60mm mortars effectiveness
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Steve,
Sorry, overlooked your post. Nice to be back and thanks for having some fantastic attention to detail but more importantly, listening to your customer base and implementing changes that make your games even more realistic. BTW, gonna offer any upgrade to your CMSF series for the newer variant of Strykers being fielded? Our little baby is all grown up now and she's got an even meaner bite now!
Matt