BlackMoria

There is so many Canadian volunteers over there, they have their own brigade.  Reportedly in the Kyiv area.  Here is their arm patch.  Five Hundred and Fifty in number so far and growing daily.

'Wali' is not a PMC nor a mercenary.  He left his computer programming job, a wife and a son about to turn one to go over to help the Ukrainian people.  He is a person with a conscience and the need to do something.  I get that because I wanted to volunteer myself but my age and my health are against that.  
Please don't infer that he and people like him are 'serial killers'   

Someone I served with and got out of the military just after I left went over to Ukraine.   I spoke with him last night.  He wasn't at location of that strike but I said it is getting pretty real over there for the volunteers.  His response.... he laughed and said he was over there to 'f*ck up Russians and he expected some foreplay from them', referring to the strike.   😛

'Wali' is not a PMC nor a mercenary.  He left his computer programming job, a wife and a son about to turn one to go over to help the Ukrainian people.  He is a person with a conscience and the need to do something.  I get that because I wanted to volunteer myself but my age and my health are against that.  
Please don't infer that he and people like him are 'serial killers'   

Someone I served with and got out of the military just after I left went over to Ukraine.   I spoke with him last night.  He wasn't at location of that strike but I said it is getting pretty real over there for the volunteers.  His response.... he laughed and said he was over there to 'f*ck up Russians and he expected some foreplay from them', referring to the strike.   😛

There is so many Canadian volunteers over there, they have their own brigade.  Reportedly in the Kyiv area.  Here is their arm patch.  Five Hundred and Fifty in number so far and growing daily.

'Wali' is not a PMC nor a mercenary.  He left his computer programming job, a wife and a son about to turn one to go over to help the Ukrainian people.  He is a person with a conscience and the need to do something.  I get that because I wanted to volunteer myself but my age and my health are against that.  
Please don't infer that he and people like him are 'serial killers'   

There is so many Canadian volunteers over there, they have their own brigade.  Reportedly in the Kyiv area.  Here is their arm patch.  Five Hundred and Fifty in number so far and growing daily.

'Wali' is not a PMC nor a mercenary.  He left his computer programming job, a wife and a son about to turn one to go over to help the Ukrainian people.  He is a person with a conscience and the need to do something.  I get that because I wanted to volunteer myself but my age and my health are against that.  
Please don't infer that he and people like him are 'serial killers'   

Someone I served with and got out of the military just after I left went over to Ukraine.   I spoke with him last night.  He wasn't at location of that strike but I said it is getting pretty real over there for the volunteers.  His response.... he laughed and said he was over there to 'f*ck up Russians and he expected some foreplay from them', referring to the strike.   😛

Where does Lavrov even go from there?   Is it going to be 180,000+ 'vacationers' decided to invade Ukraine after clearing out the vehicle parks from Russian bases, because why visit Ukraine in a Lada when you can use a fuel guzzling T72?  Seriously, Lavrov is the new Bagdad Bob.   Remember reporters asking Bagdad Bob about the sounds of battle nearby when he proclaimed the US forces were not near Bagdad.  Unabashed, he responded that that was the sound of US forces committing suicide.
 

Where does Lavrov even go from there?   Is it going to be 180,000+ 'vacationers' decided to invade Ukraine after clearing out the vehicle parks from Russian bases, because why visit Ukraine in a Lada when you can use a fuel guzzling T72?  Seriously, Lavrov is the new Bagdad Bob.   Remember reporters asking Bagdad Bob about the sounds of battle nearby when he proclaimed the US forces were not near Bagdad.  Unabashed, he responded that that was the sound of US forces committing suicide.
 

That is a tank kill of a functional crewed tank.  If you watch the video, the tank is just forward of the T intersection and is moving retrograd (backing up) when it got hit, so it ends up nearly on the other side of the intersection when it stops moving.    And the drone was probably being the spotter for the Javelin team to initially spot the tank, move the Javelin team to a place they can get eyes on to do the engagement.

That is a tank kill of a functional crewed tank.  If you watch the video, the tank is just forward of the T intersection and is moving retrograd (backing up) when it got hit, so it ends up nearly on the other side of the intersection when it stops moving.    And the drone was probably being the spotter for the Javelin team to initially spot the tank, move the Javelin team to a place they can get eyes on to do the engagement.

Actually, not unexpected.    China and Russia have traditions of grabbing foreigners under trumped up charges and having that on the sidelines as a subtle threat to whatever the real issue is that resulted in the 'arrest'.  Expect more of the same.

This scenario I have played three times as the Ukrainians, doing three different defense plans.  Two of scenarios ended in brutal street fighting and close quarter battles. 
 
One plan was the fall back to the victory zones in the city, repeatedly ambushing the Russian forces in street to street fighting. That one turned out fairly well in the end with solid victory but the casualties were high (but acceptable in regards to victory conditions) for the Ukrainians.
 
Next, I tried a 'Hold the Line' type of defence.  It went well until the second wave showed up and then I got slammed as the mass firepower of the second way decimate the defenders and the Russians pulled off a win.
 
The third try turned out super sweet.  Basic premise of that defense was mobile anti armor teams pushed out from the city and in essence, continually ambushed the Russian armor in the hedgerows and trees..  That resulted in a Total Victory and surprisingly minimal casualties for me.  It worked very well, keeping the Russians out of the town (though Russian infantry did make it up to the edge of town)
 
This is an outstanding scenario for learning and perfecting defensive tactics and force placement.  The map is generous enough in size to allow pretty much any defensive plan to be attempted.  
 
The terrain will be a curse to you for long fields of fire, making this for the most part, a close to medium range fight,  Try as I might with different layouts, it is nearly impossible for long range ATGMs shots due to the wooded windbreak lines of trees and the rolling nature of the ground.  The older ATGMs of the Ukrainians are adequate when vehicles are in the open but very nearly miss every time when shot through even a thin row of trees, making most ATGM shot 500 metres of less the norm for this scenario.
 
That said, with small anti-armor teams (RPG-7s) using the terrain to max advantage, one can make the terrain a nightmare for the Russians to push through.
 
I will avoid spoilers but will offer up one very significant piece of advice - Target arcs are your very best friend for this scenario to control your fire and set the engagement ranges when it benefits you.  The Russians are not a overwhelming force but the sheer firepower they have will result in them tearing your forces to pieces at range if your forces engage haphazardly.
 
Finally, a big shout out to Pete Wenman (the designer) for this wonderful scenario.   It is everything a great defensive scenario has to rivet someone like me to play again and again.  It is such a nail biter that 55 minutes seems like an eternity when the Russians bring their firepower to bear on you.  But it is possible to win and win big if your defensive chops are up to the job.

This scenario I have played three times as the Ukrainians, doing three different defense plans.  Two of scenarios ended in brutal street fighting and close quarter battles. 
 
One plan was the fall back to the victory zones in the city, repeatedly ambushing the Russian forces in street to street fighting. That one turned out fairly well in the end with solid victory but the casualties were high (but acceptable in regards to victory conditions) for the Ukrainians.
 
Next, I tried a 'Hold the Line' type of defence.  It went well until the second wave showed up and then I got slammed as the mass firepower of the second way decimate the defenders and the Russians pulled off a win.
 
The third try turned out super sweet.  Basic premise of that defense was mobile anti armor teams pushed out from the city and in essence, continually ambushed the Russian armor in the hedgerows and trees..  That resulted in a Total Victory and surprisingly minimal casualties for me.  It worked very well, keeping the Russians out of the town (though Russian infantry did make it up to the edge of town)
 
This is an outstanding scenario for learning and perfecting defensive tactics and force placement.  The map is generous enough in size to allow pretty much any defensive plan to be attempted.  
 
The terrain will be a curse to you for long fields of fire, making this for the most part, a close to medium range fight,  Try as I might with different layouts, it is nearly impossible for long range ATGMs shots due to the wooded windbreak lines of trees and the rolling nature of the ground.  The older ATGMs of the Ukrainians are adequate when vehicles are in the open but very nearly miss every time when shot through even a thin row of trees, making most ATGM shot 500 metres of less the norm for this scenario.
 
That said, with small anti-armor teams (RPG-7s) using the terrain to max advantage, one can make the terrain a nightmare for the Russians to push through.
 
I will avoid spoilers but will offer up one very significant piece of advice - Target arcs are your very best friend for this scenario to control your fire and set the engagement ranges when it benefits you.  The Russians are not a overwhelming force but the sheer firepower they have will result in them tearing your forces to pieces at range if your forces engage haphazardly.
 
Finally, a big shout out to Pete Wenman (the designer) for this wonderful scenario.   It is everything a great defensive scenario has to rivet someone like me to play again and again.  It is such a nail biter that 55 minutes seems like an eternity when the Russians bring their firepower to bear on you.  But it is possible to win and win big if your defensive chops are up to the job.

This scenario I have played three times as the Ukrainians, doing three different defense plans.  Two of scenarios ended in brutal street fighting and close quarter battles. 
 
One plan was the fall back to the victory zones in the city, repeatedly ambushing the Russian forces in street to street fighting. That one turned out fairly well in the end with solid victory but the casualties were high (but acceptable in regards to victory conditions) for the Ukrainians.
 
Next, I tried a 'Hold the Line' type of defence.  It went well until the second wave showed up and then I got slammed as the mass firepower of the second way decimate the defenders and the Russians pulled off a win.
 
The third try turned out super sweet.  Basic premise of that defense was mobile anti armor teams pushed out from the city and in essence, continually ambushed the Russian armor in the hedgerows and trees..  That resulted in a Total Victory and surprisingly minimal casualties for me.  It worked very well, keeping the Russians out of the town (though Russian infantry did make it up to the edge of town)
 
This is an outstanding scenario for learning and perfecting defensive tactics and force placement.  The map is generous enough in size to allow pretty much any defensive plan to be attempted.  
 
The terrain will be a curse to you for long fields of fire, making this for the most part, a close to medium range fight,  Try as I might with different layouts, it is nearly impossible for long range ATGMs shots due to the wooded windbreak lines of trees and the rolling nature of the ground.  The older ATGMs of the Ukrainians are adequate when vehicles are in the open but very nearly miss every time when shot through even a thin row of trees, making most ATGM shot 500 metres of less the norm for this scenario.
 
That said, with small anti-armor teams (RPG-7s) using the terrain to max advantage, one can make the terrain a nightmare for the Russians to push through.
 
I will avoid spoilers but will offer up one very significant piece of advice - Target arcs are your very best friend for this scenario to control your fire and set the engagement ranges when it benefits you.  The Russians are not a overwhelming force but the sheer firepower they have will result in them tearing your forces to pieces at range if your forces engage haphazardly.
 
Finally, a big shout out to Pete Wenman (the designer) for this wonderful scenario.   It is everything a great defensive scenario has to rivet someone like me to play again and again.  It is such a nail biter that 55 minutes seems like an eternity when the Russians bring their firepower to bear on you.  But it is possible to win and win big if your defensive chops are up to the job.

I may get around to play this at some point, but I started it and looked the the narrow strip of land the enemy has and thought - Oh no, another one of the scenarios where the world end a few hundred beyond my deployment area.
 
Then I looked that the forces I had to defend this large piece of real estate and deemed them inadequate.
 
I looked at the ammo level and thought - Oh my god, I have to resupply in the middle of a battle.
 
So I complained to my higher headquarters.  I requested to defend forward of the bridges.  Denied.
 
I requested an immediate resupply prior to the enemy's arrival.  Denied.
 
I requested more troops to defend this area.  Even a single M1.  Denied
 
I requested another FAC.  Denied
 
Then I sat for moment and considered if this would be even fun to play.  Given my whimsy at the moment, my brain said 'No'.  
 
The I did what I considered the only winning move.  I hit 'Exit' and then put Pink Floyd's 'When the Tigers Broke Free' on the stereo.
 
Seriously, I might give this one a go at some point but when I looked at the map and rechecked the briefing, I thought this is one scenario I am not in the mood to play today.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.