81mm mortar dispersion

[poesel]

Ok, one excursion into german semantics and then I'll shut up.

If 'Lüfterl' is common to you I guess that puts your location somehwere close to the austrian or swiss border. I've never heard anyone use it.

'Mir ist da ein Lüftchen entfleucht' is probably the nicest way to circumscribe that you have been farting and apologize (somehow). How that is pornographic or disgusting is beyond me.

And finally for the 'correct' descriptions for windspeeds you can of course take a look at the wikipedia (although similar descriprions can be found everywhere): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufortskala (scroll down to: 'Beaufort-Skala nach phänomenologischen Kriterien'). So 'Lüftchen' would rather be 'leiser Zug' or more common 'leichte Brise'.

What I find more interesting (and somehow surprising it got no more attention here) is that there seems to be a difference in accuracy between the US and DR mortars! I'm no expert but from all I read here is that that shouldn't be the case technically. So is this a glitch or a deliberate decision by BFC?

[YankeeDog]

What I find more interesting (and somehow surprising it got no more attention here) is that there seems to be a difference in accuracy between the US and DR mortars! I'm no expert but from all I read here is that that shouldn't be the case technically. So is this a glitch or a deliberate decision by BFC?

To know for sure, we would need the actual detailed error probable statistics for the U.S. M1 81mm mortar, and the German 81mm Granatwerfer 42. Right now, we have neither and so are just speculating. While I also find the difference shown in these tests a bit surprising, the two weapons are not identical and it is possible that there is a measurable difference in accuracy between the two at certain ranges.

Ordnance might also make a difference; I don't know what, if any, significant differences there were between U.S. and German mortar shell designs, but if there were any differences, these could certainly affect accuracy.

I definitely don't have any detailed info on the German 81mm, but I *might* have detailed error probable stats on the U.S. 81mm. New computer should arrive tomorrow or Thursday, and once I get it set up, I'll dig through archives and old saved links, to see what I can find.

[JonS]

I guess that puts your location somewhere close to the austrian or swiss border.

Poesel, you mentioned that it's old fashioned. Taking that together with Steiner's past posting history probably puts him closer to Berlin in 1939 than the Austrian/Swiss border area

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Poesel, you mentioned that it's old fashioned. Taking that together with Steiner's past posting history probably puts him closer to Berlin in 1939 than the Austrian/Swiss border area

Nah... I would have thought more like Argentina in 1949.

Regards

KR

[Black Jack Pershing III]

Poesel, you mentioned that it's old fashioned. Taking that together with Steiner's past posting history probably puts him closer to Berlin in 1939 than the Austrian/Swiss border area

You wins the internets on that one

[Steiner14]

Ok, one excursion into german semantics and then I'll shut up.

If 'Lüfterl' is common to you I guess that puts your location somehwere close to the austrian or swiss border. I've never heard anyone use it.

'Mir ist da ein Lüftchen entfleucht' is probably the nicest way to circumscribe that you have been farting and apologize (somehow). How that is pornographic or disgusting is beyond me.

Because

1. As i have explained already, it is a misuse of words to use them in vulgar connections.

2. Flatulences have nothing to do with mortars or wind conditions.

3. I don't know where you are coming from, but where i live nobody is talking about his flatulences.

4. "Wind" or "Winde" is used by medicals for flatulences, too. Just like in English. Should the word therefore primarily bee seen in that connection?

Your statement about the word "Lüftchen" was plain and simple wrong.

It has been shown in this thread that the mortars are not working realistically while all the fanbois and "experts" were not even recognizing that by playing the game. I offered BFC how a simple mathematical solution could look like but since the response to this problem of modelling artillery is zero anyway, i will not participate to destroy this informative thread. So i leave it to the well known "experts" of this forum, who haven't contributed to nail down the problem but who are passionate defenders of vulgarity.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Truth be known, I too am very interested in why there's such a discrepancy between the apparent accuracy of American 81mm mortar fire compared with German 81mm mortar fire. Just to ensure a potential variable is removed from the 2 posted dispersion patters, was the extent of the wind definitely set to the same level in both examples?

Regards

KR

[Holien]

It has been shown in this thread that the mortars are not working realistically while all the fanbois and "experts" were not even recognizing that by playing the game. I offered BFC how a simple mathematical solution could look like but since the response to this problem of modelling artillery is zero anyway, i will not participate to destroy this informative thread. So i leave it to the well known "experts" of this forum, who haven't contributed to nail down the problem but who are passionate defenders of vulgarity.

Steiner the work done by different posters in this thread is excellent and I do hope we get some official comment on the accuracy of mortars? Pity no-one official has chimed in saying if they think there is an issue? There is a lot of good will being shown by some very dedicated gamers to getting it right and just a little official input would not go amiss...

So don't give up and thanks to everyone who has posted useful info as I am never ceased to be amazed by peoples knowledge.

[poesel]

So I did the test again. Now side by side (divided by the usual wall), wind set to none. The US had 100 shots (2 teams), DR 112 (4 teams) @850m.

Shooting is from the LEFT this time.

DR:

US:

Looks more even now. Still the US pattern is a bit tighter.

If anyone is interested, the scenario is here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/Moersertest_04_2lanes.btt

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm looking at the various craters and to my untrained eye the dispersion appears to be about 50% more tightly grouped for the American mortar vs the German one. That's how I see it anyway.

Regards

KR

[c3k]

... There is a lot of good will being shown by some very dedicated gamers to getting it right and just a little official input would not go amiss...

Well, there is an unofficial eye on this thread.

Keep it going...

Ken

[poesel]

Another test - same setup. But this time with three different ranges: 450m, 850m and 1250m to see how range comes into play. Shooting is from the left.

There should be an average of 100(US)/112(DR) shots per range but since they share they ammo the closer ranges get some more shots as ranging goes faster. Have to put them in different platoons next time.

One slight weird incident was that some of the german mortar crews started to shoot their rifles at the 450m target and they were NOT the ammo bearers which had no orders to shoot at all. I consider that a bug as they give away their position for some meek rifle fire.

I'll start with the most surprising result:

DR@450m:

US@450m:

?!? - the same zoomed a bit more:

The drill sergeants dream but not what I expected. I'm not sure what the probabilities are for such a result with 100 shots but that looks just plain wrong. Theres so many craters in the same place you can't count them anymore.

For completeness and because it was already done the 850m targets:

DR:

US:

Still the US is much tighter than the DR.

It would be quite nice if BFC could state something if that is a bug or deliberate.

[poesel]

And the 1250m range in this post because of the 5 picture limit:

DR:

US:

Again the US is slightly better.

[DavidFields]

Looking at the US 450m spread: Why? What caused this result? I had thought that this was just a CMSF porting into WW2 issue. But would even a modern pattern look like that?

I didn't play CMSF, so now I have to make a conjecture: that mortars in Modern Warfare have a diminished role compared to WW2, and thus any issues with them were less noticeable?

And the dispersion at 850m, about 1/2 mile for us internationally metric impaired Americans, seems too tight, and quanta-ish. In other words, the misses seem clustered in a ring in a circle about 16 meters out. Though the DR distribution seems less tight, it appears the US have only 1 shell falling in the center ring, while the DR has about 4. In other words, out of a 100 shells, it looks like the US has only one "kill" if there were a specific unit targeted. The second green ring has a lot more hits than the closer first brown one.

Granting that BFC has smart people, is there some massaging of the impact distribution to get a more realistic result than one would have given a player's "bird's eye" advantage?

If so, I still think the 450m results for the US still needs a rethink.

[akd]

Looking at the US 450m spread: Why? What caused this result? I had thought that this was just a CMSF porting into WW2 issue. But would even a modern pattern look like that?

I didn't play CMSF, so now I have to make a conjecture: that mortars in Modern Warfare have a diminished role compared to WW2, and thus any issues with them were less noticeable?

CMSF does not have on-map mortars.

[SlowMotion]

British units *do* have on-map mortars in CMSF.

[akd]

The handheld, direct-lay only 51mm mortar? Obviously on-map 60/81mm mortars are not a "port" of this from CMSF as it is functionally very different.

[SlowMotion]

Yes, that's the only model I can remember.

[DavidFields]

CMSF does not have on-map mortars.

Interesting. So, even conceptually, the WW2 battlefield was very different than modern warfare.

Though this is a thread on the accuracy of 81mm mortars, my concern is more with the use of the 60mm mortar.

My envisioning of a MG team or squad coming under 60mm fire is that they.....would move. Say, 50-100m away. For the mortar team, that would be mission accomplished.

Indeed, to keep up the suppression, scattering fire was not a bad thing--it would keep the enemy guessing as to where it was safe to position.

On the other hand, scattering mortar fire made the idea of the the target MG or squad "going to ground", in a foxhole/trench/under cover, a possible maneuver (which would still achieve the objective of suppression)--or even potentially staying in place and chancing to fire at the enemy and enemy spotter.

This rock/paper/scissors calculation is how I see the small mortars tactically used in WW2, not the "precision HE ordinance delivery system" now sometimes seen with the mortars in CMBN (I can't even get myself to use the mortars in a direct fire mode, except in some emergency.)

Can I point to a specific passage in a book with regard to this? No. You've got me there. But it is sort of like explaining that before cell phones, one had to precisely, in advance, decide where and when one was going to meet someone, and remember that data, and that watches in WW2 could be innacurate by minutes (or an hour) or not even worn by some soldiers. There seems to me a preciseness to the small mortar use that feels anachronistic.

[edit: did 60mm mortar crews even usually have good maps? Or just hand-drawn maps, not to scale, with the spotter sticking his head up, 6 inches above the ground--in active combat, how long are you going to keep your head stuck out like that--estimating distance. And that team is going to try to get their rounds to land within 8 meters of some point?--much less some diagonal linear target. Maybe they can get the shells to go in the right direction. But range, accounting for different elevations and wind speeds, when your baseplate is likely not even sitting on something flat and stable? I am seeing an oval parallel to the axis to the target, with substantial scatter, even if "on target"--suppressive fire, with the threat, of course of killing things--that is why it is suppressive.]

[akd]

Another test - same setup. But this time with three different ranges: 450m, 850m and 1250m to see how range comes into play. Shooting is from the left.

There should be an average of 100(US)/112(DR) shots per range but since they share they ammo the closer ranges get some more shots as ranging goes faster. Have to put them in different platoons next time.

One slight weird incident was that some of the german mortar crews started to shoot their rifles at the 450m target and they were NOT the ammo bearers which had no orders to shoot at all. I consider that a bug as they give away their position for some meek rifle fire.

I'll start with the most surprising result:

DR@450m:

US@450m:

?!? - the same zoomed a bit more:

That would appear to be a bug. Will be reported once I confirm.

It would be quite nice if BFC could state something if that is a bug or deliberate.

On the US v. DR comparison more generally, I suspect dispersion is a percentage of max range, so with different max ranges I would expect the US (3000m) and German (2400m) mortars to show some divergence in dispersion if compared at the same range.

[poesel]

That would appear to be a bug. Will be reported once I confirm.

On the US v. DR comparison more generally, I suspect dispersion is a percentage of max range, so with different max ranges I would expect the US (3000m) and German (2400m) mortars to show some divergence in dispersion if compared at the same range.

I've ran the test again to rule out a freak outcome but had the same result.

The savegame is here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/M%C3%B6rsertest%20450%20850%201250.bts

About the different range: I understand that mathematically but range is just (I guess) a functioning of the amount of explosives used for propulsion. But would a bigger charge lead to more accuracy? I would argue against that. Bigger charge means longer flight time and thus more inaccuracy.

All else being equal the mortar with the shorter range should be more accurate.

[Killkess]

Longest flight time for a given charge will accure if you shot straight up. So a medium range target with charge #2 will well hit the ground before you hit a close target with charge #2 or maybe even with charge #1.

Another point is the velocity of the projectile. The faster the projectile travels the less it is exposed/reacts to wind, pressure changes and so on.

BTW i am not arguing that long range shots should be more accurate, i just want to share thoughts.

[SlowMotion]

I'm continuing this thread because I don't want to do it in Commonwealth videos thread (I think it's great to get the module).

If you look at what happens in the video released yesterday (British mortar starts firing at a Marder and gets a perfect hit with first shell), how likely would that be? Did they really have range estimation equipment so accurate that a mortar team could get their *first* shell land exactly to correct place?

[Pandur]

Indirect fire in CMBN seems to be far from the "simulation" the game advertises, yesterday i learned through another thread that even the 14" BB is included in "urban sniper" version, with hellish accuracy, i find out more about that when my current editor project progresses.

however only from the video we(at least i) can not say "if" this was indeed the first shot of the mortar in the video. even after a few shots the pattern is too tight, but if it would be realy the first shot we have seen it way wrong for sure.

[Pandur]

sry for double post;

However, point is there seems to be a plan behind the madness. the betas cant call this good in my eyes, BFC would need to actively ignore them or give them a reason for the gamey accuracy as they still bound by NDA. we know nothing of all that but just see a whole branch of weapons(indirect ones)beeing mostly off to what would have been expected from them in RL, and it looks odd and one can not see a obviouse reason, however i belive there is one we dont know otherwhise this stiking mistake would have been corrected since long in my eyes.