poesel Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I bought some 120mm mortar units in the QB screen and flagged them as on map. They showed up as off map and so I filed a bug. BFCs answer was that these are heavy mortars and so are never on map. I'm not an expert and got curious. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granatwerfer_42) says that it was used as an infantry support weapon and was monted on a two wheel axle. Not a lightweight at 280kg but probably lighter then some of the guns you CAN move around in CMBN. So wheres the reasoning to only have them off map? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Do you really think this matters? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Maybe they will be made on-map assets later, but for now I would assume their minimum ranges and/or the weight/portability of ammo. How many 120mm rounds would you like to hump across a field? Imagine the size of the ammo bearer teams and/or number of rounds available for on-map 120mm. The on-map 120s would be pricey and have low ammo counts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apa Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 120mm mortars would only be used on map in emergency situations. Most likely something like ambush. I don't think any army was crazy enough to suggest using them as close support weapons. In cross-country terrain the 120mm mortar is practically immobile. And you can't have enough ammo for it, one shell is approximately 10kg. So, from cost-benefit point of view there is little reason to include the 120mm mortar on map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Chuck Norris used to jog around and Shoulder-Fire / Hip-Fire 120mm mortars. But the closest thing that Battle Front has come to modeling Chuck Norris so far are the bailed out AFV crews. .... and they don't quite have what it takes to quickly set up, move and lug around 20-30 rounds of 120mm mortar ammo. But seriously, I think you would need a pretty large map that has in-depth, dug-in defenses to justify having on-map 120mm mortars. ... that or a siege-type situation where you are trying to break some dug-in positions and have plenty of time to go about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 a little off topic but IIRC the Wehrmacht adopted and designed 120mm mortars after initial experiences vs Russian 120mm's in the Ost Front. Correct? How similar are the two designs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It is the same design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Interesting. So the German 120 is a direct copy of the Russian? I wonder why they didnt add any improvements, or anything else. And if they had no problem copying that, I wonder why they didnt say copy T-34s for example.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It's just a big Stokes-Brandt mortar. A tube, plate, bipod and shell. It's hard to improve much on a successful design. Russians started making a new model in 1943, but that was just a further simplification. Tanks are much more complicated machines, reverse engineering one would be so much work that you might as well design your own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'm not an expert and got curious. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granatwerfer_42) says that it was used as an infantry support weapon and was monted on a two wheel axle. Not a lightweight at 280kg but probably lighter then some of the guns you CAN move around in CMBN. Actually, that doesn't include the weight of the carriage - you probably wouldn't want to carry the mortar around. Here is information on the Soviet mortar. Barrel and breech of PM38 weight about 100-kg. Base plate weight about 94-kg and bipod about 62-kg. The weapon had removable transport carriage and limber. During transport the mortar with its transport carriage weight about 490-kg. When also limber was included the weapon + transport carriage + limber with ammunition they reached total weight of 1,150-kg. The firing mechanism of this mortar had settings - one which fired it automatically when mortar shell was dropped to barrel and another setting which allowed firing each shot with trigger (attached to lanyard). Limber of this mortar could contain 20 mortar shells with propellant charges and fuses needed for them. The reason why it's not available as on-map is that it has a maximum range long enough to cover all of the map. Medium mortars have a range of a couple of kilometers, so on larger maps it may be necessary to relocate them to keep up with advancing forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Interesting. So the German 120 is a direct copy of the Russian? I wonder why they didnt add any improvements, or anything else. What revolutionary should have been changed with a simple mortar? And if they had no problem copying that, I wonder why they didnt say copy T-34s for example.. Why copy, if the Panther was the answer to the T34? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The Panther was a direct result of studying T34s. Not so much a copy as a re-invention with German over-engineering and a lousy engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The engine was still an improvement over the T-34s, which IIRC did not even have a decent air filter and would die after a few hundred miles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI Adelscott Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 And if they had no problem copying that, I wonder why they didnt say copy T-34s for example.. ... and german doctrine gave much more importance to the crew's comfort than allied (especially russian) doctrine, so the T-34 was not a design to be directly copied. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ... and german doctrine gave much more importance to the crew's comfort than allied (especially russian) doctrine, so the T-34 was not a design to be directly copied. I find that very hard to believe. Can you quote the relevant parts of German and Soviet doctrines that involve crew comfort? It doesn't even reflect reality, Germans used every captured tank that they could utilize including T-34s, and the Czech LT-38 chassis was turned into a tank destroyer as late as 1944 - and the removal of the turret and fitting of a larger gun didn't make it any bigger inside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I find that very hard to believe. Can you quote the relevant parts of German and Soviet doctrines that involve crew comfort? Forget about doctrines, there are innumerable reports of Allied troops emptying the cocktail cabinets of knocked out Panzers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well, that sorta depends on what you want from an engine. The V-2's power to weight ratio was solid, it was dirt cheap, it could handle nasty fuel, and it dealt with wear by burning (slowly) motor oil. It could start at minus 30, without a battery if necessary, there's this cool air compressor thingie that will boot the engine into motion w/o electricity. (Although to be fair that's the tank not the engine.) The way the Soviets figured it a T-34 engine was good for about 70 - 100 hours of operation with an average of maybe 5 - 10 kph speed. So if you issue a T-34 it's good for 1-2 of those big offensive operations or maybe three to six months of war. Not many T-34s were going to last longer than that, anyway. And if it did then the crew for sure rated a new tank. But yeah, if the definition of a good tank engine was one that operates properly for hundreds of hours, the V-2 was a bad engine. The engine was still an improvement over the T-34s, which IIRC did not even have a decent air filter and would die after a few hundred miles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well yes a mortar is simple in theory. Still, you'd be amazed at all the little improvements that could be made to almost any weapon system over time. It was just a simple question. As far as the T-34/Panther issue - the Germans made wide use of captured T-34s. and were extremely impressed by them. Not only that, but the Panzerschreck began as a copy of the bazooka and then ended up being an improvement. I guess you could say the idea of a bazooka is about as simple as a mortar. But improvements can be made to any design. As far as to the question 'why copy T34s when they had Panthers as the answer' Well Im sure when this issue came up, with T34s in 1941 they didnt immediately say 'Oh dont worry, we have designs for panther tanks that will deal with these.' Im sure they tossed around several ideas about how to deal with this problem, and settled on Panthers, Tigers, etc. It just seemed to me that it may have been simpler to copy T34s.... Probably not in hindsight, but then again maybe it would have been a smarter move than making Panthers, Tigers, Tiger 2s, Elefants, Ferdinands, etc etc etc... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The demand for the construction was to have a tank that was at least as good as the T34. Daimler-Benz and MAN received the jobs for development and the prototype from Daimler looked similiar to a T34, while the MAN prototype was a new construction which contained german experiences from the war and demands. A special commission decided to propose the MAN model: 1. Turret from Daimler-Benz was not complete and could not be expected until Dec. '42 ready for production. The diameter was 5cm smaller then the ready Rheinmetall-turret for the MAN model. 2. The engine of the MAN model was capsulated and allowed underwater driving without much preparations. 3. The drive mechanism of the MAN was judged to be superior. 4. The radius of the MAN was bigger. And a few other things that would have cost more development time for the DB model (diesel engine in the rear, suspension). Not so good seems to have been the hydrostatic turret mechanism that could make it necessary to support the turning with hand, if the tank was standing inclined and the weak side armour, that made additional tanks for flank protection necessary. Among the german veterans the judgement about the Panther was: very high overall combat effectivity, good front armour, good firepower, low ground pressure, a very good suspension and drive mechanism, reasonably fast, best german tank, best medium tank in whole war. Here you can find a quite objective description of the Panther in english: http://tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?_IXFPFX_=templates%2Ffull%2Ftvod%2Ft&_IXACTION_=summary&%3Amus_administration_name=VEH&_IXtext=Panther%20Ausf%20G 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The V-2's power to weight ratio was solid, it was dirt cheap, it could handle nasty fuel, and it dealt with wear by burning (slowly) motor oil. It could start at minus 30, without a battery if necessary, there's this cool air compressor thingie that will boot the engine into motion w/o electricity. (Although to be fair that's the tank not the engine.) US engineers at Aberdeen who tested a T-34 rated the starter as poor and noted that the engine dealt with wear by gradually losing compression until failure. Granted, it was a 1941 model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 US engineers at Aberdeen who tested a T-34 rated the starter as poor and noted that the engine dealt with wear by gradually losing compression until failure. Granted, it was a 1941 model. As noted by others, what counts as good and bad are what your design goals were. An issue of gradual failure to the Soviets was likely not an issue. The catastrophic loss of the tank would obviate the gradual breakdown of any component. Considering what everyone else was fielding in 1941, the T34 was THE act to follow. At that point in the war the Soviets design teams were less likely worried about the gradual component issues as they were losing armor so fast they'd have never noticed. Their issues were more about how to field them than how to design them. The Germans on the other hand were just realizing how far behind they were in design and only made up for it by superior understanding of how to use what they had. It is interesting to see how the various combatants designed around their own view of how to employ for better or worse and then whether they met their own goals in their design. I'd have to say I think that the Soviets won that competition hands down even if I don't really like their model for overall design (not the vehicles, but the how they were employed). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chek Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The T-34 changed everything. Sure it had it's faults but it was a very sound and simple design and in 1940/41 was way ahead of everything else. From then on it was the tank to beat and although the Germans easily did this one for one they didn't come close in quantity. It may not be the best tank but it is the greatest. ...wasn't there a question somewhere about a mortar! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I'm sure the Aberdeen engineers were dead on, a known failing of the V-2 was "inefficient sealing rings". I'm not an expert but I've had a mechanic (they still use these engines in some Russian trucks) explain to me it has to do with the higher-than-normal design pressures for a diesel that size, which gave more horsepower for weight. FWIW. In any case a a Soviet tank designer might very well say: "Why do we need a reliable battery/electric starter for the engine, when there is the air compressor thingie in there already. Either it's a low-stress start and it starts, or it's a high-stress start and you have the compressor. And in any case (thinking Soviet here) there's no such thing as a T-34 operating on its own, therefore, there is always some one to give you a jump. Not that any of that makes the engine any "better". It is interesting to note that the 1941-era T-34s were considered much better machined and finished than late-war T-34s; this due to a conscious decision to simplify and cheapen production. Probably engines went that route too. I have read that actual engine life on T-34s actually improved substantially (1.5 - 2.0 times expected), this due primarily to better-trained crews. Although I bet driving in Europe as opposed to the SU had something to do with it too. They had a pretty good version of the 120mm mortar, just to stay on thread. US engineers at Aberdeen who tested a T-34 rated the starter as poor and noted that the engine dealt with wear by gradually losing compression until failure. Granted, it was a 1941 model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 And if anyone wants to know what an incoming 120mm mortar round sounds like (or is under the misapprehension that it makes no sound at all until it explodes), here is a YouTube clip from the rebel city of Homs, Syria, posted today.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHGc_yJJC4 EDIT: Never mind, it's a 122mm artillery round fired by these bastards. My mistake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhkW78idP4c&feature=related 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI Adelscott Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I find that very hard to believe. Can you quote the relevant parts of German and Soviet doctrines that involve crew comfort? It doesn't even reflect reality, Germans used every captured tank that they could utilize including T-34s, and the Czech LT-38 chassis was turned into a tank destroyer as late as 1944 - and the removal of the turret and fitting of a larger gun didn't make it any bigger inside. Using a captured enemy tank is not a strategic decision, however, to decide a certain space for the crew of a tank in every single tank design it is. Using captured enemy tanks due to shortage of resources its an strategic decision but, in such case, we are not talking about own designs. Anyway, as Im not an english speaker probably the word "doctrine" isn't appropiatte. I'll try to quote you some text about that. By the way i recommend you "Tank men" by Robert Kershaw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.