thejetset Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Hi all. I was wondering if someone could verify this with real-life WWII tactics?? I've noticed that the 2" mortar seems to be a lot less accurate than the US counterpart (60mm mortar) at ranges over 200m. Actually, it is less accurate at all ranges ... but >200 seems to be the real breaking point. Therefore, I've found that my Commonwealth tactics have evolved into keeping the 2" mortar team much more integrated with the platoon. With the US forces, I usually have the 60mm mortar team fairly back in depth. They can lob rounds over the front line or even go indirect if necessary with their platoon or company commanders. Even with the 1.10 patch, 60mm rounds at 500+ meter range are still accurate enough to nail about any soft target after a few shots. With the CW forces, things seem to be different. I've found that you really need to get the range down below 200 or 250 meters to have a decent shot at neutralizing the soft target with those 12 HE rounds. (nothing worse than THINKING you KO'd a HMG or field-gun behind a hedgerow and finding out that ... "oops ... not quite" when advancing the platoon forward.) Therefore, I've found that I play CW platoon level tactics by keeping the 2"mortar team right in together with my Base of Fire. (the guys with the Brens). ... or at the very most a couple of meters behind them. Small difference, but it makes for some pretty distinct tactical differences between the way the US forces and CW forces are played. That and the rifle firepower (M1 vs. Enfield) output difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Therefore, I've found that I play CW platoon level tactics by keeping the 2"mortar team right in together with my Base of Fire. (the guys with the Brens). ... or at the very most a couple of meters behind them. That sounds pretty historical to me. I tend to think of the 2" mortar as being more closely related to today's grenade launcher than to a conventional Stoke's mortar. Which is not to say that it was not a very useful weapon. For instance, its ability to fire rounds almost horizontally meant that they could be put through windows or other openings in walls, a feat that the 60 mm would have been hard put to emulate. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 For instance, its ability to fire rounds almost horizontally meant that they could be put through windows or other openings in walls, a feat that the 60 mm would have been hard put to emulate. Michael I think BF needs to model the 60mm tactics shown in this video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdbMpLHE8ww&feature=related 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Great video... our tax dollars at work lol. Now I understand why we're not doing too well in Af'stan. 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.