Cray effective direct fire 60mm mortars under AI!!

[Javaslinger]

So I have a little 60 doing to some short harassing fire... Of course just as it ended the enemy is hammering me with a couple MG's behind a wall and some advancing halftracks...

Suddenly I notice that my mortar has not stopped fire and in a turn hammers the line of MG's and next turn devastatingly lands a couple mortar rounds directly on the halftrack!

I have really never used mortars other than as indirect fire weapons and was used to a 3 min minimum delay switching targets. They seem to be quite effective switching targets and being VERY accurate under their own control given good LOS.

Of course normally they would be very exposed for this kind of action but in this case they were in a trench....

[poesel]

Mortars in direct fire have always been accurate and deadly. If you don't give them a covered arc they will hammer away at anything they see until ammo runs out. Which will be very soon...

[eltorrente]

I much prefer using direct fire rather than indirect for mortars. I usually have a mortar section attached to each platoon, and have them follow along wherever they go. If I can afford it, I like to make them "crack", high motivation, and +1 so they don't necessarily need to be in command all the time to be effective.

When I'm getting into position, I have them slow crawl into position and hide, and when the platoon engages I open up with the mortars, too. As long as they aren't right on the front lines, they are usually fine. Best to use target light to conserve ammo since they don't carry much if they are an independant section without ammo bearers.

I'm in a medium battle pbem right now that is soon to be over, and my 81mm mortars seem to have pretty much won the game for me. With a good LOS from a decent distance back, everytime I saw a squad start appearing on the other side of a hedgerow or moving through a forest, they'd get mortars raining down on them.

[Steiner14]

Mortars in direct fire have always been accurate and deadly.

I doubt there is much of a difference because the dispersion pattern doesn't change with the fire guiding role.

[tdogg]

Most casualties I get when playing against ai are from 60mm mortars, deadly.

[poesel]

I doubt there is much of a difference because the dispersion pattern doesn't change with the fire guiding role.

It doesn't and I didn't say it would. Direct fire is always point target - hence my notion of accuracy.

[ZPB II]

I remember reading that the (vast?) majority of casualties were caused by artillery and especially mortars. Any grognard with some estimates?

Even though mortar crews were always laughed at, I know for sure I wouldn't want to test it out.

Can't have enough of them in quick battles.

[snake_eye]

Effective enemy mortars and AT guns fire! In the 3rd Conrath’s campaign battle, despite all my precaution my only FO was put out of action just when the heavies were about to fire for effect. So they stopped firing. The squad leaders trying to take the relay had a hard time either. The result I got my assault schemes completely written off and I was unable to move without loosing my remaining tanks, while sustaining awful loses.

I was dumfounded to see how quickly the mortars had found my artillery observers. The AT did a good job either, but the mortars never the less did almost all of it. Pretty good AI

A thumb up for that campaign

[Destraex1]

My last direct fire italian crew took 43 enemy out on their own!

[Sakai007]

In CMBN I use my 60s with the line infantry only, it's a waste of time and energy to use them for indirect in most cases. Note I didn't say all the time, there are times indirect is preferred with light mortars, but for my style of fighting they are few and far between.

With US forces in particular, an infantry company either has 1x 60mm team assigned to each rifle platoon, or 3x 60mm in the weapons platoon. The Airborne has them with the rifle platoons as well afaik. To me this is a clear indicator as to how the weapon should be used, as the TOE is generally designed around making it easier to manage the assets tactical doctrine calls for.

In the HBO series 'The Pacific' 60mm mortar crews figure prominently in just about every episode. They are generally right behind the lead elements of their company on the advance. When the advance gets slowed down my enemy fire, the crews set up a few yards behind the lead unit and provide direct fire. This fire is generally guided by their platoon leader, who is in turn directed by the Company CO or assigns targets of opportunity as they appear. This is exactly how I try to run my 60's in CMBN. The British 2" mortar operates in the exact same way, and their TO&E makes their use clear to me as well. I do love the 60 for it's punch compared to rifle grenades. Even the 2" is a little on the weak side it seems, as I don't deal nearly as many casualties with those as I do the 60s.

I see that in CMFI the Italians have the 45mm, and it's awesome that the axis forces now have a light mortar modeled in game. I am personally at a loss as to why the german 50mm 'knee mortar' hasn't made it's way into CMBN or CMFI. I was under the impression that they were very plentiful and found with German forces on every front up till the end of the war. Is this impression incorrect? The 8cm mortar they have now is an awesome weapon, but it's heavy and tires troops much faster then weapons like the 2". It seems like it's size also makes it much harder to bring into LOS of an enemy target without getting them spotted and killed. I don't even attempt to bring any of the medium mortars in game up to the front, they are used indirect only, being on the defensive is the only exception.

LoL, this forum is such a tease for me, as I want CMFI more then anything right now and I am going to have to wait. I promise Santa, I will be a good boy all year if you get me CMFI early!

[YankeeDog]

I am personally at a loss as to why the german 50mm 'knee mortar' hasn't made it's way into CMBN or CMFI. I was under the impression that they were very plentiful and found with German forces on every front up till the end of the war. Is this impression incorrect?

I have never heard of a German 50mm "knee mortar". There was a Japanese disposable "knee mortar" that was widely used in the PTO, but AFAIK a weapon of this design was never adopted on any large scale by Germany or any other combatant in Europe or the Med. (Parenthetically, it wasn't actually fired from the knee -- this was a mistaken impression based upon the weapon's curved baseplate, which looked like it was designed to fit over your thigh. It was actually designed to be braced on the ground when fired; bracing it on your leg would probably break your femur. Apparently, more than a few American G.I.s discovered this the hard way).

The Germans did have a 50mm mortar design in wide deployment at the beginning of the war, but it was a conventional Stokes-type mortar, not a "knee mortar." IIRC, the Germans phased out the 50mm in favor of adding more 81mms to their TOEs because the German 50mm design specifically was rather complex and heavy. Therefore, it was felt that carrying it wasn't worth the effort considering small shell and limited range. I'd have to double-check, but my best recollection is that by mid-1943 the German 50mm mortars had pretty much disappeared from all but a few 2nd line units.

In comparison to the German design, the British 50mm is extremely simple and very lightweight, probably explains why it was better liked and had a much longer service life.

[Paper Tiger]

Here's a fine example of the 60mm onboard mortar's lethality. One single US mortar team has just single-handedly broken an entire German battalion under AI control

[womble]

I am personally at a loss as to why the german 50mm 'knee mortar' hasn't made it's way into CMBN or CMFI...

The German 50mm wasn't as useful as the British trench mortar. It was heavier and didn't hit as hard. By the time of Normandy, it had been relegated to second-class units. I have no idea how common they were in Italy.

Edit: Tip for the day - pay attention to how many pages a thread has...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Here's a fine example of the 60mm onboard mortar's lethality. One single US mortar team has just single-handedly broken an entire German battalion under AI control

Interesting. I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous! This sort of result tells me that the effectiveness of light mortars is still way too high and that further tweaking is needed to tone them down. Wiping out over 90 troops with a single light mortar is absurd.

Regards

KR

[womble]

Interesting. I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous! This sort of result tells me that the effectiveness of light mortars is still way too high and that further tweaking is needed to tone them down. Wiping out over 90 troops with a single light mortar is absurd.

Regards

KR

Actually, it's more likely that the AI routines are to blame. If the plan (or its particular instantiation) called for a battalion's worth of troops to maneuver through a small gap, on foot, without fire support, and a light mortar got LOS on that gap before the movement began, it's entirely reasonable for nearly 50 bombs to kill that many moving (or even cowering) troops. The AI will run gropos into the hairiest of bombardments. The first elements will be pinned and then killed as the following elements attract more fire. Fewer cowering troops per squad will be killed per bomb than the arriving moving troops (which will then be pinned and eventually killed).

It's not the mortars that are overmodelled, it's the AI that can be induced to do daft things. Though if that 93 was by plinking at various separated targets, rather than ann unfortunate "human wave", it's rather good going.

[ZPB II]

Interesting. I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous! This sort of result tells me that the effectiveness of light mortars is still way too high and that further tweaking is needed to tone them down. Wiping out over 90 troops with a single light mortar is absurd.

Regards

KR

It's not absurd, it's just that the AI is not very good at avoiding bunching up. If you fire 40 x 60mm rounds into a crowded market... I've had tanks or mortars rack up three digit stats when the AI deploys an entire battalion into a 100x100m square. I've been running tests where I'm trying to get a Tiger with over 1000 casualties...

[Paper Tiger]

Though if that 93 was by plinking at various separated targets, rather than ann unfortunate "human wave", it's rather good going.

Yup, that's what happened. No constricting terrain on that map. The mortar team picked its targets, hit them until they dropped out of LoS and then moved onto another. That's what made me take the screenshot. I couldn't believe what that mortar team was doing to the AI.

[womble]

There must've been a lot of static/slow moving targets about then. With a minimum (?) of 2 shots to find the range, and what? 3? to make the krauts kiss dirt/exeunt stage left, pursued by shrapnel/die horribly, that's about 10 missions, with 3 cas per 'effect' round, on average. And that's assuming no 'waste' past the "over and under" rounds. Or did it go different? They were veterans, so "effective" should be their middle name...

[Redwolf]

I remember reading that the (vast?) majority of casualties were caused by artillery and especially mortars. Any grognard with some estimates?

Yeah but not 60mm mortars, much less direct fire.

And there are a lot of those casualties that are outside an immediate firefight.

BTW, I see no reason why "direct" fire should be better than a nearby spotter. In both case the person turning the wheels on the mortar doesn't have eyes on target, either way there is a dude with binoculars giving the guy with the cranks instructions. Seems very artificial.

[ZPB II]

I'm not 100% following that logic. Doesn't that mean larger caliber artillery caused casualties behind the lines whereas smaller, more responsive fire caused casualties in the frontline?

If the spotter stands next to you, the response time is marginal and thus you gain accuracy faster. Having to wait for instructions over the radio net is cumbersome.

I haven't tested if there's an inherent accuracy modifier regarding direct/indirect.

[ZPB II]

Sorry to hijack a bit, but this is to illustrate a point. Not to mention I think it's a smashing screenshot. The casualty figure is way out of wack, but it's possible in the game. But I'm not saying the game is broken.

[Boche]

that many casualties with that much ammo to spare?

[ZPB II]

I meticulously placed 3 battalions of Blackshirts into roughly three action spots... Imagine firing HE into a parade line.

It was a 30 minute scenario with 26:54 still remaining on the clock.

And yes, my computer was nearing the critical meltdown point.

The number was pure coincidence, especially considering it was my first time running this battle.

[Boche]

I suppose makes more sense jajaja

[Dadekster88]

I think equating casualty numbers with various weapon systems in a simulation game versus the AI and trying to draw real world numbers out of it is a waste of time imo. I believe the weapons sytems in the game are as good as BF can make them (tinkering aside) but unless either the AI or a live opponent uses real world counter action to them you're just going to get skewed results as some have posted in examples here. It just shows the limitations of what the AI are if it has to free wheel a game plan under fire. Most players would not attempt to shove a 3rd platoon down a known mortar killzone when the first two just got chewed up, but the AI just might. It should sim the Russians just fine in that case with wave tactics.