Cray effective direct fire 60mm mortars under AI!!

[eltorrente]

Yup, the examples against the AI are pretty silly. I'm happy getting only 10 kills with a mortar section because it means it was causing lots of suppression and putting a serious hurt on a squad or two.

[Redwolf]

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?

I said "firefight", not "frontline". It's not a matter of frontline or not.

The casualties from indirect fire being higher than direct fire are a matter of statistics resulting from how little time soldiers spend in actual firefights, and how much total time they spend in artillery range. Harassing fire was pretty much a way of life over extended periods in most theaters. Even ammo shortages on part of the other side doesn't stop it since they don't want to betray the fact that ammo is low, so they ration things to be able to always fire something.

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 don't believe that. Can you be more specific?

There are some mortar jockeys that actually fired mortars on their own like a sniper rifle, but that's like 2 guys per theater. "The coldest winter" has an account of that. But that isn't relevant to a CM style battle.

But the observer right next to the weapon or behind a radio? Nah. What's he gonna say except left, right, drop and add?

[Sgt Joch]

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.

IIRC, based on a British survey in late 1944, two-thirds of all CW casualties in NWE were caused by artillery/mortar and about 10% of those were "friendly fire"(i.e. leaning into a barrage too closely ), only about 10% of total casualties were from firearms.

[Steiner14]

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.

The 50 mm version was abandoned because it was simply ineffective. A simple matter of the small amount of explosive material and not because of construction.

If a 60mm mortar in reality would have been that effective, not only the Germans, but also the US and also the Soviets would have not wasted huge resources on the bigger calibres, if the simple solution against every dug in enemy would have been a 60mm mortar.

IMO the mortar effeciency still is not correct.

Although i haven't made recent tests, but the dispersion pattern seems to be way to focused again in the longitudinal direction.

When it comes to statistical numbers the casualty numbers caused by artillery/mortars must also be seen in relation to the used amount of ammunition and weaponry of the category: To my knowledge the heavy artillery and it's barrages were the ones that counted for the number of casualties (and often enough the heaviest barrage was not sufficient to break defenses) but not the squeaky little calibres.

[eltorrente]

I don't know.. I find the 60mm mortars in PBEMs to be not very effective against me. I usually play the Germans, and very often mortars land right next to my guys and don't cause any damage - unless they're moving and not laying down. Yeah, they'll get nervous, but rarely are my squads destroyed or routed.

If spotting rounds come in and I can't run to safety, I just hide and wait it out. The real losses occur when they hit trees above my men, or of course, land right on a group of guys. Sure, it causes some losses, but nothing like what I see talked about here.

Their real effect against me is to cause me to stop firing and slow down my advance, or evacuate the area temporarily if I can.

The pic that a poster showed with 93 casualties from 60mm is just plain ridiculous, and it isn't gonna happen against a human.

[kulik]

My question is: "Was CM1 utterly wrong?" (I remember the rule of thumb regarding arty in CM 1 that everything under 100 mm pins with small casualties as a bonus.)

[Redwolf]

My question is: "Was CM1 utterly wrong?" (I remember the rule of thumb regarding arty in CM 1 that everything under 100 mm pins with small casualties as a bonus.)

The big difference in mortars against defending infantry between CMx1 and CMx2 is abstracted cover versus mostly-3D cover.

[womble]

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...

That's not how I see the mortars used in direct fire. They're shooting over 'open sights'.

The 50 mm version was abandoned because it was simply ineffective. A simple matter of the small amount of explosive material and not because of construction.

Aye. Partly because of cube law and partly because of better design, the 60mm US shell carried, IIRC (can't find the reference), about twice the explosive filler of the 50mm German mortar. The British 50mm mortar was much lighter and handier than the German one, so its smaller (than the 60mm) warhead effect was bearable for the burden and better than other HE-chuckers available to infantry.

If a 60mm mortar in reality would have been that effective, not only the Germans, but also the US and also the Soviets would have not wasted huge resources on the bigger calibres, if the simple solution against every dug in enemy would have been a 60mm mortar.

I don't think anyone's touting 93 kills per ammo load for a dug-in enemy in foxholes and trenches. Paper Tiger's shoot sounds like an open field encounter where the AI failed to deal with a threat.

Although i haven't made recent tests, but the dispersion pattern seems to be way to focused again in the longitudinal direction.

Maybe it's time for more tests.

[ZPB II]

Can you be more specific?

There are other people on the radio net. You need to follow procedure and there's traffic...Sometimes you have to wait, sometimes the comms black out. Everything needs to be double checked.

It's much easier and faster when the guy is standing next to you.

[Redwolf]

Applies to both of you:

There are other people on the radio net. You need to follow procedure and there's traffic...Sometimes you have to wait, sometimes the comms black out. Everything needs to be double checked.

It's much easier and faster when the guy is standing next to you.

That's not how I see the mortars used in direct fire. They're shooting over 'open sights'.

Then why can't we set up the mortar teams "hull-down" with their own squad's spotter looking over the edge of a terrain feature (or around a house corner), simulating hand signals or yelling and get the same efficiency as direct fire?

[ZPB II]

Applies to both of you:

Then why can't we set up the mortar teams "hull-down" with their own squad's spotter looking over the edge of a terrain feature (or around a house corner), simulating hand signals or yelling and get the same efficiency as direct fire?

I'm guessing it has something to do with the finite nature of time and money. This would be an excellent feature, no doubt.

[Redwolf]

I'm guessing it has something to do with the finite nature of time and money. This would be an excellent feature, no doubt.

Well I doubt that simply making 60mm less death ray like would require a lot of money and time.

If the thing was as effective as it is in the game why bother with anything else?

[ZPB II]

Well I doubt that simply making 60mm less death ray like would require a lot of money and time.

If the thing was as effective as it is in the game why bother with anything else?

Less hyperbole, please. I already proved that the Tiger I is the ultimate death ray using flawless forum logic.

Yesterday I played a TCP/IP battle where my opponent had my Italians in his 60mm mortars sights for most of the battle. I suffered 5 casualties from them.

Mortars are extremely effective but they do not win battles by themselves. Not in real life, not in Combat Mission.

[John Kettler]

Steiner14,

The 5 GrW 36 was phased out not just because of poor lethality, but because it was complicated and expensive to build, also range deficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_cm_Granatwerfer_36

It's replacement was the "Stummel" ("Stump") Kz 8 cm GrW 42, a shortened standard German mortar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kz_8_cm_GrW_42

Regards,

John Kettler

[Paper Tiger]

Mortars are extremely effective but they do not win battles by themselves. Not in real life, not in Combat Mission.

Funnily enough, that was the entire point of my screenshot/post. They can! One 60mm mortar v an entire German Battalion in the open = Dead German Battalion

Yesterday I played a TCP/IP battle where my opponent had my Italians in his 60mm mortars sights for most of the battle. I suffered 5 casualties from them.

This is NOT an issue for H2H/PBEM players as they can move their units around when the first round falls. The Tac AI cannot do this... ever.

[Steiner14]

I don't think anyone's touting 93 kills per ammo load for a dug-in enemy in foxholes and trenches. Paper Tiger's shoot sounds like an open field encounter where the AI failed to deal with a threat.

I wasn't referring to this Chuck Norris-unit but only from my personal experience from the few scenarios in CMFI i have played so far as US. Every gun, even entrenched, seems to be toast within less than a minute. One grenade after the other directly into the trench. They seem to turn trenches from a protective tool into an explosion chamber.

[Michael Emrys]

Funnily enough, that was the entire point of my screenshot/post. They can! One 60mm mortar v an entire German Battalion in the open = Dead German Battalion

Well, y'know 93 guys is only about an ninth of a full strength battalion, give or take a bit. In fact, it isn't quite a full strength company. That's still a lot of guys in this situation; no need to exaggerate.

Michael

[Paper Tiger]

Nope. Not exaggerating. It's a Luftwaffe battalion. I should check the headcount but it is a battalion. It is very low quality too! Conscript -1 leadership with low morale advancing through wheatfields. One mortar team stymied the entire battalion attack. I halted the mission when I noticed the German icons moving in the wrong direction.

[JonS]

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.

What it should probably tell you is that perhaps this particular German attack (and the programming of the AI that drove it) was especially inept, rather than that mortars are especially effective in general.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I can see how that could be part of the problem. So how about tweaking the AI so that when it's troops are being bombarded it attempts to disperse its troops by crawling them in at least 3 different directions but generally away from the direction it was attempting to head. Once the men have recoverd then attempt to resume the mission.

Regards

KR

[Paper Tiger]

You're a strange one, Jon. I told you earlier in a thread about the same subject that you're on my ignore list and I will not read your posts to me and yet, here you are, posting immediately after me in a thread out here. The ignore function applies here too, you know

[JonS]

I can see how that could be part of the problem. So how about tweaking the AI so that when it's troops are being bombarded it attempts to disperse its troops by crawling them in at least 3 different directions but generally away from the direction it was attempting to head. Once the men have recoverd then attempt to resume the mission.

There's lots of things that could be done. Probably the easiest would be to redo the AI plan so it's not a boneheaded "walk across this big open field in large blobs in view of the enemy" kind of plan.

It'd be like setting up a scen in which a platoon of Tigers faced off against company of Stuarts on a billiard table, then complaining that Tigers are overpowered when the utterly predictable happens.

[Paper Tiger]

Well, y'know 93 guys is only about an ninth of a full strength battalion, give or take a bit. In fact, it isn't quite a full strength company. That's still a lot of guys in this situation; no need to exaggerate.

Michael

Okay, I've got the mission open in the editor. Full Luftwaffe battalion minus the wepons company because they weren't in the actual battle. Full headcount 270 men. Conscripts with low morale. 93 casualties from one mortar team and the battalion is broken and running away. Game over

[John Kettler]

Paper Tiger,

30% casualties in a unit so poorly trained and with morale to match would indeed be enough to break such a formation. 30% losses were deemed, under Cold War Russian norms, enough to incapacitate for hours ANY unit. This was neutralization level artillery fire. See Isby's WEAPONS & TACTICS OF THE SOVIET ARMY (Revised) for details.

Regards,

John Kettler

[eltorrente]

I could get 93 kills with a sniper against the AI if it's setup right, and I give him some extra ammo. Heck, you could do it with a vehicle crew, also. It has no bearing on what's going to happen in an actual game against a real opponent, though.