Brixia Mortars - Realistically Portrayed In Game?

[vossiewulf1212]

WRT Brixia, it's almost like they wanted to give the Italians SOMETHING that was effective. Otherwise, they have rifle squads that couldn't supress a baby panda, they panic at incoming fire heavier than silly string, and have armored vehicles that can be killed by a couple kids with straws and spitballs.

But yes in general I think mortars are way too effective in CMx2. In CM1 60mm/50mm mortars were just harassing weapons unless they got very lucky, and an 81mm barrage was survivable by rifle platoons. Here 60mm mortars are critical heavy weapons for US forces and 81mm barrages mean rifle platoons cut to ribbons. There's a middle ground between the two that I feel is more accurate.

And at the same time there's strange survivability too. I was just playing the second Troina campaign battle and I dropped a really heavy 155mm barrage on the top of the hill, where there were a series of dug in troops including an MG42. Two minutes later the MG42 pops up and starts shooting again. I look, and 3 of the four foxholes where he is have 155mm craters and I know I saw at least three rounds airburst right on top. I'm sorry, but you don't survive one 155mm shell hitting two feet away from you, much less three, and with no top cover a single airburst is going to kill you. Even if you miraculously escape shrapnel, the blast effects from that range are going to rip you apart and turn your insides into jelly.

I've seen that a bunch of times, AT guns or infantry survive multiple artillery hits literally right on top of them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Maybe it's the way I play, but I would estimate that of my total casualites in all the CMBN scenarios I've played to date about 80% have been to artillery or mortars.

[slysniper]

The statement is true and not-true.

In WW2, they were used primarily for suppression (including laying of smoke, which provides a form of suppression) because they could kill. It's the same with MGs and artillery. People knew that all those weapons systems could cause grevious bodily harm, so they went out of their way to protect themselves from those systems (and so imposed a degree of self-suppression).

The following is something I wrote several years ago, discussing the seeming ineffectiveness of Allied air power in NWE in 1944, discussing a broadly similar effect:

In CM, players tend not to take appropriate counter-measures, which results in apparently inflated casualty figures for seemingly wimpy weapons like light mortars.

This is the best quate in here.

players tend to not play realistic and do what is needed to save their troops.

I fiend that field arty is not that bad in the game in its indirect role.

I seldom find myself loosing many troops to it. when the spottting rounds come. I bug out if I can and surrender the terrain instead of the troops. If I cannot bug out . they find cover and hide and try to ride it out. Seems realistic.

The problem is, with light direct fire from mortars. The defence has no options.

If the first round does not pin my men. normally the next few will and they all happen before I can give a order, and by that time no order is going to help anyway. Is this realistic, I am not sure.

I do feel that the in game use has a factor that really is not realistic to what happened in the real world. That is rounds available and used on targets.

In the game, they always have a full load and are willing to emty their full amout becasuse the scenario is a short given time. Where as. real mortar crews would fire just enough to get the job possible done and save their rounds for the next unknown mission. because they only have what they are packing and they are not getting more til the firefight is over and they get some supplies. They would not know if that was a hour or 3 hours away. They were used to take out or suppress important targets so not so eager to kill any known target.

Also a reason why defensive positions were much harder to take. they had stock piled rounds so could be much more free willing with firing away against attackers which did not have the same supplies.

So between the defense having no type of protective options and the amount of rounds units have available and willing to shoot both are other factors that twist the results for the small mortars. Along with possible other things mentioned.

I still question who is correct about how good the weapons really are. Since we were still using them when I was in, that does not sound like a weapon that is ineffective if it has lasted 40 plus years. But Until someone shows hard combat evidence otherwise. I think some here do not have proper respect for the weapon. Not because they really know. But because of games they played before that had no more realistic knowledge than this one here.

[vossiewulf1212]

This is the best quate in here.

I fiend that field arty is not that bad in the game in its indirect role.

I seldom find myself loosing many troops to it. when the spottting rounds come. I bug out if I can and surrender the terrain instead of the troops. If I cannot bug out . they find cover and hide and try to ride it out. Seems realistic.

I'm guessing you play real time? Indirect 81mm barrages for me often have spotting rounds and the barrage in the same turn or very close to it, by the time you can put in new orders it's way too late.

But I agree direct fire is worse, the first round is often right on the money or close enough, and squads/teams in a seemingly large area get shaken/panicked and there's nothing you can do but watch them die.

There are these problems plus (IMO) infantry are just too vulnerable. I've played 20 or so scenarios now with CMFI and it's little different from CMBN, I've played many of them leaving most if not all of my infantry behind in attack because they achieve little except dying- I take the commanders, spotters, MGs, and some scout/recon teams and the armored vehicles. I very rarely see anything approaching what could be called an extended firefight like we had regularly in infantry battles in CM1.

[John Kettler]

slysniper,

Could you please cite me some WW II examples of troops bugging out to avoid field artillery fire? I've yet to encounter a single one.

Turning now to mortars, experienced soldiers know to listen for the "Toonk" they make when firing and immediately hit the deck. Those not so combat wise will remain vertical, will likely not hear the fluttering sound (no incoming whistle, as Hollywood depicts) as the mortar bomb descends, and will be quite surprised, likely wounded or even killed when it hits near vertically and detonates in a very close approximation of a circular pattern. Artillery produces more of a butterfly pattern because its impact is usually at much lower angles, resulting in terrain masking of a chunk of the frag pattern.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tempestzzzz]

Sublime-are you the same Sublime I played Close Combat 3 with over the internet (dial-up) near over 10+ years ago? I'm located in Hawaii as back then.

[womble]

Indirect 81mm barrages for me often have spotting rounds and the barrage in the same turn or very close to it, by the time you can put in new orders it's way too late.

I don't think I've ever seen an indirect mission arrive FFE in the same turn as the first spotting round. Flight times are in the region of 30s, so I don't see how they can, even with a good spotter/battery combination.

But I agree direct fire is worse, the first round is often right on the money or close enough...

This is exacerbated by the current bug that means every target after the first is already ranged-in, so the system fires for effect from the first round, and is as on-target as its experience and morale will allow.

...squads/teams in a seemingly large area get shaken/panicked...

If more than the target team are getting panicked by a single direct-lay mission, then your troops are either very low motivation or already badly affected.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

To confirm how ridiculously overpowered light mortars are, refer to this thread here... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105659&highlight=60mm&page=2

It's a pity the picture from Paper Tiger's posts has disappeared but it showed that this one on board 60mm mortar crew was able to cause over 90 casualties against a German Battalion, effectively routing the entire formation. If light mortars were historically as effective as this then there would have been no need for other forms of indirect fire weapons to be made. Simply equip each squad with a 60mm mortar and the war is over in 6 months of fighting against this uberweapon.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

... and you were told in that thread, and agreed, that poor scenario design was at the heart of that particular result, rather than overpowered mortars per se. See the comments above about CM players tending not to take appropriate counter-measures, resulting in apparently inflated casualty figures for seemingly wimpy weapons like light mortars.

You know, there's a name for guys who make extravagant claims, go quiet when they're shown to be wrong, only to recycle the same arguments several months later in the hope that everyone will have forgotten the particulars. "Kettlerian", I think it is.

[slysniper]

slysniper,

Could you please cite me some WW II examples of troops bugging out to avoid field artillery fire? I've yet to encounter a single one.

Turning now to mortars, experienced soldiers know to listen for the "Toonk" they make when firing and immediately hit the deck. Those not so combat wise will remain vertical, will likely not hear the fluttering sound (no incoming whistle, as Hollywood depicts) as the mortar bomb descends, and will be quite surprised, likely wounded or even killed when it hits near vertically and detonates in a very close approximation of a circular pattern. Artillery produces more of a butterfly pattern because its impact is usually at much lower angles, resulting in terrain masking of a chunk of the frag pattern.

Regards,

John Kettler

never said it was a wwII tactic that was commonly used. Just saying how I avoid being killed in the game and that my results do not seem unrealistic to real world numbers as to losses.

Now if I had trenches and deep fox holes that let me ride it out, then maybe I would not bug out. I do feel that the game has improved a little there, if I make sure my men are given the hide command before it hits. But in general, I cannot even trust that to save enough lives. I rather pull back , let it hit, then run back in and try to beat the enemy to my defenses, than ride it out.

So like you said, since real tactics do not produce the best results, then adjusting aspect of the game should be considered. thus the reason this thread has taken life again.

[Steiner14]

John Kettler,

you seem to forget that foxholes offer almost 100% protection against small grenades or shrapnel.

That's the reason why every army "wastes" so much logistics and costs on the big calibres because otherwise a dug in defender can't be harmed.

In reality the small mortars are only good for supressing. And this doesn't mean they kill dug in units, it only means, that units need to keep your heads down and therefore have less time to aim and shoot back.

The casualties appear, if defenders are forced to shoot back, because the enemy must be denied a certain route or location.

With the current implementation foxholes are useless because keeping heads down is useless against small granades. The mortars fall into the holes and render each an every unit useless within seconds, no matter how small the calibre is.

Give me three mortars and i don't need any tactics anymore. I send a few scouts out, then drive around with some vehicles until the defender is forced to open fire with his long range weapons and then i eliminate each of it with 20 shots from my mini mortars. After repeating that procedure three to six times, the balance is enough to my favour, to bring up the tanks and finish the game.

[akd]

If someone can prove that the accuracy of the light mortars should be reduced on historical or technical grounds (as was done with the 81mm mortars)

Nothing was done specifically to 81mm mortars. Changes were across the board to on-map indirect units. Changes did not affect accuracy, but rather precision.

[Sublime]

tempestz.. I would assume I was. did we meet on the MS gaming chat site? I forget its name... been like 12 years.. But ya I used to love playing CC3 and I had a buddy we'd play online all the time whole grand campaign for 14 hour stretches on the weekend.

I've been around here since 99 and I was referred here through the CC msg boards.

CC3 was cool in that the long assed campaign (though not realistic..) and that it was ost front. Still the CC2 campaign was the pinnacle of that series IMHO. CC4 just didnt do it for me. I never even gave CC5 a chance.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

I'm sick and tired of your perpetual priapic state regarding me. Kindly find your erotic stimulation somewhere else!

Steiner14,

Foxholes and slit trenches do indeed offer great protection against the threats you named, especially if the latter are of the kind depicted in the German Ost Front training films (very narrow, thus, hard to hit). From what I can tell, foxhole implementation provides no below ground step (elbow ledge) for working rifles, resulting in unrealistic exposure of the occupants when firing. If trenches are as the visuals suggest (1 AS across), then I marvel they have any utility against on board support fires at all. If you can, in fact, do what you say you do with light mortars, then something really needs fixing!

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

WTF? Trenches in the game are not 8m wide.

[DavidFields]

I can't believe this is still being debated. CM2 is a great game, but the small mortars are off. In a complex simulation, with so much being done well here, it is not surprising it is hard to get everything correct. It can either be fixed, or we can live with it--but the small mortars are off.

Here is a question, as an example: in CM2, what weapon would you pick to hunt a deer 250 meters away? The answer, in CM2, is a light mortar (having already been fired once).

But, IRL, that would be ridiculous. The first round would likely be off, scare the deer, and it would run off.

IRL a squad would be the same way, unless it was in good cover, in which case it would go to ground, and a casualty would likely only occur with a direct hit on a soldier--so generally a wasteful use of rounds that it would only be attempted...for suppression.

And for those who claim that a mortar shell can be fired from x meters into a pickle jar, try the same thing with a living, moving, pickle jar. Then a straffing MG would be much more effective--that then gets to the CM2 MG issues.

WW2 example: Winters assaulting the artillery position on D-Day. His assault was taught, I understand, at West Point for decades. Was the combat solution "bring up the 60mm mortars?" No. My guess that is because that would have given away the element of surprise, for the poor exchange of causing very few enemy casualties. It could have resulted in the German deployment of MGs toward the direction of the mortar attack, and perhaps a German counter-attack. But in CM2? Use mortars.

[sburke]

Here is a question, as an example: in CM2, what weapon would you pick to hunt a deer 250 meters away? The answer, in CM2, is a light mortar (having already been fired once).

wrong, I'd use a pistol.

And for those who claim that a mortar shell can be fired from x meters into a pickle jar, try the same thing with a living, moving, pickle jar.

Wow I can understand a moving pickle jar, I've seen that when one comes loose from the display, but living?

But seriously Rankorian, I don't disagree. It seems a couple things have poped up recently that I think c3k has taken on getting submitted for a look see. The rest is all internet chatter.

[MikeyD]

Accounts of being mortared are necessarily written by those who survived the attack, those who got killed didn't get to write their impression of what its like to get 'stonked'. What precisely is wrong with mortars? The kill radius is about right, the ROF is about right, the ammo loadout is about right. Yes, they are a major bugger in-game and can be badly overused. The same goes for xylophone artillery rockets too, but that doesn't mean either are modeled wrong. I believe SOP is indeed to 'bring up the mortars.' If you're advancing troops with fixed bayonets against an unatritted enemy then you're doing something wrong.

[DavidFields]

wrong, I'd use a pistol.

Wow I can understand a moving pickle jar, I've seen that when one comes loose from the display, but living?

But seriously Rankorian, I don't disagree. It seems a couple things have poped up recently that I think c3k has taken on getting submitted for a look see. The rest is all internet chatter.

Thank you, sburke, I enjoy your humor.

I don't doubt the will of Battlefront to do the right thing. There are the conceptual issue, and then there are the game engine issues. I can't pretend to understand the latter. And I have only a feel for the former--and it is not first-hand. One can quote books, but, speaking as a physician, there is a lot one can tell only from having been there to look at the patient. I wish we had more WW2 vets to vet the feel of CM2.

Pistols, light mortars, the effectiveness of AFV crews, foxholes, MG fire (this may be the toughest), more effective cover, and details of spotting: I am looking at this as the glass 80% full, and likely to rise.

[GerryCMBB]

I think what many people are saying is that the light mortars are killing machines. Admittedly there is that bug that is making them worse. But as someone said, find the opponents heavy weapons, bring up the light Mortars, and destroy many of his key assets. They zone in on foxholes right away, no warning so that troops can take evasive action, and they fire enough rounds and soon all enemy units in the 4 foxholes are dead, not suppressed.

Many people think this is not realistic and is more behavior you would expect from artillery.

I don't plat QBs so I am not choosing light mortars. There are in the scenarios and I like to play scenarios rather than QBs.

Gerry

P.S.

SPOLIER ALERT

In one CMFI scenario my Italians couldn't hold a candle to the Americans initially. Once the Brixias were well placed, everything changed.

Accounts of being mortared are necessarily written by those who survived the attack, those who got killed didn't get to write their impression of what its like to get 'stonked'. What precisely is wrong with mortars? The kill radius is about right, the ROF is about right, the ammo loadout is about right. Yes, they are a major bugger in-game and can be badly overused. The same goes for xylophone artillery rockets too, but that doesn't mean either are modeled wrong. I believe SOP is indeed to 'bring up the mortars.' If you're advancing troops with fixed bayonets against an unatritted enemy then you're doing something wrong.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

... and you were told in that thread, and agreed, that poor scenario design was at the heart of that particular result, rather than overpowered mortars per se. See the comments above about CM players tending not to take appropriate counter-measures, resulting in apparently inflated casualty figures for seemingly wimpy weapons like light mortars.

You know, there's a name for guys who make extravagant claims, go quiet when they're shown to be wrong, only to recycle the same arguments several months later in the hope that everyone will have forgotten the particulars. "Kettlerian", I think it is.

Well your above statement is particularly disingenuous over what I allegedly agreed to in the referred thread in terms of poor scenario design followed up by the allegation that I went quiet after "proven wrong"! I note that my 2nd post on that thread was made on the same day as the penultimate one, which tends to disprove your statement about going quiet.

As for poor sceanrio design, where did I agree that this was the root of the problem? I indicated that part of the problem could be the way the AI reacts when troops are under fire, by not hiding them or attempting to crawl them away from the impact zone rather than have the troops sit there like stunned mullets. The other major part, in my opinion, was the over modelling of the effectiveness of light mortar fire in terms of causing casualties. Sure, they should cause the odd few casualties here and there but their major effect should be supression rather than downright slaughtering. 93 troops rendered combat ineffective by the game AI taking pot shots at the approaching troops that weren't funnelled in any way due to terrain (according to Paper Tiger), without the player actually ordering that one 60 mm mortar to do so, was patently bullsheit.

Lastly, your analogy in that thread of saying it would be similar to pitting a platoon of Tiger tanks against a company of Stuart tanks with predictable results was not a fair comparison to the situation depicted. Bear in mind it was just the one light mortar that caused all these casualties against a battalion forrmation, a proper analogy would be one Tiger tank against a company of Stuarts on a billiard table. I would be more than happy to take those odds as the Stuart commander, especially with the slow traverse rate of a Tiger's turret.

Regards

KR

[poesel]

With so much groggy knowledge around here: is there a historical report about using mortars in a specific setting that can be translated to CM and the results compared?

Something like: we fired 20 81mm rounds at a german trench at 300m occupied by a Zug of grenadiers. We found three dead by mortars.

That would obviously be perfect and probably doesn't exist. But it should be possible to get some good numbers.

I would be willing to do the tests if I have the parameters.

[Steiner14]

MikeyD,

with your fanboism you do nothing good to the development of this game.

[John Kettler]

poesel71 and BFC,

Occasionally, in this case after many hours of digging and painstakingly poring through various reports, I catch a huge break. Here is a most remarkable distillation of War Office (WO) weapon effectiveness studies, compiled by our own John D. Salt. Believe you'll find the Incapacitation Probability figures for a standing man at 200 and 400 yards in both LA (Low Angle) and HA (High Angle) fire downright shocking. I sure did! WO 291/157 Performance of 2-in Mortar (p. 9). This doc is full of fabulous effectiveness data on direct fire and indirect fire weapons.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2eff2.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

[black_prince]

Strangely enough, calling people fan boys rather than addressing the points they raise doesn't do much for game development either.

I think the problems with light mortars are two-fold:

1. The bug mentioned whereby all area target orders subsequent to the first one dispense with the need for spotting rounds.

2. The action spot system means that infantry-even in split teams- are less dispersed than they probably would have been in rl (although this might not be the case depending on their level of training, terrain type etc...).

Hopefully the 1st will be addressed and fixed by bf sooner rather than later but I think we'll just have to live with the effects of the 2nd point (as we do with other weapons systems) for the foreseeable future. I think the suggestion of making tweaks to the TacAI whereby personnel under mortar fire would crawl into cover is probably going to be problematic as there will likely be instances where your men actually crawl into a more exposed position. Also, I for one would be fairly irritated if all the enemy had to do was pop a couple of mortar rounds in th vicinity of one of my fire teams to get them to abandon their position.

The general feeling amongst posters seems to be that light mortars are just too potent. I recently found an article discussing light mortars online. While the article didn't provide any of the technical details I was looking for, it certainly conveys the impression that light mortars are indeed very potent and deadly weapons in RL. Here are a couple of quotes from the article

an after action report from a US Army infantry battalion following the first phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom stated the “60mm hand-held was devastating in the close fight and excellent for marking targets. 60 mm is still the best option for a rifle company.”

The 60mm mortar is just as responsive as a machine gun and creates a unique psychological effect that is unmatched. During all of the ambushes we have encountered over the past few years the 60mm has been the deciding factor for gaining fire superiority. It is the counter to the rocket propelled grenade and can suppress places that the M2 [.50 cal heavy machine gun] MK 19 [40mm automatic grenade launcher] cannot.”

Link here:

http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/200711272205571.pdf

Also, I believe the following clip demonstrates just how rapidly light mortar fire can be adjusted onto a target. WARNING while there is no gorrey imagery in the following clip, some people may still find it disturbing.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b1_1312498613

Disclaimer: I cannot definatively say that the explosions seen in the clip are the results of light mortar fire but the 'splashes' do appear to be consistent with those from a light mortar. Also, the lack of smoke and dust clouds prior to the initial two explosions do seem to indicate that these are the initial spotting rounds although it is possible that the effects from prior rounds may not have been caught on camera.