Brixia Mortars - Realistically Portrayed In Game?

[akd]

A real typical light mortar shoot would scatter the rounds in a 50 yard circle around the aim point, and that aim point itself would *not* be centered directly around the *intended* aim point or target location. It would instead be off that point, randomly, in a bubble 50 meters in diameter. And the shooters would not be able to tell where the aim point being off ended and the random scatter of the shells began. If they tried to chase their last error shot to shot, inside a 50 meter radius, they would *double* the total smeared-out, random scatter of the shells, not reduce it to zero.

Last time you claimed that the minimum precision for a light mortar was 50m, you used a set of procedures for observing fire that was meant to apply to all indirect fire at all ranges, primarily with multiple tubes. Did you actually find something specific to light mortar precision? 60mm firing tables show that this system was capable of greater precision, particular at short range with lower charges.

Accuracy is a separate issue, and a problem. However it is not specific to light mortars in any way.

[John Kettler]

vossiewulf1212,

Found it! Here's the graphic on how to build sangars on slopes, showing the right way and the wrong way to do it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KezhQ6waZT0/SsihhrRF8cI/AAAAAAAAS1A/Ng0ooOr4xJk/s320/sang2top.jpg

Regards,

John Kettler

[vossiewulf1212]

vossiewulf1212,

Found it! Here's the graphic on how to build sangars on slopes, showing the right way and the wrong way to do it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KezhQ6waZT0/SsihhrRF8cI/AAAAAAAAS1A/Ng0ooOr4xJk/s320/sang2top.jpg

Regards,

John Kettler

First, just Vossie is fine I had been away from here so long I had to create a new account, but I used to be just Vossie. Go look at GreenAsJade's CMMODs to see the stuff I did for CMBB (mostly vehicles) and CMAK (lots including a full interface makeover).

Second, forgive me for being slow, but what does sangars have to do with the mortar problem and my suggestion that infantry in general in CMx2 are too vulnerable?

[womble]

The target briefly command introduced by CMFI is a extremely welcome addition.

Except that it has been reported to not work very well for mortars, since they take about a quarter of a minute to get firing (even if they're not going to need ranging rounds, which requirement would make firing at anything other than a previous target, using Target Briefly, with a mortar, pretty futile) and thus never actually fire on the selected target. Does your experience differ?

[John Kettler]

Vossie,

In rocky terrain, where it's impossible to dig in, sangars are what provide protection against incoming fire, especially mortars. Sangars are where men and weapons alike are placed. In other words, they are at least a step in the right direction when defending against the currently fearsome mortars firing in direct lay. Here's a pic (select 9) of a real one in use.

http://asl-battleschool.blogspot.com/2012/07/special-delivery-fssf-at-70.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Vossie,

You were talking about issues with infantry which is on a hill and dug in standing up to see and getting shot. Sangars were used in Sicily and Italy where the ground was too hard to dig. When building a sangar, which provided very good protection against the especially-lethal-in-CMx2 direct lay mortar fire, how it was built had to change to accommodate the slope, else the sangar became unstable.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

akd - tactical reality is the data. And firing ranges tell us nothing about it whatever.

A rifle is capable on a firing range of hitting repeatedly within 5 inches of the intended aim point at 500 yards, shot after shot. (That is 1 MOA accuracy). This does not mean whenever a rifle trigger was pulled in actual combat, any target at least a foot wide was always a first shot direct hit, at that range or any closer ange.

The main incorrect thing in CM mortar fire is the intended aim point is essentially always the actual aim point aka the center of the falling dispersion of shells. And there is just no way that remotely corresponds to reality.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

akd - tactical reality is the data. And firing ranges tell us nothing about it whatever.

A rifle is capable on a firing range of hitting repeatedly within 5 inches of the intended aim point at 500 yards, shot after shot. (That is 1 MOA accuracy). This does not mean whenever a rifle trigger was pulled in actual combat, any target at least a foot wide was always a first shot direct hit, at that range or any closer ange.

The main incorrect thing in CM mortar fire is the intended aim point is essentially always the actual aim point aka the center of the falling dispersion of shells. And there is just no way that remotely corresponds to reality.

Your description of reality certainly corresponds more with how the likes of CMBB & CMAK handled the dispersal of artillery and mortars. I'm not claiming it was perfect by any means but at least you saw a decent spread of shells when the metal started falling and the resultant casualties, especially from on board mortars, appeared much more realistic. 60mm mortars were not the harbingers of doom like they are modeled in CMx2.

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

Sangars were used in Sicily and Italy where the ground was too hard to dig. When building a sangar, which provided very good protection against the especially-lethal-in-CMx2 direct lay mortar fire...

The down side to sangars if built of rocks rather than sand bags was that they produced splinters or fragments if struck. These could themselves produce wounds. Still, as you say, they were better than nothing at all.

Michael

[vossiewulf1212]

Vossie,

You were talking about issues with infantry which is on a hill and dug in standing up to see and getting shot.

Ah, I think you meant Newlife. He was the one talking about that and had figured out they were standing because they were facing uphill on a steep slope, I just thanked him for figuring that out as I'd wondered why my guys sometimes did that.

[John Kettler]

Vossie and newlife,

You both should've been credited for noting and elucidating an important discovery about game engine behavior.

Regards,

John Kettler

[GerryCMBB]

Womble was responding to a command about Target Briefly below.

The problem I had with the command was different to Womble's. I started a thread about my experience with it previously. As a reminder, I thought they would just fire on the target for 15 sec. but they kept on firing after that. Someone in that thread thought target Briefly only worked as advertised as area fire.

Gerry

Except that it has been reported to not work very well for mortars, since they take about a quarter of a minute to get firing (even if they're not going to need ranging rounds, which requirement would make firing at anything other than a previous target, using Target Briefly, with a mortar, pretty futile) and thus never actually fire on the selected target. Does your experience differ?

[Michael Emrys]

...I thought they would just fire on the target for 15 sec. but they kept on firing after that.

Were they firing on a target they could see, i.e., direct firing? If so, they were just using their own initiative, just as they would if you had given them no order at all.

Someone in that thread thought target Briefly only worked as advertised as area fire.

That sounds right, as long as there is no enemy unit that they can see and as long as they still have ammo and are unsurpressed.

Michael

[mjkerner]

Ah, I think you meant Newlife. He was the one talking about that and had figured out they were standing because they were facing uphill on a steep slope, I just thanked him for figuring that out as I'd wondered why my guys sometimes did that.

Just to be clear, that activity has been around since at least CMBN, maybe CMSF. I used to put some "double deep" (two levels down from "sea level") bocage-lined sunken lanes, because it's cool to watch your P-truppen move along them, but they stand along the edge, never seem to take a knee at least, and look pretty barmy-like...so I stopped doing that.

[DavidFields]

akd - tactical reality is the data. And firing ranges tell us nothing about it whatever.

A rifle is capable on a firing range of hitting repeatedly within 5 inches of the intended aim point at 500 yards, shot after shot. (That is 1 MOA accuracy). This does not mean whenever a rifle trigger was pulled in actual combat, any target at least a foot wide was always a first shot direct hit, at that range or any closer ange.

The main incorrect thing in CM mortar fire is the intended aim point is essentially always the actual aim point aka the center of the falling dispersion of shells. And there is just no way that remotely corresponds to reality.

Sorry, JasonC, for agreeing so much with you. Your knowledge of this area is so much greater than mine.

But there is just an overall realness that transcends book firing data.

I just played the scenario where the Americans try to take down an immobilized Tiger. Fun stuff.

But, at one point, I use my mortar to "sniper" a german sniper on the other hill. There is just so much wrong with that.

First, the "correct" WW2 tactics, as I understand it, would be to suppress the sniper with either mortar fire or an MG. Sure, you might get lucky and get him, but mostly you would be trying to get him to "go to ground", or move. Then one would maneuver some infantry to flank and eliminate.

It would even be questionable whether a mortar or MG would waste ammo and time in a fire fight to undertake the operation--it would have to be a very annoying sniper. Instead, the mortar would generally be using the mortar, with a wide area circle, to suppress the troops around the tank (not trying to pick them off, squad by squad, under the trees).

My understanding of WW2 weapon relationships:

MGs: created large kill fields or lanes (german heavy MG the best)

Infantry: maneuver.

Mortars. As a counter to MGs (usually then indirect--direct would be very risky), and guns (yum, yum). And suppression of maneuver. Heavy mortars were best against more protected troops. Light mortars were SUPPOSED to be scattered. Two rounds landing in the same place was a waste--the target was already wounded or gone. If the target was protected enough to withstand a direct round, then one really needed something heavier.

AFVs: fire and maneuver, but less stealthy than infantry/MGs.

Guns: killers, but fragile.

Artillery: of course they were the major killer, but a scenario were forces are simply clobbered is boring (would be better handled in a higher level simulation), so in CM2 scenarios one would see the smaller units/actions.

I don't think one has to exactly use WW2 tactics in a WW2 simulation: let people have their recon by jeep explosions. I don't think a WW2 simulation needs to force WW2 tactics--in CM1 snipers were used extensively as scouts.

But to not be able to use WW2 tactics in a WW2 simulation is a problem.

Small mortars in CM2 now: have kill areas/lanes, maneuver, do the usual mortar role directly in the open. The ability to give short fire orders just worsens things--it stretches the ammo, and mades them tiny howitzers. It can all be fun. But as a WW2 sim, it is, I respectfully opine, wrong.

[this is harsher than I would like, and I know it is being looked into. I am not going to give potential solutions--my gues is that a gazillion are already being evaluated]

[JonS]

The ability to give short fire orders (to mortars) just worsens things--it stretches the ammo, and mades them tiny howitzers. It can all be fun. But as a WW2 sim, it is, I respectfully opine, wrong.

Respectfully, how is that any different to recon-by-jeep-explosions, or any other 'gamey' tactic which you explicitly state should be allowed? If you don't like gamey tactics - be it for infantry, vehicles, or artillery - don't use them!

If you want to restrict yourself to 'realistic' use of mortars, use them against POINT targets only, with a minimum of MEDIUM in both intensity and duration. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that, other than whatever lies between your chair and mouse.

[Steiner14]

JonS,

that's the important part:

I don't think one has to exactly use WW2 tactics in a WW2 simulation: let people have their recon by jeep explosions. I don't think a WW2 simulation needs to force WW2 tactics--in CM1 snipers were used extensively as scouts.

But to not be able to use WW2 tactics in a WW2 simulation is a problem.

BTW: I'm quite sick of the "then don't use it" argument from AI-only players.

[Tank Hunter]

I think there is a wrong way of thinking here. I agree that there should be no exploits in the game that allows one player to get unfair advantage over the other due to a bug or incorrect design. However allowing people to use weapons/vehicles within their proper context is OK even though they may have not been used in such a way during WWII.

If a Jeep was never used for recon during WWII but someone uses it in the game then I don't really see a problem. As long as the Jeep behaves in a reasonable way which means it can only drive as fast as it's real world counterpart while having same strength and limitations. Now if someone would find a way in the game to get the Jeep to start flying or be invurnable then it is a problem.

It all comes down to personal preferences, some players may want to follow real world tactics used in WWII which is fine while some may want to experiment and see "What if" a particular weapon or vehicle was used in this way. Would that change course of the battle?

There is nothing worng with that. It is actually what perfects and improves tactics.

[Michael Emrys]

If a Jeep was never used for recon during WWII...

Who says? Jeeps were an important part of every recon force, from the time they were introduced in North Africa right through the end of the war. Patton once famously (if apocryphally?) order a 2nd. Lt., "Get in that jeep and drive down that road until you get blown up and then come back and report to me!"

Michael

[womble]

If a Jeep was never used for recon during WWII but someone uses it in the game then I don't really see a problem. As long as the Jeep behaves in a reasonable way which means it can only drive as fast as it's real world counterpart while having same strength and limitations. Now if someone would find a way in the game to get the Jeep to start flying or be invurnable then it is a problem.

The problem is that in the game the Jeep is in perfect communication with the cold-hearted bastard who sent it out there to die. There's a good chance the Patton-analogue will know roughly what killed the jeep, possibly even exactly what it was and where it was located. This information would not likely have been available to the real world jeep-recce-orderer since the blowed-up Looie could not report as commanded. Which isn't to say that jeeps weren't used as recce platforms; they just weren't as effective as they are in game.

[Erwin]

I don't know if this was done in RL WW2 or not. But, I find it overwhelmingly tempting to send an inexpensive/common (in the scenario) unit like a halftrack (or jeep) ahead of my valuable tanks to check for ATG's etc. I want to use a common vehicle even instead of recon vehicles cos I value the latter's 20mm or bigger guns more than a mere MG in a halftrack (esp for the Germans).

In WW2 pics it seems like it was always the biggest armor in the lead (for obvious reasons). In the game however, that is usually a very bad idea.

Curious as to how other players handle this. Is it gamey??

(And re womble's point, I agree. It seems to work against the "realism" factor that you know exactly where and when your recon gets shot up. It would terrific to lose sight of it and never hear from it again, until a rescue team goes out to locate it. But, natch can't see how that could possibly work in a game.)

[Redwolf]

Who says? Jeeps were an important part of every recon force, from the time they were introduced in North Africa right through the end of the war. Patton once famously (if apocryphally?) order a 2nd. Lt., "Get in that jeep and drive down that road until you get blown up and then come back and report to me!"

Michael

No, the problem with jeeps, and all unarmored vehicles, in CMBO was that the program code for firing at moving targets would not hit them. The CMBO code for main guns did have the ability to lead a moving target but would only use it for armored targets. CMBO main guns would never lead unarmored vehicles, so the round would always land behind them. It was a contributing factor in making infantry too powerful, too (running laterally across the front of a gun).

People who knew about this could use coax MGs (or any MG including .50cals) which didn't have time-to-arrive modeling and hence hit moving unarmored targets just fine.

So this problem wasn't nearly as bad as the death ray mortars, for which there is no workaround.

[sburke]

JonS,

that's the important part:

BTW: I'm quite sick of the "then don't use it" argument from AI-only players.

I can vouch that JonS is not an AI only player. Unless I don't realize it but am only a computer program...but I wouldn't be asking that if I were a computer program...unless of course I had been programmed to ask that......omg!!! :eek:

[JonS]

I'm quite sick of the "then don't use it" argument from AI-only players.

Bully for you. What point do you think you're making here?

In CMBN you can use good tactics. in CMBN you can use reaistic tactics. In CMBN you can use bad or unrealistic tactics. You can also use bad but realistic, or good but unrealistic tactics. The choice of which you use is yours.

If you don't like the tactics you're using, don't whine about it. Just stop doing it. It's really not that hard.

[CharlieMike24]

I can vouch that JonS is not an AI only player. Unless I don't realize it but am only a computer program...but I wouldn't be asking that if I were a computer program...unless of course I had been programmed to ask that......omg!!! :eek:

Could someone swing over and reboot sburke....? His code's playing up again.....