Brixia Mortars - Realistically Portrayed In Game?

[DavidFields]

I've posted this several times, but my main recommendation would be that all missions must be AREA with a radius of 35m.

You could also add rules like;

* missions must be at least MEDIUM intensity and duration.

* only a single, designated FO can call in missions from the mortars

* * if there's more than a platoons-worth of mortars then each mortar platoon has it's own FO, who can only can only call in "their" mortars

* each FO can call in a maximum of two concurrent missions.

but stuff like that becomes a bit of a book keeping hassle.

By the by, those same house rules could usefully be applied to artillery, too.

This all seems incredibly obvious. I can't understand why this needs to be a house rule, it should be the base coding in the engine. (Again, I tediously blame Modern Warfare people for anachronisms) Or, let me put it another way: why not implement these recommendations? For what reason not to? To the argument that one "could" do better with small mortars, I would counter with: but, generally, what was the actual use? Let the "elite" mortar crews be snipers, if one wishes.

Womble: I don't disagree with the perma-target-zeroing being a problem. But that can be solved with, perhaps, a flick of a programming switch (unless there are game, or AI reasons to keep it). I, and others, are discussing more global "what was it really like to use WW2 mortars" issues.

Though, to directly deal with your point, if there are "terrain saves"--which is a great idea--I think they should be stronger.

[Again, understanding that being a game/simulation designer is tough, and people will scream no matter what you do]

[JonS]

This all seems incredibly obvious. I can't understand why this needs to be a house rule, it should be the base coding in the engine.

I emphatically disagree.

[GerryCMBB]

Even in CMBB they coded restrictions to prevent ahistorical use of units. Tank crews that had abandoned or bailed out were given reduced spotting ability so that if they were used as scouts they didn't survive long. So I don't see what would be wrong with coding some restrictions re light mortars here.

Also it would help the customer if we knew mortar behavior would be modified in the patch. Then we wouldn't keep asking about it I think. Maybe.

Gerry

[dieseltaylor]

WO 291/129 Lethality of 3" mortar HE bomb.

The cast iron (Mark IV) bomb is about 70% better than the steel (Mark III) bomb, due to finer fragmentation.

Stick fuzes would probably add 65% to the effectiveness of the cast iron bomb, 25% to the steel.

Time-fuzed HE was considered "practically valueless" due to the zone of the fuze and the steep angle of descent.

"Jumping" mortar bombs might perhaps be up to ten times more effective against entrenched troops, whereas the stick fuze would be no more effective.

"Preliminary results obtained by AORS7 show that the reduction in overall lethality by small bumps may be as much as 6 times for men lying down."

Vulnerable areas are given as 3,200 square feet for the steel bomb, 5,500 the cast-iron.

Probability of incapacitation (%) for each type of bomb are given as:

Range (feet) 10 20 30 50 100

Cast iron 100 73 48.5 22 1.5

Steel 90 48 29 9.3 1.2

It is suggested that these can be usefully presented in two ways; either as percentage chances, or as odds.

As percentages at different ranges (yards):

Range (yds) 2 5 10 20 40

Cast iron 100 90 50 12 1

Steel 100 60 30 5 1

As ranges (yards) at which different odds apply:

Odds 10-1 on Evens 3-1 10-1 100-1

Cast iron 5 10 15 20 40

Steel 3 5 10 15 40

Also interesting is this:

WO 291/150 WP as an anti-personnel weapon.

White phosphorous is considered especially effective against targets in slit trenches, as the burning lumps of phosphorous lose velocity quickly and fall vertically.

Soft ground decreases effectiveness; slit trenches halve the "incendiary area".

It is recommended that when WP smoke is used for screening, it should be placed directly on the enemy position to be screened. The advantages are both casualty effect and screening regardless of wind direction.

Infantry follow friendly artillery "perhaps as close as 70 yards".

"...battle experience has shown that flat trajectory support has not the same neutralising properties as 'crump', unless targets are accurately located, which is not often the case."

Four kinds of WP-filled projectile were available, with weights and fillings as follows:

Weapon Overall weight Weight of WP

77 grenade 12 oz 8 oz

2-in mortar 2¼ lb 5 oz

3-in mortar 10 lb 1½ lb

4.2-in mortar 20 lb 5 lb

The "incendiary area" (analogous to "lethal area" or "vulnerable area") of each, in square feet, is:

Weapon Troops in the open In slit trenches

Hard ground Soft ground Marshy ground Hard ground Soft ground

77 grenade 800

2-in mortar 700

3-in mortar 2700 1800 550 1500

4.2-in mortar 5000 3000

The choking effect of WP smoke is mentioned. It is also mentioned that burns contaminated with phosphorous are extremely painful, but that the effects of WP are unlikely to be lethal.

If four 3-in mortars fire 100 HE bombs into an area 100 yards square occupied by a platoon (48 men) in slit trenches, it is considered that there is a 60% chance of destroying one trench (4% of the platoon). The same number of WP bombs is expected to result in 40% casualties. The same results could be achieved with about half the number of 4.2-in bombs.

And perhaps most graphically for our purposes:

WO 291/157 Performance of 2-in mortar.

Results from trials performed in 1942. Use of the no. 2 sight is recommended to improve accuracy.

The 2-in smoke bomb was criticised for leaving smoke trails that were thought to give away the firing position; in fact the problem was with smoky propellant.

It is mentioned that the chance of hitting a target under 2-in mortar illumination at night is approximately one-third of the chance in daylight.

The following table gives the hit probabilities and number of rounds needed to secure a 50% chance of incapacitating the target, a standing man, at the ranges given:

Range (yds) 200 LA 400 LA 525 400 HA 200 HA

Hit probability 10% 3.8% 6.8% 4.9% 6.0%

No. bombs 7 18 10 14 12

[akd]

These have been posted here before, even in this thread. The question is what do you do with it?

[dieseltaylor]

I get to do nothing as BF make the game.

My guess would be that if there is a discrepancy between the WD work and how it is working in CMBN then it needs a fix. My guess would be to produce more error in firing accuracy and/or lessen the effects when going prone.

It seems , judging from the comments on the boards, that the accuracy of the small mortars is overstated. Also I suspect looking at the 2" data that there may be some wriggle room where a mortar goes from LA fire to HA fire and what the range is. At 400yds the 2" is over twice as inaccurate then it is at 200yds when firing at low angle.

Also low angle of fire presumably means the burst pattern is smaller and more elliptical than a high angle bomb.

[akd]

It seems , judging from the comments on the boards, that the accuracy of the small mortars is overstated.

Well "comments on the boards" is hardly a definitive or reliable source. "Comments on the boards" are often wildly contradictory, and frequently based on fallacies such as not understanding the difference between precision and accuracy.

Light mortars used indirect are no more or less accurate than any other indirect fire system in the game. Light mortars used for direct lay fire are no more or less accurate than any other direct fire HE chucker in the game. There is, however a discrepancy in how direct area fire is applied for some systems compared to others that may need to be addressed, but it is not technically accuracy that is the issue there, nor is it specific to light mortars.

Also I suspect looking at the 2" data that there may be some wriggle room where a mortar goes from LA fire to HA fire and what the range is. At 400yds the 2" is over twice as inaccurate then it is at 200yds when firing at low angle. Also low angle of fire presumably means the burst pattern is smaller and more elliptical than a high angle bomb.

AFAIK, 2 inch mortars in game always use high angle fire.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Sometimes it's fun to dig up old CMx1 threads and see how these debates have come full circle.

According to Trevor Dupuy's Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War, the "proportion of battle casualties causd by artillery or mortar shell fragments" was 55% for US troops in World War 2, not the 80% figure you cite.

Additionally, this 55% figure comes from all forms of ground combat, including extended bombardments (not in sight of the enemy, just a unit being shelled in their positions) which are beyond the scope of CM, yet certainly contributed to overall war casualties (not necessarily because any one such bombardment was so powerful at killing, but because they were frequent). If you subtract out that sort of warfare (since it's beyond CM's scope), then the percentage of shell-fragment-related casualties you'd expect to see in a CM-scale battle would drop even further.

And you are looking only at off-map artillery in CM and expecting it to provide this 55% (or 80%) figure, when plenty of shell fragments in CM are provided by on-map ordnance in the form of mortars, tanks, antitank guns, bazooka rockets, and more. So the proportion of casualties dealt from off-map artillery in CM should drop further still.

Artillery is powerful but it is not the sort of wonder weapon you suggest. Major Tom's post above makes some excellent points which I fully agree with. Also take a look at, for example, Operation Goodwood, in which the preparatory bombardment against the Germans was tremendous. Not only was all available ground artillery used, but 1,595 heavy bombers, 482 medium bombers, and 300 fighter-bombers dropped high explosives as well. The Germans took casualties from this, to be sure. But they were not defeated by it, and in fact Goodwood turned out to be a defeat for the Allies when the German positions recovered quickly and put up a tenacious defense. The same general phenomenon happened at Monte Cassino and countless other places. And these are bombardments that lasted hours. In CM an artillery strike lasts a couple of minutes, at most, and is just a single battery firing. You must lower your expectations of routing the enemy with such a relatively small, quick attack.

For examples at a more tactical level, I suggest the excellent book If You Survive by George Wilson. He was an American company commander in the ETO, and describes several engagements where his entire unit was pinned down in the open under directly observed German mortar and/or artillery fire, for lengthy periods (by CM's standards) like 30 minutes or so, and yet the casualties were often shockingly light compared to what you might expect. The mortars did succeed in keeping all his men pinned down and combat ineffective, however, so it was not without effect. It just didn't often cause that many casualties.

Charles

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=208301&postcount=8

[MikeyD]

I haven't checked the numbers recently but I believe the allies lost as many men fighting the couple months in Normandy as died in all ten years fighting in Vietnam. As many allies died during the two days(?) of Operation Goodwood as died in the eight years fighting in Iraq. You can't play a 'tip of the spear' WWII tactical sim and expect to not generate casualties from mortars and artillery. Especially when playing as aggressively as 'armchair generals' tend to play the game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You can't play a 'tip of the spear' WWII tactical sim and expect to not generate casualties from mortars and artillery.

Fortunately, no one expects that.

[c3k]

Especially when playing as aggressively as 'armchair generals' tend to play the game.

I have _NO_ idea of whom you could be speaking...

Ken

[GerryCMBB]

Wouldn't there be a lot of deaths due to MG fire also then, not just due to mortars and artillery? It seems it should be so and we are not seeing massive causalities from MGs.

Gerry

I haven't checked the numbers recently but I believe the allies lost as many men fighting the couple months in Normandy as died in all ten years fighting in Vietnam. As many allies died during the two days(?) of Operation Goodwood as died in the eight years fighting in Iraq. You can't play a 'tip of the spear' WWII tactical sim and expect to not generate casualties from mortars and artillery. Especially when playing as aggressively as 'armchair generals' tend to play the game.

[womble]

...the accuracy of the small mortars is overstated...

I'd say the ranges are overstated in the WO data. Compared to the ranges that small mortars get used in direct fire mode, I mean.

[DavidFields]

Well "comments on the boards" is hardly a definitive or reliable source. "Comments on the boards" are often wildly contradictory, and frequently based on fallacies such as not understanding the difference between precision and accuracy.

Light mortars used indirect are no more or less accurate than any other indirect fire system in the game. Light mortars used for direct lay fire are no more or less accurate than any other direct fire HE chucker in the game. There is, however a discrepancy in how direct area fire is applied for some systems compared to others that may need to be addressed, but it is not technically accuracy that is the issue there, nor is it specific to light mortars.

AFAIK, 2 inch mortars in game always use high angle fire.

Ah, akd, I see the fundamental issue. You type that "light mortars used for direct lay far ar no more or less accurate then other direct fir HE chucker in the game."

But I will contend that light mortars, but doctrine, and for good reasons, did not fire "at" targets, but in an area around them. To compare light mortars to Mk-IV HE shells , or IG guns is, in my opinion, to fundamentally misunderstand this WW2 weapon system (to use modern technology--since you use "some systems" my guess is that you tend to use the modern terminology). They fired "around" targets--even, I believe, in the case of MGs and guns (MGs could be moved, and gun crews could, unlike in CM2, scatter). Making them stealth MK-IV tanks is just wrong.

I agree it is not an accuracy issue (dealt with by Experience), but disagree it is not specific to light mortars--I believe there is a conceptual problem here.

Do somefink!

[DavidFields]

Sometimes it's fun to dig up old CMx1 threads and see how these debates have come full circle.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=208301&postcount=8

And I usually found Charles to be very reliable.

[akd]

Ah, akd, I see the fundamental issue. You type that "light mortars used for direct lay far ar no more or less accurate then other direct fir HE chucker in the game."

But I will contend that light mortars, but doctrine, and for good reasons, did not fire "at" targets, but in an area around them.

Given a clearly visible point target with a limited footprint (say an ATG or a bunker) and the ability to directly lay the mortar on the target, there is no reason (doctrine or logic) for the mortar to not fire accurately on the target, i.e. to lay the mortar 50m right or left of the target, which at short range would be a substantial error. The precision of the mortar system determines the spread around the target once the range is found.

The accuracy issues then are:

1. Whether mortars are too capable of accurately locating a point target on their own. If there is an issue here, it very unlikely unique to mortars.

2. The ability of the player to accurately locate targets given their godlike knowledge of the battlefield then translate this knowledge to accurate fire on a point target with any HE-tossing weapon system within LOS of the point (i.e. area fire). Again, this problem is not special to mortars.

[slysniper]

Given a clearly visible point target with a limited footprint (say an ATG or a bunker) and the ability to directly lay the mortar on the target, there is no reason (doctrine or logic) for the mortar to not fire accurately on the target, i.e. to lay the mortar 50m right or left of the target, which at short range would be a substantial error. The precision of the mortar system determines the spread around the target in this circumstance.

The accuracy issues then are:

1. Whether mortars are too capable of accurately locating a point target on their own. If there is an issue here, it very unlikely unique to mortars.

2. The ability of the player to accurately locate targets given their godlike knowledge of the battlefield then translate this knowledge to accurate fire on a point target with any HE-tossing weapon system within LOS of the point (i.e. area fire). Again, this problem is not special to mortars.

Very true.

It goes back to in RL the mortar crew would not know the enemy is clustered in a 8m area behind a hedge and be able to drop all their load right on target.

They might try to drop behind the hedge up and down the line they would think the enemy is at, but they would not know for sure how close they were landing behind the hedge unless they had landed rounds in front of the hedge, had a locked in weapon and did the adjustment to drop it just a few meters farther.

And yes we see the same problems with other weapons.

My favorite is when tanks snipe infantry. infantry man moving across a wheat field, tank only sees head and shoulder of man. Fires, HE shell which takes man out with round going right through his head. Shell lands 70 m away.

Apply same stupid results to men behind walls and other such things.

So yes, we could disect likely each and every weapon in the game and find issues.

But a tank killing one man is better than if he had area fired like he should and get the HE hit where the whole squad was. So no one whines to much about that. But when in 30 seconds a mortar team wipes out any known target they know about and are in range of, of course you will hear complaints.

It is a game and it is not realistic no matter how much they try to make it just that. So until they learn to abstract somethings to get the feel just about right, then these threads will continue for a very long time.

Personnally I could care less how it is adjusted. But mortars need to be adjusted to match the capabilities of the other weapon systems. The fact that they can outplay and become the most important weapon on the map is all the proof that is needed as to that they need adjustment.

[GerryCMBB]

This is a great way to state it I think.

Gerry

Very true.

It goes back to in RL the mortar crew would not know the enemy is clustered in a 8m area behind a hedge and be able to drop all their load right on target.

They might try to drop behind the hedge up and down the line they would think the enemy is at, but they would not know for sure how close they were landing behind the hedge unless they had landed rounds in front of the hedge, had a locked in weapon and did the adjustment to drop it just a few meters farther.

And yes we see the same problems with other weapons.

My favorite is when tanks snipe infantry. infantry man moving across a wheat field, tank only sees head and shoulder of man. Fires, HE shell which takes man out with round going right through his head. Shell lands 70 m away.

Apply same stupid results to men behind walls and other such things.

So yes, we could disect likely each and every weapon in the game and find issues.

But a tank killing one man is better than if he had area fired like he should and get the HE hit where the whole squad was. So no one whines to much about that. But when in 30 seconds a mortar team wipes out any known target they know about and are in range of, of course you will hear complaints.

It is a game and it is not realistic no matter how much they try to make it just that. So until they learn to abstract somethings to get the feel just about right, then these threads will continue for a very long time.

Personnally I could care less how it is adjusted. But mortars need to be adjusted to match the capabilities of the other weapon systems. The fact that they can outplay and become the most important weapon on the map is all the proof that is needed as to that they need adjustment.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The accuracy issues then are:

1. Whether mortars are too capable of accurately locating a point target on their own. If there is an issue here, it very unlikely unique to mortars.

2. The ability of the player to accurately locate targets given their godlike knowledge of the battlefield then translate this knowledge to accurate fire on a point target with any HE-tossing weapon system within LOS of the point (i.e. area fire). Again, this problem is not special to mortars.

3. Only having to spot and make adjustments on the first target fired at in a game (direct fire). Or is has this not been confirmed?

[akd]

3. Only having to spot and make adjustments on the first target fired at in a game (direct fire). Or is has this not been confirmed?

Confirmed and reported; should be fixed in future version.

[newlife]

It is listed as fixed in the patch just released. We'll see how we'll they did.

[DavidFields]

Very true.

It goes back to in RL the mortar crew would not know the enemy is clustered in a 8m area behind a hedge and be able to drop all their load right on target.

They might try to drop behind the hedge up and down the line they would think the enemy is at, but they would not know for sure how close they were landing behind the hedge unless they had landed rounds in front of the hedge, had a locked in weapon and did the adjustment to drop it just a few meters farther.

And yes we see the same problems with other weapons.

My favorite is when tanks snipe infantry. infantry man moving across a wheat field, tank only sees head and shoulder of man. Fires, HE shell which takes man out with round going right through his head. Shell lands 70 m away.

Apply same stupid results to men behind walls and other such things.

So yes, we could disect likely each and every weapon in the game and find issues.

But a tank killing one man is better than if he had area fired like he should and get the HE hit where the whole squad was. So no one whines to much about that. But when in 30 seconds a mortar team wipes out any known target they know about and are in range of, of course you will hear complaints.

It is a game and it is not realistic no matter how much they try to make it just that. So until they learn to abstract somethings to get the feel just about right, then these threads will continue for a very long time.

Personnally I could care less how it is adjusted. But mortars need to be adjusted to match the capabilities of the other weapon systems. The fact that they can outplay and become the most important weapon on the map is all the proof that is needed as to that they need adjustment.

I agree, and think this says the same basic conceptual point I was making.

If the target is fixed, or heavily protected, light mortars would be too light for the target (other than guns).

If a light mortar is firing at something, it, therefore, must be mobile. Since the AI, and humans (if there is not a clear graphic to show the spotting rounds) don't scatter appropiately, a realism problem occurs. If they did scatter appropriately, accurate mortar fire would be ineffective--after the first round, the target would be wounded or gone (deer). The appropriate mortar technique, to counter this, would be to fire over a wide area, which would at least suppress or hinder movement.

[Here I could add some not-nice comment, because this seems obvious, and I am frustrated at explaining it, but I am correctly assuming that the designers are good people who really want to do this right.]

Ok, Ok, I get it: light mortars could be very accurate. I didn't entirely realize that. But one uses a shotgun or an SMG, for example, for a reason. It is not that those weapons systems can't be accurate, but because they are looking for ammo spread. I guess I could snipe with an SMG, if skilled enough, but it would be an unusual use of the weapon.

Same with light mortars. (I will leave others to comment on 81mm caliber and above--my feel for that is much less opinionated there.)

[edit: and this matters incredibly going forward with the franchise]

[Edit2: in WW2, small mortars were inherently area fire weapons--I would put that in caps, but that would be too annoying--Discuss]

[Michael Emrys]

If a light mortar is firing at something, it, therefore, must be mobile. Since the AI, and humans (if there is not a clear graphic to show the spotting rounds) don't scatter appropiately, a realism problem occurs. If they did scatter appropriately, accurate mortar fire would be ineffective--after the first round, the target would be wounded or gone (deer). The appropriate mortar technique, to counter this, would be to fire over a wide area, which would at least suppress or hinder movement.

Ok, Ok, I get it: light mortars could be very accurate. I didn't entirely realize that. But one uses a shotgun or an SMG, for example, for a reason. It is not that those weapons systems can't be accurate, but because they are looking for ammo spread. I guess I could snipe with an SMG, if skilled enough, but it would be an unusual use of the weapon.

Same with light mortars.

Now this is what I don't get. My image of the use of light mortars is when the riflemen of the platoon have come up against something they can't deal with using their own weapons, like a dug in MG or a squad of well-armed infantry in a trench. So they call for the mortar team to step up and deal with it, the idea being—hopefully—that the mortar will drop a round right into the MG's position or the trench full of infantry, or will make a credible threat of doing so causing the enemy to bug out.

Now maybe I've got it all wrong and this isn't how it was used and your version is closer to the truth of the matter than mine. But what is needed here is some data on how it was actually used in practice. I'm thinking field or training manuals or even better some personal accounts from combat mortarmen. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Emrys is on the right track.

The purpose of the light mortars is to give infantry an on-hand weapon to deal with low level tactical problems without waiting for higher up assets. Especially since higher up assets are always in short supply and less responsive.

On the offensive the light mortars are designed to suppress (kill is a bonus) enemy strong points while infantry moves. Machineguns have a similar purpose, but of course the two have complimentary pros and cons. On the defensive the light mortars are used to break up enemy concentrations (staging areas, crossing dead ground), suppress the enemy's attempts to take out key defensive points, etc. Again, machineguns are used much the same way.

Generally speaking the light mortars are not supposed to be pin-point accurate because their job is to suppress, not snipe. However, that was not always the case. The German 50mm mortar, for example, has been long criticized for being too accurate as well as having too small a round. My understanding (dusty as it might be) is that the Brixa was similar.

Note that v1.01 might degrade the effectiveness of the Brixa compared to v1.00, situation depending. One of the things fixed was a bug that allowed the mortars to reposition without having to reestablish effective range/elevation settings. Thus making them unreasonable accurate after shifting positions.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

My argument is that the Brixia makes up for a relatively weak projectile effect with very good accuracy, and the German 5cm mortar, which was practically a field piece in terms of how it was put together and the intricate adjustments which could be made to it, arguably fell into the same camp. Those two might be able to drop one on or close to, say, a MG nest. Rather doubt it for the others. Am delighted you've fixed shifting position glitch!

Regards,

John Kettler