Where is the best place to find weapon ranges?

[JonS]

a mortar to a highly covered tree line with direct sight on an enemy position only to get off 1 shot before all hell broke out from enemy field guns because they were alerted to my mortar by it crew small arms fire.

How can you be so sure it was the small arms fire, rather than the mortar firing, that alerted the enemy to your unit's location? :confused:

[Sublime]

Regardless it's a valid point. Mortar crews should not be doing that unless at very close range IMO, same with ATG crews.

[womble]

The primary point was my arguing that in Sicily a 0.5" fring across a valley should not be riddling buildings which would be stone built.

I can't find anything that says either way what the buildings are made of. While wood may be scarce, there are materials other than stone which can be used to replace it. And even stones vary greatly in their resistance to bullets.

...something firing at much greater ranges and very probably not square to target would not be riddling every building as suggested by MikeyD[?].

You read what he wrote differently to me. I didn't think he meant every building, and it's a certainty that there are some building types which will be vulnerable to Ma Deuce's little presents at typical map ranges for the game.

Whilst browing here is something for sale and also an idea of a wall thickness:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-property/property-38276312.html

I'm sure there are more buildings in Sicily with walls that thick than there are in Normandy, but there will still be brick construction and wooden, as well as composites of rubble, wattle and daub.

[Killkess]

Ok, done another quick test. If given a target command MP40s will open at at 300Meters. The moment my men began to target the enemy was at 315m, the first shots at 300. And no, the MP40s dont have to be innefective at those ranges:

First cassualty happens at 250m, the second at 200 and the third at 190m. After the last hit the enemy hit the deck and got pinned. Heck, they seem more effective than what i´ve seen in the HMG tests

[eltorrente]

This is highly annoying and really should be fixed. In one game I was very proud of sneaking a mortar to a highly covered tree line with direct sight on an enemy position only to get off 1 shot before all hell broke out from enemy field guns because they were alerted to my mortar by it crew small arms fire.

Well, luckily mortars can fire from just beyond "normal" LOS. You can put a mortar unit one action square back from where you would normally put it to see an enemy, and then you can direct target with the mortar, and the rest of the rifleman won't fire (because they can't see the target).

I use mortars all the time, and very, very rarely are they spotted or take fire.

[Sublime]

Good point. But what do you do for targets that are in LOS of the whole mortar team? This is very relevant in FI with it's more open spaces..

I often get away with it as well, but I've also had mortar crews take fire quite a bit. True I dont know if the 'tubing' was the reason, or if it was small arms fire, but I DO know that the crew opening up with its carbines or K98s wasnt much of a help and definitely contributed to them being spotted..

Even if target light only used rifles and regular target used mortar only. As it is now I think target light does what with mortars? fires less rounds than normal, as in a lower RoF?

[JonS]

As I understand it, BFC are reluctant to clutter the AI with special-case orders that will probably be seldom used. I think there has to be a REALLY strong case before they'll add to or alter any orders.

With mortar teams there are a bunch of potential conditions that players might want to use:

1) fire only the mortar at a standard ROF

2) fire only the mortar at a higher ROF

3) fire only the mortar at a lower ROF

4) fire only the mortar, and a small number of rounds

5) fire only small arms at a higher ROF

6) fire only small arms at a lower ROF

7) fire small arms and mortar at a standard ROF

8) fire small arms and mortar at a higher ROF

9) fire small arms and mortar at a lower ROF

10) fire small arms at a close target and mortar at a distant target (at hi/std/lo ROF)

11) fire mortar at a close target and small arms at a distant target (at hi/std/lo ROF)

12) don't fire anything

13) [add more here]

Basically, there are an almost infinite range of potential situations, but the UI - any UI - is substantially less than infinitely flexible. Which means players will always be able to come up with some quirky situation they can't do which seems utterly crucial in their current game but actually isn't all that important or common.

My advice is to get used to the existing UI and figure out how to combine the existing orders in novel and creative ways. There is an astonishing amount of flexibility alreay in the UI, and with a bit of thought you can - I think - get pretty close to almost any desired behaviour you want. Not exactly, but close. Think about what'simportant to you in a given situation, and work on fuilfilling those criteria and don't worry about the rest.

Also, I think that threads like this are, at heart, about a desire to get perfect efficiency out of every resource under a players control. IMO, that is an unrealistic goal. Unrealistic in the sense that BFC are unlikely to ever to deliver it, but also unrealistic in the sense that "efficiency" and "combat" are opposed to each other - more effiency would lead, I believe, to a less realistic game/sim.

Finally, always remember that your opponent is playing the same game you are. If your mortars are continually getting tagged but your opponent's seem invisible and invulnerable ... well, maybe the problem there isn't with the game.

[womble]

As it is now I think target light does what with mortars? fires less rounds than normal, as in a lower RoF?

Yep. It seems to fire the next round when the current round splashes. So you get about 2-4 rounds per turn, depending on the range (cos flight times are longer for more increments).

[eltorrente]

Good point. But what do you do for targets that are in LOS of the whole mortar team? This is very relevant in FI with it's more open spaces..

I often get away with it as well, but I've also had mortar crews take fire quite a bit. True I dont know if the 'tubing' was the reason, or if it was small arms fire, but I DO know that the crew opening up with its carbines or K98s wasnt much of a help and definitely contributed to them being spotted..

Even if target light only used rifles and regular target used mortar only. As it is now I think target light does what with mortars? fires less rounds than normal, as in a lower RoF?

The undisciplined behavior of my mortar squad's rifleman cause me problems maybe 5% of the time. Most of the time - either they don't see the target I'm firing mortars at, or they are very far away, or there's other friendlies much closer that are engaging the target also. Usually whoever might spot them is getting fired at by other guys anyway (if all goes to plan).

I guess I'm just really cautious with them and don't use them at all unless I know for sure that I'm not going to get spotted and blown away when they start shooting.

I don't sneak them around and go for that perfect spot necessarily - instead I just follow behind the platoon - nice and boring - and hang way back. I use Target Light most of the time, since it conserves ammo - so I try to keep them alive for as long as possible. I just use them to add suppression for infantry assaults and to directly help my platoon when they get into a firefight.

I think some people are just way too aggressive with them.

I'm currently playing 8 PBEM's, so I play a lot and see all sorts of tactics.

The mistake my opponents often make is usually the same - they move up behind a wall or bocage or whatever, and start firing fast and furious on one of my split squads. I see them right away, and they fire off 15 rounds and kill 2 of my guys (what an investment.. ). Next turn I target their mortar with my mortar (Target Light if I have other units to target them with also), and anyone else who can at least area fire on them - and they're dead the next round usually.

In PBEM's, it's very rare that I get direct-fired at by mortar units who are just out of LOS. Seems everyone uses them like normal units and they are always nice and visible when they are firing.

[dieseltaylor]

womble - I have done a tad more research.

Stone seems always to have been the main building material in Sicily. Its curious that to note that Sicily is slightly over 25% of the UK in size, or half the size of England, but has used mainly one building material. Very probably because rock is plentiful.

I have browsed the Web and there are some interesting mentions of wood - such as the pine pretty much disappeared under the Spanish. Olive wood is appreciated but is ornamental building/roofing rather than a primary house building material.

http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art262.htm

Wattle and daub I think possibly likely as with a lack of trees the laths would be fiddly to obtain. I also think that stone built properties would remain cooler in summer. It is also possible that there are insects or temites that find stone more unpleasant than any other material.

As to the variety of rocks this article gives a breakdown of the main types. As suspected the volacanic rock is quite soft - ten times less compressive strength than the marbles.

http://www.envegypt.com/EJEC/uploads/29.pdf

The flipside of this is how much thicker would one build with less compressive strength .... but then a Ma Deuce could probably penetrate any thickness. Building with lava apparently was common until the last few centuries. The harder stones may be a different case.

Thiese are the details of a substantial house built around 1800 which by the 20th century was being used as a farm and storage.

"The analysis of recorded studies has revealed that the material used in the

foundations of the villa was a hard limestone quarried in the same Maeggio area

together with lime mortar and river sand. The documentation shows that the

foundation has a depth of “five palms” (traditional unit of measure) and rests

directly on a live rock. Further, it shows that previous to laying the foundations,

preventative levelling works has been taken. The external brick work which

creates the supporting structure of the building, presents different level of

thickness: the inner walls have consistent dimensions while the external ones

narrow down on the floor above, having respectively measures of four “palms”

(approximately mm. 1000) and three “palms” (approximately mm. 750)."

from

The knowledge system of Sicilian fortified dwelling-places: materials and building techniques related to Villa-Castle Maeggio in Siracusa countryside

I would guess the internal walls would be 2 to 3 palms as they would be structural.

The stone weighed about 2.7 tonnes per cubic metre. Stone walls are always thicker than brick walls.

Quite an interesting exercise and all from MikeyD:

This is the sort of stuff that once you know it once you know it. Its only for the first few games that you're left guessing. Long range duels between MG42s and Thompson SMGs don't usually end well for the Thompson. You eventually learn attempting to pierce building walls with an M1 carbine from beyond 200m is futile but a .50 cal Browning will make swiss cheese of 'em from across the map.

[dieseltaylor]

Just browing on penetration figures for 0.5" and this from 2008 by JasonC appears authoritive. I was never into CMSF so this is new to me. I do know that the 1980's saw a lot of development of better penetrating ammo for the Ma Deuce.

JasonC

03-08-2008, 07:57 PM

From the Marine corps "machineguns in urban terrain" guide

"b. At 50 meters, the 7.62mm ball round cannot penetrate a double layer of sandbags. It can penetrate a single layer at 200 meters, but not a double layer. The .50 caliber armor piercing round does only slightly better against sandbags. It cannot penetrate a double layer but can penetrate up to 10 inches at 600 meters.

c. The penetration capability of the 7.62mm round is best at 600 meters. However, most urban targets are at the 200 meter or less range.

d. The penetration capability of the .50 caliber round is best at 800 meters. For hard targets, the .50 caliber’s penetration is also affected if the gun is fired from an oblique position at the target. Both .50 caliber armor piercing and ball ammunition can penetrate 14 inches of sand or 28 inches of packed earth at 200 meters if the round impact perpendicular to the flat face of the target."

Note the best penetration ranges are quite long, not point blank. This is a typical shatter issue. At the point blank ranges, the bullets are failing. At longer ones, they may retain integrity longer through the penetration process and thus get through more material before being stopped.

But all are well below theoretical distances you'd get from e.g. the energy of a 50 cal vs. a 5.56 or 7.62. In fact the 50 cal doesn't even double the penetration ability of the 7.62 vs. something as tough on the bullet as sand.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/archive/index.php/t-76341.html

[YankeeDog]

How can you be so sure it was the small arms fire, rather than the mortar firing, that alerted the enemy to your unit's location? :confused:

I obviously can't speak for hobo's situation specifically, but quite often at <300m ranges, if you order an on-map mortar team to fire direct lay on a target, the ammo bearers will actually open up with their small arms and get a good half dozen shots off before the mortar gunner has even got the mortar laid on target and the first mortar round into air. I've frequently seen it where this small arms fire attracts enemy return fire before the mortar has even fired its first ranging round. It it therefore pretty clear to me that the small arms fire is what is causing the mortar team to be spotted. It might be spotted eventually anyway from the mortar signature, but not as quickly. And in this kind of situation, whether the mortar is spotted before or after it gets the first round on target matters a lot.

I find it very hard to believe that this is in any way a realistic depiction of light mortar team tactics.

[YankeeDog]

As I understand it, BFC are reluctant to clutter the AI with special-case orders that will probably be seldom used. I think there has to be a REALLY strong case before they'll add to or alter any orders.

Well, I'm certainly not advocating for any "special case orders." The last thing this game needs is more commands on the UI. Rather, for a more realistic modeling, I think a unit's "primary function" should have a stronger affect on how the individual members of that unit behave, both when acting autonomously and when executing specific player orders. I should think this would be obvious, but the spotter/security guy carrying an MP40 in a 2-man sniper team shouldn't use his MP40 in the same way a member of a rifle squad armed with the same weapon does because their job responsibilities are very different.

As mentioned in prior posts, mortar team members revealing the mortar's position by firing their personal firearms is usually unwise tactically and therefore probably an unrealistic depiction of how such units would behave in most combat situations. This is one way to look at this issue. Another way to look at it is in terms of soldiers' overall responsibilities in combat and whether heavy weapons team members really should be able to devote much time to firing their personal firearms in most combat situations.

Rifle squad infantry fire their personal weapon in combat a lot because that's their primary job and they don't have much else to do when the lead starts to fly. But heavy weapons teams are different. Even if they are carrying the same personal firearms as their rifle squad comrades, heavy weapons team members usually have more important things to do than take potshots at the enemy with their Garand or K98 or SMLE or whatever. This is usually true even if they're not, at the moment, directly involved with operating the team's primary weapon.

With regard to mortar teams specifically, my understanding is that mortars in the 60mm - 81mm size range require the full attention of at least 3 crew to operate at optimum efficiency: One team leader/spotter to observe fall of shot and call corrections, one mortar gunner who actually sights the tube, and one loader/charge setter. One or two additional team members also are often tasked with running shells and charges to the tube from an ammo point a few meters away (for obvious reasons, it's a good idea to avoid keeping too many shells immediately adjacent to the tube while firing).

So, taking your typical U.S. 5-man 60mm mortar team as a case example, *at most* 2 members of the team should be available to fire small arms when the mortar tube is active, and this is being generous. I have definitely seen more than 2 members of a 60mm mortar team blazing away with small arms while the gunner lays in a target. Similar issues apply to AT Gun, Infantry Gun, and Bazooka/Panzershreck teams.

Please don't take this as a "This game is broken, BFC fix er do sumfink!" post -- I don't view this issue as a "game-breaker." But I do think this is a "proud nail" sticking up out of what has become a pretty darn smooth, polished product and I'd like to see this nail beaten down sooner rather than later.

I would also add that I don't want to see this issue fixed because it's "ruining" my own tactical genius (such as it is). Rather, I think improving things in this area would make the computer more challenging opponent. Competent human players can micromanage around these issues. But the computer player does not know how to pull of micromanagement "tricks." So better small arms behavior from weapons teams would benefit the computer player much more than it would benefit human players.

[LukeFF]

YankeeDog sums up perfectly my opinion on this matter.

[Paulverisor64]

YankeeDog sums up perfectly my opinion on this matter.

I agree very much as well.

However that is a lot to lay on the shoulders of a 5 man team to fix.

[JonS]

This is one way to look at this issue. Another way to look at it is ...

... and yet another way to look at it is in terms of what you as a player are ordering your mortar teams to do. If you deliberately put them in sight of an enemy unit, within small arms range. You don't have to do that, you know. It's your choice as commander. Is it really 'on' to expect that they won't use their small arms when you order them to directly engage that unit?

And what about the exact same situation, except now they're out of mortar ammn - same behaviour?

[YankeeDog]

... and yet another way to look at it is in terms of what you as a player are ordering your mortar teams to do. If you deliberately put them in sight of an enemy unit, within small arms range. You don't have to do that, you know. It's your choice as commander. Is it really 'on' to expect that they won't use their small arms when you order them to directly engage that unit?

And what about the exact same situation, except now they're out of mortar ammn - same behaviour?

So what, mortar team members magically sprout an extra set of arms so that they can operate the mortar *and* fire their small arms when engaging <300m?

Or maybe something like this is what's going on:

"Team Leader Sgt. Rock sighted impacting rounds, holding his binoculars up to his eyes with one hand while blazing away with his Tommy gun in the other and barking corrections over the cacophony of small arms fire. Meanwhile, Asst. Gunner Pvt. Smith dropped mortar rounds down the tube with one hand and snapped off shots with his carbine held in the other. Ammo Bearer Pvt. Jones unpacked and prepped the mortar bombs using one hand and his teeth, while firing his carbine with the other hand. Ammo Bearer Pvt. White ran the live bombs to the tube, tossing the rounds at Pvt. Smith one-handed so he could operate his carbine with the other. Only Gunner Pvt. Pyle failed to contribute small arms fire to the fight; he had to keep both hands on the mortar and he hadn't had time to remove his boots so he could fire his pistol with his toes."

[JonS]

So that's the way you want to play - strawmen at 30 paces?

[YankeeDog]

So that's the way you want to play - strawmen at 30 paces?

Eh? How is my last post a Strawman argument? You pulled a quote from my post, wherein I argued (among other things) that it is probably unrealistic that the game even models a mortar team as being capable of operating a mortar and putting out a significant amount of small arms fire at the same time. I responded by further illustrating this part of my argument, presenting the idea that a mortar team probably wouldn't be able both to operate a mortar and fire personal arms unless they had extra arms and/or superhuman dexterity. Admittedly, my follow-up post could be seen as sarcastic, snarky, possibly even juvenile, but Strawman?

Unless you're trying to argue that units should start to do physically impossible things (like operate a mortar and fire small arms simultaneously) when the player makes poor tactical choices (such as putting a mortar team in LOS of the enemy at close range)?

[Sublime]

Only Gunner Pvt. Pyle failed to contribute small arms fire to the fight; he had to keep both hands on the mortar and he hadn't had time to remove his boots so he could fire his pistol with his toes."

slacker! rofl

[hobo]

How can you be so sure it was the small arms fire, rather than the mortar firing, that alerted the enemy to your unit's location? :confused:

Good point. It could have been a glint coming off of their dog tags, the pop of the mortar, or the bang from small arms fire. Lets start by removing the bang.

[hobo]

Well, I'm certainly not advocating for any "special case orders." The last thing this game needs is more commands on the UI. Rather, for a more realistic modeling, I think a unit's "primary function" should have a stronger affect on how the individual members of that unit behave, both when acting autonomously and when executing specific player orders. I should think this would be obvious, but the spotter/security guy carrying an MP40 in a 2-man sniper team shouldn't use his MP40 in the same way a member of a rifle squad armed with the same weapon does because their job responsibilities are very different.

As mentioned in prior posts, mortar team members revealing the mortar's position by firing their personal firearms is usually unwise tactically and therefore probably an unrealistic depiction of how such units would behave in most combat situations. This is one way to look at this issue. Another way to look at it is in terms of soldiers' overall responsibilities in combat and whether heavy weapons team members really should be able to devote much time to firing their personal firearms in most combat situations.

Rifle squad infantry fire their personal weapon in combat a lot because that's their primary job and they don't have much else to do when the lead starts to fly. But heavy weapons teams are different. Even if they are carrying the same personal firearms as their rifle squad comrades, heavy weapons team members usually have more important things to do than take potshots at the enemy with their Garand or K98 or SMLE or whatever. This is usually true even if they're not, at the moment, directly involved with operating the team's primary weapon.

With regard to mortar teams specifically, my understanding is that mortars in the 60mm - 81mm size range require the full attention of at least 3 crew to operate at optimum efficiency: One team leader/spotter to observe fall of shot and call corrections, one mortar gunner who actually sights the tube, and one loader/charge setter. One or two additional team members also are often tasked with running shells and charges to the tube from an ammo point a few meters away (for obvious reasons, it's a good idea to avoid keeping too many shells immediately adjacent to the tube while firing).

So, taking your typical U.S. 5-man 60mm mortar team as a case example, *at most* 2 members of the team should be available to fire small arms when the mortar tube is active, and this is being generous. I have definitely seen more than 2 members of a 60mm mortar team blazing away with small arms while the gunner lays in a target. Similar issues apply to AT Gun, Infantry Gun, and Bazooka/Panzershreck teams.

Please don't take this as a "This game is broken, BFC fix er do sumfink!" post -- I don't view this issue as a "game-breaker." But I do think this is a "proud nail" sticking up out of what has become a pretty darn smooth, polished product and I'd like to see this nail beaten down sooner rather than later.

I would also add that I don't want to see this issue fixed because it's "ruining" my own tactical genius (such as it is). Rather, I think improving things in this area would make the computer more challenging opponent. Competent human players can micromanage around these issues. But the computer player does not know how to pull of micromanagement "tricks." So better small arms behavior from weapons teams would benefit the computer player much more than it would benefit human players.

Bingo. Well said and thank you.

[c3k]

^^^

I concur. YankeeDog, you phrased it very well. Thank you.

Ken

[dieseltaylor]

I agree very much as well.

However that is a lot to lay on the shoulders of a 5 man team to fix.

Just restricting the range would do wonders. Surely that is an easy fix?

PS here is what real men do : )

http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics171.html

[dieseltaylor]

I agree very much as well.

However that is a lot to lay on the shoulders of a 5 man team to fix.

Just restricting the range would do wonders. Surely that is an easy fix?

PS here is what real men do : )

http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics171.html