Alexey K Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 What are pros and cons of preferring mortars of howitzers? So far from my own observations I've conluded that: 1. Mortars have quicker reaction time (from calling in to first round falling) and better accuracy (rounds are less dispersed). 2. Howizters have better firepower - single howitzer round deals more damage and suppression than signle mortar round. Am I correct? What am I missing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Pretty much. Mortars usually belong to lower echelon units so they're faster on call. Some howitzers are beefier than mortars although in practice effects for 105 mm howitzers are about equal to 120 mm mortars. Not as simulated by the game, mortars also come in at a much higher angle which better allows them to strike targets behind buildings or similar objects than howitzers. Howitzers have vastly superior range though so on paper an artillery battery can support a lot more space than a mortar unit of similar size. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 I had the impression from playing that the howitzers are more accurate than the mortars until the barrels start heating up. At least the fancy self propelled guys, I haven't used much of the old fashioned artillery in CMBS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Russian 120mm mortars (such as Nona) have same effects as the 152mm howziters (such as Msta), but tend to offer less range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 I had the impression from playing that the howitzers are more accurate than the mortars until the barrels start heating up. At least the fancy self propelled guys, I haven't used much of the old fashioned artillery in CMBS. IRL 777s (the American towed 155mm) are damned accurate, even without GPS guided rounds. In-game, they don't seem especially inaccurate. What are pros and cons of preferring mortars of howitzers? So far from my own observations I've conluded that: 1. Mortars have quicker reaction time (from calling in to first round falling) and better accuracy (rounds are less dispersed). 2. Howizters have better firepower - single howitzer round deals more damage and suppression than signle mortar round. Am I correct? What am I missing? Howitzers tend to have more tubes and higher ammunition loads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 IRL 777s (the American towed 155mm) are damned accurate, even without GPS guided rounds. In-game, they don't seem especially inaccurate. Both the SP and towed 155 MMs are accurate, and use similar computerized FCS/fires coordination equipment. They're quite accurate, even again without precision rounds. With that said, the M1064 mounted 120 MM mortars also include a digital FCS, so they're capable of near-precision shoots too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Who doesn't get a digital FCS now adays? That said - I think that getting a new artillery system is also important, as no magic FCS could get rid of the gun's imperfections in their entirety. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 Thanks for answers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 http://rostec.ru/news/3150 Interesting article. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 So yay or nay on my assessment that the guns are more accurate than the mortars until the barrels start heating up? with the Russians I often use the non guided rounds against tanks because the guided rounds often don't do enough damage. I think the glass noses of the rounds are modeled giving them less penetration. I often get multiple direct hits with the guns, yet with the mortars I feel lucky to get a similar number of hits on an entire building. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) I think for most modern artillery the three single biggest sources of variation are atmospheric effects ( wind, density, and moisture all matter), propellant variation between shells, and placement of the round in the tube. Some systems measure the muzzle velocity of each round to correct for some of this as they go. The weather part can be very tricky because it matters for the entire path of the shell. Edited April 8, 2015 by dan/california 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I got two M1A2 in one game with the 152mm guided rounds.. Both on fire. One hit the engine conpartment (full penetration) and the orher the top turret (partial). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeinfeldRules Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Mortars generally have a much higher range dispersion then cannon artillery. Artillery is generally much more meticulous when it comes to accounting for varying conditions, and benefits from rifling, more stable rounds, a more even burning of powder, and probably the biggest factor of all, low angle fire. The high angle mortar spends 2 or 3 times longer in the air then a low angle howitzer, which means met has that much more effect. The effect can be quite noticeable, especially when trying to do "precision area" fire, like registrations. Whether this effect is modeled in game, I do not know. The disadvantages of a high range dispersion is offset by its responsiveness, which is orders of magnitude faster then artillery. On the topic of digital FCS - overall they don't make a howitzer more accurate, a gun's FCS just ensure it is layed on the correct data provided by the FDC. A good howitzer crew can do this degraded as well, using WW2 level technology. The digital system truly makes a difference in the FDC, where computers can calculate accurate data for each tube using the latest met. The old system, before computers, had FDCs creating generalized "corrections" for a certain slice of their azimuth and range fans. Rounds outside that slice would require a different set of corrections. Rounds using a different propelling charge or lot would require different corrections as well. To top it off, when the FDC received updated met they would have to re-calculate of ALL these corrections. If the battery moved - new corrections. If you shot a different type of round - new corrections. When you are doing this by hand 3 or 4 times a day it can become quite difficult. Computers now do this for every round fired, no matter the situation. It's come to the point where the greatest factor in accuracy of artillery in the modern war is target location error by the FO. Edited April 9, 2015 by SeinfeldRules 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.