No luck with mortars against AT-guns...?

[Bulletpoint]

I've started to doubt AT-guns are modelled well against mortars. Case in point, repeated 60mm and 81mm mortars hitting extremely close behind the gun shield and also tree bursts immediately above the gun, yet causing no casualties.

 

I know there's a thing called bad luck, but I suspect the real reason is that the game only actually models the position of the gun shield against the trajectories of projectiles, but not against the effect of explosions.

 

So I think the difference in what happens is:

 

When a projectile shot is fired, its trajectory is traced, and if it intersects with the shield of the gun, it's checked for penetration or deflection according to the power of the shot. Result: the shield protects against fire from the front, but if you flank the gun, you can hit the crew easily.

 

However, when HE explodes close to the at-gun, only a general calculation is done, taking into account the explosive force and distance, minus a general protection modifier for the gun and the terrain. The calculation doesn't seem to take into account where the bomb actually landed. Result: the gun shield in effect protects all the way around.

 

Would love to be proven wrong about this, as I think it's pretty sad to see my mortar bombs fall harmlessly into the lap of the enemy.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Also, I've noticed that when my mortar crew actually spots the enemy gun, their mortar fire becomes much more effective than when they just area fire at the action spot where the gun is, without having spotted it. However, the bombs seem to have the same accuracy whether targeted at the area square or at the gun, it's just their effect on the target that seems to be increased when spotted.

 

This is based on spending around 30 bombs against the action square containing a Pak43, with numerous hits just next to the gun, above it and behind it, with no effect at all. Then I saw that my mortar crew had spotted the gun, and changed the target order to direct target. With just around 5 bombs, the gun was promptly taken out. 

[Pak40]

So I think the difference in what happens is:

 

When a projectile shot is fired, its trajectory is traced, and if it intersects with the shield of the gun, it's checked for penetration or deflection according to the power of the shot. Result: the shield protects against fire from the front, but if you flank the gun, you can hit the crew easily.

 

However, when HE explodes close to the at-gun, only a general calculation is done, taking into account the explosive force and distance, minus a general protection modifier for the gun and the terrain. The calculation doesn't seem to take into account where the bomb actually landed. Result: the gun shield in effect protects all the way around.

 

Would love to be proven wrong about this, as I think it's pretty sad to see my mortar bombs fall harmlessly into the lap of the enemy.

 

Actually, I think what is really happening is that when the mortar is fired, CM checks your serial number to get your username. If username = Bulletpoint then Pak=indestructible. That or it's just incredible bad luck.

[Bulletpoint]

Actually, I think what is really happening is that when the mortar is fired, CM checks your serial number to get your username. If username = Bulletpoint then Pak=indestructible. That or it's just incredible bad luck.

Haha I'm sure they hardcode the game against certain forum users.

Actually it was even more bad luck, since the pak was in a little wooded patch that I had just saturated with 81mm mortars. 161 bombs on a 70 metre line mission. 'Invulnerable pak syndrome'...

[George MC]

Just knocked out some PAK yesterday using 81mm mortars - had a hard spot so used point target. Soon several dead PAK. That was one 81mm (debussed from a 251/1 SPW) firing a 'heavy' mission controlled by a FO team.

[WriterJWA]

I've had some great results with direct missions from both 60's and 81's against just about every AT gun I've targeted. BUT it does take a lot of rounds sometimes. In fact just yesterday I was able to knock out two AT guns with just one 60 tucked behind bocage. I notice when I attempt the same thing from an FO with an indirect fire mission, the results aren't nearly as good and I usually have to repeat the mission a few times.    

 

As an aside... and not to hijack the thread... but why aren't their bonuses for repeat missions on the same target? In RL all an FO has to say is "repeat mission" over the radio and more rounds fall on the last target, all without the laborious adjusting...

Edited June 9, 2015 by WriterJWA

[Bulletpoint]

Never meant to say you can't knock out at guns with mortars. It just seems the gun crews are more difficult to kill than regular infantry, which should not be the case in my opinion.

[c3k]

Are these ATG's in the same location as their setup spot? There -may- be a bonus. (I think the only bonus is regarding how hard they are to spot, not being dug-in.)

 

Most mortar/artillery shells have an impact pattern more like a butterfly than an ellipse. Also, HE is (admittedly) nerfed in the game to makeup for the density of infantry. The nerfing is slight, but noticable. ATG's may highlight that ineffectiveness because irl atg crews crowd around the gun (usually) just like we see in-game.

 

Of course, all this is ymmv, imho. However, before drawing ANY conclusions, you'd need many more runs to test your supposition. A control test would need to be performed, then one variable changed and an equivalent number of runs to check the test condition.

 

Ken

[Bulletpoint]

Are these ATG's in the same location as their setup spot? There -may- be a bonus. (I think the only bonus is regarding how hard they are to spot, not being dug-in.)

 

Most mortar/artillery shells have an impact pattern more like a butterfly than an ellipse. Also, HE is (admittedly) nerfed in the game to makeup for the density of infantry. The nerfing is slight, but noticable. ATG's may highlight that ineffectiveness because irl atg crews crowd around the gun (usually) just like we see in-game.

 

Of course, all this is ymmv, imho. However, before drawing ANY conclusions, you'd need many more runs to test your supposition. A control test would need to be performed, then one variable changed and an equivalent number of runs to check the test condition.

 

Ken

 

I know the HE is nerfed, it just seems like a man standing up should not keep standing if a mortar bomb goes off right at his feet. There should be some kind of "direct hit" exception to the nerfing, in my humble opinion. When there's a bit of distance to the target, just a few metres, I can shrug off most of the disbelief, but when it's bang on target, it seems "off" to me, even though statistically speaking, the right number of casualties are produced in the long term.

 

Also, about that nerfing... In real life, infantry would space out more, but wouldn't that mean that the number of casualties would stay the same from a given bombardment? There would be less risk of the whole squad getting killed by one lucky hit, but the risk that one of them would get hit would increase, wouldn't it? As the troops would cover a larger area.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[WriterJWA]

Never meant to say you can't knock out at guns with mortars. It just seems the gun crews are more difficult to kill than regular infantry, which should not be the case in my opinion.

I hindsight I think you're right. In one of the Nijmegen campaign scenarios, I must've pumped Sherman 37mm fire into an 88 at nearly point blank range for better part of five minutes before I managed to kill the last gunner. I kinda' figured he might have taken off looooong before that. Similarly with mortars against AT guns vs regular infantry.

[Bulletpoint]

I hindsight I think you're right. In one of the Nijmegen campaign scenarios, I must've pumped Sherman 37mm fire into an 88 at nearly point blank range for better part of five minutes before I managed to kill the last gunner. I kinda' figured he might have taken off looooong before that. Similarly with mortars against AT guns vs regular infantry.

 

Interesting to hear I'm not the only one noticing it. I should set up some kind of test one of these days, but I'm not sure what kind of test setup would show it well.

[womble]

When you apply really significant suppression to infantry that're hard to kill, sometimes it's counterproductive, because they spend so much time Pinned and Cowering, they never get the chance to run away. Putting in the odd Target Briefly, or skipping a minute entirely, once you're convinced the poor muddyfunster is just "dying" to run away can get them up out of the microterrain they've been hugging to survive so long.

[A Canadian Cat]

I really am not seeing anything like what you are talking about. Case in point from the ongoing open AAR http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119229-axis-cmbn-buying-the-farm-crowd-sourced-dar/page-9:
 

Minute 22-21
Firing intensifies. The mortar rounds that were falling in the previous minute found their mark, and took out all but one of the ATG crew members ("1"). The ammo team is all but gone as well.

That was my 60mm mortars taking out most of the gun crew behind the gun and the bocage.  This just an example.  I fire mortars at AT guns when ever I can because they are at less risk of being spotted and they are quite effective.

[c3k]

I know the HE is nerfed, it just seems like a man standing up should not keep standing if a mortar bomb goes off right at his feet. There should be some kind of "direct hit" exception to the nerfing, in my humble opinion. When there's a bit of distance to the target, just a few metres, I can shrug off most of the disbelief, but when it's bang on target, it seems "off" to me, even though statistically speaking, the right number of casualties are produced in the long term.

 

Also, about that nerfing... In real life, infantry would space out more, but wouldn't that mean that the number of casualties would stay the same from a given bombardment? There would be less risk of the whole squad getting killed by one lucky hit, but the risk that one of them would get hit would increase, wouldn't it? As the troops would cover a larger area.

 

Yeah, that's why it's nerfed. The results are the same: in game, it means that close guys are safer than in real life. Overall, casualties are right. The mechanism that produces those results ends up with some outliers. Obviously, it there are outliers, there should be a way to adjust for them and correct them.

 

I have not seen, prior to what you wrote, any report of men standing firm beneath exploding rounds; nor was there any statement that a round went off at someone's feet and they weren't wounded.

 

If you have saves or screenies, please post.

 

Otherwise, the "feel" that it is off needs to be distilled into something far more quantifiable. Once it is quantified, it can be analyzed to see IF there is an issue, and then what the results should be.

 

Ken

[General Jack Ripper]

One thing I've noticed with area fire is I have better results targeting the Action Spot behind the gun, not the one the gun is in.

[Bulletpoint]

Yeah, that's why it's nerfed. The results are the same: in game, it means that close guys are safer than in real life. Overall, casualties are right. The mechanism that produces those results ends up with some outliers. Obviously, it there are outliers, there should be a way to adjust for them and correct them.

I have not seen, prior to what you wrote, any report of men standing firm beneath exploding rounds; nor was there any statement that a round went off at someone's feet and they weren't wounded.

If you have saves or screenies, please post.

Otherwise, the "feel" that it is off needs to be distilled into something far more quantifiable. Once it is quantified, it can be analyzed to see IF there is an issue, and then what the results should be.

Ken

Thanks for your replies. Just today I noticed the situation with the mortar bomb landing at a guys feet without any harm done, but didn't think of saving the game. Will do next time.

[Bulletpoint]

One thing I've noticed with area fire is I have better results targeting the Action Spot behind the gun, not the one the gun is in.

You mean area fire with mortars? That's odd. I would think that the spread pattern would be large enough for a point target at most ranges that one square wouldn't mean much. I did notice however that the spread is quite realistic in that there's bigger variation along the line of fire than across it. In other words, bombs are more likely to overshoot or fall short than to hit left or right of the target.

[womble]

I've seen "at the feet explosions" (81mm) fail to hurt any of the (usually small) team on a few occasions. And then I've seen smaller explosions (60mm) kill 5 out of 5 of the team they hit. I've seen brackets of 150mm shred to vanishing the trees around an ATG, leaving enough crew to continue to work the gun.

 

There are outliers in both directions, but there are anecdotes of outliers like that in real life, too.

[CarlWAW]

I hope the behaviour of mortars will not be changed torwards more accuracy. I think they are already too precise and effective against point targets.

According to my knowledge, in reality not even singular 81 mm tubes were useful as gun killers. It was the dangerous task of the tankers, often after artillery support, to deal with them. The smaller calibres were even less effective. The 75 mm infantry guns were more effective, because of their much higher precision and the more effective grenades.

I guess the majority would not like the gun terminator weapon #1 in CM, mortars, be reduced in it's effectivity, but I would like it, if the realsim was increased. The use of a single barreled 81 mm mortar was lying more in the effect of supression of an area and less in the effect of knocking out spot targets. 60 and 50 mm mortars should be even worse and only good for (hopefully) supressing a dozen or so action spots.

Edited June 10, 2015 by CarlWAW

[womble]

I hope the behaviour of mortars will not be changed torwards more accuracy. I think they are already too precise and effective against point targets.

According to my knowledge, in reality not even singular 81 mm tubes were useful as gun killers. It was the dangerous task of the tankers, often after artillery support, to deal with them. The smaller calibres were even less effective. The 75 mm infantry guns were more effective, because of their much higher precision and the more effective grenades.

I guess the majority would not like the gun terminator weapon #1 in CM, mortars, be reduced in it's effectivity, but I would like it, if the realsim was increased. The use of a single barreled 81 mm mortar was lying more in the effect of supression of an area and less in the effect of knocking out spot targets. 60 and 50 mm mortars should be even worse and only good for (hopefully) supressing a dozen or so action spots.

60mm mortars over direct lay could drop their bombs pretty tightly at close ranges. 200m is close range. That's when you see tight groupings in game. Indirect fire support is much more diffuse, and less effective. You want an ATG gone, DF mortars are, and should be, the way to go (if you can't flank it).

[CarlWAW]

Womble, mortars cannot fire directly.

[Bulletpoint]

I've seen "at the feet explosions" (81mm) fail to hurt any of the (usually small) team on a few occasions. And then I've seen smaller explosions (60mm) kill 5 out of 5 of the team they hit. I've seen brackets of 150mm shred to vanishing the trees around an ATG, leaving enough crew to continue to work the gun.

 

There are outliers in both directions, but there are anecdotes of outliers like that in real life, too.

 

I agree that outliers happen in real life too, but in my opinion not with anything near the frequency of this game. Walking away from a 81mm mortar bomb hitting next to your feet is in the realm of miracles. Only way I could see that happen would be if the round was a dud (which I think would be cool to see the game emulate).

 

Please bear in mind that I'm not asking for mortars to be overpowered. I think it's very possible for infantry to survive many close hits (when prone and especially in foxholes), but not direct hits. The trick with artillery and mortars should be getting the rounds on target. If you manage that, I believe it should be extremely rare that the enemy stays standing in that particular place.

[Fizou]

Womble, mortars cannot fire directly.

 

He means the difference of a mortar being able to see the target or not. That makes a huge difference.

 

My experience are that mortars usually have no problem taking out AT guns. But in some cases its harder to achieve a total KO.

[CarlWAW]

Fizou,

it doesn't make a difference, because a FO can't change the dispersion pattern - it is a physical constraint.

[womble]

Fizou,

it doesn't make a difference, because a FO can't change the dispersion pattern - it is a physical constraint.

But direct lay fire takes place at ranges far less than observed, indirect fire, with the projectile reaching much lower altitudes and being affected by the random factors of weather far less, along with the similar angular dispersion effects being proportionally reduced. Even if light mortars are "assumed" to be immediately behind the "friendly" base line, the range to target will in very nearly all cases be greater than the range from an on-map mortar. Similarly, on-map indirect fire assets are usually far back from the fighting, or they'd be firing in "direct lay".

 

Now, I haven't done any tests to see the differences in mortar patterns firing at the same place from the same position, direct or observer-mediated (why would you do that? direct lay is faster on-target and less likely to suffer from observer/map/comms errors), so there might be some difference in-game.

 

But mostly, it's the ranges at which mortars engage in direct lay that make them so much more a precision implement.