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

[CarlWAW]

Minimum safety distance (MSD) according to FM 6-141-1 Field Artillery Target Analysis and Weapons Employment: Nonnuclear (15 February 1978):

@ 1000 m:

60 mm: 260 m

81 mm: 330 m

 

Minimum safe distance (MSD) is defined as the distance in meters from the intended center of impact at which a specific degree of risk and vulnerability will not be exceeded with a 99% (3 σ) assurance.

99% = 3 σ = 260 m

1 σ = 87 m diameter (62% of rounds impact inside) - 11 action spots

2 PE_range = 0,6457 σ= 55,96 m

PE_range = ~28 m

PE_deflection = ~ 0,66 * PE_range = 18,6 m

 

PE_range = 28 m

PE_deflection = 19 m

 

PE_50% = 56 m * 38 m (7 x 5 action spots or 2128 m²!)

 

Only 50% of all fired rounds should fall in a square of roughly 7x5 action spots.

 

I have never read that applied WW2 tactics of any side used single mortars to knock out guns. If it would have worked, nobody would have been so stupid to risk tanks or to waste 105s or amass 81s to do so.

The mathematics support it.

 

For most players it's probably mire fun that CM allows to do so, but realistic it's not.

[WriterJWA]

60mm mortars were, in part, designed for the purpose of direct lay fire missions. The modern infantry company 60mm mortar, which can trace its roots back to the WWII M2, even now has the ability to be trigger fired without a bipod. It has an aiming device on the carrying handle. In training I've pulled in HE rounds to about 200 meters. In WWII, 60mm mortars were routinely used for point fire missions on specific targets.... here is an (albeit dramatic) example...

https://youtu.be/os8l-CggUzg

 

 

Another example... https://youtu.be/t9Pt5mS8Ysg?t=51s

 

And a third... this time from Afghanistan. Two rounds and he was on target: https://youtu.be/Bmcdy-_8p6Q?t=4m55s

Edited June 10, 2015 by WriterJWA

[Bulletpoint]

So what I gather from your posts is that mortars in CM are too accurate and each bomb is too weak, compared to reality. I would like to see it switched around so that accuracy were lower and lethality higher. Combined average effect might stay the same.

[General Jack Ripper]

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.

 

Not exactly, I meant using the [Target] command in a direct fire mode to the action spot behind the spot the gun is located.

 

 

Womble, mortars cannot fire directly.

 

Yes they can, select the mortar team and use the [Target] command.

They can direct fire against anything outside of their minimum range, which for the U.S. 60mm mortar is 39 meters.

You can use direct fire to point target enemy units, or conduct area fire into a single action spot.

Edited June 10, 2015 by SLIM

[womble]

Minimum safety distance (MSD) according to FM 6-141-1 Field Artillery Target Analysis and Weapons Employment: Nonnuclear (15 February 1978):

@ 1000 m:

60 mm: 260 m

81 mm: 330 m

 

Minimum safe distance (MSD) is defined as the distance in meters from the intended center of impact at which a specific degree of risk and vulnerability will not be exceeded with a 99% (3 σ) assurance.

99% = 3 σ = 260 m

1 σ = 87 m diameter (62% of rounds impact inside) - 11 action spots

2 PE_range = 0,6457 σ= 55,96 m

PE_range = ~28 m

PE_deflection = ~ 0,66 * PE_range = 18,6 m

 

PE_range = 28 m

PE_deflection = 19 m

 

PE_50% = 56 m * 38 m (7 x 5 action spots or 2128 m²!)

 

Only 50% of all fired rounds should fall in a square of roughly 7x5 action spots.

 

I have never read that applied WW2 tactics of any side used single mortars to knock out guns. If it would have worked, nobody would have been so stupid to risk tanks or to waste 105s or amass 81s to do so.

The mathematics support it.

 

For most players it's probably mire fun that CM allows to do so, but realistic it's not.

At 1000m, sure. At 200m from the firing tube, those deflections produce deviations proportionately smaller (so a quadrilateral of a bit less than 2 x 1 for a 50% CEP which is what you roughly see in-game at that range). In fact, since they won't be using a full propellant charge, and the bomb won't be flying into high-level winds, the deviations are even further reduced.

[CarlWAW]

At 1000m, sure. At 200m from the firing tube, those deflections produce deviations proportionately smaller (so a quadrilateral of a bit less than 2 x 1 for a 50% CEP which is what you roughly see in-game at that range).

Source?

Edited June 10, 2015 by CarlWAW

[womble]

Source?

Erm, Pythagoras? He's something of an authority on geometry, I understand. Euclid probably has something to say on the matter, too. Angular deviations produce larger deflections the further they are from the angle.

[CarlWAW]

Erm, Pythagoras? He's something of an authority on geometry, I understand. Euclid probably has something to say on the matter, too. Angular deviations produce larger deflections the further they are from the angle.

 

Instead of your school wisdom how about firing tables?

[Rinaldi]

Rough luck man. 60mms firing over open sights and 81s firing a heavy barrage walked in by a FOB almost never fail me. Sometimes I need a second barrage, sure, but that's war. 

[John Kettler]

Bulletpoint,

 

There may be another factor at work. With few exceptions for the big guns, such as the 88, ATG crews don't operate the weapon standing up, but at the crouch or on a knee. f your expectations of effectiveness for mortar fire are based on vs standing men, then this would make a dramatic difference in the crew's vulnerability as perceived by the number cruncher under the hood. Here are perfect examples of what I'm describing.

 

Pak-40 in waiting in ambush, dug in

 

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/135/e/7/pak_40_in_combat_by_wolfenkrieger-d3ggmvl.jpg

 

Pak-40 in combat, not dug in

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Finnish-gun-crew-1942.jpg

ZIS-3, not dug in

 

http://worldwar2database.com/sites/default/files/wwii0254.jpg

ZIS-3 AT gun line, not dug in

http://ww2db.com/images/battle_kursk6.jpg

 

There are some pics of ZIS-3s operating with men more in a standing posture, but the typical situation is much like that of the Germans: crew hunkered down. 

 

45 mm ATG, not dug in

http://inert-ord.net/russ02i/mort_at/45mmSovietGuns.jpg

 

I have no idea what happens under the hood, but if the game is modeling ATG crews postured as in the period pics I've presented, then I see no way you're going to get anything like typical mortar effectiveness vs standing men. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited June 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[womble]

Instead of your school wisdom how about firing tables?

What, the ones that are calculated with, y'know, trigonometry?

 

Oh, all right then: here's a facsimile of the '44 range table: it goes down to 200m. Though it doesn't list "danger close" distances, it doesn't seem likely that the official range tables would bring the allowed aim point in to within 80% of the danger close distance. The fact remains that the dispersal pattern of almost any ordnance is reduced the closer to the projector its impact gets. It is, as you wilfully scorn, a simple matter of geometry.

 

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/60mm-m2-mortar-firing-table-card-ft-benning

 

This: http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/60mm-demo.htmldescribes the thing being demonstrated firing "direct lay", with no observer outside the mortar team. It also stresses that the mortar is to be used close to the fighting, with or without a remote observer.

 

It is a weapon of opportunity and must be kept well forward to get the maximum benefit of this weapon.  You must have observation; as long as you do have observation the three mortars in a rifle company are kept together.  When you no longer have observation, they are assigned individual tasks or attached to the rifle platoons of the company.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Bulletpoint,

 

There may be another factor at work. With few exceptions for the big guns, such as the 88, ATG crews don't operate the weapon standing up, but at the crouch or on a knee. f your expectations of effectiveness for mortar fire are based on vs standing men, then this would make a dramatic difference in the crew's vulnerability as perceived by the number cruncher under the hood. Here are perfect examples of what I'm describing.

 

Pak-40 in waiting in ambush, dug in

 

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/135/e/7/pak_40_in_combat_by_wolfenkrieger-d3ggmvl.jpg

 

 

Crouching or standing, I expect most of the men in that photo would be killed outright or at least knocked out of action by a 60mm mortar shell falling between them. If they were prone, I would expect most of them to survive, but be pretty shocked and not be able to hear much for a while.

[slysniper]

So what I gather from your posts is that mortars in CM are too accurate and each bomb is too weak, compared to reality. I would like to see it switched around so that accuracy were lower and lethality higher. Combined average effect might stay the same.

Well, that is nice, but you better just learn to live with what we have.

They are not tweeking the game now after all this time to just please you so that it looks more correct to what you want to expect.

The subject has been discussed for years, adjustment were made to get the kill , wounded ratios about right and it was explained multiple times as to why it was not a easy fix as to having the shell spread be different. along with the similar issue as to troops being more spread out.

So the graphics are not perfect, but the results generally do a good job of representing the situation.

So, you did not get the results you expected. Well playing War is just Hell isn't it.

[CarlWAW]

Womble,

there is no need to speculate, firing tables show the hard numbers.

[Bulletpoint]

Well, that is nice, but you better just learn to live with what we have.

They are not tweeking the game now after all this time to just please you so that it looks more correct to what you want to expect.

 

[...]

 

So, you did not get the results you expected. Well playing War is just Hell isn't it.

 

I'm glad you exposed me as the spoiled and entitled brat I am, it was about time somebody called me out on my unreasonable demands that Battlefront change the game according to my childish whims

[slysniper]

Ah, we all do it. I am sure I have a few rants on these forum pages.

 

Normally fueled by some type of bad experience while playing the game.

 

The trick is, finding a game error and reporting it takes more than just noticing something and questioning it. It requires

 

taking a game event and testing it out through controlled test and running it enough times to get a feel for the game statistics as to what it is doing before bringing it here as a possible issue.

 

Amazing how many odd things prove to be nothing once you see the game perform it enough.

 

Then the other factor is to strike while the issue is hot. BF is actively looking for reports the first few months after a game release. After that, they are on to other things and it would have to be pretty major item for them to come back and look at it after that. Not likely since , no one even noticed it up to that point. Thus another reason it will not be addressed.

 

Anyway, Mortar fire was a very hot topic at one time and Bf did what they could to fix it and at this point it likely will not be changing much. that's all

[Bulletpoint]

So I actually managed to find some time this morning to test this out

 

Basically I had 6x 60mm mortars firing at 6x PAK43 (regular, fanatic) at 993m distance.

 

Ran the combined test in two sets of 4 tests, each with 24 instances of a mortar firing at a PAK.

 

Half the test was with the guns hidden in light woods terrain under uniformly distributed tree cover, the other half of the tests placed guns in the open but with the mortars still targeting their location rather than the gun itself.

 

Results: Much higher (around 200-300 pct) casualties against guns in the open than in light forest. So it's the forest that protects the gun, not anything funky about the gun shield like I thought.

 

The test shows there's an 8.3 percent chance of killing all crew of a gun (ammo bearers not included) in light forest with 32 bombs from a 60mm mortar at 1000m range. (provided the gun is not abandoned. My test used fanatics so this did not happen)

 

3/4 tests ended with German surrender when they were in the open, compared to none of the light forest tests.

 

I have the detailed stats for each of the tests if anyone is interested. Or I can send the test scenarios.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe I should add that the results were surprising to me because I always assumed that troops under trees would be more vulnerable against mortars than in the open, due to possible tree bursts.

 

If tree bursts are a factor, it seems the forest terrain more than negates their effect.

 

It might be that orchards with trees but without actual forest type terrain tiles might be more dangerous than completely open grassland.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[c3k]

...and I'd pedantically point out that if you had 2 test conditions and a total of 48 runs, that you really had 24 runs...   

 

 

Interesting results.

[Bulletpoint]

...and I'd pedantically point out that if you had 2 test conditions and a total of 48 runs, that you really had 24 runs...   

 

 

Interesting results.

 

That's true, but I only claimed to have had 48 instances of a mortar firing against a PAK. Will edit the post to clarify.

 

Also, I'm not claiming this to be MIT level science, but I think the differences in the results are so big that the given sample size is decent to give at least a strong indication of what's going on.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bulletpoint