CM AntiTank Mortars, Too Accurate?

[Maj. Bosco]

Mortars are just one of those things you've got to watch out for. If you lost your tank without the opportunity to move it because an anti-tank team snuck up or a AT gun was moved into place then there wouldn't be a problem. As for the accuracy, I think it's fine. The spread is actually pretty big. Not much left or right of the target but plenty in front and behind it.

Also, about 2" mortars. I must be playing a different game. I've never seen a 2" penetrate a stug without a top hit at weak point. Remember, they only come with like 15 shots. It's a pretty lucky 2" that kills a stug. Least in my experience.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

If you lost your tank without the opportunity to move it because an anti-tank team snuck up or a AT gun was moved into place then there wouldn't be a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, since I seem to have a problem getting through(did not know my English was that bad):

I do not have problems with the following:

1. Penetration values

2. Mortar accuracy

But I do have a problem with the TC sitting there, idling the engine and not doing anything about a substantial threat. If it was an AT gun or a PIAT the Stug would have engaged it, given the chance (i.e. not being killed first shot). If it was a Churchill VIII, it would have engaged or dropped smoke and gotten the hell out of there. Because it was an equally deadly, yet not recognised by the TC threat, it did not do anything and died.

That I do have a problem with, especially since I do have a 1st-hand reference saying that they did in fact maneuver (posted elsewhere) and I seem to remember vets saying that SOP is to maneuver.

So I think there is a problem. Unless you can come and provide to me a 1st-hand reference or an SOP saying that TCs did not maneuver when under mortar fire (in the absence of other threats), I will continue to have a problem with it. Other observations and wry comments do not count.

Please note, I do not call upon Steve & Charles to get the hell onto the problem because it ruins my gameplay, but I think it is something that ought to be looked at in good time as something to make the list for CM2. Where it ends up priority wise on that one I do not care. I am happy to be proven wrong on this, but so far nobody here has done that.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Beekeeper]

I cannot speak to the how lethal mortars would be against armor, but I can speak to the accuracy issue. The mortar section attached to my scout troop, crewing M106's with 4.2 tubes were absolute gunslingers with those things. They let me tag along on a compettion one time where the three M106's were traveling along a tank trail and received a fire mission. The stopwatch started when the range officer completed the fire mission. They put the spotting round ON TOP OF a tank hulk about a mile away in 10 seconds and then fired for effect. They did stuff like this regularly- just unreal accuracy.

------------------

"Well, I will show you that before I was a marshal I was a grenadier, and I am still one." Marshal Jean Lannes, Ratisbon, 1809.

[robo]

In a recent game had some 60mm and 81mm mortars firing at AFVs. They took out a StGIII on the first shot but vs the JpZIVs they got about 12 hits with no effect. I noticed that the StGII has 15mm top armor while the JpZIVs have 20mm top armor.

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kump:

Tale of the 2in Mortar Blaster...

Well, well, I finally found that 2 inch mortar. It was almost out of ammo when I stumbled on it (on other side of river).

Since the 2in mortar had taken out six vehicles, about 75% of my armor, I was excited to get my revenge! I gleefully moved a surviving 251/9 to slam it with a 75mm round when BAMMM!!!

A hidden 6pdr AT gun beside the mortar opened up and my 251/9 went up in a catastrophic giant fire ball! I fell out of my seat grasping my chest. Fortunately, the sounds of battle ceased as I wreathed on the floor. Remembering it was just a game, I finally got up.

Now I can take an ambush from a hidden AT gun, that's fair. But that 2in mortar with six vehicle kills can not survive this fight. NO! I'll send all the guys to their doom if need be, but I won't let that evil tank busting 2in mortar survive!

Woops, my soldiers found the mortar to be flanked by infantry squads and my troops are now kissing bridge. That blasted mortar is going to live....NOOOOOOoooooo....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kump, that was the funniest damned post I've ever read on this forum. Tears are still coming down my cheeks. Thanks for saying how I feel sometimes.

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[BeWary]

I've noticed a few people have posted that with indirect fire, mortars seem to be very accurate and deadly, but not so with direct fire. Is this accurate? Do you think mortar teams are more effective when they are out of harms way and their hands aren't shaking as much? Perhaps the HQ units are just better at directing the fire?

Just wondering,

BeWary

P.S. I agree with Germanboy that tanks should pop smoke and/or move when mortar rounds start falling, but I'd like to see it in a future patch IF it doesn't take a lot of effort to code.

------------------

"Liberty or Death?" Make it "Victory or Pretty Damned Badly Wounded", and I'm yours. - a prospective recruit during the American Revolution.

[seal7]

I set up some QB tests. Used 4 infantry platoon HQ's and 16 mortars in each test. Mortars divided into 4 sections, all regular. Each group of enemy armour was usually one of each flavor for each interation.

Overall, indirect fire generated approx. 50% more hits than direct fire. With 81/60 mm mortars against fully armoured vehicles you have about a 25% chance of killing/disabling with an individual mortar before it runs out of ammo. The Brit 2" and 3" generated a significantly higher hit/disable/kill ratio...probably an average of 100% or even higher. Early Stugs, Sherman, Hetzers and Tigers(!) appeared more susceptible to mortar fire.

Indirect fire against open topped/light vehicles is devastatingly effective...far far FAR higher than with bazookas/panzerfausts/PIATs.

Units WILL move out of impact area to a turret down position if they aren't engaging a target. If they're engaging a target, they will often just button up. I THINK, but aren't sure, that they also fired smoke a few times if they could tell the general direction the fire was coming from.

PROs: From my tests, mortars are a far more effective anti-armour weapon than launchers when used in indirect fire mode with open fields of fire, more survivable, "invisible", and longer ranged. Knocks the socks off open vehicles.

CONs: Not really that effective against fully armoured vehicles...mainly a matter of luck. To be more effective you have to give the tank some "bait" to engage its attention and keep it stationary. Less effective in heavily wooded/urban areas. Slow moving if you have to displace. Expense vs launchers.

One thing BTW, that I didn't "test", was the mortar HT vehicles in indirect mode.

Shame they didn't give the the SP vehicles an indirect fire mode as well...definitely give the track mounted arty alot more flexibility.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by seal7:

One thing BTW, that I didn't "test", was the mortar HT vehicles in indirect mode.

Shame they didn't give the the SP vehicles an indirect fire mode as well...definitely give the track mounted arty alot more flexibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just on that point seal7, on-board Halftrack mortars are also unable to fire indirectly under Combat Mission... direct fire only

Regards

Jim R.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by seal7:

Shame they didn't give the the SP vehicles an indirect fire mode as well...definitely give the track mounted arty alot more flexibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you refer to anything else but the mortar vehicles, there have been a lot of discussions for it, and BTS have explained the reasoning behind it quite well. I suggest a search if you want to find it (or hope for the searchonauts...)

Colin, does the FAQ address this? Should it?

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

Sorry I missed the point. I agree the TC's should do something when under mortar fire but there isn't always a lot they can do. It's kind of hard to tell where mortar fire is coming from so even if the tank does pop smoke where does it move? It can't automatically move away from the mortars because it doesn't always know where they are. I'm not sure the AI is sophisticated enough to randomly find cover until it's not being fired on anymore.

[This message has been edited by Maj. Bosco (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

Sorry I missed the point. I agree the TC's should do something when under mortar fire but there isn't always a lot they can do. It's kind of hard to tell where mortar fire is coming from so even if the tank does pop smoke where does it move? It can't automatically move away from the mortars because it doesn't always know where they are. I'm not sure the AI is sophisticated enough to randomly find cover until it's not being fired on anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it is easy or just a simple tweak to the AI - I tend to leave that to other people who have even less understanding of coding than I do and still feel themselves eminently qualified to make such statements.

You point towards a problem I have not thought of. I think it would have to be a general 'let's get the hell out of here' reaction, preferably towards the back. This would force the mortars (being non-DF) to recalculate trajectories, so it would help even if LOS is not broken. I appreciate that this can create as many problems as it solves though.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Schugger]

BeWary:

I've only found out that direct mortar fire is imprecise if you target AFVs with them. Perhaps they do fear to be spotted and retaliation from the big guns mounted on their targets.

Germanboy:

In the example you gave, you simply used the right tactic, while your opponent made the mistake of exposing his tank to you long enough to enable you to move your mortars up to engage it.

To request that the TAC AI takes over the control over your AFVs when threatened my mortar fire may raise some problems:

Apart from the coding thing ( from which I have no clue) you may find that the TAC AI moves your tank in a very disadvantageous position.

[Keith]

I agree with Germanboy's assesments. AFVs, particularly open top AFVs, should take evasive action and move out when under artillery/mortar fire.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger:

Apart from the coding thing ( from which I have no clue) you may find that the TAC AI moves your tank in a very disadvantageous position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree about the coding bit, I am not quite sure that more disadvantageous than dead is possible. Also, this argument would also apply to meeting stronger tanks, or AT assets of any kind.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-05-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

Vehicle AIs don't react to any sort of indirect fire, it seems. So mortars and artillery, yes, but also, as it turns out, area fire from guns.

In a PBEM I'm playing against Dr. Alimantado, he set up what looks to be an infantry gun in a patch of woods. I park a HT out of the gun's LOS, but positioned to cover a likely route of advance, clever me. Well, clever him, he has the gun area fire about 3 meters from my HT's position. Big galoomphing HE shells are slamming into the ground five feet in front of the HT's fender, and it blithely sits there, completely unconcerned. At the beginning of the next turn, I tell the HT to get out of there, but it's immobilized during command delay. Poop.

I'm not sure what's to be done, but it seems that the vehicle AI just doesn't react unless something's directly targeting it. Which can be, as examples on this thread have shown, a bit problematic.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Tris]

I'm not sure what's to be done, but it seems that the vehicle AI just doesn't react unless something's directly targeting it. Which can be, as examples on this thread have shown, a bit problematic.

I wonder if this is true. I am in the process of building a scenario and tested it last night for twenty turns. My U.S. 105mm spotter first targeted a Pz VA which quickly enough changed position twice to eventually evade the terrific barrage brought to bear. Next, my spotter picked out a Tiger sitting still for the previous four turns, completely in the open, and sure enough, the turn after the first barrage fell that Tiger began to make tracks to the forward laterally left. It isn't clear to me now, though, that the game gives information re enemy AFV's which has been simply disabled. I say this because that second target of my spotter, the Tiger, drifted over to within 40m of a Stug and yet another Panter, where it then sat for the next three barrages. Finally, one of those 105mm rounds (or 75mm, it's impossible to say since the spotter for the latter battery had the Stug in his sight--this vehicle just sat there, too) found its mark, but not on the Tiger but the assault gun, which brewed up fast.

Anyway, I've seen the enemy move its AFV's out of the way as soon as it's clear it's under heavy fire, but I do not know if this evasive action is consistent, or even directly tied to the fire in question in the first place but merely a coincidence and motivated by some other imperative altogether.

Has anyone seen the gargantuan craters 210mm stuff leaves in the ground? Well, I suppose so. Being new to the game I just found out last night how utterly ravaging a round that large can be!

[Colin]

Try a 356mm round. It has something like a blast of 2136!!! It's insane. Anything caught in it's radius is irradicated!

------------------

And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh.

-Steve

My website!

A major source of Wild Bill scenarios!

[Tris]

[Schugger]

Is it just me or does anyone else here develop a Déjà-Vu experience.

In the "Infantry and buildings" discussion similar arguments were presented ( TAC AI should move Heinis out of the harms way).

While I argumented to make infantry more clever in this thread, I wouldn't like to see the TAC AI moving my tanks.

Germanboy, I'm somewhat shocked that you appear to be a smelly tank nut

[This message has been edited by Schugger (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger:

Is it just me or does anyone else here develop a Déjà-Vu experience.

In the "Infantry and buildings" discussion similar arguments were presented

Germanboy, I'm somewhat shocked that you appear to be a smelly tank nut

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just feel for my opponents when I kill their thingies with my AT mortars. I still don't win games unless I lose my armour first. Well, most of the time.

Regarding the other point, I agree there appear to be similarities. I think the big difference is that the Tank TacAI does recognise and react to some threads, but not others that are equally deadly. I am not sure what to do about it, and I am sure that coding is a problem, b/c otherwise I believe somefink would have been done. It is a nitpick in CMBO (as most of these things we bring up here are), but it will become important in CM2, because there ambush positions will play a much more crucial role.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

The difference, as I see it, between having the AI automove troops out of collapsing buildings and having the AI attempt to evade indirect fire is this: you can anticipate and correct for DF HE against buildings. There's no way to anticipate a hidden mortar unit dropping shells on your AFVs.

Also, it's fairly rare for even a light building to go down in one turn unless they're really getting pounded, so there's usually time to move your men out, even if you did get caught with your pants down. Whereas mortars seem to get the range in less than one turn. Kaboom. No chance to move.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.