Why Do Mortar Guns Die So Easily?

[Col Deadmarsh]

This has been bothering me for a long time now. I don't understand why when an arty barrage hits nearby that the mortar is rendered useless. I've had plenty of times where not one of the team members was hurt and yet the gun (if that's what it's called) is no longer of use.

Is this realistic? I thought those things were pretty sturdy and were able to able to withstand a little combat.

[JasonC]

Broken sights. Spikey holes in the tube that mean bent shards of metal, still attached, in the way of a shell dropped down it. A crew that just doesn't want to carry a baseplate in a barrage anymore. There are lots of things that can go wrong with it. A better question might be why MGs never get decrewed in similar fashion (less often, certainly, but sometimes - bent tripod, busted mount, etc).

[Hensworth]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> A better question might be why MGs never get decrewed in similar fashion (less often, certainly, but sometimes - bent tripod, busted mount, etc). <hr></blockquote>

Exactly. Rather than damage, I think abandonment should be the main reason for mortars and MG's going out of action.

Mortar crews react realistically : leaving their heavy equipment behind when running for cover.

MG crews just move at a ridiculously slow speed until they're down to the last man, who then surrenders.

[Bullethead]

Sgt_Kelly kelly said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>MG crews just move at a ridiculously slow speed until they're down to the last man, who then surrenders.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, MGs become immobilized when down to 1 or 2 guys. Far from abandoning their heavy gear, the survivors will remain with it when there are no longer enough guys to carry it all. This is especially strange when the survivors surrender, because they retain their immobilized status despite "dropping" their weapons. Hence, you can't move them to a POW collection point or off the map. This is one of CM's endearing little quirks

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead:

This is especially strange when the survivors surrender, because they retain their immobilized status despite "dropping" their weapons. Hence, you can't move them to a POW collection point or off the map. This is one of CM's endearing little quirks <hr></blockquote>

I have a game going (against that useless Kant-spouting sad sack Lars) where I captured an immobilized HMG42 team (down to 1 guy) and I am moving him to the flamethro...umm...I mean POW collection point right now.

So mine experience jibes not with thine.

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]</p>

[Redwolf]

Sorry, guys but guns are extremly vulnerable against HE fire. One quote coming to mind if von Luck ("Panzer Commander"), who wondered in Afric how the 88s (Flaks in that case) could hold up the British so long, for they were "very vulnerable to HE fire".

And the shields on Paks are only for fire from front (usually smallarms).

Of course, the real reason why guns die so fast in CMBO is absolute spotting. The damage model seems fine to me.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead:

This is especially strange when the survivors surrender, because they retain their immobilized status despite "dropping" their weapons. Hence, you can't move them to a POW collection point or off the map. This is one of CM's endearing little quirks <hr></blockquote>

Er...what? I've capture numerous German HMG crews when they were down to their last man and gotten them to move right along. Perhaps the secret is the bayonets on the guards' rifles.

Michael

[Dan Robertson]

I think mortars do actually seem a bit too vulnerable to enemy fire in CM. They seem to be modeled as dug in rifle teams.

From what I have seen of mortors on WWII news reels and in the TA a dug in mortar should be very hard to destroy.

Since a mortor is a high angle firer a mortar hole would have no verticl profile. So direct fire weapons would have a very small target indeed. Tank guns would not be much use since they have too flatter tragetory.

Infantry small arms would also not work well, however at short range the infantry could gernade them out of their position quite easily.

The best anti motar weapons would be other mortars and artilery or low velocity guns. Basically anything with a high angle to get into the fox hole.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

From what I have seen of mortors on WWII news reels and in the TA a dug in mortar should be very hard to destroy.

Since a mortor is a high angle firer a mortar hole would have no verticl profile. So direct fire weapons would have a very small target indeed. Tank guns would not be much use since they have too flatter tragetory.

<hr></blockquote>

Good point. The game reason is probably that only one kind of foxholes is given with a fixed amount of cover percent no matter what kind of unit.

A reality links may be that the deeper mortars foxholes are not done in the hasty defense for the same reason that no trenches or trenches with extra dugouts are done.

[Amidst_Void]

Okay so what conclusion, if any, have we reached thus far? Are mortars unrealistically handled or, are they realistically handled and HMG's are unrealistically handled and should be handled similar to mortars which are handled realistically? If the Mortars are, on the contrary, unrealistically handled should they be handled more like HMG's which are apparently unrealistically handled as well?

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]</p>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Amidst_Void:

Okay so what conclusion, if any, have we reached thus far? Are mortars unrealistically handled or, are they realistically handled and HMG's are unrealistically handled and should be handled similar to mortars which are handled realistically? If the Mortars are, on the contrary, unrealistically handled should they be handled more like HMG's which are apparently unrealistically handled as well?

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]<hr></blockquote>

You didn't used to be a script writer for the British TV series "Yes Minister" and subsequently "Yes Prime Minister" did you?

Regards

Jim R.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Amidst_Void:

[QB]Okay so what conclusion, if any, have we reached thus far? Are mortars unrealistically handled or, are they realistically handled and HMG's are unrealistically handled and should be handled similar to mortars which are handled realistically? If the Mortars are, on the contrary, unrealistically handled should they be handled more like HMG's which are apparently unrealistically handled as well?

<hr></blockquote>

The dying part of the foxholes stuff is fine as far as I am concerned. That are zillions of more important things to tune, assuming we had a chnace to do so.

[Amidst_Void]

"You didn't used to be a script writer for the British TV series "Yes Minister" and subsequently "Yes Prime Minister" did you?"

Bloody English!