Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 I am no expert but I recall hearing that mortars and MGs caused most of the casualties in combat, yet in the majority of games I play tanks and infantry do most of the killing/wounding. Is it just me or have the mortars been made too inaccurate and MGs not powerful enough? Or maybe I am expecting unrealistic results (destroying the enemy rather than routing them?) Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Author Share Posted April 2, 2001 I am no expert but I recall hearing that mortars and MGs caused most of the casualties in combat, yet in the majority of games I play tanks and infantry do most of the killing/wounding. Is it just me or have the mortars been made too inaccurate and MGs not powerful enough? Or maybe I am expecting unrealistic results (destroying the enemy rather than routing them?) Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe artillery did most of the killing. _________________________________________ As I once heard from a german sargent: I know nothingggg, nothingggg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe artillery did most of the killing. _________________________________________ As I once heard from a german sargent: I know nothingggg, nothingggg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Author Share Posted April 2, 2001 Aren't mortars artillery? Let me be more specific: -A) I could be way off - Yes I agree that arty caused most of the casualties but I thought that mortars were the leading causality causing type of arty. -C) Mortars were more effective in CM until the latest patches, now they are much less accurate to keep them from being used as AT guns. I think too inaccurate. -D) Input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Author Share Posted April 2, 2001 Aren't mortars artillery? Let me be more specific: -A) I could be way off - Yes I agree that arty caused most of the casualties but I thought that mortars were the leading causality causing type of arty. -C) Mortars were more effective in CM until the latest patches, now they are much less accurate to keep them from being used as AT guns. I think too inaccurate. -D) Input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 If I remember right mortars were a leading casuality causer in WW II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 If I remember right mortars were a leading casuality causer in WW II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Martin Cracauer Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Sorry, Tom, are you talking reality or CMBO here? In CMBO, the problem with casuality reports as shown in the unit info box is that these are only confirmed kills. The ratio of confirmed vs. unconfirmed kills is lowest for mortars, so the low number does not reflect truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Martin Cracauer Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Sorry, Tom, are you talking reality or CMBO here? In CMBO, the problem with casuality reports as shown in the unit info box is that these are only confirmed kills. The ratio of confirmed vs. unconfirmed kills is lowest for mortars, so the low number does not reflect truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Author Share Posted April 2, 2001 Good point, but just by watching the strike of the mortar shells it seems like a very large % don't land anywhere near the target, I don't have any hard numbers but I bet less than 20% of shells land close to the target (I will have to do a test and get some more concrete figures.) BTW I am referring to onboard mortars in this thread. Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Author Share Posted April 2, 2001 Good point, but just by watching the strike of the mortar shells it seems like a very large % don't land anywhere near the target, I don't have any hard numbers but I bet less than 20% of shells land close to the target (I will have to do a test and get some more concrete figures.) BTW I am referring to onboard mortars in this thread. Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 And of course, pretty much everyone who was wounded by shrapnell could end up being classified as an artillery casualty. One data point: my father's father was severely wounded when one of his squadmates blew up an AT mine that he was arming. However, his military records claim that it was an artillery shell. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 And of course, pretty much everyone who was wounded by shrapnell could end up being classified as an artillery casualty. One data point: my father's father was severely wounded when one of his squadmates blew up an AT mine that he was arming. However, his military records claim that it was an artillery shell. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmac Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 believe it or not, landmines caused the most casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmac Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 believe it or not, landmines caused the most casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 My comment re: MGs is that MGs are way too weak- I mean I'll charge an MG42 100 meters across an open field with a whole platoon and get like 2 casualites- makes no sense, from what I understand. Unless they have to change ammo belts or what have you- but it would seem that the MG would slaughter anything charging at it across clear ground- SLAUGHTER. That thing shot, what- like 25 rounds/second or something equally and amazingly lethal? Anyone else feel that MGs are too weak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 My comment re: MGs is that MGs are way too weak- I mean I'll charge an MG42 100 meters across an open field with a whole platoon and get like 2 casualites- makes no sense, from what I understand. Unless they have to change ammo belts or what have you- but it would seem that the MG would slaughter anything charging at it across clear ground- SLAUGHTER. That thing shot, what- like 25 rounds/second or something equally and amazingly lethal? Anyone else feel that MGs are too weak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 It's easy to hide from a machinegun – it's not going anywhere fast, so you just need a solid object between it and you. You can't hide from mortars, because you don't hear them coming and you can't anticipate where they'll land. But as ever, it's up to the infantry to go in and root people out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 It's easy to hide from a machinegun – it's not going anywhere fast, so you just need a solid object between it and you. You can't hide from mortars, because you don't hear them coming and you can't anticipate where they'll land. But as ever, it's up to the infantry to go in and root people out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Silvio Manuel wrote: > Anyone else feel that MGs are too weak? This has been discussed to death. MGs are realistically modelled in CM. Open ground is not a pool table. A running squad is not just running, it is moving quickly and making best use of the available cover en route. This thread says it all: Questioning MG effectiveness? [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 04-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Silvio Manuel wrote: > Anyone else feel that MGs are too weak? This has been discussed to death. MGs are realistically modelled in CM. Open ground is not a pool table. A running squad is not just running, it is moving quickly and making best use of the available cover en route. This thread says it all: Questioning MG effectiveness? [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 04-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Mahone Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Pvt.Tom, don't forget those infantry squads that are doing all the killing you talked about HAVE machine guns with em (MG42s BARS and the lot). -Head ------------------ "I don't need my junkie friends all knockin' at my door. I just wanna do an old time waltz with a buxom Irish whore!" -Shane MacGowan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Mahone Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Pvt.Tom, don't forget those infantry squads that are doing all the killing you talked about HAVE machine guns with em (MG42s BARS and the lot). -Head ------------------ "I don't need my junkie friends all knockin' at my door. I just wanna do an old time waltz with a buxom Irish whore!" -Shane MacGowan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted April 2, 2001 Author Share Posted April 2, 2001 Ok, I am fine with open ground not readily being open if that is what BTS says. So, a MG doesn't wipe out a charging squad because they are using cover, so shouldn't the same apply when a squad is charging another squad? I will have to test it but a could swear I have a lot more casualties when I charge a squad than a MG. I know the firepower is higher for the squad but geez, I will charge a MG any day over a squad, maybe the movies have made the MG out to be a super weapon that it readily is not. Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts