Sergeant Huang Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 In one of my current PBEM games, I found out some *^*^$# things about the brits 3 in mortar team : 1. The mortar team doesn't lose ammo due to one crew casualty(They still walked forward about 45 seconds after got one casualty). 2. 3 men can carry a 3 in mortar and 66 rounds ?? Are they supermen or what ?? The American and German 81 mm mortar team (6 men) can only carry 27 rounds, it is a bit less than the normal, but it is reasonable. If you know any related topics, and you are welcome to post here. Thanks. ------------------ Staff Sgt. Huang I LOVE my country, but my government suc*s. [This message has been edited by Sergeant Huang (edited 01-28-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 [This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-28-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Weight data for the UK 3in mortar: From http://yorkist.homestead.com/index.html BRITISH 3 Inch MORTAR CALIBER; 3inch BARREL; 129.5cm long WEIGHT; -BARREL: 20kg -BIPOD: 20.5kg -BASEPLATE: 17kg -IN ACTION: 51kg PROJECTILE & WEIGHT; 4.5kg H.E., 4.5kg SMOKE Data for German 81mm mortar: GRANATWERFER 34 CALIBER; 81.4mm BARREL; 114cm long WEIGHT; -BARREL: 18.25kg -BIPOD: 18kg -BASEPLATE: 20kg -IN ACTION: 56.75kg PROJECTILE & WEIGHT; 3.4kg H.E. U.S. 81mm MORTAR M1 CALIBER; 81mm BARREL; 125.7cm long WEIGHT; -BARREL: 20kg -BIPOD: 21kg -BASEPLATE: 20kg -IN ACTION: 61.7kg PROJECTILE & WEIGHT; H.E. 4.8kg, SMOKE 4.8kg MAXIMUM RANGE; H.E. 2340m, SMOKE 2260m RATE OF FIRE; 18 R.P.M. So it looks like this is superhuman. Now for the caveat. As far as I understand UK practice, the 3" mortar should always come with a carrier. The UK had the first fully mechanised army (not relying on horses or manpower), and the carrier was ubiquitous in it. The 3" mortar had sufficient range to be used as a support weapon away from the sharp edge. So I believe that IRL the crew would not walk with it but just find a position, drive there, unload the carrier, set it up and get to work. If any of the resident UK grogs knows differently, please feel free to correct me. Edit to enter data for US 81mm for good measure. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-28-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 The 3" mortar is one of surprises in the British TO & E. It should be deployed in a nice position (preferably with HQ to do the spotting) and not moved. It is very useful to provide fast smoke and harassing fire. Three or four mortars firing together can practically wipe out an enemy infantry platoon, as their fire is a lot more accurate than off-map mortars. As Germanboy says, if you're going to move a 3" mortar, use a carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Our regimental museum here recently did a Second World War mortar platoon display - indeed, the 3-inch mortar platoon was fully equipped with carriers. http://highlanders.freehosting.net/mortars.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check6 Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 I thought I just noticed last night that the Brit 3" is "very slow". Carrying that stuff "very slowly" is not unfathomable. Related, how does the 2" mortar perform? Don't think I've ever seen it in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Originally posted by Check6: Related, how does the 2" mortar perform? Don't think I've ever seen it in action. Only good for supporession/smoke. Some squaddies IRL used the PIAT as a mortar instead... ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Sgt. Huang, I believe you have identified a problem which needs fixing in one of two ways. Either the ammo capacity once the mortar team moves needs to be drastically curtailed or the British player must fork out for a carrier to retain that relatively huge ammo load. It seems grossly unfair to me that the British player should have a unit of fire over twice as large as the German and with heavier projectiles to boot. What say you, BTS? Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Originally posted by John Kettler: It seems grossly unfair to me that the British player should have a unit of fire over twice as large as the German and with heavier projectiles to boot. Note of caution - I have no way of identifying whether the data on the website are correct or not. I have also not done any further research. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Huang Posted January 29, 2001 Author Share Posted January 29, 2001 Thanks guys, I see your points. I think the BTS model it as something like the towed AT guns, so that's why its speed is "very slow", not "slow" as other heavy mortars. Now, this explains all questions from me. ------------------ Staff Sgt. Huang I LOVE my country, but my government suc*s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Sergeant Huang: Thanks guys, I see your points. I think the BTS model it as something like the towed AT guns, so that's why its speed is "very slow", not "slow" as other heavy mortars. Now, this explains all questions from me. Sorry, but it doesn't explain everything to me at all & it seems a few others as well. I'd LOVE to see an official response from the BTS guys if at all possible hence... BOOT! Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Sorry, but it doesn't explain everything to me at all & it seems a few others as well. I'd LOVE to see an official response from the BTS guys if at all possible hence... BOOT! Regards Jim R. Historically correct employment of these things (even if on map) would be out of danger, towards the rear of the map. In that case, you could take the 'very slow' as a simulation of guys running back and forth to the carrier to get rounds etc. Not too much of a stretch of imagination, I find. Having said that, I also don't think this is a biggy at all for other reasons, e.g. that it is going to happen rarely (if the mortar is used correctly) that it gets under fire and is still in a position to inflict damage on Jerry. Yes it would be interesting to see the 3" mortar come with a larger crew and a carrier if that was indeed correct, but honestly, is it that much of a problem? I also doubt that this has a large impact for another reason - the 3" mortar was AFAIK accepted to be a very good and effective weapon, and the game currently portrays it like that. So why bother changing some minor detail about it? ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: Historically correct employment of these things (even if on map) would be out of danger, towards the rear of the map. In that case, you could take the 'very slow' as a simulation of guys running back and forth to the carrier to get rounds etc. Not too much of a stretch of imagination, I find. Having said that, I also don't think this is a biggy at all for other reasons, e.g. that it is going to happen rarely (if the mortar is used correctly) that it gets under fire and is still in a position to inflict damage on Jerry. ---SNIP--- I also doubt that this has a large impact for another reason - the 3" mortar was AFAIK accepted to be a very good and effective weapon, and the game currently portrays it like that. So why bother changing some minor detail about it? I understand what you're saying Andreas but unfortunately opponents don't necessarily use them in a historical manner! If the initial starting position for the British force does not offer particularly good lines of sight then you can see them moving forward at a still reasonable rate yet the only 3 man crew has to lug the tube, base plate etc. PLUS over 60 rounds of ammo. with not much restriction it seems. Compare this to the German 81 mm & American 81 mm mortar with their twice as large crew yet half the ammo of the 3 inch mortar team. It just doesn't make sense to me that's all. I've got no problem with the effectiveness of the weapon itself it just seems totally incongruous that the poor 3 man crew can carry all that ammo. for starters. As for a real life example of how the game handles the 3 inch mortar teams, I am currently in a game as the British where my 3 inch mortar crew id down to only ONE man yet it can stiil lug around the mortar, the base plate et all PLUS over 55 rounds of ammo. no probs! The bottom line to all this is that if you're playing the British you seem to have an inherent advantage with on board medium sized mortars compared with the other nations in excess of the basic good design of the mortar itself. Your thoughts? Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Not sure so don't kill me but maybe the Brit 3-" mortar is on a wheeled cart?? As a side note I wonder if the soviet mgs and mortars on wheeled carts will be taken into account? *shrug* -Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Tiger: Not sure so don't kill me but maybe the Brit 3-" mortar is on a wheeled cart?? I am sure it is not. As I said earlier (also have a look at the excellent site provided by Michael), they were fully mechanised, and at least the Calgary Highlanders had a five-men crew (including driver). ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Yes, excellent site posted by Michael. BTW Andreas, I just remembered I never thanked you for your posting on my previous query on the 3 inch mortar in use by the AIF in 1941. So, somewhat belatedly, thanks for taking the time & replying to my query and the excellent site reference you gave for more info. on the weapon. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Yes, excellent site posted by Michael. BTW Andreas, I just remembered I never thanked you for your posting on my previous query on the 3 inch mortar in use by the AIF in 1941. So, somewhat belatedly, thanks for taking the time & replying to my query and the excellent site reference you gave for more info. on the weapon. Regards Jim R. Jim, you are most welcome. I quite like looking these things up - I only found that site when I looked for the info for you, but I use it quite a bit now, so it was helpful for me too. I only wish it covered tanks as well. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 The error seems to be that the 3in. mortar team (as modelled in CM) is lacking the organic transport (a Carrier) that would make a 3-man team practicable --- and the ability to haul twice as much ammo as the equivalent (81mm) mortar in use by the Ami's and Germans more reasonable. But I can also see Andreas point: If you think of it like the other towed artillery units in CM (the "extra slow" movement rate helps), then it makes more sense. But then again, since the mortar section is on foot, maybe the crew should be increased to 5 to reflect the gun commander and Carrier driver being along to help lug all that ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 The SOP seems to have been for a Lloyd Carrier to position the Mortar crew with a basic load of ammunition. A second Lloyd Carrier would carry additional ammunition for the mortar. The 3 person team was never suppose to run around with all that ammo, but to load up on a Lloyd and run to it's next firing point. Since CMBO is basically finished, I think it would behoove players to not purchase the 3 inch mortar without a Lloyd carrier, and then make sure it does not move more than 10 or 15 meters without loading onto the carrier. In reality -- it would be better if the mortar had the ammo, but lost it if it made a long move, but in reality the time is short and Charles and Steve are lilely at work making CM2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Thanks for the kind words, gents, much appreciated. Truth be told, I'd rather use the 3 inch mortars as they were historically used - offboard with a spotter. What do you fellows think? Are there any advantages one way or the other - offboard vs. onboard? ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: What do you fellows think? Are there any advantages one way or the other - offboard vs. onboard? On-board: + more precise + faster response - restricted to LOS/TRP - more vulnerable - lower ammo load-out - slow movers Off-board: + very high ammo load-out + less vulnerable + more flexible + high speed of movement - less precision - longer response time Take your pick. I think it is important to look at the doctrinal use of them. If you are the OC of a batallion undertaking an attack/defense, you are most likely going to use them off-board. If you are the OC of a Recce Squadron hitting an obstacle while recceing, you will most likely use them onboard. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: On-board: + more precise + faster response - restricted to LOS/TRP - more vulnerable - lower ammo load-out - slow movers Off-board: + very high ammo load-out + less vulnerable + more flexible + high speed of movement - less precision - longer response time Take your pick. I think it is important to look at the doctrinal use of them. If you are the OC of a batallion undertaking an attack/defense, you are most likely going to use them off-board. If you are the OC of a Recce Squadron hitting an obstacle while recceing, you will most likely use them onboard. My knowledge of the war establishment of a recce unit is pretty limited - did recce units have 3 inch mortars? Seems like an odd choice for a unit that my nature is supposed to move quickly but I really don't know enough one way or the other. Unless they had vehicle mounted mortars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: My knowledge of the war establishment of a recce unit is pretty limited - did recce units have 3 inch mortars? Seems like an odd choice for a unit that my nature is supposed to move quickly but I really don't know enough one way or the other. Unless they had vehicle mounted mortars? The TO&E I have seen indicates they had an organic platoon of three or four (can't remember, think it was three) mortars in carriers. I don't know whether these were mounted. Not an odd thing really. Most likely they have outrun their maps and/or their arty support, so they have no back-up if they run into trouble. Mortars are quickly deployed, and the 3" mortar packs enough oomph to deal with a pesky Jerry ambush or throw some smoke to cover withdrawal/flanking. The proper technique then would be to: 1. Hit the ambush 2. Deploy to mask it (this is where the mortars come in) 3. Find a way around it on by-ways 4. Attack from the rear or 4 a) bypass and leave for the main force to deal with. Commonwealth infantry division recce had organic mortars, organic assault platoons, etc.pp. The 3" mortar took the role of the HMC in the US Mech Cav outfits, AFAIK. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts