US 4.2 mortar vs German 120mm mortar

[Scipio]

I noticed that the heavy US mortar has a very short delay, just like the 81mm mortar, while the heavy German mortar has a delay like a 105mm Artillery. Can someone tell me why?

I was in an 120mm mortar unti in my military service, so I know it's - in princip - the same like the smaller mortar, except the bigger shells, of course.

[Mr. Johnson--]

They make you drag that thing all around on exercises?

[Maastrictian]

In very general terms the US had better artillery C&C than the germans. There is a great post in the archives *somewhere* that describes US artillery procedures in more detail. I have no idea where it is. For now (until someone with more time an knowledge than me chimes in) just know that the US excelled at fast responce time arty.

--Chris

[offtaskagain]

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

In very general terms the US had better artillery C&C than the germans. There is a great post in the archives *somewhere* that describes US artillery procedures in more detail. I have no idea where it is. For now (until someone with more time an knowledge than me chimes in) just know that the US excelled at fast responce time arty.

--Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's located in CMHQ in the articles page down near the bottom. Be sure to read the note at the end though. It makes things a little clearer.

[Juju]

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

while the heavy German mortar has a delay like a 105mm Artillery. Can someone tell me why?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For one thing, 120mm arty does have a shorter delay than the 105mm arty. Typically it's something from 58 seconds to 90 or 100 seconds for a regular FO! That's still much shorter than the 105mm delay times.

[dalem]

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

For one thing, 120mm arty does have a shorter delay than the 105mm arty. Typically it's something from 58 seconds to 90 or 100 seconds for a regular FO! That's still much shorter than the 105mm delay times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe what is being simulated here is the fact that the mortars were usually integral battalion weapons and the 105s (i.e. the 'real' guns) were usually divisional. Battalion support is generally more readily available and responsive, hence the shorter delay times for it.

-dale

[Andreas]

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

I believe what is being simulated here is the fact that the mortars were usually integral battalion weapons and the 105s (i.e. the 'real' guns) were usually divisional. Battalion support is generally more readily available and responsive, hence the shorter delay times for it.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 120mm mortars of the Germans were regimental assets, IIRC. The Commonwealth 4.2" mortars were divisional assets (A Coy in the Machinegun Battalion had 16 (?) of them), and I believe that in the US Army the Chemical Mortar Battalions fielding the 4.2" mortar were army level assets but attached to divisions as needed. Not quite sure about the latter though.

So in terms of organisational integration, the Germans had their heavy mortars at the lowest level. CMBO does not only simulate these organisational differences though, but also the likelyhood that fire is delayed by counter-battery activity IIRC. The Allies were much more efficient at this, due to the better fire control, better supply with ammunition, and higher number of guns.

To give you an example of the scale of ammunition available (or not, as was the case) for the Germans. During the counterattack for Maltot, 9th SS Panzer Division had 700 rounds artillery available for all guns, according to a transcript by the divisional commander I found on www.feldgrau.com . Compare this to George Blackburn's account, a Canadian FOO in NW Europe ('The guns of war'): there were instances in Normandy were 2nd Canadian Infantry's field regiments (72 25pdr guns) fired an average of 400-500 rounds per gun per day.

Combine this with what probably was the best fire-control system of World War 2, and you begin to understand why Panthers, King Tigers, SMGs and experienced East Front veterans interspersed with fanatical Waffen-SS youngsters did not really get anywhere against the relatively inexperienced Commonwealth armies armed with rifles and Shermans.

[dalem]

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

The 120mm mortars of the Germans were regimental assets, IIRC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. The TO&Es that I've seen usually have them at the battalion level, but then I concentrate on late-war stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The Commonwealth 4.2" mortars were divisional assets (A Coy in the Machinegun Battalion had 16 (?) of them), and I believe that in the US Army the Chemical Mortar Battalions fielding the 4.2" mortar were army level assets but attached to divisions as needed. Not quite sure about the latter though.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the 4.2" Btns were Army or Corps level for the U.S., but considering the amount of access that U.S. commanders had to those levels for artillery purposes, it shouldn't matter much in CM terms even in situations where they were not attached out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So in terms of organisational integration, the Germans had their heavy mortars at the lowest level. CMBO does not only simulate these organisational differences though, but also the likelyhood that fire is delayed by counter-battery activity IIRC. The Allies were much more efficient at this, due to the better fire control, better supply with ammunition, and higher number of guns.

To give you an example of the scale of ammunition available (or not, as was the case) for the Germans. During the counterattack for Maltot, 9th SS Panzer Division had 700 rounds artillery available for all guns, according to a transcript by the divisional commander I found on www.feldgrau.com . Compare this to George Blackburn's account, a Canadian FOO in NW Europe ('The guns of war'): there were instances in Normandy were 2nd Canadian Infantry's field regiments (72 25pdr guns) fired an average of 400-500 rounds per gun per day.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point - during much of the pushes through hedgerow country in June, the U.S. divisional guns were suffering from much the same problem - lots of tubes and barrels were being shipped, but not so much ammo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Combine this with what probably was the best fire-control system of World War 2, and you begin to understand why Panthers, King Tigers, SMGs and experienced East Front veterans interspersed with fanatical Waffen-SS youngsters did not really get anywhere against the relatively inexperienced Commonwealth armies armed with rifles and Shermans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. As I say about the WWII Germans - they were pretty good at fighting, but not so good at waging war.

-dale