Serious Historical Error

[btm]

Dear Battlefront,

I have thoroughly enjoyed your Combat Mission series of games and the amount of historical research evident in the series. There is however, an issue of historical accuracy that has made its way from CMBO into CMAK.

The way that the U.S. 81mm mortar is depicted in CMAK is, according to my research, totally inaccurate. This topic is one that is near and dear to my heart, as my grandfather was a member of an 81mm mortar team in WW2 (387th Inf. Regiment, 97th Inf. Div.).

First, the 81mm mortar was seldom, if ever, used as a battery or barrage weapon. The entire advantage of the 81mm mortar over traditional artillery is that it was entirely man-portable (despite what several books have stated). A six man team carried the mortar and its ammunition: no trucks, no trailers.

The 81mm mortar team was a front-line element. No forward observer was used. As a matter of fact, my grandfather states that his team tried to stay abreast or forward of the rest of the line of advance. There was a good reason for this.

My grandfather's team specialized in taking out German 88's. When an 88 was sighted, it was already taking shots at my Grandfather's team. They had learned, however, that the German gunners tended to set the fuze for the precise distance to my grandfather's squad. The problem with this (from the German perspective) is that the forward velocity of the shell carried over into the shrapnel of the air-burst. In effect, the shell's shrapnel exploded into a cone-shape over the heads of the mortar team, rather than the imagined spherical explosion. As a result, my grandfather recounts, the guys in back often "bought it", but the team survived.

As a matter of course, after the first shot from the 88, the mortar team would "run like hell for about 200 yards", set up the mortar and fire. The first shot was used to plant the base (they obviously did not take time to dig a spot for the base plate), and thus went wide. The second shot was almost always a hit that destroyed the gun. My grandfather states that the second shot HAD to be on target because the German gun crew would recognize their mistake with the fuzing.

So, my second issue with the CMAK depiction of the 81mm mortar is the lack of accuracy afforded these weapons. It's amazing what a sharp crew can do when their lives are on the line.

I cannot say that my grandfather's team was typical in terms of accuracy. I can say that my research, relying on numerous first hand accounts, shows that their method of employment (forward, independent, tasked with eliminating enemy guns) WAS the norm.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my post.

BTM

[Speedy]

It might be advisable to provide a list of sources that BFC and other grogly sorts can read.

[btm]

Regarding sources-

I will post my "in print" sources ASAP. I am currently away from my office, unfortunately.

As to my first-person resources, you'll have to wait for my book.

[Panzertruppe]

Great post!

I understand what you mean by wanting more historical accuracy concerning the 81MM mortar, although for a tactical game like CM that kind of accuracy (2nd shot kill) should only be random in this type of game.

Maybe more of a "tweak" is needed to the system but if a second shot "sure kill" is likely in a CM battle it would take some of the fun out of the game for me.

Just my 2 cents. :cool:

Bill

[Alkiviadis]

A teacher of mine was a young 2nd lt during 'Nam.

He said that when he was in weapons training, the trainees would carry all sorts of impedimenta to help calculate range , etc to target. The old training sgt would simply eyeball it & could, as my teacher put it , "..blow a fly off a cow's ass at 800 meters". so I think a tweak re: training level might be appropriate.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by btm:

My grandfather's team specialized in taking out German 88's. When an 88 was sighted, it was already taking shots at my Grandfather's team. They had learned, however, that the German gunners tended to set the fuze for the precise distance to my grandfather's squad. The problem with this (from the German perspective) is that the forward velocity of the shell carried over into the shrapnel of the air-burst. In effect, the shell's shrapnel exploded into a cone-shape over the heads of the mortar team, rather than the imagined spherical explosion. As a result, my grandfather recounts, the guys in back often "bought it", but the team survived.

As a matter of course, after the first shot from the 88, the mortar team would "run like hell for about 200 yards", set up the mortar and fire. The first shot was used to plant the base (they obviously did not take time to dig a spot for the base plate), and thus went wide. The second shot was almost always a hit that destroyed the gun. My grandfather states that the second shot HAD to be on target because the German gun crew would recognize their mistake with the fuzing.

This is the part that seems hinky to me; how often were "88's" really encountered by front line infantry? We have discussed the "every tank a Tiger, every Gun an 88" syndrome before. I wonder if your grandfather was really referring to all types of guns? The 8.8cm dual purpose gun wasn't really as common in the front line as postwar accounts would suggest.

[Lars]

Originally posted by btm:

As a matter of course, after the first shot from the 88, the mortar team would "run like hell for about 200 yards", set up the mortar and fire.

Slowest 88 loaders ever...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by btm:

As a result, my grandfather recounts, the guys in back often "bought it", but the team survived.

The "guys in back" being the front line riflemen? :confused:

As a matter of course, after the first shot from the 88, the mortar team would "run like hell for about 200 yards", set up the mortar and fire.

Pretty fast, Lars, you're right - running 200 yards and then setting up the mortar. A friend of mine owns a German 8.1 cm Granatwerfer 34, as well as a Canadian 81mm mortar (they're legal to own and shoot (not HE though!) as they are classified as muzzle loading weapons. Damn heavy even without the base plate.

I can say that my research, relying on numerous first hand accounts,[/QB]

I hope you'll have the time to post some of these. Are these actual diaries and interviews - or just sitting round for drinks in the VFW? The stories sometimes get magnified in the latter case...

[Los]

We went through this back in the research for CMBO, (at work now) company level mortar assetts were usually 60mm, battalion level assetts were 81mm including an FDC capable plt HQ and usually connected to forward CP by landline. Certainly none of this disproves whatever expereinces grand pa had, as individual units would have made whatever use of assetts as they saw fit, to include doling out individual mortar teams as to line units as needed. Combat mission supports both uses. I'm at work so don't have sources readily available.

Los

p.s. I would highly warn against using anecdotal evidence as primary research into stuff like TOE, though certainly it fits into the big picture. I can't even remember exact TOE details from when I was in the 82d 25 years ago! God knows what I'll be like in another 25 years.

[ December 09, 2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Los ]

[btm]

Again, I will post my print references ASAP.

As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, yes, I am thoroughly aware of the risks of using such evidence.

I have conducted my interviews in a manner that I feel is professional and honest. That's the best I can do. These interviews will be used and quoted extensively in a book that I am working on.

I would like to point out that my arguments do not contradict any known official TOE's. My arguments are aimed towards the historical, actual employment of assets (namely the 81mm mortar).

----

As far as TOE's are concerned, however:

In a "standard" U.S. infantry division (7/1944): there were three infantry regiments, consisting of three battalions. Each battalion consisted of four companies: three rifle companies and one heavy weapons company. The heavy weapons company was always the "fourth" company (ie, "D" in my grandfather's case).

The heavy weapons company included an HQ section, two heavy MG platoons and a mortar platoon. The mortar platoon consisted of a platoon HQ and three mortar "sections." Each section was made up of two mortar teams with a single 81mm mortar each (note the term "team" is only semi-official).

So, Los is correct as far as the 81mm being considered a battalion-level asset as far as TOE is concerned, with 6x81mm mortars organic to the battalion by means of the heavy weapons company.

----

Thanks,

BTM

[Los]

The current Combat Mission model supports the use of 81mm mortars in both individual "direct lay" mode or as an "indirect fire" assett called in via land line or radio (via spotter or else with the plt HQ). Both uses in WW2 are well documented. Are you saying their shoudl eb no capability for 81mm indirect fire (such as is the case with 50mm or 2" mortars?)

How the weapon presents itself in a CM battle is a function of scenario design or QB purchase. The accuracy of the mortar is a function of among other things, and as you mention, crew quality. In fact often, when vehicle transport couldn't move the weapons and ammo to their support positions, the platoon would only bring a few tubes forward in order to use the rest of the crews to haul extra ammo.

If you feel the current mortar accuracy is off, the thing to do is set up different mortar crews each w/ the same weapon but differnt quality levles, (i.e. green through elite) and then run some tests to see the accuracy. Have them shoot at something that won't shoot back at first, like a truck, or an 88 w/ no ammo. See which crew quality gives in your opinion the desired effect. If none do or if they all have the same results after a few tests, then it needs to be loooked at. But nothing odd showed up in CMAK beta, that I noticed, but then again I was working on German paras and their opponnents on Crete and Leros so I wouldn't have come across US mortars.

Cheers.

Los

P.S. As I think back on it now...

Our original research on US mortar ops came from several sources. I myself have two FMs, US rifle battalion, dated 1942 and 1944. We used a number of commrcial soruces from authors like Ian Hogg ("Grenades and Mortars" and "US Infantry Weapons of WW2" (Can't remember the author off the top of my head plus a slew of other books. Data on mortar smoke,such as burn times we had to take from modern 60mm and 81mm mortar manuals since it wasn't available elsewhere. We then flushed all this data through several BS filters. We reviewed documentary footage or multiple sources for clues on various things mortar. (This came in handy with rifle grenade research too) We pulled all the lessons learned pamphlets for 1944-45 and looked at anything anectdotal re: mortar operations. I talked to one mortar guy from WW2 (82d) and a Mortar platoon leader from 80s-90s. I also was a mortar crewman for a while in the early eighties. These helped with issues such as ammo portage, movement rates, and direct lay issues.

[Airborne]

LOS,

What unit where you in and when?? I was in Eco 505th Para 82nd from 81-85. I guess they disbanded the independant TOW companies in the late 80's when they went to the regimental system.

[Redwolf]

TacOps anecdotes are always useful to mention here.

As you might know, TacOps is used as a training tool in various military schools around the world.

I once asked the Major about the lethality of a specific weapon and what kind of feedback he was getting from the military users. I was assuming that the actual military use of TacOps would mean that the customers provides accurate feedback to tune the lethality of weapons. I think my specific inquiry was about MGs.

Major H laughed at me (as much as you can do in IRC) and assured me that the feedback is totally useless. There is no feedback about accuracy, suppressive effect or deadliness about a specific weapon coming from anybody else than the "owners" of these weapons. No "neutral" officer would ever mess with the values given because he/she doesn't want to get between the frontlines and piss somebody else off. As a result, for every weapon in TacOps he has equal demands to make it more and to make it less effective from the actual experts. It reminds me of the Deep Purple quote "can we make everything louder than everything else?".

In CMBB (and hence CMAK I assume) the on-board mortars are much less precise than in CMBO. The lethality of 81mm mortar fire is also lower than in other games (noticeably TacOps) and there is a notable discrepancy in the low suppressive effect of mortar fire and the new highly suppressive CMBB MGs which are not taking terrain/cover into effect to a sufficient degree (engine limitation).

So what's my point? What's this point thingie you keep talking about? I guess it is something like "just use your best judgment, build a fitting game and then stop worrying about single person's demands".

Personally I like the more lethal games better, my mind from reading and playing TacOps is set to prefer more lethal 81mm mortars than CM has and I would also like to see first- and especially second-shot anti-armor shot hit probability to be raised by a lot, as well as anti-soft shot precision. Can I make any kind of strong point against those who like the softer CM? Nope.

Maybe I have a point and it is that there is no point to make. Or somefink. Can I have more coffee please?

[Los]

Abn,

Was in A/1/505 then CSC 1-505 then 313th CEWI from 78 and 81.

[btm]

Los-

Well said. You're right, I should have gathered some in-game stats on accuracy before making the post. I based my comments on my general experience with the game, but without structured testing.

You're also right regarding the employment issue. It is really up to the scenario designer as to how mortars are employed, given that CMAK allows on- and off- board deployment.

Perhaps I should retitle this post and direct it towards scenario builders.

-----

Pretty fast, Lars, you're right - running 200 yards and then setting up the mortar. A friend of mine owns a German 8.1 cm Granatwerfer 34, as well as a Canadian 81mm mortar (they're legal to own and shoot (not HE though!) as they are classified as muzzle loading weapons. Damn heavy even without the base plate

Lars and Mr. Dorosh-

1. I'm not sure what you're trying to say regarding a typical late-war 88-crew's rate of fire. I did not suggest that any such crew fired slowly, only that it took them more than a couple rounds to realize that their fuzing was such that it was achieving the desired effect. The time that it took them to realize their error was enough for the mortar team to eliminate the threat.

2. Yes, the 81mm mortar was "a heavy bitch" in the words of my grandfather. He carried the 75 pound tube on his shoulder, walking (and on occasion, running), from Siegburg, Germany to Pilsen, Czechoslovakia.

My grandfather is 6'4" and earned a scholarship to Michigan State University for running track before the war. Unfortunately, the war intervened before his first semester was complete, and his wartime tasks ruined his career as a runner.

-----

Thanks,

BTM

[ December 09, 2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: btm ]

[athkatla]

Guys, I'm not sure how the 81mm Mortar of WWII compares to the 81mm Mortar of the 1980's but I was a Netheravon Suppport Weapons Wing trained and qualified Mortar Fire Controller in the 80's wit an Infantry Battalion in the British Army. All I can say is that at that time, the 81mm Mortar was known as an 'indirect fire' weapons platform and out of all the rounds I have called down, and there were 100's, I can never ever remember seeing a second shot kill or even a 3rd or 4th shot kill. The lethality of the 81mm mortar round is not in hitting a target direct but the 40 metre lethality area of the shrapnel from the exploding round. A section of mortars firing on the same direction and bearing will not land rounds on the top of each other on the same spot, this is impossible, the 81mm mortar is made up of three mechanical pieces, the tube, the base plate and the tripod, 4 if you count the sight, so as you can see, the flexibility of these mechanical parts, base plate sinking into the ground, tube and tripod moving, slight variations in Number 1's adjusting the bubbles, etc. etc. all these factors make this weapon what it is, an indirect weapon that doesn't score direct hits

Forgive me if the 81mm mortar in WWII was significantly different to that of my era, but I am just inputting my 2 cents worth as a qualified Mortar Fire Controller, Command Post Operator and Mortar Number with the later 81mm Mortar

[ December 09, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: athkatla ]

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by athkatla:

Forgive me if the 81mm mortar in WWII was significantly different to that of my era, but I am just inputting my 2 cents worth as a qualified Mortar Fire Controller, Command Post Operator and Mortar Number with the later 81mm Mortar

Ah yes, the good old days. 11C. FDC 81mm mortars. The old M16-Plotting Board. Elevation and Charge Tables. Deflection 2800, Elevation 1100.

*Sniff*

Now I guess everything is GPS, computer driven, techno-stuff.

I'll say this, with a good FO, we could still put rounds on target pretty damn fast.

But this was back in the early 1970's.

[athkatla]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

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

Forgive me if the 81mm mortar in WWII was significantly different to that of my era, but I am just inputting my 2 cents worth as a qualified Mortar Fire Controller, Command Post Operator and Mortar Number with the later 81mm Mortar

Ah yes, the good old days. 11C. FDC 81mm mortars. The old M16-Plotting Board. Elevation and Charge Tables. Deflection 2800, Elevation 1100.

*Sniff*

Now I guess everything is GPS, computer driven, techno-stuff.

I'll say this, with a good FO, we could still put rounds on target pretty damn fast.

But this was back in the early 1970's. </font>

[SSG D]

Dear BTM,

I spent 10 months as an 81mm section leader in Vietnam with the 101st. Your description of your Grandfathers recounting of WWII 81 tactical practices amazes me. You should be very proud of him. His unit must have been in very good shape and been very well trained.

My experiences with 81s is consistant with the manner Combat Mission handles them. I had three tube squads, an FDC and three FO teams. We were a battalion asset and usually co-located with the Bn HQ. 81s can move with the rifle companies but they are heavy and the ammo is heavy. It is pretty tough for a 7 man mortar squad to carry (let alone run 200 meters with) the mortar, their own gear and enough ammo to make a very big splash. If the Army wanted really mobile mortars they should have stuck with the 60s

I suspect that Combat Mission is historically accurate in the manner it treats 81mm mortars. I think your grandfather's experience was an impressive historical anomoly.

SSG D

[btm]

Athkatla and SSG D-

I don't debate anything that you have written. My argument is simply that according to my research, the 81mm mortar element of the heavy weapons company was not often employed as an indirect-fire, in-battery weapon in actual combat in Europe.

And now that I have had some time to reflect on my post, I feel that I should revise my argument to add "after January, 1945."

Admittedly, the veterans I have interviewed regarding this issue were in combat after this date. This also corresponds with the resumption of the U.S. non-stop advance following the winter of 1944.

Also, just to note, I assume that when my grandfather states that they were able to knock out the 88 on the second, or at most third, shot, he means wiping out the weapon crew, not necessarily a hit on the piece itself.

I thank you for your input. I am in the first stage of research for a book that will include this subject. Doubtless I will find that my theories and understanding of many issues will be modified as I go.

I can state with certainty that my grandfather is an extraordinary man in many respects. Perhaps his combat experience was more extraordinary than I thought.

Thanks,

BTM

[Redwolf]

Question to the real-life mortar crewmen:

How much ammo would you typically have?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SSG D:

I had three tube squads...

Pardon me, but I keep stumbling on this phrase. Do you mean you had:

• Three one-tube squads;

• Three two-tube squads; or

• Three-tube squads (number of squads not specified)?

Michael

[Los]

81mm Mortar shells are not the easiest things to carry. You can leave them in their carboard tubes and stuff them in your ruck. There are also special two and three round plastic carrying cases for Tubes. You can have grunts help carry your rounds up to the release point. They'll usually carry one round each. When a crew is carrying the rounds themsleves you are hardpressed to carry more two or three rounds becuase you are also carrying webgear, personal weapons (there's about 30lbs of stuff alone) plus maybe ruck and either baseplate, tube, (thopse guys usually won't carry more than that)bipod or sights. My expereince on a mortar crew was in Alaska ona 30 day excercize, so now add extra winter stuff and you are talking 70lb load, plus puling an ahkio (toboggan like thing) with squad tent, stove, and other junk.

In Combat Misison scenario design if you take individual mortars you can abstract the fact that orften tubes are left behind to provide more ammo carries when dismounted by just boosting up the ammo loadout.

Los

[Keke]

Originally posted by Los:

....ahkio...

Interesting to note that US military has adopted a Finnish word for that sleigh thingy.

[athkatla]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Question to the real-life mortar crewmen:

How much ammo would you typically have?

In the early 80's I was an MFC in West Germany with a mechanised Infantry Battalion, I travelled with another MFC and driver in a Spartan tracked vehicle, the mortar crews travelled in the 432 APC's. I can't remember now the amount of mortar rounds carried but you could get quite a few in the back of an APC