Heavy mortars and smoke

[Scipio]

I wonder why the 120mm and 4.2 mortars can't lay a smoke screen. Weren't smoke shells available for this weapons in WWII?

[YankeeDog]

Can't speak for all nationalities, but the US Army called it the 4.2" Chemical Mortar for a good reason - One of it's primary purposes was laying smoke screens.

As to why this isn't CM, I have no idea - I wasn't even aware it wasn't.

Cheers,

YD

[Renaud]

I thought it was called the chemical mortar because it was originally thought of as a good vehicle for projecting chemical weapon warheads, like mustard gas, etc. It's large payload would have made it good for chemical smoke too I should think. Not sure on the actual historical usage.

Frankly i'd rather use 82mm for smoke and save the 120mm/4.2" for blasting em into small fragments.

Ren

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Renaud:

I thought it was called the chemical mortar because it was originally thought of as a good vehicle for projecting chemical weapon warheads, like mustard gas, etc. It's large payload would have made it good for chemical smoke too I should think. Not sure on the actual historical usage.

Frankly i'd rather use 82mm for smoke and save the 120mm/4.2" for blasting em into small fragments.

Ren

Damn, the server at work doesn't like the U.S. Military Insitiute web page - it won't let me view the docs there.

I'll have to go from memory - just last week I was reading some US Army pamphlets about the use of 4.2" Chemical mortars to produce smoke screens in the Italian campaign. One of the documents talked about using the mortars to create very large smoke screens to obscure entire bridges and the like. Assuming I am recalling correctly, Smoke shells for the 4.2" were quite common, then. Whether they were used to create smaller, tactical smoke screens very often like you see in CM is another question entirely.

If there's much doubt about this, I can go look up the site from my home computer tonight or tommorrow with the exact reference.

You may be right about the origin of the term "Chemical Mortar" - I first ran across it when I was reading these pamplets, so I assumed that the "Chemical" referred to chemical smoke. All sides prepared for poison gas warfare just in case the other side initiated, though, so it is possible the name originated as a poison gas projector.

Cheers,

YD

[Guest Mike]

Umm...since when couldn't they lay smoke??

I can't say I've looked at it lately, but I'm pretty sure all artillery in CMBO can lay smoke (although I've never used much naval ordnance!! :0)

Certainly I've laid it with 105 & 150mm arty & rockets.......

[Dirtweasle]

The 4.2 mortar cannot fire smoke in CMBO. Just checked.

[Silvio Manuel]

From Chris Hare's CM Charts

http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/

The German 120mm mortars, 170mm, 210mm, 210mm rockets, 240mm, and 300mm rockets do not fire smoke.

The American 4.2in mortar, 4.5in, 8in How, 8in Gun, 240mm, and 14in Naval do not fire smoke.

The British 4.5in, 5.5in, 5.5in VT, 7.2in, and 14in Naval do not fire smoke.

I'll take his word for it.

Bottom line-> Brit 4.2" CAN fire smoke, but not the American 4.2".

[ July 25, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Guest Mike]

ah hah - thanks Silvio!

[Scipio]

After a search in the net I found this 4.2inch articel: http://www.4point2.org/mortar42.htm

Smoke shells made up a large fraction of the service's output of mortar ammunition. Authorized smoke fillings included white phosphorus (WP), a solution of sulphur trioxide in chlorosulfonic acid (FS) and titanium tetrachloride.

Shall we throw a coin to find out which site is right?

[John Kettler]

Not only do I agree with Scipio's basic point, but I'd argue that even if standard smoke hadn't existed for the U.S. 4.2" mortar, it certainly had WP, whose screening qualities could at least be approximated by letting the mortar fire smoke. Yes, I know WP's not modeled in CMBO.

Further, the Russian 120mm mortars M 1938 and M 1943 both fired smoke in addition to HE (BRASSEY'S

ARTILLERY OF THE WORLD, p. 101). Not only were these mortars, especially the former, widely used, together with vast captured ammo stocks, by the Germans, but as noted in Gander & Chamberlain's WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, p. 302, "in action could use both Soviet and German ammunition." Thus, if the Germans copied the mortar and its ammo, there should've been both HE and smoke produced. Even if the Germans didn't, there would've been smoke available from captured stocks.

Seems to me the issue Scipio raised needs to be thoroughly revisited, not only in CMBB but in CM II.

Regards,

John Kettler

[YankeeDog]

OK, I had a bit of free time so I went back and looked through those Army Talks pamphlets. Here's one of the quotes that specifically mentions use of the 4.2-in. Chemical Mortar with smoke:

Using the 4.2-in. Chemical Mortar Fifth Army, ITALY:

"The following general rules for the use of heavy mortars are suggested:

"Range in the mortars on all likely avenues fo enemy approach as soon as a position is occupied.

"Preceding an attack, push heavy mortars and stocks of ammunition as far forward as possible. During the attack use mortars freely to prevent enemy from moving bodies of troops by covered routes, to blast field works, and to place smoke screens where and when needed... [Emphasis added]

..."A smoke screen about 500 feet high and 3 miles long [!!] was placed on the north side of the VOLTURNO RIVER to cover bridge-building operations. This screen was maintained for 11 hours of daylight during one day, and continued during the night by using smoke pots. On the second day it was again maintained my mortar fire for 6 hours; 3,800 WP filled mortar shells were fired. The rate of fire, after the screen was established, was one shell each 15 seconds...

From Combat Lessons Number 3, War Deparment Pamphlet, 1944. pp. 47-48

I think there's more references to the 4.2" Chemical Mortar to lay smoke in other pamphlets in this series; this is just the first one I came across.

I'm pretty convinced now that the inability of American 4.2" mortars to lay smoke screens in CMBO is an error of fact. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

As BFC has made it clear that there will be no further patches to CMBO, a more useful line of research might be into the existence (or non-existence) of smoke shells and their usage for the German and Russian versions of the 120mm.

If anyone has any info, please share.

Cheers,

YD

[ July 26, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[aka_tom_w]

Can anyone here direct me to a good tutorial about how to use smoke the best and most effecient way in Combat Mission? I have never been a really big fan of the use of smoke, but my opponents sometimes use it on me and I wonder if it works or if it is just a large waste of ammo?

I know this thread is not about the tactical use of smoke in CMBO but I wonder if someone could direct me to a web page or thread about the BEST tactical use of smoke in CMBO.

Thanks

-tom w

[GillFish]

Tom,

Try this:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000492

(Hope it works)

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Seems to me the issue Scipio raised needs to be thoroughly revisited, not only in CMBB but in CM II.

Yes. Agree completely. It is one thing to purchase your own arty for smoke. another entirely when a scenario designer gives the attacker arty that can't smoke, unless on purpose.

Smokabilty (sic) is a key component to artillery. There have been enough historical issues raised here to warrant a revisit for CMBB.

-Sarge

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by GillFish:

Tom,

Try this:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000492

(Hope it works)

Excellent! (Burns to Smithers! )

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000492

Thanks Gillfish!

that was a Very GOOD thread with usefull info in it for sure! (Did you remember it or did you do a search?)

-tom w

[GillFish]

Tom,

The link is in a thread called 'Anthology of Useful Posts' on the Tips & Tricks form. Well worth a look.