Mortars against trenches

[mav1]

Mortars in cm seem to be totally ineffective in cm against trenches. Even though they were invented for this purpose. They do no injuries against the troops and have no supression effect.

[ParaBellum]

Mav1, not for the first time on this forum you state absolutely unfunded nonsense. Please, stop making a fool of yourself and run a simple test before posting your claims about how CM doesn't do this or that in the future.

I just ran a simple test: 2 german 81mm mortars firing at a regular soviet squad in a trench. After 30 seconds the squad went prone, suppressed. After 60 seconds 3 out of 9 soviet soldiers had been wounded, their morale shaken.

After another 45 seconds the squad had suffered another 3 wounded, the squad panicked (in command range of its platoon HQ) and ran off to the rear.

No, mortars are not ineffective against troops in trenches.

No, they DO actually cause quite some injuries against the troops.

Yes, the do have a suppression effect.

[J Ruddy]

I'm with ParaBellum. I've used Mortars against trenches religiously in CM.

[John Kettler]

mav1,

SPOILER ALERT

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

In ROW IV (South of Vevi), I had entrenched Vickers MGs smashed, a 2 pdr. put out of action, and squads broken by not 81s, but German 5 cm Gw 36s. I lost position after position to HMG fire and those little mortars. It takes significant ammo to do so, but believe me when I say it works.

It's even worse with the bigger stuff, and you don't want to be there when the 120mm comes down. My brother had one land 500 meters away from his position in Iraq, and it rang his bell even that far away. Mortars not only are NOT toothless in CM, but unless you have either them or substantial direct fire HE, against dug-in, properly officered troops, you are pretty much guaranteed a very unpleasant time. Please see my South of Vevi and Squeezing the Melon AARs here.

http://www.bootsandtracks.com/rowivaars.php

If I could remember who I fought in Firefight '40, I'd have you read that one, too, for I defended as Italians in that one, in a fight of surpassing brutality. My AAR never got posted, for some reason.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ August 16, 2006, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[hellfish]

I wonder if Mav1 only plays with elite, fanatical troops.

[John Kettler]

fytinghellfish,

I don't know, but I should also mention that the U.S. has multioption mortar fuzes which can be set for Delay, PD, Near Surface and Airburst. That last makes life really exciting for anyone in a trench or foxhole without overhead cover.

For the 60mm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m720.htm

For the 81mm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m821.htm

For the 120mm (earlier M57 PD only)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m933.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ August 17, 2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[hellfish]

Yeah, I had a roommate who was a mortarman. You can also (theoretically) fire the M224 from the hip as a super grenade launcher too.

[John Kettler]

fytinghellfish,

Super grenade launcher? Interesting! Nothing on it here, though.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m224.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[hellfish]

The M224 60mm LWCMS is ideally suited to support airborne, air assault, mountain, ranger, Special Operations Forces and light infantry units. The M224 can be drop fired (conventional mode) or trigger fired (conventional or hand-held mode). A lightweight auxiliary baseplate is used when firing the mortar in the hand-held mode.

I think that's it.

[John Kettler]

fytinghellfish,

With trigger firing available, and with the baseplate against a wall or tree, I can see how the M224 could potentially be used in a direct fire role, but I believe that when they're talking about a hand-held configuration, they're talking about using the mortar sans bipod, much the way the British used the 2 inch mortar in its various incarnations. Lighter and more portable, albeit at some potential cost in accuracy.

Regards,

John Kettler

[mav1]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

[QB] Mav1, not for the first time on this forum you state absolutely unfunded nonsense. Please, stop making a fool of yourself and run a simple test before posting your claims about how CM doesn't do this or that in the future.

Of course I run tests before posting.

Iam only stated what I have observed. I have played loads of games and observed the effects. I still stick to the statement that mortar fire is ineffective against trenches from MY experience. If this is what I have expeienced, this is what I have experience. I just don't get it, it seem to me everybody is happy with the power of artillery in the game. But through the games i have played, nearly all the casulties are caused by riflefire and not artillery. I have tried experiment's with enormous barrages, hardly any casulties were caused on troops in trenches and they did not rout even though the barrage lasted for 15 minutes. They were not supressed as they still fired on my troops.

Based on MY experience of the game, mortars against trenches

Mortar fire hardly causes any injuries

Mortar fire is ineffective

Mortar fire does not supress

[ August 18, 2006, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

[Wicky]

Are you using spotters for off map tubes or on map tubes fired with direct LOS or HQ spotting?

What calibre mortars are you using and how are you applying it?

Are you briskly following up with infantry?

Originally posted by mav1:

[von Paulus]

Frightening stupidity ...

Maybe you just can't understand nothing of mortars (because of YOUR experience )

Anyway I'd be happy to fight opponents that despise mortars

My best achievement : 19 casualties with a 81mm. (plus an enormous suppression !)

The only thing I hate is when they run out of ammo

[mav1]

Originally posted by Wicky:

[QB] Are you using spotters for off map tubes or on map tubes fired with direct LOS or HQ spotting?

I have used both off and on map tubes with los spotting

What calibre mortars are you using and how are you applying it?

I have used 50 and 80mm calibre mortars, I usually aim on the visible target. If it disappers I use the area target as close as i can get it on the target.

Are you briskly following up with infantry?

As soon as a have finished the bombardment, I send over the troops. I proberly made an error of not positing the fire behind the target Iam aiming at, so that I can move my troops while the barrage is still going on. But then I would still hit my troops moveing forward to the target, while the barage is still going on.

[mav1]

Originally posted by von Paulus:

[QB] Frightening stupidity ...

Maybe you just can't understand nothing of mortars (because of YOUR experience )

Anyway I'd be happy to fight opponents that despise mortars

I would love to play people who love mortars. less Infantry to fight against while I would spend the points on infantry

[Wicky]

Odd, you first say you get no suppression then later say you state targets under mortar fire disappear.

Which is it?

Originally posted by mav1:

Mortars in cm seem to be totally ineffective in cm against trenches.... and have no supression effect.

Originally posted by mav1:

I have used 50 and 80mm calibre mortars, I usually aim on the visible target. If it disappers I use the area target as close as i can get it on the target.

[J Ruddy]

In Mav1's defence, I have had some Mortar issues in a couple of games of CMAK playing as Brits/Canucks. I don't know if it was because I was fighting Veteran Germans or if Commonwealth mortars < German mortars or simply a luck of the die roll kind of thing.

Comments?

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... CM has been out for 6 years now. We've had, quite literally, 10s of thousands of people playing the games. There are over 20,000 people registered on this Forum alone. Many of these players are mortarmen or at least have direct experience with them. Some even on the receiving end of things. And gamers in general like to complain about everything, even the stuff that works correctly. Yet here we are... 6 years later and we're only now being informed about a problem with the effects of mortars and artillery?

Doesn't it seem a tad bit unlikely that after 6 years and hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of CM games played by tens of thousands of people prone to complaining that they somehow all missed uncovering a problem with one of the primary weapons in the game?

Needless to say, I'm not even going to bother looking into this

Steve

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by mav1:

Mortars in cm seem to be totally ineffective in cm against trenches. Even though they were invented for this purpose.

Meh - I can't be nice to this guy without feeling a little dirty...

Mortars predate trench warfare by something like 300 years and were invented for seige warfare (attacking a Castle or other walled fortification). The trench mortar wasn't invented until ~1915.

The advantage is that if (and it is a big if) you can land a mortar round directly in a trench, you will wreak havoc, but you have to land it in the trench first.

The British 2 inch mortar was hand aimed and did not have a timed fuse. Because they can't air burst and are hardly designed for precision delivery, I would think they would be fairly useless against trenches. When I play Brits I normally use these for smoke.

I think the German 50mm was percussion fused as well and while it did have a solid mount, it did not have a sophisticated aiming device. Again, not my first choice for bombarding a trench.

IMO, from a technical standpoint, the German 120mm Mortar was a thing of beauty. With Percussion or Timed fuses, a great aiming device and a sturdy mount, when used against trenches it was very effective. In the CM games it is my tool of choice for softening up a trench or wooded area. The 81mm sGrW 34 was on par with the 120mm as far as accuracy and is my second choice for attacking trenches.

Anyways, that's my take. Take it or leave it.

[mav1]

Thanks for your info J Ruddy, hope you don't feel too dirty.

[mav1]

Wicky

What I failed to say was when your Infantry attack the enemy in the trenches while the enemy is being bombarded by mortars is that the enemy inflicted huge losses when being supoosidly suppressed. So in that case the results end up the same even though the enemy is being suppressed. so meaning the suppression has no effect.

I exaggarated that the enemy is never supressed, but the effect of the suppression on the enemy in the trenches dosn't change their ability to fire back when a target presents itself in open terrain.

[mav1]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guys... CM has been out for 6 years now. We've had, quite literally, 10s of thousands of people playing the games. There are over 20,000 people registered on this Forum alone. Many of these players are mortarmen or at least have direct experience with them. Some even on the receiving end of things. And gamers in general like to complain about everything, even the stuff that works correctly. Yet here we are... 6 years later and we're only now being informed about a problem with the effects of mortars and artillery?

Doesn't it seem a tad bit unlikely that after 6 years and hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of CM games played by tens of thousands of people prone to complaining that they somehow all missed uncovering a problem with one of the primary weapons in the game?

Needless to say, I'm not even going to bother looking into this

Steve

Most casulties in ww2 was caused by artillery, Iam I right? So are you sure that Artillery fire including guns and howitzers in cm are weaker than they should be? Or is it that the trenches are far more effective in stopping casulties and supression than they should be?

[Wicky]

Mav- Try playing some games in the hot seat mode just so you can see what effect your having and to perfect your assault timing.

[Battlefront.com]

mav1,

Most casulties in ww2 was caused by artillery, Iam I right?

You are correct, except not in the context you are trying to put it in. The reason why most casualties were caused by shell fragments (which includes bombs) is because forces would pound each other for days before engaging in CM style combat. So in CM you are only seeing a tiny slice of the casualties suffered throughout the war, and yes the proportion of casualties by small arms fire will be MUCH higher than the wartime average.

So are you sure that Artillery fire including guns and howitzers in cm are weaker than they should be?

See my post above about the 10s of thousands of players and millions of CM games played over 6 years. Yeah, I'm sure that you haven't stumbled upon something that everybody else, including combat vets, missed.

Or is it that the trenches are far more effective in stopping casulties and supression than they should be?

Maybe the problem here is that you are unaware that trenches are designed to minimize the effect of mortars and artillery as well as small arms fire? I mean, why else would forces spend so much time and energy digging them and then doing everything they can to see that they aren't lost? Because the officers want an excuse to find earthworms so they can go out fishing with sufficient bait?

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

In CMBO I had fair luck with the US 60mm against foxholes. In any given game where I was using them, I might get 5-10% of the rounds to actually drop into a hole and do some real damage. Otherwise, they would keep the enemy's head down enough for me to do approach marches and such, but by themselves would not provide enough suppression for a close assault. My procedure was to move up an MG or two for that job while the mortars were firing, and use the MGs for more serious suppression. If you are using them as area fire though, be sure to give them a cease fire order on the turn you expect your infantry to get close to the target or you could end up with a nasty FF incident.

Michael

[ August 20, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]