Mortar Variance

[DavidFields]

I tend to think of the 81mm mortar, attached to a german company, as sort of the standard for WW2 tactics.

So then I play some North African scenarios, and every Brit and his uncle seems to have a 2 inch mortar.

And then I play the Russians in something like White Wave, and 2 infantry battalions have one...regimental...mortar.

Query: arbitrary differences? differences in production abilities? or fundamental differences in small arms tactical doctrine and philosophy?

[Redwolf]

Mostly doctrine. The Soviet army has more smaller assets concentrated in larger formation's reserved heavy weapon groups. Of course they are often supposed to be parceled out.

The Germans started with 2 inch mortars, too, but found them to be too wimpy. German squads carry more MG ammo instead.

[JasonC]

Um, the Russians used mortars more than everyone else.

They used 50mm mortars as company level weapons, sometimes pushed down to platoon level in singles (especially early in the war), sometimes left out of battle as insufficient in firepower.

They used 82mm mortars at battalion level. 9 per battalion in most of the force, 6 per in the mechanized forces. These were frequently pushed down to company level in singles or pairs, with a reserve firing in battery for the battalion.

They used 120mm mortars at the regimental level, 4 tubes per regiment - plus large independent mortar regiments as army level assets, which were typically used to reinforce rifle divisions on a critical axis, where extra anti infantry firepower was wanted.

Over a third of the Russian tube count was mortars. They made hundreds of thousands of the things, they are very easy to turn out in any quantity wanted. The ability to move ammo to the weapons - serving as they did with the infantry - was the limiting factor on their use - every light or medium mortar can throw all the shells you'll get to them on foot in a matter of minutes.

The Germans copied the Russian 120 outright, they were so impressed with it.

I think you are being misled by one scenario designer's incomprehension of the Russian infantry TOE. In CMBB, the issue is the default battalion templates give you a tube *FO* for the mortars. But they were used direct lay as much as the Germans did.

[DavidFields]

Darn, JasonC, I have a hard time objecting with you. Forget the 50mm stuff as ineffective (like 2 inch mortar). If the Russians otherwise had the mortars your suggest (and I have no doubts in the precision of your data), they were like the Allied forces: the infantry spot, the indirect does the damage.

[jtcm]

How was the small calibre mortar meant to be used in combat at plt level, early war ? CMBB players tend to concentrate them into Co. level batteries (I think), but were they in fact meant to be dragged into plt. firing lines, to help squads win the firefight ? E.g. by silencing HMGs ?

[Redwolf]

How was the small calibre mortar meant to be used in combat at plt level, early war ? CMBB players tend to concentrate them into Co. level batteries (I think), but were they in fact meant to be dragged into plt. firing lines, to help squads win the firefight ? E.g. by silencing HMGs ?

That early in the war, 1939-1940, at least one side of each conflict was really not used to be shot at, and grenades finding their way into your cover will disrupt the defenses even if the effect isn't life-threatening.

Exchanging shots until somebody quits before everything goes to hell was not quite SOP then, but it was incredibly much more common compared to what e.g. the Germans and the Soviets did to each other in -say- 1943.

Firing the same 50mm or 2" round that was effective in 1939-1940 for morale effects into a 1943 Eastern Front squad will hardly cause a reaction. 1943+ on the Eastern Front means no quarters given, 120mm mortars being the tools of choice when available, artillery barrages so massive you wouldn't have thought of them in 1940, tanks rolling over their own wounded to proceed with the mission, a substantial number of SMG armed people waiting to just shoot the hell out of each other and tanks with less than 75mm HE considered junk.

What you gonna say to a round with 100 g of TNT in that environment?

[John Kettler]

Rankorian,

You're forgetting the Germans started the war with the 5 cm leGrW 36 as their most portable mortar. Even so, it was an elaborate, expensive to produce affair. To simplify production and get more range and oomph, the Germans progressively replaced these with a short barrel 8 cm kurzer GrW 42. Like the Italian 45mm Brixia, these were company level weapons. The British had the 2" (5cm) mortar doing the same role. One of my pet peeves in the game is the vast amount of smoke for the 2" but minuscule HE allotment, despite all the combat accounts in which the 2" put paid to MGs and other annoyances. Must've worked, for the 2" mortar soldiered on for decades after the war and has, I believe, been replaced with a better version since. The U.S. went a slightly different route, fielding the potent 60mm mortar, also replaced decades after the war with a modern incarnation known as the Light Weight Company Mortar System. As noted above, most countries plumped for the 81mm mortar in various full length barrel incarnations as battalion level weapons, but the British and CW went with 3" (76mm). The Russians had 45mm grenade throwers as company weapons and 82mm mortars as battalion weapons. This is in keeping with the Russian view that mortars are the commander's private artillery. Only if higher command authorizes it may a given infantry unit receive artillery support. Otherwise, it's fight with what you have.

Regards,

John Kettler