On-Map Mortars = "Superunit" !?

[MikeyD]

what you get for playing RT mode

Ain't that the truth!

[von Murrin]

...Arguably, the current set of 21 Century mortars are far differerent than when I was a squad leader or gunner, where we now utlize the 120mm far more than our 60's or 81's because of the bigger guns linkage to GPS and the mortar ballistic computers. Gone are the heady days of adjustment, now we have second round fire for effect.

Oh, they still get plenty of usage the old-fashioned way. Polar fire missions were our most common mission request, and that was four years ago.

Anyway, not wanting to regurgitate doctrine of then versus now, but feel the mortars are getting beat up a bit, unjustifiably. They are not sniper rifles, but they do have the capability to suppress and destroy quickly and can traverse a wide area of coverage rather quickly, just a matter of shifting the bipod onto the new direction of fire. Thanks BFC, I think you've done an outstanding job, not only with the CMSF series, but with your latest incarnation of WWII.

Matt

As a former 11B, I can back this up. In fact, we had one firefight where one of our Charlies was putting rounds mere meters from his target, and all the while exposed and taking fire rooftop to rooftop. 60's are godly support.

[gunnergoz]

Nice to hear from them from the "real world" that has BTDT and got the T-shirt to prove it! Thanks for your service, gentlemen!

[StrykerPSG]

Nice to hear from them from the "real world" that has BTDT and got the T-shirt to prove it! Thanks for your service, gentlemen!

Gunner, thank you for the kind words and support. Admittedly took a bit of leave from the forums when continuously arguing the tracked vs. wheeled debate when BFC released CMSF. While I will never pretend to know all the answers, can indeed tell you that BFC truly does their homework on their subject matter. I think they did the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (my alumni) much justice in their CMSF series and am confident they will do the same for WWII. Now, if we could only get them into the 50's and 60's.........

Matt

[C'Rogers]

when continuously arguing the tracked vs. wheeled debate when BFC released CMSF

Ah, I enjoyed the intense arguments about how things were displayed in the game, before the game was ever released!

Those were the ... um, less then ideal days.

[von Murrin]

Nice to hear from them from the "real world" that has BTDT and got the T-shirt to prove it! Thanks for your service, gentlemen!

Thanks.

I don't normally trot out stories, but sometimes it's worth sharing.

We used to take a Charlie and his 60 with us on longer patrols. I remember one time we were moving through these damn wide-open potato fields and our lead team took fire just as we passed a small house. I'm pretty sure everyone had a suspicious eye on the house about 500m out on the only high ground in the area and so we were kind of expecting it.

I ended up in the farm house looking for a target when I heard "SHOT!" I turned just in time to see our LT bent over our RTO, who was completely entangled in his own handset cable (think Twister, only far more strange), and our Charlie fire a round from about a foot outside the doorway. I felt my skull crush in like I'd been hit by a plank, and even my eyes hurt. This unaccountably set me to a rage and I apparently said some not-nice things about finding a decent firing position. Then I proceeded to walk around the back of the house and take up on the far corner. That's when AQI decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew. That single 60 round of the firefight impacted a few feet from the only window on the target building. He was trying to hit the roof.

The point is not just the accuracy of mortar fire, but the strange and often humorous happenings and irrational things people do in combat, all of which happen in-game. I love it.

[Krilly]

I was somewhat surprised about the accuracy and lethality of mortars in CM:BN. Not really noticed that so much in other wargames before.

Then I remembered I bought a book by good old Ian v. Hogg about mortars some time ago. Interesting read. Here's a snippet about 'payload'. (any typo's which creep in are all mine not Hoggs :-P) ;

In discussing mortars here I have often commented on the particularly deadly lethality of their bombs, and the layman might well ask what was so special about a mortar bomb when compared with an artillery shell? After all, the mortar bomb is a cheaper proposition, so why should it be so much more deadly? The reason lies in two characteristics of the mortar which affect ammunition. The first is that the mortar is less highly stressed - in other words, the propelling charge is a great deal less than that for a gun of the same calibre and thus the projectile suffers less of a shock when it is launched. Because of this it is possible to make the bomb with a thiner casing adn to fill it with more explosive: the average artillery shell of World War II contained something in the order of 8 to 10 per cent of its weight in explosive: thus a 35lb shell could be expected to contain about 3lb of TNT. The mortart bomb on the other hand carried more like 20 per cent: to give a concrete example, the German 10cm bomb for the Nebelwerfer weighed 16lb and carried a filling of 3.4lb of TNT, which is almost excactly 21 per cent of the total weight. It is obvious that more explosive on the target leads to a better effect.

The second characteristic is the high trajectory of the mortar, which leads to the comb coming to the ground at a steep angle, usually about 70 degrees to the horizontal plane. An artillery gun shell usually impacts at about 30 degrees and thus much of the resulting fragmentation is either smothered by the ground immediatly beneath or is harmlessly dissipated into the air above. But the mortar bomb's steep angle of arrival means that the bomb is almost standing upright when it detonates, and thus spreads its fragments around more venly and without wasting them. Hence more lethality due to better distribution of fragments and blast.

Seems to me I always underestimated the lethality of the humble mortar.

On accuracy he also tells some quite interesting things. Seems that they 'went all scientific' so to speak on the then still simple robust mortar after the korean war and accuracy of the mortar took a big leap with the redesign of the mortar bomb, espcially the 'RARDE design'.

In his words ;

In one bound the mortar had gone from being an area weapon to being very nearly a poiny-target weapon: with the 3in mortar you could generally guarantee getting the bomb into a football field. But with the 81mm RARDE mortar you could choose into which penalty are to drop the bomb. The 3in had fired a 10lb (4.5kg) bomb to a maximum range of 2,600yd (2.380m); the 81mm fired a 9lb 6oz (4.3kg) bomb to 5,650yd (5.170m). And because the bomb was of a higher quality metal (spheroidal graphited cast iron), specially designed to produce the maximum number of optimum-sized fragments and filled with RDX/TNT, its target effect was greatly increased.

The 81mm mortart L16 began entering service in 1961.

This shows however that the present day mortar is a far more accurate and deadly weapon than its simpler WW2 brother. Which was designed to be cheap, robust and easy to use.

So should mortars be sniper weapons in CM:BN; not really it seems to me. They rather should be more of a pain in the ass with respectful effect on the target when compared to gun-artillery of similar calibres.

Guess we will have some testing ranges to set up when we get the full game :-).

[ChrisND]

Another former 11C here. Yes, the mortars can really be that accurate. And in direct lay it's pretty easy and fast to hit precise targets repeatedly.

[StrykerPSG]

Another former 11C here. Yes, the mortars can really be that accurate. And in direct lay it's pretty easy and fast to hit precise targets repeatedly.

Even more accurate now with GPS and Improved Mortar Ballistic Computer. We routinely put first round everytime on target or within lethal effects and second volley is always fire for effect.

[Dadekster88]

I've heard the stories about charlies and the competitions they'd have over accuracy against each other. I also heard a lot of b!tching about lugging baseplates around iirc.

[Praetori]

its not about their final accuracy, but the speed they set up into a completely different direction(like 90°+ off the old position) acquire a infantry target shooting on them and successfully destroy that target within a turn while being suspect to rifle and MG fire for the duration.

maybe i did a mistake naming them sniper mortar´s. another therm would be more fitting i think.

This.

I've found them to be very hard to suppress too.

The accuracy seems fair enough (and I've seen what they can do first-hand).

But the guys seem to stick to the tubes even with incoming fire in abundance and re-orient to attack targets faster than the targets can move.

We also seem to be getting a lot of tree-bursts from mortars which increase their deadliness even more. I have no idea how it's modeled but hidden/prone units seem to be slaughtered in any case.

[StrykerPSG]

This.

I've found them to be very hard to suppress too.

The accuracy seems fair enough (and I've seen what they can do first-hand).

But the guys seem to stick to the tubes even with incoming fire in abundance and re-orient to attack targets faster than the targets can move.

We also seem to be getting a lot of tree-bursts from mortars which increase their deadliness even more. I have no idea how it's modeled but hidden/prone units seem to be slaughtered in any case.

Germans were infamous for bursting their indirect fires into the tree lines, where you get amplified shrapnel in the form of shell casing and splinters. Remember the scene from Band of Brothers and they are occupying the fighting positions in the woods? It has got to be a horrendous experience.

[~Viajero]

Weather the mortars effectiveness and accuracy in CM:BN is accurately modelled or not I guess it is still open to debate. What is clear to me is that in CMx1 they were neither as deadly nor as accurate as they seem to be now. In CMx1 a single 81mm was never going to decimate a few squads, nevermind 60 or smaller, they were strictly used to counter guns or pop smoke. IMH experience even 81mm was never going to be decisive against infantry (unless 4 tubes or more), some casualties, yes, but more for suppression effect than actual dammage.

Do not know which of the two models is the right one but they behave indeed very very differently.

My personal impressions extend to all HE ammunition actually. It just seems to me in general much much deadly than in CMx1.

[Thomm]

The aspect that bothers me more than the accuracy is that the troops get pinned even by a single mortar and stay so until they are eliminated when there are plenty of opportunities to break LOS by withdrawing a small distance. It feels wrong when the player could order them to safety in seconds, but the squad just stays in the target zone and refuses to take orders.

Best regards,

Thomm

[StrykerPSG]

I've heard the stories about charlies and the competitions they'd have over accuracy against each other. I also heard a lot of b!tching about lugging baseplates around iirc.

Divisions used to routinely hold Division level mortar competitions. Those events, with all the OPTEMPO in OIF/OEF have sadly been relegated to BDE level competitions now mostly, but still very fiercely competitive.

As for the baseplates, yes, they inheritently suck to lug around and would routinely leave our larger baseplate with the XO and keep our smaller patrol plate on for most missions. The limitations were smaller footprint, so have to be careful about number of rounds fired as it buries quickly. Also, without U shaped rotatable socket, limited firing arc.

Matt

[Steiner14]

I haven't played enough with the mortars in the game for a personalfinal opinion about it, but from the discussion going on here, and my initial impressions, they seem to be way to accurate.

According to (Lexikon der Wehrmacht http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/granatwerfer.htm ) The 8 cm mortar GW-34 had a diffusion of 65 meters @2400 (it's maximum distance). It was judged as a useful battalion weapon.

The german GW-36 (5 cm) had a spreading of 4 meters sideways and 31 meters in depth @500m and it's grenades were judged as being not efficient.

Judging from this discussion, mortars should have been the primary weapon against ATGs, MGs and infantry in trenches, which ofcourse they were not.

In CMx1 i had the impression the 81mm versions already were way to deadly, with only two of them, always being a 100% solution against ATGs.

Now they seem to be even more precise.

Maybe someone should have told the Soviets, that they can safe their efforts on building their super strong artillery corps, and instead just give every squad a cheap 80 mm mortar?

[Dadekster88]

Oddly enough I have a source stating a bit the opposite. From The Encyclopedia Infantry Weapons of World War II (a book I've been reading a lot lately) on pages 110 and 111 for the Granatwerfer 36 I have the following-

"It is interesting to note that a trial of a captured 5cm mortar was conducted in Britain in 1941, and the report observed that it was, 'well constructed and easy to operate, but the degree of accuracy was un-necessarily high'. This must be one of the few times when a complaint has been voiced that a weapon was too accurate."

It goes on to note that the 5cm was mostly superseded by the GW34. It seems your reference speaks more about the actual ammo used which my source does not so I wonder if that is where the difference lies? Interesting nonetheless imo.

[permanent666]

i want to add this screenshot to your discussion:

[akd]

According to (Lexikon der Wehrmacht http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/granatwerfer.htm ) The 8 cm mortar GW-34 had a diffusion of 65 meters @2400 (it's maximum distance). It was judged as a useful battalion weapon.

Just ran a quick test with the 8cm firing direct on a point target at 2392m, no wind, clear. Just eyeballing it, dispersion looked around 100m or a bit more, but quite a few rounds fell wider than that.

[phil stanbridge]

I have found the US mortars to be 'reasonably' accurate in the few games I have played, I quite like it like that. They're actually a useful support weapon now. But maybe the suppression level is too high? I don't know really, but I quite like using them now.

[Steiner14]

Oddly enough I have a source stating a bit the opposite. From The Encyclopedia Infantry Weapons of World War II (a book I've been reading a lot lately) on pages 110 and 111 for the Granatwerfer 36 I have the following-

"It is interesting to note that a trial of a captured 5cm mortar was conducted in Britain in 1941, and the report observed that it was, 'well constructed and easy to operate, but the degree of accuracy was un-necessarily high'. This must be one of the few times when a complaint has been voiced that a weapon was too accurate."

Depends what the author expects from the weapon. And it indicates, that mortars from other armys were even less accurate.

Regarding our discussion of being the one to go solution against ATGs and HMGs, this seems to underline, that they are too efficient.

It goes on to note that the 5cm was mostly superseded by the GW34. It seems your reference speaks more about the actual ammo used which my source does not so I wonder if that is where the difference lies? Interesting nonetheless imo.

Judging from the source the GW34 was a Battalion weapon, not a support weapon for platoons.

Just ran a quick test with the 8cm firing direct on a point target at 2392m, no wind, clear. Just eyeballing it, dispersion looked around 100m or a bit more, but quite a few rounds fell wider than that.

akd,

that seems to fit. Can you say anything about the distribution?

And did you make any tests with the 50mm mortars @500, too?

[akd]

Depends what the author expects from the weapon. And it indicates, that mortars from other armys were even less accurate.

Regarding our discussion of being the one to go solution against ATGs and HMGs, this seems to underline, that they are too efficient.

Judging from the source the GW34 was a Battalion weapon, not a support weapon for platoons.

akd,

that seems to fit. Can you say anything about the distribution?

And did you make any tests with the 50mm mortars @500, too?

I would have to run many tests to say anything definitive. The distribution (shape) looked a bit odd, but this may have been because the target was just a few meters shy of max range.

German 50mm mortars aren't in the game as they were no longer in the TO&E of the formations included, but they are not analogous to US 60mm mortars (50mm has a quarter the range and lighter projectiles). I will test the US 60mm if I have real world data to compare to as a baseline.

Here is a comparison of the German 50mm to US 60mm:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ltmortar/index.html

[vincere]

2 cents- I had one example of US 60 mm quickly taking out 4 guys, but luckily another squad supressed it.

Knee jerk reaction was "wtf" but on watching it again it all seemed appropriate (and enteraining in that odd way).

One off occurances are no test. But I don't buy into first round hitting target too often.

Estimating range and wind are an art at the best of times so my money would be that most times one should expect a little bracketing no mater how therotically acurate they are.

[PondScum]

i want to add this screenshot to your discussion

I'll see your 50 kills and raise you 7 :-)

[Erwin]

Um... that wouldn't be real spam would it??