US 60mm mortars effectiveness

[StrykerPSG]

So, I'm confused, was I correct or not? Did US mortars have delay fuzes in WWII? As admitted in my last post, assumed because we were training with what we thought were WWII stock piles, that they all had that option.

Matt

[Michael Emrys]

So, I'm confused, was I correct or not? Did US mortars have delay fuzes in WWII?

Not in the 60 mm, which is what we started out talking about in this thread. I'd guess that the time fuse for the 81 mm was relatively rare as well. That might also be true for the 107 mm. Remember, most issued munitions tend to be the cheaper vanilla variety. If someone can dig up some numbers in use that might be interesting.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

Learn something here every day...

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, the Light Mortar was a more simplistic system back then. Keep things simple, and all that.

One thing to keep in mind... direct fire mortars in CMx1 were not particularly difficult to knock out because once they started firing everybody knew they were there and tried to take them out. In CMx2 this is much more difficult because of Relative Spotting. If a mortar team gets direct lay on you first, before you suppress them, I'd put my money on the mortar team.

One of the thing that stinks for the German side in Busting the Bocage is the Americans not only have a bunch of 60mm Mortars, but they also have those damned HE chucking Shermans too! I'm not even going to mention the 105 barrages What this means is that the German forces in early contact with the Americans are going to get toasted. And as one of the guys that made the AI Plans for that scenario, I can tell you I was quite careful about how I instructed the AI to use those mortars. I saw them behaving near perfectly more often than not.

StrykerPSG, nice to see you moving back in time with us.

Steve

[akd]

So, I'm confused, was I correct or not? Did US mortars have delay fuzes in WWII? As admitted in my last post, assumed because we were training with what we thought were WWII stock piles, that they all had that option.

Matt

You were correct. And then I said "time" for the M56 above where I should have said delay, which just added confusion. Bit short on sleep. When I said "time" originally, I meant fuzed to burst after a set time in flight (to achieve air bursts).

By 1944 the the 60mm HE (M49A2) and 81mm "light" HE (M43A1) used a point-detonating super-quick fuze (M52). The 81mm M56 HE-Heavy used a PD delay fuze (M53). But there was an earlier fuze that was selective:

Recently it was decided that each shell could be classified as for

use against light targets or as for use against heavy targets. Thus,

a single action fuze could be definitely assigned to each shell according

to its tactical use. All of the light shell (7 pounds or less) were

classified for use against light targets, as very little penetration could

be obtained due to their light weight and blunt construction. It is also

to be noted that the percentage of explosive filler as compared to the

percentage of metal components (approx. 17 percent) was designed

to destroy the light shell so as to produce efficient fragments which

can be effective only if distributed above ground. The M52 P.D.

Superquick Fuze was also assigned to the Chemical Shell M57, as

it is necessary to function the chemical shell above the ground to

obtain the proper effects and dispersion to its chemical filler. All"the

heavy shell of the H.E. type were classified for use against heavy

targets and for use where a mining effect was necessary. It is also

to be noted here that the percentage of explosive filler as compared

to the percentage of metal components (approx. 40 percent) was

designed to produce an efficient mining or concussion result with

heavy shell which would be most effective if allowed to penetrate

its target and then explode. The M53 P.D. Delay Action Fuze was

assigned to these shell.

The M45 P.D. Selective Fuze was declared limited standard (,S).

It was a waste of one element to use a selective fuze on trench mortar

shell, because it was known before the shell ever reached the firing

point what action fuze was desired. The M52 P.D. superquick-and

the M53 P.D. delay are standard for issue and manufacture (S as M) .

It is interesting to note that the subdivision of a selective fuze into

two separate fuzes is in definite opposition to the trend in artillery

fuze design where the tendency is to combine two fuzes into one

selective or combination fuze . This is true because in artillery fuzes

the action desired varies with the condition at the field of battle.

...

Point-detonating Fuze M52.

Description. The M52 Fuze is a superquick fuze used to effect the

functioning of rounds fired from the 81-mm and 60-mm mortars. It is

normally used with light shell when fragmentation above the ground

is desired.

...

Point-detonating Faze M53.

Description . The M53 Fuze is a delay fuze used to effect the

functioning of rounds fired from the 81-mm trench mortar. It is normally

used with heavy shell where penetration is desired. This fuze will

fit any of the "M" series of shell; however, it is only authorized to be

assembled in the H.E. Shell M56 for 81-mm mortars. The weight

of the fuze is 0.45 pound.

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/TM%209-1904%20Ammunition%20Inspection%20Guide.pdf

I wonder if the older M45 fuze is what you encountered in SA?

As a side note, the M56 is actually in the game also.

[RT North Dakota]

Just a general point and speaking as someone trained in Mortar Fire Control, back in the day, I'm not entirely convinced by the Point, Linear and Area Targets, as concerns realism.

I can't ever remember designating a pattern of fire, and if we wanted to cover a wider area, we just gave corrections such as "Plus 50, Right 50."

Mortars like any ballistic weapons disperse over range. You'll have a higher CEP at 5,000m on a high charge, than 2,000m on a low charge. I actually think the dispersion and call for fire, (as concerns effect) was more realistic/accurate in CM1.

Guns are a different issue, but again, I'm just not convinced about being able to define a "linear" target unless you were giving separate data to each gun on the line. I don't see that being done in a battery (6-guns). A formation level barrage could mass 3 x 6 guns and that could address a "linear target," but that would be by giving three separate target datums.

How guns are arranged on the gun line, does have an effect on their coverage, and that alters very slightly given the pattern and the direction they engage in.

This was something that concerned me back on CMSF. Personally, I'd opt for just being able to designated a target point, and then apply number of guns/tubes to increase the area effect. - SO providing the initial Tgt Pt was visible, corrections should be able to put the fire into dead ground. You can for real.

...just a thought.

[akd]

Just a general point and speaking as someone trained in Mortar Fire Control, back in the day, I'm not entirely convinced by the Point, Linear and Area Targets, as concerns realism.

I can't ever remember designating a pattern of fire, and if we wanted to cover a wider area, we just gave corrections such as "Plus 50, Right 50."

Mortars like any ballistic weapons disperse over range. You'll have a higher CEP at 5,000m on a high charge, than 2,000m on a low charge. I actually think the dispersion and call for fire, (as concerns effect) was more realistic/accurate in CM1.

Guns are a different issue, but again, I'm just not convinced about being able to define a "linear" target unless you were giving separate data to each gun on the line. I don't see that being done in a battery (6-guns). A formation level barrage could mass 3 x 6 guns and that could address a "linear target," but that would be by giving three separate target datums.

How guns are arranged on the gun line, does have an effect on their coverage, and that alters very slightly given the pattern and the direction they engage in.

This was something that concerned me back on CMSF. Personally, I'd opt for just being able to designated a target point, and then apply number of guns/tubes to increase the area effect. - SO providing the initial Tgt Pt was visible, corrections should be able to put the fire into dead ground. You can for real.

...just a thought.

Great post sir!

[StrykerPSG]

Just a general point and speaking as someone trained in Mortar Fire Control, back in the day, I'm not entirely convinced by the Point, Linear and Area Targets, as concerns realism.

I can't ever remember designating a pattern of fire, and if we wanted to cover a wider area, we just gave corrections such as "Plus 50, Right 50."

Mortars like any ballistic weapons disperse over range. You'll have a higher CEP at 5,000m on a high charge, than 2,000m on a low charge. I actually think the dispersion and call for fire, (as concerns effect) was more realistic/accurate in CM1.

Guns are a different issue, but again, I'm just not convinced about being able to define a "linear" target unless you were giving separate data to each gun on the line. I don't see that being done in a battery (6-guns). A formation level barrage could mass 3 x 6 guns and that could address a "linear target," but that would be by giving three separate target datums.

How guns are arranged on the gun line, does have an effect on their coverage, and that alters very slightly given the pattern and the direction they engage in.

This was something that concerned me back on CMSF. Personally, I'd opt for just being able to designated a target point, and then apply number of guns/tubes to increase the area effect. - SO providing the initial Tgt Pt was visible, corrections should be able to put the fire into dead ground. You can for real.

...just a thought.

True, dispersion would have an effect over longer ranges, but when engaging in direct fire mode, you are talking a danger close mission not being fired at maximum range, where suppression and destruction are more vital than avoiding contact to fight another fight. Meaning, I think the AI is prudent to engage if they(mortar crew) can see the enemy and advantage favors the bold. It is equally prudent for the crew to lay low if that target of opportunity is not a high pay off target and they are not in threat of compromise.

As far as adjusting 2 guns or even 1 gun on a linear target, it's very doable and is just a matter of adjusting elevation, charge(if applicable) and traversing the hand wheel. I would consider most linear missions as more masterful than any of the basic grid, shift or polar plots. However, what isn't practical is doing a linear target with a non-vehicle supported mortar and a reserve of ammo. I would rather use my scarce supply on higher targets of opportunity. Also, in a 60mm basic load, there may only be a small handful of WP available, so a smoke screen would be marginal unless it was part of the original OPORDER or Fires planning.

Anyway, the one thing very difficult to replicate is the amount of kit for the gun that must be packed and unpacked if fighting or flighting. I can remember many missions where we were more than happy to expend most of our rounds to free up weight in our rucks. While it was a momentary reprieve from a 120 pound load on your back, the younger crew members would then get to experience cache finding and hauling 30-40 rounds on a skedco or emptyed rucks.

I think BFC did a great job with the AI in CMSF and again, today versus back then technologies and implementation are night and day, but yet still have many basic similarities. I can still plot using only a map, protractor and charge wheel, without having to carry the IMBC, batteries and M19 plotting board.

[Franko]

I think what is going on here is that the lowly mortar never got the respect that it deserved. Now that it is deadly, people are having to reset their expectations a bit.

[gunnergoz]

"Never got the respect it deserved from people who have never been under fire from one," I think you mean.

[Ardem]

The main problem is, we will see 20x 60mm mortars in multiplayer game, purely due to the fact they are so damn accurate. Plus mortar teams provide additional rifle support, it make them a must have in games.

I am sure we will not hear the end of this when we start seeing the game out and mutliplayer.

I had a 60 mm mortar team underfire by a platoon in the demo, they destroyed the whole platoon. To the point when the mortar round hit, they hit the exact square each squad member was in then went to the next square.

Cmx1 the 60mm was a nuisance now it is the tiger on the cmx2 battlefield.

[Macisle]

In the training scenario, the AT gun took a ton of area fire from three Shermans and was never knocked out. When my infantry overran the position, there were still three healthy crew members manning it! AT guns were way easy to knock out in CMx1.

After winning the trainer, I went back and hotseated it. I had one of my mortars direct fire on the AT position. It knocked it out with two shells. The second hit took out three crew members.

[Blackcat]

"After winning the trainer, I went back and hotseated it. I had one of my mortars direct fire on the AT position. It knocked it out with two shells. The second hit took out three crew members."

On the other hand in my first run through of the tutorial the ATG took a whole load-out of 60mm mortar ammo. Three minutes it later its sole surviving, yellow-wounded, crew member used the gun to take out a Sherman that I had advanced because I was sure the damn thing would be dead.

Odd things happen in war.

[womble]

In the training scenario, the AT gun took a ton of area fire from three Shermans and was never knocked out. When my infantry overran the position, there were still three healthy crew members manning it! AT guns were way easy to knock out in CMx1.

When I played the Road to Berlin, the ATG died to the first 75mm HE that went in on target. And it had pinged 3 rounds off the Sherman that killed it with only 'spalling' to show for it, and no noticeable effect on the tank or its crew. Just goes to show that results can vary considerably.

[Ardem]

"After winning the trainer, I went back and hotseated it. I had one of my mortars direct fire on the AT position. It knocked it out with two shells. The second hit took out three crew members."

On the other hand in my first run through of the tutorial the ATG took a whole load-out of 60mm mortar ammo. Three minutes it later its sole surviving, yellow-wounded, crew member used the gun to take out a Sherman that I had advanced because I was sure the damn thing would be dead.

Odd things happen in war.

Direct fire or in indirect approach, I find if it is not direct fire then you have a far less chance of hitting, but direct fire never need more then 5 or 6 shell to take out an AT, a squad, anything.

[Macisle]

Blackcat and wombie,

Interesting!

-Makes for very intense games, huh! AT guns being so easy to take out in CMx1 was actually somewhat annoying and unrealistic, so things seem likely much improved here and perhaps very realistic in that "odd things happen in war."

BTW, another hotseat test of Shermans drifting in from different places at different times left all Shermans dead--usually on the second or third hit each.

Let's take nothing for granted, gentlemen.

[Ardem]

Macisle, I would not get you hopes up to fast my experience after several runs AT guns die as quickly. But occassionaly like cmx1 you get a stubborn gun, the difference with cmx2 and spotting you just never quite sure if it is dead.

But stick a 60mm mortar in direct role the gun is toast most times in the first 3 rounds. I run through 9 times and that been my experience

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, another hotseat test of Shermans drifting in from different places at different times left all Shermans dead--usually on the second or third hit each.

Which is why I always advocated using at least two or three tanks at once. That way, while one is getting shot at, the others are free to engage the ATG. Sending them in one at a time just means that they get killed one at a time. If you can't afford to buy a whole platoon, you might consider getting something else entirely. Mortars are fairly cheap...

Michael

[womble]

Which is why I always advocated using at least two or three tanks at once. That way, while one is getting shot at, the others are free to engage the ATG.

If they can see it, of course 'Tis going to be fun getting to grips with this non-borg spotting... Something I hadn't anticipated is the various units that get a '?' contact seeing the target in different places.

[akd]

In the training scenario, the AT gun took a ton of area fire from three Shermans and was never knocked out. When my infantry overran the position, there were still three healthy crew members manning it! AT guns were way easy to knock out in CMx1.

After winning the trainer, I went back and hotseated it. I had one of my mortars direct fire on the AT position. It knocked it out with two shells. The second hit took out three crew members.

The wonders of high-angle fire on an enemy behind cover.

[dpabrams]

I wonder if the German had their 50mm mortars with similiar performance as the American 60mm mortars, in CM:BN, if this conversation would even be taking place? Seems to me all those years ago when I played ASL that the German 50mm where fairly common.

The standard light mortar of the German Army is the 50-mm. This is comparable in a number of ways to our 60-mm, although ours is the superior weapon on the whole, especially as to maximum range, precision, and all-around performance.

Pete

[akd]

Germans had largely stopped using 50mm mortars by this point.

[dpabrams]

Well I would have to dig out my Paratrooper Module for ASL but I seem to recall that according to ASL, the 50mm were scattered throughout Normandy.

[Redwolf]

Just as they should be.

Mortars were one of the prime killers in WW2, accounting for something along the lines of 70% of allied casualties in Normandy.

60mm mortars?

You can't just look at the aggregated number of all fire support and then start inferring numbers from firing 150mm or 203mm shells into camps of useless backline soldiers in a chow line and take them for firing 60mm at a defending unit holed up in a fortified position.

Just look at how little TNT is in a 60mm shell.

[TrailApe]

Heh Heh - go Arty, show those grunts and tankies who's the REAL battle winner.

Seriously though, it is relatively easy to put in linears even if all of your sooper-dooper high tech modern kit goes legs up.

I'm just not convinced about being able to define a "linear" target unless you were giving separate data to each gun on the line. I don't see that being done in a battery (6-guns). A formation level barrage could mass 3 x 6 guns and that could address a "linear target," but that would be by giving three separate target datums

When a battery gets surveyed in, each gun’s bearing and distance is recorded against the Battery Centre. Nowadays this is done by whizzy GPS etc (in fact most modern artillery guns have GPS sights) but before that it was done by compass, pacing out distances and theodilites. This was all recorded in the CP on an instrument called the displacement graph, so the actual positions of the guns on the ground did not dictate the pattern of the fall of shot when the mission went to Fire for Effect. Whilst pacing might sound a bit estimatey, remember most shells have a 30-50 metre splinter radius, so slight errors in survey don’t make that much difference.

Even a recent as back in the early 80's (1980's that is). The FACE (Field Artillery Computer Equipment) was quite likely to crash at the most inopportune moment and there would be a scramble to get out the Firing Tables, Displacement Graph and other bumph to get the mission back on track. Given that back in WW2 they never had the computer option, they would have had ‘linears’ and ‘converges’ down to a fine art.