US 60mm mortars effectiveness

[StrykerPSG]

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

Steve

Steve,

Sorry, overlooked your post. Nice to be back and thanks for having some fantastic attention to detail but more importantly, listening to your customer base and implementing changes that make your games even more realistic. BTW, gonna offer any upgrade to your CMSF series for the newer variant of Strykers being fielded? Our little baby is all grown up now and she's got an even meaner bite now!

Matt

[Great Ajax]

Long time lurker here and first post but I have followed this thread with interest. Although, I haven't played enough of the demo yet to pass judgement on the effectiveness of mortars, I will make some comments based on my experiences as a Company Fire Support Officer for the 1-13 Armor out of Fort Riley and as a Battery and Battalion Fire Direction Officer for a Self-Propelled (M109A5/A6) unit and Light Towed (M102A2) unit.

My experience with mortars (107mm) has been that wind speed plays a huge part in mortar effectiveness. On the open and windy plains of Kansas, the 107mm Mortars would have a hard time hitting their targets consistently. Once the winds would calm down, they were very effective. Mortar effectiveness is much more effected by the weather and atmospheric conditions (Meteorlogical conditions) than their heavier artillery counterparts because of the lighter shell weight and the fact that mortars always fire in a high angle trajectory. The lighter shell weight impact is pretty obvious. Throw a ping ball and a baseball into high winds and which one deviates more? With mortars using high angle, it means the shell is in its trajectory much longer and achieves a higher max ordinate and all of these means that the meteorlogical conditions have a longer amount of time to affect that shell's trajectory.

Also, company mortars would not have access to meteorlogical data helping to comensate for those variables. The first several rounds in a fire mission are almost always going to be off target unless the mortar section registered prior to the fire mission. Registrations would have be conducted 2-4 times a day (every 6-8 hours) in order to keep the targeting accurate with the ever changing weather conditions.

Artillery and Naval Artillery will almost always be more accurate than mortars since their trajectories are flatter, have a higher muzzle velocity, and have heavier projectiles. Also, these units have dedicated gunnery sections that calibrate their powder charges by lot number, track tube wear and its effects on muzzle velocity, and utilize meteorlogical data into their calculations. These units will often be closer to a first round fire for effect than mortars will be. When artillery units account for all of these variables, they normally will not need to register to achieve these results.

Anyways, going back to the demo and looking forward to release.

Trey

[RT North Dakota]

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.

Not arguing with any of that. Based on my own experience it all makes good sense. - BUT having trailed around with FOO's and MFC, I just don't ever remember defining a pattern of fire in the call for fire message.

I'd be really interested to see a call for Fire format for a WW2 FOO, and see if they could specify things like linear targets. I assume detailed fire plans would be another thing all together.

Today, with LINAPS and all the wizzy gear I am sure they can do all manner of wonderment, but even back in the 1980's Battle Group Mortars could basically handle a grid reference and that was about it.

[Thin Red Line]

Just had another group (9 men) entirely wiped out by 60mm in less than 1 minute , possibly in direct LOS of the mortar team.

Maybe the problem is that when the first rounds hit the ground, soldiers should run away. But in game the get pinned down and stay where that are, wich is leading them to their tragic fate.

[StrykerPSG]

Not arguing with any of that. Based on my own experience it all makes good sense. - BUT having trailed around with FOO's and MFC, I just don't ever remember defining a pattern of fire in the call for fire message.

I'd be really interested to see a call for Fire format for a WW2 FOO, and see if they could specify things like linear targets. I assume detailed fire plans would be another thing all together.

Today, with LINAPS and all the wizzy gear I am sure they can do all manner of wonderment, but even back in the 1980's Battle Group Mortars could basically handle a grid reference and that was about it.

Today, pattern or sheaf is not part of the basic call for fire, but contained in the MTO (Message To Observer) when describing linear, converged or open sheaf. Also, target description would play a piece into that selection as well. Without the newer gear, this required a bit of doodling on the plotting board, but could and was certainly regularly obtained on Company level and Battalion levels of mortar gunnery.

And whilst survey points are great, they are mostly a thing of the past with GPS the norm. We still run azimumths from the base gun to the flank guns and generally the only time the guns are laid within the burst radius of the base gun are for garrison firing points. I prefer to think my enemy is equipped with counter battery capabilities and space the guns considerably further apart, rarely in compliance with one standard formation and always on a reverse slope when able.

In WWII, survey certainly makes sense and especially in a defensive position when registration would be part of the norm for a static firing point. In the offensive, you'll never get the Arty guys to give up their survey teams long enough to get a surveyed point that would only be used for a short duration. Matter of fact, the last I saw the survey guys was when I was a young gunner participating in Week of the Eagles competion at Campbell. Since 9-11, haven't seen em since or really needed em.

Anyway, love all of the facts and theories floating around. Great to see good discussions with others that love this stuff as much as I do. On a final note about dispersion, there are factors of winds, max ordinate, charge, etc that all play into the dispersion radius during impact, however, again when discussing direct lay on the target, where everyone sees each other, the charges are generally lower, lower max ordinate and the gunner is continuously eliminating the circle of error because he's in control of the gun, it's azimuth and can see where his rounds are landing. Plus, the gun and sight are now boresighted onto the target. This is much different than having an observer relays their angle from the gun to the target and guessing ranges and deviation. While the gun is still generally aligned with the target, the other variables certainly come into greater play now.

Sorry, gettin off my soap box, but am very passionate about mortars and their effects. Just don't get me started on Strykers and mortars...it'll be pages of theories..

Matt

[akd]

Thanks for all your insight on this topic!

[Battlefront.com]

Steve,

Sorry, overlooked your post. Nice to be back and thanks for having some fantastic attention to detail but more importantly, listening to your customer base and implementing changes that make your games even more realistic.

Our pleasure. And thanks for chipping in with expert insights.

BTW, gonna offer any upgrade to your CMSF series for the newer variant of Strykers being fielded? Our little baby is all grown up now and she's got an even meaner bite now!

CM:SF is complete, however CM:SF 2 will no doubt have the pimped out Strykers, complete with current issue hubcap spinners and purple light strips on the slat armor. Drives the bches crazy, I'm sure

Steve

[StrykerPSG]

Good lord, will send me over the edge. Please don't hesitate to ask for an assist with some of the new mods. The family has really grown some major legs and butt kicking improvements. I think you would be suprised and could probably even get you a personal tour of the family when you get serious about CMSF2. Thanks again, and looking to fill my Collectors tin with all the great add ons for this series as well.

Matt

[Ardem]

Based on the mortar effectiveness, that is being raved about, and you can kill a squad in cover within 1 minute, that means a platoon in 3 minutes and a company with 3 different LOS mortar in the same amount of time.

Why wasn't world war 2 over sooner?

Sorry not sure what it is, but something is not right, if it is casualty rate or overstated accuracy?, but taking it on a macro scale rather then looking at it on such a micro scale, I was able to knock out two squads and a HMG with 2 DF mortars within 2 minutes.

And on the other side I lost a 2 squads in heavy woods in 2 minutes. To a man!

The delays are not 2 minute continual fire I normally play WEGO so the damage is normally complete within the first 4-6 rounds.

[Haggard Sketchy]

Just had another group (9 men) entirely wiped out by 60mm in less than 1 minute , possibly in direct LOS of the mortar team.

Maybe the problem is that when the first rounds hit the ground, soldiers should run away. But in game the get pinned down and stay where that are, wich is leading them to their tragic fate.

It is a bit odd. I can understand hunkering down in a foxhole, but cowering in the open doesn't sound like self-preservation to me.

[Battlefront.com]

Good lord, will send me over the edge. Please don't hesitate to ask for an assist with some of the new mods. The family has really grown some major legs and butt kicking improvements. I think you would be suprised and could probably even get you a personal tour of the family when you get serious about CMSF2. Thanks again, and looking to fill my Collectors tin with all the great add ons for this series as well.

I'll take you up on the offer to pick your brain when we get to it. Probably a couple of months.

Based on the mortar effectiveness, that is being raved about, and you can kill a squad in cover within 1 minute, that means a platoon in 3 minutes and a company with 3 different LOS mortar in the same amount of time.

And a single Sherman 75mm Tank round can take out a squad with one shot, so with 40+ rounds in each of the 4 Shermans in Busting The Bocage the game should be over within the first 2 minutes by your calculation

Why wasn't world war 2 over sooner?

Because killing power and the opportunity to use it in ideal conditions are not the same thing.

Sorry not sure what it is, but something is not right, if it is casualty rate or overstated accuracy?, but taking it on a macro scale rather then looking at it on such a micro scale, I was able to knock out two squads and a HMG with 2 DF mortars within 2 minutes.

You did good, then. In Busting the Bocage you took out about 18-20 men, depending on if there were any casualties caused by other means and which specific units you're talking about (IIRC few are full strength to start with). Full strength this would be 24 men.

As I said in another thread, the 60mm Mortars are kinda operating under ideal circumstances. Especially in Busting the Bocage.

And on the other side I lost a 2 squads in heavy woods in 2 minutes. To a man!

And here you did not do so good Forest combat is not good because the advancing unit can often be ambushed. If the other side has a bunch of automatic weapons, this could be particularly bad. There's a reason they called the battles for the Hürtgenwald "Bloody Hürtgen". Infantry casualties there were atrocious.

It is a bit odd. I can understand hunkering down in a foxhole, but cowering in the open doesn't sound like self-preservation to me.

Actually, the WORST thing you can do in the middle of a mortar attack is stand up. The reason for that is shells explode from the ground into the air. If a soldier is lying prone even a few meters away from a strike, there's a good chance of survival. Standing up you can be killed 25m away from a 60mm shell. In CM game terms this is about 4 Action Spots away from where the shell detonates.

With air bursts lying prone doesn't help and can even make things worse. But the Human instinct is to cower, not to run. As I said, normally that behavior is rewarded so it's not a misplaced genetic predisposition.

Steve

[antonyo]

And a single Sherman 75mm Tank round can take out a squad with one shot, so with 40+ rounds in each of the 4 Shermans in Busting The Bocage the game should be over within the first 2 minutes by your calculation

The problem is that of a single shot, it would have to be very difficult to completely kill to everything a squad, whether is sherman as if it is a mortar. The ammunition HE is very powerful.

Actually, the WORST thing you can do in the middle of a mortar attack is stand up. The reason for that is shells explode from the ground into the air. If a soldier is lying prone even a few meters away from a strike, there's a good chance of survival. Standing up you can be killed 25m away from a 60mm shell. In CM game terms this is about 4 Action Spots away from where the shell detonates.

With air bursts lying prone doesn't help and can even make things worse. But the Human instinct is to cower, not to run. As I said, normally that behavior is rewarded so it's not a misplaced genetic predisposition.

Steve

Another problem is that the soldiers in the middle of a bombing of heavy artillery, stay observing standing up, without looking for cover crouching itself, and so the bombings of the artillery bring about many losses.

[Thin Red Line]

It is a bit odd. I can understand hunkering down in a foxhole, but cowering in the open doesn't sound like self-preservation to me.

It is odd indeed, especially when under fire from non HE weapon (MGs for example) they fall back as they should.

[V. Böse]

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

You are right, but second-line divisions were equipped with these mortars - i.e. the 716th Infantry division.

[Ardem]

Steve not trying to have a go at the game here, but I do not want to be playing mutliplayer with people only picking mortar teams only.

Perhaps the demo are in ideal scenario here, I will need to wait and see, today after download my the full version today.

But I think your missing the point, if you find mortars are to powerful your just going to kill off the fun aspect of this game.

I suppose you can stick your fingers in your ears and go nah nah nah, that is your right. I suppose you have to because I am not the only one to voice the concern.

[akd]

You are right, but second-line divisions were equipped with these mortars - i.e. the 716th Infantry division.

German divisions in Normandy were equipped with all sorts of crazy stuff, especially support assets. The TO&E for the Formations included in game is based on the on-paper "standard" with options for common variations.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve not trying to have a go at the game here, but I do not want to be playing mutliplayer with people only picking mortar teams only.

If that happens I'd be very surprised. This is like saying someone is always going to buy a Tiger because you played a game where they were really deadly. There's not a thing in CM that should be universally awesome.

Since the dawn of time there are players who insist on finding the most ridiculous ways to gain an artificial advantage and that is their form of fun. For others, this is the opposite of fun. Think of the average wargamer like the average Wall Street trader/manager. You can make a BILLION rules and they will STILL find a way to work around them.

Standard advice for you is if you find someone like this DO NOT PLAY THEM AGAIN.

Perhaps the demo are in ideal scenario here, I will need to wait and see, today after download my the full version today.

Exactly.

But I think your missing the point, if you find mortars are to powerful your just going to kill off the fun aspect of this game.

You're missing the point... Combat Mission tries to be as realistic as possible. If there is something wrong with our realism modeling, then we fix it. If there is nothing wrong with the realism, we don't touch it.

I suppose you can stick your fingers in your ears and go nah nah nah, that is your right. I suppose you have to because I am not the only one to voice the concern.

And others have said those concerns are not valid. No sticking fingers in ears... I hear both sides and don't pick the one you want me to because it's the one you favor.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

German divisions in Normandy were equipped with all sorts of crazy stuff, especially support assets. The TO&E for the Formations included in game is based on the on-paper "standard" with options for common variations.

Correct. We couldn't find much evidence for widespread use of the 50mm Mortars even in the rear divisions. The mortars had been pulled from frontline duty for almost 2 years by this point in the war.

Will they make an appearance in a Module at some point? Quite possibly.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It is odd indeed, especially when under fire from non HE weapon (MGs for example) they fall back as they should.

Again, when under indirect HE fire the best thing to do is go prone. Getting up and running is a bad idea under most circumstances. This is because shell fragments tend to fly laterally and upwards, not into the ground. This is why Air Burst techniques/fuzes were developed. In that case the fragments tend to fly downward. Which means a soldier standing or prone is likely to get hit, not just a standing soldier.

As for correct AI behavior, it's a very tough thing to balance because there are situations when the ideal behavior is not right, while the otherwise suicidal behavior is. The best we can do is get it mostly right most of the time.

Although we don't put much stock in war movies, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a war movie with the grizzled SGT saying to the cowering grunts "stop cowering on the ground like that, get on your feet and run to cover!" No, you're most likely going to see the SGT yelling "GOD DAMN IT MURPHY!!! KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN!!!"

Steve

[Haggard Sketchy]

Not sure how I came to that conclusion in that post. I know about shell burst effects and all that...just frustrated after one of my teams got pinned and then wiped out by a barrage I guess.

[Secondbrooks]

Although we don't put much stock in war movies, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a war movie with the grizzled SGT saying to the cowering grunts "stop cowering on the ground like that, get on your feet and run to cover!" No, you're most likely going to see the SGT yelling "GOD DAMN IT MURPHY!!! KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN!!!"

Steve

And still armies often tried/ties to instill such attitude to trainees that they are supposed to move under indirect fire and last mistake they can do is to stop from moving. Just been reading Beevor's book Normandy and there he mentions same thing which Brits started to (re)train to their soldiers. I had same instructions during my time and as far as i can tell it's decades old practice, keep moving from cover to cover in between of explosions.

Which sounds bit insane, atleast under intense firemission like 60mm or 81mm during which intensity of explosions is high. In CM Afganistan i had two 82mm Mortar platoons hitting same area at the same time with high intensity. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

One lone grenade (clusters) dropping in harassing manner from time to time is ofcourse totally different matter... Even more so if that is just the spotting attempt.

So i can figure out that there's two different cases which requires different method of reaction. I just wonder why they don't seem to train two different behavior modes for such. There has to be good reason to not to.

[womble]

If that happens I'd be very surprised. This is like saying someone is always going to buy a Tiger because you played a game where they were really deadly. There's not a thing in CM that should be universally awesome.

However, it's entirely possible that some things are (potentially drastically) underpriced for their peak, or even general level of effectiveness. If it becomes relatively common for people to start tagging an extra platoon of mortars to every company, there's an argument that something needs to be done.

You're missing the point... Combat Mission tries to be as realistic as possible. If there is something wrong with our realism modeling, then we fix it. If there is nothing wrong with the realism, we don't touch it.

You put a lot of effort into TO&E realism too, and if players find that a given variation is consistently a better bang for the QB rarity buck than 'history' says entire armies with their dedicated Operational Research teams did, then perhaps something is needing an adjust in the QB pick menu. Similarly, if part of your fun is winning, and mortars are better per point than, say IGs, you'll miss some of the variety of the game.

[Battlefront.com]

The pricing in CM is based on scientific qualities, but there is room for fudging if something appears to be too cheap. However, the pricing is sensitive to various QB options and therefore some of the common issues should be overcome by more context sensitive values.

But yeah, in the end if someone gets fixated on a particular unit they can do all kinds of things to make sure they are able to purchase it. To the detriment of other units, even. However, that's the sort of player that is also likely to "have a connection problem" or "a corrupt file" if the game setup doesn't favor whatever narrow purchasing strategy he came up with. You CMx1 QB players know EXACTLY what I'm talking about here Best advice is to not play that person again. Not worth your time.

Steve

[womble]

The pricing in CM is based on scientific qualities, but there is room for fudging if something appears to be too cheap. However, the pricing is sensitive to various QB options and therefore some of the common issues should be overcome by more context sensitive values.

That's interesting to know.

Is there any room in the model for increasing the cost of an item incrementally as more of those items are bought? So the second additional item over and above TOE costs more than the first?

[dan/california]

We can open the sub-forum for points value arguments now. The gauntlet has been tossed.