Mortar Death Stars

[PLM2]

The first video I picked off of Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSYN-tbNRs

Do you see people staying pinned where they are or running for the nearest cover?

It's a movie.....

I think the combination of having no chance to fight back (in most circumstances) and the exponential danger of standing up makes it particularly terrifying. On one hand you might wanna crawl away but on the other you're wondering if you'll crawl right under the next one. Hollywood has never been too interested in marketing to people who'd actually know anything about it because ignorance is a much wider demographic as you can tell through the comments in the following video.

[DavidFields]

For starters mortars in CMSF aren't really all that different to their WWII equivalents, and I can't see why they couldn't achieve quite tight spreads in ideal conditions.

Is this true? I am not being contentious. There have just been so many other advances in other weapon systems that I would be surprised that a 60mm mortar is unchanged.

I am usually very impressed when I see WW2 stuff how primitive it seems to modern equipment. A WW2 jeep, for instance, --which looks like a ill-made toy-- versus a Humvee. The inside of a B17 versus any modern plane.

And when I see WW2 footage of mortars being fired, the small ones, they don't look to me like models of precision--flimsy bases and metal, with people stuffing rounds into the top and then ducking down.

Meticulously the same propellent, of the same quality, in each round? Meticulous airodynamics causing the same flight path for each round?

It always appeared to me that the rounds were really being lobbed, and that you would be lucky to hit a house from several hundred yards--indeed, you were just putting HE "down there" to keep people's heads down--killing/wounding would have been a bonus.

Unlike current mortar fire.

But, if any of you were ever under mortar fire in WW2 and can correct me........

I am even thinking about Vietnam. Could the NVA really tightly cluster a mortar barrage on Khe San, even using equipment 20 years after after WW2? I thought that early on, transport planes, which would be huge targets, would try to fly in and out, despite the enemy mortars.

As usual, I stand to be corrected by the grogs.

[JonS]

Meticulously the same propellent, of the same quality, in each round? Meticulous airodynamics causing the same flight path for each round?

Modern quality control practices began in WWI (I, not II) in order to ensure that ammunition did indeed have the same amount and quality of propellant, and that rounds were lathed to fine tolerances to ensure consistent flight characteristics.

[winkelried]

Modern quality control practices began in WWI (I, not II) in order to ensure that ammunition did indeed have the same amount and quality of propellant, and that rounds were lathed to fine tolerances to ensure consistent flight characteristics.

interesting reading British Artillery - Errors and Mistakes especially the paragraphs on the CEP.

[LongLeftFlank]

I have no problem with the accuracy or ROF of CMBN mortar rounds, or with their lethality against unentrenched infantry, or direct hits on infantry in open entrenchments; indeed, all that seems about right. Based on my reading, once the mortars ranged in, advancing infantry tended to go to ground pronto and stay there, for good reason. All those tiny fragments flying around were simply lethal.

However, it is my opinion that the concussive / destructive effects of ordinary frag rounds (not the special demo rounds, whose very existence affirms what I'm saying) against terrain, buildings and wooden bunkers are significantly overmodelled. Same goes for lethality of non-direct hits against entrenched infantry.

Mortar frag rounds and fuzes are designed to maximize AP fragmentation by impacting on (or above) the surface, not to plow into the ground before exploding as do conventional shells. The blast force is far from zero of course; for example, much of the lethality of treebursts is the bomb shredding impacted tree limbs into splinters. And mortar rounds could certainly bury themselves in wet ground (as depicted in that BoB clip), creating an impressive vertical shower of earth but muffling most of the lethal fragmentation effect outside the immediate impact area.

On the other hand, a buddy of mine used to pick up the tailfins of 81mm training rounds from the center of the impact spot, which he said in rocky desert left far more of a scorch mark than a crater.

[PLM2]

I just tried a QB vs AI using 60mm mortars direct fire thanks to this thread. I had no idea they were such a big deal being used that way. It definitely beats using a forward observer as long as you can keep your mortar crews safe.

[womble]

However, it is my opinion that the concussive / destructive effects of ordinary frag rounds (not the special demo rounds, whose very existence affirms what I'm saying) against terrain, buildings and wooden bunkers are significantly overmodelled. Same goes for lethality of non-direct hits against entrenched infantry.

As far as I can tell, 60mm has no effect whatsoever on terrain other than low stone walls and fences. Its effect against the harder building types is also negligible and even softer buildings provide more than adequate cover after the first round makes the occupiers duck their heads. IIRC, the protection offered by trenches and foxholes was given a significant boost in 1.01.

[LongLeftFlank]

My focus was 81mm, but I have definitely seen about 30 rounds of 60mm direct fire demolish structures and hedgerows and decimate wood bunker occupants. I can live with the first and last --I assume they used some of the demo rounds but the lethality against bunkers is just too reliable. I think Harry is right about the firing slit being an Achilles heel.

[tagge]

I did my 12 months service as a mortarman and a mortar squad leader. I have no experience with 60 mm mortars, we used only 81 mm and 120 mm but I can assure you that a mortar can be a real precision instrument.

I think the on-map mortars are modeled just right in CM Normandy. At last it really pays of to haul those menaces along when they are doing what they are supposed to do...

Our instructor said that if we can't put a cucumber (slang for mortary grenades, both 81 and 120 mm) in a bucket 3 kilometres away we were all a bunch of retards that had no business in the service at all.

[GreenAsJade]

It's great to hear from people with real life experience!

How exactly do you get the cucumber in the bucket at 3km?

I have no real idea, no picture in my mind, of what the person who's aiming a mortar

at a row of bocage 600m away is doing. The leader yells "give me fire in that corner of bocage where the MG nest is". How does the mortar aiming person land that thing right in that place?

Direction is easy: you look through a viewfinder and point in the right direction. But how does distance work? Your average person can't guess distances to within +/- 100m, let alone +/- 10m or +/-1 m.

This is why CMx1 mortars seemed so "right". They would land the round in the right direction, but usually they would go very long, then very short, and only after that they would land in the right place.

I haven't used a lot of onboard mortars, but I don't recall seeing this effect in CMBN so far. Am I missing it?

GaJ

[womble]

It's great to hear from people with real life experience!

Indeed. I don't have any, but some general comments...

Your average person can't guess distances to within +/- 100m, let alone +/- 10m or +/-1 m.

It's relatively easy, I understand, to train people to be quite a lot better at judging distance, using a few techniques.

...CMx1 mortars seemed so "right". They would land the round in the right direction, but usually they would go very long, then very short, and only after that they would land in the right place.

I haven't used a lot of onboard mortars, but I don't recall seeing this effect in CMBN so far. Am I missing it?

My impression with spotted fire is that it generally seems to 'walk' onto its target, with less "over then under then FFE in the middle", but the few times I've used direct lay mortars, they seem to operate as you describe, though 60mm doesn't seem to go 'very' long or short: 10% of the range, maybe?

[winkelried]

Direction is easy: you look through a viewfinder and point in the right direction. But how does distance work? Your average person can't guess distances to within +/- 100m, let alone +/- 10m or +/-1 m.

It's not just about range finding - you can "walk" the fire to the right spot, but it is also about CEP (circular error probable) which determines the radius of the circle where 50% of the shots fall. there are a lot of factors which influence CEP like range-finding, wind, weather (air density changes with height), state of the tube, quality of the ammo, form of the ammo, distance to target etc. In general CEP has been significantly reduced since WW2.

[tagge]

Direction is easy: you look through a viewfinder and point in the right direction. But how does distance work? Your average person can't guess distances to within +/- 100m, let alone +/- 10m or +/-1 m.

Well I did do my service 1989-1990 so a lot have changed of course. We had laser rangefinders etc.

The mortars used however are pretty much the same they were in 1944. Not much development there.

Direct fire is of course simple and yes, you can develope your skills in ballparking the distance, this is what snipers too had to learn in WW2. There wasn't no fancy rangefinders those day. I really can't remember how we did it exactly, I mean its 21 years since I did my service. Man I´m getting old...

Indirect fire is a whole other matter. To put a grenade in a bucket 3 kilometers away requires that you have a preplanned target. If not, you have to depend on the FO to know what he's doing. Eventually the grenades will land in the bucket...

[Speedy]

So that's why there is a hole in the bucket, bloody Finnish mortarmen.

There as bad as the Finnish anti-tank lumberjacks.

[tagge]

So that's why there is a hole in the bucket, bloody Finnish mortarmen.

Yeah, sorry about that...

Well since I got started with this nostalgiatrip, here's something more I want to share.

Carryin the mortar in woods. That's hell on earth.

The bipod is the lightest part. But it tends to open up so the both legs get stuck in everything. Every branch, twig, shrug etc... And usually you find yourself flat on the ground.

The base plate is the heaviest part so you have to carry it with both hands. The result is when you trip over, and you do fall down on regular basis in various conditions, you will land flat on your belly while the base plate crushes your ribs and your nose hits the dirt.

The barrel. I think I still have round dents in my collarbones from carrying the barrel on my shoulders. But if I have to pick, I´ll take the barrel anytime.

The 120 mm mortar is on wheels. I don't even wanna go there, the memories are to painfull...