Mortar Moron

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Truly sad really. The game is designed by someone making claims like this?

Yes, a mortar really has to be one or the other. Either it caters to putting a round smack onto a specific target or it is designed to suppress within a useful radius. Perhaps in WW1 trench warfare precision was more important and that's perhaps where the design of the German and Italian mortars came from. But it seems when the enemy is fairly mobile it is a less useful approach than one focused on suppression.

The Germans dropped their 5cm mortar fairly quickly for a reason.

Steve
I suppose it would just be too hard to redesign the Italian 45mm to be realistic? There is no way this stubby piece of junk was accurate. It was accurate because WWI mortars were accurate? Since when were WWI mortars accurate?

The Germans dropped manufacture of the 50mm due to short range and high cost. Not because it was just so darn pin-point accurate.

The quality of discussion, along with the realism of the game, is in a nose dive. But, on a brighter note, Steve is out and about and making inane claims. That might mean more product will be released to the masses!
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I couldn't figure out whether Steve was defending the code in CMx2 or bashing it.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Actual WWII 81mm dispersion data. Note that using a higher charge, and a higher angle and also a longer time of flight increases dispersion when attacking a target at the same range.

View attachment 37931
 

slm

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Location
europe
I would love to see that kind of dispersion applied to all WW2 CMx2 games. If you think how much dispersion there was when the range was just 2000m, imagine what it would be for arty say 10km away.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I would like to see some Italian 45mm mortar dispersion data. That's for sure. This thing fired a 1 pound grenade. I suspect it's reputation comes from it's ability to fire at angles less than 45 degrees. Much like an infantry gun. But as far as firing over 45 degrees, like a real mortar, and having precision at ranges past 200 meters, it's a fantasy.

WWII mortars, under good conditions, could achieve about 1% range accuracy. In many cases, using a 81mm mortar at close range (100-200 meters), you have an assault weapon. A small structure like a bunker just takes some time to hit. But firing a 60 mm mortar at 1000 meters is more a harassment/luck weapon. It's just another case, like the machinegun confusion that BF has, of not understanding the weapon's characteristics.

Mortars, especially off-board, need to have the range factored. People may say this is minutia/grog-whine/etc., but the game itself is drifting into the 1:1 realm of simulation. So don't blame the messenger.

Artillery, that is rifled indirect fire weapons, has it's own set of parameters.
 

slm

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Location
europe
Agree about getting range factored. And to arty as well.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
We really need to be careful here to blame the unrealistic results from mortars not just on one or two factors.

Lack of cover modeling on the receiving side definitely still plays a role here, too.
 

slm

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Location
europe
We really need to be careful here to blame the unrealistic results from mortars not just on one or two factors.

Lack of cover modeling on the receiving side definitely still plays a role here, too.
...and soldiers staying in one place when they see mortar explosions approaching.
Of course IRL *if they could* they'd switch position, but now they just wait until mortar kills them all.
Tanks are very quick to reverse when being fired at, but infantry doesn't have similar self defense AI.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I am also leaning towards the whole targeting process being unrealistic. Indirect fire in WWII could never be specified onto targets with such precision that the linear command allows. The combination of badly modeled dispersion and the ability to angle this any way you want adds up to too much precision.
 

slm

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Location
europe
Exactly. At range of 7200m, using a modern 120mm mortar and all the today's hi-tech stuff for calculations and weapon control you get "Rounds could land as far at 1 km from each other". 62% should fall within 320m circle.
Although I must admit I don't know what range they used in their calculations later in the document when 3sigma value is about one third of the max range value.

There was lots more room for error during WW2 because everything done manually.
Now it feels you can decide which side of a hedgerow you want to drop the shells.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
The worst part of this is that once the 'Grommantizing' has polluted the thread, the syncophants are very limited in wiggle room.

Over-all, a bad day for computer wargames.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
I am also leaning towards the whole targeting process being unrealistic. Indirect fire in WWII could never be specified onto targets with such precision that the linear command allows. The combination of badly modeled dispersion and the ability to angle this any way you want adds up to too much precision.
They kind of painted themselves into a corner here with the strict engineering model. Putting down dice rolling in a model doesn't leave much room to deal with dispersion and other random factors.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
In real life, calling in arty and mortar fire are two different birds.

When calling arty, the spotting round is adjusted first for the deflection or 'left and right' dispersion. This is because artillery, with their spin stabilized shells and higher velocities, show pretty good accuracy as far as the round veering left or right of the intended target. Once the FO has the spotting round inline with the target and battery, they can attempt to adjust the range. This is tricky since artillery still suffers from fairly large dispersion in range. Getting one over, and one under, usually is good enough to call in a fire-for-effect. If a dozen rounds land, and the beaten zone appears too far or short, then another adjustment can be made. Obviously, being at a height that allows you to gauge the fall of the rounds is good. Since the artillery weapons have decent deflection dispersion, then they also have a greater chance of using this precision to converge the fire onto a target when firing in battery.

Mortars usually have both large range and deflection dispersion as the data I posted above shows (at longer ranges, that is...at shorter ranges, they do OK). Personally, I would not call for a single spotting round but rather a quick 3 round shoot from one mortar of the battery. In statistics, a sample of three is usually the minimum that will reveal a dispersion. The hope is that two will be well behaved and be somewhere around the first sigma.

It should be noted that using one mortar of a battery is hoping that the others behave equally. The barrage will certainly be off as each mortar will have its own characteristics and aiming offsets etc. Basically they each will be pounding out an area that represents an oval shape but hardly directly overlapping the one mortar that 'ranged-in'. Converging fire from mortars is not that simple.

If a battery of mortars were designated to attack a linear target that was parallel to the actual battery line, then the dispersion would mean that the beaten zone would still be rectangular in general shape. I am pretty sure the game does not take this into account.

Light mortars are usually used in smaller groups or even individually. The small HE and bomb weights means that their dispersion has to be tight to be effective. And it wasn't, unless they were firing at minimal ranges. Something like the Brixia is really an over-glorified grenade launcher.
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I see the 'Mortar-Moronics' has been extended to the German Light Infantry Gun. Another good example of the decline of military discussion at BF.

I don't have time to properly mock the thread, so let me just interject some facts here for those that care about such minutia.

The German 7,5 cm IG could, of course, be fired direct and indirect. In artillery-speak, it could fire in the upper (above 45 degree) and lower register (under 45 degrees). It could vary it's powder charge just like an artillery piece and also had a sight that took all of this into account. It could even fire a 'T and P' (time and percussion) fuse to allow mechanical timed air-bursts (possibly only issued to units using the 'mountain' version of the weapon).

For all intents and purposes, it was really an artillery piece as far as acting as a howitzer with direct fire capabilities. It certainly had a sight that allowed indirect fire and an elevation (73 degrees) that provided for multiple firing solutions using a charge-varying technique. As an example, at 800 meters, it could use multiple charge solutions in both the upper and lower register to hit a target area. I have the 1943 document that gives the firing tables and dispersion for the weapon.

Unlike a mortar, which will usually only fire 45 degrees and higher, and use the smallest charge increment possible to reach the target, it will use a higher charge/elevation than needed since this translates into a steeper descent and a deadlier spray of fragmentation. This critical difference actually would make it easier for BF to model.

The maximum range is only something around 3900 yards, but it's accuracy when firing indirect is better than mortars. As a weapon system, it would not be used in the first or second lines of defense but most likely in the main line of resistance and it would support the first and second lines with indirect fire. Basically, it would show up in most CM games as an indirect asset just like mortars do. As far as this weapon being 'on-board' and providing indirect fires, it would need a minimum range restriction of something like 450 meters that simulates maximum elevation and minimal charge (no LOS to target).

So what would I do if I were BF? It's simple. The game should give you the option of setting up either on-board, or assign the weapon as an off-board artillery asset. It's just not very common that the weapon would be used as an 'on-board' indirect weapon at the stage of the war that the game is modeling. It's my opinion that in 1944 this weapon was not even used that often as a direct fire weapon under most circumstances and was actually used mostly indirect.
 

goomohn

Recruit
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
Location
Baltimore
I agree with your points totally. Mortar and artillery fire are pretty much glossed over in CMx2. I doubt they had expert help in this area. Which is really annoying because these are the most deadly weapons on the battlefield. 8.8cm's also fired indirectly. A direct fired mortar was very accurate and devastating and difficult to see past 300m in concealment or mortar holes. I haven't played CMBN but why don't you hear other radio chatter other than the FO/FIST teams. Would be more immersive if you heard movement, attack, assault orders over radio.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
A direct fired mortar was very accurate and devastating and difficult to see past 300m in concealment or mortar holes.
Well, actually, one of my points is that mortars are not that more accurate when firing directly than indirectly. There are no 'cross-hairs' or any sight-based advantage to firing a mortar directly. On a weapon like the 7,5 cm IG, there is a indirect and also a direct sighting mechanism built into the sighting equipment. Not so with WWII mortars. There is a vertical line in the sight. You line that up with something like the vertical edge of a house or a red/white stick pounded into the ground, etc. You then are using that as a reference to aim an angle off of. If a mortar was to fire direct, it would still aim at an angle off that reference. It would still wait for the first round or so to land to see what corrections it might make. Mortar sights do not have great magnification that I know of.

If one were to look at the case of a moving mortar crew suddenly seeing a enemy machinegun blazing away from a small house, and then setting up and going through the drill of firing, spotting and adjusting the fire, it would be very risky, and not that advantageous as just moving back to an area out of sight and using one of the crew members as a spotter. In other words, the fact that a machinegun can fire directly at you makes the whole 'accuracy advantage' moot (even if it was real).

In terrain like bocage, a mortar firing at 200 meters is usually completely hidden, and easily controlled by a spotter through voice and hand signals just one hedgerow up. This example is probably one of the deadliest uses of mortars in combat. The mortars were said to walk the enemy hedgerows, getting air-bursts, and suppressing and inflicting casualties behind the hedgerow. Artillery could not do this since it's dispersion would have meant that friendlies would have been at risk. The US use of mortars using white phosphorous saved the day and battle reports show that in some hopeless situations, attacking US forces not only were saved from the defensive German fire, but also won the battle since the Germans were forced to flee their positions. But mortars firing at greater ranges quickly lose this accuracy. Even if firing direct, under range conditions, at 1000 meters a mortar crew would expend quite a bit of ammunition to hit a house.

In the game, on-board mortars should be modeled as having their own 'TRP'. This is realistic since this is the next thing mortars do once they set-up and get their aining stake line dialed in. A spotter can easily correlate targets from the TRP and the firing solution process begins. Given the somewhat limited ranges that the game models, this would be a fairly good solution.
 

goomohn

Recruit
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
Location
Baltimore
Ahh, I see. Now a days you know we have that bubble range finder. At one charge I could always hit my target area on the second round. Even still with the eye sight of the M2 or just eyeballing with the M19 I'm sure they could get the elevation reasonably well and adjust off the first splash. Direct firing mortars at enemies in sight is of course going to be much easier. I think that was the main purpose of the German 50mm and British 2 inch. I can understand not wanting to receive small arms fire, but direct laying mortars is most efficient. Especially good for clearing roofs.
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Ahh, I see. Now a days you know we have that bubble range finder. At one charge I could always hit my target area on the second round. Even still with the eye sight of the M2 or just eyeballing with the M19 I'm sure they could get the elevation reasonably well and adjust off the first splash. Direct firing mortars at enemies in sight is of course going to be much easier. I think that was the main purpose of the German 50mm and British 2 inch. I can understand not wanting to receive small arms fire, but direct laying mortars is most efficient. Especially good for clearing roofs.
Not sure what you mean. But here is what the sight looks like on a 81mm or 60mm US WWII mortar. Note the direct fire option. Looks like a very simple sighting option to me.

View attachment 39876

Here is a British 2 inch mortar sight. It really does not compare to a US 60mm (which was the same a s a US 81mm). It's a glorified grenade launcher, but like a grenade launcher, it is most often used 'direct'.

View attachment 39877

This provides a good comparison of the US 60mm and the German 50mm. Note the Germans deleted a sight and just used a painted white line on the tube. Clearly they realized this weapon is also more of a 'grenade launcher' than a indirect fire asset. The 50mm only used one charge and the training and use was certainly more of a direct fire mode in most cases.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ltmortar/index.html
 
Last edited:
Top