Mortar Moron

[goomohn]

I guess the primary meaning of my last post was that direct firing mortars is more accurate, efficient, and timely than via fire mission out of sight of the target. You wouldn't use the M2's sight for direct firing of course, it is for lining up aiming poles in order to fire indirectly. Don't think the M2 had a hand trigger either. Still you could drop the round and hold her steady with a glove. Nothing like a section of light mortars firing over the heads of a company bounding to assault.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I disagree. Any weapon system that relies on a human hand to 'hold it steady' is giving up an important part of accuracy. Namely, repeatability.

It seems that you have actual experience firing mortars? A roof-top (flat) target is fairly large. And, yes, getting a burst on a target like that will dissuade most people from staying up there. But to hit a section of enemy infantry dug into a trench requires much more accuracy than you seem to be describing.

You would use the sight in direct fire. The M2 does need to have it's bubbles leveled. For the case of enemy in a building, you would put the sight on one vertical edge of the building and do an angular correction off it to point the mortar and to check it after firing. That is, the edge of the building is the 'stake' you are aiming off of.

Direct fire, like most WWII direct fire, requires range estimation. The combination of estimation error and dispersion of the projectiles is the initial round's accuracy impediment. Throw in things like non-repeatabilty of the tube digging in from the recoil (maybe not that bad from charge 0), and you have 'efficiency' errors. Of course, if one waits for the first round's splash, then we are talking about a very slow iterative process.

But, as far as the game, I would like to see weapons like the brixia and 5.0 cm and 2 inch type weapons being confined to direct fire. Perhaps the game could allow a set TRP specific to the individual weapon that is LOS of the light mortars immediate HQ. This gives a little flavor especially in defense.

60mm and 81mm mortars are modeled OK as far as the present system with some niggles I won't gop into right now.

Artillery, used as a tactical weapon in the game, is way too accurate and 'modern' as far as WWII. Most scenario designers should just have initial barrages if that is possible.

 

[goomohn]

I disagree. Any weapon system that relies on a human hand to 'hold it steady' is giving up an important part of accuracy. Namely, repeatability.

Not true. The mortar fired like a grenade launcher at a target in direct line of sight delivers steady accurate fire.

It seems that you have actual experience firing mortars? A roof-top (flat) target is fairly large. And, yes, getting a burst on a target like that will dissuade most people from staying up there. But to hit a section of enemy infantry dug into a trench requires much more accuracy than you seem to be describing.

Yes, I've fired mortars. Firing into trenches, cave openings, and any enemy position in defilade is actually the primary purpose of all mortars. Including company fire support sections taking direct lay positions. The basic mortar has changed very little since WW2. We are probably a little more accurate now than back then in direct fires (probably due to proper shaped charges and easy to read range finder at the handle).
Within 2 rounds and 30 seconds I can hit a target of 10m sq. Depends upon familiarity with a weapon. There were M79 gunners who could achieve this after closing their eyes in one shot...

You would use the sight in direct fire. The M2 does need to have it's bubbles leveled. For the case of enemy in a building, you would put the sight on one vertical edge of the building and do an angular correction off it to point the mortar and to check it after firing. That is, the edge of the building is the 'stake' you are aiming off of.

That is nonsense. Perhaps you should defer to someone with experience in mortars. Despite what wikipedia says you would not use a slightly telescopic sight in order to aim a mortar in direct fire. The mortar round fires straight up out of the tube, therefore you merely eyeball the center of the tube in relation to your target to get perfect deflection (barring high winds) to your target. You also would not use the bipod, your arm becomes the adjusting wheels.

Direct fire, like most WWII direct fire, requires range estimation. The combination of estimation error and dispersion of the projectiles is the initial round's accuracy impediment. Throw in things like non-repeatabilty of the tube digging in from the recoil (maybe not that bad from charge 0), and you have 'efficiency' errors. Of course, if one waits for the first round's splash, then we are talking about a very slow iterative process.

You are not going to fool me into believing you know more about this subject than I do. By the way without charges the M224 splashes in 14 seconds. The modern high explosive round probably travels higher and longer than the rounds back then. I imagine they'd strike in 10 seconds or less.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Well, its abundantly clear that todays vets have it all over this guy...He had his eyes open the whole time...

[video=youtube;kdC2T4ROqDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdC2T4ROqDc[/video]

 

[NUTTERNAME]

You are not going to fool me into believing you know more about this subject than I do. By the way without charges the M224 splashes in 14 seconds. The modern high explosive round probably travels higher and longer than the rounds back then. I imagine they'd strike in 10 seconds or less.

Thanks. That WAS my point.

In WWII (please don't take offense), the enemy had superior if not equal battlefield observation. Also, counter-fire and the will to use it. And while it may seem apropo to claim that busting a scuffy-butt haji off a roof, with some impunity, makes a modern 60mm mortar experience the end-all....it isn't. You are really not comparing what I described earlier.

No offense to your service. I have been down to Fort Carson and have met many guys there.

 

[goomohn]

Your point was that you don't know more than me concerning direct firing mortars? I'm comparing what with what you described earlier? At Ft. Carson did they show you how to fire a 60mm mortar with a sighting scope?

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Here is a line up of 60mm mortar rounds. The 60mm mortar from WWII basically fired the smallest one to the right of the round faced training round. It is clearly not a comparison to modern rounds.

View attachment 39946

 

[goomohn]

So, now your point is that the round wasn't large enough? Okay. You're right mortars are inherently inaccurate. You win... Bye bye fruitcake.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Your point was that you don't know more than me concerning direct firing mortars? I'm comparing what with what you described earlier? At Ft. Carson did they show you how to fire a 60mm mortar with a sighting scope?

No, I was assigned to a joint class at Ft. Bragg for 81mm mortar training.

I have been down to Ft. Carson on business and have met some of the guys there while the division was deployed.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

So, now your point is that the round wasn't large enough? Okay. You're right mortars are inherently inaccurate. You win... Bye bye fruitcake.

Thanks for your service pudding pop.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Within 2 rounds and 30 seconds I can hit a target of 10m sq. Depends upon familiarity with a weapon.
You are not going to fool me into believing you know more about this subject than I do. By the way without charges the M224 splashes in 14 seconds.

So you can adjust the weapon in one second?. You can do this up to what range? You can estimate/measure that range in no seconds??

Believe me. you don't want me to tell the Ft. Carson story. It is just completely sad.

 

[goomohn]

Oh god. Okay I'm pulled back in.

Well, in my example splash time is 14 seconds. Two rounds hitting would take 28 seconds. 30 second target strike time minus the 28 second splash time would mean 2 seconds of adjustment. A flinch of the arm and check of the range indicating bubble. Before you get confused I mean the range indicating bubble on the handle of a M224 60mm mortar. Not the aim sight. Which wouldn't be used for direct fire. Nor the mount its attached to. Nor the bipod that the mount is attached to.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Ok. Fair enough. But, while I do respect your service, at a certain point, you must respect the physics and especially the the statistics. You do not, of course, have to respect me.

 

[goomohn]

Service to the American empire's armed forces is hardly laudable. I've countered all your opinions and assumptions that light mortars were inaccurate and/or not deadly during world war two. You are one of those people who is determined to appear in the right even when soundly corrected.

So, for the record. Light mortars fired directly at targets in line of sight during world war two was more accurate, deadly, and inexpensive than firing via fire mission indirectly through a medium.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I've countered all your opinions and assumptions that light mortars were inaccurate and/or not deadly during world war two. You are one of those people who is determined to appear in the right even when soundly corrected.

So, for the record. Light mortars fired directly at targets in line of sight during world war two was more accurate, deadly, and inexpensive than firing via fire mission indirectly through a medium.

Again, I argue from the point of science and especially engineering and specifically statistics.

Can you supply any data to back up what your experience has soundly justified your positions?

You have not fired light, medium nor heavy mortars in WWII. How can you make this claim? I am quite well read in regards to this topic.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Service to the American empire's armed forces is hardly laudable.

Believe me. We agree. But, I often say..."a couple years service might do many wargamers some good"

 

[Geordie]

While we can debate whether or not service is laudable I was of the opinion that the 60mm mortar was pretty damned accurate with direct fire. Eugene Sledge, a marine mortar man in WW2 gives many anecdotes of just how accurate it could be in his book 'with the old breed'.

in CMBN I have never doubted the mortars accuracy but have often doubted the times that some fire missions seem to take, for me the enemy AI is far too quick while mine if far too slow!

 

[Redwolf]

While we can debate whether or not service is laudable I was of the opinion that the 60mm mortar was pretty damned accurate with direct fire. Eugene Sledge, a marine mortar man in WW2 gives many anecdotes of just how accurate it could be in his book 'with the old breed'.

in CMBN I have never doubted the mortars accuracy but have often doubted the times that some fire missions seem to take, for me the enemy AI is far too quick while mine if far too slow!

"The Coldest Winter" also has the author in awe over the accuracy of a particular 60mm mortar man.

The problem in CMx2 is that cover is problematic. Cover against direct fire can be OKish in CMx2 but cover 360 degree is definitely problematic, and to an unrealistic level.

 

[Pak40]

While we can debate whether or not service is laudable I was of the opinion that the 60mm mortar was pretty damned accurate with direct fire. Eugene Sledge, a marine mortar man in WW2 gives many anecdotes of just how accurate it could be in his book 'with the old breed'.

Yes, I was just about to chime in about Sledge's book, a very good read. Also, I remember reading about an incident where parachute infantry brought up a 60mm to deal with a "suspicious haystack". I think the mortarman hit the stack on the 2nd or 3rd round. I can't remember if this was from Donald Burgett's The Road to Arnhem book or maybe David Webster's Parachute infantry.

A few other points I'd like to make about mortars and CMBN:

1. As Nuttername has said, the direct LOS fire should not be any more accurate than indirect fire IF both cases are the same distance from target. However, that's almost never the case between the two, therefore the on-boards should be more accurate than the off-boards, at least in CMBN.

2. Also, the direct LOS fire should have a quicker 'first round to FFE' time. In other words, a mortar man can more quickly judge and make his own corrections during the spotting rounds phase of the mission. This is currently the case in CMBN. An indirect mission takes 4-5 minutes (which seems long to me) but a direct mission can be accomplished within a minute.

3. CMBN really needs a "happy medium" between the direct and indirect options: A case where the platoon HQ is spotting for a mortar team that is within shouting distance should not take 4-5 minutes as it currently does.

4. I agree with Nuttername about the LINE artillery option. Although I use it to great effect, I'm highly suspicious of WWII artillery actually being able to accomplish this to such a high degree of accuracy as currently in CMBN.

BTW, I make these statements with no experience other than computer games and the WWII books that I've read.

PS, Nuttername, the mortar and artillery systems in Close Combat must drive you crazy.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I believe I have read or heard some of Sledge's 'dotes but it's been awhile. I seem to recall that he was very efficient due to these 60mm mortars being situated close to the front line units. He says that they could bombard 30 meters or so in front of friendlies. Again, mortars ARE accurate when firing at close range. For the sake of clarity, 100-200 meters being close. In my world, bombarding 30 meters in front of friendlies just means a dispersion that is centered at that 30 meters and perhaps extends out and back 25 meters. Considering the range, it's actually not that accurate (and still dangerous but so is combat). But there is still dispersion and whether the actual combatants appreciate it; it is there. The weapon is best described as being effective under these particular conditions.

The 60mm mortar is very unique compared to the other light mortars. It was somewhat 'high-church' in that it used a 81mm mortar fuse and sight. Considering it's light payload, 3 lbs., perhaps a simple percussion fuse would have allowed sufficed. But it actually had a SQ and delay option. The sight uses micrometers in two planes as well as bubbles. In CM terms, it is probably the only on-board indirect fire weapon that I think should move and also set up so it could provide indirect on-call fire within the time frame of the scenarios. I would caveat that further by saying that only the weapons platoon HQ or elements can call that in. I don't think an artillery FO is really going to get tied in within the time frame.

People seem to equate anecdotes and outliers as being indicative of accuracy. The old sarge dropping a 81mm down the chimney of a block-house etc. My only remark to that is;Can he do it three times in a row?

Can't remember Close Combat that much. I am starting to lean towards the opinion that artillery being beyond the immediate tactical scale. Things like pre-emptive bombardment modeling or something being tied to a turn and planned, might be a better simulation. If arty was like this in WWII, the US would have chased the Germans out of France in a few weeks. Instead, they had an ammunition shortage.