Jump to content


Photo

SP mortars and howitzers


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 13 December 2005 - 10:52 AM

Question: M7 Priest and other SP mortars – can they be indirect fired in Direct Lay (LOS) on OM2? They did not have to emplace like ground-mounted mortars.Gregory

#2 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 13 December 2005 - 12:50 PM

I would lean toward saying.... no. Because SPH built during WWII and after (until 1960) were built on tank chasis. Firing them was extremely hard on the suspension thus requiring spads to by set and dug in to assist with the recoil.Setting the spad and preping the howitzer (IHMO) would require the Bonus Move action and actually firing would take the Standard Action.Now, starting in mid 1950's the US Army made the requirement for a HSP in the 105mm and 155mm range. This eventually was built as the M108 105mm SPH and M109 155mm SPH. The M108 didn't last long as the Army modified it's organization and did away with the 105mm requirement preferring the 155mm "bigger bang".The major difference between this SPH and ones previous is that the chasis is purpose build. Meaning it has the larger turret ring, length, width, and suspension to handle the recoil.So I would say no for SP Artillery prior to the M109 family and similar vehicles (British Abbot, Braveheart, German PZ2000, Russian SO1 122mm and 152mm SPA). And yes to those after 1960ish..[ I'm reading the Osprey M109 SPH 1960-2005, for adding it to the Modern DB...]My two cents...(hmmmm at this rate Jon will be rich in couple hundred years!! :evil: )

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/13 10:52

#3 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 13 December 2005 - 01:11 PM

I don't think I agree with Kenny. I would think that they could. There is nothing really to set up on the M21 or the M4 Mortar carriers. They should just be able to drive and park. Admittedly, the Mortar Carriers don't have OM values though so this is mute. The M7 Priest was the same though, as was similar guns. I don't know what is required fro them to prep and fire, but I would think that they should be able to shoot and scoot too. Maybe not as accurate as the more modern bretheren, but that is accounted for in the OM values. :whistle:

#4 Sacha

Sacha

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 724 posts
  • LocationJakarta, Indonesia

Posted 13 December 2005 - 02:02 PM

while I don't know the ins and outs as Kenny ponted out, I would think the likes of a Priest, Wespe, Hummels and such could shoot and scoot. Yes incredible innacuarte and probably deemed a waste of ammo for intednded purpose, but if it had to get out of a sticky situation or a surprise opportunity came its way, I think it could.

#5 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 13 December 2005 - 05:44 PM

There were no "spads" on the M7. Now, how would an OM2 indirect fire shot be handled? For our group, we can just do a -4 or -5 without a problem, since we handle direct laying differently. How would it be handled using the RAW?

#6 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 13 December 2005 - 07:05 PM

Right you are... no spads!!! (That's what I get for typing at work during lunch!!) I was just reviewing U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles - Fred W. Crismon and it seems all the HMC under 105mm did not have spads at all!! But you go bigger and they did!! (Again I was previously speaking from a 155mm book!! :woohoo: )OM values are only used for direct fire!! Indirect fire does not use them... Shoot and scoot tactics were officially implemented only with the advent of Counter Battery Radar (CBR). I'm not saying a CO didn't move his battery nor that counter battery never happened in WWII but it was such a guessing game, unless of course you had a unit that far in the enemies rear that you can spot then it's not CB but simply an indirect fire mission.If you want to move your HMC and those in the game agree it's doable... Then move them using the bonus move and then lay a barrage (direct line of sight to the target) using the standard action. Place the barrage template and resolve the hits.(no OM values were used or harmed during this demostration) <grin>I would penalize the barrage for iaccurate fire!!! Maybe double deviation??

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/13 17:09

#7 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 13 December 2005 - 08:14 PM

That is correct – indirect fire does not use OM2. I used that to indicate that the shooter had moved and fired. How then would that affect a barrage in the RAW? Double deviation makes the shot meaningless - a 16% chance of hitting the target.This goes to the problems I have with the mortar fire rules in general, but that is an old issue...

#8 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 14 December 2005 - 06:40 AM

Since Mortars and Mortar Carriers do not have an OM1/2 Value at all then they are always considered indirect fired. The reason for this is simple, you can't point a mortar tube directly at a target and fire it. That is not its intended purpose. The mortar is a top down attack weapon meant to get into trenches, improved positions, foxholes, etc. to root out those pesky dug-in enemy and attack their weakest point. So they lobbed in the rounds. Lobbing rounds is, for the most part, inaccurate at best. So I actually like and agree with how mortars are handled in MP, since IMHO that is how they actually acted in combat.I would like to know why would SP guns direct fire a barrage at a target when they have actual targets to shoot at. If they were trying to kill the targets I would direct fire at individual targets, not try to kill them on a barrage. Anyway, I would say that if you are trying to lay a barrage on a target that the battery can actually see then you would use indirect fire only, but since the battery can see the target they can spot for themselves instead of relying on an FO.

#9 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 02:26 PM

I agree with Bob... :ohmy: If a target presents itself to an artillery battery, then the guns would crank down (if possible) and direct fire the target. Even with plain HE.Reminds me of a story I read about something similar happening during the '73 Arab/Israeli War. During the Israeli counterattack one of the missions was to located and destroy SAM sites, to help get the IAF back into the fight. There were a couple of documented fights where an Israeli armor column attacks a SA-2 Guideline Site. These SAMs are nicknamed the "Flying Telephone Poles" due to their size. The Egyptian SAM CO lowered one of his SA-2 and DIRECT FIRED it at the approaching Israeli tanks. IIRC the SAM missed and the Israeli's made quick work of the site before another could be launched!! :laugh: There are many stories of soliders using anything and everything to fight even if the weapons system wasn't designed to do it. So Gregory's scenario IS possible.However the original question has not been addressed. Can SPG move and then fire? And what affect of this partial movment on the barrage?Jon has NEVER let me move artillery and fire in the same turn in a game. To clarify, I have always had to spend an "action" to set up and then next turn (both Bonus and Standard Actions) to fire the Arty. Yes, we have had the discussion more than once. I'm sure Jon will have his imput one day....So as far as the RAW is written WWII era SPG cannot move and shoot in the same turn. However in Modern this will change and become allowed. Also (IHMO) due to technology improving and thus allowing SPG to move and shoot in the same turn, I'd argue that there be NO peneality to the placement or effectivness of the barrage.(Digging foxhole now....)

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/14 12:29

#10 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 02:30 PM

bbenge wrote:

Since Mortars and Mortar Carriers do not have an OM1/2 Value at all then they are always considered indirect fired. The reason for this is simple, you can't point a mortar tube directly at a target and fire it. That is not its intended purpose. The mortar is a top down attack weapon meant to get into trenches, improved positions, foxholes, etc. to root out those pesky dug-in enemy and attack their weakest point. So they lobbed in the rounds. Lobbing rounds is, for the most part, inaccurate at best. So I actually like and agree with how mortars are handled in MP, since IMHO that is how they actually acted in combat.

I think folks are getting confused with the term Direct Laying, which refers to a unit self-observing for their own indirect fire. It does not mean flat trajectory direct fire; it just means they are observing for themselves as they fire their guns. Mortars in LOS of their targets Direct Lay their fire.The problem with the RAW mortar fire rules is the incredible inaccuracy, especially for units with LOS. In fact, it is less accurate than offboard fire. Here's why:[ul]

from core rules:FIRING MORTARSWhen firing a mortar, place the BARRAGE marker at the target location as normal but do not deviate it. Instead, roll one deviation for each rate of fire of the mortar. The die will show an arrow and a number. Place a Mortar template a number of inches away from the BARRAGE marker as indicated by the direction and number of the result rolled. If the die result was an “X”, the mortar lands directly on top of the BARRAGE marker.

[/ul]Each ROF for a mortar (typically ROF=2 for these weapons) is deviated by the deviation die. Then the mortar circular template is placed. It is possible for shots from a mortar in direct line-of-sight to land rounds in a circle 10" in diameter, and during the same activation! The chance of putting a round directly on target is 16.7% (a '6' on the deviation die) and the chance of a partial hit, or maybe a lucky direct hit, is 16.7% (a '1' on the deviation die). There is no accounting for Troop Quality, adjusting, or anything. Mortars were simply not that inaccurate. The shooters could range those weapons in pretty well within the time frame of an MP turn.

I would like to know why would SP guns direct fire a barrage at a target when they have actual targets to shoot at. If they were trying to kill the targets I would direct fire at individual targets, not try to kill them on a barrage. Anyway, I would say that if you are trying to lay a barrage on a target that the battery can actually see then you would use indirect fire only, but since the battery can see the target they can spot for themselves instead of relying on an FO.

The situation arose when a unit of M7 Priests arrived onboard in LOS of an AT gun raising havoc with some M4's. Their 105mm's were just the thing to demolish the AT gun before it caused further damage. The M7's had moved and then wanted to lob in some rounds.GregoryPost edited by: gregoryk, at: 2005/12/14 12:32

Post edited by: gregoryk, at: 2005/12/14 12:41

#11 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 02:57 PM

I think folks are getting confused with the term Direct Laying, which refers to a unit self-observing for their own indirect fire. It does not mean flat trajectory direct fire; it just means they are observing for themselves as they fire their guns. Mortars in LOS of their targets Direct Lay their fire.

Gergory, with respect you started the confusion by using the "OM2" reference... :P (Happens to me all the time....) However I think you have clarified that in a previous posting. Yes we're discussing Direct LOS for mortar firing.

The problem with the RAW mortar fire rules is the incredible inaccuracy, especially for units with LOS. In fact, it is less accurate than offboard fire.

You're gonna have to argue this with Jon!! (good luck!) <grin>

Each ROF for a mortar (typically ROF=2 for these weapons) is deviated by the deviation die. Then the mortar circular template is placed. It is possible for shots from a mortar in direct line-of-sight to land rounds in a circle 10" in diameter, and during the same activation! The chance of putting a round directly on target is 16.7% (a '6' on the deviation die) and the chance of a partial hit, or maybe a lucky direct hit, is 16.7% (a '1' on the deviation die). There is no accounting for Troop Quality, adjusting, or anything. Mortars were simply not that inaccurate. The shooters could range those weapons in pretty well within the time frame of an MP turn

What is this "Mortar Circular template"?? The Mortar template provided with the RAW is 1 inch circle (6mm scale). Mortars are resolved individually thus the use of the Deviation dice with each round.However if you group your mortars in a battery they cease to be an infantry support only asset and then become a larger asset for all units on the board. You would resolve a battery of mortars the same as a regular battery...

#12 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 03:22 PM

knoe wrote:

What is this "Mortar Circular template"?? The Mortar template provided with the RAW is 1 inch circle (6mm scale). Mortars are resolved individually thus the use of the Deviation dice with each round.

It is the 1" circular (i.e., shaped like a circle) mortar template. We are talking about the same thing.We realized there was a problem when a mortar was fired at a ridge, and the first ROF went 5" in one direction, and the second ROF went 5" in the other. We assumed the Veteran US shooters had found the cognac cellar of the last village they liberated...Gregory

#13 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 08:31 PM

gregoryk wrote:

knoe wrote:It is the 1" circular (i.e., shaped like a circle) mortar template. We are talking about the same thing.We realized there was a problem when a mortar was fired at a ridge, and the first ROF went 5" in one direction, and the second ROF went 5" in the other. We assumed the Veteran US shooters had found the cognac cellar of the last village they liberated...Gregory

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

#14 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 08:35 PM

gregoryk wrote:

We realized there was a problem when a mortar was fired at a ridge, and the first ROF went 5" in one direction, and the second ROF went 5" in the other. We assumed the Veteran US shooters had found the cognac cellar of the last village they liberated...Gregory

Yes, we've experianced the same thing in our games. While a bit frustrating for the attacker... (Bad dice roll for the gamer) such is war!! :evil:Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/14 18:35

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/14 20:26

#15 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 09:52 PM

knoe wrote:

gregoryk wrote:

We realized there was a problem when a mortar was fired at a ridge, and the first ROF went 5" in one direction, and the second ROF went 5" in the other. We assumed the Veteran US shooters had found the cognac cellar of the last village they liberated...Gregory

Yes, we've experianced the same thingin our games. While a bit frustrating for the attacker... (Bad dice roll for the gamer) such is war!! :evil:<br><br>Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/14 18:35

The problem is as stated above, i.e., it is not very realistic for mortars to be so ineffective. We found a better and simpler method that keeps mortars in the game, as valuable infantry support.Gregory

#16 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 10:12 PM

I disagree... I think it's not only realistic but playable in a table top game. I've had games where mortar fire has been very effective and worked well, and I've had games where everything has gone to hell...MMG re-writes everything any way.... Just re-write this to suite your "opinion" of realism... :whistle: Seriously, I don't see this being a problem... How often are you going to get the 10" spread (as you described in your example) in a 2 ROF mortar fire?? Usually it'll be a lot less...Again opinions vary and Jon will have the final say (as always).

#17 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 10:25 PM

Thought I'd post a little of what I'm reading in this Osprey book concerning SPH and Shoot and scoot tactics..Prior to mid 80's M109 were deployed in batteries and very susceptable to CB fire as their fire positions carefully surveyed, and all guns tied into the "fire direction center". Able to move after firing but repositioning and set up for battery firing was a far longer task.It wasn't until 1985 and the development of the US Army's M109 HIP (Howitzer Improvment Program that gave the M109 a Modular Azimuth Positioning System for inertial navigation that the shoot-n-scoot tactic was viable. This system was accepted into service in 1990 as the M109A6 Paladin.So seems my initial estimate of allowing 1960 period M109 and other SPA do this is WRONG!!!! (yes, I'm now accepting zings... HA!)

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/14 20:29

#18 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 11:30 PM

knoe wrote:

I disagree... I think it's not only realistic but playable in a table top game. I've had games where mortar fire has been very effective and worked well, and I've had games where everything has gone to hell...

17% accuracy rates for a direct LOS weapon over the course of a six-minute turn with an ROF=2 (which means better than 8 rounds/minute) does not jibe with anything I have read, and conflicts with the experiences of our Army guys. Being less accurate than offboard firing raised eyebrows, too.In a previous forum, a long, long time ago in a cyberspace far, far away, Jon agreed with me that this should be looked into. But that was then, and this is now.

MMG re-writes everything any way.... Just re-write this to suite your "opinion" of realism... :whistle:

Hardly, Kenny, and this is about the RAW anyway, so the comment is irrelevant. We did change this because there were too many drunken mortar shooters in our games, and it made sense to no one that the effectiveness of a primary infantry weapon could not be duplicated in MP.

Seriously, I don't see this being a problem... How often are you going to get the 10" spread (as you described in your example) in a 2 ROF mortar fire?? Usually it'll be a lot less...

It will average a 5" circle, which means it misses by a lot most of the time. It is the randomness and overall inaccuracy that is the problem. British Forward Observers were able to to correct indirect fired, indirect laid fire onto a target in about four rounds, max [ see British Artillery website: http://members.tripo...gelef/index.htm]. Direct LOS weapons are better than that.

Post edited by: gregoryk, at: 2005/12/14 21:31

#19 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 15 December 2005 - 06:10 AM

gregoryk wrote:

17% accuracy rates for a direct LOS weapon over the course of a six-minute turn with an ROF=2 (which means better than 8 rounds/minute) does not jibe with anything I have read, and conflicts with the experiences of our Army guys. Being less accurate than offboard firing raised eyebrows, too.In a previous forum, a long, long time ago in a cyberspace far, far away, Jon agreed with me that this should be looked into. But that was then, and this is now.

Well then I guess you'll just have to get Jon to comment and make changes.

Hardly, Kenny, and this is about the RAW anyway, so the comment is irrelevant. We did change this because there were too many drunken mortar shooters in our games, and it made sense to no one that the effectiveness of a primary infantry weapon could not be duplicated in MP.

Yes all my comments are "irrelevant" you should know this by now, everyone else does...<grin> The MMG has re-written 50% (my perspective) of the RAW anyway, why should this be different?

It will average a 5" circle, which means it misses by a lot most of the time. It is the randomness and overall inaccuracy that is the problem. British Forward Observers were able to to correct indirect fired, indirect laid fire onto a target in about four rounds, max [ see British Artillery website: http://members.tripo...gelef/index.htm]. Direct LOS weapons are better than that

Bottom line is you will have to convience Jon toward any changes in RAW. I think the system is fine (IMHO). It plays well in our games thus far. (Jon will probably make changes just to say I was wrong anyway... HA!)Thanks for the URL... neat site (for WWII!!!).

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/15 04:13

#20 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 15 December 2005 - 11:51 AM

Mortars could be placed into three categories. Infantry Support, Artillery, and those that swing both ways. In fact this may be a better way to handle mortars but it is also a playtesting issue. And it really has nothing to do with the original post.However ...Infantry Support mortars do have too much deviation in MP. Halving the deviation is probably the easiest way to resolve it. Or, simply say deviation is 1" (or maybe 2") regardless of what the deviation die says. Also, infantry support mortars were rarely use as battery. In fact, I've never read of an occasion where they were used that way, although that doesn't mean they weren't. However, it may make sense to simply state infantry support mortars can not be fired as a battery.The big tubes (120mm, etc) were rarely used as individual, direct LOS fired, infantry support mortars. Maybe make it a rule that they can not be used as "infantry support", ie individually fired. Again, while it MAY have happened, it wasn't their intent.81/82mm tubes (and maybe other calibers) could, and did, swing both ways. When used as infantry support, they were not very accurate at all and the current rule is just fine.So the PLAYTESTING issue (and this post should probably be moved there) is do we expand the rules to cover this..... now, to the original post ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users