Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 3:45:55 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
OK, Flashfyre, we should extend this, then.  There's a documented case of a Marine crew man-handling a 37mm ATG up a hill to engage the Japanese. That was the engagement on "Walt's Ridge".   So, to be fair, let's make ALL 37mm ATGs have a movement of 4.  Also, since a 75mm Pack/Inf Howitzer is a smaller caliber than the 81mm mortar, let's increase their speed, too.   You may have something here.   For MY use, it could prove a positive boon.  I don't buy onboard 75s.  May have to reconsider.

_____________________________


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 31
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 5:43:12 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

A ground-hauled 81 has a speed of 1 for a reason. Yeah, you can schlep 'em on vehicles, that's fine. That's what jeep trailers are for. However, to expect the 5 or 6 man crew to go huffing and puffing, carrying the 100-lb mortar, ammo crates AND their personal weapons, and keep up with a sprint and halt assaulting infantry column or line is just silly. Really.


Silly?.....................Hmm......................I already told you I have done this in my unit, and it was not a singular occasion.
We also did this sort of thing for stateside problems.
As a veteran, I am trying to impart some eduction by experience on you.You are not listening.
Silly?


_____________________________




(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 32
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 6:09:28 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
So we have either reduce the ammo loads for the Mortars to a more historic level, and increase the speed, or leave them with a full day's supply of ammo, and keep the speed. That is what I see here. Generally, I don't see a reason to be moving more than one hex at a time, in a situation where my troops are exposed to enemy fire. I don't like casualties, and charging forward at a full run is a surefire way of getting my men killed or wounded.

Personally, while I fully believe a troop of 5 could carry a 81mm mortar and some ammo 200m in a couple minuits, I cannot believe that they could carry that ammo loads given in game like that. If you want to go historical, give them the ammo loads that they would have, and let them advance with the infantry. As they are suppossed to be used for close support, setting up in sheltered areas just behind the front to provide indirect fire support, that would be more realistic it seems to me. 10-12 rounds, and use small ammo crates and jeeps to provide resupply if they run out. Since I have no intention of leaving my troops in one spot during an assault, and in practice I rarely even give my mortars enough time to set up, much less fire, before advancing again except when heavily engaged and unable to move forward without unneccessary casualties. It's in those situations that the mortars come into play for me, and even though they very rarely fire more than a half dozen rounds a battle with me, I would not do without them. I could probably beef up my infantry a bit, but then they'd get stopepd just as easily, and not give the same kind of fire support like the mortars do. Then the whole platoon or company would get pinned down with enemy artillery fire, and they'd suffer even greater casualties and suppression than if I had had the mortars to break up the enemy lines.

No aspect alone can win a battle. The best infantry cannot win against fortified positions, tanks, and heavy artillery, Artillery is useless without men to advance and secure those areas ahead, tanks are vulnerable to infantry and ATG fire, and aircraft cannot control the ground, or even identify units beneath them, as evidenced by mis-bombings and strafing upon friendlies. Thus, My tanks do not advance behind my infantry, but besides them, to handle enemy AFVs and fortifications, and to break up enemy infantry formations, the MGs are just behind, to get into a position to bring cover fire if needed; while the mortars and HQ lie 50-100m back, to provide rallying effort and close indirect fire support as needed. Calvary, if I use it, generally acts as  a fast flanking force, and to plug gaps in my own lines if needed. 


_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 33
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 10:41:35 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
81 mm mortors have a much greater range then small caliber mortors, there is little reason to need them 100 yards behind the line. I would prefer the ammo load and provide vehicle support to move them.

Not having been a mortor man I dont know, but isnt there a minimum distance at which a larger motor can fire? meaning if the enemy is to close you cant use the larger tube to hit them?

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 34
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 11:44:27 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

So we have either reduce the ammo loads for the Mortars to a more historic level, and increase the speed, or leave them with a full day's supply of ammo, and keep the speed. That is what I see here. Generally, I don't see a reason to be moving more than one hex at a time, in a situation where my troops are exposed to enemy fire. I don't like casualties, and charging forward at a full run is a surefire way of getting my men killed or wounded.

Personally, while I fully believe a troop of 5 could carry a 81mm mortar and some ammo 200m in a couple minuits, I cannot believe that they could carry that ammo loads given in game like that. If you want to go historical, give them the ammo loads that they would have, and let them advance with the infantry. As they are suppossed to be used for close support, setting up in sheltered areas just behind the front to provide indirect fire support, that would be more realistic it seems to me. 10-12 rounds, and use small ammo crates and jeeps to provide resupply if they run out. Since I have no intention of leaving my troops in one spot during an assault, and in practice I rarely even give my mortars enough time to set up, much less fire, before advancing again except when heavily engaged and unable to move forward without unneccessary casualties. It's in those situations that the mortars come into play for me, and even though they very rarely fire more than a half dozen rounds a battle with me, I would not do without them. I could probably beef up my infantry a bit, but then they'd get stopepd just as easily, and not give the same kind of fire support like the mortars do. Then the whole platoon or company would get pinned down with enemy artillery fire, and they'd suffer even greater casualties and suppression than if I had had the mortars to break up the enemy lines.

No aspect alone can win a battle. The best infantry cannot win against fortified positions, tanks, and heavy artillery, Artillery is useless without men to advance and secure those areas ahead, tanks are vulnerable to infantry and ATG fire, and aircraft cannot control the ground, or even identify units beneath them, as evidenced by mis-bombings and strafing upon friendlies. Thus, My tanks do not advance behind my infantry, but besides them, to handle enemy AFVs and fortifications, and to break up enemy infantry formations, the MGs are just behind, to get into a position to bring cover fire if needed; while the mortars and HQ lie 50-100m back, to provide rallying effort and close indirect fire support as needed. Calvary, if I use it, generally acts as a fast flanking force, and to plug gaps in my own lines if needed.



Correct-a mundo, sir!!!!
My neck hair was up from a prior entrant who said the movement of the piece was "silly" and that the notion of moving HMG's with the infantry was something "he had a problem with", (right after I offered testimony it had been done by my unit, my army..)
He then made the statement I was suggesting it was the same as "charging the enemy" with said piece.
Not at all.My original comments on the matter were that those units should be able to move 4 hexes, not "1"..
A reduced ammo load, yes, if only moving the piece with those 5 men, but if moving as part of a larger group,(platoon or larger), the ammo would be spread out amongst them as well, but the mortars and HMG's went WITH the infantry...
Yeah, I am a history nut, but I helped make that history, and (like anybody in a veterans hall), don't appreciate revisionists who proffer their shovelfull based on "feeling" or their concept of "silly"..

Wikipedia
mortar (weapon)
A mortar is a smoothbore, muzzle-loading artillery piece that fires indirect shells (bombs in the UK) at low velocities, short ranges, and high-arcing ballistic trajectories. These attributes contrast with the mortar's larger siblings, rifled howitzers and field guns, which fire at higher velocities, longer ranges, and flatter arcs. Typically a modern mortar consists of a tube into which is dropped a mortar shell (bomb) onto a firing pin resulting in the detonation of the propellant and the firing of the shell.

A mortar can also be a launcher for fireworks, a hand-held or vehicle-mounted projector for smoke shells or flares, or a large grenade launcher.

Mortars are relatively simple and easy to operate artillery pieces. Light and medium mortars are man-portable, and are usually used by infantry organizations. The chief advantage a mortar section has over an artillery battery is its small size and its mobility. It is able to fire from the protection of a trench or defilade. In these aspects the mortar is an excellent infantry support weapon, as it can travel over any terrain and is not burdened by the logistical support needed for artillery.

There are also heavy mortars of 120 mm to 240 mm calibre. These are usually towed or vehicle-mounted weapons, sometimes breech-loaded, and normally employed by artillery units attached to battalion through division level. Even at this large size, mortars are simpler and less expensive than comparable howitzers or field guns.

A mortar can be carried by one or more people (larger mortars can be broken down into components), or transported in a vehicle. An infantry mortar can usually also be mounted and fired from a mortar-carrier; a purpose-built armoured vehicle with a large roof hatch. A heavy mortar can be mounted on a towed carriage, or permanently vehicle-mounted as a self-propelled mortar.

An unusual support weapon is the Soviet/Russian 2B9 Vasilek 82 mm automatic mortar, also manufactured by the People's Republic of China's Norinco as the Type W99 mortar. This is a fully-automatic weapon, capable of a high rate of fire. It can also be used in a direct fire mode, and can fire a HEAT round for use against light armoured vehicles. Another interesting recent development is the emergence of the Lacroix Defense's Samourai Urban Warfare Weapon, described as a man-portable, shoulder-fired mortar.
Design

Most modern mortar systems consist of three main components: a tube or barrel, a base plate, and a bipod.

Modern mortars normally range in caliber from 60 millimeters (2.36 inches) to 120 millimeters (4.72 inches) however, aberrations both larger and smaller than these specifications have been produced. An example of the smaller scale is the British 51 mm light mortar which is carried by an individual and consists of only a tube and a base plate. Conversely, a large abnormality is the Soviet 2S4 M1975 "Tyulpan" (tulip tree) 240-mm self-propelled mortar.

Smaller mortars (up to 81 mm) are commonly used and transported by infantry based mortar sections as a substitute for, or in addition to, artillery.
Ammunition for mortar systems generally come in two main varieties: fin-stabilized and spin-stabilized. The former have short fins on their posterior portion that control their path in flight. The latter use spin (similar to a thrown American Football) to balance and control the mortar shell. These rounds can either be illumination, smoke, or high explosive.

Spin-stabilised rounds require a rifled barrel. Since mortars on the whole are top-loaded, the mortar bomb has a pre-engraved band that engages with the rifling of the barrel. The increase in accuracy is at a cost in loading time.

Mortars came in a variety of calibres. The French 81 mm mortar became standard for many countries. The Soviets developed an ingenious tactical advantage based upon this fact. They standardized an 82 mm mortar for their armies. Hence, they could use the ammunition of other countries which they found on the battlefield in their mortars, albeit with less accuracy, while their own would be too large for their opponents. This was made use of during the Vietnam War and at other times.
Other Advantages

An additional advantage of the mortar is its ability to place munitions in close proximity to the weapon placement due to the "lobbing" nature of the ballistics. This can also be an advantage if the attacking point of the mortar is at a lower elevation than the target. Imagine attacking a city centre with heavy resistance at 1 km with an elevation disadvantage of 30 meters (100 feet). Regular long-range artillery would not work. The lobbing effect of the mortar is the perfect solution to enemy neutralisation in this scenario.
History
Mallet's Mortar with 36 inch shells which would have contained 480 lb (217 kg) of gunpowder..
Enlarge
Mallet's Mortar with 36 inch shells which would have contained 480 lb (217 kg) of gunpowder..
An 1832 "Monster Mortar" invented by Henri-Joseph Paixhans.
Enlarge
An 1832 "Monster Mortar" invented by Henri-Joseph Paixhans.

Mortars have existed for hundreds of years, first finding usage in siege warfare. However, these weapons were huge, heavy, iron monstrosities that could not be easily transported. Simply made, these weapons were no more than an iron bowl truly reminiscent of the mortar wherefrom they drew their name. An early portable mortar was invented by Baron Menno van Coehoorn (siege of Grave, 1674). Coehorn mortars were used by both sides during the American Civil War culminating with 13 inch railroad mortars. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, Leonid Gobyato for the first time applied deflection from closed firing positions in the field and designed together with General Roman Kondratenko the first mortar that fired navy shells. However, it was not until World War I and the Stokes trench mortar devised by Sir Wilfred Stokes in 1915, that the modern, man-portable mortar was born.

Extremely useful in the muddy trenches of Europe, mortars were praised because of their high angle of flight. A mortar round could be aimed to fall directly into trenches where artillery shells, due to their low angle of flight, could not possibly go. Modern mortars have improved upon these designs even more, offering a weapon that is light, adaptable, easy to operate, and yet possesses enough accuracy and firepower to provide the infantry with quality close support.



< Message edited by m10bob -- 8/17/2006 12:00:19 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 35
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 3:47:24 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

If you wanted to set speed to some thing like:

Rifles and light machine guns to 9,
Air cooled medium machine guns (tripod) and 50mm mortars to 8,
60mm mortars and water cooled to heavy machine guns to 6,
75mm to 90mm mortars and 37mm or less anti-tank guns and infantry guns to 4,
things just too heavy to carry to 0 or 1,

it would be ok with me. But, I am not dictating specific speeds, only indicating a speed differential be retained.



Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

quote:

If it makes you feel better, double the speed to 2. That 100m/yds for every 3-4 minutes.


No, a Speed of 2 is still only 50 meters in that 3-5 minute turn. It would require a Speed of 4 to reach the "magic" 2-hex (100 meters) per turn ability. So you all are saying a mortar crew can't move 100 meters in 5 minutes and set up their mortar? Forget them carrying the entire ammo load; many units in the game are "oversupplied" for their capacity. Assume the ammo is moving forward by use of ammo bearers, using whatever means they have available (carts, rucksacks, mules, or their own feet). Consider the crew as moving only the weapon, their personal gear (much of which is actually back at the company CP), and enough ammo for a few minutes firing (possible 10-12 rounds). Now, why can't they move at least 100 meters in 3-5 minutes?




< Message edited by Mike Wood -- 8/17/2006 3:48:03 PM >

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 36
RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV - 8/17/2006 3:52:22 PM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
To my knowledge, there is a certain "safe zone" which exists, and friendlies within that area are considered in danger of mis-dropped shells. I don't know what that range is, but as I end most of my engagements at 100-150m, and the troop calling for the mortar fire has LOS, I generally don't have a problem with shells landing on my men. I have, when playing as Soviets, had large caliber artillery shells fall on my men, and do considerable damage, but never when playing as another nation. Even those few times, it was my own fault; I tend to set up my heavy artillery all at once, so LOS is not possible at all in most if not all the guns' cases. So the 150m buffer turned out to be not enough for one company. If I had moved the artillery back, instead of letting it go where it was, I would have avoided the entire thing. So ultimately, it is my fault.

I keep mine about 100m back so they can have direct contact with the co HQ and platoon HQs, as well as the troops they are supporting. At the same time, they are reasonably safe (as safe as one can be on a battlefield), and can do their job without fear of being cut down by MG and rifle fire.

While I don't have direct military experience, I do have a wealth of information, both from the numerous veterans who've fought in nearly every campaign the US has undertaken in the last 60 years, and from numerous books and online sources. On top of that, I just use logic. A HMG is useless if it can't be moved up with the infantry, and a mortar is as well. In the scale of SPWaW, I don't think that the entire company would be dividing ammo, as they are in a combat situation. So IMO the thing to do is reduce the ammo loadout to a realistic amount that a 5 man crew would be carrying, and bring their speed up to bear. For those who want such a rapid speed in their force, that will cover them, it will be more realistic, and Mortars will still get their historic use in, with really no drop in effectiveness. You can use Jeeps to bring small smmo crates up, and keep them supplied if your in a defensive position. But, in the situations in which SPWaW is built around, short combat engagements, the entire company toting some 180 rounds of ammo everywhere during combat is unrealistic, and unhelpful as the ammo would have to be dropped off before engageing the enemy, and then picked up before resuming the advance. so, to me that means the Mortar crew is SOL on help, unless they have an ammo carrier with them, and only able to carry a small amount of ammo relatively.

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: Proposed Speed change for Enhanced FV Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734