Adjusted ranging for mortars

[Moggy]

I appreciate that mortars were not the most accurate or precise weapon in WW2 but why are follow on shots also subject to the same deviation?

It is fine that the first round is quite acceptable to be either short or long. However, and this especially applies to medium mortars where the have a designated spotter (The PC), why is the second round subject to the same deviation risks?  Surely as they have a spotter the simple up/down 100 would be used. This is called adjusted fire.

After all, isn't that one of the main purposes of having a spotter? (yes, 3 years serving with the Royal Artillery does make a degree of personal knowledge a little useful)

Maybe we could have deviation on the first round from a tube but the second round fired at the same target would be at least closer or on target! Normal practice would call for a single round to be dropped, then adjusted when full battery fire would commence unless the target was pre-registered.  I appreciate that PBI rules try to simulate a fast paced small scale action but normal procedures would be used by a "trained" Mortar officer.

A possible answer to this quandary with medium mortars could be the only a single tube can be used to fire on a single square initially. First round subject to deviation second round adjusted. Then limit other tubes within the mortar platoon to a single round per turn based in either a square or wide pattern based on the second shot.  That would at least portray a reasonable methodology for mortar use.

Also

The rules also say you cannot fire on an empty square in the hope of deviating expectantly.  Yes for HE fire but what about laying a smoke screen down in empty squares to block shooting and cover an approach?  I should hope that is a perfectly acceptable practice.  This would also apply to using the smoke asset which does allow for speculative firing (which I think needs rewording as it is not speculative to deliberatly fire smoke into an space regardless of if it is known if anyone is currently in it it is deliberate.

Thoughts?

Derek

[John Watson]

I'm confused about what you are proposing on the mortar HE fire, but I do agree with your points about ranging and spotting. However I would suggest that in PBI one mortar base represents much more than that and so the effect is area fire, not pin point fire.
I don't see a problem with speculative fire of HE or smoke, or indeed off table HE. How many times were barrages of mortars or guns called up on a target that turned out to be the figment of someone's over active imagination. Besides, if your opponent wants to waste ammo, let him.
John

[Moggy]

A mortar platoon (based on when I did 3 years with the Cheshire regiment) would probably consist of 4 mortars so yes, 1 base would be one tube. Yes there was more than 4 people in each mortar team but only 1 tube.  I am not sure if it was the same during ww2. Perhaps those better informed could check this.

What I propose is the on firing at a new target the first round of firing would consist of a single tube which could deviate. Second round (remains of first turn) could be all tubes firing a single shot in either the square pattern or an elongated pattern as per the current rules.   Perhaps a concentrated firing could also be added. Each extra tube firing onto the same square would add an extra dice to be rolled against each base present to represent the increased concentration of fire, up to a maximum of 4 tubes firing which would make a total of 6 dice rolled per target.  No changes to the saves so those dug in infantry hiding in the ruins would still get their 2+ saves.

During a second turn firing on the same target the mortars could get the 2 shots (as per current rules) onto the target with no deviation. This may make mortars overpowered but would be more representative of how mortars are used in a combat situation with minimal changing to the rules.

Also allow smoke from mortars to be fired into empty spaces. The new rules are unclear but block this happening when firing HE from mortars.

Hope that clarifies my thinking.  Oh, and yes, my roles in the Army meant I changed unit every 3 years or so a a financial safeguarding mechanism so I did serve with a lot of different types of unit during my 24 years in a green suit.

Derek

[John Watson]

On that basis the mortars would have to wait for a report of fall of shot so that they could adjust their range/elevation etc. So on turn 1 one mortar base would fire a sighter which could be short/on target/long. The FOO reports back to the rest and on turn 2 all the mortars fire a pattern, based on the first shot, which will all be on target. This would give the target squares time to evacuate (provided they have enough AP) but they won't know the mortar fire pattern so it will be a gamble. Cunning.
John

[Colonel Kilgore]

John,

The firing side would need to use runners from the FOO, of course, as the mortar crew don't have radios.

The runners might then take 2 or 3 turns to make it back to the tubes to report on fall of the rounds. And they may of course get shot on the way?

Simon

[John Watson]

Or they might forget the results and have to go back a second time. If the are British they'll probably stop for a brew as well.
John

[Moggy]

LOL

Would most probably have used field telephones if nothing better was available.

What I propose is to ignore the message passing element. First turn of firing single tube subject to deviation. Second shot not subject to deviation.

Maybe only 2 dice per base with an increment of another dice per tube used on the same square. This would take it up to a maximum of 5 dice per base if 4 mortar bases firing. The mortar platoon could also just shoot at separate squares following standard rules. yes a lesser effect but they do gain the ability to concentrate fire.

Derek

[Nigel_s]

I think it may be better to accept a less realistic representation of mortar firing to retain simplicity and game pace.

On targeting an empty square I've played that as being ok for smoke, not for HE.

[martin goddard]

Thanks Nigel
I agree that simplicity and game pace are of prime importance.
It may be less realistic, but the rules are complex enough I think?

martin