Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.

[chuckfourth]

Hi All
I wonder if the unit "Carrier 3in Mortar", formation number 130 could be restricted to the ANZACS? The British and Canadian versions of this weapon actually couldnt be fired from within the vehicle. The reason I suggest this change is because the weapon is invariably used as an assault gun, rushing up and smashing infantry at range 0, very a-historic. I would suggest replacing this little assault gun in British and Canadian formations with the typical bren gun carrier and adding single mortar with a crew of 4 (The italians have these already) to the British and Canadian OBs. This will happily fit into the Bren gun carrier but will need to be unloaded before use. ie like the real thing.

A link stating the British mortar was not fired from within the vehicle.
http://www.mortarsinminiature.com/British%203.htm
This link shows how in British and Canadian service the mortar was transported by the carrier.
http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a22/index.htm

A picture of the Australian vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier
400 af the australian version were built not available until some time post 1943, see
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...en_carrier.htm

Just in passing I should also mention that the British 3 inch mortar has a speed of 4 whereas all the other nations mortars (that I checked) of this size have a speed of 3.
Best Regards Chuck.

[Mobhack]

It is there probably since it was always in the SP OOBs?.

Removing it is not and option as it is most likely used in a scenario, and the only way to check is to go through each one individually. (And that would miss any third-party scenarios or campaigns). It is in all the UK and Empire OOBs - not just UK and Canada.

I will look into this and see if there is a work-around.

Otherwise, you can assume it gets set up beside the vehicle to fire, which was the case anyhow.

Cheers
And

[chuckfourth]

Hi Andy,
Fair enough, but I would just like to point out that assuming it gets set up beside the vehicle doesnt seem to justify how the unit is currently modeled. If modelled correctly the mortar would draw small arms fire when it dismounted and when it fired which it currently doesn't. Also if modeled correctly (ie unload required) the mortar gets no shots that turn as a penalty for dismount, whereas the assault gun version can get off 3 shots in a turn.
As you can see the two ways of modelling the unit give very different results.

Actually Im asking for its Date of service and availability to be changed but the actual unit 130 still survives post 43 in the ANZAC OOB. Would this change still bugger up the senarios?
If so Id be happy to go through the senarios and submit which are effected by the change.
Ive checked the OOBs and 130 only seems to appear in the UK Canadian Indian and ANZAC OOBs
Best Regards Chuck.

[Mobhack]

since these things are only used for indirect fire, they have to remain stationary for a turn or so to plot fire. One can assume the mortar is set up beside the vehicle at that point. (And save an element, actually 2, as separate mortars).

If you want to be pedantic about it - use unit #289 (bren carier APC class) which is currently unused, and make a section of 2 with 2 single 3" mortar as a separate formation, and set your availability dates to what you think it should be. Agree with your opponent to only use that formation and your OOB as appropriate.

If your problem is an opponent using sp-mortars as direct fire artillery (which is ahistoric, but the game engine will allow), then simply do not play that opponent, if he continues to insist on doing so. (Or use any cheap tank to remove the problem, as they are thin tin and hence rather vulnerable.)

I never use Sp-arty or mortars in direct fire mode, my mortars (SP or otherwise) are always tucked away in dead ground. (But then me served in the bn mortar platoon Exposed arty is soon to be dead arty, I have found.

So - several work-arounds available, rahther than a mass exercise in examining all scenarios and OOBS (UK, CDN, India, Poland etc all have the possibility of the item), just as the patch is being assembled this weekend.

Cheers
Andy

[Mobhack]

Actually - it is already there. Formation No. 118, Mortar sec/T.

Cheers
Andy

[PatG]

Mobhack said:
....
I never use Sp-arty or mortars in direct fire mode, my mortars (SP or otherwise) are always tucked away in dead ground. (But then me served in the bn mortar platoon Exposed arty is soon to be dead arty, I have found.
....

Cheers
Andy

But the L-15's had those lovely iron sights for direct fire...

We did a practice shoot against a simulated Soviet advance. Drop a round, two turns on the elevation, drop a round two turns and repeat untill you're crushed under the BMPs...

[Mobhack]

We never fired the mortars in DF mode.

I did fire 25pdr over open sights at Larkhill as an army cadet though. A convoy of old soft M/T (old military stock busses, airfield fire trucks etc all laid out in a line used for air strike practices usually). Blew up a nice red fire engine at my turn as the gun-layer

Cheers
Andy

[chuckfourth]

Mobhack said:
since these things are only used for indirect fire,

No they are being used for direct fire, armour protected, close range, direct fire, because they dont have to dismount which is error I am pointing out.

Mobhack said:
they have to remain stationary for a turn or so to plot fire. One can assume the mortar is set up beside the vehicle at that point.

This assumption is only correct if it takes 0 time to deploy the mortar. ie in any given situation Formation No. 118 vs unit 130, Formation No. 118, will fire one turn later as this formation takes into account the time taken to set up the mortar, unit 130 does not.

Mobhack said:
- use unit #289 (bren carier APC class) which is currently unused, and make a section of 2 with 2 single
3" mortar as a separate formation, and set your availability dates to what you think it should be. Agree with your opponent to only use that formation and your OOB as appropriate.
If your problem is an opponent using sp-mortars as direct fire artillery (which is ahistoric, but the game engine will allow), then simply do not play that opponent, if he continues to insist on doing so. (Or use any cheap tank to remove the problem, as they are thin tin and hence rather vulnerable.)

I just play the game as is, I am interested in discussing areas of the game that can be improved (made more realistic). swapping unit 130 for formation 118 is one of them, You do not have to apply these changes of course but you should admit that my point is in fact correct, which I have as yet not seen. Then the discussion can move forward or end.

Mobhack said:
I never use Sp-arty or mortars in direct fire mode, my mortars (SP or otherwise) are always tucked away in dead ground. (But then me served in the bn mortar platoon Exposed arty is soon to be dead arty, I have found.

You are a rarity then. Maybe Im just lucky but my experience is that unit 130 is almost always used as a cheap fast close range infantry killer its Hit value of 9 comparing very well with say the stug 75, a real assault gun, which has hit 5. Ive played 60 or so PBEM

Mobhack said:
So - several work-arounds available, rahther than a mass exercise in examining all scenarios and OOBS (UK, CDN, India, Poland etc all have the possibility of the item), just as the patch is being assembled this weekend.

I have offered to do your mass excersise for you, no no, no need to thank me. Nor as far as I am concerned is there any hurry.

The reason this thread continues is because you keep saying you can assume the mortar is deployed beside the vehicle.
You cannot assume that the mortar is deployed beside the vehicle because
1. It still gets the vehicles armour protection
2. It takes 0 time to dismount.
And so, Unit 130 is wrong unless in the ANZAC oob post 43. Im not sure why we are dancing around this but it seems pretty simple to me.
Also Im not sure why you are unwilling to admit the truth of these two points.
I asked a question in my previous post which you didnt answer, I would still be interested to hear your thoughts. So Ill rephrase it here
Does restricting unit 130 to the ANZAC OOB post 1943 and replacing unit 130 with Formation No. 118 elsewhere bugger up the senarios?
Best Regards Chuck.

[Mobhack]

No they are being used for direct fire, armour protected, close range, direct fire, because they dont have to dismount which is error I am pointing out.

As I said before. This is not a problem with the unit, but with your opponent using an SP-Mortar as an assault gun. All mortars and SP-mortars can fire direct fire over open sights with no set up time. As can any SP-arty.

If you do not like your PBEM opponent doing this, then speak to him.

And Sp-mortars, as I said, need 1 turn stationary to plot indirect fires. Just like other mortars. And other SP-arty.

I just play the game as is, I am interested in discussing areas of the game that can be improved (made more realistic). swapping unit 130 for formation 118 is one of them, You do not have to apply these changes of course but you should admit that my point is in fact correct, which I have as yet not seen. Then the discussion can move forward or end.

Your point is your own opinion. If your PBEM opponent is using these things in a manner that you think is ahistoric - have a word with him.

If we see fit to remove the carrier 3in mortar (we may) - you will still have him doing the same thing in 43 onwards, with the M3 halftrack SPM (or the Sdkfz 250 one or whatever).

So - you need to discuss this tactic with your PBEM opponent, if it happens to annoy you. Not us.

You are a rarity then. Maybe Im just lucky but my experience is that unit 130 is almost always used as a cheap fast close range infantry killer its Hit value of 9 comparing very well with say the stug 75, a real assault gun, which has hit 5. Ive played 60 or so PBEM

Discuss the use of SPM as direct fire arty with your PBEM opponents in the pre-game negotiation then, if you do not like the tactic.

Some people are simply not bothered by that use of SPM - as it makes them rather vulnerable to AT fires.

I asked a question in my previous post which you didnt answer, I would still be interested to hear your thoughts. So Ill rephrase it here
Does restricting unit 130 to the ANZAC OOB post 1943 and replacing unit 130 with Formation No. 118 elsewhere bugger up the senarios?

1) As I said, the patch was in the middle of preapration, and so a large piece of work at that point was not wanted. Patch now released to playtesters and Shrapnel, so should be with the end users in a week or so.

2) Thanks for the offer, but if we are going through the scenarios and all the user campaigns oobs and the AI pick list code, we will do that ourselves.

4) Anything that involves a troll through all the scenarios etc is a large piece of work. For a minor thing like this particular carrier variant (nothing earth shattering), we may well do so but well after the patch is out.

However - as stated above, your real problem is not the units themselves, but some PBEM opponent taking them and doing something that annoys you. So - simply agree with him that formation No. 37 will be verboten till 3/43 when the halftrack SPM arrives. Now there is a simple, if perhaps radical solution to your problem - work it out with your PBEM opponent in the pre-game negotiation phase where you agree numbers of planes, amounts of arty etc. (If he refuses, then simply do not play the guy, if it bugs you so much).

Cheers
Andy