Main page

http://www.secretpro...hp?topic=9614.0

Current anti-tank mortar.


Ill do some more research and keep my belly button lint thread up-to-date.

tlmitf, on Aug 26 2012 - 01:16, said:

Unfortunately, the M113 falls outside of the historical window WoT was assigned.  WoT ends at about 1953 or so; just after the end of World War 2.  To my knowledge, the M113 was not introduced until Vietnam, more than a decade after the end of war.  I'm not saying you have a bad idea, just trying to keep the posts within the parameters WG has established.

Also to the best of my knowledge, all of the "post World War 2" tanks and artillery are all strictly experimental; most of those never made it off the drawing board (the Mause, for example).
Edited by daniffenegger, Aug 27 2012 - 17:16.

EndlesNights, on Aug 26 2012 - 02:28, said:

I appreciate that.  Honestly, I don't care for this "no half-tracks" rule myself but we respect the rules and parameters the developers have put in place.

Silavite, on Aug 26 2012 - 04:21, said:

Very interesting thoughts.  I'm not sure what developers would think of this.  I'm not sure that anything like this ever existed except maybe as a tow behind.  This raises the question "what about tanks with multiple guns."  That could be resolved by the type of ammunition the player chooses.  Ammunition 1 & 2 would be mortar rounds and ammo 3 would be anti-aircraft rounds.

It is a fact that Rommel, "the desert fox," used an anti-aircraft gun as an anti-tank weapon with decimating success.  The British lost a lot of tanks to Rommel's 88mm's.  Author Jeff Shara documents their use in his book The Rising Tide.  

The only issue is that the 88 was not a tracked vehicle at all; in fact, it was a towed unit only.  Therefore, a special carrier vehicle would have to be developed.

Oh, and one more thing... You could say the Russians went BALLISTIC over MORTARS.
*ba-dun-ch*

daniffenegger, on Aug 27 2012 - 17:14, said:

M75 and M59 APCs, they were built and used in service in mid-1950s.
M59 specifically had a mortar carrier variation; M84 Mortar Carrier.

Thank you for reviving this topic; I feared it was dead.

Again, the objective is two fold:

• Provide an arty piece that is shorter ranged and therefore more vulnerable to attack than howitzers
  
• Provide an arty that can function well in urban environments.

Thanks guys for an intelligent, respectful discussion.

Necator, on Aug 15 2012 - 20:53, said:

arty:
long range (full map)
moderate travel time


mortar:
short range (600-700 mts)
huge travel time even at close range (round needs to go all the way up and then down)

not similar at all

daniffenegger, on Oct 31 2012 - 17:36, said:

That's in exchange for being able to hit the *roof* armor of the tanks far more often than the normal SPGs could with the high arc trajectory.

The drawbacks would be:
1. Short range like you said
2. less damage because they don't have access to bigger calibre "barrels" as higher Tier SPGs does. (based on caliber like M85's 4.2 inch mortar (similar to 105mm)) And it seem that 120mm is the most >common< heavy mortar for US mortar carriers.
3. Slow travel time as pepe_trueno pointed out.
4. Minimum range. As mortar carriers' mortars are *not* typically mounted for direct fire capability.
In exchange for

The advantages:
1. High Trajectory Arc, far superior to any conventional SPG gun in game. Can hit the tank's roof often.
2. Better fire rate
3. Possibly better accuracy due to said Arc Trajectory.

Der_Doenitz, on Aug 15 2012 - 21:16, said:

Please read the division and regimental history of the American units that fought in the battle of the bulge.   There are numerous examples of large caliber howitzers being used to kill German tanks which American tanks of the era wouldn't have been able to damage easily.

Quote

Indeed.  Line of sight is about a fourth of what one would expect, leading to engagment ranges being about a third of what one would expect.  In WWII, tank engagements on average began at 900m, and it wasn't unusual to see engagement distances of 1500-1700m.  There are documented cases of Tiger II's destroying targets at ranges up to 3km.   Additionally, muzzle velocity based on observed shell trajectory is simulated at some fraction of actual muzzle velocity, and penetration characteristics of the guns decay much faster over range than they would have in real life - compressing the engagement characteristics down into the 500m or so we have to work with. That is to say, the chance of penetrating at 300m is something more like the real world chances of pentrating at 900m, and the chance of penetrating at 100m is something more like the chance of penetrating at 300m.  

Quote

Depending on the gun, it can fire at arcs of up to 75 degrees.   This is because the actual best range is not achieved at 45 degrees, but at higher angles because the air is thinner at altitude and provides less resistance for the shell.   Additionally, modern artillery is actually capable of computing several trajectories to the target, and firing through them in sequence so that all the fired shells arrive at the destination at nearly the same time.   To do this, you need to first pick longer (higher) flight paths to the target.

Quote

Mortars indeed make lousy anti-tank weapons.   That's because they are usually innacurate, and in fact usually widely inaccurate owing to the fact that most are muzzle loaded and the tube therefore has to be slightly larger than the shell, leading to wobble and all sorts of other problems.   Additionally, the more common sorts are of small caliber and don't have enough HE's really threaten a tank even were they to get close to the target.   Howitzers on the other hand can hit targets as small as tanks, and a 155mm or 240mm shell exploding a meter or two from your tank could really ruin your day.  There is one case where a 60 ton Tiger tank entered a village square during the Battle of the Bulge, was zeroed by a battery of 240mm artillery and was flung upside down with its turret sheered from its hull by the resulting explosions.  The biggest unrealities in SPGs in WoT is not in their capacity to do damage, but in their responsiveness to fire missions.  In reality, after moving it might require minutes to set up for fire, minutes more to calculate trajectory by hand, and minutes more to recieve orders from the front as to where to fire as coordinates were relayed to them.   The biggest unreality in WoT is shared by all classes though, and that's the HUD display which makes it seem as if all AFV's are networked on high speed internet (I wonder why?), have GPS systems, laser range finders, and real time "blue force tracker".   WWII and even Cold War era communications were no where near so sophisticated.  Try playing without the hub, the minimap, or the overhead view to get a better sense of what the real problems faced by SPG's in killing tanks were.

So what is the consensus?  That Mortars are dead?  That they're very much alive?