Mortars Do they have a place in BT?

Pages: 1
Karagin
03/22/02 10:52 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay I was wondering if you folks felt mortars had a place in BT and if yo think so should they be able damage mechs or should they only be used against infantry and to lay some and act as a poor man's artillery?


Yes they have a place in BT
No they don't have a place in BT
Are you nuts?


Again comments and opinions beyond just vote are welcome, but please vote as well.


Votes accepted from (12/31/69 07:00 PM) to (No end specified)
View the results of this poll

Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
03/22/02 10:55 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have a definite yes vote, and I'm feeling pendantic so I'm going to explain it.

1) Infantry mortars are (in theory) great fun. They've always had a place in warfare, particularly against other infantry.
2) I didn't really like the Tactical Handbook implementation, but indirect attack weapons sound fun for mechs.

So, yes, they have a place. Several actually.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
NathanKell
03/22/02 08:38 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ahhh...{contented smile}....I just have this image of LG bombs...Heck, you can even steal the rules from AT2...
Now, by rights AMS should be able to (easily and effectively, they're unpowered and pretty slow) engage mortar bombs, but apparently BT AMS is on a quick-frozen mount that can't go above, oh, 30deg elevation...
For the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of indirect-fire weapons in an environment of computerized point-defense, see (IIRC) the first chapter of the novella The Warrior, by David Drake (it's in one of the Hammer's Slammers volumes now).
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Kottos
03/23/02 12:01 AM
66.71.37.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Infantry mortars already exist in the back of Tech Readout 3026. They're intended for use in the mechwarrior system, but some bare bones battlefield scale conversions are listed.
TenakaFurey
03/23/02 06:22 AM
195.92.194.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes, they do have a place. I would liek to see rules for moratre quipped infantry for example.

As for the Mech Mortar syustem - too heavy. They should be far lighter. Or perhap[s kept the same mass but somethign added....

I'd like to have seen mortars added to protos. To me, the two systems would meld nicely. Of course then you'd run into the typical Clan prejudice against artillery shown by some warriors.....

EJL

Karagin
03/25/02 08:31 AM
63.173.170.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would love to see rules allowing AMS or LAMS to engage artillery rounds and missiles of all types as the Slammer's AI run Tribarrels do....but some how I don't think the BT universe has that kind of AI.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/25/02 08:33 AM
63.173.170.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As written they aren't usfull...they do a make of two points of damage, just like most of the so call support weapons do and have funky ranges for BT when convered over to the Battletech scale.

So I am asking IN the board game are they useful or not...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/25/02 08:34 AM
63.173.170.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now what about having them on a vehicle???
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
TenakaFurey
03/26/02 05:44 AM
195.92.168.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As written in the rules at present?

No - I don't think so. The extra munition types are nice byut the system itself is, I think, too heavy for all the penalties involved in the system.

EJL
TenakaFurey
03/26/02 05:45 AM
195.92.168.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In vehicles.....

Again yes, but to be fair, I really don't like them they way Mech Mortars are written in the rules.

EJL
Karagin
03/26/02 03:33 PM
63.173.170.92

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with you. I am looking for a better way for them to be used and worked into the game...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/26/02 03:34 PM
63.173.170.92

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Good point. The matter needs to address and redone as to add them back in as something useful...not just as an oddity...same for recoilless rifles...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
KG_Brandenburg
03/30/02 01:26 PM
24.162.144.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I dont know if any of you realize this but mortors are great for just laying smoke. Dunno how it works in BT but i know there are rules for its implementation.In all of of my tactical strat boardgames, smoke is rather important.One of the main things i use mortors for.heheh.Them extra LOS\hinderence modifyers keep ur men alive just a little bit longer:)

Branden
Karagin
04/01/02 08:28 AM
63.173.170.215

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For the most part mortars mounted in vehicles are infantry weapons...so I would be talking about both...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
01/28/07 07:16 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay again the poll died...even though it had no end date...oh well we can still talk about the question...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
NewPharoah_Max
01/31/07 11:34 AM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with Tenaka Furey that the vehicular ('Mech) mortars from Tactical Handbook are too heavy. I built a toy mortar over a decade ago that launched toy rockets (water was used for reaction mass) and the launcher could be brought to bear on targets very well. Remember vehicular weapons have microcontrollers that more accurately bring their weapons to bear on targets.
Greetings to you too.
strife
02/07/07 10:47 AM
80.76.243.67

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I always figured LRMs were basicly what were used to fill the place of mortars, lightweight indirect-firing
ballistic weapons with good range. Mortar-equipped infantry would basicly be LRM-equipped infantry, I'd think, if such a thing could exist. Although real mortars are a bit less verstile then BT's LRMs, so minimum ranges for infantry units would seems a bit cruel, poor little crunchies....
Maybe some sort of indirect-only LRM munition would be in order? It'd have to be cheaper then normal ammo....

Real life 60 and 81mm mortars are fairly useless, and 120mm mortars are basicly artillery, so it'd reason that Indirect LRMs are the closest approximation of light-weight morters.

Then again, are there rules in MT maybe that allow a platoon to haul around somesort of vehicle-class weapon like a SRM/2 or something, I have no clue.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
Greyslayer
02/08/07 12:25 AM
216.14.198.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is Field Guns and they are level 1 technology autocannons. Though they also have specific LRM Infantry, these has greatly reduced ranges over a standard LRM though. Field Guns are fairly nasty.
strife
02/08/07 04:42 AM
80.76.243.67

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think your right, they have 16 armor and are basicly immobile, with a fixed firing arc too, and They are pretty nasty...So... A indirect fire rules LRM/5 or LRM/10 on a feild gun sounds about right for a mortar, or series of mortars, with fragmentation or some other type of munition. They'd get shot down by AMS, which seems to be important to David Drake fans i suppose. as for smaller man-portable mortars, it would be some sort of seconary weapon, which BT doesn't really allow, if I'am not mistaken.

I'd say in the BT universe mortars were rendered obsolete by the common missile weapons for quick, low-end indirect fire support.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
Askhati
02/22/07 04:27 AM
155.232.128.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Someone made a comment up top - think it was strife - about 60- and 80mm mortars being useless. If this was the case, why did the Israelis have a special hatch built into their latest MBT, the Merkava, so that an infantry mortar (60mm) can be fired from inside the tank?

Mortars would be a great idea (on both vehicles and BattleMechs) for softening up infantry units - who take double damage from explosive warheads - and light scout vehicles. Their arching trajectory should also allow them to fire over obstacles where MG's cannot reach, and their explosive nature should give them an advantage against entrenched and/or armoured positions. Other than that, their efficiency against 'Mechs would be something like the LB-X cannons: the hit is rolled, normally, the actual hits rolled on the corresponding table (assuming a multi-shot launcher, almost like the depth-charge launchers from the 60's), and the remaining bomblets then scatter within a 1-hex radius of the target (roll for each individual bomblet to determine which hex it drops into).

For launcher sizes, I would suggest sizes similar to the Clan ATM (for which the mortars could be the Is alternative, with the Clans not deigning to use them): 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-shot. Warhead damage would depend on the ammunition used, and the launchers should have a minimum range of at least 3, and a range bracket that straddles the SRM- and LRM ranges. Weight per launcher should be along the SRM lines (maybe a half-ton or so heavier), and the addition of a +1 BTh modifier should balance out the higher damage and extended range.
Evolve or DIE!
Toontje
02/22/07 07:25 AM
131.155.85.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Think the smoke comment is valid for that; also arc fireing, very nice in broken terrain. I'd rather automate it and use a smaller hatch in that case, but proven design etc.

Don't underestimate the power of HE vs unarmoured infy there.
Rather to blow up, then.
Askhati
02/28/07 07:50 AM
155.232.128.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Doubt whether the Merkava would need a mortar specially to fire smoke rounds - most AFV's have launchers like that simply attached to their turrets and hulls for smoke.

Anyone have any comments on the CBT mortar idea I posted? Does it sounds workable, or would it turn out broken?
Evolve or DIE!
Toontje
02/28/07 03:39 PM
88.159.71.242

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
range; To my knowledge, those smoke dispensers are defensive, reasonably short ranged. A mortar can go father.

And hard to fire arced with a cannon, mortars and howitzes are better for that.
Rather to blow up, then.
Askhati
03/04/07 09:33 AM
196.208.97.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well, howitzers - the infantry gun - died out when all the artillery became SP, and large mortars could be fitted into an APC. The anti-personnel work is probably a main feature, especially considering the IDF going up against infatry in the occupational duties they are involved with.
Evolve or DIE!
Toontje
03/04/07 06:26 PM
131.155.212.112

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
SP howitzers; Dutch army at least uses the german-build Panzerhowitzer 2000 (Panzerhaubitze 2000). Doesn't have to be an infy gun.

What I remember from the terrain in israel, it's broken up (at least the parts I recall). Decent/good infantry terrain. Thus the useability of a mortar over the ATGM that could be fitted instead in the spot, also concerning expected opposition.
Rather to blow up, then.
Askhati
03/15/07 05:51 AM
155.232.128.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I thought the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was classed as a full-class artillery piece (155mm or higher?), in spite of the 'howitzer' part in the name?

Anyway, the way I understand it, is that howitzers were usually the lighter artillery (105mm in WWII) that were attached to the infantry formations to give them point fire support without having to put in a call to the big artillery batteries. They were usually towed, and the artillery pieces that were mounted, were usually much bigger and in the 150mm+ region, classsifying as SP artillery instead of SP howitzers. Anyway, the point is moot nowadays: almost all the artillery in any modern artillery would be SP, and infantry now have APC-carried 120mm mortars to do the work that the old howitzers were designed for.

So... Detracting a bit from the mortar question, but still valid I guess.
Evolve or DIE!
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 35 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 12760


Contact Admins Sarna.net