Indirect Fire (Artillery) Oddities

[kaladorn]

The rules (in the Special Rules section of the Player's Manual) seem to mention that indirect fire scatters more, plus might be more inaccurate with range to target.

(Ref: Conducting Fire, p92)

However, what I can't figure out is *how* - by what equation? I can only find one task description that seems to even apply to indirect fire, and it seems 'fixed' in difficulty:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">To hit a targeted location with indirect fire, Difficult, FwdObs, 1 round (absolute, unskilled okay, fateful). </pre>[/QUOTE]There is mention here of scatter (this is bottom right on p 73). But there is no scatter info (I think that was in some errata right)?

So my questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?
2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)
3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.

I say *might* because my reading of the section on Danger Space and Group hits suggests it (P72/73 PM) that it is automatic. Yet looking at the combat flowchart on the inside of the MT Ref's Screen seems to suggest that you have to make some sort of attack role for each target in the danger space.

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?

Thoughts, advice, guidance?

 

[kaladorn]

The rules (in the Special Rules section of the Player's Manual) seem to mention that indirect fire scatters more, plus might be more inaccurate with range to target.

(Ref: Conducting Fire, p92)

However, what I can't figure out is *how* - by what equation? I can only find one task description that seems to even apply to indirect fire, and it seems 'fixed' in difficulty:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">To hit a targeted location with indirect fire, Difficult, FwdObs, 1 round (absolute, unskilled okay, fateful). </pre>[/QUOTE]There is mention here of scatter (this is bottom right on p 73). But there is no scatter info (I think that was in some errata right)?

So my questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?
2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)
3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.

I say *might* because my reading of the section on Danger Space and Group hits suggests it (P72/73 PM) that it is automatic. Yet looking at the combat flowchart on the inside of the MT Ref's Screen seems to suggest that you have to make some sort of attack role for each target in the danger space.

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?

Thoughts, advice, guidance?

 

[kaladorn]

The rules (in the Special Rules section of the Player's Manual) seem to mention that indirect fire scatters more, plus might be more inaccurate with range to target.

(Ref: Conducting Fire, p92)

However, what I can't figure out is *how* - by what equation? I can only find one task description that seems to even apply to indirect fire, and it seems 'fixed' in difficulty:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">To hit a targeted location with indirect fire, Difficult, FwdObs, 1 round (absolute, unskilled okay, fateful). </pre>[/QUOTE]There is mention here of scatter (this is bottom right on p 73). But there is no scatter info (I think that was in some errata right)?

So my questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?
2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)
3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.

I say *might* because my reading of the section on Danger Space and Group hits suggests it (P72/73 PM) that it is automatic. Yet looking at the combat flowchart on the inside of the MT Ref's Screen seems to suggest that you have to make some sort of attack role for each target in the danger space.

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?

Thoughts, advice, guidance?

 

[jchurchill]

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?
================================================
Umm...all the poor sods outside a spaceship?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?
===============================================
I may have a conflict of interest on this one so I best be quiet.

Thoughts, advice, guidance?
-----------------------------------------------
Let the guy in the sensor bay save the day with his goofy idea....

 

[jchurchill]

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?
================================================
Umm...all the poor sods outside a spaceship?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?
===============================================
I may have a conflict of interest on this one so I best be quiet.

Thoughts, advice, guidance?
-----------------------------------------------
Let the guy in the sensor bay save the day with his goofy idea....

 

[jchurchill]

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?
================================================
Umm...all the poor sods outside a spaceship?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?
===============================================
I may have a conflict of interest on this one so I best be quiet.

Thoughts, advice, guidance?
-----------------------------------------------
Let the guy in the sensor bay save the day with his goofy idea....

 

[kaladorn]

There is no doubt you have a vested interest, secretagent dude.

But I was hoping for someone who might have done some indirect support fire in MT and had the same problems and decided on a resolution to offer some advice.

 

[kaladorn]

There is no doubt you have a vested interest, secretagent dude.

But I was hoping for someone who might have done some indirect support fire in MT and had the same problems and decided on a resolution to offer some advice.

 

[kaladorn]

There is no doubt you have a vested interest, secretagent dude.

But I was hoping for someone who might have done some indirect support fire in MT and had the same problems and decided on a resolution to offer some advice.

 

[Ranger]

Hmmm... this is not an easy one to answer quickly for a couple of reasons. Indirect fire actually involves three components: The observer, the Fire Direction Center (translates the observers information into data for the guns), and the Guns (which simply adjust the guns to the data given and fire the rounds). The observer then gives feedback to the FDC (adjustments) which are again translated into new gun data and sent to the guns... repeat until you hit the target with your spotting round, then fire for effect on the final data.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?

Depends on if you are firing indirect (as described above) or direct lay (the gunner can see the target and is aiming the tube himself through the sights). If I reacall, there was a heavy weapons skill which probably should be a cascade (Heavy Machine Gun, Mortar, Gause Gun, etc...) If the shot is direct lay, then I would use the heavy weapons skill. Otherwise you have to use the indirect fire rules.

2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)

Well, hitting with an observer is already difficult, so I would say damn near impossible. -8 to the too hit roll at a minimum.

3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Well, this is generally true. If this is a really big issue, I would see if you could dig up a copy of Striker and just uses their scatter rules, or any set of decent modern tactical minis rules covers it as well.

One point that isn't really delt with in Traveller in this subject is the impact of technology on accuracy. MLRS rockets use GPS and an on board computer in the rocket guidance system to achive amaizing accuracy over long distances without observers. You could theoretically shrink down this system over time and have very small guidance systems build right into mortar rounds at some future tech level.

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.

I say *might* because my reading of the section on Danger Space and Group hits suggests it (P72/73 PM) that it is automatic. Yet looking at the combat flowchart on the inside of the MT Ref's Screen seems to suggest that you have to make some sort of attack role for each target in the danger space.

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?

Thoughts, advice, guidance?

My take is that it's done just like in CT. You roll for each target in the danger space based on an adjusted to hit (-3 or -4, but I don't remember off the top of my head).

As to going prone, that is based on the fact that most indirect fire rounds burst on the ground and actualy produce a rather small explosive cone directed upward. being flat on the ground will protect you against almost all shrapnel in this case. Because of this, fuses have been developed to allow shells to 'air burst' and spread shrapnel directly down onto the target, thus making lieing on the ground the most dangerous position to be in. Shell type and fusing has a big impact on what the effect and best defense is.

 

[Ranger]

Hmmm... this is not an easy one to answer quickly for a couple of reasons. Indirect fire actually involves three components: The observer, the Fire Direction Center (translates the observers information into data for the guns), and the Guns (which simply adjust the guns to the data given and fire the rounds). The observer then gives feedback to the FDC (adjustments) which are again translated into new gun data and sent to the guns... repeat until you hit the target with your spotting round, then fire for effect on the final data.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?

Depends on if you are firing indirect (as described above) or direct lay (the gunner can see the target and is aiming the tube himself through the sights). If I reacall, there was a heavy weapons skill which probably should be a cascade (Heavy Machine Gun, Mortar, Gause Gun, etc...) If the shot is direct lay, then I would use the heavy weapons skill. Otherwise you have to use the indirect fire rules.

2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)

Well, hitting with an observer is already difficult, so I would say damn near impossible. -8 to the too hit roll at a minimum.

3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Well, this is generally true. If this is a really big issue, I would see if you could dig up a copy of Striker and just uses their scatter rules, or any set of decent modern tactical minis rules covers it as well.

One point that isn't really delt with in Traveller in this subject is the impact of technology on accuracy. MLRS rockets use GPS and an on board computer in the rocket guidance system to achive amaizing accuracy over long distances without observers. You could theoretically shrink down this system over time and have very small guidance systems build right into mortar rounds at some future tech level.

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.

I say *might* because my reading of the section on Danger Space and Group hits suggests it (P72/73 PM) that it is automatic. Yet looking at the combat flowchart on the inside of the MT Ref's Screen seems to suggest that you have to make some sort of attack role for each target in the danger space.

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?

Thoughts, advice, guidance?

My take is that it's done just like in CT. You roll for each target in the danger space based on an adjusted to hit (-3 or -4, but I don't remember off the top of my head).

As to going prone, that is based on the fact that most indirect fire rounds burst on the ground and actualy produce a rather small explosive cone directed upward. being flat on the ground will protect you against almost all shrapnel in this case. Because of this, fuses have been developed to allow shells to 'air burst' and spread shrapnel directly down onto the target, thus making lieing on the ground the most dangerous position to be in. Shell type and fusing has a big impact on what the effect and best defense is.

 

[Ranger]

Hmmm... this is not an easy one to answer quickly for a couple of reasons. Indirect fire actually involves three components: The observer, the Fire Direction Center (translates the observers information into data for the guns), and the Guns (which simply adjust the guns to the data given and fire the rounds). The observer then gives feedback to the FDC (adjustments) which are again translated into new gun data and sent to the guns... repeat until you hit the target with your spotting round, then fire for effect on the final data.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?

Depends on if you are firing indirect (as described above) or direct lay (the gunner can see the target and is aiming the tube himself through the sights). If I reacall, there was a heavy weapons skill which probably should be a cascade (Heavy Machine Gun, Mortar, Gause Gun, etc...) If the shot is direct lay, then I would use the heavy weapons skill. Otherwise you have to use the indirect fire rules.

2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)

Well, hitting with an observer is already difficult, so I would say damn near impossible. -8 to the too hit roll at a minimum.

3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Well, this is generally true. If this is a really big issue, I would see if you could dig up a copy of Striker and just uses their scatter rules, or any set of decent modern tactical minis rules covers it as well.

One point that isn't really delt with in Traveller in this subject is the impact of technology on accuracy. MLRS rockets use GPS and an on board computer in the rocket guidance system to achive amaizing accuracy over long distances without observers. You could theoretically shrink down this system over time and have very small guidance systems build right into mortar rounds at some future tech level.

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.

I say *might* because my reading of the section on Danger Space and Group hits suggests it (P72/73 PM) that it is automatic. Yet looking at the combat flowchart on the inside of the MT Ref's Screen seems to suggest that you have to make some sort of attack role for each target in the danger space.

Only, the only attack roll I have available that I can think of is the Direct Fire one, which doesn't seem to apply. So how do I determine who, in a Mortar's danger space, gets hit by shrapnel/concussion wave?

And, as I have seen from lots of footage, studies, and training, the best defence vs. a nearby mortar or grenade round is being prone. Reduced target cross-section, and mortars and other things may burst up as much as out. So, how do we factor this kind of cover into who gets hit in the danger space? (that is, so far all I can see for cover is a halving of armour if you do get hit....). Perhaps a +1 difficulty from whatever (yet to be clarified) task to hit people in the danger space?

Thoughts, advice, guidance?

My take is that it's done just like in CT. You roll for each target in the danger space based on an adjusted to hit (-3 or -4, but I don't remember off the top of my head).

As to going prone, that is based on the fact that most indirect fire rounds burst on the ground and actualy produce a rather small explosive cone directed upward. being flat on the ground will protect you against almost all shrapnel in this case. Because of this, fuses have been developed to allow shells to 'air burst' and spread shrapnel directly down onto the target, thus making lieing on the ground the most dangerous position to be in. Shell type and fusing has a big impact on what the effect and best defense is.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Ranger:
Hmmm... this is not an easy one to answer quickly for a couple of reasons. Indirect fire actually involves three components: The observer, the Fire Direction Center (translates the observers information into data for the guns), and the Guns (which simply adjust the guns to the data given and fire the rounds). The observer then gives feedback to the FDC (adjustments) which are again translated into new gun data and sent to the guns... repeat until you hit the target with your spotting round, then fire for effect on the final data.

FDC/Guns can be integrated. They have been in plenty of cases.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?

Depends on if you are firing indirect (as described above) or direct lay (the gunner can see the target and is aiming the tube himself through the sights). If I reacall, there was a heavy weapons skill which probably should be a cascade (Heavy Machine Gun, Mortar, Gause Gun, etc...) If the shot is direct lay, then I would use the heavy weapons skill. Otherwise you have to use the indirect fire rules.

Mortars and Howitzers is a cascade of FA Artillery. Heavy Weapons is the skill for DF HW, but I think even a line-of-sight mortar is indirect. It doesn't have enough zing to be a flat trajectory weapon.

2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)

Well, hitting with an observer is already difficult, so I would say damn near impossible. -8 to the too hit roll at a minimum.

Why?

Assume I can absolutely locate my target to within 1m on the map and absolutely locate my own position. Ballistics is a well defined science. With a well produced mortar that is in good care and a level, should I not be able to set it up and sight it in to drop a round within about 10-20m of my target point?

And of course, this ignores the higher tech GPS guided rounds.

3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Well, this is generally true. If this is a really big issue, I would see if you could dig up a copy of Striker and just uses their scatter rules, or any set of decent modern tactical minis rules covers it as well.

I could do that. I just wanted an MT answer, if there was one.

One point that isn't really delt with in Traveller in this subject is the impact of technology on accuracy. MLRS rockets use GPS and an on board computer in the rocket guidance system to achive amaizing accuracy over long distances without observers.

Only as good as your GPS system at the moment.... muhahahaha! (Russians have GPS Jammers....)

You could theoretically shrink down this system over time and have very small guidance systems build right into mortar rounds at some future tech level.

I think they already have GPS guided munitions, though to get it into a 60mm Mortar may take one more TL.

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.
-----------
My take is that it's done just like in CT. You roll for each target in the danger space based on an adjusted to hit (-3 or -4, but I don't remember off the top of my head).

But *what* roll?

The DF hit roll uses DF weapons skill and various movement related DMs. It has a difficulty based on range. This makes *no* sense for being hit by shrapnel. It should be a task that probably has *no* skill involved, perhaps Dex, and a modifier based on target attitude prone or crouching or standing.... and we don't have (IME) an example of this anywhere....?

As to going prone, that is based on the fact that most indirect fire rounds burst on the ground and actualy produce a rather small explosive cone directed upward. being flat on the ground will protect you against almost all shrapnel in this case.

Even grenades. Doubly so if the round penetrates a bit into the ground first.

Because of this, fuses have been developed to allow shells to 'air burst' and spread shrapnel directly down onto the target, thus making lieing on the ground the most dangerous position to be in.

Concur. Wasn't clear enough. Simple fused HE is the round in question. Airburst is a whole other equation as you rightly point out.

Shell type and fusing has a big impact on what the effect and best defense is.

Overhead protect of 3' of concrete works well in any case...

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Ranger:
Hmmm... this is not an easy one to answer quickly for a couple of reasons. Indirect fire actually involves three components: The observer, the Fire Direction Center (translates the observers information into data for the guns), and the Guns (which simply adjust the guns to the data given and fire the rounds). The observer then gives feedback to the FDC (adjustments) which are again translated into new gun data and sent to the guns... repeat until you hit the target with your spotting round, then fire for effect on the final data.

FDC/Guns can be integrated. They have been in plenty of cases.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?

Depends on if you are firing indirect (as described above) or direct lay (the gunner can see the target and is aiming the tube himself through the sights). If I reacall, there was a heavy weapons skill which probably should be a cascade (Heavy Machine Gun, Mortar, Gause Gun, etc...) If the shot is direct lay, then I would use the heavy weapons skill. Otherwise you have to use the indirect fire rules.

Mortars and Howitzers is a cascade of FA Artillery. Heavy Weapons is the skill for DF HW, but I think even a line-of-sight mortar is indirect. It doesn't have enough zing to be a flat trajectory weapon.

2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)

Well, hitting with an observer is already difficult, so I would say damn near impossible. -8 to the too hit roll at a minimum.

Why?

Assume I can absolutely locate my target to within 1m on the map and absolutely locate my own position. Ballistics is a well defined science. With a well produced mortar that is in good care and a level, should I not be able to set it up and sight it in to drop a round within about 10-20m of my target point?

And of course, this ignores the higher tech GPS guided rounds.

3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Well, this is generally true. If this is a really big issue, I would see if you could dig up a copy of Striker and just uses their scatter rules, or any set of decent modern tactical minis rules covers it as well.

I could do that. I just wanted an MT answer, if there was one.

One point that isn't really delt with in Traveller in this subject is the impact of technology on accuracy. MLRS rockets use GPS and an on board computer in the rocket guidance system to achive amaizing accuracy over long distances without observers.

Only as good as your GPS system at the moment.... muhahahaha! (Russians have GPS Jammers....)

You could theoretically shrink down this system over time and have very small guidance systems build right into mortar rounds at some future tech level.

I think they already have GPS guided munitions, though to get it into a 60mm Mortar may take one more TL.

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.
-----------
My take is that it's done just like in CT. You roll for each target in the danger space based on an adjusted to hit (-3 or -4, but I don't remember off the top of my head).

But *what* roll?

The DF hit roll uses DF weapons skill and various movement related DMs. It has a difficulty based on range. This makes *no* sense for being hit by shrapnel. It should be a task that probably has *no* skill involved, perhaps Dex, and a modifier based on target attitude prone or crouching or standing.... and we don't have (IME) an example of this anywhere....?

As to going prone, that is based on the fact that most indirect fire rounds burst on the ground and actualy produce a rather small explosive cone directed upward. being flat on the ground will protect you against almost all shrapnel in this case.

Even grenades. Doubly so if the round penetrates a bit into the ground first.

Because of this, fuses have been developed to allow shells to 'air burst' and spread shrapnel directly down onto the target, thus making lieing on the ground the most dangerous position to be in.

Concur. Wasn't clear enough. Simple fused HE is the round in question. Airburst is a whole other equation as you rightly point out.

Shell type and fusing has a big impact on what the effect and best defense is.

Overhead protect of 3' of concrete works well in any case...

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Ranger:
Hmmm... this is not an easy one to answer quickly for a couple of reasons. Indirect fire actually involves three components: The observer, the Fire Direction Center (translates the observers information into data for the guns), and the Guns (which simply adjust the guns to the data given and fire the rounds). The observer then gives feedback to the FDC (adjustments) which are again translated into new gun data and sent to the guns... repeat until you hit the target with your spotting round, then fire for effect on the final data.

FDC/Guns can be integrated. They have been in plenty of cases.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Is this task used to hit with a mortar?

Depends on if you are firing indirect (as described above) or direct lay (the gunner can see the target and is aiming the tube himself through the sights). If I reacall, there was a heavy weapons skill which probably should be a cascade (Heavy Machine Gun, Mortar, Gause Gun, etc...) If the shot is direct lay, then I would use the heavy weapons skill. Otherwise you have to use the indirect fire rules.

Mortars and Howitzers is a cascade of FA Artillery. Heavy Weapons is the skill for DF HW, but I think even a line-of-sight mortar is indirect. It doesn't have enough zing to be a flat trajectory weapon.

2. What would the penalty be by firing a mortar from a map only? (No observer)

Well, hitting with an observer is already difficult, so I would say damn near impossible. -8 to the too hit roll at a minimum.

Why?

Assume I can absolutely locate my target to within 1m on the map and absolutely locate my own position. Ballistics is a well defined science. With a well produced mortar that is in good care and a level, should I not be able to set it up and sight it in to drop a round within about 10-20m of my target point?

And of course, this ignores the higher tech GPS guided rounds.

3. How is scatter affected by indirect (off board) ranges? Presumably scatter is longer, but by what formula?

Well, this is generally true. If this is a really big issue, I would see if you could dig up a copy of Striker and just uses their scatter rules, or any set of decent modern tactical minis rules covers it as well.

I could do that. I just wanted an MT answer, if there was one.

One point that isn't really delt with in Traveller in this subject is the impact of technology on accuracy. MLRS rockets use GPS and an on board computer in the rocket guidance system to achive amaizing accuracy over long distances without observers.

Only as good as your GPS system at the moment.... muhahahaha! (Russians have GPS Jammers....)

You could theoretically shrink down this system over time and have very small guidance systems build right into mortar rounds at some future tech level.

I think they already have GPS guided munitions, though to get it into a 60mm Mortar may take one more TL.

Tertiary, but also important:

As it pertains to danger space, my understanding is everyone within the 10m (or is that square) danger space of a TL-6 HE mortar (from the Ref's guide) shell *might* take a Pen 9 (or Pen 10 if you use the modifiers for TL) attack.
-----------
My take is that it's done just like in CT. You roll for each target in the danger space based on an adjusted to hit (-3 or -4, but I don't remember off the top of my head).

But *what* roll?

The DF hit roll uses DF weapons skill and various movement related DMs. It has a difficulty based on range. This makes *no* sense for being hit by shrapnel. It should be a task that probably has *no* skill involved, perhaps Dex, and a modifier based on target attitude prone or crouching or standing.... and we don't have (IME) an example of this anywhere....?

As to going prone, that is based on the fact that most indirect fire rounds burst on the ground and actualy produce a rather small explosive cone directed upward. being flat on the ground will protect you against almost all shrapnel in this case.

Even grenades. Doubly so if the round penetrates a bit into the ground first.

Because of this, fuses have been developed to allow shells to 'air burst' and spread shrapnel directly down onto the target, thus making lieing on the ground the most dangerous position to be in.

Concur. Wasn't clear enough. Simple fused HE is the round in question. Airburst is a whole other equation as you rightly point out.

Shell type and fusing has a big impact on what the effect and best defense is.

Overhead protect of 3' of concrete works well in any case...

 

[Ranger]

*FDC/Guns can be integrated. They have been in plenty of cases.

Yes and no. The FDC function of calculating the data has been computerized, but it is still two seperate steps. You calculate the data first, then you lay the guns on the data. What is being modeled here is actually three different tasks. Forward Observer is the ability to accuratly locate the target and trasmit that info correctly. FDC operations is the task of converting that information to data the guns can use to shoot. Artillery Weapons is the task of accuratly laying the guns on the data and cutting the fuses to the right charge. Only two of those taskes are even covered in the MT rules.

*Mortars and Howitzers is a cascade of FA Artillery. Heavy Weapons is the skill for DF HW, but I think even a line-of-sight mortar is indirect. It doesn't have enough zing to be a flat trajectory weapon.

Well, here is part of the issue in a sense; indirect fire as a weapons trajectory as opposed to indirect fire as a means of target engagement (via forward observer).

Mortars have generally been regarded as infantry heavy weapons because they often fire directly (that is the gunner has sight of the target) but are also capable of indirect (fire directed by a forward observer) fire. In the US, mortarmen are technically infanty, but a seperate MOS (11C). The FDC skills are the same as FA FDC.

The big difference between direct and indirect fire in the US is generally considered who is actually looking at the target, the gunner himself, or a forward observer.

*Why?

*Assume I can absolutely locate my target to within 1m on the map and absolutely locate my own position. Ballistics is a well defined science. With a well produced mortar that is in good care and a level, should I not be able to set it up and sight it in to drop a round within about 10-20m of my target point?

All of that is about half the problem with scatter. The other half is Meteorological factors (Air Temp., Bar. Presure, Humidity, Winds) which mess with the trajectory quite a bit. Even if you have the location of the guns and the target perfect, you are still probably going to miss unless you have a balistic solution which takes all the the weather data into account (and since that varries over the distance of the trajectory, it is almost impossibe to get a perfect solution on the first round fired).

*And of course, this ignores the higher tech GPS guided rounds.

This would solve the whole problem.

*I could do that. I just wanted an MT answer, if there was one.

Well, I don't think there is one. I was interpelating off of striker, where each round has a to hit number based on size and type, and once you determin where the round hit, then you determine the effect(just like a direct fire attack). All of that seems to be missing from MT for some reason.

*Only as good as your GPS system at the moment.... muhahahaha! (Russians have GPS Jammers....)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The GPS is in the launcer, the rocket just flies a predetermended time on a predetermined path. No GPS in the rocket guidance.

 

[Ranger]

*FDC/Guns can be integrated. They have been in plenty of cases.

Yes and no. The FDC function of calculating the data has been computerized, but it is still two seperate steps. You calculate the data first, then you lay the guns on the data. What is being modeled here is actually three different tasks. Forward Observer is the ability to accuratly locate the target and trasmit that info correctly. FDC operations is the task of converting that information to data the guns can use to shoot. Artillery Weapons is the task of accuratly laying the guns on the data and cutting the fuses to the right charge. Only two of those taskes are even covered in the MT rules.

*Mortars and Howitzers is a cascade of FA Artillery. Heavy Weapons is the skill for DF HW, but I think even a line-of-sight mortar is indirect. It doesn't have enough zing to be a flat trajectory weapon.

Well, here is part of the issue in a sense; indirect fire as a weapons trajectory as opposed to indirect fire as a means of target engagement (via forward observer).

Mortars have generally been regarded as infantry heavy weapons because they often fire directly (that is the gunner has sight of the target) but are also capable of indirect (fire directed by a forward observer) fire. In the US, mortarmen are technically infanty, but a seperate MOS (11C). The FDC skills are the same as FA FDC.

The big difference between direct and indirect fire in the US is generally considered who is actually looking at the target, the gunner himself, or a forward observer.

*Why?

*Assume I can absolutely locate my target to within 1m on the map and absolutely locate my own position. Ballistics is a well defined science. With a well produced mortar that is in good care and a level, should I not be able to set it up and sight it in to drop a round within about 10-20m of my target point?

All of that is about half the problem with scatter. The other half is Meteorological factors (Air Temp., Bar. Presure, Humidity, Winds) which mess with the trajectory quite a bit. Even if you have the location of the guns and the target perfect, you are still probably going to miss unless you have a balistic solution which takes all the the weather data into account (and since that varries over the distance of the trajectory, it is almost impossibe to get a perfect solution on the first round fired).

*And of course, this ignores the higher tech GPS guided rounds.

This would solve the whole problem.

*I could do that. I just wanted an MT answer, if there was one.

Well, I don't think there is one. I was interpelating off of striker, where each round has a to hit number based on size and type, and once you determin where the round hit, then you determine the effect(just like a direct fire attack). All of that seems to be missing from MT for some reason.

*Only as good as your GPS system at the moment.... muhahahaha! (Russians have GPS Jammers....)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The GPS is in the launcer, the rocket just flies a predetermended time on a predetermined path. No GPS in the rocket guidance.

 

[Ranger]

*FDC/Guns can be integrated. They have been in plenty of cases.

Yes and no. The FDC function of calculating the data has been computerized, but it is still two seperate steps. You calculate the data first, then you lay the guns on the data. What is being modeled here is actually three different tasks. Forward Observer is the ability to accuratly locate the target and trasmit that info correctly. FDC operations is the task of converting that information to data the guns can use to shoot. Artillery Weapons is the task of accuratly laying the guns on the data and cutting the fuses to the right charge. Only two of those taskes are even covered in the MT rules.

*Mortars and Howitzers is a cascade of FA Artillery. Heavy Weapons is the skill for DF HW, but I think even a line-of-sight mortar is indirect. It doesn't have enough zing to be a flat trajectory weapon.

Well, here is part of the issue in a sense; indirect fire as a weapons trajectory as opposed to indirect fire as a means of target engagement (via forward observer).

Mortars have generally been regarded as infantry heavy weapons because they often fire directly (that is the gunner has sight of the target) but are also capable of indirect (fire directed by a forward observer) fire. In the US, mortarmen are technically infanty, but a seperate MOS (11C). The FDC skills are the same as FA FDC.

The big difference between direct and indirect fire in the US is generally considered who is actually looking at the target, the gunner himself, or a forward observer.

*Why?

*Assume I can absolutely locate my target to within 1m on the map and absolutely locate my own position. Ballistics is a well defined science. With a well produced mortar that is in good care and a level, should I not be able to set it up and sight it in to drop a round within about 10-20m of my target point?

All of that is about half the problem with scatter. The other half is Meteorological factors (Air Temp., Bar. Presure, Humidity, Winds) which mess with the trajectory quite a bit. Even if you have the location of the guns and the target perfect, you are still probably going to miss unless you have a balistic solution which takes all the the weather data into account (and since that varries over the distance of the trajectory, it is almost impossibe to get a perfect solution on the first round fired).

*And of course, this ignores the higher tech GPS guided rounds.

This would solve the whole problem.

*I could do that. I just wanted an MT answer, if there was one.

Well, I don't think there is one. I was interpelating off of striker, where each round has a to hit number based on size and type, and once you determin where the round hit, then you determine the effect(just like a direct fire attack). All of that seems to be missing from MT for some reason.

*Only as good as your GPS system at the moment.... muhahahaha! (Russians have GPS Jammers....)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The GPS is in the launcer, the rocket just flies a predetermended time on a predetermined path. No GPS in the rocket guidance.

 

[kaladorn]

I don't recall an "FDC" in some of the earlier uses of mortars/arty. You called the battery, they did the calcs and laid the guns. That's what I meant by "integrated". The task still got done, just by the same folks (the battery).

Now, if I use a laser to designate a target point and my mortar rounds or arty rounds are laser guided, that's another way of getting them on target.

Figure since we have GPS guided missiles now (missile, not launcher!), we'll have them on smaller things by higher tech levels. We have laser guided arty now.

As to the whole issue of weather - I'd agree it affects scatter. I should have stipulated 'calm day' and 'range around 1500m' in my 'why can't I hit it dead on without an observer' case.

 

[kaladorn]

I don't recall an "FDC" in some of the earlier uses of mortars/arty. You called the battery, they did the calcs and laid the guns. That's what I meant by "integrated". The task still got done, just by the same folks (the battery).

Now, if I use a laser to designate a target point and my mortar rounds or arty rounds are laser guided, that's another way of getting them on target.

Figure since we have GPS guided missiles now (missile, not launcher!), we'll have them on smaller things by higher tech levels. We have laser guided arty now.

As to the whole issue of weather - I'd agree it affects scatter. I should have stipulated 'calm day' and 'range around 1500m' in my 'why can't I hit it dead on without an observer' case.