G80 Pix

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:45 am

Anybody have any pictures of what these minis look like? I need 8 x s.Gr. Wf. and am struggling to drop essentially $20.00 US for them. I'm hoping a picture or two will help me justify the expense.

Dog Smack · Post by **Dog Smack** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:52 am

Hey Cav Dog

Ritter's site has a few pics of German HMG and 12cm mortars. Not sure if he modified them at all but they look pretty good, especially the mortar.

Hope that helps make your decision!

Steve

Gompel · Post by **Gompel** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:32 pm

Sir Cav Dog,
Here are a few pictures I just made:

The front three miniatures are from th G80 pack, the two in the background are added for comparison. To my taste, the G80 is not up to the standards of the newer packs. Postures are less natural and details are less pronounced.
It's the same as with the UK packs.
Since you are looking for the mortars, you'd probably not care that much about the HMGs. I personally didn't like them and use the HMGs from another pack.

Hope this helps with your decision,
Patrick

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:10 pm

In the December realeases is foreseen G564 "Granatenwefer 42 120mm". I suppose in the same style of the Russian one recently released, i.e. without a team

I have a comment on G80. If I understand well, the mortar and the team are supplied together on a base, but having a man with a binocular near the mortar (apparently directing its fire) is a non-sense.

The mortars (except the smaller ones) will never be deployed in view of their target and use indirect fire with FO's.. This for obvious self-protection as they would be exposed to direct fire enemy weapons (HMG or light guns).

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:05 am

TAMMY wrote:I have a comment on G80. If I understand well, the mortar and the team are supplied together on a base, but having a man with a binocular near the mortar (apparently directing its fire) is a non-sense.

The mortars (except the smaller ones) will never be deployed in view of their target and use indirect fire with FO's.. This for obvious self-protection as they would be exposed to direct fire enemy weapons (HMG or light guns).

I'm not so sure.

Firing indirect requires communications equipment, in the battery and for the FO (or other sources calling for fire, such as company commanders). Some armies did not even try to achieve such lavish levels of equipment. And some armies tried to, but came up short from time-to-time.

Also indirect fire requires higher levels of training and unit skill than direct siting. This would not typically be a problem with German infantry units, which except for the late-war Volkssturm were uniformly well trained. But there may well have been units wherein casualties had led to the mortars being manned by under-trained troops.

Soviet units, in particular, typically relied on direct-fire with their battalion-level mortars (82mm). The range of the mortars (several thousand meters) provided protection from return-fire from infantry weapons unless/until the front lines were over-run. However, they were VERY vulnerable to counter-battery fire, should the enemy have any FOs advancing with their troops.

I believe the German army had sufficient commo gear as doctrine. But with much of the TOE materials units were often under-supplied, and I would expect that there were many occasions, particularly on the Eastern Front, where units did not have the commo gear to spend on mortar batteries and FOs. In these cases, I believe the German doctrine was to dig the mortars in below ground-level, behind sandbag or log berms, or to place them on a reverse-slope to hide them, with the CO having line-of-site within voice-range of the mortar teams to call the fire. These could often be spotted by the muzzle-flashes, but were not prone to direct-fire except by medium- or large-sized guns firing HE. Duals between German mortars and Russian infantry-support tanks and SUs appear to have been fairly common.

I suppose that gives justification for a figure with binoculars to be molded onto a Russian 82mm mortar-team base, but little reason to want the one actually molded onto a German 120mm mortar-team base. Just thought the subject might serve as an excuse for an intersting discussion.

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:30 am

Hand signals. The guy at the tube with the binoculars watches an observer a good distance away and covered. The mortar is out of sight to the enemy. Rounds long, short, left or right are a simple matter of extending the arm full stretch out, up or wave down. The observer must be aware of whether his signals can be seen (so may have to stand behind a tree or a wall... not ideal). Crude, but in the absence of wire, better than nothing, and better than direct. Otherwise, as has been said, put the mortar in a pit out of sight, move the observer to the side, and shout. Also a regular practice in a lot of armies.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:03 am

I will try to give an official view of the mortar deployement quoting the US Army FM 7-15 (Heavy weapons Company) of 1942 for the part rleevant to the mortar platoon.

"For signal communication he (the platoon commander) employs foot messengers, chauffeur(s) of truck(s) assigned to his platoon headquarters, and arm-and-hand or
pyrotechnic signals. When they are made available to him, he e employs sound-powered telephones and radiotelephones"

(Note. the heavy company had available a total of 20 sound-powered tepephone sets to be assigned)

"3. CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF 81-MM MORTAR.-The 81-mm mortar is a crew-served weapon. Each mortar is capable of firing an effective concentration in an area 100 by 100 yards. The use of the mortar for firing concentrations is
limited by the supply of ammunition."

"Ranges.-The effective range is limited by observation rather than by the maximum range of the weapon. The range of the light shell is from 100 to 3,300 yards; the range
of the heavy shell is from 300 to 2,650 yards. Effective observation, however, will rarely be obtained beyond 2,000 yards. Mortar fires should not be placed less than 200 yards from friendly troops."

"Vulnerability.-Due to its high-angle trajectory and effective range, a wide choice may be exercised in the selection of firing positions, provided observation is available.
Advantage should be taken of deep defilade, or of woods which afford openings through which the mortar can fire. Firing positions should be selected which protect the crew from the fires of rifles and machine guns, and reduce the vulnerability of the mortar and crew to hostile artillery fires and air attack. However, each firing position must be sufficiently close to its observation post to permit effective control of fires with available means of signal communication."

The asbove concepts are valid for any medium mortar users. However I think necessary tio add a few considerations (withoiut a special orders)

To be effective the mortars need well trained crew. The Russian 120mm moprttars were served by artillery crew and not by infantry. To compensate for limited trainig of officers and men, iIn 1941-1942 the mortars unit (50 and 81mm) were taken out from the infantry battakion and concentrated in a specific battalion at regimental level. They returned to the infantry battalion when the quality of the men raised.

About the firing position, it dpends on how long the mortar unit is on the place. At the start they wiull be simply deployed above ground out of direct view of the enemy (in a grouhnd fold, a defile, behind a wall or a hedgerow, etc,). They will be placed in firing pit only later, when there is time to dig defenses.

The firing of mortars require a minimum of calculation and tables, defininng a firing plan and the possibe targets. Note that when in a pit the sighting is carried out using aiming stakes as the sight of the mortar is below ground level., Moreover the mortars have various propelling charges to be chosen on the basis of the range and the wanted height of the trarectory.

Another point to consider is the tactical use of the mortars.,They may be used together or fractioned to suppoert specific units. For example americans forsee a use by single mortar (squad), section (2 mortars) or platoon,.Italians and German considered two mortars as a minimum. The Russian tended to keep them under central control.

Obviously the above are standartd considerations. In exceptional cases it may be possiblke to use single mortar also for Germnans or Italians. It was even possible to deploy with a direct sight of the enemy if the situalion allowed it. For wxample in Korea it was frequent to deploy the 4.2" mortars in this way due to the terrain and the lack of Chinese counter.battery fire.

In the last days I lopked a lot of mortars photographs and I found a figure with binoculars in only two of them. Both in the background of a Russian 120mm mortar!!

A last consideration about the equipment, I have the impression (to be confirmed) that a binocular was more expensive than a couple of sound-powered telephones with a few hundred meters of wire.