Hi ThatGuy96
What Im saying and I think no one is disputing this is that the Gl is a light mortar (or close enough) could be used in the indirect fire mode and was.
obviously the correct use of the weapon is to fire it from out of LOS of the target with a unobtrusive spotter calling the corrections. I mean why would you expose yourself to return fire when you dont have to? that clearly doesnt make sense.
Here is a small collection of quotes from real life experience of the weapon that I think show that the mortar was employed for indirect fire.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww...a/chapter9.htm
"This brought the platoon within grenade range of Japanese on the other side, and the men were forced to scatter. Knee mortar shells began to fall, plummeting almost straight down."
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww...apter11.htm#b1
fought a desperate grenade battle to win the top of part of the escarpment. The Japanese showered the top with grenades and knee mortars from the reverse slope
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww...hapter5.htm#b1
"that the way to get out of that knee mortar fire was to get to where it was coming from. So we stood up in waves, firing everything we had and throwing hand grenades by the dozen, and charged the Jap position"
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww.../chapter13.htm
"Twenty replacements arrived from the shore party with two officers who had never seen combat. Grenades and knee mortar shells were falling among the troops so heavily that the executive officer moved his force to the crest of the hill. "The only way," he declared, "we can take the top of this hill is to make a Jap banzai charge ourselves"
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww.../chapter13.htm
"Two knee mortars, firing in unison 100 yards off either flank, systematically swept the American positions from one end to another"
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww.../chapter13.htm
"At one time eight knee mortars were pounding the ridge, firing in pairs. Friendly artillery could to some extent keep off the charging Japanese but seemed unable to ferret out the enemy mortars, which were well protected."
Though targets may be 'visually aquired' this doesnt equate to the mortar being used in direct fire mode. As your source describes later the mortar can be kept out of sight and only the spotter need to keep the target in view. To model this somebody added a indirect fire mortar into the Jap inf platoon and added a size 0 patrol/spotter, My origional post noted that this unit had been removed. Personally I think you dont need the spotter anyway as he's too expensive, just let the platoon 0 section do the spotting. So... It seems to me that there is no need to try to model the squad leader as FO. None of the other light mortars in the game bother with this level of detail.
Your source also says they are used to suppress key weapons this ties in with this quote,
from
http://www.wlhoward.com/museum/id577.htm
"One British officer I saw interviewed on TV remarked how even when his troops did manage to get the jump on the Japanese in jungle encounters, the enemy would usually recover quickly, and be hitting back with their "knee mortars" in short order.
This fire tended to keep the enemy's head down while the Japanese themselves deployed to meet this new threat, and began probing for the opponent's flank. All in all it was a very useful little device, and the Japanese certainly got plenty of mileage out of it."
You cant do this if the mortar is modeled as a direct fire weapon.
Looking at these real life testimonials it appears that the Marines/Brits problem is that they cannot return fire at the GLs, precisely because they are being used in indirect fire mode. Which is why I say that the indirect fire version should be offered in the Jap inf platoon.
Best Regards Chuck.
Re: Japanese OOB omissions.
Threaded Mode