Russian mortars and transport

In researching the Russian army I didn’t find a single Battlegroup List where the Russian mortars had the option for transport.
That’s a pity, because they actually had, and various variants too.

The M-37 was normally transported in a light vehicle and/or carried in several pieces over short distances.
If it had to be transported by the crew then it broke down into four loads: Barrel (weight of pack 19 kg), Bipod (20 kg), Base-Plate (22 kg), and 2 Trays of 3 Shells (26 kg). Every gunner had to carry one of these loads (so: 4 crew!).
The M-41 and M-43 had an integrated, two-wheel carriage, but the improved mobility did not outweigh the reduced performance.

The 82mm M-37 mortar was also transported by motorbike, with a M-72 Soviet Motorcyle and a wooden box in place of the sidecar with a crew of 2 men,
or mounted directly to the sidecar frame  of the M-72, allowing the crew (2 men) to lob shells directly from the sidecar (on the halt, not on the move),
or fixed to the rear of the sidecar with a swing-arm-mount (Harley Davidson 42WLA solo motorcycle with a Russian M-72 sidecar)  with a crew of 2 or 3 men.
Although produced in very limited quantities it should be an option for the lists.

The 120mm mortar was hauled for instance by a Willys MB Truck ¼-ton, 4x4, Command Reconnaissance Car. It was produced by the Soviets in large quantities with an estimated 12,000 120 mm mortars being produced by the end of World War II.
Since the weapon weighed some 285kg (630lb) it was nearly impossible to simply drag it around.
So it should be an option for the lists too.

Why cant you put it in a truck with some infantry?

I can't think of many instances where I'd need to move medium and heavy mortars any distance. They need a spotter so if on table just put them in cover near the rear table edge and blast away.

Failing that what Piers said.

Or buy them a chit magnet, i mean truck... Im sure an opponent wont mind more squishy targets.

But as NTM says... the trucks delivered the mortar team, then would bugger off somewhere safe.

Piers wrote:Why cant you put it in a truck with some infantry?

my gaming Partner deny that variant, cause they say "it's not in the rules"

is that so ?


and why not having an Errata providing the opportunities I posted above ?

The option to include platoon supports in squad transports is listed in the q&a section Dispatches 2. If your opponent doesn't recognise that why would they then accept the errata you are proposing?

I think my Opponent hasn't read the Dispatches, so he feels he's right.  I'll present 'em to him  

The "official" errata would be ..... official for him, or  not?

and it's a lovely conversion, I think,
and it's absolut proven historical


PS: I'm not able to find the relevant q&a. Maybe you can help me ..........

NTM wrote:I can't think of many instances where I'd need to move medium and heavy mortars any distance. They need a spotter so if on table just put them in cover near the rear table edge and blast away.

In game terms, I'm with this all the way.  Mortars don't need line of sight - they use the spotter for that.  As long as the spotter can move, the mortars, even those mounted on suitable armoured or soft skin transports, should be able to fire on anything the spotter can see, unless you're playing on a tennis court.  If you want to use the historical vehicle, just stick that on instead, you still won't need to move it during the game, but if it looks better/more historical, go with it.

Cheers, Andy

Well, yes, in a set-piece-battle,
but at present I'm playing in a campaign where movement (between the battles) is absolute necessary.

If you're playing a campaign just start with historical orders of battle. As casualties mount use some sort of replacement system or don't, depending on the time frame your cmaplaign represents. Otherwise if a mortar unit historically had trucks to move it from battle to battle, use them. Of course, if they get destroyed your mortars may not get to the next battle.

The lists are, IMO, more a guideline for pickup games and people who don't want or don't feel the need to go any further with the history. Stick with the basic concept of an infantry core with supporting arms and wing it.

JayM wrote:historical orders of battle

well, yes, that's what I'm already doing with my Polish BG

but my regular opponents slavishly stick to the lists, and if there is no option you simply can't do it

that's what I'm fighting for

Refer your opponents to this quote:

Warwick wrote:There is a saying, of which I'm fond, 'rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the adherence of fools'. I think this applies well to historical wargames, which aren't a competitive sport. History should guide you as well as the rulebook...

The writer is the author of the Battlegroup rules, quote is from this thread: https://battlegroupwargame.forumotion.com/t485-fortified-bocage

I know it already, but it makes my day anew.

But, as it deals with fools, as I do, well, ........... only official errata/list add-ons or the like would help.
I think I have to accept the "hardships of wargaming"