"WWI German Regimental Support Platoons Released" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Return to the WWI German Regimental Support Platoons Released News
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleA cheap way to pick up on the latest fad and get your own dice cup for wargaming?
Featured Profile ArticleIt's cheap, but is it any good?
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
turenne | 26 Aug 2014 11:26 a.m. PST |
These Minenwerfer have the same calibre as the British 3in Stokes mortar (to within a mm) and from what I've read had a smaller amount of HE in the shell, but the FOW stats are better than the Stokes. Can anyone explain why? |
monk2002uk | 26 Aug 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
In what way are the stats different? Robert |
Privateer4hire | 26 Aug 2014 2:21 p.m. PST |
The werfer has 8" more range, +1 AT and FP check on anything but a 1 (compared to 3+ for the stokes). Both are light gun teams classed as trench guns for the rules and their teams also act as independent platoons but the werfers are much higher priced game-wise in comparison. |
GGouveia | 26 Aug 2014 2:23 p.m. PST |
Higher price, hence the difference. Minenwerfers were from I read very effective weapons. Then again I am not a weapons expert at all. |
Black Bull | 26 Aug 2014 2:30 p.m. PST |
They are German the Stokes isn't ? :-) |
monk2002uk | 26 Aug 2014 4:02 p.m. PST |
The Minenwerfer was a somewhat different weapon. It was not smooth bore like a Stokes. The barrel was rifled, which imparted spin and stability to the bomb. The range was definitely further, not quite double that of the Stokes mortar. Minenwerfer were used as AT weapons from early on after the appearance of the tank. At Bullecourt in 1917, Minenwerfer engaged the tanks and claimed at least one kill. The bombs were fired in a typical mortar trajectory at that time. By 1918, however, the light Minenwerfer had been adapted to fire directly at tanks, making use of its rifling to ensure accuracy. Perhaps +1 is a fair reflection of this capability. As to the 'FP check', I can't really comment. I presume it means that the MW is more likely to cause casualties from the HE rounds falling on or near the target. There is no question that Stokes bombs were very powerful. I doubt it could be argued that MW projectiles were more powerful than Stokes' ones. Maybe it has something to do with the greater accuracy (perceived or actual) of the MW. Robert |
keleustes | 27 Aug 2014 3:52 a.m. PST |
The Minenewafer did come in various calibers, these look to be 7.58cmm and that just under 3 inches. The MW does have better range 300-1300m, the Stokes had a maximum range of approximately 700m. The Shells were about the same weight with the Stokes' bombs being 9 oz heavier at 10 lb 11 oz This would make the MW fairly comparable to the Stokes mortar. The MW is heavier,being 324 lbs and needing a cart to move it. The Stokes weighs in at mere 104 lbs and can be man-packed. Aside from the lack of mobility and and the range difference the weapons are very similar to one another link link |
monk2002uk | 27 Aug 2014 2:05 p.m. PST |
I would be very cautious about saying that the light MW had a 'lack of mobility'. It could be broken down into pieces and man-packed forward. Or the wheels could be attached very easily to the baseplate and the whole thing towed forward by the crew. I have seen original training footage of both processes. Neither looked difficult for the crews under normal circumstances. The Stokes mortar and its baseplate was not a trivial carry. Trench mortar batteries were not highly mobile on the WW1 battlefield, except where crews purloined carts or wagons, especially for the larger calibre mortars during the Last 100 Days for example. Both weapons were difficult to move in difficult conditions. Robert |
|