Talk:Mortar (weapon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

Why is this page named Morter (weapon)? What is a "morter"? E.g. the Merriam-Webster dictionary does not know such word, and the whole article talks about "mortar". Somebody can't spell?

The Design section is copied from here: http://www.free-definition.com/Mortar-(weapon).html 80.230.136.54 20:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You mean they copied the article from Wikipedia? Look at the bottom of the page: "This article by Wikipedia authors is licensed under the GNU FDL." -- mkrohn 21:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Inconsistency in definition 2 Page move 3 81mm-82mm ammunition interoperability myth? 4 deflection 5 Introduction 6 HISTORY NOT CORRECT 7 Wikipedia does it again. 8 mortars 9 Caliber/Calibre 10 Downing Street 11 Defaced 12 Mortar Aiming 13 Three comments' 14 Mortar in WWI 15 Need a brainiac 16 Firing system 17 20th C specific

[edit] Inconsistency in definition

In mortar's definition clearly stands "smoothbore cannon". Little further, in the ammo section stands: "Spin-stabilised rounds require a rifled barrel. Since they are on the whole top-loaded the mortar bomb has a pre-engraved band that engages with the rifling of the barrel." I think that's a major inconsistency, so I recommend changing it. There are also exceptions from muzzle loading, since some mortars (especially automatic) are breech loaded.

[edit] Page move

Umm, why was this page moved from Mortar (weapon) to Mortar (artillery) (via Mortar (cannon)) when:

1. nearly all its inlinks are pointing at the original title, Mortar (weapon); and
2. as our article already points out, mortars are nearly always an infantry weapon, not artillery?

So far as I can see, there was no discussion, or I would have objected. -- Securiger 13:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved it from mortar (cannon) because a mortar is not a cannon. A mortar is another type of artillery piece, whether it is employed by an artillery organization or an infantry organization (mortars are used by both). I don't remember whether I considered the title "mortar (weapon)", but "artillery" is still a better disambiguation term, because it is, um, less ambiguous. It doesn't matter how many links point to mortar (weapon). —Michael Z. 2005-05-2 14:34 Z

I agree you were right to move it from cannon, whoever moved it there from the original name should have discussed it. However, with a very few exceptions (old nineteenth century artillery siege mortars in museums, and 120 mm mortars, which are relatively uncommon), mortars cannot be called artillery pieces. By definition, that is restricted to the largest ballistic weapons (conventionally those that require a special carriage to move them around, or sometimes even restricted specifically to cannon and howitzers). Most mortars are carried into battle strapped to a man's back. More to the point, it defies the common usage; neither mortarmen nor artillerymen call 60 mm or 81 mm mortars "artillery pieces". "Weapon" covers the whole gamut from 50 mm / 2 inch mortars (which mostly don't even have a baseplate) all the way through to artillery siege mortars; whereas artillery excludes the most common types. -- Securiger

Okay, I see your point, although in my mind anything that fires shells indirectly is a kind of artillery in the general sense. This would still rule out the lightest mortars, which are practically the same as grenade launchers. Go ahead and rename the article to "mortar (weapon)". Or maybe it should be something like "mortar (launcher)", to include smoke mortars, fireworks projectors, etc.

Also please proofread my latest edits to the introduction. Still needs a little work, I think, and it would be nice to add a history section. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-05-2 16:14 Z

DO NOT MOVE PAGES BY COPYPASTING. i have now listed this page on Wikipedia:Requested moves so it can be done properly. Plugwash 29 June 2005 01:54 (UTC)

• Support. --Jpbrenna 1 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
• Support. – AxSkov (T) 13:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done the page move. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this a few bits on Mortar definition. A mortar is not defined by size, but implementation. The traditional definition for a Mortar is a high angle, indirect fire muzzle loaded weapon. Having said that, we have breach loaded mortars, and there's controversy over the true nomenclature of the tube/cannon. It is historically known as either. The 120mm Mortar has never been considered an artillery piece, though it's larger than a 105mm Howitzer. It is a mortar specifically because of it's only method of fire - indirect. So, a mortar technically is not a cannon, nor is it an artillery piece. It is simply a mortar, an indirect fire weapon. Thanatos 25 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you Thanatos. I thought that mortars, artillery, and cannons were all indirect fire weapons; that what seperated mortars apart was the type of trajectory. Gmios 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is specifically the implimentation, which is lobbing rounds utilizing a high angle trajectory. Field artillery pieces do fire indirectly and can also fire "high angle" but mortars (generally speaking) do not fire below 0800 mils (45 degrees). We differentiate between them by calling mortars indirect fire and FA direct fire (though both truly are indirect). So yes, you're correct, maybe I should have explained this a bit more thoroughly. Thanatos 25

[edit] 81mm-82mm ammunition interoperability myth?

I've heard the story that Soviet 82mm mortars could fire 81mm NATO projectiles, but I am somewhat doubtful of this claim. NATO projectiles use one heck of a lot more propellant than the Soviet-type 82mm, and I strongly suspect that if you tried to fire a NATO 81mm round from a Soviet-style 82mm barrel you'd risk catastrophic tube failure. This would apply not only (but especially) to the current 81mm rounds with the "doughnut" charges, but also to the older style rounds with the "bag" charges. 82mm rounds tend to be shorter, lighter, have a smaller warhead, and have about half the range of even Vietnam-era ammunition.

I'd like to see a link to corroborate this, or have it removed. My understanding is that there was a general restandardization of Soviet ammunition under Stalin that was made for reasons of logistical efficiencies rather than interoperability requirements with foreign weapons platforms. Gletiecq 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The info to corroborate or refute may not be online anywhere. Your logic makes sense to me, however the claim that 82mm was intended to be able to fire western 81mm rounds is extremely pervasive in real world references. If it's a myth, it's a very widely believed one. I will poke around with professional artillery historians and analysts and see if they can shed some light... Georgewilliamherbert 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dag Hemdal (who was an officer that served in the Winter War) state in his 1950's or so book Reservfänrik (Swedish for reserve 2nd Liutenant) that captured Soviet grenades could not be used by Finnish 81mm mortars, while the Soviets could use theirs. Scoo 10:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deflection

"for the first time applied deflection from closed firing positions in the field" I don't know what that means. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deflection refers to a referred direction. The deflection that is being referred to is really a directional reference, which is normally expressed in mils. A fire command is processed, firing data is produced in the form of a deflection, charge, fuze setting and elevation. The deflection and elevation are dialed onto the sight and then the mortar system is shifted on to a fixed point (normally aiming poles) to change its direction of fire and the cannon is elevated up or down according to the elevation given. The M95 Mortar Fire Control System does not require poles, but instead uses a Talin Pointing Device for direction and elevation.

Thanatos 25 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The part about the Vasilek doesn't belong here. I think I'll move it. icambron 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just deleted it icambron 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the paragraph that's now in the history section might be broken up, and parts of it moved to the very first para (the Intro to the article). It's one of the better stretches of writing in the article, and to the extent that it briefly explains how the mortar proved itself, and why, it also sets the stage for a discussion of why the mortar is still on the battlefield (and probably always will be). The rest of the history section might stay as is, because it would still be quite useful for the background and development details it contains. As the article stands now, it lacks "zing" in the opening sentences, and it's not until fairly deep into the text that the reader is told what really sets the mortar apart and what niche it occupies in the arsenal of a fighting force. That's all just a suggestion. I won't go moving large sections unless others feel it would be an improvement, since the article is generally well-written. C d h 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HISTORY NOT CORRECT

IM SORRY.. BUT THE MORTAR WASNT INVENTED by the man u put in there!

THE MORTAR WAS INVENTED BY THE OTTOMAN SULTAN FATIH SULTAN MEHMED!

HE USED THE MORTARS AGAINST CONSTANTINOPLE ( FIRED FROM SHIPS) THIS BECUZ HE DIDNT WANT TO CLOSE IN TO THEIR BAY AND GET UNDER FIRE FROM THEIR CANNONS!

SO CHANGE IT PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakus (talk • contribs)

After some research you appear to be refering to Mehmed II, can you quote the name of a book or website that states Mortars ? , you may be getting confused with Cannons. Megapixie 08:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem with a Wiki.... Conflicting opinions. I've worked specifically with mortars for over 20 years. This includes systems development and I'm currently the keeper of the flame of the the Army's 2 operational mortar field manuals (FM 3-22.90 and 91). I've heard many different stories over the years as to who implemented the first true mortar, the only thing I can say is that no one knows for sure. I do know, however, that mortars have been around almost as long as gun powder, which would pre-date the Ottoman Empire (think China circa 900 AD), though it's generally believed that the mortar was first used as a weapon in Southern Europe circa 1000 AD. Many have said that the first true mortar was made out of wood (yes, it's a scary thought). Thanatos 25 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia does it again.

Here we have a article about MORTARS, and something is said of French mortars bla bla bla, NATO uses...

Well, this just isnt correct cause most if not all the current mortars used by "NATO", or "WEST" are copies, variants and licenced in some cases (SOLTAM's whole product like is cannons and mortars) from finnish comppany "Tampella" (you can find them at www.patria.fi) also American, German mortars, South African tube arty products so on.

Rule number one, you talk of MODERN MORTARS (30's ->) you mention Tampella (Patria) cause they are the kings of the hill.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

First, try signing your discussion. Second, Mortars are produced the world over by many different companies/contractors. Patria Vammas(Tampella) currently produces a great 120mm bipod, yet their baseplate sufferes from serious design flaws. The handles they incorporated into the baseplate create a weak point where the baseplate actually bends! Next, the present M120/M121 which was originally worked by tampella (the K-6) but produced by Soltam Israel also suffers from its original design (durability, fittings, stress caused by the traverse extension). Furthermore, the M1100 (Tampella then Soltam) trailer doesn't have the ability to carry anything but the mortar and some cleaning equipment (for a solution, check out BAE's QSS). The M224 was and still is a wholly American product and is currently being reviewed by the Project Manager for Mortar systems. The M252 81mm Mortar is a Royal Ordnance piece, and like the M224, is being reworked in the US. There are a number of different contractors looking at ALL american mortar systems (most notably Soltam, not Patria Vammas). Finally, you didn't mention Sweeden (Hagglunds), which produces one of the best mortar solutions which is actually available today - AMOS. In the future we will continue to assess all mortar systems that are available, but presently Vammas has little to offer.

Thanatos 25 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mortars

I am currently an infantry mortarman stationed at Ft Irwin Ca. I would like to clear a few points up. 120 mm mortars are still considered an infantry weapon although they are usually mounted on either a 113 APC (as we do here) or a new stryker variant. However, 120s can be ground mounted, its just a real bitch to move them. Also just a a quick edit I added the IR Illumnation round to the description. Please clean up the addition if you are so inclined.

Lastly I believe a description of the aiming method modern mortars use would be interesting. Instead of aiming at the target we aim at 2 poles that are 400 mils offset from the tube (traditionally although the poles can be placed at any deflection.) Corrections to the aim are then put onto the sight and the tube is moved so that the sight is back on the poles. These corrections come from a FDC (Fire Direction Controller) who takes information on where rounds are landing and inputs them into a mortar ballistic computer to get new data in the form of deflection (left and right changes) and elevation.

A third factor is involved, the charge of the round. A number of "cheese charges" are attached to the fin area of the round. This number can be anywhere from 4 to 0 and affects the initial velocity of the round and the distance it travels. Rounds straight from the packaging come with all 4 attached simply remove as many as needed. They are named cheese charges because they are yellow and vaguely crescent shaped, ergo cheese. I'm not quite sure what is in them but when broken something looking like black powder comes out. Also when we burn piles of the leftovers, the flame will light up the night like the sun came out. Don't look directly at it. I'm sure someone knowledgeable in munitions would know the exact composition. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Just a couple of quick corrections... We don't use cheese charges anymore, those were the old 4.2" M30 and 3 - series 60mm charges that were propellent in a wax medium. We use doughnut charges which are black powder (or flake) encased in a fibrous "doughnut". You've been listening to old soldiers who've not changed their terminology.

The APC that carries the M121 is an M1064A3. The M1129 is the Stryker Mortar Carrier variant.

We use 4 (ok 6) different Fire Control Systems -

The M23 Mortar Ballistics Computer - On it's way out.... The M95/96 Mortar Fire Control System - which needs no poles, it uses a Talin Pointing Device and is capable of self surveying. The M32 Lightweight Handheld Mortar Ballistic Computer - Also GPS and Commo enabled. The M16/M19 Plotting Boards - manual backup for all electronic systems Thanatos 25 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some discussion of aiming methods would be very useful in this article. I suspect that the average reader would even benefit from some type of statement about how the mortar compares to other weapons (e.g., howitzer) with regards to accuracy, speed of setup and fire, etc. In part, this might be because the general public's knowledge of mortars comes from war movies, where (for better or worse) the impression given is that a mortar is low-budget weapon that sort of lobs the shell up there and where it lands... well, somewhere over there. In reality of course, the mortar is extremely accurate in the hands of a good crew, probably because the men are doing a whole lot more calculation, aiming, etc., than Hollywood gives them credit for.

How all of that can be condensed into a few sentences I don't know, and tech terms like "mils" would either have to be avoided or explained, since the average reader likely has no clue what a "mil" is. Just a suggestion, of course. C d h 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caliber/Calibre

The spelling of Caliber/bre is inconsistent

"Caliber" is used in the first paragraph and "Calibre" in the second

[edit] Downing Street

Wasn't Downing Street attacked with Mortars by the IRA once? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.220.143 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

MI6 HQ was attacked by the IRA with an anit-tank missile, is that what your thinking of? Trottsky 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defaced

Looks like someone has defaced the page.

[edit] Mortar Aiming

I came here looking for information on how mortars are aimed, because they seem terribly inaccurate in the news, but was unable to find the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.65.104 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC).'

My father fought WWII in New Guinea. He claimed the mortar was an incredibely accurate weapon. In traing they would anchor an open top barrel off the coast and regularly drop rounds into it. (Third hand info guys - I've never done it personally).71.197.106.123 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your pa is right they are very accurate, because any idiot can aim one. It is like throwing a ball into a basket on the ground. You throw and it goes to far. You correct but it goes to short, then you subconciously calculate and gues the middle. And you get it right! It is just like that. And you get a nack for guessing after alot of practise.74.133.32.203 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three comments'

I've seen pictures of the WWII era PIAT, your article needs a picture of a spigot mortar. The Japanese knee mortar should be included. The spigot principle seems to mirror that of a rifle fired grenade.

[edit] Mortar in WWI

I don't think mortars played a very big part in WWI, except for the Minenwerfer. 99.246.218.119 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need a brainiac

Hey can someone figure out for me if you can put a nail in the bottom of a tube that fits snugly around a tennis ball. Then drop a tennis ball down it like a mortar and have it fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.32.203 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

or can someone write and equation that tells how much psi it would take to launch a spherical object or a shell of X weight, Y yards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.32.203 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firing system

As I know, mortars have a delayed firing to give enough time to the gunner to move off the way (talking about small & portable mortars, not big field guns), what I want to know is: How does it works? I mean: Why does the mortar round stand still a few seconds before launching? I also know that this 'delayed time' varies in mortar models (I wonder also if grenade is an apropiate name for the mortar round). Is there any existing mortar that uses a triger like the big cannons?. There´s no mortar that fires instantaneously after it´s placed the round right? (consider this to be placed in the article) --Damërung (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 20th C specific

This article is the home for Coehorn. The history section is abominable. There's no link to Carcass (projectile) within the historical narrative. One would think high elevation discharges came out of nowhere in 1915 and were first devised by a US Milspec. There's no discussion on the premodern function of self-projection (I wonder how blackpowder mortars actually worked after reading the article? Were they primed, and then a lit shell inserted?).

Also, this page would really suit an excellent functional diagram.60.242.186.80 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are handy with diagrams, here is your chance. To make the history section less "abominable", do have a go and create a decent section. You obviously know a lot about the subject, what better person is there than yourself to do all the things you are dissatisfied with. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)