When is a weapon a mortar.

[larneman]

My simple question what defines a "mortar"

Liam

[harribobs]

my understanding is a mortar is a muzzle loaded weapon that fires a explosive round in a high trajectory

(now I just get ready to be corrected )

chris

[Edward_N_Kelly]

my understanding is a mortar is a muzzle loaded weapon that fires a explosive round in a high trajectory

(now I just get ready to be corrected )

chris

Mortars these days are no longer muzzle loaded nor are they smoothbores. There are a range of rifled, breech loading mortars available particularly from former WarPac Countries. Some of the vehicle mounted (turret mounted in particular) are direct fire weapons and these are from several different manufacturers both NATO and former WarPac (and now China).

In WWI terms you are probably on fairly safe ground when you talk of muzzle loading usually smooth bore (weren't some of the minenwerfers rifled ?) and generally with barrels of 10 calibres or less. All are designed for high angle fire.

Cheers

Edward

PS Second pip at last ! Though I still miss the Sergeants' Mess......

[PhilB]

And usually (but not always) smooth bore! Phil B

[harribobs]

i did mean WW1 ! honest

[PhilB]

So what`s a modern definition, Edward? Phil B

[larneman]

I am still no wiser.

The heavy Austrian mortar 30,5 cm/M11 ca 1909 was breech loaded.

Specificat ions:

Caliber:305 mm

Elavation: +40 to +70 Degrees

Angle : + 60 to – 60 Degrees

Light weight shell : 287 Kg

Heavy weight shell: 384 Kg

Velocity of shell :340m/s

Firing range with light shell: 11300 m

Firing range with heavy shell: 9600 m

Heavy 380mm Howitzer “Barbara”, fired in a high trajectory a shell of 740 Kg, maximum 14600 m.

Why is one called a mortar and the other Howitzer?

Liam

[harribobs]

Why is one called a mortar and the other Howitzer?

off the top of my head, they are both the same thing

(stands back and waits to be corrected again )

[Old Tom]

Hello,

Are we splitting hairs? In general terms surely an artillery piece (ordnance + carriage + recoil system if any) is either gun, howitzer or mortar. Guns fire at angles of elevation less than 45 degrees and howitzers and mortars more than 45 degrees. Mortars have short barrels and are muzzle loading. Of course, over the years, terminology has changed.

Regards

Old Tom

[larneman]

Are we splitting hairs?

Nope just trying to find out how they deceided when something was a mortar or was something else. I am not interested in the present day but pre-WW1 and in WW1.

Guns fire at angles of elevation less than 45 degrees and howitzers and mortars more than 45 degrees. Mortars have short barrels and are muzzle loading.

I think the first part may hold the truth but I am not sure that all mortars are muzzle loaders.

The 30,5 cm/M11 fort busters used in Belguim by the germans and by the Austrians in Italy seems to be a breechloader.

Liam

[larneman]

Another picture,,

Liam

[BatterySergeantMajor]

Hello,

Are we splitting hairs? In general terms surely an artillery piece (ordnance + carriage + recoil system if any) is either gun, howitzer or mortar. Guns fire at angles of elevation less than 45 degrees and howitzers and mortars more than 45 degrees. Mortars have short barrels and are muzzle loading. Of course, over the years, terminology has changed.

Regards

Old Tom

It is not splitting hairs! There is a sginificant difference.

The 45 degrees (or 800 artillery mills) story is correct for the mortars, not for the guns (howitser or else).

Although an artillery gun is mostly able to exceed the 45 degrees angle, it won't happen that much, and there is a good reason for this. Once you are aiming higher than 45 degrees/ 800 mills the "spread" of your fire is much wider and less accurate. A short barrel (as mortars have) is even strengthening this effect.

This is not acceptable for long range fire (field artillery), because this "spread" increases also with the distance (I am simplifying). A mortar is ment as immediately support within close range for Infantry, mostly with own observing of the fire in stead of using a forward observer as "real" artillery does. "Spread" is less important on close distance.

Within the guns there is a another important difference: straight firing guns (for example tanks, antitank guns) and artillery guns who are giving indirect fire, which means that the trajectory of the shell makes a curve and the target is often not visible.

Actually some armies are equipping their artillery with mortars, which is very stupid and short sighted.

Erwin

[Max Poilu]

I think you are looking for a 'perfect' definition which does not really exist, there is too much crossover between various pieces of artillery.

This from a particular book I have:

Mortar - usually loaded through the muzzle, fires a projectile at low velocity and high angle of fire.

Howitzer - fires at a higher velocity and low to medium trajectories.

Gun - a more generic term for an artillery piece - loads through the breech and fires at a 'flat' trajectory and high velocity.

[larneman]

Thanks Giles Poilu, Old Tom ,Erwin and all the rest. With all the information that you have supplied I now have a fair to good idea what the differances are and what it takes to be called a "mortar".

this is a great forum,

Liam

[Guest lilydalelil]

Don't get too relaxed Liam, there could be more.

On arriving on the Western Front in 1916 the AIF was entrusted with a new "Stokes Gun". Those nasty Germans nicked it!

The gun was supposedly classified as TOP SECRET and the Aussies were beaten about the head as if they had contributed to WW1's version of the Enigma Code.

To me it looked like a simple trench mortar. Mr Krupp would hardly be overjoyed at making replica's

So why all the fuss?

Lil

[Edward_N_Kelly]

Are we splitting hairs?

Nope just trying to find out how they deceided when something was a mortar or was something else. I am not interested in the present day but pre-WW1 and in WW1.

I think it is a terminology and translation problem.

The German terms Haubitze and Mörser are being translated as howitzer whereas they mean different things to a German (or Austrian) of the time. As far as I can work out the latter were shorter barrelled (ie under 10 calibre equivalent or so) whereas the latter were longer barrelled. Both fulfilled the same function - high angle indirect fire though the haubitze would have had a longer range.

At that point in time there was no direct equivalent to the Mörser in the Allies armouries except for some ancient weapons of Naploeonic vintage.

The Minenwerfer (or mine thrower) served the fuction of the Stokes and Newton mortars though they were a far more elaborate weapon all told.

Remember the Minenwefer was so called because of intraservice rivalry in the German Army. The artillery branch did not want anything to do with something so mundane with so little a range. It was seen more as an Engineers weapon (as I hear the Infantry did not want to be responsible for it - it was detracting from their primary purpose - the bayonet).

And then of course there were the original Granatenwerfers....

Cheers

Edward

[Edward_N_Kelly]

Don't get too relaxed Liam, there could be more.

On arriving on the Western Front in 1916 the AIF was entrusted with a new "Stokes Gun". Those nasty Germans nicked it!

The gun was supposedly classified as TOP SECRET and the Aussies were beaten about the head as if they had contributed to WW1's version of the Enigma Code.

To me it looked like a simple trench mortar. Mr Krupp would hardly be overjoyed at making replica's

So why all the fuss?

Lil

As far as I am aware the Germans never made a similar weapon to the Stokes/Newton series - am I correct?

They were totally baffled by the Livens Projector - they could not understand how the British could achieve such concentrations of gas with so little sound (even though they made a bang they were apparently drowned out by the general din even when not part of a preparatory barrage). They certainly did not produce anything similar

Cheers

Edward

[Paul Hederer]

Some of the definitons of mortar, at least for the German definiton during WW1, mentioned above are not correct.

The Germans tended to call anything over 210mm with a high angle of fire a mortar. The 210mm, 305mm, and 420mm mortars were defintely not muzzle loaded.

There was also a definition based on angle of fire, which I don't have at hand at work, but it seem anything over 60 degrees.

A German heavy mortar was a "Mörser," while a trench mortar was a "Werfer," or thrower, or, if you prefer, a launcher.

I wasn't aware that the Germans copied the British trench mortar. I know they had some models in the German army in 1914, though in very small numbers. I thought it was a bit the other way around.

Paul

[Guest]

To me, one significant point about WWI British mortars is that they were short range trench weapons used by infantry to provide close fire. Presumably, being under infantry command meant that a fire mission could be set up at very short notice without haveing to go through a lot of channels.