Rick Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Something up Bojan's alley? Don't hear much about this. https://www.bulgarianartillery.it/Bulgarian Artillery 1/Equipment/Gun shield.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) Why it's called a 'two-way range' Edited October 21, 2020 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 The widely use M1 75mm pack howitzer did not sport a shield. But the again neither did the Roman Perhaps in both cases it was considered that relevant counter battery weapons were not going to be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptLuke Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 2 hours ago, DougRichards said: The widely use M1 75mm pack howitzer did not sport a shield. Pack howitzers are weight sensitive. If you, for instance, look at German WWII artillery, the 75mm and 105mm mountain guns (pack howitzers) did not have shields while the roughly contemporary 75mm and 105mm field pieces did. Similarly, US WWII 105mm M2 field piece had a shield while 105mm M3, designed for light weight for airborne troops, did not. Ironically, the M3 was then deployed as an infantry gun where one of the complaints was the lack of a gun shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 23, 2020 Author Share Posted October 23, 2020 10 hours ago, CaptLuke said: Pack howitzers are weight sensitive. If you, for instance, look at German WWII artillery, the 75mm and 105mm mountain guns (pack howitzers) did not have shields while the roughly contemporary 75mm and 105mm field pieces did. Similarly, US WWII 105mm M2 field piece had a shield while 105mm M3, designed for light weight for airborne troops, did not. Ironically, the M3 was then deployed as an infantry gun where one of the complaints was the lack of a gun shield. This leads me to ask, I understand the M3 howitzer was issued to regimental "cannon companies?" So did each infantry regiment have its own half-dozen 105mm howitzers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Rick said: This leads me to ask, I understand the M3 howitzer was issued to regimental "cannon companies?" So did each infantry regiment have its own half-dozen 105mm howitzers? By the U.S. Army mid World War II TOE a standard infantry regiment should have a cannon company with 6 (six) M3 infantry howitzers. Of course many units did not have the standard equipment. Some had M8 75mm motor gun carriages. Some had the M7 "Priest" 105 mm howitzer motor carriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Rick said: This leads me to ask, I understand the M3 howitzer was issued to regimental "cannon companies?" So did each infantry regiment have its own half-dozen 105mm howitzers? And if they did have them were they tied in to the divisional net? Or just spread about to do their own thing? (which would be a pain if the regiment next to you was not able to supply some artillery support when you need it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 53 minutes ago, DougRichards said: And if they did have them were they tied in to the divisional net? Or just spread about to do their own thing? From what I've read it seems the original idea was for them to work in platoons of two guns . Often doing direct fire against enemy hard points. Many units used them as additional indirect fire resources as you've said tied into the divisional artillery network. I read a unofficial cannon company history where they men praised their company commander for using the guns in indirect fire missions almost exclusively. If the M3 were in position to direct fire they are very vulnerable to enemy mortars and artillery. It would be difficult to hide a howitzer in direct fire mode once it started to fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 23, 2020 Author Share Posted October 23, 2020 Was the 4.2" mortar ever considered instead of the M3 howitzer for the regimental cannon companies in the U.S. Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FALightFighter Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, Rick said: Was the 4.2" mortar ever considered instead of the M3 howitzer for the regimental cannon companies in the U.S. Army? In the postwar (1948? I didn't go look, so could be off year or two), the cannon company was replaced by a 4.2" heavy mortar company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 13 hours ago, Rick said: Was the 4.2" mortar ever considered instead of the M3 howitzer for the regimental cannon companies in the U.S. Army? As FALightFighter said at some time after World War II the U.S. Army replaced the M3 105 mm howitzer equipped cannon companies with 4.2" ( four deuce} mortar companies. In the big war they were in separate chemical warfare battalions. There are pros and cons to both weapons: They mortar is much lighter. The M3 howitzer has better range and accuracy. The mortar has a better white phosphorous, smoke and chemical projectile. The 105 mm howitzer projectile is heavier and stronger thus better against hard targets. The M3 howitzer is better in direct fire mode. It is debatable which had the better High Explosive projectile: The Mortar had a higher explosive filler. However the real killer is generally fragmentation. The 105 mm projectile has superior fragmentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptLuke Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 2 hours ago, 17thfabn said: As FALightFighter said at some time after World War II the U.S. Army replaced the M3 105 mm howitzer equipped cannon companies with 4.2" ( four deuce} mortar companies. In the big war they were in separate chemical warfare battalions. There are pros and cons to both weapons: They mortar is much lighter. The M3 howitzer has better range and accuracy. The mortar has a better white phosphorous, smoke and chemical projectile. The 105 mm howitzer projectile is heavier and stronger thus better against hard targets. The M3 howitzer is better in direct fire mode. It is debatable which had the better High Explosive projectile: The Mortar had a higher explosive filler. However the real killer is generally fragmentation. The 105 mm projectile has superior fragmentation. Best of both worlds! The USMC M98 Howtar was the 4.2" mortar barrel on the carriage of a 75mm pack howitzer (Weight 1286 lbs; Maximum Range 4.5Km). By placing the 4.2 tube on the 75mm pack howitzer carriage, the weapon’s mobility increased, its stability improved, it was able to emplace quicker, its minimum range reduced and its accuracy improved. In the 1964 USMC Artillery Regiment TO&E, each direct support battalion had three batteries of 105mm howitzers plus a battery of M98s, so 18 total in the regiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 That sounds like a idea worth reviving, with a 120mm mortar tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 3 hours ago, 17thfabn said: As FALightFighter said at some time after World War II the U.S. Army replaced the M3 105 mm howitzer equipped cannon companies with 4.2" ( four deuce} mortar companies. In the big war they were in separate chemical warfare battalions. There are pros and cons to both weapons: They mortar is much lighter. The M3 howitzer has better range and accuracy. The mortar has a better white phosphorous, smoke and chemical projectile. The 105 mm howitzer projectile is heavier and stronger thus better against hard targets. The M3 howitzer is better in direct fire mode. It is debatable which had the better High Explosive projectile: The Mortar had a higher explosive filler. However the real killer is generally fragmentation. The 105 mm projectile has superior fragmentation. The M3 howitzer also had a HEAT round and some chance (even at just 1020ft/sec) of hitting something with it with four inches of penetration. But if your second last AT defence comes down to M3 howitzers (the last line being Bazookas), you are in a bit of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 53 minutes ago, shep854 said: That sounds like a idea worth reviving, with a 120mm mortar tube. After twelve years and a billion dollars of investment before it got into the field today? That is what it would take in today's 'climate'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 51 minutes ago, shep854 said: That sounds like a idea worth reviving, with a 120mm mortar tube. Towed heavy heavy mortars were use by the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1938_mortar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, DougRichards said: The M3 howitzer also had a HEAT round and some chance (even at just 1020ft/sec) of hitting something with it with four inches of penetration. But if your second last AT defence comes down to M3 howitzers (the last line being Bazookas), you are in a bit of trouble. Airborne units were forced on occasion to us their 75 mm pack howitzers against tanks. The M3 105 mm was a step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 10 minutes ago, 17thfabn said: Towed heavy heavy mortars were use by the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1938_mortar Besides the World War II era Soviet towed 120 MM mortars there have been plenty of more recent towed 120 mm mortars. Here is a recent USMC example: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19232/marine-corps-is-finished-with-its-long-troubled-lightweight-120mm-mortar-systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, 17thfabn said: Towed heavy heavy mortars were use by the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1938_mortar They also adopted howtar idea to a towed 120mm gun-mortar, which can use practically any mortar ammo and also proprietary high capacity HE shells. Plus they have all sorts of SP mounts for it (2S9, 2S23 etc). BTW, how did USMC manage to fucк up 120mm rifled mortar that is used by two dozen of countries for 60+ years already? Edited October 24, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, 17thfabn said: ... The Mortar had a higher explosive filler. However the real killer is generally fragmentation. The 105 mm projectile has superior fragmentation. HE filler/metal mass has some "golden ratio" that enables to get out most of the fragmentation and mortars are very close to that. Compared to that howitzers have larger fragments that are better vs light armor. Mortars also win fragments distribution game due the angle of impact as they have much more circular fragments distribution. Edited October 24, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 Usians dont do simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 7 hours ago, 17thfabn said: Besides the World War II era Soviet towed 120 MM mortars there have been plenty of more recent towed 120 mm mortars. Here is a recent USMC example: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19232/marine-corps-is-finished-with-its-long-troubled-lightweight-120mm-mortar-systems Yeah, I did think of the Marine Corps towed 120. It seemed like a 'howtar' with its carriage would have more flexibility than simple high-angle fire. A 120 would still be useful to the Marines, just not that guccy kludge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptLuke Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 (edited) On 10/23/2020 at 9:27 PM, 17thfabn said: Towed heavy heavy mortars were use by the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1938_mortar The towing part is similar but the recoil system is a differentiator. That makes the 2B16 (Nona-K) that Bojan posted a much better analog than the either the M1938 or the Thompson-Brandt rifled mortar that the USMC bought and, as has been pointed out, got rid of . . . USMC 4.2" mortars in Vietnam sometimes dug their baseplates deep into the soft earth / mud, which made them trickier to serve and also very difficult to displace. The Howtar, with it's recoil system, did not have this problem to nearly the same degree, which was much appreciated by the crews. The 2B16 added breech loading and low angle fire into the mix, thus capturing the advantages of the Howtar and adding a useful infantry gun capability, admittedly at the cost of extra complication compared to a "normal" towed 120mm option. @Bojan: the USMC screwed up the requirements for the V-22, then screwed up the requirements for the Expeditionary Fire Support System to fit into it, so much so that not only did they " . . . manage to fucк up 120mm rifled mortar that is used by two dozen of countries . . . " but they also managed to produce the most over-priced, under-performing 4x4 towing vehicle in the history of the United States military; that's right, they also fucked up building a jeep. The USMC was arguably the last of the US services to fall into the gold plated, buzzword driven, procurement hell hole of the Pentagon, but when they fell they fell hard: V-22, EFV, EFSS, and of course, the gift that keeps on giving, the F-35B. Edited October 25, 2020 by CaptLuke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 22 minutes ago, CaptLuke said: ...USMC 4.2" mortars in Vietnam sometimes dug their baseplates deep into the soft earth / mud, which made them trickier to serve and also very difficult to displace. The Howtar, with it's recoil system, did not have this problem to nearly the same degree, which was much appreciated by the crews. For the same reason, and for a reason of firing from a hard surfaces (rock, concrete) Yugoslav 120mm M52 mortar had recoil system. Recoil system also enabled very high RoF (25 rpm in emergency) and did not require relaying after each shot for accurate fire. M52 middle, Soviet M38 left, Romanian M38 copy right: Quote @Bojan: the USMC screwed up the requirements for the V-22, then screwed up the requirements for the Expeditionary Fire Support System to fit into it, so much so that not only did they " . . . manage to fucк up 120mm rifled mortar that is used by two dozen of countries . . . " but they also managed to produce the most over-priced, under-performing 4x4 towing vehicle in the history of the United States military; that's right, they also fucked up building a jeep. Mother of god... Why no one ended being shot or in Siberia Alaska? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Nona-K can even fire a HEAT round, good for 650mm @ 90 deg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now