jacobs_ladder2

That would be damning evidence indeed. However, I think the point Zaloga raises about the disappearance of the weapon from Russian TO&Es is sufficient evidence. I am sure the weapon still popped up from time to time in 1944 and even into 1945 (more than likely in partisan hands) but in general the RKKA turned its collective back on light mortars starting in 1942. Phasing out a weapon at platoon level would then take some time, but two years sounds about right. Also, why stop in 1943 when the war was still in full swing? If the 50mm were an important part of their arsenal then wouldn't they have at least waited until they were fighting on foreign soil to heave a sigh of relief and shut down production? Anyway. Just a few thoughts. Cheers Paul

Doesn't anyone use Google anymore? Here. </font>

S.m.K. Spitzgeschoss mit Kern armor piercing (AP) S.m.K.H. Spitzgeschoss mit Kern Hart AP w/tungsten carbide core Pointed round with core </font>

Hello Mr. Eikelenboom Does this mean you will be coming back to the virtual world? Or maybe even a return to OSF? Come on man. What's real life really have to offer? Take Care Paul

Folke, how can I contact you? This is slightly off topic but I think I have some maps you can use for your website? Also, I have a few questions about the wiki. Cheers Paul

From The Red Army Handbook by Zaloga: Mortar Production: 50mm: 1937-----------0 1938-----------0 1939--------1720 1940-------23105 1941-------28056 1942------104403 1943-------17584 1944-----------0 1945-----------0 Compared to the 82mm 1937--------1587 1938--------1188 1939--------1678 1940--------6700 1941-------18026 1942------100181 1943-------35032 1944--------2889 1945--------1000 The 50mm was phased out starting in December 1942. It had been eliminated from the Red Army two years later. Essentially, the weapon was believed to be the big help the Russian infantry needed (after the poor showing against Finland), but turned out to have marginal impact on the battlefield. The 120mm mortar at regimental level begins to enter the Red Army in significant numbers in 1941 and is mass produced through 1942 and 43. This appears to indicate a clear shift in thought away from platoon based mortars and towards heavier weapons at battalion and regimental levels. Cheers Paul

S.m.K. Spitzgeschoss mit Kern armor piercing (AP) S.m.K.H. Spitzgeschoss mit Kern Hart AP w/tungsten carbide core Pointed round with core </font>

What charts are you referring to here and where can I get them? They sound like a great source. Cheers Paul

Are modern mortars much different from their WWII counterparts? From what I have seen on the FAS website the modern mortar is generally much lighter and more accurate as well as having a range comparable to a WWII 81mm. The Russian 50mm mortar had a range of only a few hundred yards and lacked sufficient firepower to make an impression on the battlefield. According to Zaloga, the Red Army phased them out when they realized they were simply not worth the expense. Cheers Paul

Actually I'm glad you brought this up in this thread. In a separate thread I posted a link to this. The table mentions several different types of ammo for German small arms (or at least that is my undertanding of it). Unfortunately, I have never seen any of these abbreviations and am hard pressed to find a source of information explaining them to me. Cheers Paul

Interesting. Would a smaller round be more susceptible to deflection due to it's smaller weight? In other words, a larger shell (say 37mm or 45mm) simply will not bounce off as easily? Am I right in assuming this? Cheers Paul

That's the info I got from Chris Hare's penetration charts. </font>

From what I can tell they do withstand small arms fire...to a point. My question is, where is that point? Cheers Paul

Ah, I see. As you know, I've been looking at armoured cars and tankettes lately. I never realized just how vulnerable they are to MGs and small arms. JasonC, it seems to me (and please correct me if I am mistaken) that in your last few posts you are taking most of what I say as statements of fact when in fact they are anything but. I am not an expert and in fact visit these forums to ask for advice/help from people far more qualified than myself. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. Cheers Paul

I do have data for German small arms which I believe to be credible. How do Russian small arms stack up against their counterparts? Cheers Paul

Not sure. What did I say? So, for example, the BA-20 with 6mm armour in most places would be a sitting duck. I thought so. Not sure I understand you. The 30 degrees refers to the angle of the armour right? So in the first row a 7.92mm Patr SmK round will penetrate 8mm of sloped armour at 100m or 3mm at 500m. Is this not accurate? Also, what is the difference between Patr SmK, SmK, SmKH and Patr SmK Kurz? Cheers Paul

Just looking at a pretty decent site and came across this . It looks like it might be a good source of data, but I don't know enough to say for sure. MGs firing PmK ammo look pretty threatening to say the least. How often would they have a supply on hand? Cheers Paul

I am and it very well might be. Sounds like good reasoning to me. I guess (there's that word again ) it would all depend on the situation. Cheers Paul

Anyone know where I can get some decent numbers to nail down the effectiveness of infantry weapons against AFVs? I'm looking mostly at the 7.62mm DT and DP LMGs, the Maxim MMG and the DShK HMG, but I have most likely missed something. If you're wondering why, I'm trying to nail down the causes of German tank losses in 1941. Hint hint. Help. Paul

Like I said, in wide open spaces, this tactic could prove somewhat useful I suppose. Wartime experience would seem to indicate that far more often than not the scout vehicle wound up a target anyway, but dismounting did in all likelihood save some lives. My guess is that it would all depend on how much time you had and the kind of area you wanted to cover. In urban areas or other types of terrain with numerous hiding spots, if you were not supported by infantry, my guess is that you did not leave your vehicle except under exceptional circumstances. You see there are problems with ACs. They make noise, they have small crews and they are easily penetrated (as does/is my car ). In all likelihood, in urban or forested areas, your enemy will hear you coming and will be ready/hidden in ambush. In other words, if you can stay far enough away from the enemy that he can't hear you and still have decent LOS than great. In all other cases, I'd say it would be either suicide or highly inefficient to dismount. Cheers Paul [ March 27, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: jacobs_ladder2 ]

Now I'm lost. If 60-80% of casualties were from artillery and the vast majority of those casualties were from the infantry, where do these numbers come from? What I mean is, Operation Veritable aside, clearly a lot of soldiers were being converted to casualties by artillery. I would think that would be a given. Cheers Paul

Another question: This one concerns the lethality radius of artillery. After looking at the FAS site for a while I came across something interesting that I did not fully understand. That being, the effect of trajectory on the shape of the lethality radius. Let me sum up what I have learned and hopefully someone will tell me if I have it right. Obviously there are a few variables in play here, but generally, the higher the trajectory the more circular the blast area and the more centered the impact point. Also, a higher trajectory shell is more efficient because its blast hugs the ground while a large part of the blast of a lower trajectory shell will either go straight into the ground or up into the air. A mortar round relies more on fragmentation then do other shells because a mortar round is fin-stabilized and therefore loses a certain percentage of its length (therebye decreasing its possible payload). A regular artillery shell is spin-stabilized and therefore does not require fins (therebye enabling it to carry a larger payload). These two factors, to me, explain the 82mm mortar having roughly the same lethality radius as the 105mm howitzer. However, there is something I do not understand. The lethality radius refers to the effect of a round on a standing/unprotected person. So shells fired from both weapons should be equally effective against standing/unprotected infantry. However, it seems to me that an 82mm mortar could not be anywhere near as effective against a prone/protected soldier. Or rather, the lethality radius would shrink much faster for an 82mm mortar round as the amount of cover increased than it would for the 105mm howitzer. And since the majority of shells will be fired against prone/protected soldiers, the 82mm loses a great deal of its effect and is not truly as lethal as a 105mm shell. All of which is fine and dandy, but there is still the matter of surpression. Which weapon is better at keeping the enemies heads down? Which weapon is more damaging psychologically? Does the high fire rate of an 82mm mortar allow it to compensate for its decreased lethality against protected targets? Cheers Paul

I don't doubt that armoured car crews, or at least a member of the crew, were able to dismount and take a peak around the next corner, but think about how often this was probably done. My guess is next to never. It would defeat the purpose of motorized recon to have the crew jumping out and sneaking around the countryside every time there was a possible ambush. The reality is that scout vehicles were far more often than not targets of unseen weapons. Crappy for the scouts, but really a fact of life. I can picture a scenario in which someone will jump out of an armoured car, run up a short ways and maybe look around with binoculars from the top of a hill, but to have someone running and checking around every corner would take forever and in all likelihood would not decrease the danger even a little. Far more likely would be the death or capture of that crewmember(s). Well, my opinion anyways. Cheers Paul

Thanks for the link. One of these days I must really get around to taking a serious look at the Russian counterattack at Stalingrad. I would love to see how it evolved into something like what Mazulenko described. Cheers Paul

In a purely armoured match. The 45mm, however, was much more effective against infantry. I would still give more than the edge to the Germans throughout 1941-42, but not because of the higher firing rate of the 20mm. I would give them the edge because of far superior C&C on every level. Russian armoured vehicles pretty much fought on their own or in bunched up groups/easy targets. I wish I could post the picture I have of a burned out group of a company of T-26 tanks. They are all within a 40-50m rectangle in wide open ground. Turrets are turned perpendicular to the bodies. Side armour and turret penetrations, probably, every last one. An entire company knocked out before they could even turn to face their opponents. Ouch. Cheers Paul