Light Mortars

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

BTW ... anyone notice how many men there are in that 2-in. mtr crew?

Uh, three? Well, you know how those Canuckistanians are always showing off.</font>

[blue division]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On the other hand, in real life machinegun bullets go right through smoke...

Really?

Your joking!

[blue division]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The BREN was a super mobile medium machinegun of mythical proportions. And the best light machinegun also too (Of course).

Spoke to someone who did their National Service and trained on the BREN - the idea was it was to be used to assault strong points.

For defence, you relied on the Vickers when you could.

The BREN was renowned for its accuracy - very easy to fire 3-round bursts with a high degree of accuracy (it was common for the 3 rounds to go through the same hole in the target). As I said, ideal for assaulting bunkers, MG nests.

The BREN was born out of the experiences of the British Army in World War I, just as the 2" mortar was - the infantry needed weapons that could keep up with them to provide some form of support whether it was an accurate automatic rifle or a portable mortar that was capable of laying a small smoke screen to support the infantry when they were under fire.

[ May 04, 2005, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by blue division:

The BREN was renowned for its accuracy - very easy to fire 3-round bursts with a high degree of accuracy (it was common for the 3 rounds to go through the same hole in the target).

LOL. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole, are we? I take it you refer to a fairly large hole at fairly close range. The Bren was indeed accurate...for a machine gun. But if you mean to say that each bullet passes through the same bullet hole at say, 100 meters, I feel obliged to point out that such a feat would be difficult even using a match rifle.

Michael

[Wartgamer]

No, you do not understand. each BREN bullet will pass through the same hole +/-0.001". Happened all the time. So the CW was forced to issue extra caffienated tea so that the mighty BREN gunners would get the jitters and therefore introduce some dispersion. It was called BREN-BREW.

Everyone knows that.

The STEN was credited with 408 confirmed downed Luftwaffe bombers also.

[Wartgamer]

According to the caption, the troops in the foreground are 2" mortar crews, which just layed the screen for the infantry deployed on the slope. That appears to be an effective screen. Far better than anything I could have created in CM.

The screen is effective because it is in a valley of sorts (trapped). It also appears to be a favorable wind that is blowing across the front line. It would be interesting to see video of a 2 inch laying smoke. How long it takes to develop/etc.

The 2 inch smoke round was 2 pounds? What point is being made? That smoke in general is under modeled or that another CW weapon has additional uber-properties?

The US 60mm may not have had a smoke round till late in the war or not at all (till Korea). The US troops would have to rely on WP hand/rifle grenades or more than likely 81mm WP.

[ May 04, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[flamingknives]

Taken from John Salt's Summaries of War Office documents:

WO 32/10577 Tactical employment of smoke

This table gives "No. to produce 500 yards screen in 10 m.p.h. wind on a cloudy day. On a bright sunny

day or with low or high winds, expenditure of ammunition may have to be appreciably increased."

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">25 pdr BES 3 candles, burn for 1½ mins 2 rds/min

4.2" mortar 25 lbs WP, 3,000 yds 6 bombs/min (theoretical)

3" mortar WP, 1,600 yds 10 bombs/min

2" mortar 2 mins emission 500 yds 9 bombs/min

3" AFV howitzer 1500 yds 3 rds/min

2" bomb thrower 2lb smoke mixture 150 yds being replaced by WP

4" smoke discharger 3½ lbs smoke mixture 90 yds lighter AFVs only</pre>

[blue division]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blue division:

The BREN was renowned for its accuracy - very easy to fire 3-round bursts with a high degree of accuracy (it was common for the 3 rounds to go through the same hole in the target).

LOL. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole, are we? I take it you refer to a fairly large hole at fairly close range. The Bren was indeed accurate...for a machine gun. But if you mean to say that each bullet passes through the same bullet hole at say, 100 meters, I feel obliged to point out that such a feat would be difficult even using a match rifle.

Michael </font>

[Wartgamer]

Blue, what weapons experience (if any) do you have? Even at a 25 meter range, it would not be common with semiauto.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Blue, what weapons experience (if any) do you have? Even at a 25 meter range, it would not be common with semiauto.

Please read the post, otherwise this gets pointless.

It is the experience of someone I know during their National Serivec in the UK. The target was OBVIOUSLY placed close to the firer - how close I don't know. The situation was they were being trained in firing the weapon - specifically how to hold the weapon and fire a short controlled burst. The idea was to get all the bullets going through a single hole - a simple challenge for the conscript.

As for your weapons experience, I don't know or care. Doubtless you fire weapons every day as a hobby - I can't say this is particularly interesting for me. Are there not some guns forums out there to debate this?

[Michael Emrys]

Why don't you think for a moment before posting obvious balderdash that you then have to embarrass yourself further by defending. And then don't post crap that you don't know anything about.

Michael

[Wartgamer]

Indeed. Nothing worse than CW baloney covered up with lots of CW malarkey-sauce.

Same goes for STEN guns firing full auto and hitting targets at 300 meters. Thats SAW capability.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Why don't you think for a moment before posting obvious balderdash that you then have to embarrass yourself further by defending. And then don't post crap that you don't know anything about.

Michael

Please read my first response and apply it to yourself. If you want to debate guns - go to a guns forum.

And my post is correct - so please know what you are talking about before insulting me.

This forum is not the place to troll or insult people - if you think it is, go elsewhere.

I notice that you have posted thousands of times - I hope that they have not been as denigrating and badly informed as this last one.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I'm curious about how you use smoke in defending.

Michael

One thing a lot of people don't realize about smoke is that you can see someone coming through it before they can see you. In the standard white smoke you will see the dark outline of troops or vehicles coming about to emerge from the screen. Of course it has to be a sunny day but it can give you a split second advantage. Meanwhile, those coming through the smoke are blind.

If conditions are right it can give you a lot of the same benefits as a reverse slope defense.

[blue division]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I'm curious about how you use smoke in defending.

Michael

One thing a lot of people don't realize about smoke is that you can see someone coming through it before they can see you. In the standard white smoke you will see the dark outline of troops or vehicles coming about to emerge from the screen. Of course it has to be a sunny day but it can give you a split second advantage. Meanwhile, those coming through the smoke are blind.

If conditions are right it can give you a lot of the same benefits as a reverse slope defense. </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Indeed. Nothing worse than CW baloney covered up with lots of CW malarkey-sauce.

Same goes for STEN guns firing full auto and hitting targets at 300 meters. Thats SAW capability.

If that refers to the WO document quoted in 'Salt's snippets', then it's a misrepresentation. It was 300m and then going through a couple of pine boards and an average 90% zone of 5.5" at 25yds, extrapolating from shoots at varying range. At 300yds that's 5'6". The Bren shoots 4'1".

[Wartgamer]

Ive fired a M16 at full auto at 20m, 50m and 100m. I really do not care what 'John Salt' extrapolates.

[flamingknives]

Good for you, but I must point out that those figures are what the War Office extrapolate. John Salt merely summarised it.

Those figures are for a weapon rested, on a range, with a backsight not usually found on the weapon (as it was not intended to be fired at that range). One would expect lesser performance for an unrested weapon, and futher tests give a 10.4" 90% zone at 25yds for unrested burst firing

[Wartgamer]

Yeah I guess a M16 could be put in a vise attached to a steel table also. Maybe some wheels with chocks?

[flamingknives]

Actually, the term was rested, so I'm guessing sandbags.

But, if you were comparing inherent accuaracy, you would put both weapons in a clamp of some description.

[MikeyD]

"The US troops would have to rely on WP hand/rifle grenades or more than likely 81mm WP."

Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but is white phospherous smoke something a soldier would be willing to walk through? Not particularly good on the lungs, that stuff. U.S. Shermans fired HC smoke, mostly, which doesn't burn hot. Thermite would be even worse stuff to breathe in, I'd imagine.

What do the real ex-soldiers on the board say. Ever walked through WP or HC smoke? What's the difference?

[Wartgamer]

Actually the point is that it was tested in a way it was not used. And I doubt the accuracy anyway.

[Wartgamer]

Most 'smoke' is noxious in enclosed spaces like buildings. And Shermans fired WP more than most other obscurants.

[flamingknives]

So you'd never rest a weapon in the field?

IIRC, that study was bought up to indicate that a SMG was both dangerous and mildly accurate at ranges considered extreme for such a weapon. To exaggerate a position and then defeat the distorted version is known as a strawman

[Wartgamer]

To use hyperbole as fact is CW-Baloney. Served with a pinch of 'Salt' does not make it any more palatable.