US 60mm versus British 50.8mm mortars

[Runyan99]

Based on CMAK data I noticed something interesting about these light mortars. The American 60mm has a range of more than 1800m, while the slightly smaller British mortar has a range of just 460m.

Why are the ranges of these weapons so different, and what accounts for the it?

[flamingknives]

The US 60mm is a proper mortar, with bipod and significant baseplate, while the 2" mortar is a one man portable weapon and as such cannot have such a large charge. The firing mechnism for the 2" is different too, which accounts for it's lack of minimum range.

[Kozure]

The British 2" mortar looks almost like a children's toy - although by all accounts it was a fairly effective weapon for what it was trying to be, and certainly shouldn't be derided - it played an important role in detonating the ammunition stores of one of the batteries attacked by Commandos during the Dieppe raid.

The launch tube is only about 18"-24" long (going from visual comparison to photos of soldiers using it, not from any specific technical source)

, if that, and the bombs themselves were small enough to pack into the utility pouches carried on the front of the individual soldier's webbing. It was issued one to each platoon and was manned by two men assigned to the platoon headquarters section.

If memory serves, a 2" mortar or variants thereof actually remained in front-line British service until the late 1970s.

[flamingknives]

AFIAK, the British army currently use a 51mm mortar which is an updated version of the 2".

The 2" mortar weighs in at 19lb, complete, while the 60mm mortar, ready to fire, weighs in at 42lbs

[Michael Dorosh]

2 inch mortars could be used to fire from one house to another - the minimum range was very minimal indeed. The 60mm couldn't be used that way.

[flamingknives]

In the 60mm, the shell had to drop onto the pin at the base of the barrel in order to fire. The 2" fired using a trigger, so it could, and was on occasion, be fired horizontally.

[Michael Dorosh]

Incidentally, Canada uses a modified version of the WW II 60mm mortar (the airborne version - M19?) which was smaller than the standard infantry 60mm. They are issued one per infantry platoon, as part of the platoon Weapons Det along with the 84mm Carl Gustav and C6 GPMG. Not sure why they replaced the 2 inch, but I am guessing standardization of ammunition throughout NATO.

[Kozure]

Strange that the British Army still uses the 2" (51mm) mortar - I would've thought by now that they'd all be replaced by the underslung grenade launcher UGL. Does the UGL use the same 40mm round as the M203 (I know it does use a 40mm round - just wondering if it's the same one) ?

I wonder if anyone is complaining about the loss of range from the 51mm to the UGL - 750m vs. 350m - vs the gain in not having to carry rounds which are quite as heavy.

Any anecdotes out there?

[Paco QNS]

The british 2" mortar was a licensed copy of the spanish "Valero" 50 mm mortar, designed by the infantry Captain Vicente Valero de Bernabé y Casañez. He associated with the industrialist Juan Esperanza Salvador, funding in 1925 the society "Esperanza y Cía”, builder of the later ECIA mortars.

An article on the grenade of the spanish original mortar, and its inertial fuze is here:

Granada de mortero Valero de 50 mm

Though, the british ammo used a different fuze, and impact one. During the SCW there were also variants with impact fuzes in the Valero mortars -both the 50 and 81 mm-).

Another photo os the Seville variant of the 50 mm Valero mortar is here.

[flamingknives]

The UGL in British army service is the Heckler and Koch AG36. AFAIK this uses any 40mm LV grenade, including the US grenades. The benefit is that, as it breaks open, there's no limit to projectile length.

I've heard that the 51mm mortar had been replaced, but it's still listed as being army kit.

[Michael Dorosh]

Canada uses both the M203 (6 per platoon) and the 60mm; clearly there is a tactical role for both given the previous range considerations.

[Paco QNS]

A few excerpts from:

Mortars between the wars - by WL Ruffell

The original 2-inch mortar featured a large base plate and collimating sights with elevation and cross-level bubbles but experience soon brought modifications. Subsequent marks carried much smaller base plates and dispensed with sights. Laying was by eye and judgement, the sole aid being a white line painted on the barrel. The shortness of the barrel precluded the use of the Stokes principle for firing so a small trigger (or trip) mechanism was provided at the breech. The standard projectile was a HE bomb with an impact fuze in the nose and a four-finned tail unit with a single primary cartridge.

Few other nations adopted 5-cm mortars; notable exceptions were Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union. Performances were comparable with the British 2-inch but all were heavier and were mounted on bipods as orthodox types of greater calibre. By the end of the war they had largely ceased to be employed.

An interesting example of a foreign 5-cm mortar was the German 'granatwerfer' (literally 'grenade-thrower') Model 1936. Tests on a captured specimen carried out in Britain in 1941 prompted the report that it was 'well-constructed and easy to operate but the degree of accuracy is unnecessarily high!' Surely this must be the first time any weapon was ever classed as too accurate!

Other nations, including China, France, Spain, and the United States, adopted 6-cm mortars based on a French design. The 6-cm mortar was a much heavier equipment than the 5-cm, with a maximum range of 1640 yards (1500 m). Not only was the 6-cm too heavy for platoon use, but the maximum range was too great for a platoon's needs. They all looked pretty much alike ...

((Here the author is mistaken regarding the spanish mortars: from thirties till fifties, the Valero 50 mm outnumbered vastly the Valero 60 mm. They were replaced with the mortero ECIA de 60 mm, during the sixties decade.))

spanischer 5 cm Granatwerfer Ecia

[Sanok]

Can the 60mm mortar round be struck against something hard and thrown like a grenade, as was shown in Saving Private Ryan, or was that just Hollywood?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sanok:

Can the 60mm mortar round be struck against something hard and thrown like a grenade, as was shown in Saving Private Ryan, or was that just Hollywood?

Yes. There are at least two WWII U.S. Medal of Honor accounts that describe that activity. Arm it, bang it, heave it, and bum out some Japanese or Germans close by.

-dale

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Paco QNS:

An interesting example of a foreign 5-cm mortar was the German 'granatwerfer' (literally 'grenade-thrower') Model 1936. Tests on a captured specimen carried out in Britain in 1941 prompted the report that it was 'well-constructed and easy to operate but the degree of accuracy is unnecessarily high!' Surely this must be the first time any weapon was ever classed as too accurate!

when I was in the infantry in hte late 70's-early 80's we still used Bren guns as "substitute standard" for FN MAG's, and they were often "proudly condemned" as being far too accurate for a proper machine gun - being moer use for killing people at long range than laing down fire to keep their heads down!!

fortunately I never had to test the theory!!

[Lord Harmes]

The SA80 was so accurate when it came into service that the army had change their marksmanship tests!!!

[SpitfireXI]

I get the impression that the 2'motar is light as well and was made that way so they can follow the other infantry men on the attack. So is it innacurate that in CMAK they are always lagging far behind from their platoon leader and squad?

[flamingknives]

A 2' mortar? Crikey! (I hate missing the shift key).

The 2" mortar can run, which helps it keep up, but IMHO, it tires too quickly. The Mortar and two bombs weighs about the same as an unloaded Bren gun.

[Denwad]

of course it's 20 rounds split between 2 guys

[flamingknives]

So 22.5 lbs of ammo each, plus an 19lb mortar for one of them

[Sailor Malan]

The 2" mortar (sorry, 51mm) was still in use in the British Army in 2001, since I saw it used at a firepower demonstration on Salisbury Plain. 2 of them produced a smoke screen say 200m long in about 6 or 8 rounds at c 400m range, very quickly (less than 30 secs I would say). Since the ground dipped from the firing point and then rose again, they were firing only 30deg or so from the horizontal (definitely not in the upper register). Very light, and versatile weapon.

[Mr. Tittles]

Did it fire WP in WWII?

[flamingknives]

There was only an experimental WP round.

[Paco QNS]

In Re to SailorM:

The 2" mortar (sorry, 51mm) was still in use in the British Army in 2001, since I saw it used at a firepower demonstration on Salisbury Plain. 2 of them produced a smoke screen say 200m long in about 6 or 8 rounds at c 400m range, very quickly (less than 30 secs I would say). Since the ground dipped from the firing point and then rose again, they were

firing only 30deg or so from the horizontal (definitely not in the upper register). Very light, and versatile weapon.

the 51mm mortar is not the same weapon as the classic 2" . Can´t say what weapon was used in that demo, but find doubtful it was the old.

------------------------------------------------

Question for flamingknives :

So 22.5 lbs of ammo each, plus an 19lb mortar for one of them

Don´t you forget the weight of the ammo box (or containers), the proyection charges box, the tool box, the mouthcover, the cleaning tools...

((almost sure I forget something)).

-- Yes! A handgun at least for one and a knife for the other. --

------------------------------------------------

The British Army "Light Mortar Competition"

In the early thirties the British Army had the Stokes 3" mortar -produced by Vickers- as the company indirect fire support weapon, but they felt the need for a lighter mortar. Something as a grenade-launcher, since the reglamentary rifle grenade, model 54, was judged unsatisfactory.

Rules were set and the candidates were:

(1) A 2,5" mortar presented by the Birmingham Small Arms Company ;

(2) one or two more mortars in the same 2,5" caliber;

(3) a spigot model, designed by our old friend, the Lt-Col Blacker. His invention was retired, due to the complexity of the ammo. ((In a month´s time he retried with several corrections and get a contract for the Parnall Aircraft Company to produce a model with 60 or 70 grenades to test it. No further notice -AFAIK- till the frantic 1940 months of the Home Guard race to find anything lethal enough. Then his babies reborn as the

Spigot Mortar Emplacements in the United Kingdom.

Even Today, they survive as structures near Eckington Bridge, WorcesterShire and Pershore Bridge, Worcs )). The rest, is history (the experiments lightening the Blacker´s bombard, and finally the PIAT).

and the winner in the mortar competition wasss... -after comparative trials in late 1937-

4) the spanish "Valero"/Ecia 50mm mortar. In fact, A mortar have been bought to experiment with it around 1934. With several improvements to easier its production, an initial run-up was ordered in November 1937 to test in units. It included ten mortars with 1.600 HE grenades and another 1.600 smoke ones. (( ""gases"" in the original,-that is fumes or gas grenades-, but I´m certain they were smoke ammo)).

The units tests went well, and in February 1938 the Master General of the Ordnance ordered a first serial production of 500 mortars and their ammo, whith no more delays.

Source is "Grenades and mortars", by Ian V. Hogg -indirectly via the following paragraphs/links-.

-------------------------------------------------

Al mismo tiempo, en el ejército británico estaba en servicio el modelo Stokes de 3" y seguían buscando algo más ligero como suplemento de las granadas de fusil. En el período entre las dos guerras la granada reglamentaria en el ejército británico era la 54, modelo no del todo satisfactorio y se pensó que un mortero ligero, como alguien lo llamó un

"lanzagranadas", sería un elemento de utilidad para el pelotón de infantería. Durante la década de los años treinta se estudiaron varios diseños; hacia 1934 se compró y experimentó un modelo español, el mortero Ecia de 50 mm.

Otro competidor en este campo fue el lanzagranadas presentado por el teniente coronel Blacker. Este hombre fue un extraordinario protagonista del "mortero de espiga", sistema en el que el elemento director del mortero estaba constituido por un vástago sólido de acero y el proyectil tenía la cola hueca la que se deslizaba por el citado vástago para efectuar

la carga. El cartucho estaba situado dentro de esta cola y al producirse el disparo, la expansión de los gases proyectaba la granada siguiendo la dirección de la espiga; unas de las ventajas principales que se adujeron fue que la construcción de los tubos constituía probablemente el mayor retraso en la fabricación de armamento y al reemplazarlo por algo tan simple como una espiga de acero, se mejorarían las posibilidades de aprovisionamiento en tiempo de guerra. También tenía la de que, siempre que el interior del tubo tuviese las dimensiones correctas, el resto de la bomba carecía de importancia, pudiendo dispararse Proyectiles de cualquier tamaño o forma desde una misma espiga. Sin embargo, el proyecto fue rechazado pues, aunque el arma en sí resultase relativamente sencilla, el modelo de bomba que Blacker presentó fue considerado demasiado complicado.

Antes de un mes Blacker volvió a la carga con una serie de diseños que refutaron con muchas de las objeciones y se dio un contrato a la Parnall Aircraft Company para producir un arma con 60 o 70 granadas para pruebas.

También se presentó un mortero de 2,5" de calibre realizado por la Birmingham Small Arms Company, más uno o dos más aproximadamente del mismo calibre y hacia finales de 1937 se llevó a cabo una prueba comparativa con todos los modelos disponibles.

El español Ecia demostró ser superior a todos los demás y el departamento de proyectos militares propuso algunas modificaciones con el fin de simplificar la fabricación. Una vez introducidas éstas, se encargaron diez morteros con 1.600 granadas rompedoras y 1.600 de gases para ser ensayados en las unidades en noviembre de 1937. El resultado de estas pruebas fue la confirmación de que el proyecto era perfecto y en febrero de 1938 el Director de Artillería, responsable de la adquisición de armamento, decidió hacer un pedido de 500 morteros junto con la necesaria munición sin esperar más

evaluaciones ni discusiones.

-------------------------------------------------

BTW, anyone who read that book (and spanish fluent) will find it familiar, up to the point to "suspect" if the Coronel Ian V. Hogg uses as an alias: Marcello Francini .

I´m going to post-in-the-guessbook of the following webpage (or wrote to the webmaster),

E. Fontenla, to test if he has been framed, and he is in a good-faith unknowledge.

IMO, it´s either a fragant case of plagiarism, in the worst case, and abusive "clipping"-without-giving-credit in the

milder. :mad: :mad:

The Ballantine edition of Hogg´s "Grenades and mortars" was edited in Spain by the Editorial San Martín, excelent book.

Francisco Sánchez

P.S.

Does anyone knows a web address for Mr Hogg? -provided he still alives-

[Sanok]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Can the 60mm mortar round be struck against something hard and thrown like a grenade, as was shown in Saving Private Ryan, or was that just Hollywood?

Yes. There are at least two WWII U.S. Medal of Honor accounts that describe that activity. Arm it, bang it, heave it, and bum out some Japanese or Germans close by.

-dale </font>