chris@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Graham) (07/06/89)
From: chris@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Graham) How effective are mortar rounds against tanks? And what kinds of tanks/APCs would mortars be effective against. I believe that tank armor is a lot lighter at the top than around the sides.
pierson@cimnet.dec.com (07/07/89)
From: pierson@cimnet.dec.com In article <7986@cbnews.ATT.COM>, chris@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Graham) writes... > How effective are mortar rounds against tanks? And what kinds of tanks/APCs >would mortars be effective against. I believe that tank armor is a lot lighter >at the top than around the sides. Not very, I think. Assuming conventional 60mm/80mm mortars, two reasons come to mind: 1) The fire control problem. If the tank/afv is in motion, it will be nearly impossible to hit with a high angle/long time of flight projectile. 2) I don't know of any "armor piercing" mortar projectiles. Even "thin" armor (does 2" sound right, for top of hull?) will require an AP of some sort. (OK, they could be built...). That said, hits on the engine compartment/external stores might be effective, however the fire control problem is still large. Historical interlude: ca 1890/1900 "seacoast mortars", typically around 12", were popular for coast defense. The objective was to shells drop onto the lightly (some times un) armored deck of battleships, etc. The fire control problems were complex, and the targets less able to change direction rapidly than modern AFV's. =================== Someone inquired about tracers. Small hollow in base of projectile (bullet or shell, as appropriate. First goes some illuminating mix, to make the visible trail. This is lit off by a "dark fire" which delays ignition so the round is clear of the gun, burns where its needed, and (for ground use) avoids making the weapon position obvious. This is topped off with "primer" or "first fire", which is lit by the propellant gasses. (The layers light off in the reverse order from that that I have named.) Mix of tracer was, "variable" sometimes being loaded to suit the mission, sometimes fixed. I believe one typical mix was one in five rounds were tracer. thanks dave pierson |The facts, as accurately as I can manage. Digital Equipment Corp |The opinions, my own. 600 Nickerson Rd Marlboro, Mass 01742
gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) (07/08/89)
From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) There is some work being done on what are called brilliant mortor rounds for anti tank work. They are essentially a shell with a target distinguishing system in the nose, and control veins along the sides. The Mortor is fired at an on coming column. The round gets to altitude and starts attempting to track a tank. If it finds one, then it homes on the radar reflection (supposedly ignoring ground clutter) and hits the top of the tank. Apparently, successful tests have been completed, but the rounds are expensive. GAH!
allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) (07/11/89)
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) I think mortars are probably more effective vs armor than the posting by Dave Pierson about armor penetrating ability would suggest. He concentrates on what happens to a tank if a mortar round lands diectly on the top armor. Whether or not this will penetrate, having it explode against the outside of the relatively thin top armor may do damage on the inside by spalling and concussion, particularly in the case of the larger mortars, 120mm +. You'll get the kind of effect that HESH shells are optimized for, although to a lesser degree. But that is probably not the primary damage that mortar shelling is likely to do to tanks. You're going to see some tracks knocked off, and casualties to exposed crews. I remember reading that most casualties to tankers in WWII occured when they weren't protected by armor, with crewmembers caught by shelling in the majority of the time when they are eating, sleeping, doing maintainance, just waiting around, etc. Then there are hits on the gratings over the engine compartment with the possibility of an engine kill, and on vision blocks and periscopes, antennas, external MGs, and things like that which will cause the tank problems without knocking it out. There's good reason to target mortars at tanks if you don't have more vulnerable targets to hit or if the mortars are the heaviest thing available. It will at least keep the tankers uncomfortable. Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
military@cbnews.UUCP (08/15/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <8129@cbnews.ATT.COM>, allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) writes: > > From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) > (much about engaging tanks with mortars:) Ed, technically I agree with you on the use of mortars vs tanks. At least it will keep the crews buttoned up (limit visibility) and destroy their sleeping bags and MRE cases (C-rations) in the bustle rack - knock off antennas (antenni?) and give the crews headaches. And if that's all you've got - then fire away (throw in a few rounds of smoke and white phosphorous, too). [mod.note: "Antennas" or "antennae" are both correct. - Bill ] Tactically, however, I would think that the tanks are accompanied by infantry (they should be) and the mortars should engage them (infantry, AFVs, thin-skin vehicles) first. And, if the mortars are part of a 'combined arms team' there should be some Direct Support Artillery around (155mm) that can engage the tanks with Dual-Purpose ICM (improved conventional munition), that are tank-defeating rounds. Then, of course, there's always the TOW-Cobras and A-10s loitering around waiting for targets. Personally, I wouldn't engage tanks with mortars - it might make them very angry at me. But, if all I had to engage tanks with were mortars, I shouldn't be there in the first place. :-) :-) mms
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (09/06/89)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) Mike Schmitt probably writes: | Personally, I wouldn't engage tanks with mortars - it might make them | very angry at me. But, if all I had to engage tanks with were mortars, | I shouldn't be there in the first place. :-) :-) Once upon a time, I was a lowly lance-corporal in the canajan farces, being taught about the 60mm mortar. The instructor commented that they were also used as a flat-trajectory weapon mounted in the turret of a then-current british scout car.... When we got to the range to actually fire the little creature at a very dead ex-tank, it became obvious that at the short ranges we were firing at (150-250m) it was "too easy" to hit the tank using vertical trajectory. So we asked the instructor if we could try firing flat trajectory. After being **real** sure we had the spade base well dug in, he handed us three bombs with all the boosters still attached, and told us to try and hit the tracks. After bouncing several rounds across the ground (!) and making dust clouds in front of the tank, we got the third bomb to fly all the way to the tracks... and watched the track split. We had a very productive afternoon of blowing the tracks up: about two out of three people could break a link within three bombs. Of course, we were shooting at the **side** of the tank, not the front of the track. Tactically, this amounted to disabling a tank that was either right on your lines or just inside them: a serious annoyance to the people that the tank was parked amoung. Not to mention that they probably wouldn't like their own troops firing mortars three feet over their heads! --dave ps: the 60 mm is fired by pushing a little lever on the side, not merely dropping a bomb down the barrel. Presumably the scout-car version had some sort of breech-loading scheme as well. -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.