taliban vs 105mm HE

[greyrider]

taliban vs 105mm HE

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=165885&page=1

finally, i was able to find a vid of a 105mm howitzer, loading and shooting.
now, how many seconds does it take to load a 5 inch gun people?
what was that rfb and rub? how many?
looks like the devs got it right, and rub didnt.:lol:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What's the point of this thread?

[piersyf]

Be careful comparing artillery systems. Even something as minor as the direction a breach block opens can effect firing rates. FYI, the difference in projectile weight for 105mm to 127mm is almost double (depending on ammo type). Second, the std crew for a 105mm is about 5 guys, 2 of which are dedicated ammo handlers. While you can get that many involved on a sub, I don't think it was all that common to do so. Third, the arty guys weren't standing on a rolling deck. Finally, the burst rate for a 105 is as high as 7 or 8 rounds per minute, but the sustained rate is much lower. I'm ex artillery, and I know which system would be the easier to work. The 5 inch on an exposed, rolling deck would be a bitch. If you find a vid of a 5" gun shooting sustained rates from the deck of a sub you may have a stronger argument

P

[Nisgeis]

Second, the std crew for a 105mm is about 5 guys, 2 of which are dedicated ammo handlers. While you can get that many involved on a sub, I don't think it was all that common to do so.

The ammunition for the deck gun was in either ammunition lockers near the gun and in the torpedo rooms (depending on how many torpedoes you wanted to trade for gun ammunition). To get the ammunition from the torpedo room to the deck gun required a chain of men passing the shells.

Then, you have the gun crew proper. If you take a look at http://www.valoratsea.com/ which is a website that deals with the submarine war in the pacific, you can look up the gun stats. I will check in my books as well, as it's extremely dangerous to rely on only one source! But, I don't have access to them right now. Valor at Sea says that the 5"/25 deck gun had a crew of at least eight. Link is here: http://www.valoratsea.com/538.htm. Extract is:

While the submarine was primarily a torpedo platform, there were occasions when alternate weapons were necessary. Rapid submergence with the approach of an enemy aircraft was the best defense against an aerial attack, but when a quick dive was unable to be made, anti-aircraft guns were needed. In addition, attacks against smaller enemy vessels such as sampans or barges was also generally carried out with a sub's deck guns. The largest weapon carried aboard a US submarine was the 5 inch 25 caliber (MK40) cannon. Housed on a moveable mount, submarines located these weapons abaft of the cigarette deck.

This weapon was as efficient in laying down a barrage of anti-aircraft fire as it was in delivering salvos during shore or vessel bombardments. Semi-automatic and rapid firing, it allowed the crew to fire an average of 10 to 15 rounds per minute. This cannon was capable of sending a 54 pound projectile 18,000 yards and possessed a maximum aerial range of six miles.

GUN CREW

Pointer

Trainer
Sight-setter
Gun Captain
Fuse-setter
Hot Shellman
Loaders



Note on the above - sometimes two 5/25" guns were mounted on a submarine, one forward and one aft, although that was rare and only in the last year of the war. Even the 20mm gun had a crew of three or four and the single 40mm gun had a crew of four.

I'll check with my references when I get home too and post if they are different.


Edit: Greyrider, if you don't like the gun fire rate, how about changing it yourself with S3D? There should be some info on how to do it in the mods forum.

[AVGWarhawk]

taliban vs 105mm HE

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=165885&page=1

finally, i was able to find a vid of a 105mm howitzer, loading and shooting.
now, how many seconds does it take to load a 5 inch gun people?
what was that rfb and rub? how many?
looks like the devs got it right, and rub didnt.:lol:
Yes, I noticed the undulating waves and swells under their howitzer. They look very stable considering all the waves and swells. I also noticed the had to re-aim the weapon as the deck of their submarine that looks strangly like solid ground was moving up and down. Interesting. :hmm:

Come on guy, how does this simulate how it is on a moving submarine firing at another moving vessel.

[Nisgeis]

I can't find any other sources of info that state the firing rates of 5"/25 guns, but the gun crew number seems to match. The only reference to firing rates in combat conditions I was able to find was one account against a fast moving craft that was causing the fire control party tracking problems. The rate of fire for that encounter was 71 shells from two 5"/25 guns in 39 mins, so that's less than one a minute. The firing rate mentioned on the Valor at Sea, if it's the manufacturers figure, is likely to be the test firing rate, with all things perfect on a stable platform, firing at a stationary target (or no target at all). You'd have to factor in the barrel overheating into the mix as well at that rate. If I happen to read any more patrol reports, I'll keep an eye out for timings of gun actions and rounds expended. But for the time being, and after some research, the RFB rates seem quite generous.

[Trex]

Just one comment on the clip, as an aside from the conversation. I suspect the gunners are so elated because it is rare for land artillery to fire an operational fire mission and be able to immediately see the results.

piersyf - A question to you as an ex-gunner. Given the Taliban's fondness for mortars and rockets, I was a little surprised at the lack of a close-in wall of sandbags or something to protect gun and crew. Any thoughts on that?

[kurtz]

I'm talking off the top of my head here, but I believe US and UK ordnance of WWII used seperate Shot/propellant rather than the German (and the 105s) single shell system...maybe that's just the bigger guns though?

[NEON DEON]

taliban vs 105mm HE

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=165885&page=1

finally, i was able to find a vid of a 105mm howitzer, loading and shooting.
now, how many seconds does it take to load a 5 inch gun people?
what was that rfb and rub? how many?
looks like the devs got it right, and rub didnt.:lol:
Yes, I noticed the undulating waves and swells under their howitzer. They look very stable considering all the waves and swells. I also noticed the had to re-aim the weapon as the deck of their submarine that looks strangly like solid ground was moving up and down. Interesting. :hmm:

Come on guy, how does this simulate how it is on a moving submarine firing at another moving vessel.


What I did not notice was the scuttle 12 feet away from the non business end of the gun.;)

Also it was just an arty piece not designed to be DP (fast loading for AA purposes)

[Trex]

I'm talking off the top of my head here, but I believe US and UK ordnance of WWII used seperate Shot/propellant rather than the German (and the 105s) single shell system...maybe that's just the bigger guns though?

The Germans always seemed to prefer cases, even for very large guns. I've seen some which must be 16" or better.

In current useage, the 105mm is semi-fixed, meaning that it has a brass or steel case with a number of charge bags. Depending on range, type of projectile, etc, the gunners take out and discard a given number of bags according to a firing table before the inserting the projectile into the case. The other three standard NATO ones are 155mm, 175mm and 203mm. The 175 is just about history and few use the 203mm either. None of these use a case - the projectile is inserted into the breach first, then charge bags are added. Finally, after the breach block is closed, a small primer is inserted, much like a small arms cartridge, to ignite the propellent.

Prior to NATO standardization, there were a plethora of different guns, from 37mm on up. Some used semi-fixed, some did not. The standard British field gun, the 25-pounder, was semi-fixed, as was the US 105mm howitzer. The 37mm and 57mm antitank guns used fixed ammo - the cartridge came fully assemled.

Hope that is of some help.

[piersyf]

Hi Trex. Can't really comment with any certainty regarding protection for the gun and crew, but will try to give an overview from my perspective...

we're looking at US troops, and I'm not an American. I served in the RAA (that's Australian artillery). Doctrine is different, but not all that different. If I make an error of judgement that is one potential source of error.

First off, you'd need to know why they were there, and how long they intended staying, and what they thought the threat level was. If you want to entice combat (make them attack you) you set up in a spot that is very inconvenient for the enemy. The Australian deployment at Nui Dat in Vietnam was a deliberate choice (set up on a supply route then tell everyone that anyone seen after dark will be shot without question) to force the VC to act. In that case the arty was dug in with close cover. When the NVA started moving south for Tet they had to pass near the Marine base at Khe Sahn, so the Marines were re-inforced and toughed it out against significant odds (but gave 3 NVA Divisions a bloody nose in the process). They were also dug in, as the NVA had 130mm artillery pieces and rocket artillery.

In the case of the Taliban, they do not have the capacity to focus large arty concentrations. Also, the US probably doesn't want to seem 'rooted to the spot' andprefers to maintain mobility. Finally, they may not want to give the impression that they have a 'defensive' mentality. Realistically, mortars and rockets are not accurate, and while they can throw fragments a long way and make a loud bang, it is better with low numbers of incoming rounds to be in the open (and wear flack jackets... look for them on the crew) so the blast is dispersed rather than risk focussing the energy of a lucky hit.

Like I said, these are all 'spit ball' ideas because I have absolutely no idea of the specific circumstances around the deployment of those guys at the time of the video, but hopefully have been able to give an idea of some of the considerations that may have been in play.

P

[Happy Times]

In my experience mortars are very accurate. More so than artillery if you want to hit a "point-target", i dont know the english term. In a mountain enviroment, attacking firebases, mortars would be very handy. With high rate of fire, 15-20 rounds a minute, and accuracy you could suppress that compound very effectively. Luckily the Taleban training is probably not cut out for this.:lol:

[piersyf]

Fair comment. Depends on usage, model and training. Don't forget mortars have been rejected for service because they were too accurate. I am aware that the old British 2" mortar in the hands of a good operator could drop a round onto a point target (like a MG) with only one or 2 shots, but at ranges of around 300yds. The Taliban are nothing like that. Plenty brave enough, but not really the education base for the majority of them to do proper training. The smarter ones are usually employed in other areas like planning, comms, intelligence and making things. I still stand by my comments though, it would have been a risk assessment by the unit commander as to the levels of protection needed, and the man on the spot deemed the risks to be low. If the Taliban had demonstrated a capacity to shoot a tight group at 15rpm and actually hit something I dare say the protection levels would have been higher.

As to being more accurate than artillery, I watched from an OP as my regiment did a demo shoot for some visiting infantry. Their faces turned white as the FOO called in corrections of 10m (the guns were 6km away) and walked a converged grouping (guns firing at a set point rather than as a pattern) over a weapons pit and caved it in. Haven't yet seen a mortar team do that.

[kurtz]

Thanks Trex, Things I never knew. So firing the guns on US and British subs involved handling possibly wet sacks of cordite on deck?

[thannon]

Recommend the following site:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-25_mk10.htm

Figure the ROF is high as listed- (fixed charges -vs- separate ). The smaller 4" and 3" guns were fixed ammunition. Trade weight in shot for velocity between the calibers.

Proj weight for 4" gun: 63lbs total, for 5" gun: 80lbs...

Surface action took alot of balls on a submarine. The afforementioned ammo chain, prep the gun from submerged tie down, and just being plain exposed.... hats off to those crews. Back in the day when I was in armor- our 105mm could pop a round every three seconds. That was with a ready rack right behind you, and the loader working flat out.

On a sub the rounds are flying slower (APFSDS was around 5,200+ ft/sec on the tank; 5"-25 listed on the given website 2,155ft/sec) and they'd likely want to observe each round. At roughly five seconds or so to 4,000 yrds.... yeah, ROF would be less. Of course, if that Jap destroyer caught you w/o being able to dive.... that ROF might just be amazing.

[thannon]

Thanks Trex, Things I never knew. So firing the guns on US and British subs involved handling possibly wet sacks of cordite on deck?

Separate charge in this case meant shell and casing (powder in brass). URL in above post states this was specially done to accomendate submarines.

[nikimcbee]

In my experience mortars are very accurate. More so than artillery if you want to hit a "point-target", i dont know the english term. In a mountain enviroment, attacking firebases, mortars would be very handy. With high rate of fire, 15-20 rounds a minute, and accuracy you could suppress that compound very effectively. Luckily the Taleban training is probably not cut out for this.:lol:

Line of sight? or direct fire.

I wonder who was spotting for them. They seem to be hitting the target.:up:

[Trex]

Kurtz - Sorry, it was my impression you were talking land ordnance - you mentioned 105mm. I'm no expert of sub guns, sorry. Unless you are talking of that dead-end concept, the submarine cruiser, with big guns, I would go with thannon's comments.

Howitzers and mortars have a high trajectory, which offers flexibility to the gunners as they can, in effect, shoot over hills. Most land artillery fire missions use indirect fire, in which the round lands in a place where the crew has not a hope of seeing it. Such shoots depend on an observer to correct the fall of shot or else, recently, some highly impressive (and expensive) wiggly-amps kit. To give the flexibility in trajectory, the propellant charges need to be variable, which leads one back to the charge bag concept, allowing the gunners to vary the muzzle velocity. Mortars and howitzer muzzle velocity is generally pretty low.

Standard naval gunnery has generally been more direct fire in nature, with the gunners (or at least somebody in fire control) being able to see the fall of shot. As with tank guns, a high velocity is most useful for this. The main reason for separate ammo would be simple weight (the big boys are heavy enough without having to try to load everything at once) and size (imagine having to design a battleship ammo handling system for 16" fixed rounds, with the projectile permanently fastened into the casing!).

Of course, really big naval guns could fire very long distances and aircraft were often carried as spotters. In a shore bombardment role, observers again might be necessary. In general however, what I said above is, while not universal, almost so.

In short, with smaller-bore high-velocity rounds, fixed ammo is standard as, among other things, it gives you a higher rate of fire. With small-bore howitzer, semi-fixed is the norm. Anything above a certain size (much above 5" or so) tends to be separate due to handling constraints. Again, there are exceptions to every rule.

As to our starting video clip, they were shooting in the direct fire role, something land gunners practice but rarely get to do for real. (In general, this is usually considered a Good Thing as if the gunners can see the target, the Bad Guys have been allowed to get waaay too close. There are exceptions to this too.) Fire a round, watch where it lands, correct your own fall of shot. Lotsa fun.

piersyf - I understand your arguments and have sat in on the odd meeting on whether or not to provide protection. From my point of view however, blast pressure (and thus danger) drops off very quickly (the cube root of the distance) and is thus a very short-range threat, whereas fragments are dangerous to much greater distances. To my way of thinking, if you have the time, it is therefore a no-brainer if you are concerned about your troops and assets. The dangers of containing a blast are far outweighed by the dangers of not containing shrapnel. However inaccurate the bad guys may be, Chicken Little only has to be right once. As an old sergeant instructor once told me (as I was sweating my first trench-digging lesson), all the sweat you expend in your entire career only has to save your life once to be worth all the effort. I 'm not much concerned with trying to maintain appearances - macho posing gets people killed and I'm with Patton on such things. Different case if it's shoot-and-scoot, of course.

WRT the rate of fire of mortars and such. While the Taliban have used them, sitting in one place and firing a sustained barrage against an established base is a good way to meet 72 young ladies in a hurry.

[fatty]

Standard naval gunnery has generally been more direct fire in nature, with the gunners (or at least somebody in fire control) being able to see the fall of shot. As with tank guns, a high velocity is most useful for this. The main reason for separate ammo would be simple weight (the big boys are heavy enough without having to try to load everything at once) and size (imagine having to design a battleship ammo handling system for 16" fixed rounds, with the projectile permanently fastened into the casing!).
There is probably also a definite safety risk in keeping your high-explosive rounds in the same room as your powder. Even after the rounds and powder were aboard they were typically kept in seperate magazines.

[Trex]

Fatty - Very true. One should never store the two together or in any place other than a proper magazine. That does not apply, of course, to fixed ammo. By NATO standards, the risk factor in such munitions is taken as the highest - in the case of a fixed HE round, the entire mag would be rated IAW the HE in the projectile.

Incidentally, one theory WRT the high Royal Navy losses at Jutland is the suggestion that ammo was being stored in places other than magazines so as to be able to carry more. If that happened, it would explain a lot.

[piersyf]

Hey Trex. Yeah, no argument about blast being local, but a genade in a pit is worse than a grenade in the open. Arty's biggest threat in a conventional fight is counter battery and air. In both cases digging in is counter productive. In the first case you need to move as soon as you shoot, and the old Soviet concept of moving to an alternate prepared position has been shown not to work, not least because the position can be seen and marked, so you get pounded all the way between 2 known locations and once you get there. As for air, it is a bit easier to hide a gun than the pit as well. Western armies have largely moved as far away from prepared positions as they can except where they are a deliberate blocking force or being dangled as bait.
Another way of looking at it is somewhat fatalistic; the dispersion for an average mortar shooting from around 3k is about 20 to 25m. A round going off in the clear space would tell everyone they are under attack, so they wouldn't just stand there, they'd do whatever they were told to do in that case. The frag radius might be large (50m +) but the space between fragments increases over distance. The odds of being killed or even injured are not all that high, especially with the flack gear and helmets. Look at the casualty figures for rocket and mortar attacks and you'll see a pattern of a small number of rounds and a handful of injured, maybe a death except for the 'lucky' shots. The risk is there, but not really as high as many people think. To give a hard figure, during the opening bombardment for operation veritable (end of ww2) the brits were putting 6 TONS of ammo onto every known command post, mortar and gun position(which had varying levels of protection) over a 2 1/2 hour period. People running in the open you can kill, but just simply lying down and not moving increases your chance of survival 10 fold.

[Trex]

Hey Trex. Yeah, no argument about blast being local, but a genade in a pit is worse than a grenade in the open. Arty's biggest threat in a conventional fight is counter battery and air. In both cases digging in is counter productive. In the first case you need to move as soon as you shoot, and the old Soviet concept of moving to an alternate prepared position has been shown not to work, not least because the position can be seen and marked, so you get pounded all the way between 2 known locations and once you get there. As for air, it is a bit easier to hide a gun than the pit as well. Western armies have largely moved as far away from prepared positions as they can except where they are a deliberate blocking force or being dangled as bait.


Good argument. I have heard it before and, in many situations, I agree with it.

There is however little threat in Afghanistan (to us anyway) from either air or CB.

I think the 'grenade in a pit vs grenade in the open' concept is generally greatly overstated. Regardless if you are at the bottom of a mine or on top of a mountain or even floating in mid-air, if you are within the grenade's lethal radius, you are dead, period, full-stop. The only way a barrier will can (not necessarily will, but potentially may) cause more problems is WRT blast, and that is within a very short distance. (Indeed, with the exception of low-frag munitions like FAE, if you are within the lethal radius for blast, you are almost always within the lethal radius for frag). In short, the main danger, the main casualty-causer, comes from fragmentation and barriers provide a positive benefit there.

While moving around from AMA to AMA is good protection in most circumstances, looking at the video, I get the distinct impression that these guys are firing from an established base of some sort. Note the large tents. Also, somebody has had time to fill and place a bunch of Hesco-Bastion (or equivalent).

Fatalism is great and my hat's off to the King of Battle, but I am a professional pessimist. Like I said, Chicken Little only has to be right once. If there is any way I can up the chances of sending one more of our troops home with a full set of body parts and no extra navels, I'm all for it.

[Happy Times]

Fair comment. Depends on usage, model and training. Don't forget mortars have been rejected for service because they were too accurate. I am aware that the old British 2" mortar in the hands of a good operator could drop a round onto a point target (like a MG) with only one or 2 shots, but at ranges of around 300yds. The Taliban are nothing like that. Plenty brave enough, but not really the education base for the majority of them to do proper training. The smarter ones are usually employed in other areas like planning, comms, intelligence and making things. I still stand by my comments though, it would have been a risk assessment by the unit commander as to the levels of protection needed, and the man on the spot deemed the risks to be low. If the Taliban had demonstrated a capacity to shoot a tight group at 15rpm and actually hit something I dare say the protection levels would have been higher.

As to being more accurate than artillery, I watched from an OP as my regiment did a demo shoot for some visiting infantry. Their faces turned white as the FOO called in corrections of 10m (the guns were 6km away) and walked a converged grouping (guns firing at a set point rather than as a pattern) over a weapons pit and caved it in. Haven't yet seen a mortar team do that.

I agree on most but the accuracy issue. The practices can differ from country to country but here we can hit a point target with mortars in 1-2 shots atleast 99% of the time, from any range. In a normal situation the target isnt visible from the fring position. This isnt a infantry vs artillery thing for me as i love both and long range artillery/MLRS, is what i usullly have in use in recon missions. We dont have fixed units under one FO, FOs are in the platoon level, he buddies with the platoon commander in the infantry and artillery has some of their own. The units and (tulenkäyttöoikeutta, dont no the term) amount of firepower in your use, is given to you based on the situation by the FO commanders in company, batallion etc. level. So in theory a situation could come that i could be commanding several batteries at one time, as was the case in last war where the Soviet invasion was stopped with massive concentrations of fire. Ofcourse i can only give my word but we have both artillery and mortar units that can do what you described. But if your ever in Finland i can take you to have a look, you being ex military and me having connections it shouldnt be a problem.:)

[Trex]

Happy Times - I am a great fan of both guns and mortars. They are, I think, complimentary. In Afghanistan however, lacking the sophisticated survey and rangefinding equipment needed for a first-round hit in rugged terrain, correction would have to be by old-fashioned '50 Up, 75 Left' method - and around built-up ISAF bases, that's unhealthy. Fortunately.

I would love to be able to visit Finland sometime. Beautiful women, a remarkable history and climate that's never 140 in the shade - what's not to like?

[Happy Times]

Happy Times - I am a great fan of both guns and mortars. They are, I think, complimentary. In Afghanistan however, lacking the sophisticated survey and rangefinding equipment needed for a first-round hit in rugged terrain, correction would have to be by old-fashioned '50 Up, 75 Left' method - and around built-up ISAF bases, that's unhealthy. Fortunately.

I would love to be able to visit Finland sometime. Beautiful women, a remarkable history and climate that's never 140 in the shade - what's not to like?

Well said, they ARE complimentary.:up:
Off course we have here first rate maps but i think i could do hit just as well with 3 81mm mortars, some pen and paper stuff i dont know how to translate, GPS for all, optical rangefinder http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/popup.dsp?id=326 and "käsisuuuntakehä"http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/popup.dsp?id=320 to get the direction. Comms could be a problem, frequency-hopping radios would be great to have. 30-60 second strike (30-60 grenades)and out, using weather as your friend maybe, if they could do it theyd probably take the risk.:hmm:
Im also happy of their level of current training.:lol:
Thanks for the compliment, USA is very high on my list of places to visit, especially the East coast with its rich history.:up:

[Happy Times]

Hey Trex. Yeah, no argument about blast being local, but a genade in a pit is worse than a grenade in the open. Arty's biggest threat in a conventional fight is counter battery and air. In both cases digging in is counter productive. In the first case you need to move as soon as you shoot, and the old Soviet concept of moving to an alternate prepared position has been shown not to work, not least because the position can be seen and marked, so you get pounded all the way between 2 known locations and once you get there. As for air, it is a bit easier to hide a gun than the pit as well. Western armies have largely moved as far away from prepared positions as they can except where they are a deliberate blocking force or being dangled as bait.


Good argument. I have heard it before and, in many situations, I agree with it.

There is however little threat in Afghanistan (to us anyway) from either air or CB.

I think the 'grenade in a pit vs grenade in the open' concept is generally greatly overstated. Regardless if you are at the bottom of a mine or on top of a mountain or even floating in mid-air, if you are within the grenade's lethal radius, you are dead, period, full-stop. The only way a barrier will can (not necessarily will, but potentially may) cause more problems is WRT blast, and that is within a very short distance. (Indeed, with the exception of low-frag munitions like FAE, if you are within the lethal radius for blast, you are almost always within the lethal radius for frag). In short, the main danger, the main casualty-causer, comes from fragmentation and barriers provide a positive benefit there.

While moving around from AMA to AMA is good protection in most circumstances, looking at the video, I get the distinct impression that these guys are firing from an established base of some sort. Note the large tents. Also, somebody has had time to fill and place a bunch of Hesco-Bastion (or equivalent).

Fatalism is great and my hat's off to the King of Battle, but I am a professional pessimist. Like I said, Chicken Little only has to be right once. If there is any way I can up the chances of sending one more of our troops home with a full set of body parts and no extra navels, I'm all for it.

These are all good point if we are talking about the sense on attacking a firebase, having fun isnt a reason enough.:lol: Of course you would have to have large numbers of troops in the open or unprotected otherwise. 82-81mm would be the largest mortars you could use in that terrain so they are no bunker busters.
Ofcourse if you plan to overrun a base the idea of suppressing gets an meaning.

[piersyf]

Hey to both Trex and Happy Times. I include the following War Office memo from WW2 regarding the 3" mortar. Note that the effective area given is 3200 sq feet but that for 100% kill ratio it has to land within 10ft. Even then there are documented cased of mortar rounds landing between two men having a conversation and both surviving.



Also, a favourite tactic of the US Marines in Vietnam when counter attacking a NVA assault was to throw fragmentation grenades then turn their backs and hunker down and take the frag in the back of the helmet and flack jackets. OK Marines are crazy, but they still trusted their equipment. As an artilleryman I can say I would NEVER want to be under an arty barrage regardless of my knowledge of the statistics. I would also NEVER want to try to assault a gun position over open country. The vid showed a firemission (direct) at a bit of range. When I first read the thread (didn't see the vid) I wondered why they weren't in 'Killer Junior' mode. After seeing the vid I realised the Taliban were not close enough to warrant that response. Frankly, lucky Taliban...

And Happy Times... Dude, I have the utmost respect for the fighting quality of the Finns. I have absolutely no doubt you guys can do exactly what you claim, but most armies cannot. I still stand by my comments. Let's face it, we have our own experiences, and like I said, I'm speaking as an Australian, and we haven't had the same sort of opponents as the Finns have (although a very long stretch connection might be made between WW2 Russians and WW2 Japanese for crazyness):p

WO 291/129 Lethality of 3" mortar HE bomb.

The cast iron (Mark IV) bomb is about 70% better than the steel (Mark III) bomb, due to finer fragmentation.
Stick fuzes would probably add 65% to the effectiveness of the cast iron bomb, 25% to the steel.
Time-fuzed HE was considered "practically valueless" due to the zone of the fuze and the steep angle of descent.
"Jumping" mortar bombs might perhaps be up to ten times more effective against entrenched troops, whereas the stick fuze would be no more effective.
"Preliminary results obtained by AORS7 show that the reduction in overall lethality by small bumps may be as much as 6 times for men lying down."
Vulnerable areas are given as 3,200 square feet for the steel bomb, 5,500 the cast-iron.
Probability of incapacitation (%) for each type of bomb are given as:
Range (feet)
10
20
30
50
100
Cast iron
100
73
48.5
22
1.5
Steel
90
48
29
9.3
1.2
It is suggested that these can be usefully presented in two ways; either as percentage chances, or as odds.
As percentages at different ranges (yards):
Range (yds)
2
5
10
20
40
Cast iron
100
90
50
12
1
Steel
100
60
30
5
1
As ranges (yards) at which different odds apply:
Odds
10-1 on
Evens
3-1
10-1
100-1
Cast iron
5
10
15
20
40
Steel
3
5
10
15
40

[antikristuseke]

I would love to be able to visit Finland sometime. Beautiful women, a remarkable history and climate that's never 140 in the shade - what's not to like?

Estonia is a better choise, cheaper alcohol and better looking women ;)

[Trex]

I am more and more thinking I need to do the Grand Tour.

Hmmm, what can I tell Mrs Trex?

[Happy Times]

Hey to both Trex and Happy Times. I include the following War Office memo from WW2 regarding the 3" mortar. Note that the effective area given is 3200 sq feet but that for 100% kill ratio it has to land within 10ft. Even then there are documented cased of mortar rounds landing between two men having a conversation and both surviving.



Also, a favourite tactic of the US Marines in Vietnam when counter attacking a NVA assault was to throw fragmentation grenades then turn their backs and hunker down and take the frag in the back of the helmet and flack jackets. OK Marines are crazy, but they still trusted their equipment. As an artilleryman I can say I would NEVER want to be under an arty barrage regardless of my knowledge of the statistics. I would also NEVER want to try to assault a gun position over open country. The vid showed a firemission (direct) at a bit of range. When I first read the thread (didn't see the vid) I wondered why they weren't in 'Killer Junior' mode. After seeing the vid I realised the Taliban were not close enough to warrant that response. Frankly, lucky Taliban...

And Happy Times... Dude, I have the utmost respect for the fighting quality of the Finns. I have absolutely no doubt you guys can do exactly what you claim, but most armies cannot. I still stand by my comments. Let's face it, we have our own experiences, and like I said, I'm speaking as an Australian, and we haven't had the same sort of opponents as the Finns have (although a very long stretch connection might be made between WW2 Russians and WW2 Japanese for crazyness):p

WO 291/129 Lethality of 3" mortar HE bomb.

The cast iron (Mark IV) bomb is about 70% better than the steel (Mark III) bomb, due to finer fragmentation.
Stick fuzes would probably add 65% to the effectiveness of the cast iron bomb, 25% to the steel.
Time-fuzed HE was considered "practically valueless" due to the zone of the fuze and the steep angle of descent.
"Jumping" mortar bombs might perhaps be up to ten times more effective against entrenched troops, whereas the stick fuze would be no more effective.
"Preliminary results obtained by AORS7 show that the reduction in overall lethality by small bumps may be as much as 6 times for men lying down."
Vulnerable areas are given as 3,200 square feet for the steel bomb, 5,500 the cast-iron.
Probability of incapacitation (%) for each type of bomb are given as:
Range (feet)
10
20
30
50
100
Cast iron
100
73
48.5
22
1.5
Steel
90
48
29
9.3
1.2
It is suggested that these can be usefully presented in two ways; either as percentage chances, or as odds.
As percentages at different ranges (yards):
Range (yds)
2
5
10
20
40
Cast iron
100
90
50
12
1
Steel
100
60
30
5
1
As ranges (yards) at which different odds apply:
Odds
10-1 on
Evens
3-1
10-1
100-1
Cast iron
5
10
15
20
40
Steel
3
5
10
15
40

Very interesting, i have these same type of tables in finnish somewhere.:hmm: And thats probably one reason the jäger companies use 120mm mortars, the 81mm are with infantry companies wich are not as mobile and have older equipment. The thing here is that we have to make do with what we have. We have world leading high tech, but we also have things some would consider obsolete. The lack of air support for the ground forces has lead to one of the biggest artillery corps in Europe, with some 3500 guns and mortars. The accuracy and speed has been a must, but in the future we need to get more of those self-propelled. And with the air to ground capabilities introduced in the air force and new ammunition for artillery and MLRS its likely to reduce in size. It also seems UAVs are taking a major role in the long range recon and directing fire.

[Happy Times]

I would love to be able to visit Finland sometime. Beautiful women, a remarkable history and climate that's never 140 in the shade - what's not to like?

Estonia is a better choise, cheaper alcohol and better looking women ;)

I would be lying if i said that isnt true.:p But you can do both, as the countries are separated just by a small body of water and short ferry ride. Foreigner cant probably even tell the difference between the languages.

[Trex]

Sure I can tell the difference - Finns speak Arabic, right?