taliban vs 105mm HE

[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

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by 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

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.