Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?
swami    3/21/2004 7:24:17 PM
Has anyone ever heard of an army using a small direct-fire mortar, for example 60mm? As far as I know, it has never existed, but it seems like it would be extremely useful against bunkers and machine gun nests. You could mount it on vehicles instead of an MG. Being direct fire, it could be very accurate with more than enough explosive power to destroy anything it hit, short of a tank. (I know that we now have 40mm automatic mortars. It doesn't have to be that sophisticated) It seems like the idea would be pretty obvious and it doesn't seem difficult technologically. Am I missing something?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
   RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   3/21/2004 7:57:28 PM
Hey swami, It is likely to be a automatic grenade launcher instead, or something in between? Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

CoolDude    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   3/21/2004 9:24:53 PM
a direct fire mortor is self-contradictory. The entire purpose of a mortar is to provide high trajectory fire in order to clear obstacles such as hills, buildings, etc. A direct fire or line-of-sight weapon is in a completely different category.
 
Quote    Reply

swami    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   3/21/2004 11:03:35 PM
No, it is not self-contradictory. Artillery can be either direct fire or indirect fire. You can call it whatever you want, but I am talking about a small mortar that is pointed straight at what you want to hit rather than at a high angle.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   3/22/2004 1:02:44 PM
Swami wrote: "but I am talking about a small mortar that is pointed straight at what you want to hit rather than at a high angle" Then it would not be a mortar. See this thread for definitions of tube artillery: link With unguided handheld rockets that carry a bigger warhead than a 60mm rocket can (i.e. American M72 LAW was 66mm, American AT-4 is 84mm) of what value would this weapon be?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   3/22/2004 1:03:30 PM
Oooooops, that should have said ".... carry a bigger warhead than a 60mm mortar round can .... "
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   3/22/2004 2:49:02 PM
The French AML armored car series carried a breech-loaded 60mm mortar capable of direct fire. The British 51mm mortar can be used in direct fire. There are other types of "commando mortar" that can be fired at very low angles as well. Loading and firing present problems of course as most mortars are drop-fired.
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   4/3/2004 1:19:39 PM
During WWII, US Army ordnance developed a recoilless 60mm mortar. (No, I am not drunk- I don't drink.) Intended as a direct-fire weapon, it got around the two problems of drop-firing and recoil by using (A) a small solid-fuel rocket on the nose of the bomb, pointing forward, and (B) a rear-mounted venturi system similar to the 75mm "Kromuskit" RR. The drill was as follows; 1. Place bomb in muzzle (in "hang" position) 2. Attach (8-foot) firing lanyard to rocket, remove safety pin, step back 3. Yank lanyard, igniting rocket 4. Rocket thrust pushes bomb back into tube (hard) and onto fixed firing pin 5. Bomb propellant (the traditional shotgun cartridge arrangement) fires, launching bomb out muzzle, and 6. Blast of gas comes out venturi, giving recoilless effect. Reportedly, the Infantry School took one look at it- and odered production of the 57mm recoilless rifle be given top priority instead. More to the point, we have had "direct-fire mortar"- type weapons in service since 1942. Bazookas, 3.5in rocket launchers, M72 LAW, AT-4, SMAW, etc..
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   4/19/2004 12:31:39 PM
A link to pictures the Panhard-Levasseur AML-60. Note the 60 mm. breech-loaded, rifled (?) mortar in turret: link I think this vehicle is still in service in the French and French client armies throughout Africa, but a huge-looking low-pressure 90 mmm. gun turret has long replaced the 60 mm. + MG's in the fire-support role.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   4/19/2004 12:44:12 PM
The old definitions of "mortar" are obsolete. Once they were high angle only weapons but no longer. Once they could be distinguised from artillery by their absence of a recoil system, no longer. Once they were distinguisable by being smoothbored but no longer. Now there are rifled mortars and smoothbored tank guns. Once mortars were muzzleloaders, not any more. They only characteristic of mortars that still seems to hold true and I'm sure someone will come up with an exception [I know one myself]is that mortars fire subsonic shells. So I would say that today the principle distinguishing characteristic of mortars is their low velocity.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Why no direct-fire 60mm mortar?   4/19/2004 4:34:27 PM
Actually, AML-60's and AML-90's were mixed together in cavalry troops and squadrons. The 90mm did not replace the 60mm - they served side-by-side. The AML series is being or has been phased out of service with most users, though some are extant or in storage against future requirements. The 60mm mortar was a smoothbore BTW, and fired standard 60mm rounds like the infantry mortars.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy