Jump to content

Talk:Mortar (weapon)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use on Ships and old methods of loading

I think this article should mention that mortars were once mounted on ships called "Bomb Ketches", such as HMS Terror. To me it is just as notable that mortars were on ships as it is that 18.1 inch (46 CM) guns were on ships. I "controlF'ed" and the word ship is in the article twice, mentioning only that one specific mortar was on a ship, but it says nothing of bomb ketches (a phrase which isn't aboard the page. I also think the manner in which old mortars were loaded is notable. The process involved men with tongs carrying a shell up stairs to put it in the mortar. 96.252.174.212 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

Why is this page named Morter (weapon)? What is a "morter"? E.g. the Merriam-Webster dictionary does not know such word, and the whole article talks about "mortar". Somebody can't spell?

The Design section is copied from here: http://www.free-definition.com/Mortar-(weapon).html 80.230.136.54 20:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You mean they copied the article from Wikipedia? Look at the bottom of the page: "This article by Wikipedia authors is licensed under the GNU FDL." -- mkrohn 21:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency in definition

In mortar's definition clearly stands "smoothbore cannon". Little further, in the ammo section stands: "Spin-stabilised rounds require a rifled barrel. Since they are on the whole top-loaded the mortar bomb has a pre-engraved band that engages with the rifling of the barrel." I think that's a major inconsistency, so I recommend changing it. There are also exceptions from muzzle loading, since some mortars (especially automatic) are breech loaded.

See discussion below, thre's a proposal for a better definition.Lastdingo (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Umm, why was this page moved from Mortar (weapon) to Mortar (artillery) (via Mortar (cannon)) when:

  1. nearly all its inlinks are pointing at the original title, Mortar (weapon); and
  2. as our article already points out, mortars are nearly always an infantry weapon, not artillery?

So far as I can see, there was no discussion, or I would have objected. -- Securiger 13:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved it from mortar (cannon) because a mortar is not a cannon. A mortar is another type of artillery piece, whether it is employed by an artillery organization or an infantry organization (mortars are used by both). I don't remember whether I considered the title "mortar (weapon)", but "artillery" is still a better disambiguation term, because it is, um, less ambiguous. It doesn't matter how many links point to mortar (weapon). —Michael Z. 2005-05-2 14:34 Z
I agree you were right to move it from cannon, whoever moved it there from the original name should have discussed it. However, with a very few exceptions (old nineteenth century artillery siege mortars in museums, and 120 mm mortars, which are relatively uncommon), mortars cannot be called artillery pieces. By definition, that is restricted to the largest ballistic weapons (conventionally those that require a special carriage to move them around, or sometimes even restricted specifically to cannon and howitzers). Most mortars are carried into battle strapped to a man's back. More to the point, it defies the common usage; neither mortarmen nor artillerymen call 60 mm or 81 mm mortars "artillery pieces". "Weapon" covers the whole gamut from 50 mm / 2 inch mortars (which mostly don't even have a baseplate) all the way through to artillery siege mortars; whereas artillery excludes the most common types. -- Securiger
Okay, I see your point, although in my mind anything that fires shells indirectly is a kind of artillery in the general sense. This would still rule out the lightest mortars, which are practically the same as grenade launchers. Go ahead and rename the article to "mortar (weapon)". Or maybe it should be something like "mortar (launcher)", to include smoke mortars, fireworks projectors, etc.
Also please proofread my latest edits to the introduction. Still needs a little work, I think, and it would be nice to add a history section. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-05-2 16:14 Z
DO NOT MOVE PAGES BY COPYPASTING. i have now listed this page on Wikipedia:Requested moves so it can be done properly. Plugwash 29 June 2005 01:54 (UTC)
I've done the page move. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to add to this a few bits on Mortar definition. A mortar is not defined by size, but implementation. The traditional definition for a Mortar is a high angle, indirect fire muzzle loaded weapon. Having said that, we have breach loaded mortars, and there's controversy over the true nomenclature of the tube/cannon. It is historically known as either. The 120mm Mortar has never been considered an artillery piece, though it's larger than a 105mm Howitzer. It is a mortar specifically because of it's only method of fire - indirect. So, a mortar technically is not a cannon, nor is it an artillery piece. It is simply a mortar, an indirect fire weapon. Thanatos 25 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you Thanatos. I thought that mortars, artillery, and cannons were all indirect fire weapons; that what seperated mortars apart was the type of trajectory. Gmios 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


yes, it is specifically the implimentation, which is lobbing rounds utilizing a high angle trajectory. Field artillery pieces do fire indirectly and can also fire "high angle" but mortars (generally speaking) do not fire below 0800 mils (45 degrees). We differentiate between them by calling mortars indirect fire and FA direct fire (though both truly are indirect). So yes, you're correct, maybe I should have explained this a bit more thoroughly. Thanatos 25

81mm-82mm ammunition interoperability myth?

I've heard the story that Soviet 82mm mortars could fire 81mm NATO projectiles, but I am somewhat doubtful of this claim. NATO projectiles use one heck of a lot more propellant than the Soviet-type 82mm, and I strongly suspect that if you tried to fire a NATO 81mm round from a Soviet-style 82mm barrel you'd risk catastrophic tube failure. This would apply not only (but especially) to the current 81mm rounds with the "doughnut" charges, but also to the older style rounds with the "bag" charges. 82mm rounds tend to be shorter, lighter, have a smaller warhead, and have about half the range of even Vietnam-era ammunition.

I'd like to see a link to corroborate this, or have it removed. My understanding is that there was a general restandardization of Soviet ammunition under Stalin that was made for reasons of logistical efficiencies rather than interoperability requirements with foreign weapons platforms. Gletiecq 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The info to corroborate or refute may not be online anywhere. Your logic makes sense to me, however the claim that 82mm was intended to be able to fire western 81mm rounds is extremely pervasive in real world references. If it's a myth, it's a very widely believed one. I will poke around with professional artillery historians and analysts and see if they can shed some light... Georgewilliamherbert 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Dag Hemdal (who was an officer that served in the Winter War) state in his 1950's or so book Reservfänrik (Swedish for reserve 2nd Liutenant) that captured Soviet grenades could not be used by Finnish 81mm mortars, while the Soviets could use theirs. Scoo 10:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The propellant issue is no problem. Mortar bombs don't have only a fixed charge, but up to 7 or 8 additional charges wrapped around the tail assembly. It would be extremely simple to keep the pressure acceptable by using less auxiliary charges. 82mm mortars can use 81mm ammunition and 81mm mortars are in fact 81.4mm anyway. Lastdingo (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

deflection

"for the first time applied deflection from closed firing positions in the field" I don't know what that means. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Deflection refers to a referred direction. The deflection that is being referred to is really a directional reference, which is normally expressed in mils. A fire command is processed, firing data is produced in the form of a deflection, charge, fuze setting and elevation. The deflection and elevation are dialed onto the sight and then the mortar system is shifted on to a fixed point (normally aiming poles) to change its direction of fire and the cannon is elevated up or down according to the elevation given. The M95 Mortar Fire Control System does not require poles, but instead uses a Talin Pointing Device for direction and elevation.

Thanatos 25 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deflection: (1) The setting on the scale of a weapon sight to place the line of fire in the desired direction. (2) The horizontal clockwise angle between the axis of the tube and the line of sight.

(Note: with certain sights, (e.g. M-12 series panoramic telescope) a defelection may be measured from the reward extension of the line of sight.

[1]US Army Field Manual 6-40 Field Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery Headquarters Dept of the Army 1 October 1999.

From OP CodyHill (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The part about the Vasilek doesn't belong here. I think I'll move it. icambron 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just deleted it icambron 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the paragraph that's now in the history section might be broken up, and parts of it moved to the very first para (the Intro to the article). It's one of the better stretches of writing in the article, and to the extent that it briefly explains how the mortar proved itself, and why, it also sets the stage for a discussion of why the mortar is still on the battlefield (and probably always will be). The rest of the history section might stay as is, because it would still be quite useful for the background and development details it contains. As the article stands now, it lacks "zing" in the opening sentences, and it's not until fairly deep into the text that the reader is told what really sets the mortar apart and what niche it occupies in the arsenal of a fighting force. That's all just a suggestion. I won't go moving large sections unless others feel it would be an improvement, since the article is generally well-written. C d h 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"A mortar is a muzzle-loading indirect fire weapon that fires sperm at low velocities, short ranges, and high-arcing ballistic trajectories. It typically has a barrel length less than 15 times its caliber."

It fires sperm? Citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.178.202 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

HISTORY NOT CORRECT

IM SORRY.. BUT THE MORTAR WASNT INVENTED by the man u put in there!


THE MORTAR WAS INVENTED BY THE OTTOMAN SULTAN FATIH SULTAN MEHMED!

HE USED THE MORTARS AGAINST CONSTANTINOPLE ( FIRED FROM SHIPS) THIS BECUZ HE DIDNT WANT TO CLOSE IN TO THEIR BAY AND GET UNDER FIRE FROM THEIR CANNONS!

SO CHANGE IT PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakus (talk • contribs)


After some research you appear to be refering to Mehmed II, can you quote the name of a book or website that states Mortars ? , you may be getting confused with Cannons. Megapixie 08:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Bidwell points out in his book Firepower (pg. 124) That WW1 mortars were hardly mobile or effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.98 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem with a Wiki.... Conflicting opinions. I've worked specifically with mortars for over 20 years. This includes systems development and I'm currently the keeper of the flame of the the Army's 2 operational mortar field manuals (FM 3-22.90 and 91). I've heard many different stories over the years as to who implemented the first true mortar, the only thing I can say is that no one knows for sure. I do know, however, that mortars have been around almost as long as gun powder, which would pre-date the Ottoman Empire (think China circa 900 AD), though it's generally believed that the mortar was first used as a weapon in Southern Europe circa 1000 AD. Many have said that the first true mortar was made out of wood (yes, it's a scary thought). Thanatos 25 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does it again.

Here we have a article about MORTARS, and something is said of French mortars bla bla bla, NATO uses...

Well, this just isnt correct cause most if not all the current mortars used by "NATO", or "WEST" are copies, variants and licenced in some cases (SOLTAM's whole product like is cannons and mortars) from finnish comppany "Tampella" (you can find them at www.patria.fi) also American, German mortars, South African tube arty products so on.

Rule number one, you talk of MODERN MORTARS (30's ->) you mention Tampella (Patria) cause they are the kings of the hill.

______________________________________________________________________________________________


First, try signing your discussion. Second, Mortars are produced the world over by many different companies/contractors. Patria Vammas(Tampella) currently produces a great 120mm bipod, yet their baseplate sufferes from serious design flaws. The handles they incorporated into the baseplate create a weak point where the baseplate actually bends! Next, the present M120/M121 which was originally worked by tampella (the K-6) but produced by Soltam Israel also suffers from its original design (durability, fittings, stress caused by the traverse extension). Furthermore, the M1100 (Tampella then Soltam) trailer doesn't have the ability to carry anything but the mortar and some cleaning equipment (for a solution, check out BAE's QSS). The M224 was and still is a wholly American product and is currently being reviewed by the Project Manager for Mortar systems. The M252 81mm Mortar is a Royal Ordnance piece, and like the M224, is being reworked in the US. There are a number of different contractors looking at ALL american mortar systems (most notably Soltam, not Patria Vammas). Finally, you didn't mention Sweeden (Hagglunds), which produces one of the best mortar solutions which is actually available today - AMOS. In the future we will continue to assess all mortar systems that are available, but presently Vammas has little to offer.

Thanatos 25 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tampella uses quite much the Stokes-Brandt pattern, the French had several own post-WW2 mortar innovations and afaik only the Israelis really produce near-copies of Finnish Tampella designs (most notably the 160mm model - and they do so with a license afaik).

Lastdingo (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

mortars

I am currently an infantry mortarman stationed at Ft Irwin Ca. I would like to clear a few points up. 120 mm mortars are still considered an infantry weapon although they are usually mounted on either a 113 APC (as we do here) or a new stryker variant. However, 120s can be ground mounted, its just a real bitch to move them. Also just a a quick edit I added the IR Illumnation round to the description. Please clean up the addition if you are so inclined.

Lastly I believe a description of the aiming method modern mortars use would be interesting. Instead of aiming at the target we aim at 2 poles that are 400 mils offset from the tube (traditionally although the poles can be placed at any deflection.) Corrections to the aim are then put onto the sight and the tube is moved so that the sight is back on the poles. These corrections come from a FDC (Fire Direction Controller) who takes information on where rounds are landing and inputs them into a mortar ballistic computer to get new data in the form of deflection (left and right changes) and elevation.

A third factor is involved, the charge of the round. A number of "cheese charges" are attached to the fin area of the round. This number can be anywhere from 4 to 0 and affects the initial velocity of the round and the distance it travels. Rounds straight from the packaging come with all 4 attached simply remove as many as needed. They are named cheese charges because they are yellow and vaguely crescent shaped, ergo cheese. I'm not quite sure what is in them but when broken something looking like black powder comes out. Also when we burn piles of the leftovers, the flame will light up the night like the sun came out. Don't look directly at it. I'm sure someone knowledgeable in munitions would know the exact composition. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Just a couple of quick corrections... We don't use cheese charges anymore, those were the old 4.2" M30 and 3 - series 60mm charges that were propellent in a wax medium. We use doughnut charges which are black powder (or flake) encased in a fibrous "doughnut". You've been listening to old soldiers who've not changed their terminology.

The APC that carries the M121 is an M1064A3. The M1129 is the Stryker Mortar Carrier variant.

We use 4 (ok 6) different Fire Control Systems -

The M23 Mortar Ballistics Computer - On it's way out.... The M95/96 Mortar Fire Control System - which needs no poles, it uses a Talin Pointing Device and is capable of self surveying. The M32 Lightweight Handheld Mortar Ballistic Computer - Also GPS and Commo enabled. The M16/M19 Plotting Boards - manual backup for all electronic systems Thanatos 25 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some discussion of aiming methods would be very useful in this article. I suspect that the average reader would even benefit from some type of statement about how the mortar compares to other weapons (e.g., howitzer) with regards to accuracy, speed of setup and fire, etc. In part, this might be because the general public's knowledge of mortars comes from war movies, where (for better or worse) the impression given is that a mortar is low-budget weapon that sort of lobs the shell up there and where it lands... well, somewhere over there. In reality of course, the mortar is extremely accurate in the hands of a good crew, probably because the men are doing a whole lot more calculation, aiming, etc., than Hollywood gives them credit for.

How all of that can be condensed into a few sentences I don't know, and tech terms like "mils" would either have to be avoided or explained, since the average reader likely has no clue what a "mil" is. Just a suggestion, of course. C d h 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mil Mil a unit of measure for angles that is based on the angle subtended by l/6400 of the circumference of a circle.

Mil relation a gunnery formula expressed as mils = W/R in which mils is the angular measurement in mils between two points, W is the lateral distance (width) in meters between two points, and R is the mean distance in thousands of meters to the points. This relation is approximately true for angular measurements of less than 600 mils. [2] The mil relation describes a 1:1:1 ratio among the three variables. (One mil subtends a chord of 1 meter at 1 (thousand) meters in range. This affords an observer with an easy computation to determine lateral distances at given/estmated ranges when the horizontal (or verrtical angle is measured with a sighting device (graduated in mils) ... from OP "Cody Hill" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyHill (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Downing Street

Wasn't Downing Street attacked with Mortars by the IRA once? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.220.143 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

MI6 HQ was attacked by the IRA with an anit-tank missile, is that what your thinking of? Trottsky 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mortar Aiming

I came here looking for information on how mortars are aimed, because they seem terribly inaccurate in the news, but was unable to find the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.65.104 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC).'

My father fought WWII in New Guinea. He claimed the mortar was an incredibely accurate weapon. In traing they would anchor an open top barrel off the coast and regularly drop rounds into it. (Third hand info guys - I've never done it personally).71.197.106.123 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your pa is right they are very accurate, because any idiot can aim one. It is like throwing a ball into a basket on the ground. You throw and it goes to far. You correct but it goes to short, then you subconciously calculate and gues the middle. And you get it right! It is just like that. And you get a nack for guessing after alot of practise.74.133.32.203 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mortar bombs are actually quite sensitive to wind (due to slow speed and the fins mostly) and have therefore often a larger dispersion than desirable. To hit targets in direct fire with a hand-held mortar at several hundred meters distance requires a lot of experience as well because small changes of elevation change the impact point more than the diameter of effective fragmentation.Lastdingo (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Aiming a mortar (or any other indirect fire system) is a function of several variables that include accuracy of the on-board fire control systems (sights) and target location, interior ballistics (primer brissance, propelling charge, and obturation) exterior ballistics(variations in the horizontal and vertical axes of the trajectory as well as rotation, pitch and yaw) and atmospheric (ballistic wind, air temperature density and pressure) and other insignificant variations for mortars. When all these factors are summed, the total is typically expressed as a probability for an MPI- mean point of impact. Firing tables are based on these statistical computations and usually include a probable error in range deflection and height of burst (for time fuzes). The probable errors in range and deflection for the US M120 mortar firing the high explosive shell are 30 and 20 meters respectively for one standard deviation at some given range. Said another way, about 60% of rounds fired at the same point with the same data will land within an ellipse that is 20Mx30M. 120mm Mortar System Accuracy Analysis US Army RDECOM-ARDEC Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000 May 17, 2005' So, if you place a 55 gallon drum in an impact area, the probability of dropping a round into the barrel is not that great. (Don't bet your pay check). The probability of hitting the barrel with schrapnel from the detonating round is another study.

From OP- CodyHill (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Three comments'

I've seen pictures of the WWII era PIAT, your article needs a picture of a spigot mortar. The Japanese knee mortar should be included. The spigot principle seems to mirror that of a rifle fired grenade.

The japanese "knee" mortar could NOT be fired supporting it on the knee, as the recoil force would have shattered it (again, I need to provide the source where I've read it). Cheers, DPdH (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mortar in WWI

I don't think mortars played a very big part in WWI, except for the Minenwerfer. 99.246.218.119 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mortars were very relevant on the Western Front, but less important than artillery. Many different types were used.

Their prominence was greater in WW2 because their value was known and they were integral part of infantry battalions/regiments at that time, during the whole WW2 (Japan was an exception iirc). Lastdingo (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Need a brainiac

Hey can someone figure out for me if you can put a nail in the bottom of a tube that fits snugly around a tennis ball. Then drop a tennis ball down it like a mortar and have it fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.32.203 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

or can someone write and equation that tells how much psi it would take to launch a spherical object or a shell of X weight, Y yards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.32.203 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Doing your own brainwork is good for you. I remember playing with compressed air driven subcaliber trainers in a battery of 81 mm mortars in the early sixties. If you dialed the "charge" regulators down enough, they would toss the little practise rounds as close as two or three dozen yards away. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Firing system

As I know, mortars have a delayed firing to give enough time to the gunner to move off the way (talking about small & portable mortars, not big field guns), what I want to know is: How does it works? I mean: Why does the mortar round stand still a few seconds before launching? I also know that this 'delayed time' varies in mortar models (I wonder also if grenade is an apropiate name for the mortar round). Is there any existing mortar that uses a triger like the big cannons?. There´s no mortar that fires instantaneously after it´s placed the round right? (consider this to be placed in the article) --Damërung (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Air displacement: When a mortar round is put in mortar, the air below the round needs to get past the shell. The difference between shell and mortar tube is so small that it takes a while before all of the air is squeezed through. This causes the delay. 62.142.161.252 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do remember having read "somewhere" (a long time ago) that in some mortars the firing pin (ie: where the round primer hits to fire the propellant charge) can be retracted, then released manually. But need to find out a verifiable source for this (it was for a non-US infantry mortar, 81mm or 120mm quite surely).
Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Such firing pins exist, and are especially common in light, hand-held mortars which have no bipod. Large mortars rarely have this feature. The reasons for such a firing pin is either to control the time of the firing (not very important), the use of breech-loading or insufficient potential/kinetic energy of the bomb to ignite the propellant reliably just by the impact (light mortar on low angle).Lastdingo (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

20th C specific

{{reqdiagram}} This article is the home for Coehorn. The history section is abominable. There's no link to Carcass (projectile) within the historical narrative. One would think high elevation discharges came out of nowhere in 1915 and were first devised by a US Milspec. There's no discussion on the premodern function of self-projection (I wonder how blackpowder mortars actually worked after reading the article? Were they primed, and then a lit shell inserted?).

Also, this page would really suit an excellent functional diagram.60.242.186.80 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are handy with diagrams, here is your chance. To make the history section less "abominable", do have a go and create a decent section. You obviously know a lot about the subject, what better person is there than yourself to do all the things you are dissatisfied with. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the diagram request. There are a number of diagrams at Commons:Category:Mortars - you need to look in the subcategories, maybe quite a few layers, but they're there. See samples below. --pfctdayelise (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When did "trench mortar" nomenclature go out of use?

I just made a redirect to this article from "Trench mortar". I notice the only weapon given that name in the article is the Stokes mortar. Quick online search found this from 1935 referring to an 81 mm "trench mortar," and Edwin Tunis, in Weapons: A Pictorial History (World, 1954, reprinted by Johns Hopkins in 1999 as ISBN 0-8018-6229-9) on p. 137 shows a "60 mm trench mortar." (In 1968 or so I heard US Army 4.2" mortar crews referring simply to "the gun.") __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Trench mortar was not named because it was a different type of a weapon to the pre-First World War mortars, but because they were used in trenches which dominated the mode of warfare in that conflict for the infantry, who were the primary users of these weapons. Any mortar today fired from a trench, is a "trench mortar". A lot of things were given inappropriate names in Vietnam :) Consider that Colonel Rogers (Royal Signals Corps) in his book Artillery though the Ages not only does not mention trench mortars, but mortars at all, except in passing reference to the early shape of the guns that resemble pots, of which a mixing mortar is one--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, the article itself says "However, it was not until the Stokes trench mortar devised by Sir Wilfred Stokes in 1915, that the modern mortar transportable by one person was born." Previous "portable" mortars such as the Coehoorn were black-powder muzzle loaders fired through a touch-hole, I believe. Even though "trench warfare has been very infrequent since the end of World War I" the drawing in the Tunis book, captioned "Current model of 60 mm trench mortar", shows the gunner dressed for the Korean conflict, which was happening around the time that book was being written. __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Further, a mortar suitable for trench use may be called a trench mortar even when deployed on level ground, just as an off-road vehicle keeps the name even when on a highway. Just curious here-- it seems that the term was much used in earlier decades, and doesn't show up so much any more. The military is no stranger to anachronism; aides still wear aiguilettes even though it's been centuries since one got used to tie on the boss's tin sleeve for real. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The statement that "However, it was not until the Stokes trench mortar devised by Sir Wilfred Stokes in 1915, that the modern mortar transportable by one person was born" is rather funny. Faced with a lunar landscape and trench lines, troops had no other way of getting mortars to their pits, and had to man-handle them as a matter of necessity! Where as previously mortars were larger, and limbered like all artillery, they were the only pieces of artillery ordnance at the time that could be manufactured to smaller sized rapidly enough to answer the changing demands of the trench warfare, so they had to do. I see that that the American Army called is a howitzer, which is rather interesting given the principles on which mortars work are somewhat different :) I saw someone mention that the US troops were still calling their battalion 4.2-inch mortars "guns" in 1968--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


mortar rounds

"A mortar is a muzzle-loading indirect fire weapon that fires shells at low velocities, short ranges, and high-arcing ballistic trajectories." It's being called "mortar bomb", not "mortar shell". Lastdingo (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked my sources and found all four terms "round" "ammunition" "shell" and "bomb" in the same Canadian manual.

source: Canadian Army Manual (published, unclassified) "B-GL-385-016/PT-001 WEAPONS VOLUME 16 60 mm MORTAR M19 CDN" This shell/mortar thing is often discussed. Maybe Wikipedia could use this opportunity to clarify that all three terms are official in at least one English-speaking army? Lastdingo (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Canadian Army is confused as the ammunition for a mortar is a bomb. The term comes from he aerodynamic shape of the ammunition that is distinctly different from a shell, and is certainly not a "round" unless we are referring to the weapons which fired round shot. The bomb is used by the Royal Military College of Science, and the rest of the British Army. Round and shell are what the Americans use indiscriminately as for example referring to the German Granatenwerfer, the Granat is of course German for a bomb that migrated into English in an unaltered form of a grenade via grenadiers that used to throw bombs. The correct term is therefore mortar bomb--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Problem: I have encountered U.S.Army and ANG troops who insisted on "shell. U.S.Arm FM http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-90/Ch3.htm#s2p8 avoids terms mostly, but writes "shell/fuze combination" repeatedly. Official designation of munitions seems to be "cartridge" or "bomb" : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mortar_c.htm Btw, I am German and bomb = German "Bombe", grenade = German "Granate" - I suspect a French origin for that. Lastdingo (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
German usage changed over time, however there is no question that a German Granatenwerfer before NATO was a mortar. The physical configuration of mortar ammunition is drastically different from any shell or cartridge fired by other artillery ordnance. In fact the fins alone suggest a "bomb" by appearance associated with the aircraft weapons. I think in the case of Americans they sought to eliminate possibility of wrong ammunition being shipped due to Joint logistics handling and so decided to standardise all artillery ammunition on the shell to eliminate the possibility of infantry units receiving aviation bombs, and Air Force units receiving mortar ammunition. Never the less, what a mortar fires is a bomb which is configured, manufactured and works in a different manner than any other ammunition that is called a shell or a cartridge--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Brassey's Artillery of the World" (1977), p.87: "The projectile is a finned bomb ... the thin-walled bomb ...the bomb..."
I will establish "bomb" in the article soon if no-one intervenes here. I'm quite sure that all fin-stabilized mortar ammunition is correctly termed "mortar bomb", whereas at most the spin-stabilized mortar ammunition might be called "shell".Lastdingo (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

calibre range

"Modern mortars normally range in caliber from 60mm (2.36 in) to 120mm (4.72 in). However, mortars both larger and smaller than these specifications have been produced. An example of the smaller scale is the British 51 mm Light Mortar which is carried by an individual and consists of only a tube and a base plate. Conversely, a large example is the Soviet 2S4 M1975 Tyulpan (tulip flower) 240mm self-propelled mortar."

50mm can be called normal due to the time span of its use (2" mortar since 30's, 51mm post-war) and quantity of its use (British army standard item, one per infantry platoon, only now in process of replacement by 60mm) by the British/Commonwealth (modern India afaik, for example) and Germans (50mm light mortar, early WW2). 51mm to 120mm was normal for decades and still is. The 240mm mortar is not "a large example", but THE LARGEST modern example. An example for a truly small calibre mortar would be the Italian WW2 Brixia mortar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixia_Model_35 I know about rumors about a 37mm "swamp mortar" being used by the Iranians in the 1t Gulf War, but that might be just a rumor. Lastdingo (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Monster mortar

Shouldn't the french mortar be 972 mm (36 french inches) instead of 910 mm (36 british inches)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.166.98 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Caliber/Calibre

The spelling of Caliber/bre is inconsistent

"Caliber" is used in the first paragraph and "Calibre" in the second

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.65.82 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Defaced

Looks like someone has defaced the page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Still unreferenced/poorly cited

Hi, I've noticed that the tags that this article had before the "lead paragraph" were recently removed by an anonymous user. I agree with two of the removals, but disagree with regards to being adequately referenced. Hence, I'll add again the appropriate tag. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvised Palestinian mortars?

Is there a source for the paragraph that says the Palestinians use improvised mortars? Given the great number of mortars manufactured all over the world it's probably not that hard to buy a regular mortar. Sjö (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

it might be harder for them to smuggle them into the gaza sgtrip or west bank. in any case the IRA used home made mortars because they were effective and easy to hide ( they are just steel pipes before use ). 86.33.15.108 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Unbalanced Tag in History

There was an unbalanced tag in history with no explanation. Possibly it was there because of the large insurgency paragraph. In any case the section has enough range that it seems reasonable to me. Of course there are various ways the history could be improved but we can expect this to occur in an evolutionary way. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvised mortar

The word improvised in the section "improvised mortar" is misleading. Anything that goes through decades of institutional development is not "improvised" it is "developed", whether or not the group doing the development is under a government contract or working for an NGO. -- PBS (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How does the mortar round work ?

The article describes the ammunition for a mortar as a bomb, which thus must be different from both a shell and a grenade.

But the article does not explain how a mortar round works, including how it is different from a shell and a grenade.

Some questions that would be good to answer:

1) Does the HE-version typically detonate on impact or can it have a proximity fuze or perhaps something else?

2) Is there typically a mechanism for arming the payload, depending for example on firing the propellant or perhaps something else?

Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There are several types of mortar bombs. Most of the more modern bombs have a multifuse. An example is the M720 round for the M224 mortar system (60mm). It can be set to detonate on impact, delay (approx. 0.2 seconds), proximity (explodes at 1-3 meters above ground) or near surface burst (0-1 meters above ground). This specific round has a small fan inside the fuse. This bomb has an open area on the top of the round. Inside the hole is the small fan. When fired on prox. or NSB the bomb explodes after the fan has made a certain amount of revolutions.

A shell looks like a big bullet. A grenade explodes after certain amount of time. A shell is an artillery round. A grenade can be thrown or fired from grenade launchers. Grenade launchers though are direct fire weapons where mortars are typically indirect fire weapons. (That means the gunner cannot see the enemy so a forward observer must be used.) I was a M224 gunner in the 10th Mountain. Solri89 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mortars are not infantry "support" weapons.

Mortars are infantry weapons used by infantrymen. To call it a support weapon is to imply that it is used by non-infantrymen in a support role.

I make this statement based on the fact that in the U.S. Army there are three basic types of units. Combat Arms - like the infantry Combat Support - like military intelligence Combat Service Support - like cooks

Since the infantry is combat arms and mortars are infantry weapons you cannot call a mortar an infantry support weapon. To call it that is misleading. Solri89 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you people who obviously don't know any better stop saying that light and medium mortars are Infantry "support" weapons! I know that not all mortars are used by the Infantry, as in some automatic breech loaded mortars. But in this specific paragraph in question the article is referring to Infantry mortars. Light and medium Mortarmen are Infantrymen the world around! I know! I was an 11C, a M-224 (60mm) Mortar Gunner! I was a Mortarman and We are the Infantry! And I've worked with Infantry Mortarmen from several foreign nations! You are extremely insulting Mortarmen by putting that misleading word in! Like I stated before, to call it an Infantry "support" weapon is to imply that non-infantrymen man it! I will ALWAYS show due respect for my fellow Infantrymen by removing that word if you keep putting it back in. So please stop insulting Mortarmen! Now, what is true is that Infantry Mortarmen support our Riflemen but they support us back by providing us with perimeter protection because we have to be upright upon a knee on the battlefield while Riflemen get to find a hole and become one with it. Because like we used to say, we fight on our knee so you don't have to live on them! We are Mortarmen, the long range of the Infantry! So show some damn due respect! Because we do something that obviously you weren't man enough to do! If you were an Infantryman you'd get exactly what I'm saying! (See, it's not nice to be insulted, is it?) Solri89 (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Solri89: Such emotional outbreaks are not really called for here and you might be better off contributing to something to which you are less emotionally attached. Additionally, the content of our pages are based on reliable sources and not personal experience nor views. Lastly, I agree with the view that infantry includes mortarmen, and that the weapon as such is not (only) a support weapon. So with regard to the actual article content, I consider your change OK. Lklundin (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I know this site is not the place to get emotional and I apologize for that. Although after several attempts to get the truth out there and constantly getting blocked I realized it was the only way to state my case. Also you must realize that I am a reliable source as I spent seven years in the Army and do have much experience working with foreign Armies. No I haven't published anything about mortars or Mortarmen but I believe this is one of those things that is just common sense as that us Mortarmen in the U.S. Army are in Career Manegement Field (CMF) 11 (Infantry Series) and that U.S. Marine Mortarmen are also classified Infantry. Also that every foreign Mortarman I've ever worked with was Infantry. Also, to tell you the truth, us Mortarmen do get aggravated when people call us artillery men as one ignorant First Sergeant called us once during a morning formation. We all insisted our Section Sergeant set him straight. So to have it implied on such a site as Wikipedia that we are not Infantrymen was insulting. Again thank you Sir or Ma'am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solri89 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not just for weapons anymore

Mortars have also been used for peaceful purposes; the Apollo spacecraft (1966-1975) used mortars to launch its drogue parachutes, before the main parachutes came out for landing. It would be nice if this article mentioned that. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

mortar definition is unacceptable

The definition is overall not acceptable. Some weapons are clearly being called "mortar" while being breech-loaded. Some mortars (especially mortars in AFV turrets) are capable of direct fires. See AMOS, AMS and earlier French mortars.

The problem isn't just a problem of this article; the designation "mortar" is being used inconsistently for very different weapons:

46-240mm calibre (I've even heard about a "37mm" mortar model and 120mm is the laregst common calibre) . cheap & simple / extremely complex . smoothbore / rifled . muzzle-loaded / breech-loaded . manually loaded / automatic loading . manual laying / automatic laying . indirect fire only (upper elevation range = about 45-85°) / indirect and direct fires . towed / self-propelled . self-propelled without turret / self-propelled in turret . normal barrel / spigot type . The difference between a mounted EFS (automatic 120mm mortar based on 2R2M) and a 105mm self-propelled howitzer is small.

I suggest a different faceted definition that really matches the current use of the term:

1) A definition for pre-WW1 time period, including heaviest mortars till WW2 (like German 21cm Mörser 18 as a late example of that breed) 2) A definition for WW1 to modern times; the classic Stokes-Brandt and similar mortars (mostly fit by the quoted definition except that some models were even around WW2 already rifled). 3) An addition that today, all types of guns that can fire the munitions of definition 2 weapons' munitions are being called "mortar".

I am researching for an article about modern 120mm mortars, and I can tell you; the definition situation is chaotic, "mortar" is in use for a huge variety of extremely different guns. Lastdingo (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC) edited that myself Lastdingo (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So, Lastdingo, can you edit this article according to the sources you have, and citing these sources? We need someone who can do this and would appreciate this. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The usage of the term evolves. I doubt that there's a source already that has an encompassing definition. Most sources that I remember simply avoid to offer a definition or just tell about what mortars used to be before they go on to present the innovations made since the 90's. This article will either stick to an outdated and incomplete definition or the authors dare to create a new definition that reflects the actual use of the term. Lastdingo (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
While we Wiki editors appreciate the difficulties you have finding your editing confirmed independently I am afraid it will still be necessary to work according to the guidelines in Wikipedia:No original research. Like all encyclopaedias, we are under an obligation to cite sources by which readers may be able to verify and find substantiated what we say in Wikipedia. I am sorry if that makes it more difficult for you, we nonetheless appreciate what you are doing to make this article as perfect possible. Thank you again. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I recall that encyclopedias create definitions if necessary? Ah, who cares. I will probably publish an article about it and use it as reference next year ;-) Lastdingo (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked several of my books and manuals. German, Austrian, British, Canadian and U.S. published books and several army manuals. No definition. I searched online and found a lot of crap definitions (plus the other kind of "mortar" for cement and such).

http://www.google.de/search?q=define:mortar&hl=de&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=definel&defl=all OK, so we cannot give a better definition due to Wikipedia rules - how about at least fixing the old one? "A mortar is an muzzle-loading indirect fire weapon that fires shells at low velocities, short ranges, and high-arcing ballistic trajectories." This change would fix the obvious error. "muzzle-loaded" is wrong - example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160mm_Mortar_M1943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Breech-loading weapons are called gun-mortars, and are not same as mortars. They really need an article of their own. Mortars are muzzle-loading indirect fire weapons--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, "Gun-mortar" is only in use for the Russian 120mm systems "Nona" and "Vena" because of their long barrels. Neither the Russian 160mm mortar nor the French MO120 rifled version of the U.S. 107mm rifled mortar were called "gun-mortar" or designated as such. The 60mm mortar in use in the Merkava and the French turreted mortars as well as AMOS, EMES and AMS are called "mortars" as well.Lastdingo (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a better definition of "mortar". Source: "Brassey's Artillery of the World" (1977): "A mortar is basically a specialised form of howitzer, designed to fire solely at high-angle, i.e. 45-80°, and using graded charges of propellant to vary its trajectory. The piece, generally smooth bore, is supported at the muzzle end by a bipod and rests on a circular steel base plate which takes all the shock of discharge. Typical mortars have no buffer-recuperator mechanism, which enormously simplifies manufacture." This is not perfect yet, but the best definition so far. I would delete "steel" because in the past 30 years some titanium alloy baseplates were introduced. The high angle limit should be set to 85°, not 80° because of some mortar models which have that (actually, one on the page after the definition has 85°). Only hand-held and turret mortars fire at less than 45°, so maybe the whole part about angles should get a "generally". btw, the book also writes "The projectile is a finned bomb." (relevant for the bomb/shell discussion here).Lastdingo (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested definition (I will copy this into the article if no-one protests:
"A mortar is basically a specialised form of howitzer, generally designed to fire solely at high-angle, i.e. 45-80°, and using graded charges of propellant to vary its trajectory. The piece, generally smooth bore, is supported at the muzzle end by a bipod and rests on a base plate which takes all the shock of discharge. Typical mortars have no buffer-recuperator mechanism, which enormously simplifies manufacture."Lastdingo (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I copied the definition into the article, and retained the last sentence of the old definition. Lastdingo (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Lastdingo, what you have had here is a discussion with yourself largely that resulted in a less precise definition that is largely plagiarised from the Brassey's book. Considering that no howitzer I have ever seen has any remotely similar characteristics to the vast majority of mortars except high angle of fire, how do you justify your new introduction to be "superior"? I'm sorry, but I will have to revert it if only because of the plagiarism issue--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How about removing the howitzer comparison and go with the bombard comparison instead. Or simply retaining the chgaracteristics:

"A mortar is an artillery piece, generally designed to fire at high-angle, i.e. 45-85°, and using graded charges of propellant to vary its trajectory. Freestanding mortars typically lack buffer-recuperator mechanism, which enormously simplifies manufacture. Mortars mounted in vehicles sometimes have both buffer-recuperators, and magazines with mechanisms that permit autoloading." The above can be verified via links to Brasseys, and to AMOS in the artillery entry. Works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.230.194 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I offer the definition of "mortar" from the Joint C3 Information Exchange Data Model JC3IEDM

   Mortar, heavy

A towed or vehicle-mounted, indirect fire weapon with either a rifled or smooth bore.
It usually has a shorter range than a howitzer, employs a higher angle of fire, and its calibre is usually between 108mm and 150mm.
Ref APP-6A OCT 98 ADatP-3 FFIRN/FUD 1650/1 MRTHEV 1000058 

   Mortar, light

A man-portable, muzzle-loading, indirect fire weapon with either a rifled or smooth bore.

It usually has a shorter range than a howitzer, employs a higher angle of fire, and its calibre is usually 60mm or smaller.
Ref APP-6A OCT 98 ADatP-3 FFIRN/FUD 1650/1 MRTLGT 1000059 

   Mortar, medium

A man-portable, muzzle-loading, indirect fire weapon with either a rifled or smooth bore.
It usually has a shorter range than a howitzer, employs a higher angle of fire, and its calibre is usually between 61mm and 107mm.
APP-6A OCT 98 ADatP-3 FFIRN/FUD 1650/1 MRTMED 1000060

   Mortar, very heavy

An indirect fire weapon, usually with a shorter range than a howitzer,

employs a higher angle of fire, and its calibre is 151mm or larger.
Ref APP-6A OCT 98 ADatP-3 FFIRN/FUD 1650/1 MRTVHV 1000061
The JC3IEDM has been developed by the Multi-National Interoperability Programme. It serves as an authoritative data source for the several countries who participate in its stanardization work.
From the OP CodyHill (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Cody Hill

  • Hi All, I've noticed that even with the lengthy discussion about the "proper" definition, the lead paragraph hasn't changed and still mentions a mortar as a "muzzle-loaded" weapon, which probably covers the majority of mortars but not "all" (as some mortars existed that were breech-loaded). I haven't seen any agreement yet... what's the next step? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've found the following definition in Encyclopedia Britannica Online, which seems quite generic:
  Mortar
    weapon 
    Main
    "in military science, short-range artillery piece with a short barrel and low muzzle velocity, firing an explosive 
     projectile in a high-arched trajectory. Large types were used against fortifications and in siege operations from 
     medieval times through World War I. Since 1915, small, portable models have become standard infantry weapons, especially
     for trench or mountain warfare. Medium mortars, with a calibre of 70–90 mm (about 3–4 inches), a range up to 4,000 m 
    (about 2.5 miles), and a bomb weight of up to 5 kg (11 pounds), are now favoured."
I guess this could be adapted to this article, and properly cited. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And the following definition, in Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, also reasonably generic:
  mortar, in warfare
   "mortar, in warfare, term originally applied to certain types of artillery with high trajectories, but later applied
    to an infantry weapon that consists of a tube supported by a bipod that fires a projectile at a very high trajectory. The
    mortar is not usually classified as artillery. Unlike standard types of artillery, mortars need no complex recoil 
    equipment and are usually smoothbore and muzzle-loaded. Their weight is light in relation to the weight of shell 
    delivered, but at the expense of range and accuracy. First developed by Sir Frederick Stokes during World War I, the 
    mortar was used by infantry in trench warfare and is standard equipment in modern armies."
which is also a good one to use as a basis for that "summary" leading paragraph! Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A mortar is a high angle weapon that allows fire from defilade. That is the most basic and true definition. Most mortars are muzzle loaded but not all.

The one big thing you must remember: A "knee" mortar (typically 30mm) is not to be fired off your knee! You'll lose your leg if you do that. It's called a knee mortar because it's short and only comes up to your knee when standing upright. My pet peeve in this article is that mortars are called infantry support weapons. They are not infantry "support" weapons, they are infantry weapons! I was a mortarman and mortarmen are infantry! An example of a support weapon would be artillery. Artillery is fired by artillery men, who support the infantry. Solri89 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's called a knee mortar because it's short and only comes up to your knee when standing upright." - not quite. As a result of a mistranslation of a captured Japanese manual it was referred to as the "knee mortar" by the Allies. The manual actually said that it was usually carried strapped to the upper-leg of the user. Due to the name, and channel-shaped butt plate, some Allied soldiers thought it was to be fired while supported by the thigh. Doing this however resulted in a broken leg.
BTW, a 'mortar' is differentiated from a gun and a howitzer in that it fires a finned-bomb. Not a 'shell'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Not all mortar projectiles are finned. The US M30 4.2" mortar fired rounds both with and without fins. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mortar (weapon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The first mortar pictured

It says it’s an 81mm mortar. As a former 60mm mortar gunner, that looks way much more like a 60mm. Can anyone verify it’s an 81? Solri89 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for spotting it. It's a Polish LM-60D. Typical modern 60mm mortar (developed around 2000) to be lighter than an 81mm mortar, with a smaller 3-person crew and able for a single soldier to carry it, rather than splitting into three pack loads and a 10-person crew. They use modern high-tech materials for lightness, and sacrifice some range but retain (with improved ammunition) most of the effectiveness of an 81mm mortar. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The term 'Trench Mortar'

Is a Trench Mortar so-called because it is typically fired from a trench, or because it is capable of firing into a trench? DOR (HK) (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Both. Solri89 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The former - it was designed for firing from a trench, then the prevailing mode of warfare on the Western Front at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.233 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

False language claim

Currently the article says, "Mortar bombs are often referred to, incorrectly, as "mortars"" and as a "citation" gives an example. However, English is an open language; a word usage that is often used is a known definition, and is not incorrect. The reference proves that the definition is valid, it does not (and can not) refute it.98.246.153.16 (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting

Can someone split this article? Many language (Like here in Finland) there is different word to historical mortar and modern weapons (Translate: Kranaatinheitin, "Grenade launcher" Historical part can maybe is "Mortal (Historical weapon)" Historical gun is here "Mörssäri".) --EsaL-74 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's nice that other languages are more precise, but English doesn't make this distinction, and on en.wikipedia we follow English usage. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of this article ignores the long history of mortars and describes them only in the relatively modern sense. All that prevents the first sentence from being completely incorrect is the word "usually". In fact, a 4 inch Stokes mortar is probably not lightweight, though it might be "man-portable" if broken down. (Perhaps those with military experience can confirm this.) The gas mortars of WW1 certainly aren't lightweight. The ship-mounted LIMBO isn't even mentioned.

I suggest the so-called modern section of this article be split off under the title INFANTRY MORTAR. That would leave MORTAR as the general article.

(There seems a tendency to turn encyclopedic articles about weapons into a catalogs of recent NATO/American usage. See FLECHETTE for a worse example.) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Insert footnote text here
  2. ^ US Army Field Manual 6-40 October 1999
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mortar_(weapon)/Archive_1&oldid=1219892541"