"Mortar Round Versus Artillery Round - HE Content" Topic

Does anyone know if there was a great difference in the amount of HE carried by a mortar bomb versus an artillery shell that was roughly the same calibre? My interest is mainly WWII era, but if anyone has comments on modern era stuff, I'd welcome those, too.

For example, compare an 81mm mortar round with, say, a 25 pounder (87.6mm) HE round. WOuld these be roughly equal? Or would one have relatively much more explosive than the other?

Thanks in advance for any comments
--
Tim

Generally the mortar has more HE, since it is fired at a lower velocity. This means the walls of the shell can be thinner than those of a warhead designed to be fired at higher velocities from a gun or howitzer.

Jeff
--is by no means an ordnance specialist!

I am told by one of my club members, who was an artillery officer, that what Jeff stated is spot on. Mortar and howitzer shells hold, relative to their size, more HE than a direct-fire cannon shell due to the lower pressures involved with such low-velocity rounds.

He also mentioned that 90% of the casualties caused in an artillery/mortar barrage happen in the first salvo. After that everyone gets down/seeks cover, so mortar and howitzers are somewhat more effective than high velocity guns against infantry.

Modern ammunition: 81mm mortar M821 HE – 0.68 kg Comp B, 105mm howitzer M1 HE – 2.18 kg TNT, 155mm gun, HE M107 – 6.86 kg TNT

Still there can be a richochette bounce from the HE shell that may raise the chance of a hit since it becomes an airburst.

A quick bit of googling gives shell weights of 11lb and 4.5kg for 3" mortars.

I assume that a 25pdr fired a 25lb shell, so even taking into account a heavier shell casing, then it would seem the 25pdr was chucking more HE

A 25lbr shell weighs 20lb 10oz with a bursting charge of
1lb 13oz. The fuze weighs between 2lb 5oz and 2lb 8oz.
The AP shot weighs 20lb btw.
Sorry, no info on mortars.

TC

I haven't the info to hand but I think most mortars have less HE than shells of similar caibre rather than more. Part is due to the shape but mostly the need to keep them light so a small propelling charge chucks them far enough to be useful.

As the calibre gets smaller I'd expect them to get closer though and a 50mm mortar may have more HE than a 50mm gun.

I can speak as somewhat of an authority on this matter because I have been on the receiving end of mortors and rockets numerous times in the last few months.

Mortors are problematic because one idoit can drop a handful in a single tube in a matter of moments. This is bad if you are in the general impact area

Small rockets are problems because they can occassionally slip under fire-finder radar.

Big rockets (240mm or Fadr3+) are a problem because they sound like busses driving overhead, penetrate buidlings, and cause very loud sounds.

Celebratory gunfire (ie after soccer games) is problematic because everybody aims there AKs at American areas when they fire. It rains lead.

Airbursts or their equivelent (hitting an an alumium sided unreinforced building) are downright murderous.

Personally,
I enjoy the thrill of running for cover. There is nothing like it to get the addreneline flowing first thing in the morning. I can jump from my bed, into my crocks, and be in the selter in five seconds. Hooraa

Wow. For the typical WW2 mortar projectile, it will always be a lighter projectile weight and heavier HE weight compared to howitzers/field guns/AT Guns of a similar diameter.

Since WW2 mortars were fin-stabilized rather than spin-stabilized (which had high barrel pressures and a need for structurally strong shell casings), iron casings for mortars could be minimal thus saving projectile weight and allowing more room for HE filler. More "bang" per projectile mass. All at the expense of range.

Interesting range of responses, I appreciate everyone's responses.

FWIW, I'm revamping my house rules for my favourite WWII rule set and am trying to simplify things as much as possible. Part of my project is looking at what I do for indirect mortar and artillery fire.
--
Tim1

The old US M2 series 4.2" ~107mm mortars had something like 3 2/3 kg of TNT. Compare that to the 105 Howitzer with 2.2 kg of TNT.

If you are looking to simplify things, then treat artillery and mortar as no different for a given tube bore. 'Bout the only difference in most wargames would be the mortars inability to penetrate overhead cover (due to fuzing and fragile projectile shell).

No difference between "artillery" and "indirect" fire if you are looking to simplify things.

Buy a few books on ordnance and ammo characteristics. As you can see from the responses here, only trust what you reason out for yourself. Plow through some ordnance and ammo topics on Wikipedia. Check out the presentation of ammo on the Russian Battlefield Site. Explore the links for specs on the various types of ammunition.

link

"He also mentioned that 90% of the casualties caused in an artillery/mortar barrage happen in the first salvo. After that everyone gets down/seeks cover, so mortar and howitzers are somewhat more effective than high velocity guns against infantry."

I donīt understand this. Do you said that because mortars and howitzers fire faster than high velocity, so you have more rounds per unit time in the first salvo?

I would think that would hold true for all indirect fire.
Standing in the open + any incoming fire being an unhealthy mix.

"… treat artillery and mortar as no different for a given tube bore"

This is absolutely true. You may find that mortars carry more HE because they have thinner walls. But thinner walls means less fragmentation. And it's the fragmentation that accounts for most of the leathality (against infantry in the open) not the actual blast from the HE.

Ghostdog,

Mortars are generally quick response weapons (under local command) so you get a lot of short attacks where artillery fires generaly last longer but are fewer. In band of Brothers the book one artillery attack (porb map fire not oberved) did the most damage to the unit duiring the war.

what has benn notice is that more rounds on target menas more causitiy, even more in a shorter amout of time (see how to make war ) people in open have like an 80% chance of getting hit in the burst radis. So time on target missions and modern cluster weapons are best as one volley equal max damage per round.

in ww I the 75 type weapons could not collapse bunkers so armies went up in size for WWii

in general 105 could destroy a bunker if it hit it.
the 122 if it landed next to it, the dirt displaced by the crater would crush it.
the 155 and 152 would crush a bunker landing 1 to 3 meters from it.

It amazed me to read that an Iraqi captain told that from the moment your heard the pop of the cluster artillery rds depolying over head you had 3 secounds to get under cover and they did get under cover you never got far form it.

the battle fied is filled with the quick or the dead.

Lord Ghee

thanks a lot for your answer