Private Ryan - tossing mortar rounds
EZtoAmuse
A mortar round has two explosive charges, one to propel the round out of the
tube, and another to "service" the target. If you slam the end of a mortar
round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
Ed Walton
wrote:
> If you slam the end of a mortar
> round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
No, it won't. The propellant charge of the 60mm mortar shell has two
components, the increments on the fins and the cartridge (close to a .410
shotgun blank) in the base of the round. The increments won't detonate
unless the cartridge goes off. The cartridge won't detonate unless its
primer is struck by a firing pin, such as the one in the basecap of the
mortar tube. Slamming the shell down on a flat surface will only strike
the bottom of the fins, not the primer.
--
Ed Walton
Visit the "Lost Battalions" homepage
Reproduction WW2 Uniforms
http://web2.airmail.net/recon36/
Jay
>A mortar round has two explosive charges, one to propel the round out of the
>tube, and another to "service" the target. If you slam the end of a mortar
>round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
Only if you bang it on something that actually hits the striker. It's
like a rifle bullet: it has a primer (striker) in the bottom that is
struck by a firing pin at the bottom of the mortar. Banging it on the
ground is risky, but it won't necessarily set off the initiator
cartridge.
Jay
Ottawa, Ontario
Remove the wildcard when replying by email.
Jerome Boyd
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD!
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD!
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD!
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD!
Ed Walton wrote:
>
> In article <6q86bn$p...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, ezto...@aol.com (EZtoAmuse)
> wrote:
>
> > If you slam the end of a mortar
> > round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
>
> No, it won't.
<snip>
Slamming the shell down on a flat surface will only strike
> the bottom of the fins, not the primer.
But will that allow the shell to be used like a grenade like
in SPR?
LCDR1635
>Banging it (a 60mm motar round) on the
>ground is risky, but it won't necessarily set off the initiator
>cartridge.
But will it arm the bursting charge?
John Eckhardt
Eric & Linda Gross
>A mortar round has two explosive charges, one to propel the round out of the
>tube, and another to "service" the target. If you slam the end of a mortar
>round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
As others have said, not so. However, just *why* were they slamming the
rounds down before throwing them, anyway? To arm it? Has anyone ever heard
of mortar rounds being used in this way? I haven't read of it, but that
doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Edbert
>> round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
>No, it won't. The propellant charge of the 60mm mortar shell has two
>components, the increments on the fins and the cartridge (close to a .410
>shotgun blank) in the base of the round. The increments won't detonate
>unless the cartridge goes off. The cartridge won't detonate unless its
>primer is struck by a firing pin, such as the one in the basecap of the
>mortar tube. Slamming the shell down on a flat surface will only strike
>the bottom of the fins, not the primer.
I'm no expert on this subject but wasn't it the shock of the "propellant"
charge which activates the main detonator? That is what they were simulating
by slamming the shell IMHO, they were merely activating the primary
detonator.
Jay
The bursting charge is ignited by the fuse. The fuse can be armed by a
sharp blow on the base of the round. The principle under which the
fuse operates is quite simple: a pin prevents the fuse from initiating
the burster charge. This pin is secured in place by the safety wire.
When the safety wire is removed, the pin is free, but it only
disengages when the round suffers a sharp impact, which is what the
detonation of the initiator cartridge and increments do. This impact
can be "simulated" by smacking the base of the round on something
solid.
The technique is risky (a projection on the striking object could
detonate the initiator cartrige, causing the round to "blow up" in the
hand), or the impact may not be sharp enough, resulting in a dud
round.
JCDrews
prevent the nose cap from striking into the fuzeworks. The one can give the
round a sharp blow on the base -- to jar loose/aside the inertial shearpin (?)
that is inside the fuzeworks. In normal opertaion the acceleration of the
round leaving the tube does this. With nothing holding the nosecap back, when
it hits the ground it initiates the main charge, which blows up the casing into
many fragments. As said already, the propellant charge -- which is essentially
a blank shotgun cartridge -- has a primer...if this is not struck, it doesn't
go off. The propellant charge also ignites the any incremental charges
attached to the fins (none shown in SPR). Did anyone else notice that the
first round picked up by Ryan, and then thrown with explosive effect, had no
nosecap? To men, it looked like the cap was missing.
Velovich
>rounds down before throwing them, anyway? To arm it? Has anyone ever heard
>of mortar rounds being used in this way?
Yes. Either the impact of firing (slamming the round down) or the
accelleration of flight (simulated by the slamming) arms the round. I'm being
vague here, for simplicity, and to cover those rounds of various types of
fusing...
<*>
Velovich
"Who IS Keyser Souze?"
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter
II, 227, and all nonsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address is subject
to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
Juha Veijalainen
> >A mortar round has two explosive charges, one to propel the round out of the
> >round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
> rounds down before throwing them, anyway? To arm it? Has anyone ever heard
> doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Fuse is not activated until it is first hit hard. Even after that
there could be a time delay or trajectory change (round dropping down)
required before detonation.
So, if you'd like to use a mortar round as an hand grenade, you could
theoretically 1) activate the fuse by hitting it hard 2) throw the
mortar bomb with activated fuse attached. Does not seem very safe to
me. Fuse settings would have to be just right.
I have not heard of mortar rounds being used this way. I've heard of
accidents when faulty fuses (= activated) were used and mortar round
explodes either in the tube or just after clearing the tube.
Accidents were quite rare, though, so the fuses do not activate easily
- roads were bad during WWII.
Propellant and initiator do not have anything to do with this kind of
mortar round use. Initiator is just like a shotgun round and
propellant charges are added as needed.
--
Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland
http://www.iki.fi/juhave/
** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect **
Velovich
>rounds down before throwing them, anyway? To arm it? Has anyone ever heard
>of mortar rounds being used in this way?
Yes. Either the impact of firing (slamming the round down) or the
Juha Veijalainen
> >A mortar round has two explosive charges, one to propel the round out of the
> >tube, and another to "service" the target. If you slam the end of a mortar
> >round down, the propellant charge will detonate.
> rounds down before throwing them, anyway? To arm it? Has anyone ever heard
Bob Caissie
>
> >Has anyone ever heard of mortar rounds being used in this way?
>
> accelleration of flight (simulated by the slamming) arms the round. I'm being
> vague here, for simplicity, and to cover those rounds of various types of
> fusing...
>
> <*>
>
> Velovich
> "Who IS Keyser Souze?"
>
mortar to its target ? I know you drop them into the tube and then
they get launched. But, launched by what ?
Doesn't the mortar round have its own charge to launch itself when
dropped into a mortar tube ?
And if so, wouldn't the act of striking the bottom of the round
simulate
what happens when the round hits the bottom of the tube, thereby
setting
this charge off ?
BC
Velovich
> mortar to its target ? I know you drop them into the tube and then
> they get launched. But, launched by what ?
>
> Doesn't the mortar round have its own charge to launch itself when
> dropped into a mortar tube ?
OK - different mortars have different means. Some have charges much like a
rifle bullet - all in teh round of ammunition. Some, such as teh Army's 4.2",
have charges that are added as needed, and are charge-less out of the box. The
4.2" still has a bursting charge (the part that causes casualties), but the
propelling charge is added JUST before firing. This allows teh charge to be
set up for the mission, overall conserving propellant.
As I understand, most mortars work this way, and those with integral
propelling charges can still get add on propellant for longer ranges...
<*>
Velovich
"Who IS Keyser Souze?"
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter
Ed Walton
Veijalainen) wrote:
> So, if you'd like to use a mortar round as an hand grenade, you could
> theoretically 1) activate the fuse by hitting it hard 2) throw the
> mortar bomb with activated fuse attached. Does not seem very safe to
> me. Fuse settings would have to be just right.
No setting of the fuze, because it's an impact fuze. The shell hits nose
first and the fuze is pushed back to detontate the shell.
Ed Walton
<cai...@bose.com> wrote:
> Doesn't the mortar round have its own charge to launch itself when
> dropped into a mortar tube ?
Drop the shell down the tube. At the bottom of the tube is a base cap
which is threaded onto the end of the tube. In the center of the base cap
is a long firing pin which projects up into the tube. In the center of the
bottom of the shell, the fins are joined around a "tube" which has a
cartridge like a shotgun blank stuck into the center. There are holes all
around this "tube". When the shell gets to the bottom of the tube, the
primer on the cartridge ("shotgun blank") runs into the pin and detonates.
This detonates the cartridge propellent, which detonates the increments
(explosive paper) on the fins. The explosive force of all this detonating
blasts the shell out of the tube.
> And if so, wouldn't the act of striking the bottom of the round
> simulate
> what happens when the round hits the bottom of the tube, thereby
> setting
> this charge off ?
Only if you stike the bottom of the round onto the point of a nail or some
other "firing pin".
David R Brooks
[snip]
:
:Propellant and initiator do not have anything to do with this kind of
:mortar round use. Initiator is just like a shotgun round and
:propellant charges are added as needed.
OK, can someone answer me this? If the (primary) propellant charge is
a shotshell-like item, why doesn't the brass base (with the cap) blow
out of the round when it is launched? If it did, the mortar tube would
soon become clogged with fired cases, which obviously doesn't happen.
TIA
-- Dave Brooks <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb>
PGP public key via <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb/crypto.html>, or servers
Walt Eldredge
rounds as grenades is to understand how the fuse works, not whether it can
be done. The practice was throughly documented on at least one occasion in
the village of Altavilla near Salerno in Sept 1943, by an EM in the 36th Div
named Kelly who got the nickname "Commando" Kelly, and also a Medal of
Honor, for the action in which he used 60 mm rounds just as shown in SPR.
JCDrews
KELLY, Charles E., Co L, 143rd Inf, 36th Inf Div, Altavilla, Italy, 13 Sep
43. His assigned wpn was a BAR, when that quit, he got another. When the
seond one quit, "At this critical point, with the enemy threatening to overrun
the position, CPL KELLY picked up 60mm mortar shells, pulled the safety pins,
and used the shells as grenades, killing at least five of the enemy." He then
used a bazooka to cover his buddies' retreat.
Jay
> OK, can someone answer me this? If the (primary) propellant charge is
>a shotshell-like item, why doesn't the brass base (with the cap) blow
>out of the round when it is launched? If it did, the mortar tube would
>soon become clogged with fired cases, which obviously doesn't happen.
It's "shotgun like" in the sense that there is a primer and a
cartridge. The whole assembly is permamently fitted to the mortar bomb
and stays attached when the bomb launches out of the tube.
Jay
> I have some questions, During normal mortar use, what propells the
> mortar to its target ? I know you drop them into the tube and then
> they get launched. But, launched by what ?
There are several elements to a mortar bomb. Using the 60mm mortar of
SPR: there is the fuse, bursting charge, propellant increments and
initiator cartridge. The bomb drops down the tube, and the primer at
th base of the intitiator cartridge strikes the firing pin (the firing
pin of the 60mm mortar may be fixed or trigger fired). The cartridge
ignites, and ignites the increments.
The increments are best described as powder-impregnated paper that is
placed in bags of equal amounts. these bags are attached to the fins
of the mortar bomb. Depending on the desired range of the bomb, a
number of increment bags are removed.
When the initiator cartridge detonates inside the tube the increments
also detonate a short time aftarwards (microseconds).The resulting
expansion of gasses propel the bomb out of the tube in the desired
direction.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, da...@iinet.net.au (David R Brooks) says:
> OK, can someone answer me this? If the (primary) propellant charge is
>a shotshell-like item, why doesn't the brass base (with the cap) blow
>out of the round when it is launched? If it did, the mortar tube would
>soon become clogged with fired cases, which obviously doesn't happen.
The ignitor (the "shotgun shell-like item") is firmly clinched
in the base of the round. It remains in the round after firing.
The ignitor is designed to deliver its force sideways (igniting
the powder charges) rather than forward like a shotgun shell so
the "recoil" which would tend to drive the ignitor out of the
round is minimized.
Cheers and all,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org
JCDrews
Italy. IIRC, he was caught on the rooftop of a two or three-story building in
an Italina town when a German attack broke through. He ran out of ammo for his
rifle, then started dropping/throwing mortar rounds in such a fashion. He als,
IIRC, went on to scoop up every imaginable weapon -- rifle, carbine, BAR, SMG,
.30 and even .50 MG to further punish the attackers...thereby rallying
resistance, etc. etc.
Anybody have a book on Medal of Honor winners
Jay
>I'm no expert on this subject but wasn't it the shock of the "propellant"
>charge which activates the main detonator? That is what they were simulating
>by slamming the shell IMHO, they were merely activating the primary
>detonator.
They were activating the fuze.
Ed Walton
(David R Brooks) wrote:
> OK, can someone answer me this? If the (primary) propellant charge is
> a shotshell-like item, why doesn't the brass base (with the cap) blow
> out of the round when it is launched?
On a shotgun, there is a part called the "extractor" that hooks onto the
rim of the base to eject the fired shell when the action opens. There is
no extractor on a mortar, so the spent cartridge remains in the base of
the shell as it is fired. The cartridge stays with the shell until it
explodes.
Daniel
> juh...@zdnetmail.com (Juha Veijalainen) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> :
> :Propellant and initiator do not have anything to do with this kind of
> :mortar round use. Initiator is just like a shotgun round and
> :propellant charges are added as needed.
>
> OK, can someone answer me this? If the (primary) propellant charge is
> a shotshell-like item, why doesn't the brass base (with the cap) blow
> out of the round when it is launched? If it did, the mortar tube would
> soon become clogged with fired cases, which obviously doesn't happen.
> TIA
>
> -- Dave Brooks <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb>
> PGP public key via <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb/crypto.html>, or servers
The primer is indeed a shotgun shell like device clipped into place in the base
of the tail. The explosion is vented sideways through the perforated tube
enclosing shell (and forming the tail). This explosion ignites any secondary
charges which are attached between the fins in small cellulose bags. The
pressure generated forced the mortar round up the tube.
ANother raised elsewhere in this thread said that the reason that the No2 on a
mortar (the loader) was forced to duck after placing the round into the barrel
because of a "safety pin flying out on shock of discharge is pulling a furphy
(Aus slang for a tall story).
Mortar rounds, like all explosive filled rounds of the modern (post-1900
roughly) era work on two principles for safety. Shock of discharge (or in the
case of rifled rounds discharge plus centrifugal force) ensure that the safety
devices are removed from the path of the striker in the fuse meaning the round
is safe until it is fired. This is a complex fuse for a small weapon (60mm)
and/or those designed to fire a cheap cast iron case filled with explosive
(mortars in general) so they used a secondary type of device - a simple safety
pin or cap over the fuse which was the last thing done by the ammunition number
before handing it to the loader - the fuse was active from this point ! Don't
drop it !
(Been there, done that ! Round is destroyed in situ if in peacetime as it is
too dangerous to move - 3in round with Fuze SQF7 if memory serves me
correct....)
The Americans for some reason (made it a horribly expensive round for little
effect) used a combination of the two and the action of pulling the pin (to
allow the safety device to move) and the shock on hitting it (and sliding the
safety device out of way and making the fuse active) allowed it to be used as a
grenade. Not that I would want to do it - it would be too unreliable as you
would need to have the bomb land on its nose (as they did not have "graze"
fuses).
The loader ducked 'cos it got your head out of the way of the concussion of the
escaping gas from tube as the round departed on its way !
Cheers
Daniel
Ed Walton
<eric...@gte.net> wrote:
> As others have said, not so. However, just *why* were they slamming the
> rounds down before throwing them, anyway? To arm it? Has anyone ever heard
> of mortar rounds being used in this way? I haven't read of it, but that
> doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yes, it happened. "Commando" Kelly of the 36th Division won the Medal of
Honor for doing this at Salerno, but he was dropping them down onto tanks
and troops from a third story window. Another guy, this time in the
Pacific, also got the MoH forthrowing mortars shells.
Hillbrath
> When the initiator cartridge detonates inside the tube the increments
> also detonate a short time aftarwards (microseconds).The resulting
> expansion of gasses propel the bomb out of the tube in the desired
> direction.
To non explosives types, this may seem a nit pick, but, I will make it, anyway.
The initiatior, and the increments, *deflagrate* (i.e. burn). They do not
"detonate" (react at a the speed of a detonation wave passing through the
material.) If the initiator, or the increments, detonated, the result would
most likely be a burst tube and dead, or wounded crew men. It is the "bursting
charge" (if there is one) that detonates, we hope.
There are quite a few other components of a mortar round that Jay omitted. The
fuze, the one that may or may not be armed by the hitting the round on the
base, for example.
Mortar rounds come in a great variety of types, and have often been modified
over the years.
As someone who has had some training in ammunition types, I would want a lot of
information before *I* tried rapping a round on the base, or before I expected
a round thus rapped to function when thrown.
But, it is not completely unreasonable that this could work, nor that infantry
types would try it.
The "trench" mortar is a very simple device, but, it had some problems, and bit
by bit, it was made more complicated to try to eliminate some of them.
One of the problems is that the bursting charge requires a fuze to detonate it.
(lets see, IIRC, with a "z" a "fuze" is the gimmick that sets off a
projectile, with an "s" a "fuse" is a piece of string that burns slowly to set
off a demolition charge, another nit pick. ) In order to not blow up the crew
before they get the darn thing in the tube, there is a safety device. Just like
the pin in a hand grenade.
One major problem occurs when you arm the round, drop it down the tube, and
nothing happens. Bummer. There you are, a live fuze for the bursting charge in
the tube, a dud, or maybe dud initiator, one that could come to life at any
time, for any reason, or no reason.
One attempt at fixing this was a "bore safe" fuze. There is a little plunger
that is covered with a ring held together with a snap. You unsnap the ring,
drop the round down the tube, and the initiator and the increments go off. The
plunger is unlatched by the acceleration imparted by the propelling charge,
but, it can't come out and arm the fuze intil the round clears the muzzle,
because it is held in by the bore.
This doesn't totally solve the problem of a hang fire. If one does happen, the
manual says that you are suppose to detach the tube from the base, and *very
carefully* tip it until the round starts to slide down the tube. Then, an
assistant is suppose to hold his fingers just over the edge of the tube (only
using fingers that he can spare in case of an unplanned event) and gently catch
the round, being careful not to touch nose of the fuze, just in case.
Then, one very carefully pulls the round out until the plunger is exposed,
holds the plunger in as it clears the tube, and replaces the clip ("You did
save it, didn't you?") and the round is then "save as houses" again. But, if
the round falls out before the clip is replaced, or the initiator fires while
this is going on, well, those are the breaks.
Popping out the plunger is apparently what is being described (I haven't seen
the movie. ) If it is the type that I am thinking of, you can easily see the
plunger pop.
There is still a trick to using a mortar round like this. A mortar fuze is
highly directional. If it hits on the fuze cap, it is going to work, but, if it
hits any other way, it most likely will not. So, you would have to throw the
projectile "spear mode" point first, and it cannot "end over end" if you expect
it to work.
There were other types of fuzes, including some that were suppose to be "tree
safe" so that they didn't detonated on tree limbs as they were *outgoing* which
is also a big problem.
So, it could have worked. Maybe.
Henry Hillbrath.
Juha Veijalainen
> In article <6qkcp0$l...@dgs.dgsys.com>, juh...@zdnetmail.com (Juha
> Veijalainen) wrote:
>
> > So, if you'd like to use a mortar round as an hand grenade, you could
> > theoretically 1) activate the fuse by hitting it hard 2) throw the
> > mortar bomb with activated fuse attached. Does not seem very safe to
> > me. Fuse settings would have to be just right.
>
> No setting of the fuze, because it's an impact fuze. The shell hits nose
> first and the fuze is pushed back to detontate the shell.
As far as I know, even during WWII artillery and mortar fuzes could be
set to 'sensitive' or 'stiff' (using direct translation from Finnish
here). Or maybe they had set of fuses with different detonation
levels.
Sensitive fuses would detonate on any impact; water, snow, tree
branches, leaves etc. This would be practical against soft targets
and during winter when snow would otherwise absorb a lot of the
explosion.
I've understood that the mortar bombs in the movie were 60mm - I could
be that the fuse is more simple than in larger calibre weapons.
Peter Ritchey
> juh...@zdnetmail.com (Juha Veijalainen) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> :
> OK, can someone answer me this? If the (primary) propellant charge is
> a shotshell-like item, why doesn't the brass base (with the cap) blow
> out of the round when it is launched?
Cart Ignition is normally screw fitted, in modern mortar projectiles,
although the 90gr Ballistite cartridge for the 3in Mor was simply a 12 bore
cart case with a firing pin arrangement fitted onto the base of the cart
case. Cart ridge is a tight fit in the 3in mor. Stays with mortar round
due to newtons 3rd law.
>snip
>because of a "safety pin flying out on shock of discharge is pulling a
furphy
>(Aus slang for a tall story).
(more like "rumour")
3in round with Fuze SQF7 if memory serves me
correct....)
Fuze PD had no mechanical parts. The theory of adiabatics being behind
this design which functioned on the compression of the air in the nose cup
being sufficent to generate a shock wave to initiate the RDX stemming and
main fuze charge.
BTW certain mortar fuzes are fitted with a"bore riding pin" which is
released by the setback, on firing and then parts company with the fuze at
the muzzle4 of the mortar.
Regards
--
Capt P. Ritchey RAAOC ATO/US ARMY 910A/US ARMY 55D & 55X
Jay
>To non explosives types, this may seem a nit pick, but, I will make it, anyway.>
>The initiatior, and the increments, *deflagrate* (i.e. burn). They do not
>"detonate" (react at a the speed of a detonation wave passing through the
>material.) If the initiator, or the increments, detonated, the result would
>most likely be a burst tube and dead, or wounded crew men. It is the "bursting
>charge" (if there is one) that detonates, we hope.
Well, it is a bit of a nit, especially since the sound of a mortar
going off makes it difficult for the user to distingush between a
detonation and a deflagration. I may be wrong, but I think the
initiator detonates though.
>There are quite a few other components of a mortar round that Jay omitted. The
>fuze, the one that may or may not be armed by the hitting the round on the
>base, for example.
I mentioned the fuze in another post.
>As someone who has had some training in ammunition types, I would want a lot of>information before *I* tried rapping a round on the base, or before I expected
>a round thus rapped to function when thrown.
The 60mm mortar has a very simple fuze safety. Most mortars have
something similar, unless it's a VT fuze. I can't think of any 60mm or
81mm mortar bomb that has a base-detonating fuze.
>One of the problems is that the bursting charge requires a fuze to detonate it.> (lets see, IIRC, with a "z" a "fuze" is the gimmick that sets off a
>projectile, with an "s" a "fuse" is a piece of string that burns slowly to set
>off a demolition charge, another nit pick. )
I always thought it was an Anglo-American linguistic difference, like
civilisation and civilization.
> In order to not blow up the crew
>before they get the darn thing in the tube, there is a safety device. Just like>the pin in a hand grenade.
There are two safety devices: the actualy physical safety, which is a
pin or wire, and the internal safety which prevents the bomb from
exploding unless it's been fired (supposedly).
>This doesn't totally solve the problem of a hang fire. If one does happen, the
>manual says that you are suppose to detach the tube from the base, and *very
>carefully* tip it until the round starts to slide down the tube.
I personnaly never encountered such a plunger-type fuze. Our main
worry was removing the firing pin before tipping the tube, just in
case it was a hang fire, and a slip of the hands allows the round to
drop to the base of the tube.
>Popping out the plunger is apparently what is being described (I haven't seen
>the movie. ) If it is the type that I am thinking of, you can easily see the
>plunger pop.
I'm not sure about the WWII-vinatage fuzes, but the ones we had for
the 60mm mortar in the 80s involved a pin that displaced due to the
shock of firing. One couldn't actually see the "plunger" popping out
though.
>There were other types of fuzes, including some that were suppose to be "tree
>safe" so that they didn't detonated on tree limbs as they were *outgoing* which>is also a big problem.
I remember a recent incident with modern ammo (recent being about
1986). The increments were wet, and failed to "deflagrate," so the
rounds came out,as described by one Sgt, "like half-f**ked salmon."
They dropped about 40m in front of the mortar line without detonating.
Apparently the fuze for that round (the Norwegian NM-123) was
sophisticated enough to not activate with a "charge-0" firing. An
interesting problem in itself.
>So, it could have worked. Maybe.
Probably would have, though I'd be hesitant about the 100% results.
Hillbrath
>> No setting of the fuze, because it's an impact fuze. The shell hits nose
>> first and the fuze is pushed back to detontate the shell.
> As far as I know, even during WWII artillery and mortar
> fuzes could be set to 'sensitive' or 'stiff'
In American English, we would usually say IIRC "instant" (or "quick") or
"delay" if that is what you are talking about. In this case, "delay" is
different than "time" or "time delay" (I am no longer totally sure of the
designations, but the types are correct.) . "Delay" just means that the fuze
has long enough to dig into the ground, or whatever, before going off. "time"
means that the round detonates when a certain time has elapsed, like in mid
air. (usually overridden by contact) and "time delay" is for situations in
which it is desired to have long delays after impact, hours to days, in an
attempt to deny an area to the enemy.
>I've understood that the mortar bombs in the movie were
> 60mm - I could be that the fuse is more simple than in
> larger calibre weapons.
That is a reasonable idea, one might think that small fuzes would be simpler.
But, my recollection is that there were more different kinds of fuzes (and
ammo) for the 60mm than there were for most weapons. (Part of that might have
been that seperate fuzes had to be provided, rather than combining functions.
Probably most of these variations were not common in the field.
I do seem to recall that "delay" was only available on a different fuze than
the ordinary contact one, and there was some confusion in the minds of myself,
and my fellow students, just what delay was meant by that.
I think there was even a "VT" ("proximity") fuze for it, just before it was
declared obselete, and withdrawn from service.
A lot of people didn't like mortars, from either end, but, I was always very
fond of them. Figuring out things like range tables and such was much more my
style than assaulting machine guns with a bayonet.
Henry Hillbrath