Destructive power of Artillery and Mortar bombs against infantry

How do artillery fire from 75mm, 88mm, 105mm, 150mm, 155mm, etc. guns compare to mortar fire from 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 120mm against infantry?

 

Well when infantry is far away you shoot at them with 75mm, 88mm, 105mm, 150mm, 155mm, etc. guns.

When they get closer you can drop 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 120mm mortars on them and kill them just as effectively.

Depending on the proximaty and casualty radius of the round, when it fell, the infantryman could expect to be vaporized, pulverized, muderized, imhulated, crippled, maimed, wounded, mildly distorted or just scared real bad. No matter what the distance from the round when it was fired.

The major difference is distance.

 

Thanks. what I'm really curious about is how the mortar shells compared to the artillery shells in capability and destructive power.

 

Oh, you can read the whole thing or just go to section III:

https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/23583-1/FM/3-21.8/appc.htm


HIGH-EXPLOSIVE AMMUNITION
C-36. When mortar rounds impact they throw fragments in a pattern that is never truly circular, and may even travel irregular, based on the round's angle of fall, the slope of the terrain, and the type soil. However, for planning purposes, each mortar high explosive (HE) round is considered to have a circular lethal bursting area. Figure C-10 shows a scale representation of the lethal bursting areas of mortar rounds.

​

Figure C-10. Comparison of lethal bursting areas of U.S. mortar rounds.

 

For some reason, I can't access that site. It seems to be a restricted site, perhaps closed to the general public.

 

@wolfy, Yeah me too... i wonder if site still working... might be a great help for newbies...

 

I don't see anything that says "Restricted" or "Limited Distribution" so it might be a browser setting on your side.

Here is something you might find useful from the same site:

EMPLOY THE BEST WEAPON FOR THE TARGET
2-15. Enemy target type, range, and exposure are key factors in determining the friendly weapon and munitions that should be employed for the desired target effects. Using the appropriate weapon against the enemy target increases the probability of its rapid destruction or suppression. The platoon leader task organizes and arrays his forces based on the terrain, enemy, and desired fires effects.
2-16. Weapons and munitions are designed with specifications that enable their effects to be forecasted with some degree of accuracy before being fired. They are also designed for a specific range versus specific targets. Platoon and squad Infantry leaders must have an intimate understanding of their organic and supporting weapons and munitions to include the following:
l Weapon characteristics, ranges, and optimal use.
l Munition characteristics, lethality, and optimal use (such as how to achieve intended effects and avoid unintended effects).
l Procedures to request, control, and adjust fires from other agencies.
2-17. Infantry platoon and squad leaders must ensure that they focus the fires of their weapons systems on targets their weapon systems are designed to engage (Figure 2-1). For example, CCMS are used against armored targets at ranges of up to 2,000 meters for stand-off protection. However, medium machine guns are used to destroy enemy unarmored vehicles and dismounted Infantry at ranges within 1,000 meters. Leaders plan and execute fires throughout the depth of the AO, engaging enemy targets early and continuously IAW weapon capabilities and standoff. The principle of depth enables Infantry units to achieve and maintain fire superiority. By engaging the enemy early, leaders disrupt the enemy's plans, forcing him to seek cover. To apply this principle, leaders are required to know weapon systems at their effective ranges as well as the movement rates of Soldiers and equipment. When moving, the friendly force echelons its fires in front of the friendly attacking force. This allows unhindered movement. When the friendly force defends, they echelon their forces against the approaching enemy force.

​

Figure 2-1. Weapon ranges.

 

Wolfy & Fast1

The site is working it has no authetication certificate so your computer safety setting may be preventing your access as it views the site as a potential viral threat.

Steve

 

In answer to your question on destructive power of arty vs mortars: Note jugheads illustration in the post...when an artillery round hits it comes in at a much shallower trajectory, thus no matter how big the shell is, much of the lethal fragments are thrown harmlessly up in the air. Mortars have a much higher trajectory, so when fired they hit much closer to vertical position. Thus mortars can be more lethal to infantry in the open because more lethal fragments are spread in a circular pattern with less flying up in the air to come down with little or no effect.

Artillery designers have known this for years and so there are many variants of both artillery and mortar shells. Both artillery and mortar rounds can be designed to air burst before they hit the ground to increase their lethality to troops in trenches or foxholes. Both can also be designed for delayed detonation, for example when fighting in forests or jungles this type of shell can crash through any overhead cover and trees and explode at ground level instead of detonating harmlessly in the treetops.
All in all you cannot argue with caliber, so artillery is generally more lethal, less vulnerable to counter attack due to longer range, and what both Stalin and Patton agreed was really the war winner on the battlefield. (Stalin called artillery the "God of war".) and generally the more artillery an army has, the more combat capability they have.

I saw a TV show on military channel where they showed the crew of a modern US Army mortar team. They used a type of shell with a dial on its nose with 3 settings, set simply by turning right before it was dropped in the tube, if i recall correctly i think the choices were air burst, impact burst or delay.

 

If any of them lands ten feet from you, you will be ripped apart either way.

 

Generally for a given caliber mortar shells carry more explosive although they may produce less fragments. In WWII I don't think any had proximity rounds either which made a bid difference for artillery HE.

 

I have this nifty little set of tables and a program that actually calculate this for designing wargames that I made some years ago. It was very thoroughly researched and took quite a while to finish. Unfortunately, I doubt I can post it up since only part of it is on a spreadsheet.

Anyway some generalizations: Mortars and rockets have about 2/3rds to half the effect of similar sized shells fired from conventional artillery pieces. High velocity guns are 5 to 10% less efficent than lower velocity howitzers and artillery pieces are.
Mortars do have the advantage of usually being able to land the first salvo on their target without telegraphing their arrival due to their low velocity leaving the bombs almost silent in flight.

As far as damage goes the reason conventional guns do so much more is that mortar bombs are usually relatively thin walled and contain more explosives. This means they produce smaller and lighter fragments. Why is this important? Because blast is virtually worthless against anything that is not enclosed or contained. That is, unless the shell or bomb penetrates into an AFV, building, bunker, etc., blast can be almost totally ignored as a casuality agent.
It is the fragments that do all the damage. All but the smallest shells and mortar bombs will produce about 1000 to 3000 fragments depending on a number of factors. Of these about 2% are really, really dangerous. These are big, heavy pieces that will slice people in half, tear vehicles apart, cripple or destroy tanks (yes, HE rounds will thoroughly demolish tanks even if they are just near misses....particularly ones over about 100mm in size) and can do so for up to 100 or more yards from the explosion point.
The rest of the fragments are small to very small. These are only dangerous close to the explosion point due to their weight. Typically these weigh only a few grams to maybe a couple 100 grams in weight. They lack the weight to do anything except at very close range and very high velocity (the toothpick in a hurricane thing).
The type of explosive filler and quality of the shell also make a big difference. Mortar bombs are frequently cast steel of low quality to keep them cheap. This makes them less effective. Fillers like TNT or Amatol are much better than say picric acid or black powder. The better explosives increase the initial velocity of fragments enhancing their effect.
Better steel makes the shell more effective too. This is because its bursting strength is increased again making the initial velocity higher. The US in the WW 2 period had a big advantage here as they used a much better grade of steel than the other combatants in shells. The Germans by 1944 were particularly bad off making many shells from recast scrap of dubious quality. In particular, their 105mm howitzer round was a really bad performer being about 15% less effective than the US 105 round and about 10% less than a 25 pdr round.

In general terms you can count a mortar as about the same effectiveness as a conventional artillery piece of about 20mm smaller size. That is, a 105 howitzer and a 120 mm mortar are about equivalent in destructiveness.
One other note, the mortar rounds are particularly ineffective against dug in and protected troops. This is because they lack velocity and penetration to take out trenches and bunkers. But, because they tend to not bury as much they do make up partially against troops in the open this effect.

A few other notes:

Air bursts are more effective against personnel but less so against most anything else.
The striking angle is important for fragment dispersion. The closer to vertical the shell lands the more circular the fragment pattern. Most shells tend to make a "butterfly" pattern along the axis of flight for fragmentation. This is due mainly to the way the shell breaks up when it explodes.
Higher velocity equals deeper penetration possibilities against hard targets.
Wall thickness is important. Heavy wall shells penetrate more whatever.
Fuzing is also important.

 

Gentelmen:

One oyr best suppot units was the 81mm morter platoon in our Bn. HQ Co. The could lay down a great volume of fire but airborne units do not have the supply ability to keep them in continued action. The line division had very robust mortor support. The heavy HE round was about the same as 105 mm shell. In bastogne we had additional artillery suppor from 155 mm medium artillery that improve our defensive ability.

As Ever,

Walter L. Marlowe
( Airborne All the Way)

 

it all depends on how many guns were availible and how much ammo they had for them that improved firepower