NationStates

The USSR had mortar subunits at both regimental, divisional and corps level (I think) made up of shit loads of SP mortars like Tyulpan, the Sani, or the Vasilek. The USSR was seriously infatuated with mortars.

Questers wrote:The USSR had mortar subunits at both regimental, divisional and corps level (I think) made up of shit loads of SP mortars like Tyulpan, the Sani, or the Vasilek. The USSR was seriously infatuated with mortars.

Let me guess: "God of War?" The Soviet penchant for artillery strikes that blot out the sun?

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

Anacasppia wrote:For my regular ('motor') infantry units should I assign one SP mortar to each platoon or one SP mortar platoon to each company? Same goes for my MGSes. I'm leaning towards the later since company commanders can always detach vehicles to platoons as needed...

To a platoon? That's pretty low. A platoon would be lucky to have themselves a 76mm mortar between them in most forces.
SP mortars are typically a... Regimental asset? (thinking about stuff the size of Tyulpan here)

The M1129 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier is a Battalion asset.

Maybe he does what I am doing and issues the platoon commanders own IFV with a 2B9.

Seriously, nothing beats a mortar at the platoon level. And mortars at the company and battalion levels. And mortars on the brigade, division, army and army group level. And let us not forget the front mortar army.

It varies.

It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg

Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:It varies.

It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg

Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.

Honestly I think that 12cm is just too heavy for a platoon. It's not about the HE but the size of the rounds and ammo supply. You can take a BMP-3, swap outs its 2A70 for a 2B9 and pack the shells in much the same with very little modification. Having a 12cm SP requires a completely new vehicle. One whose hull and turret need to be packed with 12cm rounds making it difficult to do anything else. And since the rounds are bigger and heavier you need more frequent resupply as well.

This is what I mean:

Left to right: some funky 60mm, regular 60mm, 120mm, 82mm.
I got the image of yahoo and know not anything else.

The Vasilek is a gun-mortar though.
You'd probably get a similar doctrinal effect with great firepower if you got the 2S31 Vena. It's mounted on a BMP-3 chassis, it'd be worth finding out if it still has the capability to move troops.
(It's essentially the replacement for the 2S9 Nona)

A system such as a Company of M1129-alikes, converted APCs with 120mm mortars, as a Battalion asset would bring significantly more firepower than a Tyulipan could, just because of the increased rate of fire per tube (let alone as a battery) and the increased stowage.
Tyulpian still has its uses though - I'm just wondering if "reach and and touch someone" Smerch has stolen those uses though.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The Vasilek is a gun-mortar though.
You'd probably get a similar doctrinal effect with great firepower if you got the 2S31 Vena. It's mounted on a BMP-3 chassis, it'd be worth finding out if it still has the capability to move troops.
(It's essentially the replacement for the 2S9 Nona)

I doubt it. The turret on that thing is huge. And the size of the rounds is such that even if you could pack troops in a 12cm mortar carrier you would be doing so at the expense of a meaningful munitions load. See the image I edited in.

A system such as a Company of M1129-alikes, converted APCs with 120mm mortars, as a Battalion asset would bring significantly more firepower than a Tyulipan could, just because of the increased rate of fire per tube (let alone as a battery) and the increased stowage.
Tyulpian still has its uses though - I'm just wondering if "reach and and touch someone" Smerch has stolen those uses though.

As battalion assets absolutely. Just not in a platoon. My typical motor rifle battalion has one 2B9 in each platoon for close support as I described and a battery of 8 twin barrel AMOS units attached to the battalion directly. It also has a light rocket artillery battery with 8 units up there as well. But that's another story.

As for 24cm units I think they should be reserved for specialist bombardment units at the regimental or even divisional level. I imagine something like a divisional heavy mortar battalion consisting of something like one battery of Br-5's, two batteries of 2S4's, a two batteries of MT-13's.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:It varies.

It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg

Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.

It should be a 105mm shell. A 120mm NATO round has 2.5kg of filler ( http://www.imemg.org/res/imemts2006_haye_1.ppt.pdf ), which is apparently slightly more than the M760 105mm round ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/hcxtaa/)

Aqizithiuda wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:It varies.

It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg

Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.

It should be a 105mm shell. A 120mm NATO round has 2.5kg of filler ( http://www.imemg.org/res/imemts2006_haye_1.ppt.pdf ), which is apparently slightly more than the M760 105mm round ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/hcxtaa/)

Huh.
So how come the Soviet rounds have a full kilo less explosive?

Also, interestingly, the warhead on the Copperhead 155mm guided shell is only a 7kg shaped charge.
Feels like all that guidance is pretty wasted in the only target of an individual munition is a single battle tank. Why not just save the money and saturate-bomb where you think the enemy armoured company is with regular 155mm rounds?
Or, why not SADARM?

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

Aqizithiuda wrote:
It should be a 105mm shell. A 120mm NATO round has 2.5kg of filler ( http://www.imemg.org/res/imemts2006_haye_1.ppt.pdf ), which is apparently slightly more than the M760 105mm round ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/hcxtaa/)

Huh.
So how come the Soviet rounds have a full kilo less explosive?

Also, interestingly, the warhead on the Copperhead 155mm guided shell is only a 7kg shaped charge.
Feels like all that guidance is pretty wasted in the only target of an individual munition is a single battle tank. Why not just save the money and saturate-bomb where you think the enemy armoured company is with regular 155mm rounds?
Or, why not SADARM?

It's nominally a case of shrapnel vs blast.

More blast means more effective shrapnel though, doesn't it?
If you've a solid 70% more explosive power behind the same mass of shrapnel fragments then surely, they're going to go a lot more distance.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:More blast means more effective shrapnel though, doesn't it?
If you've a solid 70% more explosive power behind the same mass of shrapnel fragments then surely, they're going to go a lot more distance.

Do they have the same fragment mass?

Aqizithiuda wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:More blast means more effective shrapnel though, doesn't it?
If you've a solid 70% more explosive power behind the same mass of shrapnel fragments then surely, they're going to go a lot more distance.

Do they have the same fragment mass?

Literally no idea.

Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.

Basic design of the new reissued G3 of the Efsanevi military. It's official designation is the "EMBR-13" which stands for "Efsanevi Main Battle Rifle 2013". It differs from the G3A3 main assault rifle in that it has a retractable stock and Picatinny rails on the foregrip and resever. Also all plastic parts were replaced with lighter polymers to reduce weight. The EMBR-13 Is 5 pounds as compared to 9 pounds for the G3A3.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

Aqizithiuda wrote:
Do they have the same fragment mass?

Literally no idea.

Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.

The M934 apparently weights just 13.65 kg ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m933.htm ).

American shells, then, will probably be pushing smaller fragments faster than Russian shells. Presumably, heavier, slower fragments were preferred by the Russians (better penetration? Better residual damage?).

Efsanevi wrote:(Image)

Basic design of the new reissued G3 of the Efsanevi military. It's official designation is the "EMBR-13" which stands for "Efsanevi Main Battle Rifle 2013". It differs from the G3A3 main assault rifle in that it has a retractable stock and Picatinny rails on the foregrip and resever. Also all plastic parts were replaced with lighter polymers to reduce weight. The EMBR-13 Is 5 pounds as compared to 9 pounds for the G3A3.

There's a reason even modern battle rifles weigh a bit. Mass really does help reduce recoil, and there's only so much you can lighten a weapon before it becomes unfit for the military.

Aqizithiuda wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Literally no idea.

Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.

The M934 apparently weights just 13.65 kg ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m933.htm ).

American shells, then, will probably be pushing smaller fragments faster than Russian shells. Presumably, heavier, slower fragments were preferred by the Russians (better penetration? Better residual damage?).

Efsanevi wrote:(Image)

Basic design of the new reissued G3 of the Efsanevi military. It's official designation is the "EMBR-13" which stands for "Efsanevi Main Battle Rifle 2013". It differs from the G3A3 main assault rifle in that it has a retractable stock and Picatinny rails on the foregrip and resever. Also all plastic parts were replaced with lighter polymers to reduce weight. The EMBR-13 Is 5 pounds as compared to 9 pounds for the G3A3.

There's a reason even modern battle rifles weigh a bit. Mass really does help reduce recoil, and there's only so much you can lighten a weapon before it becomes unfit for the military.

What would be a good middle ground between the current weight of the G3A3 and the current EMBR-13?

Is it possible there was a mistake in the powerpoint? Does anyone have know the explosive weight for the XM933 or one similar? This one is NATO-spec and has an explosive weight of 1.36kg.

Armaco/Arsenal sell "long distance" mortar shells which are intended for long barreled mortars, and they feature a significantly increased weight. The 82mm ones are 3.1kg/420g for the standard HE-frag, but it's 4.15kg/750g for the LD HE-frag. Maybe the NATO 120mm had a similar development, of which the Eastern 120mm did not?
http://www.armaco.bg/product/mortar-bom ... -82ld-p318

Imagine a LD-160mm mortar...

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The 20mm HE will be effective against thin-skinned vehicles, infantry in the open and unfortified buildings.
The 14.5mm AP will be effective against most vehicles up to a few tonnes in weight.

From a military perspective, you should probably consider the 20mm and 14.5 roughly comparable. The 20mm is for use against all targets and soft targets, the 14.5 is ideal for when target penetration is required.

Makes sense
What about an APDS for the 20x102? Would that put it somewhere between a 12.7 and 14.5?
There's also the ASP-30. Did that have something similar to BARS? (dual-acting recoil adaptors? whatever the heck those are?) Though the 30x113mm is a bit large for what I had in mind. >.<

Aqizithiuda wrote:I didn't think the M-41D had a CTA 76mm gun?

If you accept the Rikhter as a CTA gun, then the Nagant M1895 pistol also qualifies. Other than that, I can't think of any other fielded CTA rounds.

It's quite possible it doesn't.
In full disclosure, and this sounds really stupid as I'm typing this out, but I was only going off of what someone said on tank-net.

Bhelyant wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The 20mm HE will be effective against thin-skinned vehicles, infantry in the open and unfortified buildings.
The 14.5mm AP will be effective against most vehicles up to a few tonnes in weight.

From a military perspective, you should probably consider the 20mm and 14.5 roughly comparable. The 20mm is for use against all targets and soft targets, the 14.5 is ideal for when target penetration is required.

Makes sense
What about an APDS for the 20x102? Would that put it somewhere between a 12.7 and 14.5?
There's also the ASP-30. Did that have something similar to BARS? (dual-acting recoil adaptors? whatever the heck those are?) Though the 30x113mm is a bit large for what I had in mind. >.<

Aqizithiuda wrote:I didn't think the M-41D had a CTA 76mm gun?

If you accept the Rikhter as a CTA gun, then the Nagant M1895 pistol also qualifies. Other than that, I can't think of any other fielded CTA rounds.

It's quite possible it doesn't.
In full disclosure, and this sounds really stupid as I'm typing this out, but I was only going off of what someone said on tank-net.

Bars makes sense in small arms. In autocannons bars don't give meaningful benefit.

What BARS does is negate the felt recoil of the action's components. What this does is remove one aspect of the recoil, leaving the only felt recoil as the rearward forces of the cartridge itself firing.
Understandably, this will provide little effect on an autocannon.

Aqizithiuda wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Literally no idea.

Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.

The M934 apparently weights just 13.65 kg ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m933.htm ).

American shells, then, will probably be pushing smaller fragments faster than Russian shells. Presumably, heavier, slower fragments were preferred by the Russians (better penetration? Better residual damage?).

Logic would state that this would reduce the total casualty radius, increase the fatal radius and provide better coverage within that fatal radius.

Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?

Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?

I believe no, because a SAW is considered a personal weapon, whereas a GPMG is (I believe) considered equipment, and thus may justify the issuing of a handgun. I think the GPMG is being seen more as a weapon these days than equipment as it was in the ~80s.

Unless you go the route of the Yanks, quartermasters and surgeons, as rear-echelon personnel (or otherwise not frontline troops) should be issued handguns (the Yank route of course being, handing everyone an M4). A Medic is probably combat personnel, as is a radio operator, both of whom should be issued the mainline rifle or possibly a carbine model.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?

I believe no, because a SAW is considered a personal weapon, whereas a GPMG is (I believe) considered equipment, and thus may justify the issuing of a handgun. I think the GPMG is being seen more as a weapon these days than equipment as it was in the ~80s.

Unless you go the route of the Yanks, quartermasters and surgeons, as rear-echelon personnel (or otherwise not frontline troops) should be issued handguns (the Yank route of course being, handing everyone an M4). A Medic is probably combat personnel, as is a radio operator, both of whom should be issued the mainline rifle or possibly a carbine model.

I still remember that guy how grumbled that squad's MG gunner should carry also mainline rifle, because MG is not part of his, but squad's equipment.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?

I believe no, because a SAW is considered a personal weapon, whereas a GPMG is (I believe) considered equipment, and thus may justify the issuing of a handgun. I think the GPMG is being seen more as a weapon these days than equipment as it was in the ~80s.

Unless you go the route of the Yanks, quartermasters and surgeons, as rear-echelon personnel (or otherwise not frontline troops) should be issued handguns (the Yank route of course being, handing everyone an M4). A Medic is probably combat personnel, as is a radio operator, both of whom should be issued the mainline rifle or possibly a carbine model.

I do something similar. Except with that submachine gun of mine.