50 mm Waste Mortar "Wasp"

60
Mortar is a purely Russian military invention. It is believed that it was created by a Russian officer and engineer Leonid Nikolayevich Gobyato. At the same time in the national historiography there are other candidates, but all of them are somehow connected with the siege of Port Arthur. The defense of the fortress quickly moved to the positional, "trench" phase, which required the garrison to weapons with a steep mounted trajectory of shooting. This is how the “mine mortar” or “Gobyato gun” appeared, firing a rod with a feathered nadkalibernom shell along a hinged trajectory and in the future gave the name to a new type of artillery guns.

Three decades later, the Red Army approached the beginning of World War II with a developed system of mortar weapons. The Red Army had 50-mm company mortars, 82-mm battalion mortars and 120-mm regimental mortars (for mountain rifle divisions 107-mm mountain pack regimental mortar). Naturally, the most widespread and common was the 50-mm rotary mortar. As of 1 June 1941, there were about 24 thousands of such mortars in army units.




50 mm rotary mortar PM-38


For the development of these weapons in our country, a great deal was done by the Soviet designer of mortar and jet armaments, Boris Ivanovich Shavyrin. In 1937-1938, the Special Design Bureau No.4 (SKB-4) attached to the Leningrad Artillery Plant No.7 named after M.V. Frunze (Arsenal plant) under the direct supervision of Boris Shavyrin and with his direct participation a Soviet mortar system was created armament (50-mm company, 82-mm battalion, 107-mm mountain pack and 120-mm regimental mortars). The experience of combat use of mortars during the conflict on the Khalkhin-Gol River and especially during the Finnish War 1939-1940 demonstrated that mortar for infantry is an indispensable weapon in the conditions of modern combat, especially in difficult rugged terrain.

Boris Ivanovich Shavyrin could actually prove to the military that the mortars are not some kind of “surrogate” of artillery that can be used in its absence (as some military leaders in the Red Army leadership considered), but a completely independent type of weapon intended for solving combat tasks which were difficult, and sometimes simply impossible to solve, using ordinary artillery. At the same time, he also defended such a simple weapon as a company mortar, which, in his opinion, was to become an excellent melee infantry weapon, combining, along with the simplicity of the device and circulation, high maneuverability and good accuracy of firing for short distances.

The designer understood that the infantry unit needed its own, not constraining to maneuver artillery. At the same time, any gun that would have been given to a rifle company deprived the unit of mobility. Back in 1936, Boris Shavyrin set about designing a mobile and compact smooth-bore 50-mm mortar. An imaginary triangle scheme was chosen by the designer: two sides of a two-leg-carriage and a trunk, the third is a conditional line that ran along the ground between the points of support. When developing a new mortar was called "Wasp".

50 mm Waste Mortar "Wasp"

Designer Boris I. Shavyrin


"Wasp", as the new mortar was originally called, was intended for direct fire support of the actions of the rifle company. The 50-mm mortar was planned to be used to destroy the enemy's manpower, as well as to suppress his fire weapons, located both in open areas and in shelters and on the reverse slopes of heights. Due to the relatively low weight (total 12 kg), only one person could carry such a mortar on the battlefield. During the march, three mortars could be stowed and transported using a specially designed mortar carriage model 1938 of the year - MP-38. This carriage was designed exclusively for horse thrust by one horse, although it was sprung. In the campaign, in addition to three mortars, the wagon was carrying an 24 tray with mines (168 min) and spare parts. In addition, a loading device was created, which allowed the mortar to be carried on a campaign on the back of one of the calculation numbers (the mortar calculation consisted of two people). Mines brought fighters on 7 pieces in trays.

After a series of short tests, the mortar was adopted by the Red Army under the designation 50-mm rotary mortar of the model 1938 of the year (RM-38) and put into mass production. A feature of the design of the new mortar was that firing was carried out only at two elevation angles of the barrel: 45 and 75 degrees. Adjustment in range was carried out with the help of the so-called remote crane, which was located in the breech breech and released some of the gases to the outside, thereby reducing the pressure in the barrel. The elevation angle in 45 degrees provided the longest range of fire reaching 800 meters, and with the elevation angle 75 degrees and a fully open remote crane, the minimum firing range was 200 meters. When firing from a mortar in the entire range of a range, only one charge was used. An additional change in the firing range was also carried out by changing the mines' path in the mortar barrel relative to the base of the barrel due to the mobile striker, as a result of which the volume of the chamber was changed. The 50-mm mortar was equipped with a simple mechanical sight, which had no optical devices.

The closest German equivalent was the 50-mm mortar, which received the designation 5cm leichter Granatenwerfer 36 in the German army. In terms of tactical and tactical characteristics, the Soviet mortar surpassed its opponent. For example, the RM-38 could throw an 850-gram mine at a distance of 800 meters, while a German mortar that weighed 14 kg (two kilograms more than the Soviet) could shoot slightly heavier ammunition (910 min mass of grams) at a maximum range of 500 meters . The Germans also believed that such mortars were necessary for the troops, they entered the army, airborne units and SS units. On 1 April 1941, the German army had 14 913 such 50-mm mortars and almost 32 million shots to them. According to the states, one such mortar fell on each infantry platoon, and in the division they should have been 84.


Soldiers of the “Great Germany” Division with a Granatenwerfer 50 36-mm mortar in 1942


However, if you move away from tabular paper values, it can be noted that the German mortar had a number of advantages over the Soviet counterpart of the same caliber. In real combat conditions, they could be more valuable than the possibility of hitting targets at a distance of up to 800 meters. With a weight of 14 kg, the German mortar Granatenwerfer 36 exceeded not only the Soviet counterpart, but also the models of English and Japanese mortars of the same caliber. At the same time, more weight provided him with greater stability, and hence accuracy when shooting. The mortar developed in 1936 by the engineers of the famous company “Rheinmetall” was built according to the “deaf scheme”, when all the elements and mechanisms were located on the base plate. The mortar could be easily carried by the handle in a fully assembled form, it could be quickly installed in position and opened fire on the enemy. Vertical targeting was carried out in the 42-90 range of degrees, which made it possible to hit targets at a short distance, the minimum target range was 50 meters, while the Soviet PM-38 mortar had only 200 meters. Another advantage of the German mortar was the small length of the barrel - 456 mm (against 780 mm from the Soviet counterpart), which allowed the mortar men to minimally rise above the rest of the platoon / company soldiers, complicating the possibility of their defeat by the enemy’s machine-gun and mortar fire. The Soviet PM-38 mortars demanded a lot of time for installation, and also differed in a large enough barrel, which unmasked mortar calculations on the battlefield.

At the same time, the German mortar 5cm leichter Granatenwerfer 36 had significant drawbacks. For example, a full-time German 50-mm mine was equipped with an extremely sensitive fuse, therefore official rules forbade firing from a mortar into heavy rain, which could provoke a mine to explode when fired. At the same time the mortar itself was considered by the Germans not entirely reliable. Approximately in 1-2 percent of cases, mines spontaneously exploded in the barrel, very often it was also noted that the mine simply did not fly out of the barrel when fired.

At the same time, both Soviet and German mortars could be recorded as losers in relation to similar models of artillery weapons, but in caliber 60-mm. It would seem that the difference is only a centimeter, but this centimeter was important, turning the company mortar into a more universal weapon with greater power of shots and astonishing ability. Such mortars were in service with the French and American army. Based on the French 60-mm mortar, made according to the triangle pattern, the Americans created their own M2 mortar, which was a fairly effective weapon. Such a mortar had a fairly serious range - 1810 meters and a more impressive mine - 1330 grams. Good performance for mortar mass 19 kg, while the length of its barrel was even less than the barrel 50-mm Soviet mortars. After the end of World War II, 60-mm American mortars M2, of which more than 67,5 thousand were fired, fought for a long time in various local wars and conflicts around the world.


The captain of the Red Army shows the fighters of the South-Western Front 50-mm rotary mortar of the model 1938 of the year, March-May 1942 of the year, photo: waralbum.ru


Returning to the PM-38 mortar, it can be noted that the first combat use of the Wasp revealed serious design flaws. First of all, quite large dimensions were unmasked calculation. During the operation of the turning mechanism, the sight, which was fastened difficult and unreliable, was very often confused, while the sight mechanism itself could quickly and easily get dirty. The scale of the remote crane did not match the firing range. Following the Finnish war, a decision was made to modernize the mortar, the work was entrusted to the designer Vladimir Shamarin. He created the PM-40 mortar, retaining the general scheme of the mortar, inherited from its predecessor, as well as the principle of its action, making changes taking into account operating experience in the troops. So the base plate was now made by high-tech method of deep forming and was equipped with a visor, which was supposed to protect the mortar calculation from dust and hot gases when firing. Also, Vladimir Shamarin significantly simplified the design of a remote crane, which made it possible to reduce the weight and size of the mortar. In this case, the minimum firing range was reduced from 200 to 60 meters, the reduction was achieved by a large yield of powder gases with a fully open crane, the maximum firing range remained the same - 800 meters. At the same time, the reliability of mounting the sight and knocking down the sight levels during the operation of the swivel mechanism could not be eliminated.

Already in the years of the Great Patriotic War, the mortar has undergone another modernization. In 1941, a simplified model appeared, which received the designation PM-41. An important change was the fact that now, like the German equivalent, the mortar was created according to the “deaf scheme” - all its parts were on the base plate. The trunk could only be given two fixed elevation angles - 50 and 75 degrees, the flue gas discharge price was doubled, that is, every crane turn by one step meant a reduction in firing range by 20 meters (with 50-degree barrel elevation) or 10 meters (with 75-degree stem elevation). The required elevation was set by means of a slider, which was put on the gas discharge tube and moved along it. A convenient handle appeared on the mortar, which made it possible to quickly transfer the mortar in battle and prepare it for opening fire. The mass of the PM-41 mortar in a combat position did not exceed 10 kg. The mortar rate was 30 shots per minute (German Granatenwerfer 36 - 15-25 shots per minute).


50 mm rotary mortar PM-40


Together with the mortar, a steel six-fragment fragmentation mine 0-822 and a cast-iron four-fragment fragmentation mine 0-822А could be used. The powder charge in the tail cartridge weighed just 4,5 grams, but this was enough for the mine to fly out of the barrel at a speed of 95 m / s and cover the distance of 800 meters to the enemy positions. Subsequently, another six-mine mine 0-822® appeared, which weighed 850 grams with a tail charge reduced to 4 grams. The PM-41 mortar was actively produced from 1941 to 1943, during which time more than 130 thousands of such mortars were produced in the USSR, such high production volumes clearly indicate the simplicity of the design and the high manufacturability of its production.

The value of 50-mm mortars gradually decreased during the war. Very often they had to be used at a very close distance from the enemy, which led to an easy demasking of the calculations and their defeat by ordinary small arms. In addition, the effectiveness of 50-mm frag mines was quite low, especially when hit by snow, mud, puddles. But even despite the shortcomings and not the most outstanding characteristics in comparison with more large-caliber mortars, company mortars enjoyed a good reputation among the infantrymen, as it was often the only ones who provided fire support to small units up to the platoon directly at the front.


50 mm rotary mortar PM-41


With the transition of the Red Army from defense to strategic offensive operations and the appearance in large quantities of fairly effective 82-mm battalion mortars in 1943, 50-mm RM mortars were removed from serial production and armament of front-line units. At the same time, until the very end of the war, the PM-38, PM-40 and PM-41 mortars were actively used by numerous partisan formations, for which the company mortar was practically the only representative of highly mobile artillery. An important advantage was the fact that the Soviet 50-mm rotary mortar could shoot and captured German ammunition. It is worth noting that the Germans completely curtailed the mass production of their 50-mm mortar Granatenwerfer 36 also in the 1943 year.

Information sources:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/46406
http://pobeda.poklonnayagora.ru/description/70.htm
http://armedman.ru/artilleriya/1937-1945-artilleriya/50-mm-rotnyiy-minomet-obraztsa-1938-1940-g-g.html
http://www.bratishka.ru/archiv/2004/7/2004_7_8.php
Open source materials
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    30 January 2019 05: 43
    Great article, plus. good Want more )
  2. +4
    30 January 2019 05: 46
    Thank you Sergey. hi for a good overview of this weapon.
  3. +15
    30 January 2019 05: 57
    But I will add "my own five cents" anyway.

    50-mm mortars were developed and adopted, according to the experience of the PMV, to carefully throw a mine from one trench to another (then the width of the trenches reached three meters and the depth could be all five), while they could be located in 100-200 meters apart. Also, it could well be installed in the funnel from the burst of a large-caliber projectile and throw its mines in the same funnel.

    In positional warfare, 82-mm and 120-mm mortars did not guarantee such accuracy, therefore they were not as effective as desired, but the 50-mm mortar is the most powerful weapon of positional warfare of the type "All Quiet on the Western Front."

    In a maneuvering war in open areas, 82-mm and 120-mm mortars made it possible to powerfully strike from a much greater distance, which provided convenient placement, supply, observation + which is also very important - heavy mines provided breaks that were clearly visible by spotters. Because the 50-mm mortar and considered obsolete.

    I believe that the conclusion about the need to remove 50 mm mortars from weapons was incorrect, they had to be left, but the number should be reduced. But discussions about the tactics of using 50 mm mortars in a maneuvering war will draw a series of articles rather than a comment.

    Then hi Thanks again for the article. smile
    1. +3
      30 January 2019 06: 35
      I think that today, the absence of a 50-mm mortar is compensated by the presence of under-barrel grenade launchers.
      1. +4
        30 January 2019 06: 40
        I don’t agree that the underbarrel grenade launcher can completely replace it - with it, it’s not very possible to throw it with a mounted fire for 300 meters into the trench, I think that the underbarrel grenade launcher replaced the muzzle mortars.
        And my comment is about the specific conditions of the 40s, then the wars were not modern at all
        1. 0
          30 January 2019 06: 46
          In part, I agree with you.
          GP-25 "Bonfire" (GRAU index - 6G15) - a single-shot 40-mm grenade launcher designed to destroy open manpower, as well as manpower located in open trenches, trenches and on reverse slopes.
          Nevertheless, words cannot be ejected from a song hi
          1. +3
            30 January 2019 08: 38
            you can shoot from it, but getting there is much more difficult. Do you want our army to admit that it has nothing to hit at the platoon level? - but it won’t happen.
            If you do not agree, tell me, you fool, how to get into the trench from 300 meters from the "fire"?
          2. +2
            30 January 2019 17: 29
            "First of all, the rather large dimensions unmasked the calculation" by the way, this line can be attributed to the GP 25 grenade launcher. (not everyone knows this from GP 25 from a prone position at long distances cannot be erased)
            To shoot from the GP 25 grenade launcher at a range of more than 150 meters according to the instructions, the targeted sterling is carried out from the knee or while sitting with the gun butt resting in the ground.
      2. +7
        30 January 2019 10: 22
        GP 25 grenade launcher is very good at ranges up to 75-100 meters and more than 100 meters it is a waste of ammunition and maybe soldier’s hit ...
        and so in the motorized rifle companies there is AGS 17, but I think it would be something like an American mortar similar to a 60 mm would be great, and so in the American army in the ags and mortar companies they complement each other ...
        1. +3
          30 January 2019 11: 05
          good fully "support the previous speaker" drinks
    2. 0
      30 January 2019 07: 37
      Write. Without irony and sarcasm.
    3. +2
      30 January 2019 13: 05
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      I believe that the conclusion about the need to remove 50 mm mortars from weapons was incorrect

      Absolutely true. If we talk about this particular mortar. For re-designed out of the blue, therefore it is extremely expensive, more expensive than the battalion, it is difficult to use and maintain. A vivid example of replacing the camshaft through the exhaust pipe and cutting out the appendicitis through, um, throat 8)))
      But the German trophy was absolutely officially used until the end of the war ...
      1. 0
        30 January 2019 14: 14
        Absolutely correct. If we talk about this particular mortar. - And who prevented you from replacing it with an analog? I wrote 50-mm mortars, not "50-mm mortar arr. 1941 (RM-41)"

        For re-complicated out of the blue, therefore extremely expensive - I will be very grateful for the data on the cost of Soviet mortars and ammunition for them, please share
        1. 0
          30 January 2019 15: 54
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          For re-complicated out of the blue, therefore extremely expensive - I will be very grateful for the data on the cost of Soviet mortars and ammunition for them, please share

          It's that simple. 8)))
          Just look, due to which the firing range in the Soviet company mortar changed, and all questions will disappear

          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          And who prevented replacing with an analog?

          I don’t know this. Apparently, they did not consider it necessary.
          1. 0
            30 January 2019 16: 34
            The design of 38 and 40 and 41 is understandable, I really want to know the prices - for some reason, there is very little price information about mortar weapons
            1. 0
              30 January 2019 17: 08
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              The design of 38 and 40 and 41 is understandable, I really want to know the prices - for some reason, there is very little price information about mortar weapons

              And she will not be. The mortars are good because anyone can produce them. Well, actually, everyone has a different prime cost.
              As regards the Soviet company mortars ... Nobody could definitely release their device for changing the firing range. And it had a very high cost. Just because of the need for precision manufacturing
  4. +6
    30 January 2019 06: 18
    And in one place I bet:

    At the same time, the German 5cm leichter Granatenwerfer 36 mortar had significant flaws. For example, a full-time German 50-mm mine was equipped too sensitive fuse, therefore, official rules forbade mortar fire in heavy rain, which could provoke a mine blast when fired.

    But:
    1. a mine could explode when hitting a tree branch / bush and turn into a kind of shrapnel) a mine could explode when hitting water ("crossing - crossing ...")
    2.and MAIN mine exploded effectively on the surface of soft soil (dirt, sand and even ice), but this is no longer a drawback, but a "random imba"
    1. +5
      30 January 2019 07: 39
      This is true ... our veterans of the Great Patriotic War strongly swore German mines and mortars ... they brought a lot of trouble to our infantry.
      1. +3
        30 January 2019 12: 40
        many troubles brought our infantry.

        Yes, remember, at least a classic:
        Snow mines are dug around
        and blackened with a dust mine.
        A gap - and a friend dies.
        And, therefore, death passes by.
        ...
        It seems to me that I am a magnet,
        that I draw mines.
        The rupture - and the lieutenant wheezes.
        And death again passes by.
        Particular emphasis on the fire of German mortars, many more can be traced
        1. +1
          30 January 2019 19: 06
          "And the enemy in the swamp,
          On the peat trenches
          Sits again from mortars -
          What do you want to do with him.

          Addresses scouted for sure,
          Sends packages by emergency mail,
          And you lie, addressee
          Waiting, waiting for a bump,
          Soon eh mine will kick in the ass "
          Somewhere I came across information that a mortar (not tanks, rifle, bomber or artillery) became the most deadly weapon of the Second World War. Mortars account for the largest percentage of those killed.
          1. 0
            30 January 2019 19: 39
            Willingly believe, for example, they pressed the advancing infantry with machine-gun fire and killed already from mortars
    2. +4
      30 January 2019 10: 00
      In all the memoirs of the war veterans, the extreme effectiveness of the German 50 mm mortar fire is everywhere noted. Front-line soldiers write that as soon as the German target lay under fire, these mortars, which were in the attacking chains, opened fire and their small but very dangerous mines began to fly into trenches and trenches, aiming machine-gun nests, the most dangerous for attacking firing points defenders. And there was no escape from these mines.
  5. +8
    30 January 2019 07: 15
    If interesting
    Service manual 50 mm mortar mortar mod. 1938 g. (1939) -https: //yadi.sk/i/aHmDjFAwDi8G8Q
    Service manual 50 mm mortar mortar mod. 1940 g. (1940) - https://yadi.sk/i/yfsFHkqk1PRicg
    How to use captured weapons in battle 3 50-mm light German mortar (1941) - https://yadi.sk/d/qjh5Zrg9KFCs-g
    50mm mortar_leGrW_36_1942 - https://yadi.sk/i/zS-oiVEzDzNynA
    1. +2
      30 January 2019 08: 36
      thanks, there will be something to read in the evening good
  6. +4
    30 January 2019 07: 25
    Good article! Especially considering the fact that some "specialists" consider 50-mm mortars: ineffective, unsuccessful, not worthy of attention weapons ... and therefore there are not enough publications in the "review" of mortar weapons. It should be noted that 50-mm mortars in WW2 were also in service with other armies. For example, the French ... The fact is "known" that the French 50-mm mortars did not "like" the Germans and they did not use them. This is not so! The Germans did not throw the French mortars into the "trash heap" ... especially since the French army had 50-mm mortars, not only mod. 1939 "traditional" type, but also "casemate" arr. 1935 charged from the treasury ...

    The Spaniards acquired 50-mm mortars before WW2. The Spaniards envied the British and adopted first a "2-inch" (50,8 mm) mortar, and then a 2,5-inch (51 mm) mortar ... (By the way, after the war, England was also developed and put into service light 51-mm mortar from "light alloys"). 50-mm mortars were "owned" by such an active WW2 country as Japan. Own 50 mm mortars were produced (used) by China (clone of the Japanese ...), Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Denmark (51 mm) ... trophy (Soviet) mortars were available in the Finnish army. In the Czech Republic, there were experienced 50-mm mortars (what happened to them, alas, not in the "courses"!). In the Second World War in Odessa workshops (it seems ... what ) developed an "automatic" (store) 50-mm mortar ...

    (By the way, the Germans also had automatic 50-mm (but casemate!) M19 mortars ...). 50-mm mortars were developed and put into service after WW2 ...: in Great Britain (51 mm); Israel (52 mm); PMR (50 mm ... presumably). Perhaps, until now, English 51-mm mortars are in service with the Indian army ... (only there they are used (were used) for firing smoke mines (smoke screens), IR-"lighting" mines (IR-illumination of the terrain for "infrared" hardware ...)
    1. 0
      1 February 2019 10: 17
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      During the Second World War in Odessa workshops (it seems ...) they developed an "automatic" (store) 50-mm mortar ...


      Mortar-Automatic, developed by the chief of ammunition of the 110th Rifle Regiment of the Primorsky Army G.N. Garkusha
      Work on the creation of these weapons was conducted in December 1941 - January 1942 in Sevastopol. The weapon has a standard caliber of 50 mm.
      That is, this miracle weapon was developed and created in just two months in the midst of battles for the defense of Sevastopol.
      It was produced on the basis of the Sevmorzavod, at that time the Sevastopol Marine Plant No. 201 named after S. Ordzhonikidze
      http://reenactors-krim.info/threads/minomet-avtomat-garkushi.2029/
  7. +6
    30 January 2019 07: 29
    The 50-mm company mortar was withdrawn from service as ineffective, but in the jungle of Vietnam, the Americans preferred a 60-mm 81-mm mortar. Lighter and more efficient. The 60-mm can be modified - to make him shoot not only with mounted fire, but also with flat fire, as the French did on the mortar MO-120-RT-61 (angle of vertical guidance of the barrel 30-85 degrees).
    An article on this topic "Mortar or grenade launcher?":
    http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren21/MINOMET_w.doc
    1. +1
      30 January 2019 08: 35
      Well, here I am almost talking about it)
    2. +2
      30 January 2019 09: 09
      Brixia Modello 35 - a great idea, it was worth finishing it in addition to a light mortar in 60 mm
  8. +1
    30 January 2019 07: 57
    Forgotten caliber ... The current "generation" is 60 mm ...
    1. +2
      30 January 2019 11: 02
      Well ... calibers can change! At one time such a "woodpecker" knocked on the heads of the military: shouldn't we make a "single" (company-battalion) mortar? what The methods of "implementation" were supposed to be as follows: 1. the structure should be made in an "intermediate" caliber (between 60 mm and 81/82 mm ...) with "nozzles"; 2. in a "standard" caliber, but with "attachments" ...
      That is, in the "basic (original)" version, the mortar is used without "attachments": the most lightweight, shooting "light" mines at a relatively short distance ... (ie company mortar ...). When a battalion mortar is needed, a more powerful base plate and a barrel "extension" are added to the "basic" option: then the mortar can shoot "heavy" mines at a greater distance, but the weight of the weapon increases ... I recall this kind of prototype Israeli model in caliber, somewhere, 70-75 mm ... By the way, in besieged Leningrad, an experienced 70-mm mortar was created ...
      1. +1
        30 January 2019 14: 02
        laughing it’s even cooler than anti-tank anti-tank gun
      2. +1
        30 January 2019 16: 04
        Well, first of all, caliber isn't everything. For example, American 60-mm "long" mines are more effective than Soviet 82-mm mines. And not so much due to the "density of the fragmentation field", but due to the air blast with a radio fuse

        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        make the structure in "intermediate" caliber (between 60 mm and 81/82 mm ...)

        At the battalion level, mortars with near-zero high-explosive action are not needed. Therefore, in fact, we have replaced it with a 120-mm caliber wherever possible
  9. +5
    30 January 2019 08: 35
    The mortar is a purely Russian military invention. It is believed that it was created by a Russian officer and engineer Leonid Nikolayevich Gobyato. At the same time, other candidates are found in Russian historiography, but all of them are somehow connected with the siege of Port Arthur. The defense of the fortress quickly passed into the positional, “trench” phase, which required a new weapon from the garrison with a steep hinged trajectory of fire. This is how the “mortar mortar” or “Gobyato’s gun” appeared, firing a rod-mounted, fired caliber projectile along a hinged path and in the future giving the name to a new kind of artillery guns

    The French were "documented" by the French back in the 1890s to shoot with an over-caliber pole-type mine from a rifled gun.
    1. +3
      30 January 2019 10: 37
      Well, if you "focus" only on "over-caliber shells", then it is worth noting that in Russia in the middle of the 18th century, the so-called "mortar canons" were tested ...., for example, the Getsch gun. At close distances it was supposed to fire 2-pound bombs, and on long-range - 3-pound cannonballs, combining the capabilities of a siege mortar and regimental cannon. The barrel bore of this gun was made in two stages: it began with a 230 mm diameter bomb cauldron for firing 2-pound bombs, and continued with a 76-mm cannon channel, which served as a charging chamber for this mortar. This type of weapon ("mortar-canons") was developed not only by Getsch, but also by Bishev, Nartov ...
      Possible scheme of the mortar canon ...
      1. +3
        30 January 2019 12: 03
        Mortar. Wrought iron barrel with chained charging chamber; caliber 88,2 cm; so called "A big stone-thrower from Steyr." Tested)))) circa 1350 A.D.
        1. +1
          30 January 2019 14: 43
          Describing the "mortar-canon", I indicated a Possible (!) Scheme ... Does this scheme contradict the principles (!) Of the "mortar-canons"? Moreover, several people "worked" on these tools ... I have a drawing of Bishev's "mortar-canon", but the drawing I have given, I think, more clearly (!) Demonstrates the principle, the diagram of the "mortar-canon"!
          1. +3
            30 January 2019 15: 03
            Nikolaevich, the "stone" was not in your own garden), the question was that the schemes of guns with a variable barrel diameter (the charging chamber is smaller than the main barrel diameter) were, to put it mildly, before the tests you indicated in Russia.
            A picture of the specified mortar was not added to my "top" comment
            1. +2
              30 January 2019 15: 47
              Quote: BORMAN82
              (charging chamber is smaller than the main diameter of the barrel)

              Yes, this was typical of mortars almost from the very appearance of this "class" of guns ... but at the same time, somehow they did not particularly ask themselves the problem of "combining" a siege mortar with a regimental cannon or bullet with "over-caliber" shells. By the way, other (except for mortars) guns had charging chambers smaller than the diameter of the main barrel. hi
      2. 0
        30 January 2019 15: 14
        But how about this thing with accuracy are things?
  10. +1
    30 January 2019 08: 36
    Great thing. The most significant drawback is the high qualification requirements of the calculation. Hastily trained soldiers will not get anywhere, or even they themselves will be blown up. But the pros with such a toy could work wonders. He has a lot of skill.
    Regarding the article. As always, Russia is the birthplace of elephants. In other countries, they never invented anything, and the Stokes mortar is so a passing model that did not affect anything. Somehow, one still needs to be more objective or something.
    1. +6
      30 January 2019 16: 02
      Stokes mortar is 1915
      Mortar Port Arthur is 1904-1905th year
      Russia may not be the birthplace of elephants, but the birthplace of a mortar
      1. +5
        30 January 2019 16: 19
        You just need to say a huge "thank you" to the Tsarism, who, under the crunch of a French roll, about ...
        Including in the field of mortar weapons. In the first place in terms of saturation of troops with mortars and bombs at the beginning of the war, Germany was by a large margin.
        1. +3
          30 January 2019 16: 40
          Tsarism, of course, didn’t prepare very much for the WWII, but even in the USSR, many until the mid-30s considered the mortar a cheap artillery substitute. Then there was a fashion for trench mortars from 45 to 203 mm caliber. The trump card of mortars is accuracy, the trump cards of a mortar are cheapness and rate of fire.
      2. +1
        30 January 2019 16: 48
        Plus, but I want to clarify
        The founder of modern mortars, the Stokes-Brandt system, is a Stokes scheme with a new type of mine (simplified). The gobbler, of course, was a great fellow, the Russians were the first on this field, but many bombers and various mortars (up to pneumatic ones) were spontaneously and often independently born at the very beginning of the WWII - and almost all turned out to be a dead end (without diminishing the merits And Russia's priority writing)
      3. +1
        30 January 2019 19: 11
        The Stokes mortar is 1915. The Port Arturov mortar is the 1904-1905th year.

        You are absolutely right, but there is one caveat - the design described in the article, in addition to the name, has practically nothing to do with the Arturo mortars, but it closely resembles the Stokes system. Stokes, on the other hand, developed an epoch-making construction, on the principles of which almost all muzzle-loading mortars still work and not to mention it in an article about mortars is at least impolite.
        1. +1
          30 January 2019 19: 42
          As I tactfully noted above, the Stokes mortar was focused on chemical weapons, and the Stokes-Brandt system became epoch-making. Otherwise, a plus)
  11. +5
    30 January 2019 09: 52
    Quote: MooH
    Great thing. The most significant drawback is the high qualification requirements of the calculation. Hastily trained soldiers will not get anywhere, or even they themselves will be blown up. But the pros with such a toy could work wonders. He has a lot of skill.
    Regarding the article. As always, Russia is the birthplace of elephants. In other countries, they never invented anything, and the Stokes mortar is so a passing model that did not affect anything. Somehow, one still needs to be more objective or something.

    Mom’s elder brother from the 44th to the 45th just fought a mortar. I don’t know what mortars, but told me that they had specialists who, for a dispute, put a third mine into the chimney. By the way, I also said the same thing about the fact that German mines were constantly used.
  12. +6
    30 January 2019 12: 39
    For a long time, he was very skeptical of the mortar, considering them to be obsolete weapons. But ..... seeing them in business, he immediately changed his mind - this is a very effective weapon, and in some cases simply irreplaceable.
    1. +1
      1 February 2019 17: 37
      In close combat from 600 to 4000 there are no worse weapons! I'm talking about mortars.
  13. -2
    30 January 2019 20: 46
    Convenient "machine", now its functions are performed by a grenade launcher.
  14. 0
    1 February 2019 17: 34
    Quote: Vladivostok1969
    RM-38

    850 gr. Cast iron vs 260 gr. luminescence excluding explosives, not correct, as it seems to me! Conclusion - in vain it was removed from service many years before the appearance of the GP-25.
  15. +1
    1 February 2019 17: 49
    Author write an article about 37 mm mortar shovels, please! And then we only know about them from "In the trenches of Stalingrad"
    1. 0
      2 February 2019 22: 51
      "shoots like a shovel, digs like a mortar" - like comprehensive information laughing
  16. +1
    2 February 2019 11: 23
    Quote: pogis
    The author write an article about the 37-mm mortar-spade

    look, there was something like this article
  17. 0
    2 February 2019 18: 56
    In literature and cinema, there are few memories of such a Soviet mortar, maybe they didn’t come across to me. Mostly 82mm and 120mm. There are a lot of German ones about the professional suitability of their calculations. Thanks to the author for the article. hi good
  18. 0
    15 February 2024 19: 54
    With the transition of the Red Army from defense to strategic offensive operations and the appearance in large quantities of fairly effective 82-mm battalion mortars in 1943, 50-mm RM mortars were removed from mass production and armament of front-line units.

    In the staff of the mortar company since 1941. there were 2 platoons with 50 mm mortars and 2 platoons with 82 mm mortars.
    Infantry commanders (supported either by a platoon of 50mm mortars or a platoon of 82mm mortars) could first-hand compare the effectiveness of these two mortar systems during battles, and the comparison was not in favor of the 50mm mortars. Therefore, in their requirements for a 50-mm mortar, they were guided by the characteristics of 82-mm systems that were mass-produced by industry, as reported to higher commanders.
    In turn, during the war, it was easier for industry to throw all its efforts into the production of large-scale standard products of as small a range as possible, rather than scattering efforts.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"