Heavy mortars: the heresy of modern life

74

In general, we have already spoken about heavy mortars more than once on our pages, so we didn’t plan at all. But a completely accidental press of a button on the TV - and instead of my favorite movie channel, I ended up on one of the state channels. And there was a transfer from the cycle "about the war." In principle, the week before May 9 and the week after is normal.

We talked about mortars. I was wary, especially since during this transmission frames were shown, as historical, as well as modern ones.



And in the studio there were certain personalities whom the presenters called "experts". I will not say a word about the level of competence of the "experts", it is clear that the plinth was higher. Those invited to the studio carried such heresy that their ears simply curled up.

The main message was great: since Berlin was taken in 1945 thanks to the heavy 160-mm mortars designed by Shirenin, Teverovsky and Shershn, then the modern 240-mm Tyulpan mortars are better not to come up with for the SVO in Ukraine.

Heavy mortars: the heresy of modern life

Yes, the Soviet MT-13 / M-43 was good. And those that followed were very even. I allow myself to give a link to an article five years ago, it seems to me that Staver and I worked out the historical part well then.

Stories about weapons. 160 mm division mortar M-160 1949 model year

However, we will not criticize the TV "experts". For the most part, these are people who have little understanding of the topic they are talking about. There, on television, there are somewhat different selection criteria for talk shows and other outrages.

But considering that not so long ago I raised the topic of mortars, then yes, it will be very useful to say a few words about heavy mortars in our time. Moreover, yes, in the article about mortars, I mainly talked about 82 and 120 mm calibers. Mars himself ordered to talk about large calibers.

So, are 240-mm mortars today as useful as 160-mm mortars of the Great Patriotic War?

Let's go to history. Normally.

So, 160-mm mortar MT-13.


The combat debut of the mortar took place in October 1944 in Lithuania in the zone of operations of the 3rd Belorussian Front. The 8th and 29th separate heavy mortar brigades of the High Command Reserve worked. Based on the results of the use of 160-mm mortars, a report “On the combat activities of brigades of 160-mm heavy mortars as part of the artillery of the 3rd Belorussian Front” was compiled by the commander of the artillery of the 3rd Belorussian Front, Colonel-General Mikhail Barsukov on December 20, 1944. The report was mostly positive.

“When firing at the destruction of dugouts and bunkers, 160-mm mines with a direct hit pierce them and completely destroy them, but even in the absence of a direct hit, due to a funnel formed in the ground, reaching up to 4,5 - 5 meters in diameter and 1,5 - 2 meters deep, and the strong action of the blast wave, the soil shifted, filling up dugouts and adjacent trenches.

But the general conclusions were:

1. Due to the limited range and low rate of fire (up to 1 round per minute), it is advisable to use heavy mortars during the period of artillery preparation for a breakthrough.

2. The most effective accuracy is achieved on the 2nd charge at ranges not exceeding three kilometers.

3. The mortar has good maneuverability, but insufficient rate of fire.

4. The mortar has a number of design flaws that need to be resolved.

5. Limited combat practice makes it possible to determine the feasibility of using a mortar both for destroying wood and earth structures and for suppressing firing points and manpower.

In general, not very good, right? But excuse me, Comrade Colonel-General Barsukov, a hero of the Soviet Union, knew his business, and knew it very well. Otherwise, he would not have served the country until 1961 as an inspector general of air defense of the Inspectorate of the Ground Forces.

In general, the Red Army quite calmly accepted the new weapon. The heavy mortar did not have such a psychological impact on the enemy as the Katyusha MLRS, and therefore, at least the 160-mm mortar proved itself in East Prussia, but it was assigned a rather static role: a rifle regiment could be armed with ONE battery (3-4 barrel) 160-mm mortars to perform especially important tasks related to the destruction of objects and positions of the enemy.

The rifle regiment, armed with 160-mm mortars, could independently and in a timely manner solve the tasks of destroying buildings during street battles, as well as destroy bunkers and bunkers of the field type.

But in general, the heavy, not quick-firing mortar did not receive much recognition.


And if we talk about Berlin in 1945, then everything was shot there, from 45 mm to 203 mm. Plus PTRs were also used to suppress points of resistance.











In general, as always, the "experts" are not exactly screwed up, no. It was just necessary to fill the air with something, so the gentlemen on TV were talking complete nonsense about the fact that it was heavy mortars that made a decisive contribution to the urban battles in Berlin.

In fact, there were few 160-mm mortars in the troops. Everything is logical, they were put into service only in 1944, because the army had less than five hundred of them in 1945. Specifically, 448 pieces.

It is clear that not all mortars hit the combat positions. A certain number of mortars simply had to be in reserve.

If you look at the payroll of the units armed with 160-mm mortars, you get the following picture: the MT-13 mortar was armed exclusively with heavy mortar brigades. The brigade consisted of four divisions, each of which in turn consisted of two batteries of 4 mortars.

In total, the mortar brigade was armed with 36 mortars: 32 in batteries and 4 spares. Brigades of heavy mortars were mainly part of special breakthrough artillery divisions, and not all divisions had such brigades. There were a small number of independent heavy mortar brigades.

So even as part of the fronts, heavy mortar brigades were a very rare occurrence even at the end of the war:

2nd Belorussian Front - 9th brigade;
3rd Belorussian Front - 8th and 29th brigades;
3rd Ukrainian Front - 15th brigade;
4th Ukrainian Front - 47 brigade.

And directly in the Berlin direction acted:

- 21 brigades from the 14th artillery division;
- 6 brigades from the 22th artillery division;
- 26th brigade of the 29th artillery division
acted as part of the armies of the 1st Belorussian Front.

As part of the 1st Ukrainian Front, there were 4 brigades of heavy mortars, but only two actually took part in the battles in Berlin:
- 48th brigade of the 25th artillery division;
- 49th brigade of the 4th artillery division.

16 brigades from the 1st Guards Artillery Division and 51 brigades from the 31st Artillery Division did not fight in Berlin.

Total: 5 brigades with a total of 160 mortars, excluding spares, took part in the battles for Berlin.

In general, this is very little.

For comparison, there is data on the composition of the artillery weapons of the shock army. The brigades that were part of the army included:

- 160-mm mortars - 32;
- 120-mm mortars - 290;
- guns 76 mm - 383;
- howitzers from 122 to 203 mm - 347;
- MLRS of all calibers - 206.

This does not take into account regimental, anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery. Exclusively artillery brigades of divisional and army subordination.

Meanwhile, both anti-tank artillery and anti-aircraft artillery were easily used in street battles. Anti-aircraft guns easily fired at tanks direct fire since the beginning of the war and easily sent shells to the upper floors of buildings, where machine gunners or anti-tankers with "pacerfausts" were sitting.

It is not worth talking about how convenient it was to use small and light “forty-fives” and 76-mm regiments.

But in general - a myth. Moreover, hastily cobbled together and on the knee, without any effort at all. But still a myth. On the same level with the myths about attacks with cuttings from shovels and others.

No, without a doubt, the MT-13 heavy mortars were more than effective. And by the time the battle for Berlin began, our commanders were able to evaluate the effect of a 40-kilogram mine containing almost eight kilograms of explosives, falling almost vertically and with decent acceleration.

Naturally, there were few fortifications capable of withstanding such a “hello”. And on the account of one of the brigades of heavy mortars there were even two destroyed tanks.


So, on the one hand, a heavy mortar has become a recognized means of destroying any fortifications, on the other hand, it simply does not turn the language to call it decisive, playing some significant role. Too few 160 mm mortars were made, too few mines were fired compared to other artillery systems.

Of course, if the MT-13 became a mass phenomenon, becoming not part of separate brigades of heavy mortars, but, say, in divisional artillery, then, of course, one could talk about something like that.

But we will talk about continuity. Today, when there is more than enough work for mortars, the heavy 2S4 Tulip is back in action. And, absolutely in the same business of destruction of various objects and fortifications.

Yes, the Tyulpan has a slightly larger mine than the MT-13. 230 kg against 40. And it flies a little further, 19 km against 4. But this is progress.

In a previous article on mortars, I said that as a weapon, the mortar hasn't progressed much in the last 100 years. True, this concerned light mortars, 82-120 mm. Heavy mortars have just gone through a very impressive path of development. Compared to the Tulip, the heavy MT-13 looks like a light toy.

A lot has changed. Mortar weight, mine weight, firing range. Tactical nuclear charges appeared. Only the concept of application has not changed: to get the enemy behind concrete floors, embankments, buildings.

And it is a pity that the concept of information transmission on state TV channels has changed. Actually, where it all began. Fairy tales and myths, of course, are good. But it is not applicable to history, especially our military history. It is sad to watch talkers on TV screens who do not understand anything about the topics that they discuss as "experts", simply burning through the airtime that is paid for from the budget.

But this, unfortunately, is our reality. And according to the general concept of stupidity, we, apparently, will have to learn a lot more "interesting" facts about the Great Patriotic War. And God forbid that they were as harmless as 160 heavy mortars, thanks to which Berlin fell in May 1945.

As for the "Tulip", about which we once published a material with a large amount of photographic material, I will not repeat myself, I'll just send it here:
Mortars Self-propelled mortar 2C4 "Tulip". The most of the most…

At least these are two stories about mortars, in which there is a minimum of mythology.
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +61
    18 May 2022 04: 07
    Nothing!
    Well, except for the assertion that all experts are fools, except for the author ...
    1. +63
      18 May 2022 04: 25
      Yes, an anecdote!
      - Oh, dear, I started arguing with the TV, hihihi!
      Husband mumbles to the computer:
      - Estimate, this fool is talking to the TV!
      1. -29
        18 May 2022 07: 05
        Expeditions to Afghanistan and Syria against a full-scale land war on the outskirts.
        Well, the Ukrainians have no money for 100000 special forces.
        There are doya teroborony.
        Joy.
        And it is necessary to prepare against Poland and the Romanians with the Turks, behind their backs there will be cunning jackets with shaves.
        And at the same time compare Asia with the Caucasus.
        Like Kaufman-Skobelev.
        And this is just a land convention, without the United States there nuclear strikes and the Navy
    2. +2
      24 May 2022 08: 53
      Quote: Bobik012
      Nothing!
      Well, except for the assertion that all experts are fools, except for the author ...

      The author just screams - take me to the TV!
  2. +29
    18 May 2022 04: 09
    Now, if the author liked the previous article, then this one makes a double impression.
    On the one hand, the tactics of using 160mm are quite interesting and well-written. mortars, but the style of presentation leaves much to be desired - screwed up, ears in a tube, etc. I think that such experienced authors as Roman should have a richer vocabulary.
    And why does the author cite some kind of program on blue TV as the root cause of writing the article? Now that television, that the Internet is filled with such a number of "experts" and feces that it is not worth paying attention to them at all.
    But about the performance characteristics of these mortars, the methods of their use could have been written more.
    1. +21
      18 May 2022 11: 40
      Quote: Proton
      Now, if the author liked the previous article, then this one makes a double impression

      Everything is very simple - there were no real arguments against the use of Tulips in this conflict. They simply do not exist in nature.
      And compare 160 mm. from 40 kg. mine and ... "Tulip" with 230 kg ... you have to try.
      "Tulips" are now used to destroy capital concrete fortifications in the Donbass, where three-level bunkers are like mud. Well, do not take them with 122 \ 152 mm shells. A lot of shells were spent, and still nothing. But "Malka" and "Tulip" were dragged, and things started to go.
      And the rate of fire is not so important, with the meticulous dismantling of enemy fortifications. POWER is important. Also, accuracy. In the presence of guided mines of increased power, this is just what the doctor ordered.
      And try to prove otherwise.
      And this couple ("Malka" and "Tulip") will have a lot of work to do in the current conflict.
      It is necessary to be more respectful to siege artillery, when there is still so much to come.

      But 160 mm. a mortar will definitely not help here.
      From the word at all.
      1. 0
        18 May 2022 14: 22
        He would, Tulip, have a guided mine in the ammunition load, such as Krasnopol.
        Or are there any?
        1. +3
          18 May 2022 15: 45
          Quote: Shelest2000
          Or are there any?

          There is . Moreover, active-reactive increased power. Yes, there was an article about this not so long ago.
        2. +2
          19 May 2022 13: 07
          Such as Krasnopol, i.e. controlled by rudders, no. There are such as "Centimeter" - corrected due to the operation of pulse squibs.
          Mina 3F5 "Daredevil".
          1. 0
            20 May 2022 00: 23
            Quote: Bogalex
            Mina 3F5 "Daredevil".

            Yes She is the most.
          2. 0
            21 May 2022 00: 01
            Quote: Bogalex
            due to the operation of pulse squibs.

            Actually, in "Centimeter" and "Smelchak" there are pulsed rocket micromotors ... pulsed micropropellant rocket motors! recourse
            1. 0
              21 May 2022 01: 18
              In fact, the engine - at least micro, at least macro, is a device that provides constant traction and movement of the aircraft in a given direction. What is in the "Centimeter" and "Daredevil" does not provide any constant thrust, and even more so the movement of the projectile (mine) in the direction opposite to the vector of the outflow of reactive gases from the corrector nozzle, but serves only to create a one-time directed impulse for the purpose of correction trajectory of his (her) flight. That is why it is incorrect to call them "impulse microRDTT" from my point of view.
              1. 0
                21 May 2022 06: 19
                Quote: Bogalex
                That is why it is incorrect to call them "impulse microRDTT" from my point of view.

                Your point of view ... But there are also "not yours"!

                Quote: Bogalex
                In fact, the engine - at least micro, at least macro, is a device that provides constant traction and movement of the aircraft in a given direction.

                So, solid-propellant rocket "engines", for example, rocket-propelled grenades RPG-26, RPG-27, RPG-29, is it not correct to call solid propellant rocket engines? belay
                1. 0
                  22 May 2022 11: 02
                  Depending on how you read the definition given by me. If back-to-front or, say, in a mirror image, then of course it is incorrect. Well, if it's normal, then I don't know why you could decide so.
          3. 0
            21 May 2022 17: 28
            Thanks, now I know.
            3F5 "Smelchak" - adjustable 240-mm artillery mine for mortars M-240 and 2S4 "Tulip", designed to destroy armored targets and engineering structures from the first shot. Included in the 3VF4 shot of the 1K113 "Smelchak" guided artillery weapon system.

            Correction is performed by jet pulse engines in the final flight segment according to the laser mark on the target.

            Features:
            Weight - 134,2 kg.;
            Length - 1635 mm;
            Caliber - 240 mm.;
            Sighting range - 3600 - 9200 m;
            Mass of explosive - 32 kg:;
            KVO - 0,8 - 1,8 m.
      2. +1
        19 May 2022 16: 38
        Each weapon has its niche. The mortar will not fulfill the task assigned to the guns or howitzers, the destruction of targets in the depths of the enemy’s defense, the creation of a barrage of fire, massive shelling, at the same time they will not be able to solve the problem that the mortar will solve - the destruction of targets behind the reverse ramps ....
        There is nothing universal.
        1. 0
          24 May 2022 12: 03
          The barrage and massive shelling are just the tasks for the mortar units. And on the reverse slopes, howitzers even work perfectly.
    2. +1
      24 May 2022 08: 57
      Quote: Proton

      On the one hand, the tactics of using 160mm are quite interesting and well-written. mortars

      Shaw, right?
  3. +12
    18 May 2022 04: 31
    "the one on the upper floors of the buildings where the machine gunner sat"

    What's up?
    Where is the editor?
    Roman do not watch TV!
    They teach bad things. :)
  4. -5
    18 May 2022 04: 53
    TV, state channels with constant grinding of water, I watch about the same thing throughout the day. But I look only to get a drop of information. I don’t pay much attention to the opinions of experts, the exception, perhaps, is Yuriy Podolyaka. And I don't always agree with him.
    1. -2
      18 May 2022 05: 01
      Podolyaka at work, if anything.
  5. +9
    18 May 2022 05: 10
    On the contrary, the "Tulip" is an excellent machine with a huge potential for modernization, exceptionally effective in fighting in the mountains, settlements (closed, semi-closed areas). Another point is that this modernization potential is not actually used, there is no particular problem in the informatization of the SM, the installation of modern automated control systems and self-binding. New mines (guided, with INS and GLONASS correction, with the possibility of installing a semi-active laser fuel and lubricants, as on the Daredevil, possibly with a thermobaric warhead), new, more convenient to use, charges, new fuses that provide detonation at a set height. As an option - a new base, easier loading and increased rate of fire.
    1. +12
      18 May 2022 05: 33
      the author does not belittle either the role of heavy mortars in general, or the capabilities of 2S4 in particular. If we discard all verbal husks, then the author’s conclusion is as follows: due to paucity heavy mortars did not make a significant contribution to the final defeat of the German army. As if the conclusion is certainly strange, of the level "finally we proved that the sea is blue and the foliage is green."
      1. +4
        18 May 2022 06: 02
        So, on the one hand, a heavy mortar has become a recognized means of destroying any fortifications, on the other hand, it simply does not turn the language to call it decisive, playing some significant role.

        I mean, the situation now requires the commissioning and modernization of "Tulips" from storage, there are still many assaults ahead.
        In a previous article on mortars, I said that as a weapon, the mortar has not progressed much in the last 100 years. True, this concerned light mortars, 82-120 mm.

        It’s also a so-so statement, from a towed EFSS, self-propelled mortars to a CAO capable of direct fire, including.
    2. -16
      18 May 2022 14: 24
      You can seriously talk about mortars and their modernization only in a backward army of the 20th century. All the tasks that we solve with mortars and artillery, at the risk of fighters and the consumption of hundreds of ammunition, are solved many times more efficiently by UAVs with adjustable air bombs. Unfortunately, we do not have traveling strike UAVs, therefore we are fighting like in the First World War.
      1. +7
        18 May 2022 14: 44



        The backward armies of the United States, Israel and China send you their best regards.
        1. -3
          19 May 2022 07: 32
          These are infantry mortars, not a correct comparison. The traitor says hello, oh, no one.
          1. 0
            19 May 2022 09: 23
            And how is this one different?
          2. 0
            24 May 2022 12: 09
            How many traitors and how many mortars are in the us army? Does one replace the other?
    3. 0
      24 May 2022 12: 06
      Everything has been there for a long time. The problem is implementation.
  6. +12
    18 May 2022 05: 37
    And it flies a little further, 19 km against 4.

    The firing range is not 4 km, but more than 8 km, and the rate of fire is not 1 rpm, but 3 rpm.
    Source: V.Ya. Lebedev "Handbook of an officer of ground artillery".
  7. +9
    18 May 2022 05: 44
    In Syria, the 160-mm showed itself very well, hitting those who were on the roof of buildings and between houses in the blind zone. Small houses were completely destroyed.
  8. +6
    18 May 2022 05: 51
    In vain, the 160-mm was abandoned after the Second World War, it has a very large modernization potential. Breech loading allows you to switch to a rifled barrel. The French 120 mm mortar MO-120-RT-61, despite muzzle loading, has a rifled barrel. If you make the mortar self-propelled, you can put an automatic loader.
    1. +4
      18 May 2022 13: 03
      Then it’s not a mortar, but a howitzer ...
  9. +4
    18 May 2022 05: 56
    Israel made a muzzle-loading 160mm mortar because it had an excess of 155mm artillery rounds. A small addition and the shells turn into mines.
    1. 0
      21 May 2022 00: 18
      Quote: riwas
      Israel made a muzzle-loading 160mm mortar because it had an excess of 155mm artillery rounds. A small addition and the shells turn into mines.

      So, in Israel and in the MLRS, 160 mm became the main caliber because of the dream to use 155-mm artillery shells as warheads! And there it went and went (!) ... note that both in air missiles and in zuras, the "caliber" of 160 mm is common!
  10. Two
    +2
    18 May 2022 06: 31
    It remains to add - "And this is a completely different story ..."
  11. -6
    18 May 2022 06: 33
    I beg your pardon, but I don’t understand one thing, the author, did the provocative photo, which serves as the title illustration for the article, have to be inserted necessarily ?!
    Do you understand what kind of howl will now begin from the "other side" !?
    1. 0
      18 May 2022 13: 09
      To be afraid of teeth, then you know the continuation ..
    2. 0
      24 May 2022 12: 13
      There is nothing provocative. Position on the outskirts of the city, behind the industrial building, away from the residential building. And it was not the RF Armed Forces that imposed battles in cities.
  12. +12
    18 May 2022 07: 22
    Actually, this article, in my opinion, carries exactly the same message - to score the air.
  13. -3
    18 May 2022 08: 08
    Roman, well, take care of your nerves from experts like grief who flooded television, thanks for the article, but don’t watch TV, it’s bad for digestion.
    1. +8
      18 May 2022 13: 02
      And how does the message of the article differ from television "experts"?
  14. +7
    18 May 2022 08: 21
    Yes, it would be easier to write: the war is not won by one type of weapon, the complex and the correct use win, and the "expert" is the "expert" to work off his money.
  15. +5
    18 May 2022 09: 02
    Mortar is a niche art system. Considering that recently there has been a lot of fighting in cities ... and reinforced concrete and knowledge on the construction of fortifications are available to everyone .... then the niche and prospects for the mortar are large and long. And the presence of copters and guided mines bring them (like all artillery) to a level comparable to aviation.
  16. -10
    18 May 2022 09: 23
    The article is average.
    The level of polished bribed "experts" has been known to everyone for a long time.
    "They live on another planet")))

    The photo is much more interesting.

    All these years they have been suggesting that IEDs are hiding among residential buildings and shelling peaceful residential buildings of the rebel republics just like that ...

    And here is a photo where our not weak mortar, right next to residential buildings, is already hammering at Azovstal ...
    I wonder if there was an answer, would the houses have suffered ??? What about windows now?
    1. +6
      18 May 2022 13: 06
      And if only, if only, then mushrooms in your mouth .. You know perfectly well when this photo was taken and that no screwdriver would fly in, what for to throw?
  17. +1
    18 May 2022 09: 42
    Of course, if the MT-13 became a mass phenomenon, becoming not part of separate brigades of heavy mortars, but, say, in divisional artillery

    Then the tank and mechanized formations of the Red Army could use these mortars instead of the heavy howitzers that were absent (due to the lack of high-speed powerful tractors). Not that the highest class, but better than nothing. At the very least, when meeting with a dug-in PAK-40 battery, it would not be worthwhile to arrange dances with tambourines.
  18. +3
    18 May 2022 09: 51
    there are also enough various kinds of experts in VO who have no idea about the subject (weapons, tactics, strategy, operational art ...) but argue at length and delightfully inappropriate
    1. -3
      18 May 2022 13: 06
      What camp do you belong to?
      1. +2
        18 May 2022 16: 26
        good question ... military personnel ... academy ... 10 years of the General Staff of the Armed Forces ... several military conflicts as a referral from the GOU ... well, decide for yourself the level of training and practical immersion ...
        1. -2
          18 May 2022 19: 33
          Directors ... I don’t know, we didn’t have such then ... Maybe we didn’t have them in other units and departments .. In practice, did he command? Company, platoon? When fighting directly?
          1. 0
            19 May 2022 20: 37
            The question is apparently for the sake of the question)) ... well, of course, after the school, the regiment immediately became a lieutenant))) and a year later the academy)))
            And so SAVO TurkVO SibVO is very different and mostly command positions
            1. 0
              19 May 2022 20: 52
              A year later, to the academy .. Quickly, however
              1. 0
                20 May 2022 08: 30
                Yeah ... with humor, apparently problems ... have a nice day
  19. +6
    18 May 2022 11: 37
    Quote: Max1995

    And here is a photo where our not weak mortar, right next to residential buildings, is already hammering at Azovstal ...
    I wonder if there was an answer, would the houses have suffered ???

    If there is no one in the houses (and this is strongly liked), then okay. Now, if there are people, then it's not good.
    In general, how do you imagine the assault on a heavily fortified city without the use of howitzers, self-propelled guns, mortars and other artillery?
    What about windows now?
    Maybe go there with gas cartridges and stun guns?
  20. -2
    18 May 2022 12: 43
    Too few 160 mm mortars were made, too few mines were fired compared to other artillery systems.

    Strange argument. It is no secret that "other artillery systems" in the overwhelming majority of cases fired at squares. And the purpose of a large-caliber mortar is the point destruction of fortifications, with mandatory observation and adjustment of fire. Although in most cases, most likely, they fired at squares from it. Therefore, they did not see much meaning in it. What's the difference than throwing behind enemy lines if the results are not visible?
  21. +2
    18 May 2022 12: 58
    Well, the author in his repertoire ... request
    1. 0
      18 May 2022 13: 07
      And what is wrong? Denying offer!
      1. +2
        18 May 2022 13: 08
        Where is my denial? laughing In general, about the mood of the article, I'm sad and sad.
  22. +2
    18 May 2022 13: 55
    Of the facts in the article, only numbers about the quantity and that's it. The rest is the opinion of the author, whom for some reason we must trust.
    I believe / do not believe how I do not want to play.
  23. -1
    18 May 2022 13: 58
    Of course, I'm not an expert, but it seems that during the assault on Mariupol and especially Azov, the M-160 mortars could be very useful to the assault units, precisely as a melee weapon (up to 2-3 km) combat.
    I suspect that any battalion commander would not refuse to have a battery of such mortars in the battalion.
    Now I am talking exclusively in the context of the assault on heavily fortified enemy positions, and not a maneuver war.
    1. +1
      18 May 2022 15: 24
      Towed artillery, and even more so large-caliber mortars with a low rate of fire, are extremely dubious value in modern conditions, and even more so in urban battles. There are self-propelled guns on a tracked chassis and on a wheeled chassis, a project of a 120-mm mortar "Phlox".
      1. +1
        19 May 2022 08: 10
        To destroy the third level of the protective structure "Azovstal". We tried to use "Daredevil" with laser guidance. Successfully or not, the released Natsiks will tell.
      2. 0
        24 May 2022 12: 19
        Towed artillery is *exceptional* value in a mass war or war of attrition.
  24. +1
    18 May 2022 14: 13
    The 160-mm mortar, as far as I understood, was intended for divisions instead of 152-mm mortars. Somehow we didn’t succeed with the NM mortar, and the 152-mm howitzers, with which they were replaced before the start of the war, were too heavy for divisions. The fact that these mortars were not eventually distributed among divisions also says something about their effectiveness. To what extent would 160-mm mortars be useful in a "special operation" now? I'm not going to judge. But I am sure that they would find application in the NM of the DPR / LPR.
  25. +4
    18 May 2022 15: 31
    were able to evaluate the effect of a 40-kilogram mine containing almost eight kilograms of explosives, falling almost vertically and with decent acceleration.

    With "decent" - this is with what? 9,81 meters per second per second? smile
    1. The comment was deleted.
  26. +1
    18 May 2022 15: 43
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    Towed artillery, and even more so large-caliber mortars with a low rate of fire, are extremely dubious value in modern conditions, and even more so in urban battles. There are self-propelled guns on a tracked chassis and on a wheeled chassis, a project of a 120-mm mortar "Phlox".

    Azovstal has been besieged for how many weeks? Why in such positional conditions rate of fire and mobility? But the ability to throw a heavy powerful mine over a high thick wall is in great demand. The power of a 160 mm mortar is the same as that of a 152 mm howitzer, and the weight and dimensions are much smaller, you can even transport it in tow with any passenger SUV (here's mobility for you). The price of such a mortar is negligible against the background of any self-propelled gun. Ammunition heaps and they are also inexpensive.
  27. +2
    18 May 2022 15: 45
    Quote: Dimax-Nemo
    I am sure that they would find application in the NM DPR / LPR

    Definitely! Consider a pocket howitzer. No battalion commander will refuse to have the power of divisional artillery at hand.
  28. +6
    18 May 2022 19: 04
    It’s a pity you can’t slap a minus, purely clickbait.
    "Yes, the Tyulpan's mine is somewhat larger than that of the MT-13. 230 kg versus 40. And it flies a little further, 19 km versus 4. But this is progress." - And this is generally wonderful, a little more - is it 6 times? Let them pay you a little less for articles, 6 times, just something.
  29. -4
    19 May 2022 14: 36
    And why does a mortar from a living building fire, because only Ukronazis do this ...
    1. 0
      23 May 2022 10: 14
      It was once assigned to the 2C4 "Tulip", the car is decent, though it reloads slowly, I think it would be better to make it multi-barreled, for example, for 9 barrels, plus you can reduce the crew from 5 people to 3,
  30. 0
    24 May 2022 11: 56
    What is "decent acceleration mini" ??? And an anti-aircraft gun firing at "faustniks on the upper floors" ???
  31. 0
    5 July 2022 19: 44
    A good mortar, it was necessary to make a self-propelled 160mm mortar. In addition to the capital protective structures, there are also field ones. And in cities, too, powerful concrete fortifications are not everywhere, there are enough simply trained floor slabs.