The saga of the company mortar in the Red Army. Adoption

59
The saga of the company mortar in the Red Army. Adoption


– You can also use a slide rule
see the item for hammering nails!
It has extension and a certain mass!
But this will be the tenth, twentieth function of the object,
while using a slide rule
it could be considered!
Y. S. Semenov “Seventeen Moments of Spring”

Periodically among enthusiasts interested in history and military affairs, and not only, discussions arise on the topic: what should a company/platoon mortar be like.



Was he needed?


Mortars have been in service with armies around the world for more than 100 years. Mortars of medium and large calibers (from 81/82 mm and more), which appeared back in the distant 20s of the twentieth century, still form a significant part of the artillery fleet and are widely used in military conflicts as close combat weapons (artillery systems).

But the experience of operating light mortars of 50 (60) mm caliber and less during the Second World War was considered unsuccessful; all the main armies of the world abandoned their use and removed them from service due to the weak destructive ability of mines (high-explosive action against wire barriers and a relatively small area of ​​continuous destruction by shrapnel) and a short range of use (certified up to 800–1 m, the actual effective range of use was 000–400 m).

Only in the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, 81-mm mortars, which were in service with US infantry and airmobile units as a means of fire support, were considered unsuitable for conditions of maneuver warfare due to their weight - 48,6 kg. Due to low mobility due to the weight of the mortar and the limited amount of ammunition carried by the crew, the mortarmen could not provide timely fire support to the company throughout the entire depth of its combat mission.

For this reason, some of the M29 (81-mm) mortars were withdrawn from the units and, as a temporary measure, they were replaced with 60-mm mortars of the M2 and M19 models that were stored in warehouses.

In 1970, based on the experience of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon ordered the development of a more powerful 60 mm mortar system. The M224 mortar adopted for service was manufactured according to the classic “imaginary triangle” design and in many ways resembled its predecessor, the M19 (1943).

The following were newly developed:

– sighting system;

- a whole line of new 60-mm ammunition, superior to existing ones, both in firing range and in destructiveness of the warhead;

– a new fuse with adjustable detonation, providing the possibility of detonation at any given distance to the ground from 0,9 m to 3,6 m, and also triggered by contact with the surface or with a delay for firing at buried field fortifications with earthen filling;

– the centering thickening with grooves, which served to reduce the breakthrough of powder gases, was replaced by a plastic seal ring, fixed in a groove on the mine body;

– the shape and method of attaching additional charges have changed. The charge is now a cut ring and is placed directly on the stabilizer tube.

The range of use of the 60-mm mortar ranged from 70 to 3 m; mine weight from 490 kg.

In the Soviet Army, which was preparing for the massive use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield, according to the experience of the Great Patriotic War, light mortars were considered weapons that did not live up to the hopes placed on them, so the topic of light mortars for research and design work was closed.

In the 1970s, to increase the firepower of units in infantry battalions, 82-mm mortars began to be replaced by automatic mortar systems "Vasilyok" and 120-mm mortars mounted on vehicle and tracked chassis. The war in Afghanistan showed that in mountainous conditions there is nothing to replace 82 mm man-portable mortars; military theory has become somewhat divorced from practice.

To enhance the firepower of operational groups (GRU, Airborne Forces, etc.) fighting in Afghanistan outside the territories controlled by Soviet troops, in 1981 employees of the State Research Artillery Range developed a 60-mm silent-firing mortar, but the military not interested: low range (up to 500 m), “weak” fragmentation ammunition.

Let's figure out why this happened. And did the army need a company mortar of 50/60 mm caliber?

The concept of company armament in the first third of the 20th century


Based on the results of the First World War, military theorists made the following conclusions: it is objectively necessary that the commander of a rifle company have at his direct disposal “his own”, on the battlefield, directly subordinate only to him, portable heavy weapons of direct support * (hereinafter referred to as TONP). Using TONP, the company commander could, with a fire maneuver, quickly change the situation on the battlefield in his favor, without wasting time on coordinating with the higher command the use of fire weapons of battalion/regimental subordination.

In their absence, the company's stability in defense and attack was considered unsatisfactory.

Theorists included in the composition of TPO:

– mounted small-caliber machine guns (from which the German single machine gun grew): the task is to suppress the activity of enemy shooters at a distance of up to 800 m from occupied positions;

– grenade launchers (also known as man-portable mortars with a caliber of up to 50 mm), the task is to hit enemy shooters hiding behind uneven terrain or in trenches at a distance of up to 800 m from their occupied positions with fragments of grenades/mines;

- anti-tank rifles, which, in front of the company front, must stop/hit an enemy armored car or a tank with at least bulletproof armor at a distance of up to 300 m. I remind you that, apart from a kinetic impact with a bullet/shell, at that time there were no other methods of remotely destroying armored vehicles and tanks. And the idea of ​​​​creating tanks with shell-resistant armor was realized only closer to the mid-30s.

* Heavy weapons of direct support - they are also group weapons, served by crews of two or more people, moved across the battlefield along with ammunition only by people, without the help of horses and vehicles. This includes heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, light and medium mortars, as well as man-portable anti-tank weapons.
Historical information
The reference is compiled on the basis of materials posted on the Internet (links are provided whenever possible: some materials are copied one to one on many sites, and it is not clear which of them is the author), and an article by K. V. Cherentsova (St. Petersburg) “From the history of the creation of 50-mm company mortars by Special Design Bureau No. 4 of the Leningrad Machine-Building Plant No. 7 (1936–1940)».

Adoption of light mortars in the Red Army


As the USSR economy recovered, back in the 20s of the last century, funding began for work to improve weapons, including in the field of artillery. Among the military equipment inherited by the Red Army from the army of the Russian Empire and adopted for service, there were mortars with a caliber of 58 mm (in total, 1915 units were manufactured in 1917–3) and 421 mm (in 90–1915, 1917 were manufactured 12 units). These mortars were used on the battlefields of the Civil War in 519–1918 and were in service with the Red Army until 1922.

Since 1927, Group “D” of the Gas Dynamics Laboratory, located in Leningrad, began to work purposefully on the topic of mortars. Its director was N.A. Dorovlev, hence the laboratory index. In October 1929, a Soviet-Chinese armed conflict began on the CER. During the fighting, Red Army units captured several dozen Chinese mortars of the Stokes-Brandt system (81-mm, 107-mm and 152-mm caliber) and hundreds of mines for them.

Based on the results of tests of captured systems carried out by specialists from group "D", mortar designs were developed: company - 60 mm, battalion - 76 mm and 82 mm, and regimental - 120 mm. Already in 1931, the first tests of the developed 82-mm mortar were carried out.

Dorovlev sent working drawings of a 60-mm company mortar to the Art Directorate of the Red Army on January 19, 1932. But the 60-mm mortar samples developed by the laboratory, based on the test results, did not suit the military - low accuracy. As a result, interest in the company mortar faded away, and the laboratory focused on 82-mm, 107-mm and 120-mm mortars.

The production base for the production of prototypes of mortars was initially the Bolshevik plant and Mechanical Plant No. 7 (Leningrad). Since 1932, experimental production of melee guns based on the projects of the “D” group was concentrated at the “Red October” plant (Kharkov, Ukrainian SSR), where a special design bureau was created, which accompanied the introduction into production of products developed by the “D” group.

In this design bureau, under the leadership of engineer B.I. Shavyrin, work was carried out on an initiative basis to design and manufacture: an 82-mm battalion mortar and a 107-mm long-range chemical mortar, and ammunition for them. Serial production of cast iron 107-mm mines developed by SKB was mastered in 1934 at the Kharkov plant "Porshen", previously all mines were sharpened from steel.

Since 1934, the Red October plant was assigned to the People's Commissariat of Local Industry of the Ukrainian SSR, which introduced significant difficulties in the speed and quality of communications between SKB and the production facility where prototypes based on its developments were manufactured.

By the mid-30s, among the specialists of the Art Committee of the Red Army, the opinion was established that it was necessary to replace the Dyakonov grenade launcher (rifle grenade launcher), which they shared with specialists from subordinate factories. The agents reported that in almost all armies of capitalist states (Germany, Italy, Poland, USA, France, Japan, etc.) the infantry company is armed with light mobile melee weapons with a caliber of 50 mm or less. These guns, firing along a mounted or flat trajectory, complemented the company's fire system and allowed it to independently carry out some tasks without involving artillery units for this. In the USSR, work on a light/company mortar has resumed.

By the end of 1935, on the initiative of B.I. Shavyrin, the new location of the SKB was determined to be the Leningrad State Machine-Building Plant No. 7, and Shavyrin himself was appointed its head. In 1936, Plant No. 7 produced prototypes of the new 60-mm company mortar "60-RM", developed on the basis of the drawings of group "D". At the end of 1936, the mortar passed field tests at NIAP (Scientific Test Artillery Range of the Red Army). The mortar did not pass the tests due to poor stability, unsatisfactory accuracy and fragility of the shock absorber.

On May 20, 1937, tactical and technical requirements (TTT) were sent to Plant No. 7 for the design of a 50-mm grenade launcher (mortar)* and a fragmentation grenade for it. The new system was intended to arm small infantry units and was supposed to provide mounted fire at enemy personnel and firing points.

The main requirements for the grenade launcher were lightness, portability and ease of use, as well as simplicity and low cost of production. The system had to provide a firing range of at least 800 m and a rate of fire of at least 20 rounds per minute.

The grenade launcher had to allow for firing from a sitting or lying position, ensure ease of carrying on the back, and its design had to allow for high speed of preparation for battle and rapid transfer of fire from one target to another. The 50 mm fragmentation grenade was supposed to have a shock effect and provide a ground explosion with damage on any terrain. The production of grenades was supposed to be simple and cheap.

* The term “mortar” had not yet become commonly used in the mid-30s; the term “grenade launcher” was more often used.

The design bureau at plant No. 7 again reworked the drawings of the 60-RM mortar. At the end of 1937 - beginning of 1938, successful factory tests of a 60-mm company mortar from Plant No. 7 were carried out at NIAP.

At the end of 1937, the GAU approved the basic scheme of mortar armament of the Red Army, on the basis of which in January 1938 they developed (tactical and technical requirements) TTT No. 33 for a company mortar (grenade launcher), which indicated the following characteristics:

– caliber – 50 mm;
– weight of the feathered projectile (mines: fragmentation, smoke) – 1 kg;
– longest firing range – 800 m;
– shortest range – 100 m;
– elevation angle – from 45° to 80°;
– rate of fire – 30 rounds per minute;
– system weight – 8 kg.

The new TTT pointed out the need to develop two ways to change the firing range: using a remote tap through different combinations of changing the volume of the chamber, elevation angles and the position of the remote tap. As a sight, it was proposed to use a level to control the elevation angle and a simple sighting device for horizontal aiming.

General Staff Directive No. 43557 of March 16, 1938 ordered comparative tests of various types of mortars and grenade launchers, which took place at the end of May 1938. The tests were aimed at selecting from among the samples being developed one that most corresponds to the tactical and technical requirements. The tests were carried out from March 25.03.1938, 03.04.1938 to April XNUMX, XNUMX. The following samples were submitted for testing:

Table 1. Comparative tactical and technical characteristics of the tested samples.


Table 2. Indicators of combat weight of systems.


Readers interested in the details of the tests are referred to the article in the magazine Kalashnikov. Weapons, ammunition, equipment. No. 2, 2012, p. 87. Tables No. 1 and 2 are taken from the same source.

Based on the test results, the 50-mm Osa mortar from Factory No. 7 was declared the winner.

Let us dwell in more detail on the test results of mortars of 50, 60 and 82 mm caliber.

From the commission's conclusion:

• “The 82-mm mortar from plant No. 7 does not meet the technical specifications for the following indicators:

– heavy system (23,6 kg);
– heavy ammunition – two soldiers can carry no more than 12 mines;
– large crew – 4 numbers and a commander;
– difficulty in delivering ammunition in battle due to its heavy weight.”

• “The 60-mm mortar from plant No. 7 was found unsatisfactory:

– heavy system;
– heavy ammunition, as a result of which a crew of 4 people can carry no more than 20 minutes;
– a developed mine produces too small fragments when it explodes;
– difficulty in delivering ammunition in battle due to its heavy weight.”

• “The 50-mm Osa grenade launcher was found satisfactory. The grenade launcher is capable of conducting overhead fire at a range of 100–800 m. The crew of the grenade launcher is 2 people. They can carry 14 grenades (mines) in pouches, and, if necessary, also a pack of 42 grenades, which allows them to hit 5-6 targets.

The grenade launcher also showed satisfactory results when shooting at box-shaped and flat targets. In order to increase stability during testing, the grenade launcher was modified - the front opener was replaced with a two-legged support. As a result, the stability of the grenade launcher has improved, and the sight no longer goes astray when firing. The rate of fire of the grenade launcher was 30 rounds per minute.”

Thus, according to the test results, the 50-mm Osa grenade launcher SKB-4 from plant No. 7 was recognized as the only option for further testing.

It was necessary to make a number of changes to the design of the mortar: to fully develop the components of the shot (mine, charge, fuse), to introduce a sight into the design, to change the design of the support biped (modeled on a 60-mm company mortar), to work out the scales of the remote crane, to design new devices for carrying, make 200 mines. and work out the charges for them.

The deadline for finalizing the system and ammunition is August 1, 1938. On a pilot series of 30 pcs. grenade launchers, the drawings had to be worked out and mass production of the systems began.

If we compare the main characteristics of the Dyakonov grenade launcher and the 50-mm Osa mortar: weight 8,2 kg (grenade launcher complete with rifle) and 8,6 kg (mortar), ammunition weight 0,33 kg (grenade launcher) and 1,0 kg (mortar), the firing range of both types of weapons is up to 800 m, it becomes clear that the military experts of Artkom had no understanding of the peculiarities of using mortars, and the replacement of a grenade launcher with a mortar was done in the style of “being no worse than others.”

Military tests of the Osa grenade launcher were carried out in the Transcaucasian and Leningrad military districts. Based on their results, according to the Scientific and Technical Journal (NTJ) of the Red Army AU No. 0177 dated September 1, 1938, the system was put into service as a “50-mm company mortar mod. 1938."


1 – mortar barrel; 2 – biped; 3 – plate; 4 – sight; 5 – pack for carrying the system; 6 – sight level; 7 – protrusion of the sight bracket; 8 – swivel; 9 – handle of the lifting mechanism; 10 – clamping sleeve; 11 – clamping sleeve nut; 12 – bushing.
50-mm company mortar RM-38 "Osa"

Simultaneously with the Shavyrin bureau, plant No. 50 engineer V.N. Shamarin, who first worked at SKB-7, then moved to the artillery design bureau of the plant (under the leadership of L.I. Gorlitsky), joined the creation of a 4-mm company mortar on his own initiative. On January 12, 1938, one prototype of a 50-mm mortar designed by V.N. Shamarin was sent for factory testing. In May 1939, field tests were carried out at NIAP.

The fundamental difference between this system and the standard 50-mm company mortar RM-38 (design SKB-4) was a different type of remote crane device (valve type) and a simpler leveling mechanism. The ballistic characteristics also differed from the 50-mm mortar adopted for service.


50 mm rotary mortar PM-41

The V.N. Shamarin system (RM-41) with a barrel elevation angle of 50° and the corresponding settings of the remote crane made it possible to fire at a distance (in meters) of 100, 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 , 700, 800. At an elevation angle of 75°, the firing range with the same crane settings will be half as large.

In September 1939, to resolve the issue of choosing the best design of a 50-mm company mortar for a serial order for 1940, comparative tests of the RM-38 and RM-41 were carried out at ANIOP. Based on the results of tests during 23 firings, the best ballistic qualities were demonstrated by a prototype of a 50-mm company mortar designed by V. N. Shamarin. In general, this system largely satisfied the characteristics specified in TTT No. 33 and in terms of weight.

During the Soviet-Finnish War (1939–1940), the combat use of a 50-mm company mortar mod. 1938 revealed a number of design flaws:

• long minimum range (200 m);
• had a relatively large weight;
• had large dimensions, which made it difficult to camouflage;
• the remote crane device is too complex;
• the scale of the remote tap did not correspond to the range;
• the outlet hole in the remote valve is directed downward and forward, due to which, when firing, the escaping gases, hitting the ground, raised dust (snow) and thereby made the work of the crew difficult;
• unreliable and complex sight mount;
• weakness of ammunition.

SKB-4 promptly responded to the military’s comments and modified the RM-38. On February 27, 1940, tests took place in the combat area of ​​the 85th Infantry Regiment of the 100th Division. According to their results, the 50-mm company mortar “recovered” to 11,5 kg, and was “recommended as the best existing model of company mortars for arming active armies with it” (in the Commission Act this system was called “Osa-40”).

On April 26, 1940, at a plenary meeting of the GVS RKKA (Main Military Council of the Red Army), a decision was made on the need to modernize the 50-mm company mortar for the purpose of removing gases, and from two design options - B. I. Shavyrin and V. N. Shamarin - K E. Voroshilov was instructed to choose the latter option.

At the end of April 1940, SKB-4 was disbanded, work on improving 50-mm company mortars continued in the department of the chief designer of plant No. 7. In parallel with this, work was carried out on company systems at NII-13, where the VIII mortar department was organized, which headed by B.I. Shavyrin.

Serial production of a 50-mm company mortar mod. 1938 began in 1939, when 1 units were delivered. By August 715, 1, 1940 mortars were manufactured, and in just one year - 18 units. As of January 994, 27, the GAU KA had 805 mortars on its balance sheet, of which 1 required routine repairs, 1941 needed major repairs, and 29 were subject to write-off. Between 340 and 227, more than 90 thousand model mortars were produced. 11.

The ammunition loads of the 50-mm RM-41 mortar and mortars of the 1938 and 1940 models are absolutely identical and consist of a steel six-feather fragmentation mine 0-822 and a cast iron four-feather fragmentation mine 0-822A.

50-mm four-fin fragmentation mine arr. 1938 O-822 weighing 922 grams was equipped with a 90-gram TNT charge. The charge of gunpowder in the tail cartridge of the mortar weighed four and a half grams. However, these four and a half grams were enough to make the mine fly out of the barrel at a speed of 97 m/s, rise to a height of 216 meters and then fall 800 meters from the mortar.

Subsequently, in 1940, the six-fin mine O-822Sh mod. 1940, which had an 850-gram mass and a tail charge reduced to 4 g. Its firing range did not differ from the firing range of the four-feathered one.

Due to lack of effectiveness, 50-mm company mortars were withdrawn from service in 1943, when Soviet troops began massive offensive operations in the second half of the Great Patriotic War.

Explanation of why the Red Army chose the 50-mm mortar


By the end of the 30s, the Red Army infantry was still in an orphan position in terms of logistics - trucks went primarily to artillery and armored forces.

Therefore, the painters believed that TONP* (see above) should be wearable not only on the battlefield, but also in marching formations, i.e., be as light as possible. For the infantry, it was primarily planned to transport ammunition and food. The rifle company had to carry all its weapons independently.

Of course, according to regulatory documents, for the transportation of mortars, machine guns and ammunition there were horse-drawn carts assigned to the crews, but in fact they were listed in the service platoon according to the battalion staff, along with field kitchens and a food train. The Kraskoms perfectly understood the realities of army life.

Продолжение следует ...
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    23 March 2024 08: 00
    In the 1970s, in order to increase the firepower of units in infantry battalions, 82-mm mortars began to be replaced by automatic mortar systems "Vasilyok" and 120-mm mortars, mounted on a vehicle and tracked chassis.

    What kind of systems are these? Mortar systems 2K21 and 2S12 were transportable. With the development of mortars installed on some kind of chassis, alas, everything is still very sad...
    1. +1
      25 March 2024 12: 53
      If motorized riflemen have 2S1 (Gvozdika), then why do they need all sorts of palliatives, such as an 80 mm mortar? By the way, the Gvozdik division is under regimental subordination. 2S3 is already divisional, but the regiments themselves do not fight. They always have divisional level cover.
      1. 0
        25 March 2024 18: 56
        The artillery battalion is subordinate to the regiment/brigade commander. Whether to distribute its batteries for direct support of battalions is the decision of the unit commander, so whether a particular battalion commander will have the support of regimental artillery at a particular moment in the battle is not always predictable.
        But a mortar battery (or battery of self-propelled guns) is an improvised means of the battalion commander, at his personal disposal and performing tasks only in his interests and according to his instructions.
      2. +1
        25 March 2024 18: 59
        And yes, 2S1s have long been no longer the standard weapons of regimental artillery divisions, and 2S3s have long been removed from the lists of artillery regiments of motorized rifle divisions. You are relying on the organizational structure of the Soviet army from the 70s, which was outdated even before the collapse of the USSR.
  2. BAI
    0
    23 March 2024 08: 13
    As far as I understand, the Germans actively used light mortars during the Second World War.
    1. +4
      23 March 2024 08: 32
      Quote: BAI
      As far as I understand, the Germans actively used light mortars during the Second World War

      The German 50mm mortar had some advantages over Soviet mortars of the same caliber...but the Germans also stopped producing light mortars during the war. In general, the Wehrmacht was very “omnivorous”... they used everything that fell into their hands and could shoot! Incl. and Polish 46-mm mortars, and Italian 45/35-mm mortars (grenade launchers)...
  3. +1
    23 March 2024 08: 42
    the experience of operating light mortars of 50(60) mm caliber and smaller during the Second World War was considered unsuccessful, all the major armies of the world abandoned their use and removed them from service
    Really? Is that all? As far as I remember, British “2-inch” (50,8 mm) mortars were not only used in WW2, but also remained in service after... even modernized! Moreover...somewhere in the 70s of the last century, a new 51-mm mortar was adopted! Or did the author exclude the English army from among the “main” ones? what
    1. -2
      23 March 2024 11: 35
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Or did the author exclude the English army from among the “main” ones? what
      How much of that army is there?
  4. +3
    23 March 2024 09: 01
    The saga of the company mortar in the Red Army? It's somehow incomplete! The author “forgot” about the RMN-50 (Niman rifle-mortar) and the 50-mm “automatic” mortar of the Sevastopol “spill” (that is, produced)!
    1. +6
      23 March 2024 09: 40
      The article is about serial products put into service.
      During the war years, Artcom was overwhelmed with projects, and mainly projects (to call a spade a spade) of small arms and artillery weapons.
      I read a review article on the Internet, which contained photos of the original texts of letters from workers to Artkom. And the memories of an Artcom employee who answered letters. Moreover, the volume of the response was often larger than the application for an invention (calculations were included that this invention was not operational due to a violation of physical laws).
      1. +2
        23 March 2024 10: 40
        Quote: virA
        The article is about serial products put into service.

        Available sources mention that RMN-50 “hand mortars” were in service with special NKVD groups that performed various tasks behind enemy lines. Perhaps they were also supplied to partisan detachments, PS Not possible, but they were supplied! For example, there was an article that talked about the supply of a certain number of RMN-50s to a specific partisan detachment for specific operations... So... RMN-50 is a “serial product”! And in stories about weapons, there are many cases when weapons and military equipment are produced in “small series”, and if, in addition, according to “special orders”, then for a long time such a fact may remain unknown to the “general public”! As for the Sevastopol “automatic” mortar, for Sevastopol it was “serial” production, just like the production of hand grenades in cans! Take, for example, a recent publication about the use and production of a “rifle” mortar for a hand grenade.... Not accepted for service, produced “somewhere” on an initiative basis... but at the same time it is used in battles and not for anyone It’s a shame to post an article about this on the Internet (and on VO)!
        1. +2
          23 March 2024 11: 02
          https://warspot.ru/16283-partizanskie-truba-i-elektron
          Read it. I won’t retell the article.
          Summary of the Red Army Small Arms Research Site:
          "1. The RMN-50 mortar gun and ZM-50 incendiary mines for it, designed by the NII-6 NKB of the USSR, did not withstand field tests.
          2. Due to the shortcomings indicated in the conclusions, the RMN-50 mortar gun and ZM-50 incendiary mines for it cannot be recommended for adoption by the Red Army and partisan detachments.”
          1. +1
            23 March 2024 11: 16
            You have your own <true>; and I have my own!
            1. By October, in the workshops of the research institute, transformed into factory workshops, the first 50 units of weapons were made, called the “Naiman hand mortar (RMN-50)”, or, as it was sometimes called, the “Naiman mortar gun”. These fifty were also the last...
            2.— To do this, 24 Naiman mortars and 1650 mines were sent to the Zyabrovka airfield in the Gomel region to be transported to the partisans. At the same time, officers of the engineering and technical department were sent behind enemy lines, who were supposed to conduct tests in real combat conditions and train fighters of two partisan brigades in the use of weapons - “Plamya” in the Minsk region and “Komsomolets” in the Baranovichi region,
            1. +2
              23 March 2024 11: 46
              PS In connection with the change in the military situation by 1944 (the “partisan” territories were heading towards “zero”...), they decided that the “need” for the RMN-50 had disappeared! Further development of this “product” was stopped and was not accepted for service , but “small-scale production” (50 pieces) was carried out!
            2. +3
              23 March 2024 14: 16
              The partisans were also not very enthusiastic (reports in the same article), but there were no other similar weapons.
              Based on the results of reports, NII-6 NKB of the USSR designed a 37-mm mortar gun. But 1944 came, the Prtisan movement collapsed due to the fact that the Red Army was reaching the borders of the USSR. Therefore, funding for work on RMN-37 was stopped.
              These works, as well as on RMN-50, came from the budget of the Central Headquarters of the Partisan Movement at the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command.
              It’s a pity, in principle, it would have been our M79 Blouper, 10 years earlier than the American one.
              It would be very useful during the assault on Berlin and other cities
              1. 0
                24 March 2024 07: 02
                Quote: virA
                it would have been our M79 Blouper, 10 years earlier than the American one.

                I have different “preferences”... I have long been “perplexed” why nothing is known about attempts to make a hand grenade launcher or even a “grenade launcher” from a Dyakonov rifle mortar!
                1. +1
                  24 March 2024 18: 57
                  Reviews from the front about Dyakonov's grenade: the grenades did not explode, there were many misfires.
                  I think it's all about the mechanism for setting the burning time of the ignition tube. Plus, the storage time in warehouses had an effect: the first grenades were purchased in 1925.
                  If they made the burning time the same, throwing out the mechanism, the grenades would be more reliable.
                  An example of a "grenade launcher" https://warspot.ru/16277-partizanskaya-mortirka
                  Also: KMB - “Baranov’s pocket mortar” by Lieutenant Technician of the Air Force of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet G.P. Baranova.
                  https://warspot.ru/373-lichnaya-artilleriya-dlya-sbitogo-lyotchika
                  1. 0
                    24 March 2024 22: 22
                    This is all not the same .... both the “partisan mortar” and the KMB ... not what I had in mind!
        2. +1
          23 March 2024 11: 19
          As for the Sevastopol “automatic” 50-mm mortar:
          The design of the 50 mm mortar initially had a disadvantage in terms of stability due to its low weight, so when firing from behind cover the calculation was:
          - low weight of the base plate - stood with your feet on the slab or put an additional load - a bag of earth, stones, etc. or .
          - stood with your feet on the two-legged carriage stops (limit penetration into the ground) or placed loads in the same way.

          Therefore, there is no point in a high rate of fire - it’s just shooting in areas.
          1. +1
            23 March 2024 11: 35
            [quote=virA]As for the Sevastopol “automatic” 50-mm mortar:
            The design of the 50 mm mortar initially had a flaw .../quote]
            1. These are wartime weapons, which can even be classified as “surrogates”! But the “surrogates” also fought! "Surrogates" were developed and used in other countries...we can mention the UK as an example! By the way, the bags were also “placed” on the “Grad-P” installation when firing... and “placed” on the AGS-30 machine... you can find more examples!
            2. Mortars were and are often used to fire “over squares”! If this "area" is defined !
  5. +4
    23 March 2024 11: 04
    Interesting review, detailed. Respect to the author.
    1. +1
      23 March 2024 16: 40
      Quote: Aviator_
      Interesting review, detailed. Respect to the author.

      To be honest, I was surprised by 15 mortars for the Civil War. I have never come across anything about them in the history of the Civil War. Three-inch guns - yes, but myo-mortars request
      1. 0
        23 March 2024 17: 55
        I haven't seen anything either. But the three-inch gun was later converted into a regimental gun and fought in the Second World War, but those mortars remained there, on the fields of the Civil War. Moreover, the number produced and the number used in combat are not the same thing.
  6. +1
    23 March 2024 11: 41
    – a new fuse with adjustable detonation, providing the possibility of detonation at any given distance to the ground from 0,9 m to 3,6 m,

    Due to what, by what technology could such an explosion be carried out? Altimeter every minute? Expensive. Remote tube type explosion delay?
    1. 0
      23 March 2024 12: 01
      How expensive is it? Maybe it's not that expensive after all?
      1. +3
        23 March 2024 12: 41
        The mine itself is expensive, the Americans have the main shot M720A1NE, in 2005 the cost was 489 bucks/13 rubles, for example, the cost of a 629-mm HE shot with a long-range charge ZVOF152 for 72S2 (19A2) was 65 rubles.
        1. +1
          23 March 2024 12: 46
          Quote: strannik1985
          The mine itself is expensive, the Americans have the main shot M720A1NE, in 2005 the cost was 489 bucks/13 rubles, for example, the cost of a 629-mm long-range HE shot with a long-range charge ZVOF152 for 72S2 (19A2) is 65 rubles.

          There is not much logic in your comparison. 155-mm caliber shells are now purchased in NATO countries at prices of about $4000 apiece.
          1. +2
            23 March 2024 12: 54
            There is not much logic in your comparison.

            A long body with semi-finished fragments, a lightweight shank that does not participate in the formation of fragments, and a radio fuse - this makes 60-mm mines expensive. That's clearer? wink
            1. 0
              23 March 2024 12: 59
              Quote: strannik1985
              A long body with semi-finished fragments, a lightweight shank that does not participate in the formation of fragments, and a radio fuse - this makes 60-mm mines expensive. That's clearer?

              No, actually. What, some other mines or shells do not have a casing or fuse?
              1. 0
                23 March 2024 13: 29
                Of course there is, there’s just no such strict need for radio fuses and so on.
                1. 0
                  23 March 2024 13: 32
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Of course there is, there’s just no such strict need for radio fuses and so on.

                  You can, as in the old days, insert a wooden tube with gunpowder into the bottom of the projectile. There will be significant savings.
        2. 0
          23 March 2024 15: 20
          cost of a 152-mm HE round with a long-range ZVOF72 charge for 2S19 (2A65) - 13 rubles

          It costs more than 100. Do not mislead people.
          1. 0
            23 March 2024 15: 59
            http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1679&p=25
            Name of ammunition Index Price per unit in rubles on 01.01.2005
            152 mm 2A65 and 2C19
            High-explosive fragmentation plant VOF72 13224,90
            High-explosive fragmentation s / p VOF58 10787,36
            High-explosive fragmentation f / z VOF73 9203,03
            High-explosive fragmentation plant VOF91 57931,00
            High-explosive fragmentation inert s / d VOF72 IN 12018,46
            High-explosive fragmentation inert s / p VOF58 IN 9582,36
            High explosive inert f / z VOF73 IN 7998,03
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. 0
                23 March 2024 16: 02
                If there is anything more recent, I'll read it with pleasure.
                P.S. I also provided data for the American for 2005.
                1. 0
                  23 March 2024 16: 05
                  Yes, I'm sorry. I didn’t notice that you cited data for 2005.
    2. 0
      23 March 2024 12: 47
      Quote: Not the fighter
      Due to what, by what technology could such an explosion be carried out? Altimeter every minute?

      A conventional radio fuse is triggered when approaching the ground.
      1. +2
        23 March 2024 13: 20
        Quote: DenVB
        A conventional radio fuse, triggered when approaching the ground

        Maybe, maybe... but I remember that there was a time in the USA when they were developing universal (i.e., contact-non-contact) electronic fuses (based on a microprocessor) for a number of “popular” calibers. .. “Non-contact” was ensured by a laser emitter... By the way, in the USA they even worked at one time on developing a 60-mm laser-guided mine, but then they abandoned it... expensive(!)... the "cost-effectiveness" criterion failed! Although, later they acquired aviation ammunition (Hatch?), comparable to a 60-mm mine!
        1. +1
          23 March 2024 13: 26
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Maybe, maybe... but I remember that there was a time in the USA when they were developing universal (i.e., contact-non-contact) electronic fuses (based on a microprocessor) for a number of “popular” calibers. .."Non-contact" was ensured by a laser emitter...

          A conventional analog radio fuse has a serious problem - it is highly vulnerable to electronic warfare. And electronic warfare is now in almost every trench...

          So yes, the problem needs to be solved somehow. Either frequency hopping, digital signal coding, or, as you wrote, use a laser rather than a radio signal.
          1. +2
            23 March 2024 13: 45
            In principle, an ultrasonic rangefinder is also suitable: it measures distances up to 10 m reliably, the response time is hundredths of a second. At a mine speed of 90 m/sec, the error +/- 1-1,5 meters is not significant. And electronic warfare is not scary.
            1. 0
              23 March 2024 13: 48
              Quote: virA
              In principle, an ultrasonic rangefinder is also suitable: it measures distances up to 10 m reliably, the response time is hundredths of a second. At a mine speed of 90 m/sec, the error +/- 1-1,5 meters is not significant. And electronic warfare is not scary.

              Maybe. But an ultrasonic rangefinder may be vulnerable to “ultrasonic electronic warfare.”
  7. +3
    23 March 2024 13: 08
    Anyone who was behind the ribbon will definitely write: “We don’t need a 60 mm mortar if we have the AGS-30.”.. ..
    1. +1
      23 March 2024 13: 54
      Quote: quaric
      Anyone who was behind the ribbon will definitely write: “We don’t need a 60 mm mortar if we have the AGS-30.”.. ..

      It’s like this - until you try, you won’t know. Americans have been using both for a long time, and have no intention of giving up either.
  8. +2
    23 March 2024 13: 11
    An article on the case, in the style of the “old” VO. Plus.
    Food for thought: if 80 mm is too much and 60 mm is not enough, then maybe 70? The look of an amateur, I never had anything to do with mortars. request
    1. +3
      23 March 2024 14: 37
      Quote: Arzt
      if 80 mm is too much and 60 mm is not enough, then maybe 70?

      There were "tests"! In a number of countries they “tried” mortars (the so-called “company-battalion”) in the 70-75 mm caliber! In one of the countries, a 71-mm mortar was even in service! In others, they made prototypes (for example, Israel...) By the way, during the Second World War a 70-mm mortar was tested in Leningrad!
    2. 0
      25 March 2024 09: 20
      A cluster mine was made in Belgium for the 81-82 mm mortar. Which is unlikely to be possible or advisable for a 70 mm mine. There's no point in fussing. Mortars with a caliber of less than 82 mm have been successfully replaced by under-barrel grenade launchers and AGS.
  9. +2
    23 March 2024 22: 36
    As far as I read, the Americans put the 60 mm in storage after WWII, since this mortar required the same number of crew as the 81 mm. Taking into account that the weight of the ammunition is not important, it will be transported by cars, in their logic the question inevitably arose: “why shoot weakly if you can shoot hard?”
    It was already during the Vietnam War that nuances appeared in the form of the maximum weight of the ammunition carried through the jungle on foot...
  10. +1
    24 March 2024 02: 25
    Often 50 mm mortars in the 1s were considered platoon-mounted
    1. 0
      27 March 2024 10: 57
      The French, for example, according to their classification classified 50-mm mortars as platoon-mounted, and 60-mm mortars as company-level...
  11. +2
    24 March 2024 08: 01
    Quote: george.old
    Often 50 mm mortars in the 1s were considered platoon-mounted

    in fact, they are platoon commanders: each platoon has 1 mortar crew.
  12. -1
    24 March 2024 09: 59
    Topwar has already published excellent articles on 50 mm mortars. Technically competent, rich and easy to read. here is an example https://topwar.ru/80512-50-mm-minomety-vtoroy-mirovoy-voyny-opyt-problemy-perspektivy.html. Why write again, and poorly, about something that has already been described?
    1. +1
      24 March 2024 14: 29
      Quote: D-Master
      Technically competent, rich and easy to read. here is an example https://topwar.ru/80512-50-mm-minomety-vtoroy-mirovoy-voyny-opyt-problemy-perspektivy.html. Why write again, and poorly, about something that has already been described?

      The article you mentioned is not very well written. Besides, it's been a long time.
  13. -1
    24 March 2024 14: 26
    Wonderful article! Simple, but not primitive, clearly and interestingly written. The author is clearly not superficially familiar with the topic.
    For example, I had no idea about such a thing as a remote tap.
  14. 0
    24 March 2024 17: 54
    Good material Oleg, but 21956 characters are no good. There are rules for online journalism. The minimum volume is 8000. Then come 9000, 10000... 14000 are considered unreadable, even if it is well written and interesting. I didn't come up with this. This is in any modern journalism textbook.
  15. 0
    24 March 2024 23: 38
    – grenade launchers (also known as man-portable mortars with a caliber of up to 50 mm), the task is to hit enemy shooters hiding behind uneven terrain or in trenches at a distance of up to 800 m from their occupied positions with fragments of grenades/mines;

    I see some confusion, the task is to hit the enemy at a distance of up to 800 m, and many mortars have a max. about 500. And it seems like a lot of mines fall on 2/3 of the max. distances.
    Next, how did you measure the distance to the target?

    It might be interesting https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/42/1803180.html
    1. +1
      24 March 2024 23: 54
      Quote: george.old
      Next, how did you measure the distance to the target?

      Range finder. If there was. If it wasn’t, it was an undershoot, an overshoot, a hit. How else?
      1. 0
        25 March 2024 00: 46
        Does a platoon or company have a range finder? rich.
        1. +1
          25 March 2024 01: 10
          Quote: george.old
          Does a platoon or company have a range finder? rich.

          The machine gun crew had a rangefinder on staff.
          1. 0
            25 March 2024 01: 48
            yeah, thanks, I'll look for it.

            The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information
      2. +1
        25 March 2024 09: 20
        For this purpose, binoculars were used; if they were available, they were trophy ones, since the state did not require them.
        And yes, only the “undershoot/overshoot” method. I read that it takes 8-12 minutes to zero using this method.