60 mm Trench

[army]

Posted by "John Gow" <jgow@home.com> on Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:38:21 -0500
Can remember all the driblets of blood flowing down my face from doing the
winter firing of the 3.5 which were actually a great deal of fun, ‘til you
had to reach into the back of the tube, to rotate the rocket 90 degrees to
get the magneto to work
Anyway, the extreme cold of the Plains would freeze the propellant, and
everyone but the 3 would get blasted in the face with bits of propellant
blasting back from the rocket as it exited the tube.
Don. of course, is completely correct, it was evolved for Korea and
defeating the T34 at the time would melt through the armour of any tank in
existence, given a square hit...
John
PS
Screwed you up because the original Carl G is an 84 on the bore...when the
FNG‘s lost control of it and blasted into the air, we referred it the 84 mm
mortar...which in turn is the why of the 6.5 sub cal training round for the
weapon, to correct the expensive waste of ammo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Edwards"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Errata - Mortars
> Before anyone jumps on me, on a recent posting I stated the bore size of
the
> Canadian weapon to be 84mm.
> I was just following what someone else had posted, as I had it in my
memory
> that it was 81mm. In any even it was forty 40 years ago that I took all
of
> three 3 days training on the weapon from 2PPCLI instructors. Took
> considerable more instruction, and taught, the 3.5" rocket launcher. For
> Newbys, that weapon was similar to the American "bazooka". Of course I
> didn‘t ever get to fire the 3.5". but then money was scarce in the Militia
> in the 1960s. Just as well, as a Pte/Cpl can‘t remember which from the
> PPCLI was killed in Wainwright about 1966-67 from the "blowback" from the
> firing of the 3.5. Wrong place at the wrong time.
> Ian Edwards
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "John Gow" <jgow@home.com> on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:00:20 -0500
Having ungraciously "humped" the 106 RR some disturbing distances, must
disagree.
In the advance, yes, the gun may be jeep or carrier mounted.
In the defence, thanks, I am not wearing my helmet and charming smile during
the airburst bombardment...will be in a hole with the rest of the grunts,
ground mounted. There will be no jeep tracks to my trench.
In the withdrawal phase, yes, the 84‘s stay longer, but you tend to man
handle them out, and they are over 400 lbs unloaded...the 106‘s of
course
The warhead weighs some 17 lbs...the complete round, casing, propellent and
warhead, weighs over 30 lbs. Plus, of course your .50 cal spotter
rounds...likewise, the 84 rounds aren‘t light weight either
Nor was humping the .50 cal, nor was even the "G PIG" accompanied by a
personal weapon with its basic load.....
But such are the jobs of the infanteer...
So to revert to a previous thread, the physical standards of those in the
MOC are severe, and reducing them on any account is both unfair and
unacceptable...to advance through the command structure you have to be able
to physically do the job in any and all parts...and, in my exclusive
opinion heavy on "OPINION", if you can‘t do it, you do not "belong"
there....and PC be damned.
John
PS
And no disrespect to Mortar Platoon, Ian, those tubes are indeed heavy, as
are base plates, and having spun the 2 1/2 Ton with umpteen tons of ammo
aboard around on the ice patch, the ammo can seem pretty fruity too...just
how bore safe is that crap?
PPS
Note the M113 was equipped to fire an 81 mm through the hatch, though this
was not, in fact, a "normal" employment, by my understanding....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Edwards"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 60 mm trench
> My reading, was from David Bercuson‘s "Maple Leaf Against the Axis", a
> concise but very analytical examination of Canada‘s role in WW2 by the U
of
> Calgary prof. Published about 1995. Check my memory out - that‘s what
> Burcuson said in so many words: 4.2" mortar combined with arty in one
giant
> fire plan, last 30 pages of the book. I don‘t have a copy in my "10,000
> volume library" :- but the Strathcona Public Library is only 2 miles
3.33
> kms away from my home.
>
> Mike O‘Leary can look after himself quite well, and with great
articulation.
> Normally, comparing arty and mortar employment is an apples and oranges
> situation. I wasn‘t talking about everyday use of the weapons, just
pointing
> out an interesting exception or combination if you will when it seemes
> that ALL 4.2s were cobbled together with the arty.
>
> Heavy? Yes. And the 106 was usually jeep mounted. And it and the 84mm
mortar
> were not intended to be humped very far on foot.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Gow
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 10:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 60 mm trench
>
>
> > I expect Mike will jump on your head, Ian, for mentioning "mortar" and
> > "Artillery" in the same sentence, let alone paragraph.
> >
> > Again, I‘m not sure that there is any similarity between arty and morars
> in
> > a Bn fire plan, either...one‘s an internal asset, the other is more an
> > implied asset "attachment", as in, "given we have nothing better to do,
> we
> > may be available to support you", in real life, they maneuver, re-store,
> dig
> > in new surroundings, etc....so I‘m missing your point...
> >
> > And, of course, yeah, the base plate is a heavy SOB. Just the same as
the
> > GPMG was heavy, the Carl G was heavy, the 106 was heavy, and yet we got
to
> > carry each and every one of them...the base plate is heavy only until
you
> > consider the astonishing rate of fire of the weapon, and the subsequent
> > weight of ammo the gun numbers hump into the pit....likewise my
> > commiserations to the Gunners on the Web this is not a case of smoothly
> > taking in from a convenient tailgate to the breech...did a number of
ex‘s
> of
> > moving 84mm ammo 8 km to a firing point and am entirely familiar with
just
> > how heavy that crap can be, carried on one‘s back....
> >
> > Makes hiting the target all that more important!!!
> >
> > John
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ian Edwards"
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 10:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 60 mm trench
> >
> >
> > > Never said or thought the 4.2 was still aroundt. My comment about the
> 4.2
> > > inch was more to do with the occasional similarity IN USE between the
> > > howitzer and the mortar. It would seem that the CCRA must have
involved
> hy
> > > mortars as part of his fire plan. I took a few days trg on the 81mm
> mortar
> > > from the PPs about 1960, just enough to know that one doesn‘t want to
> > carry
> > > around that base plate very far, in fact one person probably couldn‘t
do
> > it.
> > > Weight anyone?
> > >
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org> on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:40:35 -0700
Actually, I never saw it, but they make an illumination round for the Carl
G, and one other kind... HE maybe. I saw them in a magazine, or British
training manual, or something. Maybe our own training manual......can‘t
remember....
MacF
> FNG‘s lost control of it and blasted into the air, we referred it
the 84 mm
> mortar...which in turn is the why of the 6.5 sub cal training round for
the
> weapon, to correct the expensive waste of ammo
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "John Gow" <jgow@home.com> on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:15:59 -0500
Yes, and there‘s a variant that is muzzle loading, oversized, about 125 mm
or so...been around close to 20 years.
Given that venue over-sized head you could get into lots of different
interesting variants HESH, for instance...but as I‘m not terribly "up" on
the armour evolvements, and the issue is self limiting on how much ammo Mr.
Grunt can "hump" ie carry, wise guys
But yeah, it is a very capable, man transportable weapon platform...
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "The MacFarlanes‘"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Errata - Mortars
> Actually, I never saw it, but they make an illumination round for the Carl
> G, and one other kind... HE maybe. I saw them in a magazine, or British
> training manual, or something. Maybe our own training manual......can‘t
> remember....
> MacF
>
> > FNG‘s lost control of it and blasted into the air, we referred it
> the 84 mm
> > mortar...which in turn is the why of the 6.5 sub cal training round for
> the
> > weapon, to correct the expensive waste of ammo
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.