ravi_g wrote:Mortars are good no doubt. But yeh dil mange kuch more.
Look at all that energy travelling ahead of the shell. I would rather prefer a lower charge on a 105 with a radical redesign that would allow it to go upto say >85* elevation.
Couple of points which make mortar extremely valuable to the infantry commander:
1. Organic fire-support available to the infantry battalion CO. Something which can be brought to bear on a target immediately. The most responsive tool available. It travels into the battlefield with the infantry.
2. High angle of fire coupled with very low minimum distance of fire - This means (a) this is what you'd be using when the big guns cannot distinguish between friend and foe because the distance separating them is low. (b) Use it for all the purposes where big guns cannot be used or are not available.
3.Has a high rate of fire as compared to the big guns.
4. Invaluable in mountain warfare - only thing which can travel with infantry and offer fire-support because of high angle of fire. You can actually fire at a target sitting a higher level from you at a short distance because the round can land nearly vertically on the target.
5. And this is something which I just learned:
Fin-stabilised mortar bombs do not have to withstand the rotational forces placed upon them by rifling or greater pressures, and can therefore carry a higher payload in a thinner skin than rifled artillery ammunition. Due to the difference in available volume, a smooth-bore mortar of a given diameter will have a greater explosive yield than a similarly sized artillery shell. For example, a 120 mm mortar bomb has about the same explosive capability as a 155 mm artillery shell. Also, fin-stabilised munitions fired from a smooth-bore, which do not rely upon the spin imparted by a rifled-bore for greater accuracy, do not have the drawback of veering in the direction of the spin.
There is a reason that a Mechanized infantry battalion with BMP-2 armed with 30mm cannon still has tracked mortar platoons in service.