Hi, The blacker Bombard is described as having too low a velocity to penetrate a tank's armour, although it could damage a tank. Wasn't it equipped with a HEAT (shaped charge) round? If it was, then the lower the velocity, the better.
Also, what was the spring for? A spigot mortar is supposed to work the same way as a mortar except for the bomb being dropped onto the spigot (a metal stick that the bomb fits around. I was wondering if The Blacker Bombard owed its heavy construction to the spring - a spigot mortar is supposed to have lighter construction than a conventional mortar due to lack of a barrel and some other things, but the Blacker Bombard had a (short) barrel. It weighed so much that concrete mounts were created for it. I was thinking that maybe the spring allowed the Blacker Bombard to be used on a flat trajectory in the Anti-tank role, unlike an ordinary mortar.
Blacker Bombard spigot mortar
-
Alanmccoubrey
- Member
- Posts: 3370
- Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44
Re: Blacker Bombard spigot mortar
The Blacker worked in the same way as the PIAT and the Petard on the Churchill AVRE. It wasn't a Mortar in the now accepted sense but a Mortar in the contemporary British Army sense in that it was a smooth bored weapon. British CS Tanks were also armed with Mortars at this time and they were breech loaded so dropping a bomb down a barrel wasn't a necessary part of being a Mortar.
I have always believed that the heavy spring was used to drive the rod into the base of the round and ignite the charge.
The heavy concrete bases were created for Airfield Defence and not to compensate for the weight of the weapon.
I have always believed that the heavy spring was used to drive the rod into the base of the round and ignite the charge.
The heavy concrete bases were created for Airfield Defence and not to compensate for the weight of the weapon.
Alan
Re: Blacker Bombard spigot mortar
I've always read that CS tanks were armed with a howitzer, not a mortar; The only muzzle loaded one was the Churchill AVRE (apart from the smoke dischargers on the outside of the tank which were adaptations of a 2" mortar). Why do you think such a heavy spring was necessary to hit the firing pin - surely it wasn't that hard to ignite the propellant? I've read that the heavy concrete bases can be found all over England and were sited to cover such places as road junctions. They were built by Royal Engineers, who provided alternative locations nearby in some cases.
Re: Blacker Bombard spigot mortar
After a bit more digging I found this, which also indicates that a low velocity wasn't a problem as it used a HESH round:
Not only was it terribly inaccurate, Base fused and designed to squash against the armour of a tank, the round did not detonate if it hit soft ground. Home Guard Circular No. 45 of March1942, stated: ‘It has been specifically designed not to detonate when it strikes a soft surface, the object of this feature being to ensure that in the event of a miss there is no explosion to betray to the tank crew that they have been fired at.’ Each Spigot Mortar was supplied with twelve anti-personnel rounds and twenty 20 lb high explosive anti-tank rounds, which were propelled by a small black powder charge.
The spigot mortar was extremely heavy: the gun itself weighed 112lbs, the pivot 56lbs and each leg 44lbs, and it was moved in five man-loads, exclusive of ammunition (increased to seven in an amendment of 1944).44 Had it been deployed on a 2pr gun carriage, or even a simple trolley, like the Soviet Sokolov Maxim machinegun carriage, as Dineley suggested, its use might have been easier. As it was, its short range and immobility were tactical limitations that could render it a one-shot gun.45 In the defensive context of the UK, this problem was countered by preparing a series of up to four weapon pits for every spigot mortar. Each pit contained a concrete pedestal on to which the firing post could be quickly mounted. Well camouflaged and defiladed, these positions made the most of the mortar as an ambush weapon.The Defence of Britain Project, a late-1990's field survey of 20th century military landscape features by the Council for British Archaeology, recorded a total of 351 surviving pedestals.
I think the spigot mechanism must have been significantly different from that in the PIAT, as in the chorus of complaints about the Blacker Bombard, nothing is said about the spring or if there was any difficulty in getting it to fire.
Not only was it terribly inaccurate, Base fused and designed to squash against the armour of a tank, the round did not detonate if it hit soft ground. Home Guard Circular No. 45 of March1942, stated: ‘It has been specifically designed not to detonate when it strikes a soft surface, the object of this feature being to ensure that in the event of a miss there is no explosion to betray to the tank crew that they have been fired at.’ Each Spigot Mortar was supplied with twelve anti-personnel rounds and twenty 20 lb high explosive anti-tank rounds, which were propelled by a small black powder charge.
The spigot mortar was extremely heavy: the gun itself weighed 112lbs, the pivot 56lbs and each leg 44lbs, and it was moved in five man-loads, exclusive of ammunition (increased to seven in an amendment of 1944).44 Had it been deployed on a 2pr gun carriage, or even a simple trolley, like the Soviet Sokolov Maxim machinegun carriage, as Dineley suggested, its use might have been easier. As it was, its short range and immobility were tactical limitations that could render it a one-shot gun.45 In the defensive context of the UK, this problem was countered by preparing a series of up to four weapon pits for every spigot mortar. Each pit contained a concrete pedestal on to which the firing post could be quickly mounted. Well camouflaged and defiladed, these positions made the most of the mortar as an ambush weapon.The Defence of Britain Project, a late-1990's field survey of 20th century military landscape features by the Council for British Archaeology, recorded a total of 351 surviving pedestals.
I think the spigot mechanism must have been significantly different from that in the PIAT, as in the chorus of complaints about the Blacker Bombard, nothing is said about the spring or if there was any difficulty in getting it to fire.