The 4.2 "four-deuce" mortar

[South]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... r-ii-50217


Good morning all,

Article about the US 4.2 inch mortar, both the chemical munition background and the rest of its use.

Do exercise prudence when reading article. With all the transitions occurring, the mortar in US parlance, is a cannon" (might have changed). I believe a 4.2 mortar is larger than a 57mm pack how (not sure).

Famous: "Users wanted a larger range".

Note: "Italian 81mm mortar sights ... better".

The Philippine Scouts also had artillery.

Gallows humor: "...finding replacements for dead and wounded mortarmen became critical".

The definitive answer: "... attach additional maintenance personnel ...".

~ Bob

eastern Virginia, USA

[Takao]

I always exercise prudence when reading these lame articles.

The 4.2 was always a mortar, never a cannon...Read the field manuals.

The barrel length of the 4.2 inch Mortar, M2 is a good foot shorter. The whole ensemble also weighed far less than the 75mm pack howitzer with carriage.

[South]

Good morning Takao,

I believe I should have added a couple of extra sentences to my statement that a 4.2" might be larger than a 57mm pack how. Apparently you missed my point.

The pack how was "portable" by soldiers. The 4.2" required a conveyance such as a helicopter, a truck or an APC. Plus, ... although not relating to size ... the pack how could rapidly be march-ordered and then repositioned for the next fire mission. The 4.2 mortar ... allocate up to a half hour to level the base plate so as to prepare for aiming. Think of sun-baked clay and mud to put the thing on.

Both of the above weapons were phased out.

As an aside - not directly related to above - the USMC ... and a few US soldiers ... used a "howtar". This is nearly lost to US military history. It was a 4.2" tube on a 75mm mount.

.....

I'll let others address the definition of "cannon" with examples. I have the FMs - and the TMs - here.

.....

While agreeing with you that these articles are lame, much of the English-language non-subscription articles are also. "Click-bait" is applicable to much that is no-cost. Market economics governs.

.....

Now, if only Carl Gustov can give us a briefing on the wire-guided munitions, the infantry SAMs, M-47 Dragon - we'd be semi-safe.

.....

Foot Note: The mentioned "infantry SAMs" were also USN used. During the USN convey escort of the reflagged Kuwait tankers, Stinger SAMs were present. I'm guessing Hanoi's earlier PAVN knew more about all this than the Pentagon. Besides my guessing, the results are in.


~ Bob

eastern Virginia, USA

[OldBill]

South could you elaborate more on the "Howtar"? It sounds interesting!

[South]

Good morning Old Bill,

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publ ... 9000_5.pdf

I had to look it up. Above at about the 3rd picture has a picture. Only once was I next to a 107mm howtar in daylight.

From what I understand, the 75mm pack how was just too "flimsey" and inadequate for the missions. The 4.2 was better but arrived with it's own problems. The 107mm howtar was the improvised improvement. Yet, even with the "improvement(s)", the enemy improved also. The howtar was not that readily transportable enough for march-order in the environment. In blunt terms it was still a cannon with the needed support systems.

There were experiments placing 105mm how with infantry units - believe mostly or all Army; not USMC - for the requirement of direct fire support. Of course, a 105mm how needs a helicopter.

The only other matter coming to mind is that the howtar still needed a base camp type of environment. It just didn't have the portability the 81mm (and also 82mm w/ PAVN and VC) mortar.

This is about all I know.

~ Bob

[OldBill]

Thanks for that. I always enjoy reading of obscure ordnance.