Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5547
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Post by Art » 24 Feb 2019 09:45

I'm not sure what is meant by quantity of firepower exactly. Soviet manuals and instructions assumed that effect of mortar round was equivalent to artillery rounds of the same caliber. In other words to achieve the same effect equal numbers of 82-mm mortar (3.5 kg) and 76-mm gun (9 kg with case and propellant) rounds were needed. Or equal numbers of 120-mm mortar (16 kg) and 122-mm howitzer (35 kg) rounds. Economical/logistical advantage is obvious from a comparison of weights.
Technical/tactical limitations of mortars were range and problematic ammunition supply. Usually trucks or wagons with ammunition can easily drive to battery firing positions, which were some distance from the front and enfiladed from observation. It's not that easy when you have to haul ammunition to mortars which are in the forward zone observed by hostile forces and swept by all types of fire. In addition there were limitations were not technical in nature but rather related to organization: availability of communication equipment and instruments, level of personnel training etc.

John T
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Post by John T » 24 Feb 2019 14:53

One further advantage of mortar are the low muzzle velocity,
easier to make fuzes and at least the Swedes used cheaper explosives than TNT.

User avatar
tramonte
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Post by tramonte » 17 Feb 2020 09:26

Art wrote:
24 Feb 2019 09:45
I'm not sure what is meant by quantity of firepower exactly. Soviet manuals and instructions assumed that effect of mortar round was equivalent to artillery rounds of the same caliber. In other words to achieve the same effect equal numbers of 82-mm mortar (3.5 kg) and 76-mm gun (9 kg with case and propellant) rounds were needed. Or equal numbers of 120-mm mortar (16 kg) and 122-mm howitzer (35 kg) rounds. Economical/logistical advantage is obvious from a comparison of weights.
I guess the average weight of shells were something like:

82mm: 3.05 - 3.3 kilos (depends on type)
76 mm field gun: 6.3 kilos
120 mm mortar: 15 kg
122 mm howitzer: 21.8 kg (HE-Fragmentation, howitzer)
122 mm gun: 25 kg (HE-Fragmentation, gun)

75-76 mm field gun was not very effective for deep forest targets. On the other hand 81-82 mortars were better just like howitzers generally were better than guns. When terrain is more open i won't claim light mortar being more effective than light field artillery gun.

Then there is question of timing and fire speed. It's pretty obvious that barrage is most effective when it surprises and is short but intense and accurate. Long period fire gives enemy much better chance for counter fire. The most effective per rounds are surely those barrages of 1 minute or even 30 seconds.

I'm not expert saying was mortar units more safe of counter fire than field artillery. Perhaps it's true. Rocket launchers were likely most easier reckoned by enemy.
"Military history is nothing but a tissue of fictions and legends, only a form of literary invention; reality counts for very little in such affair."

- Gaston de Pawlowski, Dans les rides du front

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5547
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Post by Art » 17 Feb 2020 14:15

You should also consider the weight of cases and propellant. Mortars consumed less powder and in most cases didn't have cases, which was an economical advantage. As I said manuals/instructions assume that the average expenditure of ammunition to achieve the same effect against some typical targets (e.g. personnel in open or in trenches) was the same for mortars and rifled artillery of the same caliber. Of course, there were targets not suitable for mortars, for example tanks. There were tactical requirements and technical requirements - choice of positions, trajectories etc.
Method of fire very much depended on the type of a target and effect thought. It won't be correct to say that rapid succession of rounds is always the best.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5547
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Post by Art » 13 Mar 2020 06:54

The gross or supply weight of rounds (including packaging):
82-mm mortar - 4.5 kg
76-mm divisional gun - about 11 kg
120-mm mortar - 24 kg
122-mm howitzer mod.38 - 34 kg
https://paul-atrydes.livejournal.com/936.html
Logistical advantage of 120-mm mortars is less obvious but still present.

David Hume
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Apr 2020 03:58
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Interesting thread on Ammunition consumption

Post by David Hume » 20 Apr 2020 06:06

Hanny wrote:
16 Jan 2019 08:32
Art wrote:
11 Jun 2018 09:58
Ok, some little exercise with numbers. German ammunition expenditure on the Eastern Front in 1941 (22.06-31.12) from KTB OKW Vol.I by major types:

37-mm AT gun - 2 778 000
50-mm AT gun - 303 000
50-mm mortar - 2 977 000
81-mm mortar - 3 119 000
75-mm light infantry gun - 2 673 000
150-mm heavy infantry guns - 457 000
75-mm mountain gun 36 - 83 000
105-mm light field howitzer - 8 297 000
150-mm heavy field howitzer - 2 441 000
105-mm gun - 684 000
150-mm gun - 55 000
210-mm Morser (heavy howitzer) - 137 000
Does anyone have a 1941 breakdown for SU munition expenditure?, so as to compare like for like in the same time frame. If it includes small arms expenditure that would also be of use, as 41 data lacks that while 42/45 is in the thread/links already.

Its all in a google doc for those interested.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
Thanks for sharing!
In the google doc you listed
7,5cm Pak 97/38 Sprgr. 91,900 1,123,700 4,105,300 4.8 441 5,394 19,705 1.3%
which is the second highest among pak. Could this be a tyo? I find it hard to believe in 44 they still use such a great amount of out dated French gun.

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”