Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mortars & Tanks (and tracers)
Message-ID: <8129@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Jul 89 01:28:09 GMT
References: <8033@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025)



I think mortars are probably more effective vs armor than the posting by
Dave Pierson about armor penetrating ability would suggest.  He
concentrates on what happens to a tank if a mortar round lands diectly on
the top armor.  Whether or not this will penetrate, having it explode
against the outside of the relatively thin top armor may do damage on the
inside by spalling and concussion, particularly in the case of the larger
mortars, 120mm +. You'll get the kind of effect that HESH shells are
optimized for, although to a lesser degree.  But that is probably not the
primary damage that mortar shelling is likely to do to tanks.  You're
going to see some tracks knocked off, and casualties to exposed crews.  I
remember reading that most casualties to tankers in WWII occured when they
weren't protected by armor, with crewmembers caught by shelling 
in the majority of the time when they are eating, sleeping, doing
maintainance, just waiting around, etc.
Then there are hits on the gratings over the engine compartment with the
possibility of an engine kill, and on vision
blocks and periscopes, antennas, external MGs, and things like that which
will cause the tank problems without knocking it out.  There's good reason
to target mortars at tanks if you don't have more vulnerable targets to
hit or if the mortars are the heaviest thing available.  It will at least
keep the tankers uncomfortable.

Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)