Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Mortars & Tanks (and tracers) Message-ID: <8273@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 14 Jul 89 02:43:44 GMT References: <8033@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8129@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: The Boeing Co., BAC MMST, Seattle, WA Lines: 37 Approved: military@att.att.com From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <8129@cbnews.ATT.COM>, allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) writes: > > From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) > (much about engaging tanks with mortars:) Ed, technically I agree with you on the use of mortars vs tanks. At least it will keep the crews buttoned up (limit visibility) and destroy their sleeping bags and MRE cases (C-rations) in the bustle rack - knock off antennas (antenni?) and give the crews headaches. And if that's all you've got - then fire away (throw in a few rounds of smoke and white phosphorous, too). [mod.note: "Antennas" or "antennae" are both correct. - Bill ] Tactically, however, I would think that the tanks are accompanied by infantry (they should be) and the mortars should engage them (infantry, AFVs, thin-skin vehicles) first. And, if the mortars are part of a 'combined arms team' there should be some Direct Support Artillery around (155mm) that can engage the tanks with Dual-Purpose ICM (improved conventional munition), that are tank-defeating rounds. Then, of course, there's always the TOW-Cobras and A-10s loitering around waiting for targets. Personally, I wouldn't engage tanks with mortars - it might make them very angry at me. But, if all I had to engage tanks with were mortars, I shouldn't be there in the first place. :-) :-) mms