For those who would decry the German 50 mm mortar

[PresterJohn]

You were right.

 

[Actionjick]

Nice video. Thanks!

 

[Old Noob]

Never disrespect a weapon that can put a round into your foxhole!

 

[Barking Monkey]

It seemed to me that he was misreading the range scale, using the bottom of the indicator as the reference rather than the white line in the center. I'm mostly impressed that 80 year old propellant was still spicy enough to perform that close to original condition.

 

[VonHutier]

Saw this, it was fascinating. That mortar was bl***y awful, way over engineered.

 

[PresterJohn]

Saw this, it was fascinating. That mortar was bl***y awful, way over engineered.

It is a German mortar after all.
I suppose it could have been worse.
Consider that if the Americans might have tried to copy it instead of the Brandt, they would have built in a 2 kg mechanical targeting computer.

 

[semenza]

I could be wrong but I think the base plate should be leveled before adjusting for elevation and windage. He kept doing it after which would then be moving the tube altering the adjustments to elevation and windage that he had just made. Which may account for some of the inconsistency.

Seth

 

[Barking Monkey]

I wonder if it wasn't less a case of 'overengineered' than engineered for obsolete requirements. I think this might have made a fine First World War weapon. The features that seem excessive: the big built-in baseplate, bubble level & fiddly targeting mechanisms - would have been a lot less cumbersome when fighting from a fixed position for a long time, and might have helped when you needed very precise round placement against an entrenched enemy or a foe advancing over a predictable route.

 

[VonHutier]

I wonder if it wasn't less a case of 'overengineered' than engineered for obsolete requirements. I think this might have made a fine First World War weapon. The features that seem excessive: the big built-in baseplate, bubble level & fiddly targeting mechanisms - would have been a lot less cumbersome when fighting from a fixed position for a long time, and might have helped when you needed very precise round placement against an entrenched enemy or a foe advancing over a predictable route.

Excellent analysis

 

[PresterJohn]

I wonder if it wasn't less a case of 'overengineered' than engineered for obsolete requirements. I think this might have made a fine First World War weapon. The features that seem excessive: the big built-in baseplate, bubble level & fiddly targeting mechanisms - would have been a lot less cumbersome when fighting from a fixed position for a long time, and might have helped when you needed very precise round placement against an entrenched enemy or a foe advancing over a predictable route.

From limited experience with grenade launchers, I see the engineering as a requirement to deliver something portable with more capability than that which would be useful in fixed positions. The extra aiming capability would be needed for mobile troops needing to deliver accurate firepower without the benefit of prepared firing positions with known ranges to targets (trenches). Also note that the bulk of the PP cost would be the cases of ammo. The weapon itself is much less weight than an MG34 plus tripod.

 

[Yuri0352]

I wonder if it wasn't less a case of 'overengineered' than engineered for obsolete requirements. I think this might have made a fine First World War weapon. The features that seem excessive: the big built-in baseplate, bubble level & fiddly targeting mechanisms - would have been a lot less cumbersome when fighting from a fixed position for a long time, and might have helped when you needed very precise round placement against an entrenched enemy or a foe advancing over a predictable route.

A very interesting subject for an ASL thread! I especially enjoyed the accompanying video.

Assuming that I viewed the same video as everyone else, I'm curious as to what features of this 50mm mortar are 'over-engineered'? This weapon appears to have fewer separate subassemblies than the US M2 60mm mortar (barrel, base plate, bipod/traverse & elevation mechanism, M4 collimator sight).

The 'big built-in baseplate'? The size of this assembly seemed appropriate for the design of the weapon, and since the video clearly shows the separate barrel assembly being fitted in to the base plate prior to firing, which part was 'built-in'?

The 'bubble level and fiddly targeting mechanisms'? None of these features of the 50mm mortar appear to be complex or over-engineered. The sighting system is certainly of a simpler design than the M4 collimator sight of the US M2 mortar. The M4 sight also includes a 'bubble level', which is a necessary feature for a high angle or indirect fire type weapon. The bubble level on the German weapon appears to be no more over-engineered than the leveling bubble on the cordless drill in my garage.
With regards to the 'targeting mechanisms', and again, in comparison to the US M2 60mm mortar, the German weapon does not actually have any sights per se. The simple but effective range scale does not really meet the definition of a 'sight'. The front and rear adjustable sights of the M203 grenade launcher could arguably be considered to be more complex than aiming the German 50mm mortar.

IMO, the German 50mm mortar appears to be a very well made, and simple to use light mortar. I have no direct knowledge of the training criteria for the users of this weapon, however I am certain that it was probably less challenging than the level of training required for the operators of the M2 60mm/Brandt type mortars.
Personally, I consider the Italian Brixia Model 35 to be the most unnecessarily complex light mortar.
YMMV of course.

 

[PresterJohn]

One might say the German mortar is more engineered than the Type 89 "leg" mortar.

 

[aiabx]

I'm thinking that immobilizing one Char-B in 20 years of play was actually a pretty realistic number.

 

[Barking Monkey]

It would seem to me the M2 60mm is not an apples to apples comparison with the GrW 36. The German weapon is a (relatively) short range, two-man crew, expressly direct fire weapon (you might have instances where the weapon itself is behind a crest line and one guy is peaking over to correct, but the fire is still being aimed by a guy that's right there.) The M2 is often used that way as well, but it's a much longer range, beefier bore 5 man crew weapon that (most significantly) is also intended for the remote spotter corrected/directed indirect fire role.

A more apt comparison would be with weapons like the type 89, the British 2" mortar, the French model 37, the Brixia, and other 50mm direct fire mortars. The GrW 36 is a great deal heavier than most of these (the Brixia comes in around the same weight - but it's got a built-in chair for the mortarman!) The 2" mortar has no spirit level while the Japanese has one but not for leveling the weapon (it's to confirm the firing angle and can be thought of as a direct component of the aiming system of the weapon.) The model 37 might have one - I couldn't find any textual confirmation but in photos of the weapon there is something on the barrel assembly that looks like it might be? All of these weapons apart from the Brixia look to have much smaller baseplates than the German mortar (my guess would be that's where the weight difference comes in.) One man's "Overengineered" is another man's "feature-rich', and the Germans kept the weapon in use throughout the war so it certainly had something going for it, but relative to most of the weapons in it's class it was at a minimum a good deal chonkier and seems to have had more adjustment/sighting components. (I'd add that I was not the one to make the 'overengineered' claim - but I'm not entirely sure I disagree with it.)

 

[Actionjick]

It would seem to me the M2 60mm is not an apples to apples comparison with the GrW 36. The German weapon is a (relatively) short range, two-man crew, expressly direct fire weapon (you might have instances where the weapon itself is behind a crest line and one guy is peaking over to correct, but the fire is still being aimed by a guy that's right there.) The M2 is often used that way as well, but it's a much longer range, beefier bore 5 man crew weapon that (most significantly) is also intended for the remote spotter corrected/directed indirect fire role.

A more apt comparison would be with weapons like the type 89, the British 2" mortar, the French model 37, the Brixia, and other 50mm direct fire mortars. The GrW 36 is a great deal heavier than most of these (the Brixia comes in around the same weight - but it's got a built-in chair for the mortarman!) The 2" mortar has no spirit level while the Japanese has one but not for leveling the weapon (it's to confirm the firing angle and can be thought of as a direct component of the aiming system of the weapon.) The model 37 might have one - I couldn't find any textual confirmation but in photos of the weapon there is something on the barrel assembly that looks like it might be? All of these weapons apart from the Brixia look to have much smaller baseplates than the German mortar (my guess would be that's where the weight difference comes in.) One man's "Overengineered" is another man's "feature-rich', and the Germans kept the weapon in use throughout the war so it certainly had something going for it, but relative to most of the weapons in it's class it was at a minimum a good deal chonkier and seems to have had more adjustment/sighting components. (I'd add that I was not the one to make the 'overengineered' claim - but I'm not entirely sure I disagree with it.)

Very nice comparisons!

 

[PresterJohn]

Also note the 50 mm -ish weapons are platoon assets, while the US M2 is a higher asset.