Were there ever any catastrophic mortar failures in battle?

[GLS]

Reading from this link I found in a old Greybeard Outdoor posting.
http://www.civilwarartillery.com/books/GIBBON.PDF

[Double D]

Reading from this link I found in a old Greybeard Outdoor posting.
http://www.civilwarartillery.com/books/GIBBON.PDF

PDF page 107.

[Terry C.]

"Fig. 60" referred to in that section is on page 112.

[Double D]

    We say that something  BAD  happened to this mortar that Mike and I found at Fort Ticonderoga at the southern end of Lake Champlain in New York State.  There was no sign or literature describing what happened here, but casualties were almost a certainty.  Look, DD, they followed the "One Caliber Thickness Rule" too!  

Tracy and Mike

Half of one the two 13 inchers used by Henry Knox. Both mortars split in half.

[KABAR2]

DD, that is an interesting article Chris sent with his answer,
from what I could remember it was a big mortar bigger then I was conservitily saying,
I would have hated to be on the ship that had one of the two fail, amazingly
without injury to the crew!

[Double D]

DD, that is an interesting article Chris sent with his answer,
from what I could remember it was a big mortar bigger then I was conservitily saying,
I would have hated to be on the ship that had one of the two fail, amazingly
without injury to the crew!

I was going to attach the JPEG's he sent.  I wonder how many of us sent him a email about this?   

[KABAR2]

DD,

Thanks, You saved me posting them, Mr. Fox is a nice person to deal with,
I invited him to visit our site and participate in the discussion if he wished.

[Double D]

That's what I heard about him.  I understand he had some phone calls also.

[seacoastartillery]

     Yea, he got a call from me; I just had to know and I just didn't recall that it was that large, too bad they couldn't put some thickness in those walls.  There is a 12" French mortar there which is very large and weighs 4,870 old French pounds, (Livres) which are about 1.079 English pounds, so we would say that it weighs 5,255 Lbs.  If the blown up one weighs 1,000 Lbs., maybe, with a lot of luck, it would surprise me greatly.

Tracy

[Cannoneer]

This response from Luc Mucha'r

Good evening,
 
First : sorry for my english.
 
With this message you'll find 2 pictures of the 15 cm mortar of de citadelle of Verdun (I've got no other, sorry) and three others taken at Langres during a public exposition (where the mortar was a fake, a reproduction scale 1/1).
 
I don't know how the Verdun's mortar were damaged but the pannel for this piece was wrong. It spoke over crapouillot and this not one.
 
Nevertheless, during 1914-1915, the french artillery has no really trench mortar like germans and the France recuperated in the arsenals all what can serve. This mortar model 1838 (bronze), was one of these oldies used by the frenchies.
Problem : this mortar shooted no shells but cannonball, without effects over the german trenches. Than, the frenchies put anything in these mortar.
For me, that "anything" was the cause of the dammage over this piece (and probably over the near men).
 
I hope my english was understandable.
 
Good luck with your research.
 
Luc Malchair""

The first two pictures are those already posted by BoomJ.  Here the other three he provided.

I'm not arguing against Monsieur Malchair's statement that I put in black boldface; he may indeed be right that the French had to resort to using old black powder mortars in the beginning of WW I because of a lack of modern mortars, but the second part of his statement (that I highlighted in red) just doesn't make sense to me. Is he saying that the M 1838 bronze mortar was originally designed to fire solid shot, or is he saying that only solid shot was available to use in 1914-1915? The first part of this question certainly isn't true, this mortar was always intended to fire shells, but to me the second part of the question also lacks credibility; why would the French Ordnance Dept. go to the bother of using these mortars to fire solid shot at enemy trenches, (in the hope of getting a direct hit on the odd German soldier or horse every now and then) and why wouldn't the French iron manufacturers be able to knock off a whole bunch of hollow iron shells in short order?

[Double D]

I wonder if it is an issue with language translation or a difference use of terminology from one country.

We are left to interpret what Luc was saying and what he meant, always a problem in translation.

Was he saying these mortars used solid shot?  Doesn't seem likely given the  illustration.  The projectile in the illustration in our meaning is a shell.  Is that a shell in his meaning.  He does not say solid shot, he say's cannonball.  What is his meaning of a cannonball?  We don't really know. 

[dan610324]

he started to say that his english wasnt so good , I know from my own experiance that when you dont have the language skills its difficult to express yourself in a correct way
I guess that you still got a good laugh every now and then when you read what I have been writing 
but at least  dont try to write anything here any more when Im not sober 
when I started here I would also have called it a cannonball , didnt know then that the correct name was shell in english .

[Cat Whisperer]

Ahhh the American language.

Wonderfully indistinct in many cases - a freedom in some cases making it easy, but a confusion in many cases because of all the hidden and multiple meanings.

[Double D]

I sent this question to Luc:

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:54 PM
Subject: RE: Mortier de 15 cm de type Crapouillot à Verdun (Citadelle)

Luc,

A question for you,

In your response on May 29, you said.

Problem : this mortar shooted no shells but cannonball, without effects over the german trenches. Than, the frenchies put anything in these mortar.

For me, that "anything" was the cause of the dammage over this piece (and probably over the near men) .”


I am wondering if we have difference ion definition from English to  French language and US to French terms.

Are you saying this mortar was originally intended to shoot a sold ball and not a hollow explosive shell or bomb?


Here is his response.

"No no, a sold ball with a curved trajectory can't be efficient."

[Max Caliber]

Evidently the Germans were not above using muzzle loading mortars in WW1. Captured German artillery on display in Paris.

[Cannoneer]

Those are definitely some substantial wooden cheek pieces that were used in making that large mortar's bed.

[rampa room artillery]

are we sure they used the mortars in the war or did the french just take every gun the found?  I dont blame them i would have to.  but that mortar might have been infront of some building but not used.   who knows.
  rick bryan

[KABAR2]

are we sure they used the mortars in the war or did the french just take every gun the found?  I dont blame them i would have to.  but that mortar might have been infront of some building but not used.   who knows.
  rick bryan

As WWI dragged on both the French & the Germans dragged out obsolete ordnance
such as mortars the lines were so static and unmoving that these older heavy peices
didn't have to be moved from place to place, I have also seen a photo of a large base
fused artillery shell that had been cleaned out and turned into a trench mortar! I for one
would not want to trust it holding together for long.

[Double D]

are we sure they used the mortars in the war or did the french just take every gun the found?  I dont blame them i would have to.  but that mortar might have been infront of some building but not used.   who knows.
  rick bryan

Yes indeed the old mortars were used.  If you read the history of the Stokes mortar you will find it was designed as an improvement over the old guns.

[rampa room artillery]

can you imagine being on that gun crew,  and being told your going to shoot a mortar. like that.?   I would be thinking to myself,,,,  REALLY?   but those guys got a machine gun and i get this??   I must have gotten in the wrong line. whoo.   germans and wrong lines are a bad thing no matter who you are.?    just kidding.

  rick bryan

[Double D]

The other guys with the  Machine gun gotta get up on the edge of the trench and be semi exposed to shot while you sit in the bottom of your trench and lob mortar bombs at them....

[KABAR2]

I doubt they thought much about it, first off the men using these were not artillerymen they were line infantrymen, and second the muzzle loader was not that far removed remember this was the early 1900's and breachloaders had just come into their own, now if this happened on the modern battlefield today I think troops would be looking at each other and saying you gotta be kidding! but in 1915 or 16 when you are mired in trench warfare and someone says here have a mortar you would happly accept it as a way to ruin the Hun's or Frenchie's day.

[Cat Whisperer]

can you imagine being on that gun crew,  and being told your going to shoot a mortar. like that.?   I would be thinking to myself,,,,  REALLY?   but those guys got a machine gun and i get this??   I must have gotten in the wrong line. whoo.   germans and wrong lines are a bad thing no matter who you are.?    just kidding.
  rick bryan

My boss (when I worked in a TV shop in 1960-65 part time) told of how they were short of bombs and bolted a 105mm Howitzer in their bomber (I think a B25).  When their letter to the manufacturer came back saying DON'T DO IT, they already knew - because it sheared half the rivits in the nose.  It worked for other aircraft but not that one.  Soldiers do what ever it takes!