Matrix Games Forums

Well, we’ve been doing a lot of work on the interaction of Devices and Locations TO&Es. Digging into the Philippines was an exercise in History, and it expanded. A lot of the early war stuff that nobody pays attention to was actually pretty righteous, in its own terms. And it’s not what wikipoeda says.

Start with the Philippines, ‘cause that’s where apocrypha seems to get the most traction.
Ciso. John

Have always been a bit skeptical about the stories of Filipinos having to use Stokes 3in mortar bombs in their 81mm tubes, and that’s why their mortars didn’t work too well. I do know a little bit about mortar ordnance and just the thought of lofting a 76.2mm bomb from an 81mm tube scares the living crap out of me. Maybe they were just better men, back then, but …

I find a “Tentative” Tech Manual from the Ordnance School, from 1942 (!!!), that discusses the tech specs of all infantry support and artillery weapons, including all those so-called obsolete things like 37mm M1916s, 75mm M1897, M1916, M1917, and the Stokes pattern Mortar, 3” M1.

This is word-for-word from the Tech Manual, “During World War I, the US Army adopted the British 3”, Stokes, trench mortar, Mk.I, to meet the infantry’s requirement for a weapon to be used in indirect fire. Although it is called a 3” mortar, it’s bore is actually 3.2” or 81mm. Woof !! Didn’t know that !! And then it has paragraphs detailing the ammo, Mk-this, Mk-that, it’s type, weight, range, good stuff.

Section VI is the Mortar, 81mm, M1. It was a French (Brandt) refinement of the Stokes “3in”. The results were highly satisfactory and the manufacturing rights were purchased from the Brandt Company. Again, word-for-word, “The refinements in the design of the 3” trench mortar, Mk.I, consist of a heavier barrel, a cross-leveling device on the tripod, level vials, a collimator sight, and a heavier base plate of the new design. The new weapon is known as mortar, 81-mm, M1.” Doesn’t seem like much, but very significant improvements were also made in the bomb design, particularly with respect to the vanes (which designs are still in use today, in 2014).

Once again, there are paragraphs detailing the ammo, and the authorized rounds include the Mk45, which was the “3in” round. The optimized round was the Mk45B1. There is also text about use of ammo between and among the two.

So it appears that having the poor Filipinos use 3in rounds for their 81mm tubes, and thus having squat for infantry support, is uninformed apocrypha. They were shooting authorized rounds out of appropriate tubes (whew, that makes me feel a lot better). And as to the “duds”, well, it was old War-I vintage stuff, but other old stuff held up well. The vintage Mk45 stuff would do what it did in War-I and spiral, in flight, and perhaps tumble every now and then, which is problematic to an impact/contact fuse, but I just can’t see any reason, technical, chemical, physical, that War-I era bombs shouldn’t perform just as they did.

Woof !! Lotta words !! Food for thought !!

Ciao. John

That is interesting! A great bit of trivia to try and remember too (although the right conversation to use it will probably never happen... [:D]).

I had never heard the story of 3" in 81mm tubes, but it sure wouldn't make sense. With that much gas leakage just how far (and how predictably) would the rounds travel? Scary is right.