Norskusa 60mm Ultralite one man mortar.

a reply to: buddah6

I looked on google and those rounds look like Indian manufactured 82mm ammo.

Might be.

i36.tinypic.com...

www.aalan.hr...

Yellow sheets of Amatol for mortar booster charges, I remember seeing those.

a reply to: buddah6

Yeah it is mobile enough, but I just can't compare it to a grenade round it is supposed to be a mortar system. Because I did a few years as Inf I wouldn't want to be the one lugging it around if it doesn't have effective accuracy. Weight matters when you are on your feet most of the time.

Sure I can see it for airborne or even AA but honestly when was the last time there was an active jump into combat for a unit? The make or break for me on it for me would be how many rounds does it take to put one on target to be considered effective.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Thats cool.

I liked one of the comments though. It stood out as the funniest thing I read today.

at least it doesn't have a large magazine capacity and a pistol grip, that would make it dangerous

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: buddah6

Yeah it is mobile enough, but I just can't compare it to a grenade round it is supposed to be a mortar system. Because I did a few years as Inf I wouldn't want to be the one lugging it around if it doesn't have effective accuracy. Weight matters when you are on your feet most of the time.

Sure I can see it for airborne or even AA but honestly when was the last time there was an active jump into combat for a unit? The make or break for me on it for me would be how many rounds does it take to put one on target to be considered effective.

I agree with you about carrying it when it is ineffective! A mortar is an area weapon and not generally meant to be a pin point/ line of sight weapon. My guys in Vietnam didn't see their target 99% of the time' so I'm not a good judge of direct sighted weapons. We did go to the boonies a few times so I can appreciate not lugging ammo through the weeds. We only took the 81mm mortar due to it's size...the 4.2 inch is too heavy to hump at around 350 lbs and 22 pounds per round.

Your take on the difference between the grenade and mortar round may be worth another look. If you are shooting at a large number of "troops in the open" a mortar is a good choice because the burst radius of the ammo. If you are shooting from one side of a hill to the other, a mortar is a good choice. But if you are shooting at a bunker where a single round through a gun port or through a window would be far better than shooting ten rounds and only hitting it once a grenade is more effective.

The last major airborne operation was late 2001 when the 75th Ranger BDE. took Kandahar airfield in Afghanistan. That operation was at night so this mortar may not have been effective if used there.

a reply to: intrptr

Sorry about the simple explanation of the charges, I only guessed on your expertise.

There is so very many after-market sources for ammo out there and I've been away from mortars for 45 years. The majority of my military career was as an aviator (17 of 24 years) in a military intelligence unit.

a reply to: buddah6

I only guessed on your expertise.

Hah ha, okay. In the land of internet everyone can be an expert. I know just enough to be dangerous. I'd much rather have your expertise.

a reply to: intrptr
I just had a thought! Could the video be showing a 81mm round being fired from a 82mm tube? I have heard of this before but I've never have seen it.

There's many videos on the internet showing mortar failures...I didn't realize how much danger that I was in...LOL! If you watch these videos you'll notice most of them were in the middle east. With that said, there's no history to each tube or the source or age of the ammo. Our 81mm mortar had several improvements in ammo over time that improved it's range. I would guess this involved making the propellant faster and hotter burning to push the round farther down-range. We also had tube improvements as well. If you have an older generation tube with unknown history and use newer hotter ammo, I could see accidents happening.

While looking at the internet, I saw many differences in the M-19 60mm mortar of my generation and the one that is in use today. I'm sure the Norskusa mortar is built with newer lighter material that makes it superior to anything that I saw.

a reply to: buddah6

I just had a thought! Could the video be showing a 81mm round being fired from a 82mm tube? I have heard of this before but I've never have seen it.

I think you may have something there. Kind of "blow-by", huh? That would explain it as the charge seems sufficient to give it more distance than what it did… twice!

Knowing FPS's videos (he wasn't Russian either) maybe someone forgot to tell him the difference in calibers.

NATO standard is purposefully different across the board in order to make it harder to use captured weapons, right?

a reply to: buddah6

This thread brought back a old memory, one I can't say I'm proud of, but at the same time makes me chuckle. We were cross training with our Mortar PLT, (I was a scout) and my Squad leader (A total A-hole) was feeding the tube. He had a hang-fire and like the total idiot that he was, stuck his face over the opening and started kicking it.

"It's moving!" he yelled.

At which point the section Sergeant tackled him and prevented his head from being separated from the rest of his body.

What a waste of a good round, I thought at the time.

a reply to: TDawgRex

That was a good one! I had a rule that I was the only one to handle a hang fire with the gunner. We always had a hole where we would put unused charges and I would put the hang fire in there. We would later take a claymore and destroy what we had in the hole. My platoon only had two that I can remember...there may have been more while one of the sections was in the field that I wasn't aware.

My company commander was always on my ass because of the support we gave the rest of the company when they were in the field. He was very demanding like insisting on a maximum of two minutes between receiving a fire mission and shot out with adjustments made in 30 seconds. I was the youngest Lt. in the company so he was hard on me anyway. He told me that I was responsible for 5000 meters in any direction around our camp and I'd best by God give it to him...I was more afraid of him than I was of the bad guys.

Not quite 60mm, but Imperial Japan developed and put this concept into practice over eighty years ago:

en.wikipedia.org...

The 60mm mortar on issue to the British Army (M6-640) does have a sighting system. It uses a fairly simple system with 2 adjustable bubbles, kind of like a more accurate spirit level. There is a range disc that you use to work out the charge for each nature of ammunition (smoke, illum, HE etc). With practice it allows you to get quite close to the target with the first round and you then aim off for follow up shots.

It is pretty heavy for dismounted use though. The tube weighs almost 12lb with the base plate at almost 11lb. Each HE bomb is about 5lb, so it doesn't take long for the weight to add up. On a major patrol each man in the platoon will usually carry a number of bombs of different types so the weight is spread around. I personally think that the older 51mm we used was more realistic for dismounted use because it was so much lighter. Unfortunately the ammunition for this is no longer manufactured, so has been phased out.

What you have to remember is that this weapon is not designed to replace the 81mm stuff used by mortar platoons. They are there to give the dismounted infantry platoon a little bit of immediate and ingrained IDF should the need arise. They are great for dropping some HE love onto enemy positions that are out of sight/range for the direct fire weapons such as grenade launchers or machine guns, and pack more punch. It can chuck up a really quick and effective smoke screen, or can light up enemy positions using illum. It can be used to dislodge enemy in well-defended positions, to screen attacks, to cover withdrawls or any other number of things. The enemy have to decide whether to stand up and defend their position and risk being ripped apart by HE, or get into a hole and be over run. Quite useful if you're an attacker.

a reply to: ANNED

Really good story that is a thread in itself. Star for you and everybody should read this.

originally posted by: mindseye1609
man the accuracy on this thing is gonna be terrible. ZERO chance at repeated shots.

whats with the digital camo cover too? thats totally what i wanna be fumbling with when the SHTF!

in a conventional mortar system after you fire the settings from the shot are retained and you could drop a mortal relatively close to the one before. or slightly adjust if need be.

with this system i foresee a lot of range issues like over shooting or coming up short.

i would like to know the logic behind the design too. like the aesthetic. a mortar only needs a tube. super easy to manufacture. Im curious to see why they would complicate the design so much for any reason besides the looks factor.

Mostly its mobile. Like an assault rifle compared to a machinegun. This mortar can go with any fire team, or on a LRP.

Some one good with a bow and arrow, without pin sights, would be good with this mortar.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Grimpachi

This tube would be useful with an airborne or an air mobile unit where equipment weight is an issue. I don't see it replacing systems like the M-203/M-79 grenade launchers though. The M-25 grenade launcher is on the horizon but when it will arrive at unit level is unknown. With that, the only thing that make sense is to make it additional gear for an infantry squad.

One concern is the lack of bipod so the accuracy is a big question. This makes the mortar only useful with (close range) visible targets not like the indirect fire with standard mortars.

The mortar has a longer barrel and a bigger warhead than am M203.

The mortar looks like it could shoot buck shot like a 203 or flechettes like 90 millimeter.

Really skinny flechettes.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Grimpachi

This tube would be useful with an airborne or an air mobile unit where equipment weight is an issue. I don't see it replacing systems like the M-203/M-79 grenade launchers though. The M-25 grenade launcher is on the horizon but when it will arrive at unit level is unknown. With that, the only thing that make sense is to make it additional gear for an infantry squad.

One concern is the lack of bipod so the accuracy is a big question. This makes the mortar only useful with (close range) visible targets not like the indirect fire with standard mortars.

The mortar has a longer barrel and a bigger warhead than am M203.

The mortar looks like it could shoot buck shot like a 203 or flechettes like 90 millimeter.

Really skinny flechettes.

My point is a grenade doesn't need to be large when it is more accurate. My sections were very good in that they get on target in approx. three rounds before we would get the beautiful sound of "fire for effect." I know it sounds counter-intuitive that a small grenade could be more effective than a larger mortar round but it's true. But there are times and target specific where there is nothing better than a mortar.

The difficult part about flechettes rounds is a need to explode prior to arriving on target. I don't know of a proximity fuse small enough to fit on a 60 or 81 mm mortar to make this type of round effective. However,I do like the idea! Mortars can get air bursts but it is done with a time fuses like with illumination rounds. The artillery guys can do much more than we could. Their guns are much more evolved than our small mortars. They also have a full-blown fire direction control centers with all the bells and buzzers to make a lot fancy shooting easy.