- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Some Civil War mortars were short but very massive. Was it truly necessary to have tubes that thick? Did the Army study just how thick a mortar needed to be?
Mortars had been in use for several hundred years, notably providing the "bombs bursting in air" for The Star-Spangled Banner, so I expect they had worked out suitable designs and dimensions. I doubt they would make them as massive as the Dictator if experience had not shown it to be necessary.
Some Civil War mortars were short but very massive. Was it truly necessary to have tubes that thick? Did the Army study just how thick a mortar needed to be?
Most of the stress on them is because of their high trajectory, in comparison to the relatively flat trajectory of most regular guns.The 13" siege mortars like the "Dictator" had to be thick to handle the 200 lb projectile and the 20 lb powder charge .
Tangential question: were mortars, of any size, actually worthwhile in the ACW? Every fort bombardment I've read about seems to consider them almost worthless. Even at Petersburg, which probably saw their greatest use in quantity, they seem more like a psychological weapon than a real destroyer. Did Coehorn mortars ever make a difference in any engagement?
Mortars don't seem to have gotten really useful until the world wars.
I don't know if they made a big difference , but Coehorns were used effectively by Confederate forces at The Crater .Tangential question: were mortars, of any size, actually worthwhile in the ACW? Every fort bombardment I've read about seems to consider them almost worthless. Even at Petersburg, which probably saw their greatest use in quantity, they seem more like a psychological weapon than a real destroyer. Did Coehorn mortars ever make a difference in any engagement?
Mortars don't seem to have gotten really useful until the world wars.
Waterborne mortars were very effective during the river war.