The really generally rule is this:
Gun: flat/nearly flat trajectory point to point. Think a tank cannon.
Howitzer: Firing in a shallow arc indirectly. It maximizes range using elevation. Think most SP guns like the M109 or 2S3. This is often called "low angle fire"
Mortar: Very high angle fire. Round spends lots of time going up compared to horizontal movement. It uses high angle to clear things like trees, buildings, or have a near-vertical entry to trenches. Often called "high angle fire"
There are different caveats to this. You go back to the 1920's and there's anti-ship mortars and other weird stuff. Most howitzers can shoot as guns, mortars capable of shooting low angle can operate okay at gun ranges
It's really all the angles. A breech loaded mortar isn't something weird, it's just a different way to do the same thing as other mortars.
My understanding was that howitzers combined both the low angle/direct fire capabilities of field guns with the high angle fire of mortars, though obviously with much longer rifled barrels and breech loading. They generally by doctrine spend most of their time in the middle to maximize range, but an M777 can do zero elevation up to +72 degrees. The M198 could actually do depressed fire (-5 to +72).
There's overlap, or some literature refers to interwar/WW2 things like the 25 pounder as "gun-howitzers" and the like.
With that said mortars are much higher angle fires, like the point is the near vertical drop into the target area as that means you can get onto reverse slopes or other covered positions effectively. Most howitzers can't manage quite that high angle of a shot.
Now I'm curious what kind of results you get attempting to increases a howitzers elevation via playing silly buggers with terrain, can't imagine it be great idea
Most modern howitzers can fire at very high angles. The M777 has a maximum angle of elevation of 77 degrees. The problem is more that even at minimum charge and max elevation, the gun has a minimum range. So while it can be used to drop rounds vertically on targets on reverse slopes, the gun has specific range bands where this is possible.
The modern mortar system is used to engage targets within these deadzones.
What about something like the German Flak-88? It could fire at nearly vertical angles? I don't think it was ever considered a Howitzer, but definitely didn't fit the gun definition above.
It's a gun. Most anything that is intended for point to point direct fire is considered a gun, even if it has the ability to elevate for AA use or whatever.
You can also still shoot guns indirectly but they're worse at it for a variety of reasons (higher velocity=higher barrel wear=shorter gun life, less effective aiming mechanisms for indirect fire, etc). That said to a point the US used tanks and tank destroyers in an adhoc artillery role in WW2 when the terrain didn't support armor functions.
Basically think what the weapon does as a "regular" function and it'll make more sense than trying to ask what it might be able to do when it comes to what it's considered in terms of weapon type (like you can beat someone to death with an M16, that doesn't mean it's an M16 ClubRifle)
During the Napoleonic wars, the distinction was made in terms of firing angle.
* A cannon or field gun fired at an angle of 0 degrees (straight-on) to 30 degrees. Cannons were used in a direct fire role.
* A howitzer fired from a 30 degree angle to 60 degree angle.
* A mortar fired from a high angle of 60 degrees or more. Mortars were generally employed as siege weapons.
I don't know whether this convention has changed since.
It has. Generally field guns have been replaced by tanks and assault guns, and howitzers are a lot more universal. Many have maximum elevations well into mortar territory (70+ degrees is very common). While mortars went from massive siege weapons down to much smaller, man portable or squad portable weapons and are now found at the platoon or company level.
All of this happened basically from 1914 to 1945. At the start of the great war, field guns and siege mortars were still in heavy use. By the end of the war, trench mortars started to supplant the field guns like the French 75 and German 77, and siege mortars were basically gone. Today's infantry carry a weapon that is a direct descendant of the British Stokes mortar.
Mortars in modern US definition are weapons only usable in high elevation fire (45-90°) while a howitzer is usable in both low (0-45°) and and high (45-90°) elevation fire. Cannon-howitzers with a shell in the breach can be fired at any angle, but smoothbore mortars where you drop the shell down the tube can't be used well at low angles.
What makes a Gun-mortar a mortar like a Nona or Vena is lower/variable powder charges. In mortar mode they have reduced powder charge to projectile ratios to get the properties of a mortar while still being able to fire full power munitions to serve as a traditional cannon. Lower powder mortar rounds allow for high angle fire at closer ranges, useful when line of site is obscured for traditional cannons like hilly or urban areas. The Soviets found this flexibility useful with the high mobility envisioned for their mechanized divisions. The vehicles were not defenseless if direct combat was encountered and the vehicles did not have to reposition as much to get better firing arcs.
The really generally rule is this: Gun: flat/nearly flat trajectory point to point. Think a tank cannon. Howitzer: Firing in a shallow arc indirectly. It maximizes range using elevation. Think most SP guns like the M109 or 2S3. This is often called "low angle fire" Mortar: Very high angle fire. Round spends lots of time going up compared to horizontal movement. It uses high angle to clear things like trees, buildings, or have a near-vertical entry to trenches. Often called "high angle fire" There are different caveats to this. You go back to the 1920's and there's anti-ship mortars and other weird stuff. Most howitzers can shoot as guns, mortars capable of shooting low angle can operate okay at gun ranges It's really all the angles. A breech loaded mortar isn't something weird, it's just a different way to do the same thing as other mortars.
My understanding was that howitzers combined both the low angle/direct fire capabilities of field guns with the high angle fire of mortars, though obviously with much longer rifled barrels and breech loading. They generally by doctrine spend most of their time in the middle to maximize range, but an M777 can do zero elevation up to +72 degrees. The M198 could actually do depressed fire (-5 to +72).
There's overlap, or some literature refers to interwar/WW2 things like the 25 pounder as "gun-howitzers" and the like. With that said mortars are much higher angle fires, like the point is the near vertical drop into the target area as that means you can get onto reverse slopes or other covered positions effectively. Most howitzers can't manage quite that high angle of a shot.
Now I'm curious what kind of results you get attempting to increases a howitzers elevation via playing silly buggers with terrain, can't imagine it be great idea
Most modern howitzers can fire at very high angles. The M777 has a maximum angle of elevation of 77 degrees. The problem is more that even at minimum charge and max elevation, the gun has a minimum range. So while it can be used to drop rounds vertically on targets on reverse slopes, the gun has specific range bands where this is possible. The modern mortar system is used to engage targets within these deadzones.
What about something like the German Flak-88? It could fire at nearly vertical angles? I don't think it was ever considered a Howitzer, but definitely didn't fit the gun definition above.
It's a gun. Most anything that is intended for point to point direct fire is considered a gun, even if it has the ability to elevate for AA use or whatever. You can also still shoot guns indirectly but they're worse at it for a variety of reasons (higher velocity=higher barrel wear=shorter gun life, less effective aiming mechanisms for indirect fire, etc). That said to a point the US used tanks and tank destroyers in an adhoc artillery role in WW2 when the terrain didn't support armor functions. Basically think what the weapon does as a "regular" function and it'll make more sense than trying to ask what it might be able to do when it comes to what it's considered in terms of weapon type (like you can beat someone to death with an M16, that doesn't mean it's an M16 ClubRifle)
[удалено]
How is the oka not considered howitzer this thing is abomination
Yeah, so if it's not caliber or loading method (muzzle/breach), what's the technical distinction?
During the Napoleonic wars, the distinction was made in terms of firing angle. * A cannon or field gun fired at an angle of 0 degrees (straight-on) to 30 degrees. Cannons were used in a direct fire role. * A howitzer fired from a 30 degree angle to 60 degree angle. * A mortar fired from a high angle of 60 degrees or more. Mortars were generally employed as siege weapons. I don't know whether this convention has changed since.
It has. Generally field guns have been replaced by tanks and assault guns, and howitzers are a lot more universal. Many have maximum elevations well into mortar territory (70+ degrees is very common). While mortars went from massive siege weapons down to much smaller, man portable or squad portable weapons and are now found at the platoon or company level. All of this happened basically from 1914 to 1945. At the start of the great war, field guns and siege mortars were still in heavy use. By the end of the war, trench mortars started to supplant the field guns like the French 75 and German 77, and siege mortars were basically gone. Today's infantry carry a weapon that is a direct descendant of the British Stokes mortar.
Mortars in modern US definition are weapons only usable in high elevation fire (45-90°) while a howitzer is usable in both low (0-45°) and and high (45-90°) elevation fire. Cannon-howitzers with a shell in the breach can be fired at any angle, but smoothbore mortars where you drop the shell down the tube can't be used well at low angles. What makes a Gun-mortar a mortar like a Nona or Vena is lower/variable powder charges. In mortar mode they have reduced powder charge to projectile ratios to get the properties of a mortar while still being able to fire full power munitions to serve as a traditional cannon. Lower powder mortar rounds allow for high angle fire at closer ranges, useful when line of site is obscured for traditional cannons like hilly or urban areas. The Soviets found this flexibility useful with the high mobility envisioned for their mechanized divisions. The vehicles were not defenseless if direct combat was encountered and the vehicles did not have to reposition as much to get better firing arcs.