Howitizer vs mortar

I believe that in the US Civil War, a type of gun used for indirect fire such as bombardment of distant targets was called a mortar and was a thick walled short barreled device. Is it true that by WW2 and possibly earlier this type of weapon was called a howitzer and mortars were small indirect fire artillery pieces carried by infantry? Does anyone know how these names changed ?

Old-fashioned encyclopedias (e.g. 11th edition Britannica 1911) illustrate many varieties of 19th century artillery. Modern names derive from two criteria:

1 = Mobility. Gun-type mortars as used in the US Civil War were not mobile, or not designed to be easily moved. In WW1 was invented the 'trench mortar' in order to lob explosives out of one hole in the ground into another hole in the ground. For practical reasons (WW1 mud) this had to be a man-portable weapon, as it is today, now that 1860s mortars are no longer used.

Howitzer artillery is as mobile as any other artillery. 'Coastal defence guns' is the main class of non-mobile artillery.

2 = Technology to vary artillery range. Conventional artillery uses propellant charges of unit size, and shoots at different ranges by varying the upward aiming angle. So does the modern (trench) mortar. Howitzers fire at a fixed upward angle, and you vary the effective range by the amount of propellant charge you use.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think a mortar is muzzle-loaded, while a howitzer is breech-loaded.

Having an unhealthy interest in 18th century warfare, sieges and fortifications, I can tell you (picked up from numerous sources over the years) that you should distinguish between:

- cannon - howitzer - mortar - pierrier

Cannon were meant to shoot in a straight line. They could be used as field artillery (when they were placed in between the troops in order to support them) in which case they were not too heavy and could be easily shifted using a couple of horse teams (we're talking 6, 8 and 12 pounders). These guns used up a lot of powder and until the appearance of shrapnel and other exploding projectiles were not very effective against infantry (they mostly relied on enfilading fire and they always tried to get off a good bouncing shot, thus magnifying the effect of a single cannonball by having it 'bouncing' through enemy lines and mowing the infantry down). These units could be horse artillery (light units to accompany cavalry units - means that they could gallop into action), horsedrawn artillery (heavier units - means that they could trot into position) and foot artillery, whereby the heaviest artillery pieces (e.g. the standard siege gun of the 18th century, the 24 pounder) was accompanied by its gunners and workmen (to prepare the position) on foot. The same type of gun was also to be found in fortresses, albeit on a heavier carriage.

Howitzers came into frequent use by the end of the 18th century. These guns had shorter and lighter barrels because they used a different technique of firing. While a cannon blasts away in a straight line, thus requiring a higher muzzle velocity, and, by consequence, a thicker and stronger (and heavier) barrel, howitzers lob their projectiles at their targets, needing a much lower muzzle velocity, using less powder and not requiring a heavy barrel. These howitzer used mainly exploding projectiles and were used as an infantry support weapon (often placed in between the 'carrés' and firing at the enemy.

Now, do not think that cannons and howitzers fired at the enemy without seeing what they were firing at. Until the 1st WW it was standard practice to see what you fire at (I even have some pictures of a Belgian 75 mm battery firing at the Germans, while the Belgian officer in command is standing on a step ladder checking the effect of his fire). In the 18th and 19th century, cannons and howitzer only had a range of some 1500 to 2000 yds.

Mortars were heavy, short barreled guns, having no wheels (it was an American invention to mount mortars on railway platforms) and firing at an almost upright angle. They needed a sturdy platform in order to absorb the shock from firing the gun. These mortars normally used exploding bombs and were mostly used to bombard the enemy's fortifications or his advancing saps. This type of gun is very old and it was improved by a Dutch engineer Menno van Coehoorn, a contemporary of Vauban. This type of gun was still in use in some places by the end of the 19th century (some forts even had special batteries of mortars). The difference between a mortar and a howitzer is mainly that a mortar uses extreme high angles to fire and cannot be used for straight line fire, while a howitzer, if an appropriate charge is used, may be used for straight line fire (e.g. it is possible to use an M108 howitzer for ATK-fire, although it is not recommended to do so).

A pierrier was a type of mortar that was only used for firing loads of stone at the ennemy, in order to keep them away from guns or firing lines.

As to the change of name, I wouldn't really know whether there has been so much chnage of names. A mortar is nowadays a portable infantry weapon, using a light charge, thus requiring a light barrel. It can only fire at a high angle. Howitzers are the main infantry heavy support weapon, mostly firing at targets the gunners cannot see, while the only real cannon that are still about, are the tank guns.

Hope this doesn't mix things up too much.

Philippe Vanderghote

I think you will find that the concept of a mortar has not changed significantly. They are still high angle of elevation smooth bore devices that are muzzle loaded. They are not necessarily man transportable, for example German heavy support units carried an 80mm mortar in a half track vehicle. It could even be fired from the vehicle. OTOH a howitzer has a gun barrel that can be elevated to 45 degrees or more. All those that I can think of without searching references are breech loaded and have rifled barrels.

Colin Bignell

There must be more to it than that. Why have a howitzer when conventional artillery seems capable of doing the same thing?

It is the nature in which the projectile gets to the target that makes one a mortar and the other a howitzer.

While a howitzer can fire with it's barrel at a pretty high angle, it can also fire parallel to ground level. The main purpose of a howitzer is to fire from behind one hill(and depending on the size of the gun) over one or more hills to strike the target. The projectile is fired in a shallow arc... like thowing a football to a buddy.

A mortal fires at a very high angle, could be almost vertical if the target is close enough.

The Russians, for one, built mortars that fired very large shells. They pounded troop concentrations, defenses, cities with them. What made them a mortar was not the size of the gun or their range, but how the projectile got to the target.

My father was an artillery man in the Vietnam era.

'In Later Days men can find a charm in old adversity, exile and pain.' Homer, from the Odyssey

The mortar (apparently named after the 'mortar' of 'mortar and pestle' fame) is indeed usually a weapon with a relatively short barrel that fires on a high trajectory. The difference between 'direct fire' and 'indirect fire' in modern parlance depends on whether or not the firing unit can see the target. Thus, a large mortar can be used for direct fire (it sees the enemy and adjusts its own shot) or indirect fire (someone radios in, telling them how to adjust fire). Either way, the shells are lobbed up into the air in a high arc. There have been various conventions over the years for classifying artillery. Generally, in the past, a mortar had two pretty significant features: It was muzzle loaded (the shell was 'dropped in' from the top) It had no major moving parts. A classic example being the 'Stokes' mortar from which most modern ones are derived. It is basically a piece of pipe with a nail in the bottom. A shell is dropped in, its base hits the nail, and it is fired. A 'howitzer', on the other hand, Was breech loaded. Had moving parts

Finnish military language has inherited many words from German - either translated or adapted for Finnish language.

Original 'mortar' ('mF6rssE4ri' in Finnish, 'mF6rser'? in German) tended to describe a large calibre short barreled weapon shooting at high angles- basically an large calibre artillery piece using 45+ degrees. The later definition of a mortar (man portable, or almost man portable, very simple weapon) was during the WW I called a 'mine thrower' ('miinanheittE4jE4' / 'minenwerfer'.

As far as I know, by WW II, the old definition of a 'mortar' had almost disappeared and 'mortar' meant basically about the same weapon as now. With some exceptions like +120 mm - 300 mm (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/poro/tykit/300krh42.htm) or ever more experiments, mortars were and are basically man portable. The high angle they use is very suitable for uneven terrain, forests. The current 46innish name for mortars - 'kranaatinheitin' ('grenade thrower' - still reflects the old German name.

The above of course only applies to the Finnish use of the word - but I've had a few problems trying to translate the 'old' and 'new' meanings of 'mortar' to English/Finnish. Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer ** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect **

The biggest difference between guns and howitzers is no longer so much the tubes, but the carriages they are mounted on. A gun's carriage does not have to allow for high angles of fire, and such can be quite low to the ground. An example of this is most of the WWII Anti-Tank specific guns. (Not the FLAK 18/36/37 88mm AAA/AT Gun)

Howitzers require a higher carriage that allows their tubes to be elevated to higher angles and still allow the tube to recoil without striking the ground. A good example of a gun howitzer type is the British 25 pounder's carriage or the German 105mm field gun. Although both of these are called 'guns' they are mounted on howitzer style carriages that allow higher angles of fire for indirect fire performance.

The whole problem comes from terms that originated in the 17/18th Century and applying them to modern equipment.

I served in a field artillery unit during my military service and as far as I know the differerence between a mortar and howitzer is that the barrel of a howitzer has some kind of 'lines' (sorry, I do not know the English word) in its barrel which make the shel rotate around its axis, similar to bullets in normal firearms. This rotation stabilizes the ballistic flight of the shell/bullet.

Modern mortars do not make their shells rotate around the axis, I believe. The barrel of a mortar is smooth.