Forum: Author Hangout

So they would be wearing their backpacks.

Often, yes, but varied with circumstances, according to what I've seen in footage and read. If they had a vehicle assigned to them, and many had a jeep, but not all. The packs would be left in the jeep.

In general, if all are on foot a good platoon would have a couple out scouting ahead and their packs would be carried by someone else; both duties would be rotated between the troops. On reaching a village or a farm they were going to search the packs would be dumped in a safe spot before they went into what we now call urban clearance mode.

However, with a pack on or not, you could have him being hit on the ass or back of the leg by something.

On a related issue, are they walking down the road or across the fields, as they way they spread out and moved was very different between the two.

On a related issue, are they walking down the road or across the fields,

I'm not that specific. The story starts with the mortar going off, then the MC diving behind a mangled jeep on its side (an indicator this wasn't the first battle for that town), and then the MC taking out the machine gunner with a single shot, then running to the sandbags the machine gun was behind, and then tosses a grenade across the road into the sandbags where the mortar people are, and then, hiding behind the sandbags on the side outside of town, takes out a sniper in a second story window who was shooting at him when he ran to the machine gun nest.

At that point, I don't go into detail of the soldiers going house to house cleaning out the remaining Germans. But I do have a tank show up which leads them into the town so that they can do that.

So until the tank shows up, they're on foot with no vehicles. Just the typical Army platoon walking through Italy taking towns. Ok, I watched a lot of Hollywood WW2 movies and TV shows.

But it's not a war story. This is setting up the real story.

I'm not that specific. The story starts with the mortar going off, then the MC diving behind a mangled jeep on its side (an indicator this wasn't the first battle for that town)

OK, for a jeep to be there it's clear they're walking down the road. In that case the most likely pattern is they're spread out down the road and walking in an offset column on each side of the road. If there is any cover (like trees or rocks) or concealment (like shrubs and hedges) they'd be moving from one to the next while advancing up the road, usually with the lead people leap frogging past each other as they move and the rest copying them.

If the mortar takes out the man just behind him on the other side of the road, or the man directly behind him on his side of the road, you could have the mortar shock wave knock him down, probably with a piece of shrapnel hitting his pack. While on the ground the other guy's had lands just in front of his face. Then go from there.

I wanted the novel to start with a bang (literally).

The opening scene was to show the MC as a hero and, along with the wound, to give him time off in the town to meet and spend time with a certain Italian woman. The hand was important because of the ring. That gets the MC to meet the widow later (not sure how that will unfold).

The war is simply the setting or backdrop. The MC will be getting a million dollar wound and sent back to the States. Once there, that will be the bulk of the story. So it's not a war story.

I wanted the novel to start with a bang (literally).

You can do that: bang, knocked down, hand hits in front of him, he reacts to recognising the ring, looks around - and it's at that point you describe how the rest of the platoon is spread out and the local area. Then go on with the rest of the opening scene.

at that point you describe how the rest of the platoon is spread out and the local area.

That could work.
Thanks.

The set up only needs the details necessary for the main story, it does not have to be filled with fine detail.

The setup in this story is that it takes place during WW2 (and the middle of the war since the Americans had recently entered Italy from Sicily), a young hero with a good heart, and widows.

The opening scene is just that — an action opening scene. I believe in something I read a long time ago about scenes: "Arrive late and leave early." So the scene begins with the mortar explosion. That's the middle of the action (arrive late). What happened prior to that explosion is left to the reader's imagination. I started to add what led up to the mortar per the information given here, but went back to the original version of arriving late.

I'll admit that I wrote the opening thinking the mortar round had caught them by surprise, but I learned that would not be the case because they'd hear it coming. But rather than change it to how the skirmish started, I let the reader assume the battle was already in progress.

The point of this thread was the mistake I made about the backpack. As it turned out, the carbine too. The first was an oversight that I caught. The second was ignorance about rifles which someone had to point out to me.

That's another mistake. Mortars, short range, can be heard firing and the shell can be heard coming down before the shell hits and explodes.

The first line in the story is:

The mortar shell exploded fifty feet from Corporal Boyd Harken with a thunderous BOOM! that shook the earth.

What you're saying is they heard it coming, but I didn't say they didn't. I started the story with the mortar exploding.

I'm actually more concerned with it exploding 50 feet from him. Is it possible that he would only be hit with a single piece of shrapnel? And would a hand fly that far if it was a direct hit on a soldier?

My understanding is that if the round exploded at ground level, the shrapnel would go up and out.

I couldn't find the kill zone of a WW2 mortar. But I did find articles on soldiers slamming the back of the mortar on the ground and then throwing it. When it landed, it exploded. (very dangerous thing to do, btw)

So when it's shot out of the tube, it triggers it (simulated with someone slamming the back on the ground). And then when it hits the ground, it explodes. So it has to explode at ground level. It's not like a fragmentation grenade that you want to explode in the air so the shrapnel covers a wider area.

ETA: As an aside, one advantage to throwing a mortar rather than a hand grenade is the mortar explodes on contact. The grenade explodes on time. So someone can throw a grenade back at you before it goes off, but they cannot a mortar.

And then when it hits the ground, it explodes.

Okay, it has to be a hand for your plot to succeed, but the ground level explosion suggests the damage would be similar to an IED and those, sadly, predominantly affect lower limbs.

AJ

I couldn't find the kill zone of a WW2 mortar.

The mortar itself didn't have a kill zone. The mortar ROUND, on the other hand, does. FYI, the M1 designation simply stands for Model 1 for whatever equipment and weapons. Thus, M1 is the first rifle, while M1 carbine was the first carbine.

So, the M1 mortar (81mm) used by US forces could fire an M43A1 Light HE round, or also the M45 Heavy HE round. (There were other rounds, but they're not important for this discussion.) The M45 Heavy HE round had an effective kill radius of 100 ft (30 meters), similar to the 105mm Howitzer shell. Further study shows that the 105mm Howitzer shell has 514 grams of explosive inside. (Composition B)

The 8 cm Granatwerfer 34 used by the German Army used the Wurfgranate 34, which contained 533 grams of explosive material. That's close enough to the American explosive weight.

Or, in other words, it'll kill you out to 100 feet as well.

Oh, and Lazeez is correct. Mortar rounds are slow, and if there is no other battle noises at the time, you'd hear both the tubes firing and the incoming rounds.

Regarding rucksacks - as they showed in 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Band of Brothers' - if you were going to assault a position, as a group, you'd drop your main ruck, and go in only wearing your basic LBE (load bearing equipment) - that would have a first aid kit on it and a basic load of ammunition. Or your rucksack would be on a truck.

Oh, and no one EVER walked down the middle of a road in enemy territory (more than once). At best, you were on both sides, guys on the left with their weapons pointed left, guys on the right with theirs pointed right. That way you could hit the ditch for immediate cover if you came under fire.

and Lazeez is correct. Mortar rounds are slow, and if there is no other battle noises at the time, you'd hear both the tubes firing and the incoming rounds.

True! In fact, many times you can follow them with the naked eye. A very high trajectory, like lobbing a tennis ball up in the air underhanded, then watching it land 20 feet away.

But watching masters with the mortars is impressive. I have seen well trained teams land 4 rounds within a few seconds within 20 meters of each other, simply by adjusting the elevation of the gun and the number of powder bags. Sometimes with the last round fired hitting first, and the first round fired hitting last.

I couldn't find the kill zone of a WW2 mortar.

61/61mm mortar. around 15 meters. 81mm mortar around 20 meters.

And when Infantry go from place to place, yes they wear their packs. But in actual combat, they drop their packs and leave them behind. In fixed defensive positions (Bastogne), they would not wear them. When landing on Iwo Jima or Tarawa they would, but quickly after hitting the beaches drop them and continue without.

Also, expand the "kill radius" of most indirect fire weapons, and you have the range people will get injured (roughly 3 times more). I rarely watch "war movies", because I see the hero run with artillery landing all around them, missing by 10 meters and not getting hurt. Looks great, but I want to stand up and scream "Where in the hell is the shrapnel!"

Also, it's 'aimed' by Imperial Stormtroopers, and thus can't hit a named character.

"And these blast points, too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

*meanwhile can not hit worth crap for the rest of the series*

There is a reason why as I said I rarely watch "war movies". Really only those based on real events (the Eastwood Iwo Jima movies, Band of Brothers - The Pacific, etc). "Hollywood War Movies" (Heartbreak Ridge) generally disgust me.

"What would happen if Imperial Stormtroopers were shooting and Star Trek Redshirts?"

This is actually very old. In around 1991 in the era of FIDONet and echomail, I used a program to let me cache and respond off-line, and let me then upload my responses later. And the program let me add a "tagline" to the bottom.

One of mine went something like this....

100 Stormtroopers fire at 100 Redshirts, miss with every shot. 100 Redshirts die anyways.

I rarely watch "war movies", because I see the hero run with artillery landing all around them, missing by 10 meters and not getting hurt. Looks great, but I want to stand up and scream "Where in the hell is the shrapnel!"

Here's an article that talks about just that, a hero in a war movie running through artillery rounds and not getting hurt. Artillery rounds, not mortar.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/how-does-artillery-kill-people?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4

The article says the artillery round can kill you in 3 different ways. One of them is shrapnel. It goes into more detail, but I'll copy some of it here:

So, if the artillery round was flying straight down, the shrapnel would hit in a near-perfect circle, as if a giant had fired directly downwards with a shotgun. But the rounds are always flying at some sort of angle, sometimes quite shallow, meaning they're still flying across the ground as much as falling towards it.

In that case, the shrapnel takes on a "butterfly wing" pattern, where a little shrapnel lands behind the round and a little shrapnel lands ahead of the round, but the vast majority lands on the left and the right.

The momentum of the round and the force of the explosion combine to form what's referred to as a "butterfly wings" pattern where shrapnel is flying at high speed as it hits people and the ground. But, in a likely surprise to most people, even this most lethal area typically only injures or kills just over half the time..

That's right, even if you're standing under an artillery round as it goes off, you still have a chance of surviving (but we still don't recommend it).

The article says the artillery round can kill you in 3 different ways.

A bunch of us actually discussed a similar article a few years ago. And the biggest problem is that unless going after a hardened target like a bunker, most artillery uses a proximity fuse, going off 30 feet in the air to prevent that very "butterfly" issue and maximize shrapnel spread (and we have been using them since WWII, and timed fuses since WWI). Then you also have the effects of concussion. An explosion that big so close is still going to most likely immediately going to knock you off of your feet, ring you ears, and possibly cause bleeding of the ears and around the eyes.

Artillery has been known to cause serious injuries among people who are not even wounded by shrapnel, just by the concussive effect. This is why it is still used in preparation to an assault, to disorient and weaken the opponent even if they are in a fortified position.

WATM is an interesting site, but to be honest I almost never use them as a reference. It is kind of like the "Popular Science" among military sites. Covers some things rather good for the layman, but misses a lot of other things. And sometimes, it can almost be as funny as Duffleblog in what they say.

I did notice that the article commented on the increased effect of an airburst in eliminating this issue. But did not say a damned thing about modern artillery fuses. The US and most countries have decades ago switched to an electronic multi-function fuse. With settings like impact, deep-impact (detonating after the actual impact, increasing penetration), and up to 20 settings for airbursts. Before firing this will be set, most times for airburst unless the target is a bunker or parked vehicle.

This is a major problem with this article, first stating studies about airbursts and timed fuses (something not really used since early WWII), and not a word about how capable modern fuses are.

And I guess you might get lucky once, once. Passing through a barrage unscathed? Not gonna happen. About like how I laugh at most 18th century and earlier artillery in movies. Which show "explosions", even though until fairly recently artillery fired solid shot, and it was more akin to shooting bowling balls, and the enemy were pins to be knocked down.

fairly recently artillery fired solid shot, and it was more akin to shooting bowling balls, and the enemy were pins to be knocked down.

If you've ever read the Belisarius series, they describe quite well what happens when solid shot is fired into someone who is standing on rocky and shale covered ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius_series

I played a Civil War computer simulator sort of based upon Terrible Swift Sword. (Meaning morale and leadership played a big part in combat.) Using Civil War technology but more modern tactics - not putting artillery in defensive positions, but bringing up smaller guns with round, grape, and chain shot, to actually support your attack while the enemy relied on traditional Civil War tactics - I won the war by the end of 1863. No matter WHICH side I played.

Using Civil War technology but more modern tactics - not putting artillery in defensive positions, but bringing up smaller guns with round, grape, and chain shot, to actually support your attack while the enemy relied on traditional Civil War tactics - I won the war by the end of 1863. No matter WHICH side I played.

That is actually the first war where such things started to make a large change in warfare. Hooking up smaller and more mobile guns and galloping them around a battlefield so they could be used at key locations. And in addition, that is when advances in explosive shells finally advanced to where they could make a huge difference in a battle.

Explosive artillery was not new even then, they are even talked about in the US National Anthem (Bombs bursting in air). That is explosive shells in addition to the Congreve Rocket. Most fuses at that point were of the most basic timed variety, which meant it might go off prematurely and cause no damage, or not go off at all. But by the 1860's technology was catching up, in addition to newer rifled canon and breachloders.

So someone can throw a grenade back at you before it goes off, but they cannot a mortar

The 'throwing range' of a grenade is not very far at all (I found that out the hard way... LOL) and the timer is started as soon as the handle is released, so if you wanted it to explode straight away, all you have to do is hold onto it for a few seconds before throwing. Picking up grenades and throwing them back is the stuff of fiction and malfunctioning grenades. By the by, grenades work best in small enclosed spaces as it's mainly the shockwave that does the damage. In the open with nothing to constrict the blastwave, it dissipates quickly.

Also, the detonator for mortars is in the nose, so if you throw it and it doesn't land on its nose, it won't go off.

And the way it's weight is distributed, unless you throw it like you are passing a football, the odds strongly favor it landing nose down.

I'm not so sure about that. Mortars whether fired from the ground or dropped from the sky, need a certain amount of distance to stabilise (That's the point of the fins). If you ever watch slow motion video of things thrown by hand, they are all over the place. I admit to never having thrown a mortar, but I have fired them, and I can tell you that I wouldn't be throwing it anywhere far, I'm not an Olympic shot put champion. Could I throw it high enough into the air for it to stabilise into the correct position for detonation AND throw it far enough away from me so that it doesn't kill me? I don't think I could, nor any normal soldier for that matter. If I dropped it off a building or a bridge, possibly, but throw? No chance.

Also, the detonator for mortars is in the nose, so if you throw it and it doesn't land on its nose, it won't go off.

And good luck doing it safely.

A 60mm mortar has a blast radius of around 20-25 meters. And it weighs in at around 4 pounds (almost 2 kilos). So somebody would have to be really strong and good to throw something that heavy far enough that it would not injure themselves when it landed.

So somebody would have to be really strong and good to throw something that heavy far enough that it would not injure themselves when it landed.

From an article on throwing mortar shells in WW2: https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/yes-world-war-ii-soldiers-could-throw-mortar-rounds-like-grenades

At least two soldiers used this to their advantage in World War II. Technical Sgt. Beauford T. Anderson threw mortar rounds to drive off a Japanese attack on Okinawa, and Cpl. Charles E. Kelly used mortar ammunition during his final defense of a storehouse being overwhelmed by the Germans in Italy.

But to agree with what you said, the article ended with:

This procedure comes with high risks. A round that falls short of the intended throw will almost certainly go off, potentially killing friendly troops and the thrower, and a round that is dropped after arming could go off, killing the operators. Still, for a happy few, the risk was worth the reward.

I wonder why no one has considered using a sling to improve range with hand grenades.

Been done in urban combat, usually by non-military people fighting the military; both string slings and slingshots.

I wonder why no one has considered using a sling to improve range with hand grenades.

The Israelis should.

(Do I need to explain?)

The Israelis should.

(Do I need to explain?)

Actually, during and after Biblical Times, one of the main exports of Israel were their slingers. Like many smaller nations of the era, they often rented out their slingers to other armies, and they were actually well respected in the region. Babylon had their archers, Egypt had their Heavy Chariots, Scythia had their light chariots. Of all their military forces, Israel was most famous for it's slingers.

After the Roman conquest, Judean slinger auxiliary forces were commonly found attached to legions.

Israel was most famous for it's slingers.

Australia is most famous for their boomerang throwers.
The result was disastrous with grenades.

I wonder why no one has considered using a sling to improve range with hand grenades.

It has been done, many times.

Many early grenades (the kinds that still used lit fuses) were designed to be thrown with a sling, some even came with a cord attached to use this principle of leverage like the stick grenade.

But slings take a lot of training to be used effectively. They also require the thrower to expose more of their body for a longer period of time then simply throwing them by hand.

Finally, if a rock falls out of the sling at your feet, no problem. If a grenade falls out of a sling at your feet, you got a big problem.

There are some games where part of the game involves throwing a ball that is roughly the same size as some grenades. Someone good at that part is likely to get more range than someone who does not have that experience.

But then you have weight.

The US hand grenade is roughly the same size and shape as a baseball, but it weights 3 times as much. The shape makes it east to throw as it is a shape almost everybody is familiar with. But the increased weight reduces throwing distance.

Baseballs generally do not weigh just under a pound (150 grams).

but an experienced soldier would be flat on the ground as soon as they heard it coming.

What if they heard it coming and ran for cover rather than lying flat? There was a machine gun shooting too.

I really didn't want to get bogged down in the battle. I would have thought they'd send in scouts to do the recon before entering the town but purposely overlooked that.

I really didn't want to get bogged down in the battle. I would have thought they'd send in scouts to do the recon before entering the town but purposely overlooked that.

they wouldn't waste a mortar shell on just one or two scouts, but aim at the main group.

If you can hear an incoming shell of any sort you don't have time to run anywhere, just dive to the side and hope for the best.

If they're walking along a village road or farm track then there's a ditch beside the road which they'd dive into on hearing the incoming round.

Which sounds like a good idea until the incoming round lands in the ditch.

Does the expression "That bullet had his name on it" ring a bell?

Sometimes you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They were approaching the next town, spread out, walking toward the town. The first sign of the enemy was the mortar exploding, then a machine gun opened fire.

That could be changed slightly to "The first sign of the enemy was the command detonated mine going off, accompanied by the angry growl of machine guns"

You wouldn't use a mortar for an ambush as it's artillery, not very effective close in, nor particularly accurate. You would have to dig it in, sight it, etc etc. A Claymore mine is perfect on the other hand, its directional, can be detonated either by tripwire or command wire, easily portable and quick to setup -perfect for ambushes. And yes, you do feel body parts hit your bergen (back pack). You don't know WHAT hit it, but you know something hit it...

That's true but I was keeping it simple. There were command detonated mines well before Claymores (Google 'Fougasse' for instance) and there were command det mines in WW1 and 2.

You wouldn't use a mortar for an ambush as it's artillery, not very effective close in, nor particularly accurate. You would have to dig it in, sight it, etc etc.

On the edge of the town they were approaching, there is a machine gun nest on one side of the road and a mortar nest on the other side. "Nest" as in sandbags stacked in a horseshoe.

You wouldn't use a mortar for an ambush as it's artillery, not very effective close in, nor particularly accurate. You would have to dig it in, sight it, etc etc.

Not exactly true. I have observed 0341 mortar teams set up, fire, then move again in a few seconds, highly accurately. Especially the 60mm mortar. That can be highly accurate, and even fired "on the move" without even using the bipod.

And the Japanese developed the Type 89 Grenade Launcher, which really was a 1 person mortar, with only a tube and base plate. The Americans and Russians particularly feared these, and would take cover as soon as they heard one being fired. At short ranges they were nasty and accurate.

Especially in an area of heavy forest like trees. The Type 89 could fire either a specially made round like any other mortar, or a modified hand grenade. The grenade had a 7 second fuse, which means if it struck a tree it would not detonate, making it perfect for penetrating to strike enemies under such cover.

Good point.

AJ

Probabilistically, isn't it more likely to be a foot rather than a hand?

There was a reason for the hand. He recognized the ring so he knew who got killed. And later he brings the ring to the widow. I don't think she would want her dead husband's boot.

So my M1 carbine is now simply an M1 rifle.

The two actual operate differently and have different capabilities. While most US soldiers in WW2 had the M1 Garand, many were issued with the M1 Carbine due to what their combat role was or what their unit was. The carbine was shorter and used a replaceable magazine of 15 or 30 rounds while the rifle had a built in magazine reloaded from clip which made a distinctive sound when it was ejected after the last round was fired. The rifle fired a .30-06 Springfield ammo with a 7.62 mm projectile while the carbine used a .30 pistol style round. Th M1 Garand rifle was more suited to long range fighting while the M1 carbine was more suited to close quarters fighting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

clip which made a distinctive sound when it was ejected after the last round was fired.

I read that that was a myth that said the enemy waited to hear the sound to know when the M1 was empty. They interviewed German soldiers who said they couldn't hear it. They also said that if they had, they still wouldn't charge because others wouldn't have empty rifles.

I read that that was a myth

The charging when empty is very likely a myth, but from the accounts I've read the clip ejection had a distinctive sound and it made an odd tink sound when it hit hard ground. However, I sincerely doubt anyone could hear it beyond a few feet, or a couple of yards at the most. Some sources say they were supposed to collect all the expended clips while other sources say they weren't to bother doing so. None of the sources referenced official orders, so I suspect they were local unit policies. When they could the troops collected the empty clips to reload later because they wanted to carry as many preloaded clips as they could get.

The M1 Carbine was intended as a replacement for a handgun for rear echelon troops

The intended initial usage was for paratroopers, heavy weapons troops personal weapons, and those in special action units like the Rangers and tank crews.