Madsen Arms 51mm Mortar for Advanced Field Use

Thiel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
18 July 2010
Messages
76
Reaction score
21
I stumbled across this one at a local museum yesterday.
While it doesn't say so anywhere, I suspect it's a pre-war design despite the fact that they didn't market it until the early fifties.
 

Attachments

  • Madsen 51mm Mortar 1.jpg
    Madsen 51mm Mortar 1.jpg
    406.9 KB · Views: 596
  • Madsen 51mm Mortar 2.jpg
    Madsen 51mm Mortar 2.jpg
    481.9 KB · Views: 574
  • Madsen 51mm Mortar 3.jpg
    Madsen 51mm Mortar 3.jpg
    372.5 KB · Views: 518
  • Madsen 51mm Mortar 4.jpg
    Madsen 51mm Mortar 4.jpg
    444.5 KB · Views: 473
It didn't, prototypes only.
Unfortunately for the producer it weighed as much as the larger and longer ranged 60mm mortar the US was handing around like candy, and by the late forties a 51mm projectile simply doesn't carry enough of a punch to effectively disable a tank.
My guess is it was designed around 1939-40, since the soldiers in the brochure are wearing pre-war uniforms.
Plus, it would actually have a decent chance of knocking out Pz Is and IIs, maybe even III's.
 
Interesting. One online source claims that 1,000 M.1947 mortars were built (speculating that sales were to South American nations). Another claims to show an ex-Indonesian (TNI-AU) Madsen mortar.

Are the prewar(?) Madsen Mk IV Let Morter the same thing as the M.1947? Or did DISA/Madsen just really like that folding, lying-down base idea?

On the 1951 calibre change: the 60mm M2s as LM M/51s probably were an inexpensive purchase. But am I right in thinking that the British 51mm mortars were retained by Danish reserves? If so, was DISA making 51mm mortar bombs for those weapons? Or for the export market?
 
Apophenia said:
Interesting. One online source claims that 1,000 M.1947 mortars were built (speculating that sales were to South American nations). Another claims to show an ex-Indonesian (TNI-AU) Madsen mortar.
It does appear to be the same thing. I've ordered a book on it from the library and it should arrive sometime next week. Hopefully it'll enlighten us.

Are the prewar(?) Madsen Mk IV Let Morter the same thing as the M.1947? Or did DISA/Madsen just really like that folding, lying-down base idea?[/Quote]
I don't know. I haven't been able to find any reference to the MkIV on the internet. Anyway, the lying down thingy is to allow direct fire using Heat rounds.
51mm_Madsen_HEAT.jpg


Apophenia said:
On the 1951 calibre change: the 60mm M2s as LM M/51s probably were an inexpensive purchase. But am I right in thinking that the British 51mm mortars were retained by Danish reserves?
The Army practically didn't have any weapons left from before the war when WWII ended. They had all been taken over by the Germans. Besides, since the US were giving us them for free, there was little point in retaining them even if there were enough left.

Apophenia said:
If so, was DISA making 51mm mortar bombs for those weapons? Or for the export market?
As far as I'm aware, the DISA rounds weren't interchangeable with the British pattern. I'm guessing that has to do with the rather unusual loading arrangement on it.
 
I've done some more digging, and I've failed to find any reference to mortars smaller than 81mm in the RDA before WWII.
The closest I came was the Aarsen's Handgrenade launcher which was an experimental trench mortar developed during WWI
 
More pictures. I took them myself at Garnisions Museet in Aalborg, Denmark
These are the original prototypes.
 

Attachments

  • 20042011080.jpg
    20042011080.jpg
    365.4 KB · Views: 54
  • 20042011079.jpg
    20042011079.jpg
    276.6 KB · Views: 51
  • 20042011078.jpg
    20042011078.jpg
    310.1 KB · Views: 53
Interesting. Thanks for the details Thiel.

Thiel said:
I've done some more digging, and I've failed to find any reference to mortars smaller than 81mm in the RDA before WWII.

So, one possibility for the cryptic mention of "51 mm" mortars in the Danish reserves is actually a typo for 81mm mortars?
 
Apophenia said:
Interesting. Thanks for the details Thiel.

Thiel said:
I've done some more digging, and I've failed to find any reference to mortars smaller than 81mm in the RDA before WWII.

So, one possibility for the cryptic mention of "51 mm" mortars in the Danish reserves is actually a typo for 81mm mortars?
Either that or it could be surplus British equipment, or maybe even provided by SOE during the war.
Do you have a link to that reference?
 
I got that from a cryptic ref in an article on 50 years of the Patruljekompagni Sjætte in an online mag called Feltpost.

The quote is as follows: "Patruljerne skulle beherske alle våben og funktioner fra sanitetstjeneste over maskingevær i feltaffutage til 51 mm let morter."

http://issuu.com/feltpost/docs/feltpost_apr_2010
Magasinet Feltpost fra Totalforsvarsregion København, april 2010

Unfortunately the magazine is one of those overly elaborate javascript swf thingies that crash older OS/browsers like mine.
 
OT but still on Danish mortars, while trying to retrace my steps, I came across the attached drawing. It shows "morterkarrer" arranged for railway transport aboard PF open cars. The original came from Jernbanetransportreglement for Hæren, 1936.

http://www.jernbanen.dk/artikler.asp?artno=12

Does anyone know what mortar is being represented. It looks to heavy to be the 1940 vintage
81mm mortar. Or might these 'mortar carts' actually represent the wheeled limber for that Middeltung Morter?
 

Attachments

  • dan-morterkarrer.jpg
    dan-morterkarrer.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 46
The quote is as follows: "Patruljerne skulle beherske alle våben og funktioner fra sanitetstjeneste over maskingevær i feltaffutage til 51 mm let morter."
The homeguard used a lot of surplus British equipment, so I'm guessing that's where they came from. I haven't found any reference to a prewar 51mm mortar, and only the one reference to a postwar one.
Apophenia said:
OT but still on Danish mortars, while trying to retrace my steps, I came across the attached drawing. It shows "morterkarrer" arranged for railway transport aboard PF open cars. The original came from Jernbanetransportreglement for Hæren, 1936.

http://www.jernbanen.dk/artikler.asp?artno=12

Does anyone know what mortar is being represented. It looks to heavy to be the 1940 vintage
81mm mortar. Or might these 'mortar carts' actually represent the wheeled limber for that Middeltung Morter?
Those are a mix of limbers and 81mm mortars if I'm not mistaken. The article describes how an infantry company were to be transported by rail, and as far as I'm aware, they were only equipped with 81mm mortars. There weren't actually anything called a Middeltung Mortér, only the 81mm Mortér M.29 S. The name Middeltung Morter comes from a series of cut-out paper soldiers from the later forties-early fifties. It's not known which mortar exactly they're depicting, though supposedly it's either a M.29 S or the larger 76 mm morter M.45 E (3inch Mortar, Mark I)
 
Thanks Thiel. So if no Middeltung Mortér, I can assume the acronym MMT is strictly postwar also?

I had seen the designation M.29 S associated with kit brought back from Sweden by the Danske Brigade. So, if M.29 S was also applied to prewar 81mm mortars then presumably those Stokes-Brandts originated as Swedish licenced m/29-32s.
 
Apophenia said:
Thanks Thiel. So if no Middeltung Mortér, I can assume the acronym MMT is strictly postwar also?
That appears to be the case. Middeltung means medium, and since we didn't have a light mortar, there was no need to call it medium. It was simply an infantry mortar.

Apophenia said:
I had seen the designation M.29 S associated with kit brought back from Sweden by the Danske Brigade. So, if M.29 S was also applied to prewar 81mm mortars then presumably those Stokes-Brandts originated as Swedish licenced m/29-32s.
The M.29 S designation does appear to refer specifically to the mortar the Danish Brigade brought home from Sweden.
The Danish army used the 81 mm fodfolksmorter (Infantry mortar) M.1931.
The fun starts when you realise that it's the same type of mortar, namely the Stokes-Brandt Mortar, and aside from a few refinements they were exactly the same.
 
Thanks Thiel. So that drawing shows a mix of Morterkarre M.1931 and Granatkarre M.1931.

Another minor (and, yes, still OT) mystery. The M.1931s taking over by the Wehrmacht are designated 8,14 cm GrW 275(d) -- the Granatwerfer 27x series seems to cover all captured Stokes-Brandt M27/31 mortars with those local "refinements" accounting for the final numeral.

But some sources identify the GrW 275(d) as "ex-danish M L/12 licence built french mortar M 27/31 Brandt". So, that suggests local origin for the mortars but what the heck is an 'M L/12'?
 
Apophenia said:
Thanks Thiel. So that drawing shows a mix of Morterkarre M.1931 and Granatkarre M.1931.

Another minor (and, yes, still OT) mystery. The M.1931s taking over by the Wehrmacht are designated 8,14 cm GrW 275(d) -- the Granatwerfer 27x series seems to cover all captured Stokes-Brandt M27/31 mortars with those local "refinements" accounting for the final numeral.

But some sources identify the GrW 275(d) as "ex-danish M L/12 licence built french mortar M 27/31 Brandt". So, that suggests local origin for the mortars but what the heck is an 'M L/12'?
It's the Danish artillery designation for the 81mm mortar, though this is the first time I've seen it applied to army gear.
Anyway it work like this.
*Bore diameter* *Type Designator* *Barrel Length in Calibres* *Year of adoption and/or construction*
The correct designation for the Fodfolksmorter M.31 is 81mm M L/12 M31.
The system was changed sometimes after the war and was unified with the naval system. The weapons that was used both before and after ended up having two names, which can cause quite a bit confusion.
 
Eureka! That book I mentioned earlier just arrived.
I haven't had time to read through it yet, but a quick skimming revealed a complete set of detailed drawings and a range table.
 

Attachments

  • Linedrawing 3.jpg
    Linedrawing 3.jpg
    658.7 KB · Views: 394
  • Linedrawing 2.jpg
    Linedrawing 2.jpg
    571.2 KB · Views: 447
  • Linedrawing 1.jpg
    Linedrawing 1.jpg
    349.5 KB · Views: 484
  • Range Table.jpg
    Range Table.jpg
    645.4 KB · Views: 516
Excellent Madsen drawings Thiel. But yet another designation :eek:

M.1947 is a generic (or unofficial) designation for year of appearance and T.18 is the actual company model number? If so, what's the 'T' for? ???

Thanks too for the OT clarification of '81mm M L/12 M31' -- that 'L/' should've made it obvious but the modern Danish use of slashes in designations confused me. So it is: Bore diameter (81 mm), Type Designator (M for 'Mortér'), Barrel Length in Calibres (L/12 for 972 mm tube), Year of adoption and/or construction (M31 for 1931).
 
Apophenia said:
Excellent Madsen drawings Thiel. But yet another designation :eek:

M.1947 is a generic (or unofficial) designation for year of appearance and T.18 is the actual company model number? If so, what's the 'T' for? ???
Not a clue. I'll have a look in the book and see if it says anything about it.

Apophenia said:
Thanks too for the OT clarification of '81mm M L/12 M31' -- that 'L/' should've made it obvious but the modern Danish use of slashes in designations confused me. So it is: Bore diameter (81 mm), Type Designator (M for 'Mortér'), Barrel Length in Calibres (L/12 for 972 mm tube), Year of adoption and/or construction (M31 for 1931).
That's the basics of it. The navy has added an additional crinkle to it. They ad another type designator after the adoption year.
The 75 mm K M/07-12 Sa M/34-38 is a good example.
K means canon (Kanon)
M/07 means it was adopted in 1907
-12 means that it was modified in some way in 1912
Sa means naval mount (Sø Artilleri)
M/34 means that it's mounted on the M/34 mounting
-38 means that this was done in 1938.
If the mounting isn't named, it means that the gun uses its original mount.
Sometimes four digit year designators are used, mainly when the equipment was adopted long enough ago to cause confusion.
Simple right?
Note that this is the post 1952 system, and IIRC it's the thrid designation system Denmark has used.
 
The book doesn't say so, but I'm fairly certain Type T.18 is the company designation. Furthermore it reveals that the mounting is called the Type F. 159.
 
Yes, your attached sheets do seem to confirm company designations of T.18 and F.159.

Thanks for your explanation of 'K M/07-12 Sa M/34-38'. I'm tempted to suggest Denmark as a good starting point for an Army systems section under Designations (which, so far, is all aircraft and missiles).
 
There is some evidence (not conclusive) that the US Army evaluated the M.1947/Type.18 during the mid-1950's or thereabouts. I'll keep a weather eye out for anything concrete.
 
I visited Aalborg Garnisions Museum again today and they've gotten a third 51mm mortar and you're allowed to fiddle with it!
Pictures:
1: Stowed for transport
2: Direct fire, range 100m
3: Indirect fire, range 100m
4: Maximum range 900m
5: Carrying straps. Once folded the entire thing could be carried like a backpack. Can't have been very comfortable without any padding.
6: Sight.
7: Range ladder. Note how it goes from 0m to 900m and then back down to 100m
8: Sight picture

I also recorded two short clips of the reload mechanism.
Clip 1
Clip 2

I'm sorry about the quality, I forgot to bring my camera so all I had was my phone. Unfortunately the system won't let me upload the pictures in full resolution, but they are available at request.
 

Attachments

  • Direct Fire 100m.jpg
    Direct Fire 100m.jpg
    493.8 KB · Views: 137
  • Range Ladder.jpg
    Range Ladder.jpg
    244 KB · Views: 37
  • Maximum+Range+900.jpg
    Maximum+Range+900.jpg
    767.2 KB · Views: 24
  • Stowed+for+Transport.jpg
    Stowed+for+Transport.jpg
    461.8 KB · Views: 22
  • Indirect+Fire+100m.jpg
    Indirect+Fire+100m.jpg
    684.8 KB · Views: 24
  • Carry+Straps.jpg
    Carry+Straps.jpg
    511.8 KB · Views: 31
Nice photos only problem is some of them up side down.

;D ;D ;D
 
Thiel said:
...
7: Range ladder. Note how it goes from 0m to 900m and then back down to 100m
...

Useful when firing at lower angles wasn't possible, because of obstructions. Could you
associate ranges with the angles ?
 
Jemiba said:
Thiel said:
...
7: Range ladder. Note how it goes from 0m to 900m and then back down to 100m
...

Useful when firing at lower angles wasn't possible, because of obstructions. Could you
associate ranges with the angles ?
I posted a range table earlier that have launch angles at various ranges if that's what you mean.
 
Well, yes, somehow. The intermediate steps probably could be calculated by interpolating. Was a bit puzzled, that maximum
range from the range ladder isn't mentioned in the table, but maybe there's too much deviation at the limit of range performance,
so the table gives the recommended range only ?
 
Jemiba said:
Well, yes, somehow. The intermediate steps probably could be calculated by interpolating. Was a bit puzzled, that maximum
range from the range ladder isn't mentioned in the table, but maybe there's too much deviation at the limit of range performance,
so the table gives the recommended range only ?
You could calculate them but the sights makes it unnessesary. You set the sights to the range you want and then turn the elevation screw until the sight is horizontal. It has a level built in for that.
 
Thanks for the explanations, the best way to understand such a thing is always to fiddle
around with it by oneself, I think.
BTW, have to beg your pardon, I've rotated some of your pictures, but had forgotten to copy the
video links and such imbedded videos get lost during modifying a post. :-\
Could you attach them again, please ?
 
Looks like a design that missed the point, much more clutter than the UK 2-in (51mm) mortar of the same period, and this mortar was stripped down in later marks. The UK 1980s 51mm mor was also clutter free.
 
acorning said:
Looks like a design that missed the point, much more clutter than the UK 2-in (51mm) mortar of the same period, and this mortar was stripped down in later marks. The UK 1980s 51mm mor was also clutter free.
Not sure I agree. While it's true the British weapon was as streamlined as they could make it, it's worth noting that it was primarily a glorified smoke projector and its ability to perform precise bombardments were pretty limited because they'd cut away so much of the clutter that made that possible.
The Madsen weapon on the other hand is optimised in part for HE delivery and antitank work, hence the far more substantial baseplate and all the other clutter. All that extra clutter also gave it almost twice the effective range.
Now, whether such an AT weapon made sense is debateable, though te fact that noone seems to have adopted it would suggests that the armies at the time didn't think so, but it didn't carry all that extra weight around for the fun of it or because the designers had missed the point.
They designed a weapon to an entirely different specification and unsurprisingly came up with a very different weapon.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom