Russian 2B9 'Vasilek' Weapon System | FULLY AUTOMATIC MORTAR

[@_Matsimus_]

Thanks for watching! What are your thoughts on the 2B9 Vasilek? Do you think hybrid systems like this still have a place in modern warfare? Let me know in the comments! And if there’s another weapon system you want me to cover, drop your suggestions below. Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more military content. Cheers!

[@MarkusMöttus-x7j]

Cool system, too bad Ukraine doesn't have many more of these... And speaking of mortars.. I have a request, could you maybe cover the Swedish double-barrel Mjölnir mortar? 😇 Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦🔱💪❤

[@geodkyt]

I think it is a nice piece, in the same basic spot as a battalion or regimental "infantry gun" from the first half of the 20th Century. At the company level, I could see it being useful as a casement or turreted form on a modified version of the company's infantry carrier, provided you tossed a single tube man portable 82mm mortar (for ammo commonality) & baseplate in the track (because you *aren't* discounting that gun and moving it by hand up a mountain, or of the track gets mobility killed).

[@_Matsimus_]

@@MarkusMöttus-x7j already done! You need to look for it lol

[@davidgoodnow269]

Absolutely. I thought these were invented by science fiction writers, David Drake and Gordon R. Dickson. A friend built a repeating self-loading 5-centimeter potato gun when he was in high school, and we got in trouble for devastating roofs two blocks away. Knowledge of how-to has come in handy in Afghanistan and elsewhere, repeatedly, with everything from caltropes to Astrolite.

[@patriotenfield3276]

Please make a Video on BVP M80 IFV from Yugoslavia / Serbia

[@bodkinrappallum6137]

I think that mortars being attached to the infantry is better for a "maneuver" based doctrine. It allows infantry to quickly call for indirect fire support without travelling through too many chains of command. With it attached to artillery, there is a logistical advantage since all the ammo an weapons will flow from a centralized command structure, but the units on ground will have a hard time quickly acquiring the required support.

[@SeattleJeffin]

Indeed I fully agree. I knew the single tube in my company and the platoon of mortars at battalion were always dedicated to looking out my my best interests. Arty at higher is great but it is subject to tasking that may be looking at the big picture rather than my sorry butt. Both levels are very important you want the Arty tubes to be focusing on counter battery, interdiction, deep strike, but it's only in an emergency that direct support should be the priority. Integral mortars on the other hand are direct support first and foremost and not subject to "tasking" priorities.

[@johnbaker1256]

The same applies to air support and engineering assets.

[@r.gilman4261]

Is it me or am I the only one that's screaming at their PC going "stake that mortar in , it's fucking jumping around"..with that out of the way, I am going to say how far are you shooting the round at what kind of targets, 60mm to about 120mm are definitely infantry assets, now that monster 2S4 Tyulpan, that's an arty asset. It's big, slow and designed to break established fortifications.

[@trevorle7382]

But this doesn’t replace the cheap infantry mortar

[@fakshen1973]

It'll go wherever any other towed system goes. You need a vehicle to move it, so that immediately places it under specific doctrine. It seems like it would be paired best with assault groups of mechanized infantry... drop off the mortar system and then closely coordinate to suppress entrenched positions while the mechanized folks advance.

[@bencejuhasz6459]

Greetings from Hungary! When you said that Hungary still have them, I was thinking' how could you be so wrong, we ditched them a long time ago!' Then, I checked the available information...'What? We still have them? How? Why? How many? And how did I miss this?' Apparently, Hungary still has the Vasziljok. By the way, the Soviets named their artillery systems after flowers in the 1960s and 1970s. Finally, in my opinion, small-calibre mortars belong to the infantry branch, large-calibre mortars (150mm and above) belong to the artillery branch. The Vasilek is a unique thing, it combines the infantry mortar with the old field gun concept... yes, I'm looking at you, ZiS-3.

[@jmjones7897]

Cold War kid here. Your recent posts have had a definite "Know Your Enemy" vibe. Wholeheartedly approve and applaud this. Anyone else memorize the silhouette profiles of Soviet military Airframes as a child? Keep 'em coming, brother.

[@tommyblackwell3760]

Yep, as well as armor and small arms. Served me well later as an adult when I served as a Cavalry Scout.

[@АндрейК-в8п4п]

европа раз в сто лет идет на россию получает по зубам и отползает обратно ..... это уже правило .... а не проще было бы сжечь ее в течении суток и поставить точку в этом вопросе .... похоже все идет к этому

[@ВиталийТарасов-э6п]

Преимущество этого миномета перед обычными в том что при поддержке пехоты плотность и скорострельность одного Василька больше чем целой батареи из 6 обычных минометов !соответственно и экономится количество личного состава (4 человека)-один расчет вместо 6 расчетов обычных пехотных минометов!я служил наводчиком на Васильке )И главное преимущество Василька перед другими минометами -в кожухе охлаждения ствола можно ставить БРАЖКУ))

[@HardcoreFourSix]

I am a retired 11C from the US Army. I was assigned to Mech Infantry, Light Infantry, and Armor Battalions. I worked with the 60mm, 81mm (two models), the 4.2" mortar and the 120mm mortar. When I got started FDC had no electronic computers...we had two soldiers-the Chief Computer and the Check Computer to arrive at a fiuring solution. One of the main reasons that mortars were assigned to manuever battaliions (Infantry, Armor, Cavalry) was so these units would have their own organic "hip pocket" fire support. The heavy mortars (4.2" and 120mm) are very responsive (I know today there are fire on the move arty and mortars). Being organic means that the BN CDR does not need to beg for priorities of fire

[@racialconsciousness6996]

In the US Marine Corps, 60s and 81s are Infantry, but 120s are considered Artillery. I personally would place 81s in Artillery, along with 120s, and keep the 60s in Infantry.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Towed artillery does struggle in modern conditions. For example, in NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav forces deployed all sorts of unorthodox methods to make it work since we had so many towed arty pieces. First of all, all the manuals were thrown out of the window. There were basically no standard deployment and positions of a battery since, well, everybody knows that and the threat of NATO drones, planes and counerbattery radars. So, they worked in pairs, but usually individual guns. A gun would take a position on the edge of a forest or a tree line and cover for crew would be a bit at the back. The other gun was farther off than usually and positioned the same with the same cover a bit farther behind. The third the same and so on... Only one gun would fire at the time. After a certain number of shells fired (I can't remember how many), the crew would throw some heat insolating material on the gun and then apply camo over it and run to the shelter. Then, after a while, the second gun would do the same. Then the third... The reason being that due to low volume of fire, it would take a while before the radar would get a good idea of where they are. Then they do heat and camo coverage to try to hide it from drones and planes. Run to cover so that if enemy does fire, you minimize the chances of losses. Then, as presumably the enemy radar is still trying to pinpoint their position, they stop firing and the other gun starts, thus forcing the enemy to repeat the same process again for the new gun firing now... Worked, in the sense that towed arty was active and suffered minimal losses, but since you don't have a standard battery firing all at once, the effect on target was also low, but usually enough to suppress the KLA terrorists who were pretty much always on foot.

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

it is usuall how guns work, set position near cover, and make cover for crew

[@suleymanthemagnificent9117]

said the gopnik terrorist

[@zlamas997]

Great story! I really apreciate such detailed descriptions of tactics

[@trumanhw]

What a coool weapon. Awesome seeing the lighting fast impacts in a tight radius on that thermal image.

[@Asko83]

The benefit of keeping mortars as part of infantry, is that this infantry unit then will always have the support of those mortars. Finnish infantry companies each have 81mm mortars as part of their fire support platoon, and infantry battalions have a company of 120mm mortars. While artillery units may be "loaned" to other units and redeployed as needed (which obviously is also a good thing for commanders) the knowledge that there is some fire support that can't be taken away from infantry, is reassuring. ...Also the maximum ranges of these weapons mean that mortars rarely can give fire support to other units without first changing position. Cannons that may have a range of tens of kilometers, can easily support many separate units and change targets as needed. All in all, I think there are more reasons to keep the mortars as an organic part of the infantry than to separate them from the infantry like the artillery units are.

[@evilfingers4302]

Awesome mortar system, it's size and portability for rapid deployment is a perfect addition for airborne units to have.

[@billynomates920]

pragmatic is the very word i was unable to think of when i saw that weapon system. i went with practical which is not really the same so thanks, matt.

[@bgshin2879]

Thx for the yet another great content! Certainly one of my fav platform indeed. US, Europeans are thinking about similar concept with 120mm (Atmos etc) yet, being ‘developed’ nations, the price tag is eye watering. It literally defeats the purpose of ‘cheap volume fire support’. What interests me at the moment is how Ukrainians are using 40mm grenade launcher on a high angle attack using drones. When toy think about it, the ammo volume a small 4x4 can carry is in 200-300. The inly thing it needs is slightly longer range (4-5km out of tank and ATGM range) and targeting scope of sort. That will be a formidable actor in the field.

[@empire-classfirenationbatt2691]

Ahh yes. In South Africa us infantry use mortars up to the 81mm but the artillery corp gets the 120mm mortar exclusively and only they deploy with us in order to bring it to battle (which makes me so jealous because I love big weapons).

[@leifmanson7599]

In 1979 - 1981, I was a conscript in the Israeli Paratroops. My platoon weapon was a 52mm Yugoslav commando mortar (max. range 450m). It was spring fired with no bipod, so I could fire it at flat trajectory. It tore out of my hands and flew backwards, but I once put a smoke round through a house window at 200m that way (in training). After 18 months in the paratroops, I became an instructor at Infantry School and taught 81mm mortar crews. These were usually fired from the back of a modified M113. My old 52mm was already obsolete and being replaced by Soltam's 60mm version. In modern warfare, infantry platoons use automatic grenade launchers and shoulder fired thermobaric rockets with much greater fire power, but they also use silent mortars. Modern warfare makes my 1980 tactics of artillery duels between batteries obsolete. The Infantry still needs its own frontline artillery, but these are deployed as single crews in a "sniper" role. For this, Tula Arms makes guided 120mm mortar rounds similar to the Krasnopol artillery round. BTW: This "Cornflower" reminds me of one of the weapons the Ethiopians deployed in their victory over the Italians at Adwa in 1896. It was a field artillery piece with a revolver mechanism, like a semi-auto Gatling gun. I can't remember who manufactured it. The Italians could not understand how the Ethiopian artillery was so rapid fire.

[@owensthilaire8189]

Was it the Hotchkiss Revolver canon you were referring to? 37mm, made in 1870's

[@SeattleJeffin]

Thanks for the really nice video that brought back memories from my days in the U.S. Army. I first heard about this system when I was in my first year in the Army in 1981. I was an 11B and I remember talking to our 11C's, Mortarmen. At first they were incredulous that such a thing could work. They quickly became very envious when they saw some early film of it in action. This was a system I really had a serious respect for as an infantryman, in that it could really ruin your day. I recalled thinking we would make a response in 81mm for U.S. deployment. Only now is the U.S. starting to strongly consider deploying automatic gun/mortars in the 120mm range.

[@V3RTIGO222]

I can imagine it would work, but I have doubts on it's accuracy considering how much it bounces around when firing... I'm willing to bet a few smaller man-portable mortars would be able to reach equal fire-rate (and a higher sustained fire rate) with superior accuracy, and also allow multiple rounds land simultaneously. This also coming at reduced weight and cost, and superior logistics capacity.

[@SeattleJeffin]

@@V3RTIGO222 Well thought out but I propose the bouncing is "a feature not a bug" having five mortar rounds land at the same impact point, within the weapons cep is not desirable. You want some dispersion with high explosive rounds to get a larger beaten zone. I also this this thing fires those five rounds fast enough that they are near enough to simultaneous time of impact so as not to matter. I agree with you that at the lowest level, company in the U.S. Army where mortars are deployed this would not be the weapon for a light infantry company. In a mechanized infantry company it's a different story altogether. Not trying to say your are wrong just that I think it is a nuanced issue. Look at today's U.S. Army where they are starting to look at adapting 120mm automatic mortars into mechanized infantry units.

[@V3RTIGO222]

@@SeattleJeffin There is natural dispersion simply due to the rounds being fired normally, without the added dispersion of the recoil... but, if we say that there's a dispersion of 1in at a yard (or 3.5 MOA) due to recoil, at 4 km you can end up with a dispersion of over 100m... this number would be even higher, given there's a 1 in. shift in dispersion at the barrel from recoil, not accounting for barrel accuracy and wind/drag. That means the rounds will impact over a 100m diameter circle assuming the recoil only has a 1 in dispersion at a yard, and not at the barrel. Realistically, this would be at minimum 150-200m in optimal conditions, and double in poor conditions firing full auto.

[@SeattleJeffin]

@@V3RTIGO222 Fair enough.

[@Sufferingzify]

​@@V3RTIGO222 If you have a battery of 3-4 and they send 3 Mags each. You get so many rounds down range, that something is bound to hit.

[@bloodrave9578]

Impressive piece of kit, always loved artillery and this is just plain genius.

[@wolfgiesinger1597]

I actually designed an auto-mortar concept in high school (70s) using the multi-tube configuration to prevent overheating. In appearance it would look roughly similar to the german 'Nebelwerfer', the tubes were to rotate around a central axis much like the cylinder of a revolver, powered by gas pressure, I could not settle on a definitive loading mechanism due to a lack of information but can't see that as an insurmountable obstacle....

[@alfredocas1415]

yes yes yes finallly i was waiting that mortar for so long

[@ughettapbacon]

I'm an old 19 kilo from the 20th century. My vote is nobody gets mortars until everybody learns to share.

[@RaNc0R]

Nice to see your videos picking up again Matt; thank you for exploring non western equipment objectively. Almost all other channels bash them and filled with propaganda.

[@_Matsimus_]

Glad you like them!

[@ivan.i.gerasimov]

2B9 has a quirky pronounciation, more akin to "Vasil-yok". Great video, very informative.

[@_Matsimus_]

Thanks for the info!

[@jamesdc9595]

Concur with what others have said, may be biased as an American but mortars work well organic to the maneuver organization. They’re light enough both physically and logistically to maintain operational tempo with the infantry/cavalry, and being pushed to the requesting unit decreases response time.

[@Alvarezpl]

The 2S4 Tyulpan 240 mm self-propelled heavy mortar.

[@andyfriederichsen]

Excuse me, WHAT?

[@vasilijevukadinovic6843]

@andyfriederichsen exactly what it says. Its wild. Only problem is short distance in a conflict like Ukraine. With ISR it's hard being within 10km of the line. It is devastating though

[@andyfriederichsen]

@@vasilijevukadinovic6843 The Russians' love for giant guns, firepower, and unusual military hardware will never stop being entertaining.

[@patriotenfield3276]

@@andyfriederichsen The Germans taught that to the Russians . a LOT

[@Aaronreacher]

​@@vasilijevukadinovic6843Also Ukraine mostly has flat terrain so it's not that useful there. It is best used in mountains or places with several obstacles.

[@Daniel29977]

In Germany the Fallschirmjägers have 120mm mortars. Infantry may lack the logi-train but they're more manoeuvrable and i feel that's what mortars are for.

[@satanihelvetet]

This was one of the most scary threats presented to us as conscripted ATGM-unit in the Swedish army at the cold war era. Very interesting video!

[@fakshen1973]

Having the whole wheeled-chassis strapped to a motorized body makes a lot of sense. If the vehicle hits a landmine, you can put the mortar back in action in a few minutes. You also get the option to pre-plan to tow it to a specific location and leave it there as the carrier element goes off to do other things.

[@TaintedMojo]

For a mortar, they seem to be using it more like a howitzer

[@alangordon3283]

Same principle

[@stanleyshannon4408]

​@alangordon3283 no it isn't.

[@stanleyshannon4408]

That looks like a 105mm howitzer. It certainly isn't a mortar.

[@alangordon3283]

@@stanleyshannon4408yes it is .

[@Prebaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

⁠@@alangordon3283 nice argument bro. You really convinced me!

[@longtabsigo]

Let me try this again. Early in the scrimmage that we had in Afghanistan many Battalion commanders cut deals that chopped artillery soldiers from FA Battalions not scheduled to deploy and assigned those soldiers to the BN’s organic 120 mm motors. The infantry soldiers who were displaced by the artillery soldiers took the 81 mm tubes that were assigned to each vehicle/section as “back up” tubes in case there was a circumstance where the 120’s were too heavy. Those soldiers were parsed down and added extra firepower in the hands, and at the disposal of the Company Commanders. Most of those Company Commanders were not micromanaged and welcomed the extra help. Further, when I was in Taji, 2003-2004, the vast majority of the artillery and combat engineers were the base’s QRF. It made sense, there was really now way for those 105 & 155mm’s could much because of the math, and well, combat engineers have a built in secondary job as grunt.

[@woltews]

When I joined the military the infantry had the 60 and 81mm mortars then they took the 81mm to give to the artillery who rarely used them and the infantry got nothing in exchange , then they took the 60mm from the infantry and eventually gave the infantry a automatic grenade launch system (AGLS)with was extremely heavy and delivered a lot less high explosive per round . Finally they gave the 81mm back to a few of the infantry but not the 60mm. I think small mortars under 110mm belong with the infantry and hear is why 1- The Max range is generally short and the range they are used is even shorter and when you are that close to the enemy you want people with full infantry capabilities so if things change and they are no longer doing the mortar job they can seamlessly do direct full spectrum infantry engagement ( not gunners cross trained to do only basic infantry activities ) 2-small mortars are light and well suited to being deployed from light vehicles or even carried on foot 3- Small mortars are not precision weapons, they are area affect weapons employed almost like machine guns to deny an Emmy the use of an area for a given amount of time or supres there actions in that area using short durations of extremely rapid fire inexpensive amo (and because of there low velocity and long time in the air at many levels with unknown air currents they can not be made as precises as rifled tube artillery ) 4- The chain of command to get artillery support can take a lot of time and weapons integral to the infantry can be available much faster to them not going through multiple levels of command and control 5- Large towed mortars over 110mm that are gennearly towed and use larger more expensive amo make more sense as artillery weapons and require a vehicle and larger more specialized crews that are going to be controlled at a higher level in the military organization then a platoon or a company

[@jussi8111]

very cool weapon. some people cry about "its not accurate" but then again you dont need that much accuracy with that volume of fire

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

In old Yugoslavia platoon of medium 82mm mortars were attached to battalion of infantry and battery of lighter man portable 120mm mortars were attached to infantry brigade as primary support weapons. In addition, heavier 120mm mortars pulled on wheeled trailers were part of dedicated artillery units attached to division or corps. Battery of Vasilek mortars would be great as integral artillery of mobile brigade, giving substantial firepower on both defense and offense.

[@micumatrix]

cool system and something perfect for the infantry

[@1rapataca]

At one point (until very recently in Italy) mortar units were regular grenadier units attached to infantry formations (called "chasseur", "cacciatori" to this day in Italy) true to classical (napoleonic) order of march and drill: after all, a mortar shell is a "grenade"... I do not know how things are put, presently.

[@SuperParatech]

Despiite it's age, I like the concept and versatility of this mortar/gun.

[@Some_random_guy-1962]

Wild idea: a nuke on the end of a recoilless rifle, functioning like a rifle grenade. A shell fired by a railway artillery piece that is a goddamn nuke, but the artillery piece is on two semi trucks.

[@patrickpirzer4080]

"Cornflower" is an interesting name for a weapon system? So what about "Daisy cutter"? Just one example of many. 😊 Very good overview about that small mortar system.

[@тюленище]

«Ромашка» - авиационная антенно-фидерная система «Ромашка» - портативная радиостанция для связи наземных войск с авиацией «Ромашка» - зенитная управляемая ракета с ядерной боевой частью «Ромашка» - полевая окрасочная станция (ПОС) «Ромашка» - 152-мм специальный (ядерный) снаряд для пушек 2А36, 2С5 Выбирай любой.

[@Alasdair-l9m]

Thanks for making a video on this I was hopping for this for a long time❤

[@_Matsimus_]

No problem 😊

[@garlicandchilipreppers8533]

Well here it is and you can stand still now😀

[@WillemBotha-ut3vt]

Excellent video Matt! Never seen this weapon system before.

[@TheROMaNProject]

One truck, only a 4 man crew, powerful, and effective.

[@dadrithracrish2177]

Just happened to open youtube right after this video was uploaded damn good timing

[@dadrithracrish2177]

Also just finished the video and honestly I’m surprised there aren’t more systems similar to this made to be both capable of direct and indirect fire for a caliber that isn’t full sized artillery the usefulness and capabilities of such systems would allow an incredible amount of battlefield flexibility especially if mounted on vehicles made for these variable roles or made light enough to be used by infantry easier for engagement from any practical distance or angle anyways you have a great day and hopefully someday we’ll see more weapons like this beautiful system

[@Kosake86]

The whole idea of mortars nowadays is to give the infantry commander some firepower without him having to ask daddy (higher eschelon) or nanny (JFST) for permission. So yeah, anything below 120mm is for the infantry. If you have larger mortars, they usually exist for a specific task (if at all), so depending on their reason for being there, they might be part of the artillery or engineers or hey, maybe even just salvo-firing loitering munition launchers as a seperate kind of arms in and of themselves.

[@owensthilaire8189]

Thanks for the close up view of this. Very cool. I had heard about it and some of what I heard/read was a bit questionable. Criticism of it taking longer to load than fire. Clearly not the case. I wanted to join the RCAF back in the early '90's, artillery or the branch that does weapon repair and modifications, ( armorers? ). They told me it was Navy or nothing. Alberta kid in the Navy seemed like a bad idea so I didn't bother.

[@1whowas]

Soviet general - "Comrade, how big can a machine gun be?" Soviet engineer - "Hold my vodka..."

[@Spuggky45]

Hey Matsimus, thank you for this. I’ve been going through some really bad stuff lately, but all of these Russian videos lately help. ❤

[@gorkarullan]

All countries with a half decent army use mortars within their infantry units. Light mortars in companies and heavy mortars in battalions or regiments... for over 60 years. Maybe Canada just discovered it now.

[@CasadeFrance]

In south korea marine Corp, mortars are assigned as follows. 60MM (aka Pringles tube, nickname given by larger caliber mortar teams) for riflemen company 81MM Batallion level weapons company (I was part of that but was transfered to 90mm recoiless due to hazing incident 😂) 4.2 inch regimental combat support company. Usually mounted on domestic m113 81mm are getting upgraded with ballistic computers and tube is getting lighter. 4.2 inch is getting replaced with 120mm (not 100 sure though) Mortars, excl pringles are known back/ankle/knee killers. My right knee and ankle cartillage is wrn down from carrying it on my right shoulder lol. Artillery guys felt bad for us as they passed us on the road, riding comfy deuce with their guns on tow

[@izoiva]

0:44 All Soviet artillery systems had the names of various flowering plants. The acacia you discussed a few days ago is also a flower.

[@ernstbergerbrent]

Mortors don't have the range of artillery. Plus, keeping it within the infantry gives indirect fire at the company level. They dont have to worry about priority of fires or waiting for clearance from higher.

[@StephenDaniel-p8l]

That was a very good and extremely informative video. Its max fire rate is insane. Please keep the videos coming.

[@_Matsimus_]

Thanks, will do!

[@hansybarra]

Mortars are considered a type of artillery, just like rockets, but i think they give it to infantry because mortars are smaller and more mobile than conventional artillery guns.

[@Colonel_Overkill]

Personally Iv always felt that the smaller mortars belong organically in infantry formations with anything above 4in(102mm) needing to belong to a dedicated artillery unit instead.

[@nickjohnson4923]

Nice work again Matt. Interesting piece of kit.

[@_Matsimus_]

Thanks 👍

[@vincitveritas3872]

Keep the videos coming they are great and informative. You get into a short video what a TV channel would pad out to an hour.

[@TheROMaNProject]

BOTH: Infantry units need a means of delivering potent and highly mobile explosive firepower, especially considering supporting or defending against assaults. This weapon also can be highly mobile in this age of rapid counter battery fire. Artillery units need to protect their big guns, and mortars are far more valuable for shorter-distance missions and its ability to give direct fire, including anti-tank rounds, makes it an invaluable addition to any arty unit. The U.S. needs this weapon… powerful, simple, inexpensive, easily mass produced, rugged, rapid fire rate, extensive variety of rounds available. These excellent criteria😊 probably are specifically REJECTED in any RFP for U.S. weapons.

[@maverikmiller6746]

1:22 Infantry. Because mortar is basically infantryman's "personal" artillery. They carry it with them, they don't have to radio call someone else for mortar fire, and they can pretty much use it as they wish.

[@gabehartman6832]

I feel the same. It helps ground forces immediately in difficult situations.

[@SuperParatech]

Some mortars are 100-120mm globally and need a vehicle to tow. Still think all mortars are to be carried by infanteers? I think up to about 50-60mm, it can be carried in a platoon/company. At Infantry Bn level a dedicated Platoon for 81mm because of the extra kit needed, especially aiming posts. Beyond that size - either a dedicated mortar section/platoon in a battalion or attached to artillery as the much of the work in recce and aiming is similar - only scale separates them. Honestly - it depends how the country arranges order of battle. Armoured infantry - sure. If you want light air mobile or commando troops, then the heavy weapons need a specialist section or branch.

[@maverikmiller6746]

@@SuperParatech I agree you with it being dependent on ultimately what the force structure is. But allow me to add a coınterpoint by saying maybe if you think your forces will frequently be in a situation that needs really high caliber explosive fire, maybe not designing that system as a mortar is the better way ? Maybe 105 mm howizers ? Maybe 122 mm field artillery ? Maybe unguided rocket artillery ?

[@SuperParatech]

@maverickmiller6746 I Agree. If forces are needing that amount of heavier artillery or rocket artillery, then armoured or motorised infantry would be well suited for this system. Again, I think it depends on force structure and purpose. Light and highly mobile infantry would be weighed down with such a system. 81mm is about the limit but even that is heavy (plus ammunition) and the mortar plate, tools etc. I am imaging the Falklands War. 3 Brigade humped 53 miles over rugged terrain. The mortars were in specialist platoons. I am guessing that maybe the mortars with ammunition and plate etc were loaded onto a landrover, along with other heavy weapons. If they had to carry these, then the weight would be horrendous. Likewise, if they lost the few landrovers available to them and had only to move by foot, then heavy weapons makes the force less flexible (50mm can be backpacked). 29 Cdo with 18 guns and 97 Bty with 6 guns made the fire support using L118 105mm. These needed the 1 tonne Landrover to deploy so were obviously separated from the rest of their respective brigades. I knew a fullscrew from depot who was in 4 Regt and deployed at that time, but I never knew where they were positioned or if their firing positions changed much. Out of interest. 43 Bty provided point air defence for 5th Bde. 12 years later, I would be attached to them for a tour on Op Banner. Old gunner musing here

[@LeSpade72]

I'm a mortarman in the army and honestly this thing is fascinating now in my opinion I think mortars should be infantry as we are so close to or even on the front line and in light units they are often clearing rooms and doing infantry stuff so it makes sense why at least in the us army we are in the infantry bs artillery

[@SDF-400]

this is new to me... all this while I only hear all weather multi role fighter interceptor bomber... didn't know mortars are the same..... CHEERS !!!

[@stevenrowlandson9650]

Mortars should be organic to Infantry class units as a LRFS system. Tube and rocket artillery is for Brigade and higher echelon Units and formed into battalion or larger formations depending on the size of unit they are attached to. A supported infantry company should have 3 to 5 infantry platoons , 1 mortar battery and a technical and service platoon. From this basic formation larger units can be built up with more specialized units attached. A supported Battalion should be 3 or more supported companies plus an artillery battery, AAA battery , pioneer company, signals platoon, transport companies as needed and a service and logistics group. Brigades would be 3 to 5 supported battalions plus additional supporting units including artillery, pioneer, AAA, transport, signals and other service troop units plus aviation support. Basically we are dealing with combined arms teams of varying sizes.

[@jonaslidstrom7006]

I think mortar systems should have a home in multiple branches, as the use of them may differ a bit (correct me if I’m wrong). Large enough to have to be towed, sounds like they belong to the artillery, maybe in forward positions. But there is systems mounted on small vehicles, they should do well in the army/reconnaissance groups. And we have systems as the Nemo and Mjolnir etc, that works as close support to mechanised units. So, different system tailored for different task/needs.

[@matthewwagner47]

This automatic mortor system was used during the chechen war with effect.

[@lachlanoerman6584]

I love the videos you've been pumping out. I hope the effort is paying off!

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

Given the shorter ranges associated with high angle weapons like mortars, it strikes me that the 2B9 make more sense as an infantry support weapon, permitting it to be used as an organic asset for the infantry unit in question. The much longer range of gun/howitzer weapons make them more suitable to centralized artillery formations, particularly given Soviet (now Russian) doctrine.

[@jenniferwagner4595]

I would hate this as towed, but mounted to light vehicle it would be awesome. I’m not sure if counter battery radar would pick this up, so maybe being towed wouldn’t be so hateful. As an forward observer I loved mortars as they are incredibly quick. The burst file would be great for a fire for effect.

[@Einwetok]

That's lighter than the old 75 mm pack howitzer. 1/2 the range, but that burst fire.... Nice for airborne and other RDF forces. Keeping it fed may be a hangup though. Saw the BMP version in a few military magazines in the 80's. It would have been a nasty surprise to the first guys in.

[@oscarharriet7030]

Fascinating! Soviet gear is much cleverer than we give them credit for…..

[@memeofwheat]

The US has a similar system, its called the M252RZ. The RZ designation comes from the Rip It's and Zyn's its crews use to increase the fire rate of the standard M252 81mm.

[@mchrome3366]

I’ve heard from multiple veterans how effective mortars were and considering their low cost I think should be given to both artillery and infantry with whatever changes needed to be made in the doctrine so they could work together. More R&D in mortars to better fit their needs and different roles.

[@michaelsamuel9917]

mortars kill/wound more soldiers than artillery rounds in combat...

[@kfeltenberger]

Back in the 1980s, we had a blast with these when we played Twilight: 2000.

[@34ccsn]

Damn, that brings back memories.

[@lexchaotica190]

@@34ccsn GDWs Assault system-wiping out stacks of nato armour.

[@34ccsn]

@kfeltenberger i really miss star frontiers.

[@pernibuzdovan12]

I believe that 90 seconds is time given for the weapon itself to take basic position and that getting firing data is not included in that time.

[@MrTony1995]

In Spain, mortars (81 and 120) are infantry only, being the only indirect fire support that our infantry batallions/companies have. The small 60mm have been relegated to SOF. It also depends on how heavy is your unit. Light infantry/motorised get the 81mm, either in the standard configuration, or self propelled on a VAMTAC chassis. Mechanised and armored units used the good ol 120 on a M113.

[@bbmw9029]

To answer your question, infantry up to 81mm, over 81mm (generally meaning 120mm) artillery. The latter are at least somewhat man portable. 120s are really vehicle mounted / towed weapons unless they're emplaced (think firebase / outpost.)

[@herptek]

One could say that. The other question is that what types of combat arms units are they integrated to in different organizations and different countries. Infantry companies can have organic 81mm "light" mortar sections/platoons integrated to them while 120mm "heavy" mortar companies can be integrated to infantry battalions. Soldiers operating mortars can be an infantry arms unit. Nothing would prevent an organization planner from organizing them as an artillery arms unit in combined arms context like field artillery battalions are used under brigade structure for example. It is pretty much arbitrary question of definition or classification what is artillery weapon and what is an infantry weapon. Heavy 120mm weapons are often counted as artillery weapons despite the kinds of troops that use them. Something like in the video is pretty clumsy despite being a mortar of light (82mm) caliber and can clearly only be considered a towed/mounted weapon. As indirect fire weapons mortars require forward observers to pass fire commands in a way that is in that regard similar to how artillery is used. From the point of view of ordinary front line soldiers the question of combat arms is rather trivial or semantic, but the question of organization is quite important because it determines who has what kinds of fires available and when.

[@roadrunner681]

that thing is legit scary, with a drone helping it land a hit even more so

[@TakNuke]

They also have a version in 57mm, basically a hybrid between this and automation grenade launcher. Quite a weapon system for use as ifv or apc or afv armament. The chinese version is mounted on open humvee type vehicle with a longer barrel known as PCP-001.

[@hadesdogs4366]

The biggest problem facing most western nations is the pure and simple fact that as shown in Ukraine is that unlike America, most western or nato countries just don’t shave either the resources let alone the capabilities of mass industrialized warfare compared to previous wars, and that’s due to the ever changing scales of wars being mostly centered around counter insurgency where at the very least most battles were firefights at the very least and small skirmishes at most where one hyper advanced missile system capable of destroying a small family car in the middle of a busy street is more preferable than simply dropping ten high explosive artillery rounds into the general area to achieve a similar result but with higher civilian casualties to boot, where greater emphasis on quality and pin point accuracy was needed rather than a simple sledgehammer. But on the flip side with mounting costs and the constant pressure of military budget cuts has undoubtedly resulted and contributed to the basic fact that most western and especially European countries are incapable of resupplying their already limited supply of weapons, spare parts and munitions, citing the need that We don’t need a military anymore we only need a small elite global security force Or We don’t need nuclear weapons because we’re never going to be in another Cold War situation ever again. Or Tanks are useless and are no longer needed on the battlefield Only for Russia to invade Ukraine and for the Russians to start screaming for more tanks as they’re used in anything and everything 😂 Which is why we’re at a point where yes we have the ability to drop a missile into someone’s letterbox two countries over but the real problem is that we can only do so so many times before we’re essentially out of smart munitions, all the while the Russians are dumping munitions as if it’s the Fourth of July. And again as a Brit where yes we have massive military stores and warehouses, the fact is that less than half of our entire population are NOT willing to fight for the UK, but our military reserves can only survive at the very least a month of heavy combat before our entire military supply stockpiles runs dry, hell at most we’re barely able to have less than a hundred challenger 2’s in action at any given time since the rest of our tank fleets are locked in cold storage, only for the British military like always to start running around in circles screaming WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, only for them to start robbing every and any military vehicles either at a disposal yard or from a museum 😂, imagine HMS Belfast being reinstated back into military service 😂😂

[@Po6om_Bepmep]

It's not only Russian. It is Soviet first of all =)

[@benvandermerwe4934]

South Africa installed mortars in the Ratel IFV way back in the '80's for mobile "artillery" during the Border War.

[@avnrulz]

Just saw an interview video with a WWII ETO veteran, and he was an81MM mortar man, who became an infantry man when the mortars couldn't be used.

[@jameslockard6956]

Both- lighter mortars for infirmary heavy mortars for artillery.

[@martinsmith9054]

Ordinary tube mortars are simple and cheap. Whoever can use and logistically support them should have them. The Vasilek is a bit more complex but the same applies. The Russian 120mm gun/mortar has similarities.

[@andyvonbourske6405]

if you end up using the Vasilek in direct fire mode then someone screwed up somewhere .

[@painmt651]

Nice to have the option

[@scottmcdivitt2187]

Given the military it was made for, they should assume multiple people have already done something wrong before they even get to the firing position.😂

[@vorda400]

Former Croatian gunner here Up to 82mm mortars are part of the infantry and 120mm are artillery, although with the last NATO reform I have no idea who and how they use them anymore, because we turned to mobile artillery with the PZH2000 and M-92 vulcan, and we are negotiating the acquisition of HIMARS and the French CAESAR And this Russian mortar has an interesting rate of fire

[@KlipsenTube]

"Too benign" is a misnomer 😀

[@williambinkley8879]

I would love to see the technical drawings for the recoil mechanism, pretty impressive.

[@DarkHorseSki]

82mm is not large caliber as far as mortars go, so unsure why you asked this question. I'd rather have 5 simpler, regular, mortars than this beast. Infantry all the way for mortars under 90mm. Now, if we start talking about 120mm and bigger mortars that you would more likely mount on vehicles, then sure, automatic starts making sense.

[@STDRACO777]

According to what I can tell from both sides the sound of mortar and grenade fire seems to cause the most panic in infantry thanks to the limited ways you can protect yourself from it. Some of the American volunteers said if you hear the sound of gernades or mortar fire getting launched the only good option seems to be to get out and fall back as staying anywhere close will just cause you to lose men for no gain.

[@philmarks4254]

It's kind of hard to sneak a Vasilek into a frontline position. JTF-2 can't use them either, too hard to carry. A British L-16A2 has greater range and with the time it takes to reload a magazine in a 2B9 the L-16a2 can also fire 3-4 rounds. & don't hate the infantry because they gave us mini, man carried, artillery. If you think carrying a shell or propellant charges is heavy, try carrying a rifle, and a baseplate or tripod and sight or a tube (or tube section) and 3-6 rounds plus your ruck and your rifle ammo. Oh and we'll be covering 18 km on the march today, I hope your boots are good. Remember, you went CAF.

[@oletoustrup8572]

In Denmark they took them from the infantry and gave them to the artillery.

[@donunlisted9367]

I didnt know these auto mortars existed until about 12 years ago. Never knew how Semi auto Mortars worked either.

[@keithmoore5306]

actually Matt i think the smaller 60mm bore mortars should be infantry with the heavier 120mm ones under the artillery with the mid bore 81mm split between the branches!!!

[@СахерСалама]

it will be nice ti make a video on 2s19 Russian SPG

[@Xeemix]

I honestly love this weapon system, same with the nona

[@imrekalman9044]

I don't know now, in the Soviet Army the 82 mm 2B9s were part of the infantry battalions with a battery of 8, while the larger, 120 mm 2B11 mortars were part of artillery units, in their own battalions with 12 units. Probably the same now.

[@weije093]

Hello Matsimus, appreciate the energy and effort in your videos. There is a system which may be interesting. It is the SSW40 from Rheinmetall. It is a grenade launcher but shoulder fired yet allows the use of programmable ammo or even armor penetrating ammo. That makes it extreme versatile. So far, the only solution for protection against drones.

[@UberDurable]

Seems like the Bofors 40mm.

[@ninjavlad9721]

I thought you already covered this piece? Anyway excellent information and footage thanks again!

[@_Matsimus_]

Not yet!

[@TonyL-gw4qx]

Does Canada have any artillery units left? Just wondering because the Canadian Air Force is almost completely gone as well.

[@jannegrey]

TL;DR Question whether it's more of an "infantry weapon" or more "artillery support for infantry" kind of depends on the type of war you're looking at and a specific system rather than category in which it is. Long answer: Even with war in Ukraine somewhat resembling WW1, there is still a ton of smaller than company groups (often around 30 people) making assaults. And they do need artillery support. Unlike WW1, where artillery had much smaller range (even big one was rarely above 20 km), artillery in Ukraine has the "luxury" of staying behind the front-line (and "front-zone" to a degree). However such assault units still need fire support. And attaching artillery "squad" to each such group would be a bit odd in some cases. That being said it depends on how difficult it is to operate as well. Infantry often has "some" training in mortars (doesn't mean that everyone in infantry knows how to operate them) - but we're mostly talking about light systems. Though 82 mm can be seen as light or medium, not necessarily heavy (though it's volume of fire sort of moves it into heavy category). 2B9 definitely requires a bit more training and more specialized crew to use. But since it's a "heavy automatic cannon-mortar for Aeromobile forces" (heavy cause it's one of the heaviest ones that needs to be capable of being parachuted or dropped by helicopter) that means that it is mostly going to be used quite close to front lines. So it's crew will be a bit like "mechanized" elements of those forces that use BMD as their IFV's. I mean there is a crew and the platform functions as armored support of infantry rather than infantry - but in reality they just as the crew of 2B9 will have to also do a work of infantry. Because of both proximity as well as of how often "push comes to shove" with such units and everyone fights. So it depends on complexity of the system. You can have it be used by artillery detachment or it can be used by specialized infantry. And at some point the only distinction between those groups will be what type of designation they have formally. Unlike self-propelled heavy mortars (above 100mm usually), which "feel" like they belong to artillery in most cases, this feels much closer to infantry weapon. Though unlike light mortars on bi/tripod it's not clear cut. That's a long way of saying - "it depends".

[@martinhastingsis]

Good Coverage. Thank You . Blessings from New Zealand.

[@Hortifox_the_gardener]

I wonder about the practical use of this thing. A few infantrymen can carry several mortars around - very low key and stealthy. This thing needs a towing vehicle and seems very big to achieve the same practical fire rate than a few infantry mortars. It seems like a great area denial tool if there is no counter battery threat. Speaking of which... this thing feels like it doesn't work well in the drone saturated modern battlefield.