Description
The weapon was a dual-purpose device in that it could also be used as a spade. When a leg was removed from the handle, the spade part of the weapon locked into position as a base plate for the mortar. The weapon was apparently intended to serve as a fire support weapon for every infantryman as it was designed to be operated by one man. There was no aiming device and the soldier simply pointed the mortar at its target. The soldier carried 15 rounds of ammunition on a fabric belt for the mortar.
The German Army designated the weapon the 3.7 cm Spatengranatwerfer 161(r), although the true Soviet designation was simply "37mm mortar" (Russian: 37-мм Миномет). The weapon was likely an attempt to boost the firepower of Soviet rifle units. Although a rifle grenade-launcher (which the Red Army also had) can fire shells of similar weight, they are slower to load and cannot serve as rifles while firing grenades. The spade mortar was used during the Winter War with Finland, where the weapon was found ineffective in the heavy snow. Initially used in the Russo-German War, the spade mortar fell into disuse after 1942.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian Army developed a similar device, the 37mm Marsh Mortar for use in marshy ground, as 37mm was the maximum shell size for which recoil did not drive the mortar into the soft ground.
Read more about this topic: 37mm Spade Mortar
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“An intentional object is given by a word or a phrase which gives a description under which.”
—Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe (b. 1919)
“I was here first introduced to Joe.... He was a good-looking Indian, twenty-four years old, apparently of unmixed blood, short and stout, with a broad face and reddish complexion, and eyes, methinks, narrower and more turned up at the outer corners than ours, answering to the description of his race. Besides his underclothing, he wore a red flannel shirt, woolen pants, and a black Kossuth hat, the ordinary dress of the lumberman, and, to a considerable extent, of the Penobscot Indian.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)