Spigot mortar anti-armor weapon

[Alan Nordin]

My playing devil's advocate has got me to thinking that maybe something
might have been viable.

I think we need a better set of requirements ...

1) Spigot mortar

2) Indirect fire taking advantage of weak overhead armor

3) Replaces some existing weapon

Chris, I think you gave up on a crew served aimed weapon too soon and
how about replacing the 57mm ATG, which before SABOT ammo was not that
effective anyway.

More requirements ...

4) Sufficient range to make the weapon survivable

5) Small enough bomb/grenade to reduce recoil and increase the size
of the salvo

6) Mounting approximately the same size as the twin 40mm AA gun

The M19 Twin 40mm Gun Motor Carriage weighed in at 38,500 pounds, it
seems to be heavy enough to absorb the recoil. Before the advent of the
M19, the towed 40mm mount could be used. Or you could go for something
smaller that would mount on an M3 Light Tank chassis (27,400 pounds with
turret).

The British spigot mortars deployed with the Home Guard used
bombs/grenades weighing 20 pounds for anti armor and 14 pounds for anti
personnel. Anything smaller may not be effective. I believe the anti
armor round was a shaped charge round, not sure though.

To me the biggest problem is increasing the range while retaining
accuracy. You either have to increase the propellent charge or increase
the force gained from the propellent charge. It seems to me the same
principle of a longer barrel should apply to a spigot mortar as well,
increase the length of the spigot and the sleeve of the bomb. I think
this should also help retain accuracy in two ways, the increased sleeve
length can be used to increase the size of the fins and the longer on
the spigot the more accurate it should be. The big questions are, how
much range can we expect to get? and how much range do we need?

Another good question, how loud of a noise did a spigot mortar make?
Perhaps some sort of curved sound deflector could be mounted in order to
reduce the sound.

Recoil {and possibly noise} can be reduced by ripple firing the bombs
just as was done with the Hedgehog.

Maybe we could get a salvo of 36 to 48 20 pound bombs in a circular
pattern with a diameter of 300 feet, similar in size to the Hedgehog
with a range of 500 yds or better.

Now you all can play devils advocate with my solution :)

Alan

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Alan Nordin
To me the biggest problem is increasing the range while retaining
accuracy. You either have to increase the propellent charge or
increase the force gained from the propellent charge.

Of course all this goes away if instead of a spigot mortar, you go to
rockets, which in fact almost every major belligerent did. Accuracy
wasn't all that great, but since the idea is to saturate a given area in
a small amount of time, I don't see that as a problem either. WW II
vintage rockets and their launch systems were simple and dirt cheap
relative to the alternatives, hence their popularity from about mid-war
onward.

Michael

[Alan Nordin]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Alan Nordin
To me the biggest problem is increasing the range while retaining
accuracy. You either have to increase the propellent charge or
increase the force gained from the propellent charge.

Of course all this goes away if instead of a spigot mortar, you go to
rockets, which in fact almost every major belligerent did. Accuracy
wasn't all that great, but since the idea is to saturate a given area in
a small amount of time, I don't see that as a problem either. WW II
vintage rockets and their launch systems were simple and dirt cheap
relative to the alternatives, hence their popularity from about mid-war
onward.

In my view, the major advantage to this system is that it would have
been available in one form or another from the outset of hostilities.

I don't know that shaped charge warheads were well enough developed for
a 1940 deployment, but then again tank armor wasn't as thick then and an
HE frag shell may have done just fine against the roof of an armored
vehicle.

I shouldn't have used the 57mm ATG as the weapon system replaced, too
late in the war, instead the 37mm ATG. {Of course that would have meant
the US Army was acknowledging their main Tank and AT gun of the time was
not as effective as they thought.}

I also shouldn't have proposed using a tank chassis as a mobile mount.
The US Army didn't have so many tanks that they could devote chassises
to anything other than tanks in 1940 or 1941. Perhaps a half track
would be best or if half tracks weren't sufficiently available, a medium
size truck. Most likely it would have been deployed on a towed mount.

Alan

[mike]

Post by Alan Nordin
I don't know that shaped charge warheads were well enough developed for
a 1940 deployment, but then again tank armor wasn't as thick then and an
HE frag shell may have done just fine against the roof of an armored
vehicle.

The British had a Rifle Grenade with a HEAT warhead issued in May 1940
with 10,000 in service by June, but wasn't very effective for its size
of
2.5" in diameter.
30mm penetration at first that was later improved. 2 pounds in weight

Better than the 'Sticky' bomb, anyway, but the Sticky Bomb got the
British thinking about HESH

Scaled up, you could use something like the HEAT grenade the
Nazis used for the 37mm AT gun

http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/3-7-stielgranate-41-3-7-cm-stick-grenade.html

same principle as the rifle grenade, just bigger. It was almost
19 pounds and could penetrate 7+ inches of armor up to
850 yards away. Bomb had a 350 fps MV . Note on that
website, the blank propelling charge had a pressure of
18600 psi while an AT round was typically above 45000psi

A Shotgun runs around 12000 psi for hot loads. 45 ACP at 21000psi

A US M6 37mm AT gun, had a tube that weighed 138 pounds
for 78" of barrel. Breech was 47 pounds.

Now if you are willing to stick as a low pressure weapon,
a gun tube built lighter(or spigot system) didn't have to
be as heavy in tube or breech. Its not quite linear, but again
too lazy to do the math, so lets say at 20- 40%, its
38 to 75 pounds. You way be able to mount 2, 3 or even
4 barrels to the mount now.

Use something lightweight for the 360 mount, like the Nazi lightweight
AA gun

http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/2-cm-flak-38-geb-a-a-a-t-mountain-gun.html

if you want it towable.

Post by Alan Nordin
I also shouldn't have proposed using a tank chassis as a mobile mount.
The US Army didn't have so many tanks that they could devote chassises
to anything other than tanks in 1940 or 1941.

Reuse old 'Combat Cars' aka really light tanks that were obsolete
already in 1939

**
mike
**

[Michele]

Post by mike
same principle as the rifle grenade, just bigger. It was almost
19 pounds and could penetrate 7+ inches of armor up to
850 yards away. Bomb had a 350 fps MV . Note on that
website, the blank propelling charge had a pressure of
18600 psi while an AT round was typically above 45000psi

Yes, and that low velocity and that low pressure also mean that a hit at 850
yards would be mere chance. It was accurate out to some 250 meters.

You'd be better off, especially early in the war, by lowering warhead weight
(you don't need to punch through 175mms of armor early in the war!) and
either going for a more accurate flat-trajectory round; or, if one really
wants the top-attack thing, continue with the multi-round-fire option.
Firing say 4 rounds simultaneously, each weighing 5 lbs., gives you enough
warhead weight to punch through the thin top armor, and increases the
chances of at least one of them hitting.

[Chris Morton]

Post by Alan Nordin
To me the biggest problem is increasing the range while retaining
accuracy. You either have to increase the propellent charge or increase
the force gained from the propellent charge. It seems to me the same
principle of a longer barrel should apply to a spigot mortar as well,
increase the length of the spigot and the sleeve of the bomb. I think
this should also help retain accuracy in two ways, the increased sleeve
length can be used to increase the size of the fins and the longer on
the spigot the more accurate it should be. The big questions are, how
much range can we expect to get? and how much range do we need?

OR you can make the spigot and tailboom FATTER.

Many modern long range rifle cartridges are short and fat. It promotes more
efficient and consistent ignition of the powder charge.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Alan Nordin
My playing devil's advocate has got me to thinking that maybe something
might have been viable.
I think we need a better set of requirements ...
1) Spigot mortar
. . . Maybe we could get a salvo of 36 to 48 20 pound bombs in a
circular pattern with a diameter of 300 feet, similar in size to the
Hedgehog with a range of 500 yds or better.

When considering infantry AT weapons, an important factor is the
speed of reloading (when your first shot misses and you need to shoot
again.) This seems to rule out multiple spigot weapons. Wikipedia
says it took 3 minutes to reload the RN anti-submarine Hedgehog (24
missiles.)

[Alan Nordin]

Post by Don Phillipson
This seems to rule out multiple spigot weapons.

With an indirect fire weapon, I think as long as you have enough range
so that it isn't completely obvious where you are, you can get away with
a couple of salvos with a 3 minute reload time. Shoot and scoot, you
certainly wouldn't be able to hang around long. Also, if the bombs are
significantly smaller, say the 20# of the British anti armor round I
cited earlier as opposed to the 65# of a hedgehog round, you may
significantly reduce the 3 minute reload time.

Alan

[james]

Post by Alan Nordin

Post by Don Phillipson
This seems to rule out multiple spigot weapons.

With an indirect fire weapon, I think as long as you have enough range
so that it isn't completely obvious where you are, you can get away with
a couple of salvos with a 3 minute reload time. Shoot and scoot, you
certainly wouldn't be able to hang around long. Also, if the bombs are
significantly smaller, say the 20# of the British anti armor round I
cited earlier as opposed to the 65# of a hedgehog round, you may
significantly reduce the 3 minute reload time.

How fast can the target tanks move in three minutes? Especially if
they decide to come in your direction, do you keep loading or run?
Three minutes is a long time when you have a tank headed in your
direction, especially it is accompanied by troops. At least a Bazooka/
PIAT/Panzerfaust can quickly relocate and/or hide.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by james
How fast can the target tanks move in three minutes?

I'm hoping 3 minutes is longer then the time required to reload with
much smaller bombs than the 65# bombs used by Hedgehog. Maybe the 20#
bombs used by the British Bombard or maybe even something smaller,
Michele suggested a 5# bomb may be large enough to penetrate the thin
overhead protection of an early war armored vehicle.

To me the real key is increasing range without losing too much accuracy.
If you can get out to 1,500 yds with a CEP of 50 yds, then you can use
what I once heard described as the "variable chance deviation theory".*
Aim all the bombs at a single point and trust to random chance to
distribute them evenly over the circle. You'd have to ripple fire them,
otherwise they'd interfere with each other as they left the spigot and
possibly in flight as well. I think you'd also need to increase the
size of the salvo if the pattern is random.

Alan

* Sometime in the late 1960s when Jim Palmer was having a tough day
locating the plate, his second baseman, Dave Johnson, came to the mound
to suggest he use the "variable chance deviation theory". By this he
meant, have Palmer aim at the center of the plate and trust his wildness
to take the ball to the corners. As Palmer tells the story, he didn't
try it and he told Johnson to get off the mound in no uncertain terms.

[Alan Meyer]

On 05/23/2012 05:22 PM, Alan Nordin wrote:
...

Post by Alan Nordin
To me the real key is increasing range without losing too much accuracy.

...

I would think that accuracy is a serious problem. You need a direct hit
on a possibly moving target - or if it's still, it will probably start
moving after the first shell explosion. I've never fired a mortar and
can't speak from experience, but I would think that a direct fire
weapon, like an anti-tank gun, a bazooka, etc., is much easier to aim
than an indirect fire weapon like a mortar, and is much more likely to
score a first shot hit.

I'm sure that some soldiers could develop the requisite skills to hit a
moving tank with a mortar shell, but I would think it would take a great
deal of practice and some natural talent.

Alan

[mike]

Post by Alan Meyer
I would think that accuracy is a serious problem. You need a direct hit
on a possibly moving target - or if it's still, it will probably start
moving after the first shell explosion. I've never fired a mortar and
can't speak from experience, but I would think that a direct fire
weapon, like an anti-tank gun, a bazooka, etc., is much easier to aim
than an indirect fire weapon like a mortar, and is much more likely to
score a first shot hit.

lets you see a Nazi training film showing the different weapons on a
T-34
at somewhat close range, except the magnetic mine :)

each weapon has a slower travel time than the last.

A Panzerfaust bomb at maximum range is almost 2 seconds
in the air for its 148 fps MV. The Panzerschreck is 360 and
PAW 600 is 1700 fps.

A tank at full speed can run almost 60 feet in the time the
Panzerfaust bomb is in the air

See the delay time with each? Plus the Panzerfaust needs
a lot of elevation for max range, almost get you your top
attack mode there

**
mike
**

[e***@yahoo.com.au]

Post by mike
A Panzerfaust bomb at maximum range is almost 2 seconds
in the air for its 148 fps MV. The Panzerschreck is 360 and
PAW 600 is 1700 fps.
**
mike
**

That isn't a PAW 600n in the video though, its a Raketenbuchse 41 a
breeched version of the 88mm Panzerschrek (Bazooka like) RPG that had
recoil but could also be fired safely from bunkers.

The PAW 600 was a smooth bore 81mm gun based on a mortar round but
firing a hollow charge round. It used a high-low pressure chamber to
keep the breech at high pressure but a constriction to limit pressure
in the rest of the barrel which could therefore be lighter.

Because the projectile didn't spin so much it was suitable for hollow
charge rounds. It was about half the weight of a 75mm gun of similar
penetration though had less accuracy due to tthe barely supersonic
round. However penetration would likely not have fallen of at range.

The Germans had a propellant shortage so used black powder rather than
dyglycol for the panzerschrek propellant. (R4M) had dyglycol. This
meant they had a smokey exhaust that caused a lot of smokem and
disclosed the launch.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Alan Meyer
I'm sure that some soldiers could develop the requisite skills to hit a
moving tank with a mortar shell, but I would think it would take a great
deal of practice and some natural talent.

The flight time of a mortar to target is 15-30 seconds.

How far can a tank go in 15 seconds? Certainly far enough to make a
direct hit problematic.

Dunno what the CEP of a mortar might be but it's gotta be something
north of 10 or 20 meters - which causes problems even with a stationary
target.

A near miss is as good as a mile when you're dealing with armored
vehicles. (Something like a 155mm round might blow off a track or a
bogey wheel with a near miss but a 8 lb mortar bomb is unlikely to do so.)

[Michele]

Post by Bill Shatzer
The flight time of a mortar to target is 15-30 seconds.
How far can a tank go in 15 seconds? Certainly far enough to make a direct
hit problematic.
Dunno what the CEP of a mortar might be but it's gotta be something north
of 10 or 20 meters - which causes problems even with a stationary target.

I think CEP will depend on range. Italian 81mm mortars had a minimum CEP in
the vicinity of 6 meters, but it went up to some 40 meters at max range.

There is a reason if when talking about direct-firing, flat-trajectory
anti-tank guns we can consider the single, individual gun, portraying it in
our minds like one sniper firing at one target. When talking about mortars,
it makes sense to think about a section or platoon, firing at a platoon of
tanks.

Note that once the mortars begin to FFE, they wont' stop after each shot to
adjust the aim, as an ATG will do. So, while the ROF of an ATG is mostly
theoretical, the ROF of the mortars will mainly depend on how much ammo is
available. Again the Italian 81mm mortar, with its high ROF of 18 rounds per
minute, can blanket a stationary target.

If we take a CEP of 20 meters and a section of three mortars firing as if
they had an infinite supply of ammo, that will mean 27 (18*3/2) rounds
hitting an area having a diameter of 40 meters, within one minute. If you
have parked two tanks in that area, and they don't scoot away, one direct
hit is not outside the realm of the conceivable. It will take some bad luck
on the tankers' part, certainly, but it might happen.

You will also have another 27 rounds falling outside that diameter. And if
the target is a properly spaced tank platoon, with two or three more tanks
spaced out of the CEP target-centered area, those two or three additional
tanks will also feel some heat.

Granted, the main benefit will be forcing the tanks to move. If they were
stationary there, probably that was a position they would have wanted to
stay in, so you (the mortar section leader) may well not have achieved a
hit, but you have probably done something good just by dislodging them.

[Mart van de Wege]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Alan Meyer
I'm sure that some soldiers could develop the requisite skills to
hit a moving tank with a mortar shell, but I would think it would
take a great deal of practice and some natural talent.

The flight time of a mortar to target is 15-30 seconds.
How far can a tank go in 15 seconds? Certainly far enough to make a
direct hit problematic.
Dunno what the CEP of a mortar might be but it's gotta be something
north of 10 or 20 meters - which causes problems even with a
stationary target.
A near miss is as good as a mile when you're dealing with armored
vehicles. (Something like a 155mm round might blow off a track or a
bogey wheel with a near miss but a 8 lb mortar bomb is unlikely to do so.)

Yes.

As I said in the first post this thread, mortars are good antitank
weapons if, and only if (and Michele was kind enough to emphasise that
for me):

1. The mortars can use massed rapid fire to saturate an area, which a
battery of mortars can do very well indeed.

2. They have already preregistered a choke point the tanks must travel
through.

The last is not particularly necessary, but an ad-hoc bombardment has
the problem that the tanks may have the time to move out of the
threatened area as the first salvos are likely to fall short or long of
the target.

Mortars are not precision weapons. Well built tubes and experienced
operators can bring down the CEP of each individual shell, but the
mortar remains an area-denial weapon. That's what it's designed to do,
that's what it's good at and used for to this day.

Mart

[Chris Morton]

Post by Mart van de Wege
Mortars are not precision weapons. Well built tubes and experienced
operators can bring down the CEP of each individual shell, but the
mortar remains an area-denial weapon. That's what it's designed to do,
that's what it's good at and used for to this day.

It depends upon the mortar. Rifled mortars like the U.S. 4.2" can be quite
accurate.

When I was on active duty, the Army was only just starting to argue about buying
120mm mortars. I don't know if the ones that were finally purchased (Brandt?
Tampella?) are rifled or not.

The Soviets were always partial to very large bore mortars (up to 240mm, I
think). I have no references with me, so I can't recall which if any were
rifled.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by Chris Morton
It depends upon the mortar. Rifled mortars like the U.S. 4.2" can be quite
accurate.

Could rifling be attempted with a spigot mortar? Not much, perhaps a
quarter twist in the length of the spigot, and would this be more
accurate then a finned bomb?

Alan

[Chris Morton]

Post by Alan Nordin

Post by Chris Morton
It depends upon the mortar. Rifled mortars like the U.S. 4.2" can be quite
accurate.

Could rifling be attempted with a spigot mortar? Not much, perhaps a
quarter twist in the length of the spigot, and would this be more
accurate then a finned bomb?

I'm not sure how rifling would work in a spigot mortar.

In a conventionally rifled firearm, when the bullet is fired, it upsets into the
rifling, causing it to spin as it travels down the bore. Artillery projectiles
function in a similar way, although they usually have a driving band which is
engraved by the rifling, rather than having the projectile itself engraved.

Where would the rifling be? On the spigot? In the tailboom?

I'm not sure you couldn't achieve an equivalent result by canting the tailfins
on the bomb so that it spins via aerodynamic forces.

[mike]

Post by Chris Morton
Where would the rifling be? On the spigot? In the tailboom?

Well, you could use a twisted spigot and the boom has to match,

Polygonal rifling, like with the Whitworth or H&K systems to easy
loading at a fast twist rate needed

Post by Chris Morton
I'm not sure you couldn't achieve an equivalent result by canting the tailfins
on the bomb so that it spins via aerodynamic forces.

Fins work, but the instability comes before the fins can apply
the rotation. Better than nothing, but both systems probably
would be best

**
mike
**

[David H Thornley]

Post by mike

Post by Chris Morton
Where would the rifling be? On the spigot? In the tailboom?

Well, you could use a twisted spigot and the boom has to match,

That's how I see it.

However, we've just increased the complexity of the weapon
significantly. One of the suggested advantages of this idea
is that the launcher could, if necessary, be put together or
repaired with general spare parts. By rifling the spigot,
we've also introduced manufacturing complexity.

If we're going for a cheap and easy weapon, we leave the
rifling off. If we're going for a more complex and versatile
weapon, I'd think we'd move away from spigot mortars.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by David H Thornley
If we're going for a cheap and easy weapon, we leave the
rifling off. If we're going for a more complex and versatile
weapon, I'd think we'd move away from spigot mortars.

One of the other specifications is the system will be ready to deploy at
the outset of hostilities. Some complexity may be OK given many of the
more complex weapons hadn't been sufficiently developed yet.

Alan

[mike]

Post by David H Thornley
However, we've just increased the complexity of the weapon
significantly. One of the suggested advantages of this idea
is that the launcher could, if necessary, be put together or
repaired with general spare parts. By rifling the spigot,
we've also introduced manufacturing complexity.

I dont know if it's thats much extra effort

http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/tag/panzergranate

Is for a German HEAT rifle grenade fired from a cup launcher

Note the coarse rifling? just enough to give a little spin, since
it had no tail like the panzerfaust bomb.

For a spigot, even could be a twisted rod, like how an wrought
iron fence rod was decorated by the smith.

Its still polygonal, though, just not high tech

**
mike
**

[Chris Morton]

In article <76ee3ad0-b4bd-4596-974f-***@pa10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
mike says...

Post by mike
Well, you could use a twisted spigot and the boom has to match,
Polygonal rifling, like with the Whitworth or H&K systems to easy
loading at a fast twist rate needed

Seems way too complicated and expensive.

What might work would be a stud and groove system as was used in the early
rifled cannon. It could be fairly course with relatively loose tolerances.

[Bill]

Post by Alan Nordin

Post by Chris Morton
It depends upon the mortar. Rifled mortars like the U.S. 4.2" can be quite
accurate.

Could rifling be attempted with a spigot mortar? Not much, perhaps a
quarter twist in the length of the spigot, and would this be more
accurate then a finned bomb?

Why bother?

If it's a salvo firing weapon then all you're going to do is make the
mean point of aim a bit smaller, and I'm not sure you want this.

Range will be slightly shorter as some energy is 'stolen' to spin the
projectile.

If you fire fifty of them, which seems reasonable for hollow charge
projectiles of about 1Kg each, you'd have a beaten area of about 70
feet across for a 6 foot MDBI and about 100 feet across if you'll settle
for a 10 foot spread.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by Bill

Post by Alan Nordin
Could rifling be attempted with a spigot mortar?

Why bother?

The more accurate it is, the greater the range we might be able to coax
from it. If we can get a reasonably effective spread at 750 yds, then
increase the accuracy and increase the propellent charge, then we could
possibly expect the same reasonably effective spread at maybe 1500 yds.

As I said before, I think range is the key to viability with my
particular solution to the problem.

Alan

[Michele]

Post by Alan Nordin

Post by Bill

Post by Alan Nordin
Could rifling be attempted with a spigot mortar?

Why bother?

The more accurate it is, the greater the range we might be able to coax
from it. If we can get a reasonably effective spread at 750 yds, then
increase the accuracy and increase the propellent charge, then we could
possibly expect the same reasonably effective spread at maybe 1500 yds.
As I said before, I think range is the key to viability with my particular
solution to the problem.

One of the reason for the Blacker bombard or rocket systems that were fired
out of sewage-like tubes is keeping construction cheap and easily. If we
keep adding features, we'll end up reinventing conventional artillery,
complete with tubes accurately rifled and capable of withstanding high
pressures.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by Alan Meyer
...

Post by Alan Nordin
To me the real key is increasing range without losing too much accuracy.

...
I would think that accuracy is a serious problem.

Multiple bomb salvo. I'm not advocating aiming directly at a single
tank, I'm advocating aiming indirectly at an area within which there is
more than one tank. Just like artillery, there would need to be an
observer since the target area wouldn't be directly visible from the
launcher and the launcher wouldn't be directly visible from the target area.

The Bombard was a direct fire weapon and had an effective range of from
75 to 100 yds.

Alan

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Alan Nordin
With an indirect fire weapon, I think as long as you have enough
range so that it isn't completely obvious where you are, you can get
away with a couple of salvos with a 3 minute reload time. Shoot and
scoot, you certainly wouldn't be able to hang around long.

The problem with multiple rocket launchers like the nebblewerther was
that the back blast was a dead give away especially combined with the
rocket trail.

Ken Young

[Alan Nordin]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The problem with multiple rocket launchers like the nebblewerther was
that the back blast was a dead give away especially combined with the
rocket trail.

Not a rocket launcher, a multiple spigot mortar. This raises another
issue that I briefly touched on earlier, what are the byproducts of
firing a spigot mortar? Sound, flash, smoke?

Alan

[Chris Morton]

Post by Alan Nordin
Not a rocket launcher, a multiple spigot mortar. This raises another
issue that I briefly touched on earlier, what are the byproducts of
firing a spigot mortar? Sound, flash, smoke?

You'd imagine that it'd be similar to a mortar... shooting at the ground.

There'd obviously be sound as with any chemical energy projectile weapon.

There'd be flash, but it'd be directed AWAY from the enemy.

I'd guess that there's a similar amount of powder smoke as from a comparable
conventional projectile weapon. There'd probably be more dust raised because of
the "muzzle" pointing at the ground.