This is coolbert:
From the Internet web site G2mil an anecdotal account the smooth-bore mortar as to be preferred over the rifled version.
"Heavy American Mortars In WWII"
"'After spending several weeks on and near the infantry line [Philippines, 1945, WW2], I concluded and reported that rifled bore mortars are ineffective because the rounds have to be fired at about 60 degrees max so the rounds won't 'boat tail' in as duds. In addition, the smooth bore mortars appeared to be more accurate to me, even though the 4.2 inch chemical mortar did some good work, but the lack of drift from spinning in the smooth bore mortars and the inability of rifled mortars to drop shells in almost vertically left me totally convinced that smooth bore is the only way to fly"
That Soviet army during the Second World War [WW2] for a variety of reasons finding the smooth-bore cast-iron mortar firing a cast-iron mortar bomb [everyone in the world with the exception of the U.S. Army calls the projectile as fired from a mortar a bomb] as the indirect fire weapon of choice!
From the Soviet perspective the smooth-bore cast-iron mortar cheaper, easier and quicker to manufacture.
THE BATTLEFIELD CAN BE PROLIFERATED WITH SUCH WEAPONS MUCH TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE COMMANDERS AT BATTALION ECHELON AND BELOW!!
The splintering of the cast-iron mortar bomb also more desirable. More and worse damage and injury to enemy personnel!
A Soviet spetsnaz troop having seen action in Afghan however of the opinion that American rifled mortars better than the Soviet brand. Lighter alloy material, rifled, less need to lubricate and protect the weapon.
So what are we to think?