the farmhouse defenders
wouldn't they have a mortar or two?
sharePossibly but unlikely. A mortar is an offensive weapon and the farmhouse was better off with defensive weapons, such as machine guns (and rifles, of course). I say "offensive weapon" because the mortar has little flexibility in a situation where the attack comes from several points. The mortar is best when set up against a stationary target; it can then be fired once to gauge the distance to target and again to adjust the accuracy. After you get the range, you can continue to fire until you demolish the target.
As a defensive weapon against 20 or 30 foot soldiers who are rushing at you, dispersed, as these men did, a mortar is pretty useless. A machine gun is more effective.
I was thinking the defenders would have calculated in advance the distance to every point on the stone wall which is where an attack would have been staged. That would have made quick work of Richard Conti's machine gun.
shareTrue enough, what you say. However, the Huns are holding a building that does not have a flat roof. If it had a flat roof of sufficient strength, they could have put a mortar on top. Otherwise, to put a mortar outside the building is to unnecessarily expose themselves to enemy fire. Good thinking, though.
Nagmashdriver, IDF infantry 1986-1994