Michael Dorosh Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: Jason your reaction against citation is perverse!! :eek: I bet he likes this one though.... http://www.defence.gov.au/army/uxo/81mm.html The 81mm Mortar was in United States service but the ammunition could also be used in the British 3inch Mortar. I don't own any calipers; all I know is that the 3-inch mortar bombs I've handled were a different shape and size than the 81s. They were different weapons and most references call them 76mm pieces. Were the 3-inch bombs actually 81mm in diameter? Maybe. But the official designation was always 76mm and a distinction has been drawn between the two types, even by armies that used both weapons consecutively. **shrugs** Mike, if you have a ruler, I guess you are the go to guy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: Jason your reaction against citation is perverse!! :eek: I bet he likes this one though.... http://www.defence.gov.au/army/uxo/81mm.html The 81mm Mortar was in United States service but the ammunition could also be used in the British 3inch Mortar. I don't own any calipers; all I know is that the 3-inch mortar bombs I've handled were a different shape and size than the 81s. They were different weapons and most references call them 76mm pieces. Were the 3-inch bombs actually 81mm in diameter? Maybe. But the official designation was always 76mm and a distinction has been drawn between the two types, even by armies that used both weapons consecutively. **shrugs** Mike, if you have a ruler, I guess you are the go to guy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yeah it is the same site with the boring out story. Nobody has explained how you are supposed to take a tube of mere sheet metal and bore it out by 5mm, reduce the windage, increase the powder charge, and still have the resulting barrel be thick enough to avoid blowing apart when fired. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yeah it is the same site with the boring out story. Nobody has explained how you are supposed to take a tube of mere sheet metal and bore it out by 5mm, reduce the windage, increase the powder charge, and still have the resulting barrel be thick enough to avoid blowing apart when fired. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The official designation was not 76mm it was "3 inch". The problem is precisely that it is an official designation, not a report on an observation in a science experiment. Which is what is needed to settle this question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The official designation was not 76mm it was "3 inch". The problem is precisely that it is an official designation, not a report on an observation in a science experiment. Which is what is needed to settle this question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by JasonC: The official designation was not 76mm it was "3 inch". The problem is precisely that it is an official designation, not a report on an observation in a science experiment. Which is what is needed to settle this question. Faith, baby is all that is needed to solve this question!!! Close your eyes and place your trust in me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by JasonC: The official designation was not 76mm it was "3 inch". The problem is precisely that it is an official designation, not a report on an observation in a science experiment. Which is what is needed to settle this question. Faith, baby is all that is needed to solve this question!!! Close your eyes and place your trust in me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 There is a 3" mortar in the Indonesian Army Museum that I can go measure. Won't be able to get there until after the New Year. (its a great place, very eclectic mix of stuff. Obviously Dutch & Japanese, but the IDO army during the conflict with the Dutch bought stuff from dodgy arms dealers/ gun runners everywhere) Actually the boring is not that surprising. Given how prone engineers are to belt and braces design, there probably was a large margin of safety. ISTR that the 25pdr ended up as 88mm rather than the preferred 3.7" (94mm) because 88mm that was as big as they could safely rebore the existing 18pdrs. It isn't as if the British Army has a horror of fractions in names of calibres - the 0.303, 4.2" mortar, 7.2" howitzer are what they say they are on the box. Can only think of the "77mm" (actually 76mm) on the Comet that wasn't otherwise - and there was a reason for that. I tend to think that if it was a 3.2" mortar, they would have called it a 3.2" mortar... [ December 16, 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 There is a 3" mortar in the Indonesian Army Museum that I can go measure. Won't be able to get there until after the New Year. (its a great place, very eclectic mix of stuff. Obviously Dutch & Japanese, but the IDO army during the conflict with the Dutch bought stuff from dodgy arms dealers/ gun runners everywhere) Actually the boring is not that surprising. Given how prone engineers are to belt and braces design, there probably was a large margin of safety. ISTR that the 25pdr ended up as 88mm rather than the preferred 3.7" (94mm) because 88mm that was as big as they could safely rebore the existing 18pdrs. It isn't as if the British Army has a horror of fractions in names of calibres - the 0.303, 4.2" mortar, 7.2" howitzer are what they say they are on the box. Can only think of the "77mm" (actually 76mm) on the Comet that wasn't otherwise - and there was a reason for that. I tend to think that if it was a 3.2" mortar, they would have called it a 3.2" mortar... [ December 16, 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 That'll work. Mike, if you tell me "I took a ruler and measured across from one inside surface to the opposite, and got 7.5 cm. Moving the ruler around a little I could get a hair more at the widest point. The 8 cm line actually went beyond the outside of the tube, let alone the inside", then I will trust your eyes as though they were my own. If, however, you tell me "they sorta looked different, I could just tell they were different weapons, all the citations typically say, the official name was..." then I'd sooner believe the pope is infallible, thank you very much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 That'll work. Mike, if you tell me "I took a ruler and measured across from one inside surface to the opposite, and got 7.5 cm. Moving the ruler around a little I could get a hair more at the widest point. The 8 cm line actually went beyond the outside of the tube, let alone the inside", then I will trust your eyes as though they were my own. If, however, you tell me "they sorta looked different, I could just tell they were different weapons, all the citations typically say, the official name was..." then I'd sooner believe the pope is infallible, thank you very much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 I try to contact the person who measured the 3" tube... will report back... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 I try to contact the person who measured the 3" tube... will report back... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 I have now two independent confirmations by measurement that the 3" mortar is indeed 81mm. One from John Salt (who contacted me by e-mail) and other by Edward Rudnicki. Ed elaborates: Better still: in a shipment of ammo out of Afghanistan we received earlier this year there were about a dozen British 3in mortar projectiles. They even have "3in" cast into the bodies. But they are very definitely true 81mm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 I have now two independent confirmations by measurement that the 3" mortar is indeed 81mm. One from John Salt (who contacted me by e-mail) and other by Edward Rudnicki. Ed elaborates: Better still: in a shipment of ammo out of Afghanistan we received earlier this year there were about a dozen British 3in mortar projectiles. They even have "3in" cast into the bodies. But they are very definitely true 81mm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Sounds like a load of bollocsks to me - the 3" mortar hasn't been used in the Brit army since the mid 60's and there's no way they'd be shipping 30-40 yr old ammo to a combat unit! The current 81mm mortar is designated as an 81mm mortar (I forget the number) so it's not going to be ammo for that that's been mis-designated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Sounds like a load of bollocsks to me - the 3" mortar hasn't been used in the Brit army since the mid 60's and there's no way they'd be shipping 30-40 yr old ammo to a combat unit! The current 81mm mortar is designated as an 81mm mortar (I forget the number) so it's not going to be ammo for that that's been mis-designated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 From the context I understood Ed meant ammo recovered by the US units operating in Afganishtan -- he's in an ordnance unit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 From the context I understood Ed meant ammo recovered by the US units operating in Afganishtan -- he's in an ordnance unit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 S.O., I read it the other way that some combat unit in Afghanistan may have come across a cache of old 3 inch mortar ammo. for an antiquated British 3 inch mortar that may have been used by the Taliban/Al Quaeda. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 S.O., I read it the other way that some combat unit in Afghanistan may have come across a cache of old 3 inch mortar ammo. for an antiquated British 3 inch mortar that may have been used by the Taliban/Al Quaeda. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Why would they ship it out of Afghanistan then?? Why not just blow it up in place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Why would they ship it out of Afghanistan then?? Why not just blow it up in place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Did John forget his password here? Why not just post himself? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.