Talk:Mortar (weapon)

Splitting

Can someone split this article? Many language (Like here in Finland) there is different word to historical mortar and modern weapons (Translate: Kranaatinheitin, "Grenade launcher" Historical part can maybe is "Mortal (Historical weapon)" Historical gun is here "Mörssäri".) --EsaL-74 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's nice that other languages are more precise, but English doesn't make this distinction, and on en.wikipedia we follow English usage. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of this article ignores the long history of mortars and describes them only in the relatively modern sense. All that prevents the first sentence from being completely incorrect is the word "usually". In fact, a 4 inch Stokes mortar is probably not lightweight, though it might be "man-portable" if broken down. (Perhaps those with military experience can confirm this.) The gas mortars of WW1 certainly aren't lightweight. The ship-mounted LIMBO isn't even mentioned.

I suggest the so-called modern section of this article be split off under the title INFANTRY MORTAR. That would leave MORTAR as the general article.

(There seems a tendency to turn encyclopedic articles about weapons into a catalogs of recent NATO/American usage. See FLECHETTE for a worse example.) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

False language claim

Currently the article says, "Mortar bombs are often referred to, incorrectly, as "mortars"" and as a "citation" gives an example. However, English is an open language; a word usage that is often used is a known definition, and is not incorrect. The reference proves that the definition is valid, it does not (and can not) refute it.98.246.153.16 (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Light" Coehorn and éprouvette

Hello PaulinSaudi (talk · contribs). I took note of the category for a Coehorn mortar. The description as "light weight" is subjective of course. However my impression of historical Coehorns is it they are anything but light. Perhaps a more specific adjective would work.

There is another error in the category éprouvette. The article on the subject implies it was only ever a device for testing gunpowder. In fact, The term éprouvette was first used for a device to test swords. It also applies to other test devices. Doing something about that incorrect assumption is on my to do list but it may be a long time before it percolate to the top. Before it gets there I've got to do something about the misappropriation of the word flechette. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Angle

The article says: "The barrel is generally set at an angle of between 45 and 85 degrees (800 to 1500 mils), with the higher angle producing a shorter horizontal trajectory." How can this be true? Surely a higher angle is going to fire higher into the air (but provide shorter range). To obtain a more horizontal trajectory, the barrel would need to be more horizontal. FreeFlow99 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No. "shorter horizontal trajectory" means it travels less distance laterally. You're getting confused.

Surely a higher angle is going to fire higher into the air (but provide shorter range).

<- This is correct and is exactly what the article says.

The break-point is 45 deg. Below 45 as you raise the barrell, it will shoot further until you hit 45 then it will not shoot as far. After 45, the higher you lift the barrel, the shorter the distance you shoot. (the converse is also true) BoonDock (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Near silent

The article states "A near-silent mortar can operate using the spigot principle. Each round has a close-fitting sliding plug in the tube that fits over the spigot. When the round is fired, the projectile is pushed off the spigot, but before the plug clears the spigot it is caught by a constriction at the base of the tube. This traps the gases from the propelling charge and hence the sound of the firing." How can this work? Surely the 'plug' has to have a hole to admit the spigot. When the projectile leaves the spigot the propelling gasses will surely escape through this hole? FreeFlow99 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone will have to draw you a picture to explain it. Trust me, it works. ;-) BoonDock (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Bomb" is only the technical term in some countries

The article reads "Mortars launch explosive shells (technically called bombs)". This is only correct for the UK and some other English-speaking countries that followed Britain's lead. Despite the Oxford Dictionary of English citation that "bombs" is the technical term, in the USA and some other English-speaking countries, the terms "projectile", "round", and "shell" are used but not "bomb". See for example the US Army "Mortars" training circular of March 2017 at https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36911-TC_3-22.90-001-WEB-3.pdf. This uses "projectile", "round", and "shell" in various places but does not use "bomb" at all. Johnmastell (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense.

The mortar had fallen out of general use in Europe by the Napoleonic era, although Manby Mortars were widely used on the coast to launch lines to ships in distress, and interest in their use as a weapon was not revived until the beginning of the 20th century. Mortars were heavily used by both sides during the American Civil War.

Napoleonic era -- ~1800-1814 American Civil War 1861-1865 Beginning of 20th century - 1900

If they fell out of use by 1814 and back in use after 1900, then how are they heavily used in the American Civil War? .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)