Talk:Stokes mortar

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Shell (projectile)#High-explosive|HE]] Anchor Shell (projectile)#High-explosive links to a specific web page: High explosive. The anchor (#High-explosive) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Percussion cap#Primers|primer]] The anchor (#Primers) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Calibre?

Several other sources give a calibre of 76.2 mm, the same as its designation. Is there a source for the stated calibre of 81.2 mm? 72.66.50.42 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The measurement 81 mm given for the bomb held by the Australian War Memorial ( http://cas.awm.gov.au ). I have also had this confirmed by people in possession of 3 other bombs, all are 81 mm. See http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=100707&st=0&#entry946152 and http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/stockes-pre-1918-t13202.html . The "76.2 mm" you find quoted are just 3 inches translated to metric, by people who assume that the 3-inch in the name is to be taken literally. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Given the original, unstabilized projectiles, how accurate a weapon was the Stokes mortar?--172.190.46.188 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated Rewards

Did Stokes really get "royalties of £1 per Stokes mortar shell produced"?. This seems like a boat load of moolah even for such a nifty weapon. An average factory worker's wages were less than a couple of quid a week even in 1918. If he was getting this kind of money Stokes would have been very wealthy by the end of the war. Silent Billy (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite impossible. According to the Weapons of the Trench War, 1914-1918 p. 159, Stokes bomb cost 2£, so 50% of royalties is way to high - and he would get ca. 15 mln pounds by the end of the war. Possibly he got £1 for a mortar tube, which would make him quite wealthy anyway (15 000 £ was a lot of money in 1918). Deleted the info, pending solid sources--Felis domestica (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Action

The article currently says when the weapon was designed and when it was rejected by the army. Missing is the info when it was first tested in the field, or when it was distributed en masse. For example it would be interesting to know whether it was already used in the Gallipoli Campaign or in the Battle of Loos. --BjKa (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

I was just wondering why the article is in past tense if there are still surviving Stokes mortars. I thought you could only use past tense once there aren't any surviving examples left. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wz.18 Mortar

Stokes Mortar was produced in Poland as Wz.18 Mortar http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/artyleria/m_81mm_wz18_31_1928/index.html WWIIEnjoyer (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]