Talk:ML 3-inch mortar

message: Many, perhaps most, internet sources incorrectly identify the early WWII ML 3-inch as Mark I.  It's seems like they assume the short range OML mortar was Mark I and and the long range Mark II.
The Stokes was Mark I.  The Ordnance ML 3-inch was Mark II.  The range was mostly improved with the exisiting MkII mortar by just improving the propellant.  But later in the war the mortar was improved further, but remained the Mark II.  It's important that the 'Marks' for this mortar are understood to be generational, not incremental.  So the early war (1939-1942) Mk II had a range of 1600 yards, the mid-late war (1942-45) Mk II had a range of 2800 yards.  I have a copy of the British 1939 training manual for the 3-inch mortar, and it's very clearly called the Mark II with a range of 1600 yards.  I also have the updated 1943 training manual, and it's still called the Mark II with a range of 2800 yards.  Hope this clears it up. Mod Reasearch.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.33.104 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark 

message: As I have access to one of the original handbooks on the 3-Inch MkII I thought I'd better throw it in as a source.  The Handbook Ordnance, M.L 3-Inch Mortar, MarkII, on Mounting, 3-inch Mortar, Mark I Land Service 1937 with three reprints with amendments, latest 1942 (is the version I have acces to).  On page 14 it states: 
Particulars
Material  Steel
Weight (approximate) complete  1qr. 14lb.
Length without breech piece  48 inches.
Length with breech piece  51.1 inches.
Bore-
 Length from muzzle to front of striker stud 45.25 inches.
 Diameter  3.209 inches
 Firing mechanism  percussion.
Given it specifies 3.209 inches I have amedned the page thus.
Unfortunately I couldn't get to our actual 3 Inch to confirm with a set of calipers because the Armourers from Military Heraldry and Technology advised me it is all packed away in storage.  Therefore I've relied entirely upon printed original source material.
Cheers
Curator Official Records Australian War Memorial
----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.145.242 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's an interesting one - the Stokes mortar was a trench mortar going back to WWI, and I would imagine the WWII era weapon as a mortar would be more flexible in what ammunition it used, say compared to a rifled artillery piece which would need very specific ammunition to work.  The Brandt mortar is the gold standard of its day (although on wiki, at least a couple of months ago if you typed in 81mm Mortar you'd end up with the US weapon, and the French weapon didn't even have its own page - for shame!)  But I don't know the practicalities of how these weapons worked.  A previous change to the calibre on the page resulted in a reversion.  I think the 81mm calibre for the WWII era weapon may be gaining ground, but this is arcane militaria stuff, even to me.  More opinions and facts may be needed to make this one stick Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calibre 

message: Referring to this edit here:
The single most useful content in this article has been removed as 'uncited' presumably because there was a citation tag in the paragraph, even though none of the other paragraphs have any sources, and have not been deleted (might it be better to delete the whole article, just to be on the safe side?), and also the citation refers to materials 'not' including the specs of the mortar - i.e. a citation would somehow have to demonstrate absence, rather than presence, of information, which might be hard if that source was large, and indeed how many sources lacking this information would we have to provide?  The paragraph did contain mention of the two infantry manuals, which if anything is a kind of citation (although I won't pretend to know what the proper wikipedia policy on that is).  Is there a way this information can be returned to the article without it being taken out again?  This is especially important considering the constant reverting we had on the calibre of the weapon before this information came to light.  Personally if the infantry manuals were cited better that might help.  Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this - I'm assuming the 1951 pamphlet is this: INFANTRY TRAINING Volume II. Infantry Heavy Weapons Pamphlet No.21 THE 3-INCH MORTAR 1951. WO8594.  I'm having difficulty finding a more detailed description of the 1963 manual anywhere.  There is also INFANTRY TRAINING Volume II. Infantry Heavy Weapons Pamphlet No.2A THE 81mm MORTAR ( AUSTRALIA). 1965. ( 7610-66-021-1656), but I'm assuming that is the later 81mm model.  I have not viewed these manuals, these are just traces I've found on google.  I'm assuming the person who originally added the paragraph has seen them.  Maybe could do with knowing that yeigh or neigh. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletion of description of calibre