Nasty Accident?

ttaskmaster said:
But with all the stuff on TV and the like, most would at least know the difference between a little .50 cal 'bullet' and a massive great 60mm mortar round... although reading the article, I think there may have been further confusion over the difference between an actual mortar round and a standard cased artillery shell anyway, since there is no 57mm mortar round that I've ever heard of, and that is now being perpetuated across the various media outlets like an incestuous STD.
Normally not that much of a factor and just media talking ********, but in the case of mortar rounds (which this appears not to have been, anyway) and just my morbid curiosity as to how you'd get the damn thing out safely, a live one would have different implications on whether you could operate or not compared to an artillery shell.
Click to expand...

I have almost no idea of the difference between a mortar round and an artillery shell, so I'm no use to you there. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that most people in the UK would think that "50 cal" would be 50mm in diameter. If they'd heard it on TV, they would have heard "50 cal". Not ".50". And bullets are measured in mm, right? Almost everyone has heard of "9mm" in that context. I think there's plenty of scope for misunderstanding.

I thought this was, via a sister who works there, from the nurses' direct? That's what the assertion implies.
Click to expand...

I missed that. Looking back, that was stated as an initial assumption. Which might well have been before anyone in the hospital had seen it. Presumably it would have been completely inside the patient or else they'd have been able to get it out themself.
 
Angilion said:
But I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that most people in the UK would think that "50 cal" would be 50mm in diameter. If they'd heard it on TV, they would have heard "50 cal". Not ".50". And bullets are measured in mm, right?
Click to expand...
Given how many films and TV shows feature such things, I'm inclined to think otherwise. The girls at work are the last people I'd expect to know much about this stuff, but even they've seen enough action/war films and the like to get it roughly correct when I asked them yesterday. 50cal is commonly showcased as sniper weapons in a lot of modern programs and films so it's quite commonly known, just like 9mm is for pistols. Perhaps not as well known as "a Forty-Four Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, which would blow your head clean off"... but I guess stuff like Band Of Brothers, The Pacific, and so on all impart some knowledge.
Have to say, I was a little impressed with how much they did know!

Angilion said:
I missed that. Looking back, that was stated as an initial assumption. Which might well have been before anyone in the hospital had seen it. Presumably it would have been completely inside the patient or else they'd have been able to get it out themself.
Click to expand...
I'm led to understand from the posts above that they didn't want to touch it because it was thought to be a live round, and Dave Halls wasn't around to confirm it was 'cold' :p

The only 57mm shell I know of is the Bofors one, which is over 400mm long - I don't believe that would fit in its entirety inside someone... though I'm not especially interested in any research that clarifies that particular issue, either![/quote]
 
Last edited:

A bit of a quoting mishap there...anyway, the news article linked to in the OP stated that the object was 170mm long. Rather more..."practical in this context", to put it politely...than one over 400mm long. Although who knows how accurate that article is...they referred to it as an anti-tank mortar shell from WW2 that was also used as ammunition by tanks. Unless I've completely misunderstood things, you'd have a hell of a job reliably hitting a tank with a WW2 mortar. Also...were tanks equipped with mortars?
 
Angilion said:
A bit of a quoting mishap there...anyway, the news article linked to in the OP stated that the object was 170mm long. Rather more..."practical in this context", to put it politely...than one over 400mm long. Although who knows how accurate that article is...they referred to it as an anti-tank mortar shell from WW2 that was also used as ammunition by tanks. Unless I've completely misunderstood things, you'd have a hell of a job reliably hitting a tank with a WW2 mortar. Also...were tanks equipped with mortars?
Click to expand...
I'm trying not to rely too much on the accuracy of a news article anyway, but regarding hitting a tank with a mortar - presuming a 60mm Brandt type mortar (a design mostly unchanged since WW1), as that's what I have the most experience with - While it's somewhat difficult, it's not beyond the capabilities of a reasonably good team. Assuming you're not already laid in with pre-sighted target ranges, it works best if the gunner can see the target himself, as it negates the delay in an observer relaying fire directions. You don't need pinpoint accuracy, as the round has a 21yd blast radius, but obviously the closer you splash the better. Tanks are also easier to hit as they tend to stop for a few seconds in order to fire, and they don't move particularly fast so you can 'lead' your aim, as it were.
We also have types of fire called searching and creeping, which are methods of bracketing fire that enclose your intended target, and as long as you have enough rounds prepped you can fire anything between a relaxed 15 and a frightening 30 rounds per minute... so unless the tank is going at over 40mph, they will be caught in the blasts. The problem is that 60mm rounds aren't that powerful against armour. Larger calibres are more powerful, but can also be slower to lay in.
There are some self-propelled mortars, as with most types of artillery, although they're not technically tanks. The Americans have several of them.

Near as I can see, they did just mean a 57mm artillery round which is in essence just a really big cased round, rather than a mortar bomb. Mortar rounds look more like small aircraft bombs, with fins at the back.
 
ttaskmaster said:
I'm trying not to rely too much on the accuracy of a news article anyway, but regarding hitting a tank with a mortar - presuming a 60mm Brandt type mortar (a design mostly unchanged since WW1), as that's what I have the most experience with - While it's somewhat difficult, it's not beyond the capabilities of a reasonably good team. Assuming you're not already laid in with pre-sighted target ranges, it works best if the gunner can see the target himself, as it negates the delay in an observer relaying fire directions. You don't need pinpoint accuracy, as the round has a 21yd blast radius, but obviously the closer you splash the better. Tanks are also easier to hit as they tend to stop for a few seconds in order to fire, and they don't move particularly fast so you can 'lead' your aim, as it were.
We also have types of fire called searching and creeping, which are methods of bracketing fire that enclose your intended target, and as long as you have enough rounds prepped you can fire anything between a relaxed 15 and a frightening 30 rounds per minute... so unless the tank is going at over 40mph, they will be caught in the blasts. The problem is that 60mm rounds aren't that powerful against armour. Larger calibres are more powerful, but can also be slower to lay in.
There are some self-propelled mortars, as with most types of artillery, although they're not technically tanks. The Americans have several of them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer and relevant details. Seems like I had misunderstood things, severely underestimating how accurately and how quickly trained people can use a mortar. Also, I was thinking in terms of direct hits only. Which in hindsight was obviously wrong with stuff that explodes.
 
Angilion said:
Thanks for the answer and relevant details. Seems like I had misunderstood things, severely underestimating how accurately and how quickly trained people can use a mortar. Also, I was thinking in terms of direct hits only. Which in hindsight was obviously wrong with stuff that explodes.
Click to expand...
The main concern with mortar rounds is that they have a point-detonating fuse. Basically when you push the tip in, they trigger and explode... which is why this situation would present some unique problems, if that were indeed a live round, as he'd certainly never get it up there without removing the safety wire which would mean it's not only live but potentially armed.

Even still, most artillery is designed to burst shrapnel circumferentially, so even if it's the 57mm shell it sounds like, that's a very messy operating theatre if it goes wrong!
 
Angilion said:
Unless I've completely misunderstood things, you'd have a hell of a job reliably hitting a tank with a WW2 mortar.
Click to expand...
wasnt there a guy in ww2 that got some british medal for charging tanks with a mortar and aiming it from the hip lol

oh wait I think it was a PIAT

not really that different to a mortar though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom