British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Japanese Mortar Round Fuze
- Thread starter moondoggy
- Start date
BOUGAINVILLE
Well-Known Member
Hi moondoogy,
All of the available records and documents that I have seen state that the correct fuze for the Type 100 Mortar is the Type 100 Instantaneous Short-Delay Mortar Fuze. Having said that I have only seen Type 88 Instantaneous Pomegranate Mortar Fuzes (for low velocity ammunition such as Howitzer ammunition). On the ones that I've seen including my own have such Type 88 fuzes. I've heard sugested that these fuzes aren't correct as besides not having mention in available material as being used for mortar ammunition that it needs cetrifugal force to arm them which mortars don't provide. Having said that there have been examples noted of fired mortars that were duds and the graze marks on the mortar line up with the graze marks on the Type 88 Low Velocity Instantaneous Fuze.
Hence I gather then that the low velocity members of the Type 88 family will function on Mortar ammunition with 24mm fuze holes.
Now the Fuze that you have is a Type 88 Slight Delay Graze Action Fuze for high velocity guns (the just visable script states as such). It is not the low velocity version of the same fuze which leeds me to suspect that the mortar was more than likely recovered with shipping plug and the bloke just screwed in the first fuze that was at hand as all of the Type 88 family screw into 24mm fuze holes.
I would like to see what other comment there is as I may not be 100% spot on as I'm only going on information availabe to me and what I have observed.
Hope this is of help.
Cheers,
BOUGAINVILLE
Thanks Bougianville,
I'm not an expert on Japanese fuzes, but I agree with you that this fuze might have been added later by a collector. I have seen several Type 100 mortar rounds for sale in the past without the fuze. This fuze is in pretty good shape and looks good on the mortar round even if it may not be 100% correct. So, I think I'll keep this fuze now. If I ever come across a Type 100 Instantaneous Short-Delay Mortar Fuze in the future, I could always upgrade then. By the way, I like your avatar picture. What is the story there? Is that a WWII antiarcraft gun in the jungle? I have always been curious about your picture.:driver:
I'm not an expert on Japanese fuzes, but I agree with you that this fuze might have been added later by a collector. I have seen several Type 100 mortar rounds for sale in the past without the fuze. This fuze is in pretty good shape and looks good on the mortar round even if it may not be 100% correct. So, I think I'll keep this fuze now. If I ever come across a Type 100 Instantaneous Short-Delay Mortar Fuze in the future, I could always upgrade then. By the way, I like your avatar picture. What is the story there? Is that a WWII antiarcraft gun in the jungle? I have always been curious about your picture.:driver:
Hi Moondoggy,
The second mortar bomb in from the RHS looks like it has the "type 100 delay-inst mortar" fuse (the far right is the Type 93 Delay-Inst version). Both were used on the 81mm mortar bombs according to my reference material. The others on the LHS are Type 88s
But are these Type 97 / Type 99 81mm Mortar?
Can't seem to find any Type 100 80mm????
Cheers
Drew
Here's my Type 93 Delay-Inst Mortar
The second mortar bomb in from the RHS looks like it has the "type 100 delay-inst mortar" fuse (the far right is the Type 93 Delay-Inst version). Both were used on the 81mm mortar bombs according to my reference material. The others on the LHS are Type 88s
But are these Type 97 / Type 99 81mm Mortar?
Can't seem to find any Type 100 80mm????
Cheers
Drew
Here's my Type 93 Delay-Inst Mortar
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi guys,
I pretty much agree with all that Bougainville and Dronic write: yes, the official fuze types are the type 93 and type 100. However, one does not see those types very often, whereas the type 88 instantaneous fuzes are rather ubiquitous. The 81mm mortar rounds are also close to ubiquitous, and it would not surprise me if the Japanese found a way to make the Type 88 instantaneous fuze working on the mortar rounds. Possibly they hand modified it (or did something else) so as to get it to arm without requiring rotation upon firing.
The vast amount of 81mm mortar rounds seen with such fuzes certainly suggests this, and... as Bougainville mentioned, in my own collection I have such a round of which the (alleged!) provenance is that the vet who sold it to the person from whom I got it, said it was a ricochet that landed next to him. The round is equipped with a Type 88 instantaneous fuze, of which the safety wire is still partially in place. It looks like the wire was pulled (in the same action with which the round was released into the mortar), at which point the wire might have broken off (leaving the fuze secured), upon which it was fired, ricocheted off of a rock (leaving dud marks on the striker part of the fuze and on the round), and finally landed in its final position.
Now... as I myself was NOT there when this round allegedly ricocheted off something, all of this should be taken as conjecture, as there is no way for me to tell for sure if this is really what happened, or if it is only a "nicified bar tale, to impress others".
The circumstantial evidence is consistent with it, but it is wildly odd that this type of mortar round would be in wide use with the Type 88 instantaneous fuze, and that NO formal source would mention that, whereas far more bizarre improvised ordnance and booby traps are described in full detail in various documents...
You be the judge, but to stay on the safe side, we should all consider the official documentation to reflect the ONLY proven correct fuze types, but... there certainly is strong support for the possibility that the Type 88 instantaneous fuzes were also used on these mortar rounds...
Cheers,
Olafo
I pretty much agree with all that Bougainville and Dronic write: yes, the official fuze types are the type 93 and type 100. However, one does not see those types very often, whereas the type 88 instantaneous fuzes are rather ubiquitous. The 81mm mortar rounds are also close to ubiquitous, and it would not surprise me if the Japanese found a way to make the Type 88 instantaneous fuze working on the mortar rounds. Possibly they hand modified it (or did something else) so as to get it to arm without requiring rotation upon firing.
The vast amount of 81mm mortar rounds seen with such fuzes certainly suggests this, and... as Bougainville mentioned, in my own collection I have such a round of which the (alleged!) provenance is that the vet who sold it to the person from whom I got it, said it was a ricochet that landed next to him. The round is equipped with a Type 88 instantaneous fuze, of which the safety wire is still partially in place. It looks like the wire was pulled (in the same action with which the round was released into the mortar), at which point the wire might have broken off (leaving the fuze secured), upon which it was fired, ricocheted off of a rock (leaving dud marks on the striker part of the fuze and on the round), and finally landed in its final position.
Now... as I myself was NOT there when this round allegedly ricocheted off something, all of this should be taken as conjecture, as there is no way for me to tell for sure if this is really what happened, or if it is only a "nicified bar tale, to impress others".
The circumstantial evidence is consistent with it, but it is wildly odd that this type of mortar round would be in wide use with the Type 88 instantaneous fuze, and that NO formal source would mention that, whereas far more bizarre improvised ordnance and booby traps are described in full detail in various documents...
You be the judge, but to stay on the safe side, we should all consider the official documentation to reflect the ONLY proven correct fuze types, but... there certainly is strong support for the possibility that the Type 88 instantaneous fuzes were also used on these mortar rounds...
Cheers,
Olafo
Over the years I asked this question to many people particularly knowledgable with Japanese ordnance, in the US, Japan and China. Their overwhelming response has always been, no, the Type 88 is not designed to be used without spin to arm it. To use it in a mortar would be an act of desperation, resulting in a dud unless the quality control was just so poor on that lot as to have no safety left at all.
I worked at dozens of ordnance recovery sites in China, examining significant quantities of ordnance, both fired and unfired. Seeing many Japanese 81mm and 90mm mortars, I never saw one with a Type 88 fuze. Responding to my questions, the Chinese and Japanese munitions specialists (bilateral recovery teams for CW) simply stated - "No, that is the wrong fuze, it was not used for these."
Likewise, in my research in the US National Archive, among all of the photographs examined of captured enemy materials, I never found the Type 88 as recovered with mortars of any caliber.
It may be significant that in the "war stories" that depict the Type 88 being found in a fired mortar, it always is identified in a dud munition.
There have been rumours of an experimental Type 88 that was internally modified and marked as for mortar, but while a few people have heard of it, none that I spoke with had actually seen one.
The Type 88s were a common fuze, much more common than the mortar fuze. Subsequently they were brought back more often as souvenirs by the troops. However, just because it fits doesn't make it the right fuze.
I worked at dozens of ordnance recovery sites in China, examining significant quantities of ordnance, both fired and unfired. Seeing many Japanese 81mm and 90mm mortars, I never saw one with a Type 88 fuze. Responding to my questions, the Chinese and Japanese munitions specialists (bilateral recovery teams for CW) simply stated - "No, that is the wrong fuze, it was not used for these."
Likewise, in my research in the US National Archive, among all of the photographs examined of captured enemy materials, I never found the Type 88 as recovered with mortars of any caliber.
It may be significant that in the "war stories" that depict the Type 88 being found in a fired mortar, it always is identified in a dud munition.
There have been rumours of an experimental Type 88 that was internally modified and marked as for mortar, but while a few people have heard of it, none that I spoke with had actually seen one.
The Type 88s were a common fuze, much more common than the mortar fuze. Subsequently they were brought back more often as souvenirs by the troops. However, just because it fits doesn't make it the right fuze.
BOUGAINVILLE
Well-Known Member
Hi all,
Many thanks US-Subs for your invaluable input. What you write is exactly the kind of information that I wanted to hear.
Would I be right in saying that mortars and artillery rounds would've had transit plugs in place and fuzed only immediately before use. With this in mind it would be more than likely that most mortars taken as souvenirs would've still had transit plugs in place. Bearing in mind that the Type 88 family of fuzes were so common as they were used over a vast range of artillery projectiles of many calibres that a person would've just grabbed one and screwed it into the 24mm hole at a later stage.
A mate of mine in the Philippines says that nearly all of the items of ordnance he finds all have transit plugs in place and haven't been fuzed.
Now I have a mate that has an 81mm mortar that didn't have a fuze when he got it. He had a Type 88 Slight-Delay Fuze on hand so guess where it is now. If he ever parts with the mortar the next person will more than likely think that it is original to mortar. I wonder how many times this has happened before and how many times to come.
Now many of you might not know that there are two variations of both the Type 88 Instantaneous Fuze and the Type 88 Slight-Delay Fuzes. Both have high and low velocity forms which visually are identical except for the script on the body and internally the low velocity versions have a weaker stirrup spring. The low velocity variation requires less centrifugal force to arm it and was used on the likes of the 70mm Howitzer ammunition etc. Even both my 81mm and 90mm mortars sport this low velocity fuse. My bet would be that they were added latter as I pointed out earlier and US-Subs also pointed out, no records exist of such a combination within normal combat usage. It would sound very odd that such detail would be overlooked given that most Japanese mortars in collections now sport such a combination.
Cheers,
BOUGAINVILLE
Many thanks US-Subs for your invaluable input. What you write is exactly the kind of information that I wanted to hear.
Would I be right in saying that mortars and artillery rounds would've had transit plugs in place and fuzed only immediately before use. With this in mind it would be more than likely that most mortars taken as souvenirs would've still had transit plugs in place. Bearing in mind that the Type 88 family of fuzes were so common as they were used over a vast range of artillery projectiles of many calibres that a person would've just grabbed one and screwed it into the 24mm hole at a later stage.
A mate of mine in the Philippines says that nearly all of the items of ordnance he finds all have transit plugs in place and haven't been fuzed.
Now I have a mate that has an 81mm mortar that didn't have a fuze when he got it. He had a Type 88 Slight-Delay Fuze on hand so guess where it is now. If he ever parts with the mortar the next person will more than likely think that it is original to mortar. I wonder how many times this has happened before and how many times to come.
Now many of you might not know that there are two variations of both the Type 88 Instantaneous Fuze and the Type 88 Slight-Delay Fuzes. Both have high and low velocity forms which visually are identical except for the script on the body and internally the low velocity versions have a weaker stirrup spring. The low velocity variation requires less centrifugal force to arm it and was used on the likes of the 70mm Howitzer ammunition etc. Even both my 81mm and 90mm mortars sport this low velocity fuse. My bet would be that they were added latter as I pointed out earlier and US-Subs also pointed out, no records exist of such a combination within normal combat usage. It would sound very odd that such detail would be overlooked given that most Japanese mortars in collections now sport such a combination.
Cheers,
BOUGAINVILLE
About 75% of the field recoveries I've seen were unfuzed and unfired.
I suspect that, as with other areas of collecting, most collectors feel that the round looks much better with a fuze in it, even if it is incorrect. Speaking for myself, I know that I have far less Japanese mortar fuzes than I have mortars.
I suspect that, as with other areas of collecting, most collectors feel that the round looks much better with a fuze in it, even if it is incorrect. Speaking for myself, I know that I have far less Japanese mortar fuzes than I have mortars.
Hi guys,
Firstly: Moondoggy: I delved some deeper into this matter; your fuze is the Type 88 short delay, marked as 'field mountain cannon'. This one, virtually doubtless, is incorrect for a mortar round.
However.... as posted earlier today in a separate thread of mine, you might all want to check out a new theory of mine (regarding the usage of fuzes on Japanese 81mm (and other) mortar rounds)..
After extensive ploughing through documentation, and pictures of actual specimens, I have put together a debatable theory that might just prove to be somewhat of a shell-shock (or better: 'mortar-shock') to the system.
In my opinion, it cannot be dismissed too easily, and when doing true research at times one should step off the beaten track and ask critical questions, otherwise new facts and theories will never evolve.
Having made the above note, please consider a scrutinous dissertation of mine as to a theory I have been developing regarding valid usage of various different types of fuzes on Japanese mortar rounds (particularly on the 81mm mortar rounds).
I pose this at the risk of taking flak, or ridicule even, for it. Yet, I feel these questions need to be posed, and I am anxiously awaiting reactions from those knowledgeable in the area of Japanese ordnance, and/or fuzes. Particularly, I am hoping someone (Mr Fuze, perhaps?) to have sectioned one of (or more) of the Type 88 instantaneous or short delay fuzes that carry the 'Howitzer Mortar' markings on them.
I hope to have tempted all of you enough to indulge in reading the following illustrated dissertation of mine:
http://www.japaneseammunition.com/st...26&sub_cat=197
Finally: a special request: can all of us who have such mortar rounds perhaps tell me how many have Type 93 or Type 100 fuzes, versus the amounts of Type 88 fuzes WITH (and without) the 'howitzer mortar' (instead of the 'field mountain cannon') markings on them?
Jeff: please help me out with some pictures/numbers here!!!
Take notice that the 'Howitzer Mortar' markings are present on the specimen (Type 88 instantaneous) I have at home, so the existance of such a fuze is definitely confirmed. Does anyone have a Type 88 short delay fuze with the 'Howitzer Mortar' markings? Based on the OpNav docs, and the way the 'field mountain cannon' ones are marked, I'm quite positive these MUST exist too!
Enjoy!
Olafo
Firstly: Moondoggy: I delved some deeper into this matter; your fuze is the Type 88 short delay, marked as 'field mountain cannon'. This one, virtually doubtless, is incorrect for a mortar round.
However.... as posted earlier today in a separate thread of mine, you might all want to check out a new theory of mine (regarding the usage of fuzes on Japanese 81mm (and other) mortar rounds)..
After extensive ploughing through documentation, and pictures of actual specimens, I have put together a debatable theory that might just prove to be somewhat of a shell-shock (or better: 'mortar-shock') to the system.
In my opinion, it cannot be dismissed too easily, and when doing true research at times one should step off the beaten track and ask critical questions, otherwise new facts and theories will never evolve.
Having made the above note, please consider a scrutinous dissertation of mine as to a theory I have been developing regarding valid usage of various different types of fuzes on Japanese mortar rounds (particularly on the 81mm mortar rounds).
I pose this at the risk of taking flak, or ridicule even, for it. Yet, I feel these questions need to be posed, and I am anxiously awaiting reactions from those knowledgeable in the area of Japanese ordnance, and/or fuzes. Particularly, I am hoping someone (Mr Fuze, perhaps?) to have sectioned one of (or more) of the Type 88 instantaneous or short delay fuzes that carry the 'Howitzer Mortar' markings on them.
I hope to have tempted all of you enough to indulge in reading the following illustrated dissertation of mine:
http://www.japaneseammunition.com/st...26&sub_cat=197
Finally: a special request: can all of us who have such mortar rounds perhaps tell me how many have Type 93 or Type 100 fuzes, versus the amounts of Type 88 fuzes WITH (and without) the 'howitzer mortar' (instead of the 'field mountain cannon') markings on them?
Jeff: please help me out with some pictures/numbers here!!!
Take notice that the 'Howitzer Mortar' markings are present on the specimen (Type 88 instantaneous) I have at home, so the existance of such a fuze is definitely confirmed. Does anyone have a Type 88 short delay fuze with the 'Howitzer Mortar' markings? Based on the OpNav docs, and the way the 'field mountain cannon' ones are marked, I'm quite positive these MUST exist too!
Enjoy!
Olafo
Last edited:
Hi Olafo,
Yes! :xd:
I have a couple of Type 88 short delay with the identical "Howitzer Mortar" makings as you have highlighted on your website with the Type 88 Instantaneous.
I'll post photos etc once I have rumbled through the pile of Type 88 fuses lying about.
Cheers
Drew
Olafo,
I've read your dissertation at the provided link, while interesting, I find it somewhat flawed and not supported by fact.
As previously mentioned, I personally have never seen a Japanese mortar (81-90mm) recovered in a live condition with a Type 88 fuze. Further, I have spoken with Chinese recovery specialists who agree that they have never seen this. Finally, I have spoken with Japanese recovery specialists who also have not only not seen it, but question why I would ask such a question. For those questioning the Chinese specialists, keep in mind that they see more recovered Japanese ordnance on a regular basis than anyone else in the world, in addition they recovered thousands of tons of Japanese ordnance and used it during the Korean war against UN forces.
I have a reasonable library of references on Japanese ordnance, including over 75 publications from Japanese, US, UK and Australian sources. None refer to the Type 88 as being found, used or proper for the 81mm or 90mm mortar. You make reference in your dissertation to page 165 of OPNAV during the reference to the improvised mortar. It is not linguistically ambiguous, for a native speaker it seems clear to me. Further, in your next paragraph you begin by making assumptions - that mortar fuzes should be available - why, if no mortars are available? You further state that this should not be a standard method of fuzing the 58mm - I suggest that "improvised" munitions found in very limited quantities may not have a "standard" method of fuzing, thereby requiring modification of whatever is available - perhaps a Type 88? In addition, if you go one page further you will find that OPNAV states that it is beyond the scope of the pub to describe the construction or operation of the fuzes, it is for ID only. So the data or lack of data does nothing for your case.
In regard to the war story, it is a war story. Keep in mind that after his finding it someone had to inert it. It was disassembled, parts were removed, maybe the same parts were put back, maybe they were not. The number of war souvenirs that are around today means nothing.90% of the people will stuff any fuze they find in a projectile or mortar, just to make it look "right". Their error or the lack of a correct fuze does not make it right, or factual.
I have gone back through my copies of photos from the National Archive showing captured enemy materials from both WWII and Korea, I have found nothing in these pictures to support your theory.
In regard to your translation of the markings, as an American that has worked with munitions on 6 continents, I am very used to countries having different translations and terms for ordnance. In the west we use mortar-howitzer-gun generally as a definition based on trajectory, but not all use it that way. When working with the Chinese and Japanese one constant issue was booster vs burster. One country used it the way we were used to, the other in the opposite way. As a similar point, a constant problem for me in learning WWII European ordnance was the use of the term "grenade" for projectile, or shell - we find shells on the beach, projectiles on the range.
To finally end this, while I do not doubt that it is possible that this might have been experimented with or considered by the Japanese, I have seen no actual evidence that the Type 88 was ever intended for use on mortars. All factual evidence is contrary.
Sorry, but I think you are looking for a complicated answer to a simple question. How many BOCN members have found a grenade - US, UK, Dutch - with the wrong fuze in it? Happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right. Pull it and replace it with the correct fuze.
I've read your dissertation at the provided link, while interesting, I find it somewhat flawed and not supported by fact.
As previously mentioned, I personally have never seen a Japanese mortar (81-90mm) recovered in a live condition with a Type 88 fuze. Further, I have spoken with Chinese recovery specialists who agree that they have never seen this. Finally, I have spoken with Japanese recovery specialists who also have not only not seen it, but question why I would ask such a question. For those questioning the Chinese specialists, keep in mind that they see more recovered Japanese ordnance on a regular basis than anyone else in the world, in addition they recovered thousands of tons of Japanese ordnance and used it during the Korean war against UN forces.
I have a reasonable library of references on Japanese ordnance, including over 75 publications from Japanese, US, UK and Australian sources. None refer to the Type 88 as being found, used or proper for the 81mm or 90mm mortar. You make reference in your dissertation to page 165 of OPNAV during the reference to the improvised mortar. It is not linguistically ambiguous, for a native speaker it seems clear to me. Further, in your next paragraph you begin by making assumptions - that mortar fuzes should be available - why, if no mortars are available? You further state that this should not be a standard method of fuzing the 58mm - I suggest that "improvised" munitions found in very limited quantities may not have a "standard" method of fuzing, thereby requiring modification of whatever is available - perhaps a Type 88? In addition, if you go one page further you will find that OPNAV states that it is beyond the scope of the pub to describe the construction or operation of the fuzes, it is for ID only. So the data or lack of data does nothing for your case.
In regard to the war story, it is a war story. Keep in mind that after his finding it someone had to inert it. It was disassembled, parts were removed, maybe the same parts were put back, maybe they were not. The number of war souvenirs that are around today means nothing.90% of the people will stuff any fuze they find in a projectile or mortar, just to make it look "right". Their error or the lack of a correct fuze does not make it right, or factual.
I have gone back through my copies of photos from the National Archive showing captured enemy materials from both WWII and Korea, I have found nothing in these pictures to support your theory.
In regard to your translation of the markings, as an American that has worked with munitions on 6 continents, I am very used to countries having different translations and terms for ordnance. In the west we use mortar-howitzer-gun generally as a definition based on trajectory, but not all use it that way. When working with the Chinese and Japanese one constant issue was booster vs burster. One country used it the way we were used to, the other in the opposite way. As a similar point, a constant problem for me in learning WWII European ordnance was the use of the term "grenade" for projectile, or shell - we find shells on the beach, projectiles on the range.
To finally end this, while I do not doubt that it is possible that this might have been experimented with or considered by the Japanese, I have seen no actual evidence that the Type 88 was ever intended for use on mortars. All factual evidence is contrary.
Sorry, but I think you are looking for a complicated answer to a simple question. How many BOCN members have found a grenade - US, UK, Dutch - with the wrong fuze in it? Happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right. Pull it and replace it with the correct fuze.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks a million for your reply; I am not surprised at all by what you write, and in fact, it was the very reason for asking you on and off list for your thoughts. I find that when researching any matter, at times one has to put forward carefully crafted propositions, and then use them as basis for discussion with the true experts.
As mentioned previously (both in and out of the article itself), the theory is as of yet nothing more than that, and for those reasons I too included several nuances in it, and mentioned that your explanation is a very likely to be correct one (it at least certainly is supported by the documentation and your own personal findings).
So yes, I knew that by definition my theory would be 'somewhat flawed' and 'not illustrated by facts' (which is why I added the big red disclaimer text at the beginning of it).
Alright then, to address matters that you wrote, some new insights might evolve. Let's tackle each matter individually, and let it be followed by a new thought (that occurred to me in light of your remarks):
-Documentation: yes, the lack of mention of the Type 88 fuze in the documentation is one of the two things that most troubles me too; such a major oversight would not be likely, and...:
-Field findings: this is the second thing that troubles the theory; one would expect at least one live round to have been encountered by you or your teams with such a Type 88 fuze.
-Improvised mortar rounds: though I do see an ambiguous way of reading it (illustrated by the usage of a comma): "...the Type 88, modified so..." vs. "...the Type 88 modified, so...", such linguistic details may only confuse matters. Yes, I do suppose that for a small test batch manually modified Type 88 fuzes could be used, but (not being a fuze expert) I do have to ask the question just how do-able that is. It seems to me that this would mean having to remove the safety fork, disassemble the entire fuze, move the arming collar down (is that a reversibale action, even?) remove the four wedges, move the arming collar back up in the proper position (if still possible), re-assemble the fuze, and possibly place the safety fork back in position (though that last step would not really be necessary, if the fuze would be used right away). Would it really be likely they would have done that????
In light of the extensive usage of mortars by the IJA, I would expect that plenty of Type 93 and/or Type 100 fuzes would also be available, that wouldn't require all this messing around. Maybe not...
-Fuze markings: I find this very, very difficult to easily dismiss. I shall ask Takehito Jimbo to see if the individual 'Howitzer Mortar' Kanji, can properly (and logically!) read together to indicate one sole weapon, i.e. 'Howitzer'.
But... if you check table no. 3 of "Translation of Japanese Ordnance Markings" (August 1945, A.S.F. Office of the chief of ordnance, Washington D.C.) you will find that (in full) the word 'Howitzer' would have been written as three Kanji (which I can unfortunately not type), reading as "Ryu Dam Po" (translated as: "(common) shell gun"), of which only the first Kanji (i.e. "Ryu") is present of this fuze and on Howitzer ammo charge bags (that have plenty of space for full markings), whereas that same table clearly lists 'mortars' as two Kanji, being 'Kyu Ho' (translated as 'mortar'), of which, again, that very first Kanji appears on the fuze and charge bags! Note also that one line below it, there is even a special indication for rifled mortars, being 'Shi Sen Kyu Ho' (translated as 'rifling mortar') - yet the first Kanji of this does not appear on the fuze.
If you put this next to what you see on the 'cannon' kind fuzes, you see the very same thing happening: the long term for 'field gun' (i.e. 'Ya Ho') is abbreviated into just 'Ya', followed directly by the first Kanji for 'mountain gun' (i.e. 'Sam Po'); followed by a single Kanji abbreviation for 'Cannon' (i.e. 'Ka'); totaling out to the three Kanji sequence 'Ya Sam Ka'.
I stand by my point that both sequences 'Ya Sam Ka' and 'Ryu Kyu' are enumerations. I really don't think the latter can be read as a contraction, but I'll ask Takehito.
Well then, the above gives me some new pointers for further research, as well as other possibilities, as I have not yet seen a good explanation for the presence of the 'mortar' Kanji on the fuze, and until I have seen that, I will continue to delve into finding just such an explanation.
All of the above caused me to look at matters from a different angle of view though, and that's the actual type numbers, in combination with the various fuzes. Fortunately the Type 88 fuze is earlier than the Type 93 fuze (the Type 100 fuze is far later still, so is irrelevant in this aspect); it roughly predates it by 5 years. Now... ALL mentioned smooth bore mortar rounds in OpNav 1667 have later type numbers than '93', so one very interesting finding is that the Type 93 fuze was very likely specifically developed for those smooth bore mortar rounds.
But... what do we find on page 378 of OpNav 1667, and on page 160 of OpNav 30-3M? Yes, a RIFLED 70mm mortar round, very similar to the common 50mm knee mortar rounds.
Not only is this round RIFLED (and hence: could work with a fuze that required rotation to arm!), but also this round CAN take the Type 93 fuze (as stated in both OpNavs), and hence size-wise can also take the Type 88 fuzes. OpNav 30-3M mentions the mortar to be an "Old weapon of poor design and probably obsolescent."
This weapon carries as type the number "Type 11 year", which would (unless I'm mistaken) be "Taisho 11" = 1922! "Showa 11" = 1936, would place this "old" weapon well AFTER the Type 89 (= 1929) knee mortars (not likely)!
Now then... Type 93 translates to 1933, whereas Type 88 translates to 1928. The gap between 1922 and 1928 is a lot smaller than between 1922 and 1933. What would these mortar rounds have been fuzed with all this time in between, if they predated the Type 93 fuzes by 11 years???
Quite possibly this is the solution to the whole issue. Could it perhaps be that the Type 88 fuze (though still 6 years later adopted than the Type 11 year mortar) was designed for such RIFLED mortars, and hence, being indeed destined for a mortar type that DID give spin on the rounds?
This now starts making a lot of sense to me!
Even if this would mean that indeed the Type 88 fuzes should and could not be used on ANY of the smooth bore mortar rounds, it would still be an interesting finding nonetheless, if perhaps this rifled mortar could take such fuzes. This would certainly make all the sense in the world to me in light of the markings found on the Type 88 'Howitzer Mortar' fuzes!
Does anyone perhaps have such a 70mm mortar round that could be studied (i.e. manufacturing date, fuze that came along with it, etc.)?
Cheers,
Olafo
Thanks a million for your reply; I am not surprised at all by what you write, and in fact, it was the very reason for asking you on and off list for your thoughts. I find that when researching any matter, at times one has to put forward carefully crafted propositions, and then use them as basis for discussion with the true experts.
As mentioned previously (both in and out of the article itself), the theory is as of yet nothing more than that, and for those reasons I too included several nuances in it, and mentioned that your explanation is a very likely to be correct one (it at least certainly is supported by the documentation and your own personal findings).
So yes, I knew that by definition my theory would be 'somewhat flawed' and 'not illustrated by facts' (which is why I added the big red disclaimer text at the beginning of it).
Alright then, to address matters that you wrote, some new insights might evolve. Let's tackle each matter individually, and let it be followed by a new thought (that occurred to me in light of your remarks):
-Documentation: yes, the lack of mention of the Type 88 fuze in the documentation is one of the two things that most troubles me too; such a major oversight would not be likely, and...:
-Field findings: this is the second thing that troubles the theory; one would expect at least one live round to have been encountered by you or your teams with such a Type 88 fuze.
-Improvised mortar rounds: though I do see an ambiguous way of reading it (illustrated by the usage of a comma): "...the Type 88, modified so..." vs. "...the Type 88 modified, so...", such linguistic details may only confuse matters. Yes, I do suppose that for a small test batch manually modified Type 88 fuzes could be used, but (not being a fuze expert) I do have to ask the question just how do-able that is. It seems to me that this would mean having to remove the safety fork, disassemble the entire fuze, move the arming collar down (is that a reversibale action, even?) remove the four wedges, move the arming collar back up in the proper position (if still possible), re-assemble the fuze, and possibly place the safety fork back in position (though that last step would not really be necessary, if the fuze would be used right away). Would it really be likely they would have done that????
In light of the extensive usage of mortars by the IJA, I would expect that plenty of Type 93 and/or Type 100 fuzes would also be available, that wouldn't require all this messing around. Maybe not...
-Fuze markings: I find this very, very difficult to easily dismiss. I shall ask Takehito Jimbo to see if the individual 'Howitzer Mortar' Kanji, can properly (and logically!) read together to indicate one sole weapon, i.e. 'Howitzer'.
But... if you check table no. 3 of "Translation of Japanese Ordnance Markings" (August 1945, A.S.F. Office of the chief of ordnance, Washington D.C.) you will find that (in full) the word 'Howitzer' would have been written as three Kanji (which I can unfortunately not type), reading as "Ryu Dam Po" (translated as: "(common) shell gun"), of which only the first Kanji (i.e. "Ryu") is present of this fuze and on Howitzer ammo charge bags (that have plenty of space for full markings), whereas that same table clearly lists 'mortars' as two Kanji, being 'Kyu Ho' (translated as 'mortar'), of which, again, that very first Kanji appears on the fuze and charge bags! Note also that one line below it, there is even a special indication for rifled mortars, being 'Shi Sen Kyu Ho' (translated as 'rifling mortar') - yet the first Kanji of this does not appear on the fuze.
If you put this next to what you see on the 'cannon' kind fuzes, you see the very same thing happening: the long term for 'field gun' (i.e. 'Ya Ho') is abbreviated into just 'Ya', followed directly by the first Kanji for 'mountain gun' (i.e. 'Sam Po'); followed by a single Kanji abbreviation for 'Cannon' (i.e. 'Ka'); totaling out to the three Kanji sequence 'Ya Sam Ka'.
I stand by my point that both sequences 'Ya Sam Ka' and 'Ryu Kyu' are enumerations. I really don't think the latter can be read as a contraction, but I'll ask Takehito.
Well then, the above gives me some new pointers for further research, as well as other possibilities, as I have not yet seen a good explanation for the presence of the 'mortar' Kanji on the fuze, and until I have seen that, I will continue to delve into finding just such an explanation.
All of the above caused me to look at matters from a different angle of view though, and that's the actual type numbers, in combination with the various fuzes. Fortunately the Type 88 fuze is earlier than the Type 93 fuze (the Type 100 fuze is far later still, so is irrelevant in this aspect); it roughly predates it by 5 years. Now... ALL mentioned smooth bore mortar rounds in OpNav 1667 have later type numbers than '93', so one very interesting finding is that the Type 93 fuze was very likely specifically developed for those smooth bore mortar rounds.
But... what do we find on page 378 of OpNav 1667, and on page 160 of OpNav 30-3M? Yes, a RIFLED 70mm mortar round, very similar to the common 50mm knee mortar rounds.
Not only is this round RIFLED (and hence: could work with a fuze that required rotation to arm!), but also this round CAN take the Type 93 fuze (as stated in both OpNavs), and hence size-wise can also take the Type 88 fuzes. OpNav 30-3M mentions the mortar to be an "Old weapon of poor design and probably obsolescent."
This weapon carries as type the number "Type 11 year", which would (unless I'm mistaken) be "Taisho 11" = 1922! "Showa 11" = 1936, would place this "old" weapon well AFTER the Type 89 (= 1929) knee mortars (not likely)!
Now then... Type 93 translates to 1933, whereas Type 88 translates to 1928. The gap between 1922 and 1928 is a lot smaller than between 1922 and 1933. What would these mortar rounds have been fuzed with all this time in between, if they predated the Type 93 fuzes by 11 years???
Quite possibly this is the solution to the whole issue. Could it perhaps be that the Type 88 fuze (though still 6 years later adopted than the Type 11 year mortar) was designed for such RIFLED mortars, and hence, being indeed destined for a mortar type that DID give spin on the rounds?
This now starts making a lot of sense to me!
Even if this would mean that indeed the Type 88 fuzes should and could not be used on ANY of the smooth bore mortar rounds, it would still be an interesting finding nonetheless, if perhaps this rifled mortar could take such fuzes. This would certainly make all the sense in the world to me in light of the markings found on the Type 88 'Howitzer Mortar' fuzes!
Does anyone perhaps have such a 70mm mortar round that could be studied (i.e. manufacturing date, fuze that came along with it, etc.)?
Cheers,
Olafo
Last edited:
Olafo et al,
As promised, here are the photos of the Type 88s:
The first photo shows the Type 88 Instantaneous ones:
LHS - "Howitzer-Mortar" kanji
RHS - "Field Mountain Gun" kanji
The second photo shows the Type 88 Delay ones:
LHS - "Howitzer-Mortar" kanji
RHS - "Field Mountain Gun" kanji
The third photo show my 2 x Type 88 Delay "Howitzer-Mortar" fuses...Yes I'm aware that the top on the LHS ones "looks" unusual and suspect that it has been added to "complete" the fuse - as I have not found any documentation to support this variation.
[as a side note, I would be interested if anyone has seen this "top" type?]
My "observations" and basic research:
Theory is always a good place to start and did find some time cycles today to dig through some docs etc. As I don't unfortunately have any of these that can be dis-assembled, I search for sectionalized diagrams to see if the Howitzer-Mortar related ones had centrifugal components.......no diagrams. no luck! (except one for the Type 88 small, which has centrifugal bits!)
So much for the theory side.....next the practical side.....
The Type 88 Instantaneous "Howitzer-Mortar" shown in photo one (LHS) is functional - i.e. all the moving bits "move" (except of course to the point where I want to dis-assembled it!!!)
So pressing the striker head down moves the striker spring down and releasing it pops back up - that's with the safety pin in place (and I can see the tip of the striker moving from the base view)
Now removing the safety pin has exactly the same effect - pressing the striker head down contacts something very firm, even with sufficient finger force ain't going to budge it any further (perhaps I'm just a whimp?)
..and no I'm ain't going to use a hammer to test if there is a shear wire in place either!
So without a reference sectionalised diagram as a guide, or being able to dis-mantle it, I can only conclude (rightly or wrongly) that there are internal components that still obstruct the vertical displacement of the striker after the safety pin has been removed - which from reading various docs seem to imply centrifugal components. Interesting enough, the RHS one in photo has an internal circular recess mid-body (observed from the base end) and would IMO accommodate the centrifugal parts....
Perhaps Erhard may come to the rescue and provide us with one of his superb sectionalized Type 88 Howitzer-Mortar fuses? as he seems to be sharing a number of Japanese ones lately...
On a side note, are there any wartime production figures for both the Type 88s and more specifically, the Type 100 and Type 93 fuses? As discussed prior, there are billions of Type 88s around, but very little Type 100s or Type 93s in comparison? Perhaps US-Subs may be able to comment here?
My apologies that I'm unable to provide any further useful (or useless) information on this............and time wise, been distracted with a Kamakura period tachi that has been offered to me for sale...
Cheers
Drew
As promised, here are the photos of the Type 88s:
The first photo shows the Type 88 Instantaneous ones:
LHS - "Howitzer-Mortar" kanji
RHS - "Field Mountain Gun" kanji
The second photo shows the Type 88 Delay ones:
LHS - "Howitzer-Mortar" kanji
RHS - "Field Mountain Gun" kanji
The third photo show my 2 x Type 88 Delay "Howitzer-Mortar" fuses...Yes I'm aware that the top on the LHS ones "looks" unusual and suspect that it has been added to "complete" the fuse - as I have not found any documentation to support this variation.
[as a side note, I would be interested if anyone has seen this "top" type?]
My "observations" and basic research:
Theory is always a good place to start and did find some time cycles today to dig through some docs etc. As I don't unfortunately have any of these that can be dis-assembled, I search for sectionalized diagrams to see if the Howitzer-Mortar related ones had centrifugal components.......no diagrams. no luck! (except one for the Type 88 small, which has centrifugal bits!)
So much for the theory side.....next the practical side.....
The Type 88 Instantaneous "Howitzer-Mortar" shown in photo one (LHS) is functional - i.e. all the moving bits "move" (except of course to the point where I want to dis-assembled it!!!)
So pressing the striker head down moves the striker spring down and releasing it pops back up - that's with the safety pin in place (and I can see the tip of the striker moving from the base view)
Now removing the safety pin has exactly the same effect - pressing the striker head down contacts something very firm, even with sufficient finger force ain't going to budge it any further (perhaps I'm just a whimp?)
..and no I'm ain't going to use a hammer to test if there is a shear wire in place either!
So without a reference sectionalised diagram as a guide, or being able to dis-mantle it, I can only conclude (rightly or wrongly) that there are internal components that still obstruct the vertical displacement of the striker after the safety pin has been removed - which from reading various docs seem to imply centrifugal components. Interesting enough, the RHS one in photo has an internal circular recess mid-body (observed from the base end) and would IMO accommodate the centrifugal parts....
Perhaps Erhard may come to the rescue and provide us with one of his superb sectionalized Type 88 Howitzer-Mortar fuses? as he seems to be sharing a number of Japanese ones lately...
On a side note, are there any wartime production figures for both the Type 88s and more specifically, the Type 100 and Type 93 fuses? As discussed prior, there are billions of Type 88s around, but very little Type 100s or Type 93s in comparison? Perhaps US-Subs may be able to comment here?
My apologies that I'm unable to provide any further useful (or useless) information on this............and time wise, been distracted with a Kamakura period tachi that has been offered to me for sale...
Cheers
Drew
Attachments
Drew,
I've never seen any production figures, or even estimates on any Japanese munitions numbers. When I was working with the Chinese and Japanese on Abandoned Chemical Weapons in China, a constant point of friction used to be the inability of the Japanese to estimate the number of CW taken into China, the locations, disposition, etc. With your question in this case you are discussing a much more general munition type, making it even more difficult to track.
Trying to figure out Japanese stuff is difficult at best. There is a lot of conjecture and misunderstanding on many aspects of this. As Olafo says, the common(?) references are filled with many confusing errors. This is why I finally decided to get away from (improve?) the references by photographing physical examples. Once this is done we have factual information. The item is there, its size is identified, there is no doubt to what your eyes tell you. Interpreting this as to what it is and its function may not be so easy, but at least we start with hard evidence.
I was told one time that a Type 88 fuze had been found which was marked only "mortar". I have never seen it, or a photo of it. The person that described it to me was highly reputable (now deceased); I would take anything he had to say about artillery as absolute truth.
Nevertheless, even if assumed to be true this does little to add to our current discussion. Assuming that this current theory was correct, there should then be a glut of fuzes marked only as mortar. Even then, this is assuming that our translation/interpretation of the marking and its use in this context is correct. I've talked with many Japanese and Chinese that have difficulties with this type of translation or even their own understanding (Japanese WWII military/ordnance markings frequently used Chinese characters, much more difficult for todays generation to translate). The confusion is not limited to us in the west.
I've never seen any production figures, or even estimates on any Japanese munitions numbers. When I was working with the Chinese and Japanese on Abandoned Chemical Weapons in China, a constant point of friction used to be the inability of the Japanese to estimate the number of CW taken into China, the locations, disposition, etc. With your question in this case you are discussing a much more general munition type, making it even more difficult to track.
Trying to figure out Japanese stuff is difficult at best. There is a lot of conjecture and misunderstanding on many aspects of this. As Olafo says, the common(?) references are filled with many confusing errors. This is why I finally decided to get away from (improve?) the references by photographing physical examples. Once this is done we have factual information. The item is there, its size is identified, there is no doubt to what your eyes tell you. Interpreting this as to what it is and its function may not be so easy, but at least we start with hard evidence.
I was told one time that a Type 88 fuze had been found which was marked only "mortar". I have never seen it, or a photo of it. The person that described it to me was highly reputable (now deceased); I would take anything he had to say about artillery as absolute truth.
Nevertheless, even if assumed to be true this does little to add to our current discussion. Assuming that this current theory was correct, there should then be a glut of fuzes marked only as mortar. Even then, this is assuming that our translation/interpretation of the marking and its use in this context is correct. I've talked with many Japanese and Chinese that have difficulties with this type of translation or even their own understanding (Japanese WWII military/ordnance markings frequently used Chinese characters, much more difficult for todays generation to translate). The confusion is not limited to us in the west.
Hi again,
Jeff: in the very same minute that Drew posted his post with the fuzes, I posted a yet new possible light on matters: it appears right above Drew's post. Have you seen it?
I wonder what your ideas on this new twist are, as the "plot may be thickening"... :tinysmile_hmm_t2:
Drew: Thanks for those pictures!
Some comments:
-Cross-section drawings of both type of Type 88 fuzes are shown in OpNav 1667 (pages: 398-400). I previously made OpNav 1667 freely available through the following post here: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/japan...html?t=58885&highlight=japanese+documentation
(check the 3rd link).
-Yes, Erhard did section both types of Type 88 fuzes.
Short delay: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/type-88-short-t76535.html?t=76535
Instantaneous: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/type-88-instantaneous-t76538.html?t=76538
Now, in ALL of the above one clearly sees the wedges that would require rotation to move out, but sadly, in NONE of the above mention is made of whether these particular drawings/pictures are of fuzes with the 'Howitzer Mortar' marking, or with the 'Field Mountain Cannon' marking.... In the case of Erhard, we can at least ask.
Soooo, Erhard: if you are reading this: can you please let us know if your sectioned Type 88 fuzes carry the 'Howitzer Mortar' or 'Field Mountain Cannon' markings (also: any chance on showing some detail pictures and/or transcriptions of the markings on a 70mm mortar round you might just have)?
Alright... let's see where this will lead us to...:tinysmile_classes_t
Cheers,
Olafo
Jeff: in the very same minute that Drew posted his post with the fuzes, I posted a yet new possible light on matters: it appears right above Drew's post. Have you seen it?
I wonder what your ideas on this new twist are, as the "plot may be thickening"... :tinysmile_hmm_t2:
Drew: Thanks for those pictures!
Some comments:
-Cross-section drawings of both type of Type 88 fuzes are shown in OpNav 1667 (pages: 398-400). I previously made OpNav 1667 freely available through the following post here: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/japan...html?t=58885&highlight=japanese+documentation
(check the 3rd link).
-Yes, Erhard did section both types of Type 88 fuzes.
Short delay: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/type-88-short-t76535.html?t=76535
Instantaneous: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/type-88-instantaneous-t76538.html?t=76538
Now, in ALL of the above one clearly sees the wedges that would require rotation to move out, but sadly, in NONE of the above mention is made of whether these particular drawings/pictures are of fuzes with the 'Howitzer Mortar' marking, or with the 'Field Mountain Cannon' marking.... In the case of Erhard, we can at least ask.
Soooo, Erhard: if you are reading this: can you please let us know if your sectioned Type 88 fuzes carry the 'Howitzer Mortar' or 'Field Mountain Cannon' markings (also: any chance on showing some detail pictures and/or transcriptions of the markings on a 70mm mortar round you might just have)?
Alright... let's see where this will lead us to...:tinysmile_classes_t
Cheers,
Olafo
Last edited:
Olafo,
you just refuse to give up, eh? The 70mm is a possibility, though there is very little available info on it. There are a number of them around, I have seen 6-7, but most are in collections where there owners are very quiet and have not allowed me to photograph them. The only ones I observed that were fuzed had the normal mortar fuzes installed, but this means nothing. The nicest one was in storage at the Aberdeen museum, and when I observed it no fuze was installed.
I've got a few references I can check for more data on the 70mm, I'll look this weekend.
you just refuse to give up, eh? The 70mm is a possibility, though there is very little available info on it. There are a number of them around, I have seen 6-7, but most are in collections where there owners are very quiet and have not allowed me to photograph them. The only ones I observed that were fuzed had the normal mortar fuzes installed, but this means nothing. The nicest one was in storage at the Aberdeen museum, and when I observed it no fuze was installed.
I've got a few references I can check for more data on the 70mm, I'll look this weekend.
Lou
Well-Known Member
Awesome debate guys,,,
((((The vast amount of 81mm mortar rounds seen with such fuzes certainly suggests this, and... as Bougainville mentioned, in my own collection I have such a round of which the (alleged!) provenance is that the vet who sold it to the person from whom I got it, said it was a ricochet that landed next to him. The round is equipped with a Type 88 instantaneous fuze, of which the safety wire is still partially in place. It looks like the wire was pulled (in the same action with which the round was released into the mortar), at which point the wire might have broken off (leaving the fuze secured), upon which it was fired, ricocheted off of a rock (leaving dud marks on the striker part of the fuze and on the round), and finally landed in its final position.
Now... as I myself was NOT there when this round allegedly ricocheted off something, all of this should be taken as conjecture, as there is no way for me to tell for sure if this is really what happened, or if it is only a "nicified bar tale, to impress others".)))
If theres one important lesson Ive learned,is to get some type of documentation when an item such as this is found and put into the collecters stream. I cant keep up with you guys on all the technical stuff,although Im learning,and I for sure havent the life experience of some of you,and my Japanese ord collection and knowlege just plain suck! But,for what little its worth,I found this mortar,obtained it from said vet,along with the story,with no embellishment on my part. In the future,if it happens again,I'll get some kind of notarized document to preserve the provenance.What part that will play in the science of identification and use in battle,I'll let you guys figure out!!!!
Olaf,If ever youd like a refund Id be more than happy to oblige.:tinysmile_twink_t2:
((((The vast amount of 81mm mortar rounds seen with such fuzes certainly suggests this, and... as Bougainville mentioned, in my own collection I have such a round of which the (alleged!) provenance is that the vet who sold it to the person from whom I got it, said it was a ricochet that landed next to him. The round is equipped with a Type 88 instantaneous fuze, of which the safety wire is still partially in place. It looks like the wire was pulled (in the same action with which the round was released into the mortar), at which point the wire might have broken off (leaving the fuze secured), upon which it was fired, ricocheted off of a rock (leaving dud marks on the striker part of the fuze and on the round), and finally landed in its final position.
Now... as I myself was NOT there when this round allegedly ricocheted off something, all of this should be taken as conjecture, as there is no way for me to tell for sure if this is really what happened, or if it is only a "nicified bar tale, to impress others".)))
If theres one important lesson Ive learned,is to get some type of documentation when an item such as this is found and put into the collecters stream. I cant keep up with you guys on all the technical stuff,although Im learning,and I for sure havent the life experience of some of you,and my Japanese ord collection and knowlege just plain suck! But,for what little its worth,I found this mortar,obtained it from said vet,along with the story,with no embellishment on my part. In the future,if it happens again,I'll get some kind of notarized document to preserve the provenance.What part that will play in the science of identification and use in battle,I'll let you guys figure out!!!!
Olaf,If ever youd like a refund Id be more than happy to oblige.:tinysmile_twink_t2:
Last edited:
Hi guys,
Jeff: "you just refuse to give up, eh?"
Yep, until completely disproven, you'll have me hanging on here. :tinysmile_classes_t
If you manage to check the 70mm mortar reference material, it would be great if you could also check the date markings too. 'Type 11 year' cannot possibly be a Meiji date (too early) nor a Koki date (too late), so we're left with the possibilities of Taisho 11 and Showa 11, and out of those, only the former seems to be a truly viable option. Still, it would be good to get this verified too. Surely the specimens you come across where manufactured BEFORE Showa 11 (i.e. 1936).
BTW: In the meantime I've sent off an e-mail to Takehito to ask if there is a possible logical way that the 'Howitzer Mortar' Kanji can be read as (just) 'Howitzer'. I'll let you know when I have his answer (which I'm anxiously awaiting)... :tinysmile_hmm_t:
Lou: No worries about me asking for refunds; I'm well happy with the mortar round... never mind the controversy it brought! :tinysmile_classes_t
As for the vet story: it's certainly good to hear that you didn't spice it up. It would be great if the vet himself could tell some more details about it, but yes, I do agree with Jeff (and this has been stated in my article too) that one must treat these stories and the reassembling process with care.
Cheers,
Olafo
Jeff: "you just refuse to give up, eh?"
Yep, until completely disproven, you'll have me hanging on here. :tinysmile_classes_t
If you manage to check the 70mm mortar reference material, it would be great if you could also check the date markings too. 'Type 11 year' cannot possibly be a Meiji date (too early) nor a Koki date (too late), so we're left with the possibilities of Taisho 11 and Showa 11, and out of those, only the former seems to be a truly viable option. Still, it would be good to get this verified too. Surely the specimens you come across where manufactured BEFORE Showa 11 (i.e. 1936).
BTW: In the meantime I've sent off an e-mail to Takehito to ask if there is a possible logical way that the 'Howitzer Mortar' Kanji can be read as (just) 'Howitzer'. I'll let you know when I have his answer (which I'm anxiously awaiting)... :tinysmile_hmm_t:
Lou: No worries about me asking for refunds; I'm well happy with the mortar round... never mind the controversy it brought! :tinysmile_classes_t
As for the vet story: it's certainly good to hear that you didn't spice it up. It would be great if the vet himself could tell some more details about it, but yes, I do agree with Jeff (and this has been stated in my article too) that one must treat these stories and the reassembling process with care.
Cheers,
Olafo
BOUGAINVILLE
Well-Known Member
Hi all,
A very interesting debate. I am pressed for time to write at length but I will throw my weight behind US-Subs in this matter.
I have both variations of the Type 88 Instantaneous Fuzes and the only difference being the weaker stirup spring thus meaning less velocity was needed with use with howiters. Rotation was still required which rules out smooth bore rounds.
Also as stated before, most mortars would've been recovered with transit plugs and any fuze that fitted was just screwed in to "make it look good"
Sorry about the short reply. In a hurry and short of time.
Cheers,
BOUGAINVILLE
A very interesting debate. I am pressed for time to write at length but I will throw my weight behind US-Subs in this matter.
I have both variations of the Type 88 Instantaneous Fuzes and the only difference being the weaker stirup spring thus meaning less velocity was needed with use with howiters. Rotation was still required which rules out smooth bore rounds.
Also as stated before, most mortars would've been recovered with transit plugs and any fuze that fitted was just screwed in to "make it look good"
Sorry about the short reply. In a hurry and short of time.
Cheers,
BOUGAINVILLE