Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Just Mortars
Message-ID: <8753@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Aug 89 13:03:29 GMT
References: <8033@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8481@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 35
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant))

In article <8481@cbnews.ATT.COM> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes:
>12" sounds a bit high.  4.2" was very common.  the only 12" seacoast
[stuff deleted]
>at Ft. Desoto park, just south of St. Petersburg, Florida, a 4.2"
>battery of mortars has been preserved in fairly good condition.
[stuff deleted]
>the 4.2" coast defense weapons had no particular
>provision for recoil, and the stress on the mounting and the
>concrete foundation underneath must have been tremendous.
[stuff deleted]
>are there any mortars with
>special provisions for recoil, or is this considered an
>unnecessary frill?
>

Well i live here, picnic here, and the mortars [howitzers?] I saw
were a lot bigger that 4.2" in diameter. 8" ?? 

however I do not have that on paper, and maybe they looked bigger
than they were :-)

They Did have gawd-awful big springs mounted under them.
Could these have have been just to offset elevation loads ??

also there were concrete circles for 4 per bay but only two mortars
(as you said)

[looking at this impressive between-the-wars tech, never used,
was a reflective experience]

Dave Cameron