Talk:Blacker Bombard

New version of article
I've been bold and replaced the old article with my new version, from one of my sandboxes, that I've been working on for a while. It's sourced to several books and a good website that actually cites its sources, and I think it's comprehensive. There are a few more details that could be added that I couldn't find reliable sources for (or sources at all, indeed) but hopefully they'll be found eventually, and they're not essential. Please revert if required, although I'd hope it isn't. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Skinny87: Excellent work, a really significant improvement. Perhaps the article can be worked towards GA status? In the meanwhile, just a couple of things you may be able to clarify and possibly provide references for:


 * A part of the article reads: "... the spigot design failed to generate the required velocity to penetrate armour." This is a bit confusing as I am pretty sure that no mortar design could ever hope to penetrate armour by velocity. As I understand it, the key to the bombard being able to penetrate armour lay in the use of "squash head" technology that was pioneered in the sticky bomb (that may have been Millis Jefferis contribution to the design).
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. But it's what Hogg says in his book, as well as a couple of others I looked at for the article.


 * "A number of Bombards were also modified for use by the Royal Navy, and were used as an anti-submarine weapon known as the Hedgehog". Well, the navy may have experimented with the bombard as it was, but the article should make it clear that the hedgehog was a quite different design. What it had in common was being based on the spigot mortar with Blacker using his experience to help with the design.


 * Hmm, the problem is that my sources literally only mention it was modified and used by the Navy. Perhaps I could amend it to 'heavily modified'? Either that, or I'll need to find a book on the Hedgehog or ASW stuff - perhaps you have something?


 * There is quite a long section about how Blacker drew on his spigot mortar experience to develop the PIAT in the PIAT article. Some mention of this inheritance should be mentioned here. The PIAT had a better spigot that took some of the recoil, of course what made it possible to crack into a tank with an even smaller warhead was the use of a shaped charge.
 * Good point, I'll append a couple of sentences onto the end of the development section after I've finished with the Northover Projector


 * Looked at the PIAT article, but not sure what to append, and for what length? Especially galling as I wrote that article, lol. Do you have any ideas - perhaps do a mock-up of a paragraph here?


 * Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've interspersed my answers with your questions, for ease of reading. One thing I should point out, is that I'm having difficulty going into a lot of detail with some aspects of these weapons - information can be a bit limited and/or vague at times. Skinny87 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Skinny87: You are right, there really is not much published work out there. However, it was a product of MD1 and, once again, Stuart Macrae's Winston Churchills Toyshop is the place to look. Also, I think there must be something about the hedgehog in Gerald Pawle's The Secret War though I really cannot remember just now. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Inserted Images of Concrete Pedistals
Bombard pedistals survive in comparatively large numbers and are a feature of the British countryside. They are one of the more common present-day survivors of the 1940 anti-invasion preparations. Therefore I feel a pictures of one in use and a surviving Bombard emplacement are justified. Catsmeat (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture is fine, a good find. But please don't add uncited information to articles; if you can find a reliable source for the information, then please re-add the information with the citation. Skinny87 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Catsmeat (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blacker Bombard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120113324/http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/spigotmortarpage.htm to http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/spigotmortarpage.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120113324/http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/spigotmortarpage.htm to http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/spigotmortarpage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

a minor edit
A scan of the user manual for this weapon can be found online and it gives a different total weight to that given in the article for the portable version of the gadget. The difference I think is the mounting tools. I've amended to reflect that weight, because I guess it's not really portable at the lower weight if you can only get there without the tool kit.Tirailleur (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)