Ogilwy Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 BJ, That's it! I give in!! If anyone wants me I'll be sitting in a dark room mumbling to my self! Yes, I know, no change there then!! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerhunter Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 I agree with your critics. You ain't gonna make no friends puffing out your professional chest. People use the term 'shell case' to indicate an artillery, as distinct from SAA, propellant casing. Just as they use 'bullet head' to indicate the top end of the assembly popularly called a 'bullet'. Language is a democratic thing, and words mean whatever the folk in the conversation think they mean, whatever your opinion or mine. If you're going to ignore the postings, you don't have to bother to reply. Regards, MikBw I disagree completely. Using the correct nomenclature is important for accurate communication. Pointing out errors (kindly) in posts helps neewbies to ask their questions more accurately, thus more understandably, and thus get better answers. For example "shell case" has a specific meaning - it is not just another word/phrase for cartridge case. BTW as to bullet head, what on earth is that supposed to mean? A bullet is a bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 Dear All, I have read a number of threads like this on GWF. The arguments over the use of terminology such as "shell cases" or "fuse" have, without exception, ruined the pleasure and interest to be derived from reading the thread. Regards, Michael. Totally agree Michael You get this as soon as someone dons the hat marked 'Pedant'. I wonder what these people call their cars? Automobiles, perambulation devices, horseless carriages? You just have to laugh sometimes. Do they question everything in the English language? I thought this was a good thread. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 John, I agree it is a good thread. I live by the correct terminology being used, but understand that others do not speak the language and have to start somewhere. When delivered in a non-offensive manner pointing out the correct terms, why not, but it is the perogative of the individual if they wish to adopt what is passed. This is not something worth falling out over! If the used terminology is ambiguous to the point of being unclear then a simple request for clarification is all that is required. I am probably the worst person for correct terminology - it's my job, I can't turn it off ! However any corrections made have always been, and always will be intended in the best possible way. One of my main reasons for this is that I find when I am researching at work the use of correct terminology is essential and both makes it easier to find the information and throws up far more information in the first place. Rod Oh, and if you think you've got problems, an Officer has just delivered an entire presentation and spelt fuze wrong on every powerpoint slide! Time to deploy the learning stick!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 Oh, and if you think you've got problems, an Officer has just delivered an entire presentation and spelt fuze wrong on every powerpoint slide! Time to deploy the learning stick!! Rod For all my faults I never use fuze / fuse in the wrong context. I expect your Officer made the mistake of using spell check on Powerpoint. 'Change all' is a very dangerous command! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 Where does the term 'shell body' fit into the nomenclature? I use it for the forged/machined projectile prior to filling and the fitting of the fuze and then call the finished article a 'shell', so I don't seem to need the term 'shell case' in the sense that Nigel uses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 I disagree completely. Using the correct nomenclature is important for accurate communication. Pointing out errors (kindly) in posts helps neewbies to ask their questions more accurately, thus more understandably, and thus get better answers. For example "shell case" has a specific meaning - it is not just another word/phrase for cartridge case. BTW as to bullet head, what on earth is that supposed to mean? A bullet is a bullet. Key word in bold italics. Reference to arses and elbows not required. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 I'd ignore anyone who refers to a cart case as a shell case, clear case of inability to differentiate arrsse from elbow. WW1 shell cases are plentiful - all those shrapnel shells - but being steel haven't worn as well as brass cart cases. What particularly grates in the above is 'cart case'. What hope is there for the poor uninitiated if they have to learn the patois of the illuminati as well as the correct technical terminology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 SG, The term 'Shell Body' to describe the fabric of the shell or projectile is acceptable in my world. The description the shell went off however !!!!! Fruit goes off ammunition functions! You are quite right to point out our usage of patois specific to the inner circle. We are all guilty of that one and I must admit that I have to be particularly careful of avoiding that error. Still nothing Venturied nothing Gaine 'd' ! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 ... patois specific to the inner circle. Still nothing Venturied nothing Gaine 'd' ! We fuze, we happy fuze, we driving band of brothers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenchtrotter Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 I suggest instead of hi jacking people's threads those so concerned about correct terminology should start a new thread on correct terminology. They can contribute and discuss and educate and laugh at and criticise damned civvies and their ignorance to high heaven.For the masses a shell goes off or bang, a fuse may be a fuse and a shell could be something a snail or whelk calls home.Does it really matter so much to get hot under the collar about? I agree with Micheal that good threads are so ruined. My knowledge of the Great War is neither enhanced or lessened coz I spell it fuse and call it a shell.I appreciate I have contributed to the off tangent discussion for which I apologise or is it proper to use the word sorry?I am most humble to be your civvie.TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 9 February , 2015 Share Posted 9 February , 2015 Well said. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 It's an interesting question as to when in UK usage Fuze became the correct spelling for the initiation device in a munition. It's the spelling used in the current NATO glossary, but the OED doesn't seem to have caught up (but I may be using an old edition). It's also spelt with a z in Arty Notes No 2 FA Ammo (Jan 1916) and 'Notes On Gunnery' 1918, (that's a hint to users of this site) and everywhere thereafter I don't have anything earlier to hand), so clearly OED is a tad under-informed. I've got MikeB on my "to be educated properly" list as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 nigelfe, The English language never makes sense to me (Yorkshireman - I hardly even speak it!) but add in the military differences and it is beyond hope. What has occured is that at a time where I have particular personnal troubles this has cheered me up. Thanks everyone ! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 I've got MikeB on my "to be educated properly" list as well. I don't think I need that - I'm generally well aware of the nomenclature. I just don't go stomping on posters who aren't. Especially when they've posted pictures that make it completely clear what they mean. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 11 February , 2015 Share Posted 11 February , 2015 I'm always ready to try and help :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve10 Posted 11 February , 2015 Share Posted 11 February , 2015 #39 sorry to hear that Rod. Hope everything works out for you sir. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 11 February , 2015 Share Posted 11 February , 2015 Nigel, Steve, Thanks, personal stuff intruding on my life! Thanks for the offers it will be Ok I'm sure. The attitude and friendship that this forum has is unbelievably good, I do not know of another that can get close to matching it. Must go and watch some random bafoonery! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 11 February , 2015 Share Posted 11 February , 2015 Hi 31543 Ogilwy, Since this thread has deviated from the original question I wonder if I can ask you a question. You have made a number of posts about the lethal danger of potentially live ordnance and we do, I am sure, accept everything you have written. I am uncertain how you view collections of grenades, shells, etc. and perhaps you feel that they should all be destroyed. That aside, my question is whether, once you have inspected an item and found it to be inert, there any marking/certificate that is applied to that item so that, in future, those handling it, including dealers, know for certain that it is indeed inert. I have one shell that is marked free from explosive but only in felt tip and the marking could have been applied by anyone. For the rest of my collection I have had to rely on my own examination. I will appreciate any information. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 Michael, My personal view, is that they should not be destroyed as they are antique / collectables in their own right. I do however believe that they should be certified Free From Explosives by a controlled, approved and regulated body. It is no different to deactivating firearms. The one cry I hear stampeding towards this comment is, "It will cost too much". I suggest that the cost needs to be comesurate with the task conducted and to make it affordable by people. and self funding. On the up side it would help to stop DIY 'Inerting' and the inhearent risks therein, It would help to stop the illegal importation by making authorised items identifiable. Stopping people from enjoying hobbies is not right, but ensuring the safety of everyone is essential and if it can be done so both are achieved then all the better. I stress this is my personal opinion and in no way is a comment from anyone I may work for now or in the past. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 Rod, Many thanks for your thoughts. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanmak Posted 13 February , 2015 Share Posted 13 February , 2015 I do concur with Rod. I think removing the massive grey area around collecting would make life much easier for legitimate collectors and harder for the unscrupulous collectors which give every responsible collector a bad name unfortunately. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 14 February , 2015 Share Posted 14 February , 2015 If I was a firefighter I probably wouldn't be too amused by the prospect of live explosives being around, while they would probably only burn (very hotly) detonation is not entirely impossible if an explosive 'chain' is present. In event of a accident of this sort the householder's legal liability could be 'interesting', particularly if someone was injured. Could end up as a guest of Her Maj? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted 23 February , 2015 Author Share Posted 23 February , 2015 Many thanks to those who have responded to my post with regards to the questions on identifying the spent artillery rounds/cases/shells/ cartridges or which ever you prefer. Also thanks to those who kindly corrected and educated me on proper terminology to use. Much appreciated. For those that carried on like pompous twits when doing so I suggest you find the closest 8 pounder and ram it far up in your barrel. Which is kindly putting it for an Australian. But there’s no need to get our knickers in a twist. That aside… Back to the markings and task at hand. Could anyone recommended someone who is an expert or an authority on WW1 artillery Cartridges/ Casings so they can be contacted to obtain more detailed information on the markings and vouch for the dates of manufacture? It will be a great help towards stopping more counterfeits. The issues with these Cartridges is on going and I hope to keep those interested informed. All responses regarding a recommendation only would be appreciated. If you have something you need to get off your chest and have the need to express yourself, feel free but please keep it kind and friendly or otherwise start another topic. Many Thanks and Kind Regards Ark Remembering my Great Uncle. Private Thomas Hogan. 1st Australian Division, 9th Battalion, 3rd Inf Brigade. Killed in Pozieres 23rd Of July 1916. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 24 February , 2015 Share Posted 24 February , 2015 Ark, PM me with all the details, (Pics if clear are good) and I'll de-code them for you at work. Don't tell the Missus though, she's a Kiwi and has certain opinions about Aussies!! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now