This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Given that everything I've ever read about the Brixia mortar is far less complimentary than this article seems to be (without sources, by the way), I'm a little suspicious of some of the claims made. For example, we learn that "in the hand of skilled operators" the Brixia was actually "superior" to other mortars and was capable of laying down "very precise and intense curtains of fire", yet we are soon to learn that these curtains of fire were produced by shells that were too small and fragmented poorly. To my ears, that smacks of being contradictory. Now, I'm not conspiratorial by nature, but I have noticed over the years a number of articles on Italian military hardware from the war years that are, shall we say, far more laudatory than published sources tend to be. Indeed, in the case of the Brixia mortar, the consensus seems to be that it was notable only for being overly complicated and ineffective.--172.129.216.23 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
In The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapon of World War II Ian Hogg (who can generally be reckoned to know of what he writes), described the device in question as the most complicated way ever devised to throw a small amount of explosive a short distance. It may well have been more accurate and potentially capable of more rapid fire, but it was heavy, overcomplicated, expensive to produce and fired an anaemic round. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
