Talk:Fragmentation (weaponry)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by 62.196.17.197 in topic Shrapnel pedantry
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shrapnel pedantry
editClearly it's correct to point out that shrapnel was originally balls from a specialist munition. From At least 1945 however (http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/shrapnel.html) it's been used to refer to fragments from this or any other type of shell' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrapnel)
- To be honest the overemphasis on terminology - the bulk of the article is a pedantic discussion of the difference between shrapnel and fragmentation - stinks of autism. A problem that Wikipedia has in spades. The article tells us almost nothing about either shrapnel or fragmentation and lots about the author. I mean, who is the author trying to impress? Does he - it's a man - expect R Lee Ermey to give him a medal and tuck him in at night? 91.125.107.109 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Either someone fixed it or there seems not to be a problem. Although I'm not sure that the bit about being possible to retrieve and re-use the cases from a shrapnel round is correct. I'm not sure anyone would have even tried... 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Checked - the only reason I can find for recovering shrapnel shell bodies historically was to police up those fired by the enemy and use the fuse settings compared to the impact location to plot how far away the gun that fired it was. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
technical terminology
editThe correct technical terminology of these pieces is "fragmentation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)