Last week CJ Chivers introduced us to the “short stub case.” His argument was that to be used in a breech-loaded mortar system (such as the AMOS or NEMO) a ‘short stub case’ is needed. Since no short stub cases were found in Misrata a breech-loaded system couldn’t have fired the shells.
The trouble with this argument is explained in a recent patent application by BAE Systems:
When stub case weapon systems are fired, the stub case separates from the round. Thereafter, the stub case must be removed from the breech. Because of the relatively high temperatures generated during the firing process, there are also issues relating to disposal of the hot stub case in a safe manner.
So the stub case is ejected in a burst of hot air and doesn’t travel to its target…
Human rights investigations 
One reply on “A short stub on the case of the short stub case”
[…] The issue of the short stub case, which was pretty central to the NYT article’s allegations against HRI is tackled here. […]