Talk:Cannon/Archive 1

Casual caption

the caption of the image depicting a cannon firing is humorous, or at least casual. is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Seems right

. Securiger 08:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Modern cannons

Could we have a bit more about modern cannons from an expert? A bit on Saddam Hussein's "Supergun" would be good, as would a piece on cannons which fire depleted uranium shells.

The picture

That cannon really doesn't look American Civil War-era - possibly English Civil War (the handles on the barrel give it away) but since the cannon in question is in Bucharest, none of these are really appropriate. Mon Vier 12:00 20th April 2006

A cannon is a cannon and may be fired by people of any nationality regardless of their geographic position (if they are in working order) Ste4k 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cannon shot inaccuracies

round shot: archeological evidence suggests that iron shot has been in common usage since the late 15th century, not the 17th as stated.

Grape & Canister confusion: the author has also mixed up grape and canister to some extent. Grape Shot contained a dozen or so smaller shot (each ranging from about an inch in diameter to the size of a tennis ball) contained in a canvas wrapping, while Canister (or Case shot) was a can containing as many as 100 or more musket balls. Both were intended for anti-personnel duty but Grape shot was generally used at longer ranges than Canister. The latter was most definitely a short-range shot and had the effect of a giant shotgun blast. The thin container would burst apart immediately upon leaving the barrel and spray its contents to devastating effect.

Shotguns are cannons?

Article asserts shotguns are cannons. I find this claim highly unlikely. Can anyone defend this claim? -- Geo Swan 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It only truely says that with grapeshot the cannons are essentialy large shotguns, not the other way around.Them308 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

About Cast Iron

Cast Iron cannon wasn't developed in the 16th century, nor by the Dutch. That is a common error that goes around in the Net. Cast-Iron cannons had been arround since the begining, but they were considered inferior to bronze cannon since they were more prone to burst due to casting imperfections and they had a nasty tendency to rust. Also in the beguining there wern't foundries big enough to cast large cannon, so most cast-iron pieces were small.

Since the 15th century many nations were using wrought-iron and cast-iron cannon in their vessels. But navies were small by then and demand was scarce so there weren't so many foundries around, big enough to produce cast-iron pieces.

Durability was the only reason why the bronze cannon were tougt to be better, but with the increase in naval activity and warfare in the 16th century, that become a minor flaw, since a bronze cannon only lasted longer if not used often, otherwize it's bore wold erode faster than the iron conterparts. So, the leading sea powers of the time started using iron cannon more often. The Dutch found it easier to arm theyr ever growing fleet with iron pieces, since they were cheaper, lighter and they lasted longer in battle. The only drawback was that they were still susceptible to come apart.

Yeh, cast iron was invented by the Chinese, then spread to Europe. Quality of the iron depended on its source, and the Chinese and Japanese actually later incorperated charcoal into their fuel, creating steel. -intranetusa

Recoiless Rifle

Should it be considered a cannon? Dudtz 12/22/05 5:55 PM EST

I don't think so. See recoilless rifle. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 23:32 Z

Actually I don't think that's wrong. Cannon are distinguished as cannon for their preferred elevation and trajectory, and their bore size. Both of which rifles, recoilless or otherwise, may fit the definition of. If you doubt see Fort Rinella. And yeah, that is a rifle.68.48.160.243 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hot Shot?

Does any one have info on "hot shot", a type of projectile used to start fires inside fortifications? or is this the "Carcass" mentioned?Mike McGregor (Can) 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hot shot was normal shot, round or otherwise, that was kept in hot coals to make it red hot. It was loaded very very carefully using tongs. Gun crews were careful not just for the burning hazard but also because the heat of the shot could set off the gun's charge prematurely. I believe for this reason the shot was probably not rammed all the way home and was instead pushed maybe halfway down the barrel. Accuracy would have suffered for this. There's a cool scene in an Erol Flynn movie (maybe Captain Blood) were his pirate crew are preparing a hot shot. 68.48.160.243 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably, you say? "… having before put some clay over the powder the cannon is loaded with, lest it should be set on fire by the red hot bullet", according to EB 1771. (SEWilco 05:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Ah good point, well not to nitpick (no really not, refer back to the start of this sentence), but I expect many gunners may still not have rammed all the way home simply because one might not trust their hands and fingers to some clay down inside the barrel that they couldn't see having formed a perfect seal. Besides hot shot often times did not need to be a precision weapon. 68.48.160.243 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Another possibility is that the clay was forming a barrier to block powder trails from igniting the main charge. Sometimes "hay" was used instead of clay. If the "hay" was green (wet) animal food, a hot shot could have been tamped down on it. Or maybe the delay in burning through packed dry hay would be sufficient. "But when a trench is before the battery of red-hot bullets, hay is rammed-over the powder; because, if it was clay, the pieces of it would wound and kill the workmen." (SEWilco 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

The range and precision might not be as much of a factor as one might believe, if small guns were used. Tamping might not have been as critical as with a long-range shot. EB 1771: "Red-hot bullets are never fired but with eight or four pounders. For if they were of a stronger caliber, the bullets could not be served easily." (SEWilco 06:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Canister/Case Shot confusion possible

I'm concerned that the article doesn't properly distinguish between canister and case shot. Both certainly had the same basic function, but there are important differences. Canister, as mentioned, is basically a can shaped container filled with iron or steel balls. When fired this thin container disintegrates, creating the anti-personnel effect of a giant shotgun. Canister is only useful over short distances. Case shot was developed (by Shrapnel, if I'm not mistaken) to partial remedy the range shortcomings of canister. Case shot is basically a thin skinned shell that has been filled with steel or iron balls. Upon firing, the case shot behaves like any other shell until a bursting charge goes off after a pre-determined period of time. The bursting charge blows the case off and the balls continue on their way with, hopefully, a minimum of dispersion.

As "cartouches, which are cases loaded with …" is mentioned in the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica, the terminology may require clarification. Shrapnel was developed later than this. (SEWilco 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

The following section from the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica may be useful (some spelling modernized). (SEWilco 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Sometimes, in lieu of bullets, the pieces are charged with cartouches, which are cases loaded with musket-balls, nails, chains, and pieces of old iron; sometimes, also, with small cannon-balls. There are cartouches made in form of grapes, which are musket-balls joined together with pitch, and disposed on a small board, in a pyramidal form round a wooden stick, which arises from the middle of the board. The cartouches made of tin are the best, because they carry further. There are also cartouches made in form of pine-apples, whose figure is pyramidal. Their base is equal to the caliber of a bullet, proposed, for the piece they are to be fired with; their height is of a caliber and a half; they are dipped in tar, and afterwards rolled in musket-balls, and when well covered with those balls, dipped again in the same tar, after which they may be used, thrusting the biggest foremost into the piece. These pine-apples are very good at sea, because, besides that the musket-balls flying about wound a great number of people, the bullet which is at the bottom of the cartouche does also much execution.

Modern usage

In modern usage, the word "cannon" is now mostly used for small, automatic, shell-firing guns. Such usage is mentioned in the article. However, with regard to artillery, the word "gun" is generally used to describe relatively high-velocity, low-angle weapons, to distinguish such pieces from howitzers and mortars as mentioned in the article.

Skew comments

>During the Second World War, artillery became less important

This is [expletive deleted] The eastern front (which was THE WWI, as all other fronts were mere auxillary to it) was all about artillery. Especially the soviets had massive artillery, never seen before, e.g. the opening firestorm of the Stalingrad counter-offensive or the incredible number of barrels they amassed to besiege Berlin in 1945. 213.178.101.228 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It matters little that these comments speak of two different wars. Ste4k 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess. Though I think that fellow MUST have meant WWII rather than "THE WWI", as I'm fairly certain neither Stalingrad nor Berlin were besieged during the First World War. To his credit the Ostfront in terms of number of units was twenty times as large as the Westfront. But I think that's beside point. Much of the roles once fulfilled by artillery were then superceded by other arms. Tactical aircraft took much of the work away from indirect firing artillery, tanks took on the work of nearly all direct firing artillery, and on the sea aircraft carriers defeated battleships from standoff ranges. Going back to the Ostfront for examples we have the Sturmovik on the side of the Soviets and the Stuka on the side of the Germans, along with too many examples to get into of tanks on either side. 68.48.160.243 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrected Grapeshot entry

I have now amended the Grapeshot entry to read:

An anti-personnel weapon, similar to canister shot, but with the shot being contained in a canvas bag, and generally of a larger calibre. So called because of the resemblance of the clustered shot in the bag to a cluster of grapes on the vine.

I tried to find a reliable online reference for this but could not after a brief search. I will look again. For now, I'm relying on personal knowledge- that is, a number of books on 17th/18th century warfare i have read and personal visits to HMS Victory, The Mary Rose and the associated museums in Portsmouth, England- 20 miles from where i live. Grapeshot was larger calibre balls, from the size of grapes up to that of tennis balls, depending on the calibre of the cannon being used, contained in a canvas bag and used for longer-range anti-personell fire. Canister, in the 17th-early 19th century at least, referred to a thin metal case contining a large number (up to several hundred in large cannon loads) of musket balls, which would split when fire resulting in a lethal but short range anti-personnel load. In this period at least, it did NOT contain any internal explosive charge, unlike later and modern shrapnel ammunition. If the term "canister" is used in modern usage (my knowledge of 18th century warfare is better than that of 21st century!) to refer to shrapnel rounds, the 2 usages need to be distuingished. As all the other terms used in the "Projectiles" section refer to pre-20th century usage, it seems that should be (as it currently is) the primary one for canister too. Ian, 03.12.06

More Information!

I find this article EXTREMELY lacking. I visit sites EVERYWHERE that have references to "cannon", and they all lead here, but the information here is extremely obscured and minimal. There at least needs to be several sections including time periods, around the world uses (Cannons at sea, in the Orient, European continent, American continent), what exactly was the first cannon, and other variations. This article on cannon is severely limited to those of the late Middle Ages. Colonel Marksman 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

India's contributions

I added some of India's contributions into the History Section and an image of a wheel mounted cannon from India. Hope it adds to the article.

• Nice addition of information. Colonel Marksman 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it implausable that a cast iron tube firing round cannon balls with black powder would have the same range as one of the Mk7 triple turrets that form an Iowa class battleship's main armament

The test was actually done recently before tourists as I've read. I'll try to find an English link for that. I'd believe the range especially when it says they used almost 100 kgs of black powder!

Anyway, I found this lik. If anyone can help me use it as citation, I'd be grateful. Thanx

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/yw/2002/03/30/stories/2002033000150100.htm

65.95.199.166 (Darkness1089 not logged in).

Korean vs Western

The question about which was superior put as example a korean cannon with a superior range to an english cannon; in fact, the culverins of the europeans had many more range than that english example (i think, false example), and the cannons too, as you see at the end of the XVI century

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/source/is3/is3c.htm

So i think we must change that portion of the article.

-Fco