Talk:Cannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Cannon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST 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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject China (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. Aug 2004 – May 2006
  2. May 2006 – May 2007
  3. May 2007 – May 2008

Cannon in the Middle Ages[edit]

I have nominated Cannon in the Middle Ages for Tzatzikification , to bring it up to the same standard as the similarly named section here. (For those unfamiliar with the term, Tzatzikification is a collaborative effort to improve the article by the Tzatziki Squad.) There was some talk of doing this earlier, but I think we have to admit that it will never get done unless we include it in the list. The way I see it, it isn't necessary to take it as far as FA status. I think aiming for A-class is enough to keep it as an interesting side-project, agreed? --Grimhelm (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll help you with that as soon as we finish history of timekeeping devices. · AndonicO Engage. 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have done pretty much all that I can do myself with the article. I have brought in the relevant material from the sections here on Middle East and Medieval Europe, standardised the list of references, tagged uncited statements, and rewritten the lede to summarise the article. Of course, I also added some new sources and material: technological limitations, culverins, bombards, Russian cannon, etc. The areas that need to be worked on are in verifying tagged statements, finding page numbers for some of the references, and some general expansion of the article. The section on Early use in China and East Asia could also be improved from Early history here. Good luck when you get around to it! --Grimhelm (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The cannon as a siege engine[edit]

I wonder, can a cannon be classified as a siege engine? According to the article about siege engines: "A siege engine is a device that is designed to break or circumvent city walls and other fortifications in siege warfare". I read somewhere (can't seem to find it, where?) that the cannon, because of it's power, drastically reduced the advantages of city walls; hence, cannons must originally have been used against city walls. --Kri (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how one defines siege engine; according to our article, cannon would be siege engines, however, if I remember correctly, most of the books cited in this article that mentioned siege engines referred to trebuchets, catapults, siege towers and the like. It might be worth further research, though. · AndonicO Engage. 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the term Siege Engine is reserved, in my experience, for weapons that are either useless against anything but a fortification, or that is very difficult to use in the field, against troops. Except for the ballista, the bulk of ancient artillery was rarely used in ancient engagements (in fact, use of artillery was one of Alexander the Great's largest advantages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.158.221 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Autocannon?[edit]

From the description of the device, it seems more like an organ gun or volley gun rather than an actual "autocannon". If so, then it is at the very least preceded by at least a few hundred years. AllStarZ (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like you're right; if you could fix that yourself, that would be helpful. I don't really have much time and might not be able to get to it for a few weeks, and it seems Grimhelm is rather inactive as well. · AndonicO Engage. 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

explicit edits[edit]

someone has change paragraph 1 and some other parts of this article and im not sure why no one has noticed it. please change it back to the origional version because i dont really know how to work wikipedia. ` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.124.202 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. · AndonicO Engage. 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cannons vs. Guns[edit]

On a trip to a fort, I have been told by a number of people working at the fort when I mentioned that "I have never seen a cannon this large", I was corrected and told that I would need to call what I was looking at a "Gun" and the "Cannon Balls" were prjectiles. Asking why? I was told that the Navy refers to Guns mounted on a ship as cannons, but if you took that same exact cannon and mounted it on dry land it would be a Gun and not a cannon. Because the Army never used cannons but rather guns. I point this out for your reference. Since this is not my fiend of expertise, I give you the information on the talk page. ~akc9000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.39.242 akc9000 (talk contribs count) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC) akc9000

Although not a SME, this article does need to add at least a sentence on cannons versus guns. See usage of guns and cannon on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-32_Dominator. (There are probably many more pages similar to this one).

I believe in that article, the difference is that guns dispense static rounds (bullets) versus cannon dispensing exploding shells. This article on cannon is incomplete without explaining how early cannon fired "balls" of mass versus the invention of exploding shells. Do all modern cannon dispense shells, or do some modern cannon still dispense static masses? Bcwilmot (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dardanelles Gun[edit]

I have corrected the constant confusion between the cannon of Orban and the single extant piece, which, having been cast as late as 1464, did not take part in the 1453 siege of Constantinople (apart from that, there is anyhow little point in mentioning the same cannon in four different, unrelated passages). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual content in Cannon entry[edit]

The first two paragraphs have been edited to add sexual content to the Cannon entry. I thought I was on a parody site at first. I'm not an editor, but wanted to alert whoever takes care of this article. Example:

A cannon is any tubular piece of [a man's shaft] that uses pineapple or other usually explosive-based sperm to launch projectiles.

I hope someone can fix this because it's pretty stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedoscillations (talkcontribs) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive use addition?[edit]

During Bernal Diaz's book on the conquest of Mexico he describes of periods when the Conquistadors had run out of shot for their single cannon but continued to fire gunpowder from it for morale purposes and to scare waves of Aztecs back from them. This is a fairly significant historical example of deceptive use I think.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Additional Information

If deemed appropriate, I was wondering if anybody might contribute information regarding the supporting structures for cannon, carriages, chaces, tackle, etc., especially in historical naval applications, or at least link to this type of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.89.215 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Early modern naval cannon[edit]

There is no mention of naval artillery before the 17th century. The impression one gets is that guns at sea were virtually non-existent before that time. I'm sure this isn't intentional, so wouldn't it be advantageous to stock up on more info on the early development of the naval gun?

Peter Isotalo 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Aviation Use of Cannon[edit]

The first installation of a cannon on an aircraft was likely on the 1910 Voisin Canon. Possibly the most successful (or least unsuccessful) was the SPAD S.12 Ca.1 which was fitted with a 37mm Puteaux Cannon which fired through the centre of a specially designed Hispano-Suiza 8 engine's crankshaft, however the weapon's low rate of fire limited its use to only the most skilled pilots. The British trialled the Quick Firing 1 pounder on several types but none found official favour, while the Germans, Italians and Russians all trialled Cannons. The low rate of fire usually rendered most cannons unsuitable for combat. Probably the most well known pre-ww2 cannon was the Coventry Ordinance Works (COW) gun fitted to a couple of experimental RAF fighters (known as COW gun fighters). During WW2 the 37mm cannon was fitted to the Bell P-39 and P-63, which though not finding favour with the Americans, was well liked by the Russians, who found that a single well placed shot from the cannon would destroy almost any German aircraft. As a result while post-war USAF aircraft carried on with the then inadequate .50 cal machine gun, Russian fighters such as the MiG-15 were equipped with a very effective 37mm cannon. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Recoilless[edit]

This was recoilless, another category that has been neglected (though most are designated as rifles despite their size putting them squarely in the cannon category). The Davis gun springs to mind here. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian Navy[edit]

No mention has been made of the weapons used on Soviet/Russian ships - the US weapons sound impressive only when the Russians are ignored. The Russian AK-176 76mm/3" cannon is capable of firing over 2 rounds per second (130 rpm) and the 130mm/5.1" is capable of 80 rpm from a two barrel installation and both can be used as anti-aircraft weapons aside from their normal surface to surface role. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rail[edit]

Little mention has also been made of guns (mostly howitzers and mortars) mounted on railroad cars, which were common in eastern Europe and Russia were roads are sparse and/or unsuitable. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Korean Navy[edit]

The name escapes me at the moment but a Korean Admiral mounted cannon on armoured 'turtle' ships to defeat the Japanese in the 1500's (IIRC). 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Admirals name was Yi Sun-sin and additional relevant info is at Turtle ship. Seems he didn't actually invent it but instead he resurrected the idea, though his was the first real use. This would seem to require its own section if noone has added anything yet.NiD.29 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lombard[edit]

The Christopher Columbus article mentions a lombard, which I gather from the 1913 edition of Webster's is a small cannon. Does anyone have any further information? --Filll (talk | wpc) 18:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Early naval cannons[edit]

There's still an obvious lack of information on the early development of naval gunpowder artillery. Someone who reads this article will get the impression that cannons were first used on sailing ships in the 17th century,. The truth is that galleys were the first to employ effective naval cannons and did so as early as the 14th century. The article needs at least a minimal update about the use in galleys and the development for use on earlier sailing vessels, before the late 17th century.

Peter Isotalo 10:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

splinters from hits in wooden ships ("18th and 19th centuries")[edit]

The section's second paragraph (the carronade) says about splinters that "they were believed to be deadly" - would there ever have been any doubt about the lethality of meters long, jagged pieces of wood scything through the air and through the bodies of those who happened to be in their way? -- Kiwaiti (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Switch "Aviation Use" to Modern Usage?[edit]

The Aviation Use section is close to accurate, but too narrow and discusses the naming rather remotely.

Cannons are "medium caliber" guns, larger than machine guns, smaller than artillery. The general definition is "between .50 caliber (12.7 in) and 40 mm," but the definition is a bit fluid, and changes with technology or local conditions. E.g. If your army issues a 54 mm gun, and it is a rapid-firing, direct-fire gun, you may consider the top end to be 54 mm. Indirect fire weapons (grenade launchers) and some other things are excluded.

Anyway, you will see that these are not restricted to aircraft, but can be in any field, including maritime and land. The 40mm Bofors, and the 25 mm Bushmaster on the Bradley are two good examples. I think the Aviation section should be updated to refer to the modern use in general. Should not break the narrative arc, as this use came into being around the same time. As the rapid-firing automatic cannon was being developed, some were put in aircraft. But it was a distinctly different beast than the (broadly small-arms sized) machine gun, or the much heavier and slower-firing artillery gun.

If you need a reference, this is a rather nice and easily-consumable printed work: http://www.amazon.com/Cannons-Warfare-Brasseys-Battlefield-Technology/dp/1857531043 I think some other key publications (e.g. Janes annuals) make reference to the basic definition in the relevant works, in the introduction.

I apologize for only leaving this note. I don't have the time to do this myself, and I travel most of the time, so don't have access to my library when I do have spare time, so cannot get specifics right now. Shoobe01 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Aviation usage is separate for a reason as most cannon use is either nautical or army, while aviation use has its own history as well as technical difficulties that had to be overcome and this would be lost being buried in with the rest. I agree the part about limited rounds needs moving though (the examples are army ones and are not really applicable).

In any case there is already a section for modern usage under 20th and 21st Centuries, however that section could do with some expansion and maybe the terminology part of that broken off into its own section and moved up and expanded.NiD.29 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

4in 14th century Chinese gun[edit]

If anyone can visit Rotunda (Woolwich), there's a nearly identical gun there from c. 1338. Maybe they don't mind someone photographing it. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of patents in the external links section?[edit]

They are not discussed in the text, as far as I can tell. There are thousands upon thousands of cannon- and shell- related patents in the US. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community"[edit]

I don't see a great difference in quality between this and, say, gunpowder. Longer introduction maybe?. The users that took part in the vote here apparently have little or no subject matter knowledge, judging by their inability to spot any issues, and just giving rubber-stamping votes. This article actually had a few more problems than the one on gunpowder. That one lacked some information; this one had wrong statements, and statements that were individually correct but sequenced in a misleading way—misleading for the total neophyte; for anyone with more knowledge they provided amusement. 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Have mörser, will travel (talkcontribs)

I think you missed the point - all articles should be accessible to anyone and it shouldn't take an expert to gauge its quality. Since the story of gunpowder is that of chemistry, while this is more a matter of events and people, this article should be more accessible. Lots more to do here still, and I suspect a broad reorganization of what has been added to the page thus far is needed on both pages. NiD.29 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Overreliance on Ahmad Y. al-Hassan[edit]

I object to giving so much emphasis to this man's website in this article. He is no stranger to politics. Keep in mind that much of the UNESCO stuff is highly political, and being on various UNESCO committees doesn't entail much for one's academic reputation. Syrian universities are also not fabled for academic freedom or much independence from their government's views. Also, the claims from him put forth in this article are not even from his UNESCO-published books, but from his personal web site. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Length[edit]

As of today, Wednesday the 16th of May, 2012, this article is around 100KB in size. This is twice the recommended article size limit given in WP:SIZE. And it is getting to be really, really long... I am wondering if some portions might not be spun off into separate articles in their own right? Has anyone given thought to this? To how it might be done? To which sections might be able to stand alone or, alternatively, which might be cut or edited down in order to bring this article somewhere close to the 50 KB "upper limit" of size for a good article? 'Cause this thing is a behemoth as it stands... Ideas? KDS4444Talk 13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I take it back: after implementing an article prose-size script, I am now told that the "prose" portion of the article is only 43 KB. Is this still too big? In my opinion, frankly, yes. Is it big enough to formally require re-scaling or splitting? Hm. Maybe not But maybe this is something to keep an eye on for the future. That is all. Thank you for your time. KDS4444Talk 13:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The article weighs in at 7,102 words. That's not overly long, and there are many articles which are much longer. The question is whether 7,000 words is too long for this subject. It doesn't strike me as such, but it wouldn't hurt to think about pruning some information. The article was 6,137 words in length when it was made a Featured Article in March 2008, so maybe it's worth examining the accumulated material and whether its up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I may be a tiny bit biased towards the version that passed FAC as it was partially my work, but I'm intimately familiar with the article and could perhaps take a look in the next few days. If anyone thinks it's necessary, of course. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cannon photo[edit]

Cannon on the grass at a home in New Jersey.

Possible photo for article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Improper(?) reference to Thomas Malthus[edit]

The end of the "Early modern period" subsection claims that Nathaniel Nye cited Thomas Malthus's writings on artillery in his book The Art of Gunnery, and links to Thomas Robert Malthus' page. As the Malthus in question was born a good hundred years later (and so far as I know never produced any military writings), this seems unlikely. A different Malthus, perhaps? 184.78.4.160 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Poundage vs. bore diameter[edit]

The article needs a table relating the "pound" rating of a gun to its bore diameter. Minimally there should be a description of the definition of poundage in terms of diameter of the shot. Thanks if you can help.CountMacula (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A question[edit]

It seems like before the mid-19th century, cannons were used predominantly on sea, rather than at land.

For instance, typical armies in the Napoleonic wars would have a few hundred cannons. E.g., at the battle of Waterloo, the French had ~250, and the Allies ~150. (The number of Prussian guns is not mentioned in the article, but is presumably comparable.)

In contrast, a typical ship-of-the-line during this era would by itself boast up to a hundred guns. At Trafalgar, the British fleet had 33 ships (including 27 ships-of-the-line) with a total of 2,312 guns by my tally. This is an order of magnitude higher than the number of guns boasted by a typical British army. Of course, the British had more armies, but by the same token, they also had more fleets. The Royal Navy around this time had something like 90 ships of the line and several hundred smaller ships.

Why was the use of cannons geared so much towards naval combat? Why could a nation not gain an advantage for its forces by earmarking the production of its cannons towards land combat, thus outmassing enemies in artillery by many times? What am I missing here? The article does not answer these questions at all. 140.180.241.146 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manufacture[edit]

I could not find any information on manufacture of cannon in the article, and if there are any links they are not easy to find. Is there any particular reason for this? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

edit needed[edit]

I suspect the following to be incorrect: "To pack a muzzle-loading cannon, first gunpowder is poured down the bore."

I am certain that the powder is placed in the chamber, which is a recess at the breech end of the bore, rather then just poured in. I, however, don't have a source to provide. Zedshort (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Would hardly be "muzzle-loading" in that case, would it? Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, the powder charge is delivered to the recessed part of the breech end by a special tool that places the powder there. It is not simply poured into the barrel. If you know nothing about the subject you should not be posting responses. Zedshort (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cannon Plural[edit]

BilCat, I just read the reference you indicated. It (Websters) states that cannon and cannons are both correct usage, which is what I wrote, and you said the reference says only "cannon" is correct. Likewise, Answers.com says that both forms are common usage in both the US and UK. A third site, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cannon, also says that both forms are correct. Then there is this site: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4568/cannon-as-plural (admittedly more of a forum for syntax professionals), which describes English as having evolved from cannon to cannons over time. This Cannon article itself says that in American English, "cannons" is more common, and uses "cannons" in a number of places throughout the article. I think you should undo your changes. --Trifler (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Listing in one place here:

Moved Discussion from my talk page: - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

BilCat, I just read the reference you indicated. It (Websters) states that cannon and cannons are both correct usage, which is what I wrote, and you said the reference says only "cannon" is correct. Likewise, Answers.com says that both forms are common usage in both the US and UK. A third site, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cannon, also says that both forms are correct. Then there is this site: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4568/cannon-as-plural (admittedly more of a forum for syntax professionals), which describes English as having evolved from cannon to cannons over time. This Cannon article itself says that in American English, "cannons" is more common, and uses "cannons" in a number of places throughout the article. I think you should undo your changes. --Trifler (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Webster's you're using, but mine says the plural is cannon. So no, I won't be changing anything. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannon - it's the same link as the reference on the Cannon page. It says "plural cannons or cannon". Also, again, the Cannon page itself uses "cannons." I did not find one single site online that says "cannons" is not acceptable. --Trifler (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
All that links says is "plural usually cannon". - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If I may, this text 'Cannon serves both as the singular and plural of the noun, although the plural cannons is also correct' has been in the article since it was promoted to Featured Article in 2008. Whatever form was consistently used throughout the article and accepted at WP:FAC at that time should still be used now unless there is a very good reason not to. Cannon is the plural of cannon in the UK as is aircraft and sheep (not aircrafts and sheeps), what it is anywhere else I couldn't say. I can see that many edits have been wasted over this plurality 'mistake' and I'm also amazed at how many edits have been made to the article since it was promoted though it seems to be a target for vandalism. There are more constructive things to do than argue about something that has been accepted for over six years. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you may, and thank you. @Trifler, I'm not sure how we can both look at the same linkand see different things. All the link you provide says about plurals is "plural usually cannon", and that's right at the top of the page. Merriam-Webster's is an American dictionary, and that's also what my printed edition says. Sorry if the truth isn't "a compelling argument" to you. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Read further down on that Websters entry. --Trifler (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So you ignore the first entry? - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I think Websters, and the other references clearly indicate that both are acceptable and you should not be making edits to remove the "s". Especially in the case of autocannons, where I have never once read it used without an "s". Nor have I ever heard anyone in the U.S. military not use the "s" for the plural form. "Cannons" is pretty much ubiquitous in the U.S. military as well, although "cannon" is used sometimes when referring to the Age of Sail time period. --Trifler (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Nimbus. I agree that BilCat should leave the page the way it was for six years. Also here's a fourth reference saying that both are acceptable, since BilCat just disagreed again: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cannon. --Trifler (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Nimbus is specifically refering tobthe Cannon article. That had used "cannon" as a plural for years. See the previous discussion at Talk:Cannon/Archive 3#Plural, where it states "Grammatically either is acceptable. For all articles in the cannon series, we use "cannon" ; per History of cannon, Cannon in the Middle Ages, and others that use this plural in the title." And "I believe most scholars use "cannon" as the plural; I think we should leave it as is." Can you show me where that consensus was changed? - 05:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I had not seen that archived post. I can see that the Cannon article uses "cannons" in a number of places, and I see that there's a reference titled "The Cannons of San Francisco" on it. I also see something on Websters that I didn't notice before, which is their Concise Encyclopedia entry, which says:
"Long-range artillery piece, as distinguished from other big guns such as the howitzer or mortar. Early cannons, appearing in Europe in the 15th century, were smooth-bored and forged of iron, weighed 6,000–8,000 lbs (2,800–3,600 kg) and were loaded through the muzzle. They were mounted on wheeled carriages, which were thrown backward when the cannon was fired. Rifled bores and breechloading were adopted in the later 19th century, and new mechanisms such as the hydraulic buffer absorbed the recoil. Before 1850 ammunition was either cannister, grapeshot, or round, solid cannonballs and black powder, but rifled bores made possible the use of elongated projectiles, which had a longer range. The shrapnel shell was widely used in the 19th–20th century. Modern cannons, of high-grade steel, are towed on split-trail carriages or are mounted on tracked vehicles; a common calibre is 155 mm (6 in.). Many helicopters, airplanes, and naval vessels are equipped with multibarreled, Gatling-type rotary cannons firing 20-mm exploding shells."
In summary, I strongly believe "autocannons" should be accepted here since it is accepted everywhere else, and I honestly believe it's the most common usage worldwide. The dozens, if not hundreds of previous people editing the Autocannon article used "autocannons" so it's not like I'm alone in this. I certainly feel I represent at least some of the previous editors on this. It was all fine until BilCat came along. I also think both "cannon" and "cannons" should be considered acceptable on all Cannon pages. Four different sources say that both are acceptable. I am willing to consider that separately from the Autocannon page. It's not like I'm saying everything should use an "s." I'm saying both should be acceptable here on Wikipedia. --Trifler (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Autocannon Plural[edit]

I had a chance to talk with a couple of U.S. military guys I know over the holidays, and I mentioned the Cannon Plural discussion above with them. They felt that "cannons" was more common worldwide in this day and age, but left it at that. They felt more strongly about "autocannons" however. They couldn't think of any military that doesn't use it with an "s". They said that countries that use "cannon" as plural still use "autocannons". One of them was stationed in Germany for a few years and said that's what the German soldiers he spoke with used "autocannons" even though they used "cannon" as plural. Ditto for the one French soldier he spoke with. This was while speaking in English in both cases. They told me that the Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and S Korean militaries all use "autocannons", when speaking in English.

So I realize none of that discussion is reference-able, but I think the Autocannon article should be excluded from the current cannon plurality policy. I think they're correct when they say that even amongst people who use "cannon" as plural, a very large percentage of them say "autocannons". The Autocannon article used "autocannons" from the time it was created until it was changed just recently. --174.31.172.28 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Development of naval artillery (again)[edit]

The development of naval artillery is described in this article as though it began in England in the 1300s (the "three cannon and one hand gun" of the Christopher) and then went straight on to fully-perfected broadside amarmanent, also in England. This is quite misleading. I completely ignores all development in the Mediterranean region, which dominated European politics until at least the late 16th century. The first successful gun platform was actually the galley, not nefs, cogs, caravels or such, and was in regular use by the late 15th century. Solutions for heavy guns on sailing ships were much more complex and developed only gradually. Initially, they were direclty influenced by gun galleys and attempted to emulate them, or to adapt to tactics that focused on boarding rather than destruction.

I've brought this up before, but without getting any reactions. If it weren't for the FA status, I wouldn't mind much, but I believe this particular information gap borders on a template-taggable issue. The almost exclusive focus on the English/British and US navies makes it even more problematic.

Peter Isotalo 10:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you haven't received a reply, I'll just say that if you have access to information on cannon development in the Mediterranean region, feel free to add it. --174.31.172.28 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)