Talk:Armstrong Gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Different guns?[edit]

I was under the impression that "Armstrong gun" referred specifically to the innovative design of of the RBL (rifled breech loaders) that Armstrong designed and which the UK government abandoned after using them 1859 - 1870. The muzzle-loaders built by the Elswick Ordnance Company, while technically designed and built under the Armstrong umbrella, were a different type of gun altogether. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, though I have seen Armstrong muzzle-loaders referred to as Armstrong guns. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. What info I can find calls the muzzle loaders built using the Armstrong method of compound barrel construction (as these muzzle loaders are) Armstrong guns. User:Shoka not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Replacement guns[edit]

This article needs to discuss the reasons for the introduction of the 7 inch RML to replace the Armstrong 110-pdr after Kagoshima. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Armstrong Disappearing Gun[edit]

No mention of the Armstrong Disappearing Gun of which there are several preserved in New Zealand; see Disappearing gun Hugo999 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Guns bursting[edit]

The article claims the guns were safe, commenting that none burst when fired. I can't say whether that is true or not, but the problem with them seems to have been the breech locking mechanism. cc penrose Fitzgerald in his memoirs described the 40 pounder breech loader as 'two muzzle guns, what shoots inwards' with a reputation amongst the crew as being dangerous. the article on the RBL 7 inch Armstrong gun has a couple of quotes on the point. It was suggested that failures were due to crews improperly operating the guns, but then arguably a difficult gun to operate is anyway an unsafe one. Sandpiper (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Armstrong BL guns were apparently "safe" if operated and maintained to parade-ground standards. The barrels themselves did not burst, but that appears to have been as much a function of their low power as their sound consatruction technique. What was missing were what later came to be accepted as necessary built-in safety checks which prevented a gun from firing if it had not been correctly loaded and the breech correctly secured. Also missing was a level of gunner training and technical awareness necessary to safely maintain and operate breechloaders - higher standards were required than for muzzle-loaders. Sucessful combat operations of breechloaders required both, and the builtin-safety issue was addressed in the 1880s generation of breechloaders, but it took longer to change the prevailing culture to one of technical excellence. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision needed[edit]

I believe myself to be a good reader, but I was confused by the "see below" in "it was not uncommon for cast iron muzzle-loaders to burst (see below)". I cannot identify what this is referring to, since I cannot see any other reference in the entire article to how common it was for muzzle-loaders to burst. Was there a section that has since been removed? 2601:441:8380:586:843F:BFE:B106:43CC (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)