Talk:Autocannon

Calibre?

From the article: "Modern tank guns (around 120 mm calibre)" I believe that caliber only refers to inch measurements. A 9mm pistol is not a 9mm caliber pistol.

Caliber is used with metric bore measurements as well. The Jane's Infantry Weapons description of autocannon uses calibre and metric bore measurements together. W. B. Wilson 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=10845&dict=CALD Says nothing about inches. Just that its the diameter of the inside of a pipe -OOPSIE- 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "calibre" on larger weapons can also refer to the length of the barrel, rather than the diameter. AllStarZ (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shirazi

Would the article entry technically come under the heading of an autocannon, or a volleygun? Can we get more information to this effect? AllStarZ (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Volley guns most definitely were invented earlier than the 16th century; they are known in 14th century Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.103.21 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point completely. What I meant was, isn't the weapon referred to in the article technically a volley gun? The definition of which, as near as I can tell, is that of a multi-barreled firearm in which the barrels are individually and manually loaded.

An autocannon however, has some kind of mechanism by which it loads ammunition into the barrel. So in other words, the Puckle Gun is technically an autocannon.

64.231.240.116 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, Shirazi's invention was a volley gun and not an autocannon. It had multiple barrels, a characteristic of volley guns. It did not breech load or fire Shell (projectile)s, characteristics of autocannon. As mentioned above, it was not the first volley gun. Other inventions of this type had been documented as early as the 1300s. Dialectric (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Questioning a statement

"The BK 7,5 was the most massive forward-firing autocannon installation ever placed on any combat aircraft, up until the service introduction of the U.S. Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft, and its GAU-8 Avenger Gatling cannon in 1977."

This segment here seems to be tacked on by one of the sorts of internet lackeys who parades around with pictures of the Gau-8 next to volkswagens not realising the majority of the bulk is ammunition. The 75mm cannon as far as I'm concerned was much larger then the 30mm Gau-8 in caliber as well as weight of shot.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the largest was probably the Ordnance QF 32 pounder, fitted to a de Havilland Mosquito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Autocannon/Automatic Grenade Launcher

In the article there is a picture of an XM307 with a caption that calls it an autocannon. However it was my understanding that the XM 307 is an automatic grenade launcher. According to a different part of the article:

Another weapon that is similar to the autocannon is the automatic grenade launcher. This is usually mounted on a tripod or on a

vehicle and is capable of firing explosive shells at a high rate of fire. The main items of distinction are that they too, are usually much smaller, and fire much lower velocity ammunition with a much more limited selection.

which fits perfectly with my understanding of it being an AGL. So either the picture is in the wrong article or this article needs some editing. Noha307 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Zeppelin Shootdown

I think you are making an error in assuming that a contact fuse would have been used. AAA used timed fuses - if they don't, remember what goes up must come down and the AAA would do more damage than the bombs. The real problem is that prior to computer guidance of AAA, hits (or even close bursts) were extremely rare. Whether the fabric is strong enough to cause an impact fuse to ignite a shell is irrelevant.NiD.29 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong picture

I've added a British English tag for consistency because this article was a mish-mash of British and American English
This article is headed by a picture of (I think an eighteenth or nineteenth century), muzzle-loading, single-shot weapon. Am I alone in thinking that this illustration is unsuitable for an article called 'Autocannon' whose content is also predominantly 20th century? I know that this offering is "Part of a series on CANNON", but a more up-to-date picture would be far better.

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Was the Puckle gun a precursor?

User Jmackaerospace has objected to the mention of the Puckle gun because it is incorrect. It is unclear to me what exactly is wrong with the statement. Is it merely that the Puckle gun isn't an autocannon or that it is not in fact a precursor? In any event we need sources. In the meantime I'll add a disputed tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I went and read the Puckle gun page (I've actually never read that one before) and based on that, I would agree with Jmackaerospace that the Puckle gun is (definitely) not an autocannon and also not really a precursor. The "Operation" section of the Puckle gun page states that even though it was fired with a crank, it could only fire one shot at a time. I suppose it really depends on how you define "precursor" but I'm thinking along the lines of "predecessor". I would say the Machine gun is a better example of a precursor, if one needs to be listed at all. --Trifler (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What he said. The Puckle Gun is a very primitive revolver. An Autocannon is a upscaled machine gun. The only similarities is that the Puckle Gun, by virtue of of it's flintlock heritage has a large calibre that technically meets the modern definition of "cannon", but it is neither a cannon, nor an automatic firearm, so it does not belong in this article.Jmackaerospace (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is an autocannon, we agree it isn't, but whether it was a precursor to the autocannon. If it was, then it ought to be listed as such, though obviously not as an actual autocannon itself. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion either way, but the original text said that it was. That text came without a source however, and I haven't seen a source that explicitly denies it either. So to this layperson it isn't verifiable whether it was a precursor or not. On the one hand that certainly justifies deletion, but I just feel it would be better to find an actual source that settles this definitively before summarily deleting apparently well-written material. Simply repeating "but it isn't an autocannon" isn't very helpful. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately written sources on autocannons are in extremely short supply. --Trifler (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

However what we do know is fairly definitive, ie, the autocannon is a direct development of the recoil operrated machine gun, whereas the Puckle Gun is a flintlock revolver that had no influence on subsequent firearms development (it was not even an inovation, revolvers already existed).

This is a classic case of wikipedia self-spawning research. Because of it's strong resemblemce to the original gatling gun, a number of authors have assumed that it worked in a similar way, thus it was refered to as an early machine gun (thus far fine - wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of outside sources). But then some obsessive correctionist comes along, notes that the Puckle Gun's caliber is greater than 20mm (which makes it a "cannon" by MODERN definition) and changed "early machine gun" to "early autocannon". Then some other obsessive correctionist comes along and adds the Puckle Gun to THIS article despite the fact that the only source for this is a paragraph in ANOTHER wikipedia article THAT IS ITSELF UNSOURCED.

By all means, if you can find an source that pre-dates the wikipedia use of the term autocannon in the context of the Puckle Gun, we can put it back in (and re-write the Puckle Gun article as well)Jmackaerospace (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Belt Fed / Mechanically Loaded

I changed this back to the previous wording because the original was more accurate - mechanical loading refers to the method by which the bullet ends up in the barrel (mechanical vs manual), whereas belt feeding is a subset of mechanical loading that EXCLUDES other forms of mechanical loading (such as from a drum, hopper, or magazine).Jmackaerospace (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mechanical loading" implies that it works like an autoloader, and they do not. There is no mechanical mechanism feeding shells into it. They are fed by gravity, a belt, or in some cases, a detachable magazine. A belt is the most common, especially in modern versions. We don't say a machine gun is mechanically fed either. --Trifler (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"There is no mechanical mechanism feeding shells into it" this statement makes no sense - guns can feed in one of two ways: mechanically or manually. The feed is either the consequence of an action on the user, or happens automatically as part of the firing cycle of the gun. I see where you are coming from with the comparison to the auto-loader however, since an auto-loader is an INDEPENDANT mechanism that mimics the action of manually cycling and reloading a gun.

I've been meaning to come back and clean up the wording here for a while anyway, because the original wording was making the point that most MODERN autocannon are belt fed, but was worded in such a way as to imply that being belt fed was part of the definition of an autocannon.Jmackaerospace (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now re-written the section in question, improved?

Indeed! You've addressed my main concern by removing the word "mechanically". After writing several paragraphs here just now, I realized that it appears your main concern was that the original sentence did not include "magazine"? So, now I have a few new concerns:

• The only reason I originally said "most" and didn't list "magazine" was because the sentence said "for and increased rate of fire". Since "increased rate of fire" is in comparison with a magazine, I didn't want to have both. You can't compare it with loading each shell by hand, since that would no longer be an autocannon. So, if you want to add "magazine" then I think "for increased rate of fire" needs to go.
• "Autocannon feed ammunition automatically" seems redundant since it's already been stated that it's an automatic weapon.
• In the sentence: "Autocannon feed ammunition automatically from a belt or magazine as part of the firing cycle for a faster rate of fire, similar to a machine gun, and unlike manually loaded artillery, or naval guns which use an autoloader." I think a period after "machine gun" would be better. The rephrasing of the first part already took care of my concern, and at the moment it's a run-on sentence.

How about: "Autocannons feed ammunition from a belt or magazine as part of the firing cycle, similar to a machine gun." Of course, then we lose the link to the Rate of fire page, but perhaps that's ok. --Trifler (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been a number of days, so I went ahead and edited it, but I remain open to discussion about it if I was wrong about your main concern being that it didn't list magazine before. --Trifler (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Knocking out tanks

It says the Polish wz.38 was "capable of knocking out all enemy tanks fielded in 1939", and it insinuates that the Hispano is unable to do this, because the wz.38 is "an upgrade" over the Hispano. First, a gun with half the firing rate, yet it's an "upgrade"? Second, do you seriously suggest that a 20x110mm rifle or autocannon firing AP ammo wasn't capable of knocking out enemy tanks of 1939? Obviously neither one is going to penetrate the frontal armor of all 1939 tanks, but as to "dealing with them with great difficulty" (i.e. shooting it from the side or rear where the armor is much thinner), the 20x110mm ought to be able to penetrate just about anything on the battlefield. Just because the Polish, lacking other AT weapons perhaps, pressed their 20mm into service as a AT gun and managed to knock out Pz IIs and even Pz IIIs and IVs (?), doesn't mean that a 20mm Hispano rifle or cannon isn't able to do the same thing if need be. A 20x110mm ought to be able to penetrate most tanks of 1939, or even later, if fired from the rear at the thinner armor. They certainly had no problem using aircraft mounted cannon to knock out early-war-era tanks from the vulnerable areas. This just sounds like a typical instance of someone who is a fan of the Polish gun using it as an excuse to illustrate how "superior" their own gun was (in spite of having hardly been built in numbers to even register on the battlefield).

Idumea47b (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Autocanon and grenade laucher, deletion of section on similar weapons

I deleted an unsourced section claiming grenade lauchers are similar weapons. Discuss sources if you disagree with my deletion.-- Work permit (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)