Talk:Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun

Bofors wz.37

Should Bofors wz.37 used by Polish Army (see Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign) redirect here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You want the Bofors 37 mm a 37 mm anti-tank gun - see also here [1] GraemeLeggett 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The image from the Hornet is very odd. Neither of the gunners seats are occupied. Was laying being performed remotely? If so, this might be worth mentioning. Or is this a loading/firing drill? Maury 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for an example of a 40mm shell, I would have liked to see a photo of the ammo used in this gun on this page.

I was browsing this page when I found that there is no mention of the use of the 40 mm bofors gun in the Combat Vehicle 90. I went ahead and changed it, what do you guys think? Mailerdaemon 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"it appears historians connected the development of the 40 mm and German 37 mm weapons without any supporting evidence. It should be pointed out these two weapons are quite different from each other and share few, if any, features." As far as I know, german enginners were not allowed to work on weapons in Germany so some moved abroad. "Legend" has it that the "88" were "invented" at Bofors by germans working there, they later took the plans with them. Can these enginners have been involved in the 40mm? 213.100.43.90 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

German engineers were definitely involved in work on what would become the 88 with Bofors. It seems that based on nothing more than this, historians assumed that they also knew about the 40. However the historical record is clear, at least today, that this was not the case. It seems like an example of reading one too many times between the lines. Maury 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

L60 or L56?

The sentence regarding the L60 beeing in fact L56.1 may of course be correct (I´m no expert in Bofors), but the referring to inches is completely out of place. For all (?) guns, the L figure refers to length in calibers. L60 for a 40mm caliber guns equals 2.4 meters, not 60 inch. L60 for a 50mm caliber gun equals 3.0 meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 44 Echo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's true; gun lengths are traditionally measured in calibers... which is why it says "L60"... it means the gun is 60 calibers in length, which equates to 240 cm... the number following the gun's bore size is length in number of calibers, not inches... Magus732 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And besides, the original Swedish version was 60 calibers... the American and German versions were both 56 calibers long. The Japanese version was 60 calibers, and the British version was 56.3, according to navweaps.com... Magus732 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There were different standards for measuring barrel length in calibres. One method included only rifled barrel, another one the whole barrel length and IIRC there was also one counting into the breech to the bottom of the grenade. Afaik both L/56.1 and L/60 are correct in their respective standards. 87.78.208.254 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
      • There where aparently several lenght of the barrel depending on where it was exported. Ive heard of everything from L/62 to L/50.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wanna update this section, all these years later, that the question has been answered in the current section Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60#Caliber length.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted ridiculous "Globalize" tag

That this tag exists at all is an indicator, among many others, of the infantile state to which Wikipedia has sunk, where every article is to be subjected to a multicultural test. This is the English-language site. Of course the articles will be written from an "English-speaking" perspective. If another "language perspective" is desired, then it can be presented in the appropriate Wikipedia language version. If one wishes to add a section about the Bofors 40mm used in a "non-English-language perspective" -- presumably its history in a non-English country -- then by all means add it, but this is certainly not an "issue," as the inane tag claims. Anyway, after two years here, the tag has shown itself to be utterly useless. J M Rice (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree to a certain degree that the tag is ridiculously over-used, you miss an important aspect when you suggest that language versions should have different perspectives. English-speaking people who come here to seek information should not need to learn a multitude of languages to find perspectives from outside the English-speaking countries.

BP OMowe (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

21,000

By the end of the war total production from British, Canadian, and Australian factories was over 2,100, while U.S. lend-lease examples added about 150.

Are the decimal points in the right place?Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo of a submarine mount

This might make a nice addition. We have plenty of photos of unmounted guns, this one shows the Bofors mounted on a WWII US submarine. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/2860450469/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bofors 40 mm gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://casrca.nationprotect.net/id-mcdv-midlife-2.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613233736/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Last_blast_for_Bofors to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Last_blast_for_Bofors

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hazemeyer gun mount

Was used for the Bofors 40 mm gun and article is a stub, so there is a compelling reason for it to be merged to the article I just mentioned. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose There is much more info available about this mount, its development, and its use, which merits its own article. Notable due to being the first auto stabilized antiaircraft naval mount. Please expand Hazemeyer gun mount article accordingly. Regards,DPdH (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Fully concur with DPdH above. Arugia (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Split article into the Bofors 40 mm L/60 and Bofors 40 mm L/70?

So why does these guns share the same article? They only share the same builder (Bofors) and the same calibre (40 mm) but otherwise they are different guns. They dont fire the same cartridge and they dont share any technical parts. Its like having the AK-47, AK-74 and RPK sharing the same article. Actually they are way more alike than the Bofors 40 mm L/60 and L/70. The biggest problem with having both guns in the same article is that it tricks people into believing that there is only one base gun, which isnt true. I mean the title alone just says Bofors 40 mm gun. If anything it should be Bofors 40 mm guns or Bofors 40 mm L/60 & L/70.

Anyone having anything to add to this as i dont want to make such a drastic change without consulting the community.

--Blockhaj (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? No one has anything to add to this?--Blockhaj (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So the article needs a lot of rewriting to be split. Splitting is gonna take a while.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It usually helps to add a split tag to the article, such as Template:Split. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I couldnt find the english template. But thanks.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The article is about the whole family, the L/70 being a direct evolution of the L/60, and, as is, it gives a full picture of the caliber's history and its varying uses, as it is supposed to do. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a lexicon. No reason to split. Arugia (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case i suggest u combine all of the articles based on the Kalashnikov design.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I wanted to add in my first response a quip about "and no, let's not be obtuse, it's not the same as the AK" then decided against thinking "nah, no point driving that mail with a sledgehammer'. Well, apparently, I was wrong. Or more exactly, I was right in the first place, if you will. There was a point reaching for an AK sledgehammer.

So, no, it's not the same as the AK. If the whole AK/AKM family could be reasonably documented under a single article, say the 7.62×39mm article, then yes, it would make sense to have a single article. All the relevant information in the same place, that would be perfect. But it turns out the subject of the AK is far too vast to accommodate such an approach. Actually, there is even a chapeau article on the whole family of the Kalashnikov_rifle pointing to, at least, an hundred different sub-entries. If all of that was packed in a single article, it would probably weigh in the millions of characters and hundreds of pages.

Comparatively, the 40 mm Bofors is a pretty small and narrow subject. The article is fairly short and quite readable, less than 60,000 characters and less than 20 pages, well within the grasp of a motivated reader interested in such a highly specialized subject. So, no, there's no point dividing it into a plethora of bite-sized sub-articles of limited individual relevance. Much better to have the whole information in a single synthetic entry when possible.

Now, if you have a great deal of content to add on the specific subject of the L/70 variant, please go ahead. And if there is so much content to add on the matter that it bloats the present article to unreadable proportions, feel free to create a new article for the L/70. But as it stands, I see no point and lot of detriment to splitting it. Arugia (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a ton of info for the L/70 (and the L/60) but writing such an article would take a few days which is time i dont have atm. Ive started to collect the sources i need for the split.--Blockhaj (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support – the two weapons are from different eras have different characteristics. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
• Support - These weapons have:
• Two different barrel lengths
  • Two different ranges
  • Two different muzzle velocities
• Two different cartridges
  • Two different shell sizes
• Two different widths
• Two different heights
• Two different traverse angles
• Two different fire rates
• Two different laying mechanisms (Powered vs not)
• Two different parts "In spite of sharing almost nothing with the original design other than the calibre and the distinctive conical flash hider"

Checks both boxes for splitting: 1) Size allows: "> 60kB / 60,000 chars Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) > 50kB / 50,000 chars May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" 2) "Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as "light", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat."

Two different guns in many respects. You see this on many guns, even if they fire the same shell. Example:

16"/45 caliber Mark 6 gun 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC) @Arugia: would keeping a Bofors family page (of some proposed title) be acceptable while splitting off the L/60 and L/70? IS tank family - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Should be noted a Bofers 40mm family page can be retained (as happened with the IS tank family page when I split it. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arugia: would keeping a Bofors family page (of some proposed title) be acceptable while splitting off the L/60 and L/70? IS tank family - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: Should be noted that "Bofors" should go first if it is split. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Naming - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest something like "Bofors 40mm L/60" and "Bofors 40mm L/70" - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thats their official company names @MTWEmperor:--Blockhaj (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I'm just saying that manufacturer name first is the current guidelines per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Naming. If I'm wrong about the guidelines feel free to correct me - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split : User:Le Petit Chat/40 mm Bofors L/70 anti-air gun and User:Le Petit Chat/40 mm Bofors L/60 anti-air gun. I am neutral about the name of the page.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is a Support position? - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I thought the current discussion was now only about the name.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Bofors 40mm L/60" and "Bofors 40mm L/70" is my !vote. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Ok this seems to be an overwhelming yes for a split. Preferred names seems to be Bofors 40 mm L/60 and L/70 which also are their official company names. Note that calibers are written with a space between number and mm.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Blockhaj, my sources are limited to only a couple of books but happy to provide any assistance if required. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

Cavalryman V31 i only have some manuals for stats etc so anything history related is of interest. I have started to work on the split, it will take some days.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So my life just got turned over. Now i dont have time to do a proper split.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Update

The article has now been split into Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Blockhaj, many thanks for the excellent job splitting this. Cavalryman (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

Now we need to move Bofors Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 back to the CommonName of Bofors 40 mm gun. And Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 probably should be at Bofors 40 mm gun L/70. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support this, the L/60 version was by far the more common and significant, the vast majority of links throughout Wikipedia would be referring to it. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

GraemeLeggett That name is not the common name universally for the 40/60 and it is problematic as the 40/70 also goes under that name commonly. In the international historical community and weapon community the weapon is most commonly known as the "Bofors 40 mm L/60" generally. Bofors themselves traditionally names their guns after caliber and barrel length. Here is a readily available example (time stamped), but i have tons of more historical publications at hand if needed. Renaming the article back to just "Bofors 40 mm gun" will just keep aiding the problem of people using the unspecified name.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cavalryman From my experience the L/70 from a historical point of view is not that far behind the L/60 in communality and significance, and the generic name "Bofors 40 mm gun" has to some extent blown the L/60 out of proportion post WWII, as the L/70 is confused for the L/60 in a lot of historical sources.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have recently started to rename a lot of articles on Bofors guns to be more in line with their historical naming scheme.

• Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60
• Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70
• Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60
• Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/70
• Bofors 105 mm Coastal Automatic Gun L/54
• Bofors 120 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/50
• Bofors 120 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/46

--Blockhaj (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where does the "Automatic Gun" bit of the name come from. I've not seen it used in the references I've looked at so far? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Automatic Gun" can be found in this example i posted earlier ([2]), although for the L/70. Basically all prewar references from Bofors are either in German or Swedish, thus i have no direct reference were the 40/60 is named in English. Here are some snippets from a 1936 Bofors catalogue in German: [3]. Its general German name is '40 mm automatkanone L/60' ('40 mm automatkanon L/60' in Swedish). This can either be translated to "40 mm automatic cannon L/60" or "40 mm automatic gun L/60". The latter of these is more fitting as "Automatic Gun" is the English term Bofors chose to use for autocannons postwar. Here are some other snippets from a 1958 Bofors catalogue in English: [4]. At times Bofors names varried, as with the Bofors 120 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/46, which can be found both with and without Anti-Aircraft (A.A.) in the name ("Bofors 120 mm Automatic Gun L/46"). Thus i choose to not include 'Anti-Aircraft' in either article name for the 40/60 and 40/70. In Swedish Bofors sources the guns are most often just known as "automatkanon" (automatic gun) instead of "luftvärnsautomatkanon" (automatic anti-aircraft gun).--Blockhaj (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So you are using a translation of the manufacturers name for it in Swedish for the English article title? That is unlikely to meet the Article Name policy at WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The name "Bofors 40 mm automatic gun" is used in conjunction with "Bofors 40 mm automatic cannon" in George M. Chinn's book The Machine Gun, Volume 3. The book is published in 1951, however it lacks barrel length throughout. The book (1951) predates the introduction of the 40/70 (1952), referring to it as the M.48, the Swedish military designation. While it is nothing conclusive, it at least shows that the term "Automatic Gun" was used to some extent historically for the 40 mm L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In The Machine Gun, Volume 4, some Bofors weapon brochures are mentioned by names in the sources section on page 520 (link to free google e-book). Here you will find the names Bofors 25 mm automatic gun L/64 and Bofors 40 mm automatic naval gun L/60, further indications that the formal English names at the time used variations of "Automatic Gun".--Blockhaj (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The title Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 is purely a WP construction. A straight google search is of little help in determining what is an appropriate name, since most hits are to mirrors and other unreliable sources. What is useful is this n-gram. Overwhelmingly, the guns are referred to as Bofors 40/60 and like. In this n-gram, I have stripped away the predominant uses to show in more detail the words that follow either "40 mm Bofors" or "Bofors 40 mm". There is no consistent term that follows (except perhaps "Bofors 40 mm L/70"). The space in the calibre (ie "40 mm" v "40mm") makes little difference per this n-gram (see this and this, which are simplified by showing the two key forms of calibre first or second). As a note, I am not able to get information on what might follow "Bofors 40/60". I think it is a technical difficulty associated with the slash being present that conflicts with the asterisk as a wildcard. There may be many official designations but these largely refer to various mounting configurations rather than the gun itself and are not useful (not withstanding WP:COMMONNAME). To the argument of "automatic gun" being the best translation, the best translation of "automatkanon" is autocannon or automatic cannon. Clearly, the most appropriate titles (per WP:AT) are "Bofors 40/60" an "Bofors 40/70". Whether any qualifier is further required is another matter. There would be no naming conflict with "Bofors 40/60" and like. Therefore, additional precision is redundant and is counter-balanced by WP:CONCISE. To the existing titles, there is no justification to capitalise any part except "Bofors". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Blockhaj, given your recent comment at the RM below perhaps you are not familiar with WP:COMMONNAME as it applies to determining article titles. In the discussions here and below, this is how "common name" is being used. Perhaps you have not understood the nature of the n-gram links I have provided above. They represent searches through text from the extremely large body of publications that have been scanned into Google books. See n-gram and Google Ngram Viewer. Consequently, they are a useful tool to determine the relative frequency of any particular name and consequently, that which best satisfies WP:COMMONNAME wrt what an article title should be. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 i understand WP:COMMONNAME and n-grams but i find it very flawed in this case as available literature overrepresents WWII. WWII literature is one of the most problematic history areas due to "victors writing the history" and thus naming of guns in such literature often misrepresents historical and real life nomenclature, especially reflecting post WWII. And to my knowledge Google Ngram Wiewer is known to be flawed in its recognition of some words or numbers etc. In any case the best solution to all of this IMO is to use one of the full lenght formal names for the gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The name is not a WP construction. As explained above it is one of the formal historical names for it and its named as such as part of a Bofors-standardization project.

• Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60
• Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70
• Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60
• Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/70
• Bofors 105 mm Coastal Automatic Gun L/54
• Bofors 120 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/50
• Bofors 120 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/46

--Blockhaj (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly not one used in a substantial number (or majority) of independent reliable sources. From what I can see, it appears in one sales catalogue? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

" Bofors-standardization project." - whose project would that be? Article names are governed by policy as set out at WP:Article titles. Eg "Boys anti-tank rifle" and not "Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55in, Boys" (British Army name).

IMHO Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun is sufficiently concise and precise and also gives a reader enough information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The standardization project is a personal project of mine. Previously i thought no one would care and thus i never started anything formal. The reasoning for it is because Bofors has made so many different guns in the same caliber and barrel lengths and thus for the future i think it is important that we specify (like they do) what type of gun it is. Futurue examples: Bofors 120 mm Naval Gun L/46, Bofors 120 mm Automatic Gun L/46. @GraemeLeggett:, @Cinderella157:, is it of interest to start a formal Bofors-naming standardization project? Current simplified names are not only problematic for future article names but its also problematic for the reasons that we have this discussion. Simplified names causes people to merge several guns into one. Another example is Oerlikon 20 mm cannon.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Blockhaj, WP:AT is the policy governing the naming of articles. While consistency is a consideration, it must be balanced against other considerations. These titles are being presented in a way that represents them as if they are the acknowledged designations. That is just plain wrong (see WP:CITOGENESIS). "Bofors 40/60" is the common name as evidenced above. I can live with "Bofors 40/60 gun" even though it is a degree of unnecessary precision and less natural, in that one would need to use a piped link if one wished to use some other descriptor in running text like "Bofors 40/60 anti-aircraft gun". There is no conflict with other titles that would require further disambiguation. The same can be said for the other guns listed at Bofors#Guns. If there is a potential conflict (for a future article), we would deal with it then - we don't crystal ball these things. People may not notice these things straight away but on a matter such as this, they will care because there are WP policies at play. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of formally creating a project, it's a question of following wikipolicy on naming. Going off and doing one's own thing works for personal websites. In a formalised structure like en:wiki, you can end up a poor reputation for cooperation, everything put back where it was to start with, and exasperated fellow editors. Which is why there are ways of discussing changes before they are carried out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the reason behind current naming policy but i do think its flawed. I have already explained several reasons above. I prefer the usage of formal article names if they can be implemented without causing problems. Current name is both formal and explanatory, and imo not problematic. However i'm only one man. If everyone is against my proposed names then go ahead and change them.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think of the policy, it's policy until changed. So I'll initiate a requested move.

Requested move 2 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is clear consensus to move away from the existing title and support for "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun". A new RM can be made for "Bofors 40/60" or other titles. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 → Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun – The current name is not used in sources, and fails Article Name policy on capitalisation as well. Before splitting the content was under Bofors 40 mm gun. The proposed name covers a common name the weapon is known by with the "L/60" part disambiguating from a later weapon also made by Bofors GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The English name does appear in some sources but due to period language most formal sources name it in German or Swedish (German: 40 mm automatkanone L/60, Swedish: 40 mm automatkanon L/60). Post war autocannons by Bofors were traditionally called Automatic Guns in English.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Against current name The present name is contrary to WP:AT at several points. The statement by Blockhaj, most formal sources name it lacks verification but also, are not English language sources. The evidence presented above is that the WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly "Bofors 40/60". The "L" designation only appears to be used to any extent in reference to the 40/70 gun and then, it is far less common than the "40/70" designation. The additional descriptor, "gun" is unnecessary IMO. There is nothing of the form "Bofors 40 xxxxx" that isn't a gun. It provides no additional service in searches. Furthermore, "Bofors 40/60" is more amenable to linking without piping when a different descriptor (such as "anti-aircraft gun") is desired in text. IMO, "Bofors 40/60" ticks all of the boxes per WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• If moved, then Bofors 40/60 is preferred over "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun", as that name at the very least can be found in some formal documentation. Bofors 40/60 however is problematic in my book as it only speaks to people who know the suject matter beforehand. The general person will not understand what "Bofors 40/60" refers to.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Readers come looking for information by two main routs. They will come from a link from another article. In that case, the title chosen makes no difference to them finding the target. But it is still important as to what the name is being represented as. If they are making a search, then they are most likely searching by the most common name, whether or not they fully understand what it is they are searching for. Hence, that is why I would propose that "Bofors 40/60" is the best name. The lead will tell them that it is a gun, if they didn't already know that. "Bofors 40 mm gun" is the other possible search route (noting that "gun" is also redundant in this case) since it has been very common to refer to it as such (at least prior to the L/70). However, "Bofors 40 mm L/60" is very uncommon as a name per n-gram evidence. Readers coming via that search route are unlikely to know which variant they really want. The purpose of the Bofors 40 mm gun article is to give them sufficient information about which particular model they are after and, if they want more information, to go to the correct main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Tentative support as preferable to the current name, but would much prefer Bofors 40 mm gun and a hatnote for the L/70. I do not believe "Bofors 40/60" would be an improvement. Cavalryman (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
• Support Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun. Bofors 40/60 may be commonly used, but it doesn't do a good enough job of telling the reader what the subject of the article is, which is sort of the entire purpose of a title in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Parsecboy that argument goes for the current name as well, and its actually a formal name.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:AT: The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. However, perhaps the most important function of the title is so that a reader can find the article that they want. That is why WP:RECOGNIZE and WP:COMMONNAME are given a degree of prominence in determining the title. Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun" rarely occurs in sources - per the evidence, it wasn't found (sufficiently to report). [WP] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. This is because readers are most likely to search on the name they most commonly see elsewhere. "Bofors 40/60 [gun]" is not just "more common", it is substantially more common. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Bofors 40 mm fails because of the ambiguity that now exists. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The gun is known under a great variety of different takes on the 40 mm automatic gun L/60 name, sometimes just being referred to as the Bofors L/60. If we include several of the most common abbreviations of the name in the article lead then it will be super easy for people of all types to find the article.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I really want to give a bunch of examples but i actually have very few english examples at hand. However something i have noticed while going through my library is that the L/60 suffix becomes more common post WWII around the time the L/70 enters the scene. A lot of publications simply call it the Bofors 40 mm anti air gun (40 mm luftvärnspjäs) when describing WWII period history. The suffix L/60 however is not totally abscent and usually does appear once or twice in proper publications to specify what the text refers to. This however could definitely explain why a lot of english WWII period sources lack the suffix L/60. As the 40/43 never saw export to the UK or USA, the name "Bofors 40 mm gun" or "Bofors gun" during the war could only refer to the 40/60. This is the same reason why the Bofors 37 mm anti-tank gun rarely feature the suffix L/45. Bofors did produce a number of other 37 mm guns during the interwar period (37 mm Naval Gun L/37 for example) but these never saw export to English speaking countries to my knowledge. But even then, the name 'Bofors 40 mm "gun type" L/60' was well established internationally prior to the war.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support If there is no such thing as a Bofors 40mm gun (of any length) that is NOT automatic, it seems utterly pointless to include "automatic" in the description. Redirects would seems sufficient to cover the (extremely) unlikely search for an automatic version of any variant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ "Automatic Gun" is not simply a description but actually a common designation for the gun historically, thus the initial letters are capital. A similar case would be the "Thompson Submachine Gun". If not Automatic Gun then "Anti-Air Gun" also exist as an option, although the gun was not always intended for anti-air.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You picked a poor example to make your case: its Thompson submachine gun. No submachine gun articles seem to use "submachine gun" capitalised and some don't use "submachine gun" in the name , eg Sten even though 'officially' they might have had capitals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasnt referencing the Wikipedia article..--Blockhaj (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The point is that the capitalisation isn't there because of the article name policies, which also apply to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. I am not sure why Bofors L/60 40 mm gun is not proposed, on the basis of manufacturer - type - description, but the present proposal is better than what we have now. I note there is only one editor against the proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Calibre length section

There are some issues with the present description in the article.

Dimensions and definitions

Bore length: 2250 mm (56.25 calibres)

L/60 = 2400 mm

Unaccounted length (L/60 - L/56.25) = 150 mm

Length of rifling: 1927 - 1933 mm

Difference A (2250 - 1930): 320 mm

Difference B (2400 - 1930 [length of rifling]) = 470 mm

Cartridge LOA (inc projectile): 446.5 - 448.3 mm

Length of cartridge case = 311 mm

There are three main components to consider: the barrel; the breech ring which holds the breechblock and to which the barrel is fitted using an interrupted screw; and, the breech casing, in which the breech ring reciprocates. The barrel fits about halfway into the breech ring. The breechblock closes against the rear of the barrel. The barrelbreech ring appears to be about 200 - 300 mm long. See also Longitudinal Section of Gun

Effective barrel length: usually taken to be the length of rifling but clearly not here.

The barrel consist of the chamber, the bore and the muzzle. The chamber includes at least the neck of the cartridge but usually includes the lead. The muzzle includes the crown and flash suppressor. If the bore is considered to be other than the rifled section of a barrel, it is that which is at the nominal diameter of the calibre. (see Gun barrel).

Discussion

• The L/60 designation is not based on the length of rifling nor is it based on the bore length. "Difference A" (320 mm) indicates it includes the length of the empty cartridge case (311 mm). 150 mm is still unaccounted for.

• In the discussion at WT:MILHIST, it was stated that The reason its called an L/60 is because Bofors at the time (and at times today because logic) also counted the breach to the overall barrel length, making it an L/60 ... L/60 is the overall length from muzzle to the end of the weapon box according to the Swedish army where, clarifying the meaning of "weapon box": The The correct term would either be reciever, breech casing or mantle depending on which nomenclature u wanna use. Bofors said mantle. Accoridng to this film the US said breech casing. [sic]

• The length within the breech casing is at least the length an unfired cartridge plus some. This is clearly not where the measurement is taken from. It is at least 450 mm, which is three times the unaccounted length.

• The L/60 refers to the length of the barrel with the breech mounted, the breech excess length being 150 mm (5.9 in) long.

• The link "breech" is actually a piped link to breechloader. The automatic loading assembly fits within and atop the breech casing. It is saying the same as above and is wrong for the same reasons. The reference is not viewable so I cannot verify it. It may also be a mistranslation.

• I would contrast this with the proposed alternative explanation at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 4: The "L" designation represents the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. The "nominal length" of the L/60 barrel is 2400 mm. The actual length of the L/60 barrel is 56.25 calibres (2250 mm). Consequently, in US service, the gun was designated as L/56. There is no actual difference in barrel length.

• At times a barrel length of "L/62" is used – 2,500 mm (8 ft 2 in). This refers to the length of the barrel without breech but with the conical flash hider mounted; the excess length of the flash hider being 250 mm (9.8 in).

• At times a barrel length of "L/62" is used I have reservations about "at times". It cites one none English source titled in English as "Principles for names and abbreviated designations of the navy's artillery and firearms as well as motives for changes in model years, etc." This could easily be a one-off passing reference.

• The flash suppressor screws onto the end of the barrel. Some of the length of the suppressor will not add to the length of the barrel. The inner section of the suppressor closest to the breech is a similar diameter to the bore of barrel but slightly oversize. It is about 1/4 to 1/3 of the LOA of the suppressor. However, stating that the suppressor is 250 mm long but only adds 2 calibres to the length (ie 80 mm) is plain confusing.

L/43 paragraph

The barrel length given (1720 mm) divided by 40 mm = 43. There is no discrepancy at face value. The length of rifling given is 1385 mm. The difference is 335 mm. Given that the cartridge case is 311 mm, the difference is, for all practical reasons, the same as the length of the chamber - ie there is no discrepancy. This then begs the question as to whether the cited figure of 1720 mm is a value calculated from the number of calibres or if it is a cited length. It is represented as being the latter.

I have already commented on the Royal Swedish Naval Materiel Administration source cited in this para twice.

The final figure of 1760 mm cites this source. The table simply cites the "barrel length". It does not state or imply: With a flash hider or muzzle brake the barrel length becomes ... 1,760 mm (5 ft 9 in). But the table also gives the barrel length of the double model 1936 as 2500 mm.

A flash suppressor and a muzzle brake are quite two different things. I have not previously heard of the Bofors having a muzzle brake. It certainly does not appear to be a muzzle brake.

Conclusions

• Barrel length expressed in calibres is not an "exact" measure and is usually rounded to whole numbers.

• The Bofors guns do not use the more usual measure of "rifled" length as a basis for the calibre as a barrel length but includes the "chamber".

• The present "Calibre length" section does not provide a cogent explanation for the 150 mm "discrepancy".

• The L/60 measure probably includes the breach ring in determining the length. This "could" be assessed from a dimensioned drawing. However, there is quite clearly no source evident that cogently explains the discrepency. Such speculation (beyond this discussion) would be inappropriate.

• The current section is "questionable" and inadequate. It is a disservice to readers. I am reminded of the saying: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

• The wording at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 4 says just enough to acknowledge the difference without trying to explain what we can't (IMHO).

References

Discussion

The present section should be struck and replaced with something similar to my proposal. However, I don't even think it should exist as a section but should be more "generally" incorporated - somewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Answer

As the writer of the section and the above quotes i should explain that the wording used in a lot of period sources are hard to understand and thus i made an incorrect assumption that the L/60 length includes the weapon box (the receiver). A lot of sources says that the length of the "gun" is 2,400 mm. This doesnt refer to the entire autocannon but just the initial QF-gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The flashhider is stated as 250 mm long and adds 6.25 calibers onto the L/56.25 barrel, breech not included. The source used simply says L/62 and not L/62.5, thus i used that number.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The different designations can be summed up as "The gun was known as the L/56 by X, the L/60 by Y, and the L/whatever by Z due to different methodologies in describing the length of the barrel.". We can then if necessary give the lengths of the barrel, flash hider etc but (per WP:Not) we don't need to set out the particulars of the designations in actual numbers of metres or feet and inches. Anything more than a couple of sentences spent on the designations is a waste of effort for readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to give up on the English wikipedia community again.. What is WP:Not? Who gets to decide what is a waste of effort for readers?--Blockhaj (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Blockhaj, the Royal Swedish Naval Materiel Administration source can't be viewed. I would be interested in verifying what it actually has to say. Do you have it in pdf format that could be sent. Alternatively, could you possibly scan the pages cited? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157: I have it in PDF form but i have access to it through a club. I could potentially send u a copy in private if u promise to not spread it further, alternatively that i screenshot the relevant pages and upload em to imgur.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The pdf would be preferable. I would undertake not to transmit the work further. Screenshots can be problematic as to resolution and are not as flexible as an OCR based pdf. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

What is ur email?--Blockhaj (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If you send me an email through WP, I will get back to you that way.

Distinction between Length and Barrel Length

Article claims that the "length" of the gun is ~21 ft whereas the "barrel length" is ~7-8 ft. The latter number looks correct, give or take (based on 56 or 60 caliber), but intuitively/visually the first number looks way to large. Is the entire gun literally almost 3 times the length of the barrel? What accounts for the difference? 104.49.170.213 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is probably the length on a gun carriage (one of many mounts) but without specifying, it isn't very useful. Suspect mass, height and width are also for the carriage configuration. Suggest all three be removed as the picture in the infobox doesn't match that mounting. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. What you say makes sense. And I would agree that talking about "gun length" in this way isn't very logical given the huge variety of mountings/modes of deployment for this equipment. Would second your suggestion to delete these pieces of info. 104.49.170.213 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)