Talk:Bofors 40 mm gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bofors wz.37[edit]

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? 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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 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. (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)

Deleted ridiculous "Globalize" tag[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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[edit]

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)

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

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)