- yes, merge them. They are clearly just variant spellings for the same thing. -- Securiger 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree theres practicly nothing in each of them anyway.
- I guess this old discussion relates to merging the following stubs:
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please add another picture. I've deleted the picture off this page in an edit. 184.108.40.206 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that's a mortar, not a bombard. 220.127.116.11 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Bombard VS Cannon.
(talk) 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Initially rate this as stub. Limited content and coverage, lacks references. I'd suggest it needs to cover the technological development in more detail and more examples of use. Monstrelet (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
"It was first invented by the Ottomans." - I'm not happy with this statement, it needs references. But if i read "Supergun" article, it seems to be incorrect. Could someone clear this controversy between the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Muzzle Loading ?!
Really ?! It is clearly visible that at least the bombard on 3d picture is Breach Loading. That was the primary difference between a Bombard and a Cannon - the former was loaded from the breach, using a "camore" ("chamber" - the right part of the Great Turkish Bombard on the picture which was screwed into the left part which was the barrel), and the latter was loaded from the muzzle. Look at the cross section drawing of another Turkich bombard: . 'Mary Rose' bombards were breach loading. Mons Meg also was most likely breach loading, the chamber at the breach end was removable. Muzzle loading bombards are indeed quite a new word in firearm history. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)