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

Hi! I've heard a rumor that Iraq's WMD was a contemporary supergun capable of shelling Israel, Iran and other regional targets, and that ongoing Iraqi research was developing a supergun capable of delivering artillery to any point on the globe.

Can anyone shed light on this? It sounds like a hoax, but it would explain many things about the way the war was handled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See Project Babylon (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Is there an actual definition of a "supergun"? Reading this page it just seems to be "a really big gun", which is just a wee bit vague. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I am doing this correctly or not and apologise if the latter is the case. I just wanted to comment on the parenthetical "(even kings)" which refers to only one king, James II of Scotland. Should the remark be "(even a king)" or were there really other kings killed by exploding ordnance? Dawright12 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Largest surviving bronze-cast gun[edit]

Although the Dardanelles Gun is frequently cited to be the largest surviving bronze-cast gun of the period, the bronze-cast Tsar Cannon actually exceeds its dimensions in terms of caliber, length and weight. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Railguns, naval artillery[edit]

First and simplest, it seems to me that most post 1910-era large caliber naval guns equaled or exceeded the size and power of many of the land-based "superguns" described here. Why does a 16-inch gun with a range of 30 miles not count as a "supergun" when smaller-caliber land-based guns do? Next, couldn't "railguns" be considered a form of "supergun"? Just because they aren't conventional artillery? They perform the same function, yet with vastly improved capabilities (although with un-solved development problems). I notice someone added a little blurb at the bottom about a supposed new US Navy "supergun" that fires projectiles at Mach 7. I would say it's safe to assume the person is actually referring to the Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun, a prototype 32MJ railgun under development for the USN, whuch fires projectiles at Mach 7. I added a link, but it might be good to include more detail in the article..45Colt 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in article[edit]

There seems to be a contradiction between the article text, which says "at about the same time super-sized bombards were phased out in Western Europe, the technology was transmitted to the Ottoman army", and the caption of the first picture, which says "the bronze Dardanelles cannon...was the first supergun”.

The article, of course, is implying that the Ottoman gun came after many of the European ones, and therefore couldn't have been the first.

I have no idea of the facts, but no doubt another editor who works on this article will... Barnabypage (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)