|This article contains a translation of Царь-пушка from ru.wikipedia.|
|WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Visual arts / History / Military||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
- Знаете ли вы, сколько громких имен подарил белорусский народ миру, России? Просветители Петр Мстиславец и Иван Федоров - основатели первой типографии в Москве, воспитатель Петра Первого Самуил Петровский-Ситнианович, известный как Симеон Полоцкий, отец московских пушкарей Андрей Чохов - это он отлил Царь-пушку  --Yakudza 23:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Not the largest
The American 'Little David' has a slightly larger caliber.
- well isnt the "Little David" a mortor not a cannon.
The article says that the cannon has never been used. It's ambiguous as to whether this means that it has never been used to defend the Kremlin, or whether it has never been fired at all. Lupine Proletariat 13:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It has never been used to fire at all. KNewman 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- And could this cannon be fired at all? I am wondering if the pressure created by the exploading gunpowder during "operational use" would have cracked or destroyed the cannon. Maybe that is why it was never fired, too much was at stake. Have any scientists studied the iron it was made of to find out if this gun was operational? Mieciu K 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- As the legend goes, it was fired twice, but both times it fired shrapnel. Many have speculated weather or not it would blow up when attempting to fire a solid ball. That's why to many this gun is synonymous with "something very large and powerful, but impossible", similar to the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. GMRE (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- From a private communication, this "cannon" has no touch hole, therefore, it never could have been fired, either once or twice. The people above stated correctly that by a very rough estimate the barrel would crack like a banana peel at an attempt of firing, even if it did have the touch hole. The single mentioning of gunpowder traces allegedly found in the barrel has the only link to a Russian source which is already invalid. Statements of the kind appeared lately in the Russian media and the Russian part of the Internet on the wave of jingoism in search for its symbols. This "cannon" - I have to quote this word - is no weapon at all. It's a dummy cannon, a decoration of a kind. I would move to exclude the article about the Tsar Cannon from the Weapons category on the grounds that no reliable evidence of the cannon having fired exists. It would remain unclear, though, what category this thing should belong to (the category of cast-iron products of uncertain applicability would suit it best). And of course, no touch hole - this outweighs the rest of the speculations, and I think it should be mentioned in the article, but prudently, or it will be written off as an Original Research.18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Dmitry
Technically this artillery piece is a mortar (not a howitzer as the article on cannon claims) since it`s muzzle length does not exceed ten calibers. Also, a Russian book on artillery I read printed just after WW2 states that calculations show that the piece couldn't withstand a single solid shot due to it's thin muzzle walls. Veljko Stevanovich 14. 4. 00:30 UTC+1
- Its proportions are irrelevant. It was designed to be a cannon and was meant for direct fire. Therefore its a cannon. Obviously this thing isn't practical. GMRE (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears from the picture that the piece is not secured from theft at all (probably due to its immense mass). If this is the case, it would provide an interesting anecdote in the article. I was unable to find anything confirming or refuting this. Reb42 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)