Talk:Cannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Casual caption

th caption of the image depicting a cannon fireing is humerous, or at least casual. is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Seems right

. Securiger 08:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modern cannons

Could we have a bit more about modern cannons from an expert? A bit on Saddam Hussein's "Supergun" would be good, as would a piece on cannons which fire depleted uranium shells.

[edit] Usage Past the Medieval Age

I made several changes in this paragraph on statements which were either inaccurate, misleading or wrong.

1. "There is a common perception that Western gunpowder technology was superior to others'. Yet, a Korean cannon from the late 16th century had a range of 960m and an English cannon from the same time period had a range of 760m."

This is misleading, because one arbitrary sample is compared with another arbitrary one. The link below (ARTILLERY THROUGH THE AGES) shows that Spanish artillery of the age had effective ranges of up to 1,742 yards and maximum range of 6,666. I have therefore deleted the statement.

2. "The Siege of Constantinople in 1453 was the first battle in history in which cannons were used."

This is inaccurate, because it was actually not a battle, but a siege. This difference is important because, due to their differing function, cannon types for sieges (large, bulky) followed from early on an increasingly different development path than for field battles (smaller, lighter). Besides, the siege of Constantinople was neither the first siege nor the first battle where cannons were used, which already took place the century before (Hindred Years War, see: Clifford Rogers: The Military Revolution of the Hundred Years' War)). Nor did the cannon play a crucual part in the siege, as it blew up rather soon. I have therefore deleted the statement.

"...as it blew up rather soon..." If you're referring to the Basilic (cannon), six weeks at three shots a day was still plenty to have a meaningful impact on the siege of Constantinople. 68.48.160.243 01:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am refering to that cannon. According to my source, it fired once a day - so slow that the Byzantine were always able to refortify the breach in the meantime. After four weeks it broke down completely, having achieved nothing. In stark contrast to modern cannon technology, Constantinople was then taken by the oldest, and most unimaginative siege tactic: The Sultan ordered in truly Eastern despotic fashion a frontal assault, wave after wave, against the heavily outnumbered defenders, exhausting the Byzantines so much in the process, that finally a small sally door was left by them unguarded, allowing the Janissaries to slip in. So, the fall of Constantinople was not exactly the stuff which could help underline the importance of cannon as a new and revolutionary technology. Rather the exact opposite was the case, the Ottomans decided the day by tactics which would have been already familiar to the ancient Sumerians. Gun Powder Ma 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No sources supplied. (SEWilco 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC))
Well yes those sources would be nice, although that's not going to be one of the points I argue with GPM on. My first most important was that the Basilic had made a bombardment for a duration, as opposed to what GPM wrote that made it sound like it blew up after a few shots, or one. But I think that's been prettty well settled.
Otherwise I have to say whether the Basilic fired around 126 shots at three shots a day over the course of six weeks, or fired about 28 shots at one a day over the course of four weeks does not especially support either of our positions. Both of which numbers are within the same order of magnitude, or you could say, the same ballpark.
Personally I suspect the Turks in their eagerness may have fired three shots a day during the first days, or during critical assaults; but in order to grant the gun longevity the Ottomans under Urban's advice otherwise held to a strict one a day firing regimen allowing the cool of night to do its job. Also it may be that with repositioning, the search for worthy targets, and counsels of war on the gun's best possible use, the gun's first to its last shot may have been over the course of six weeks; but it did not fire for more than four weeks worth of those weeks days. That would put the total shots fired somewhere around 60-75 I figure. That or someone's numbers are a complete fabrication.
Beyond that sourcing one's thoughts here is not absolutely essential. It reads "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" on the edit page. But this isn't encyclopedic content. This is a Talk page. 68.48.160.243 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First use of Cannons in Battle was in China

Quote: "siege of Constantinople was neither the first siege nor the first battle where cannons were used, which already took place the century before (Hindred Years War"

Incorrect, the first use of cannons was actually during the Mongol invasions of China, around 11th-12th century, which is around 200 years before the Hundred Years War.] -intranetusa

How could be used something non existent? The first known cannon is from 1326.213.218.238.6 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That was probably the first known cannon in Scotland. The article cites earlier cannon from Spain, and China's development was independent from Europe. --Grimhelm 14:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not have been independent - papermaking and printing technologies were both transmited by the Arabs to Europe. Nonetheless, the first metal cannon was invented in China more than 100 years before it appeared in Europe. So you can say that the cannon was invented in Asia, regardless of whether it was invented independently or not. Given enough time, any culture can invent anything independently. What counts is who invented it first.

-intranetusa

I already know that (considering what my most recent GA was), but when I say that the Chinese invented it independently, I mean that the Chinese were not dependent on Europe (although Europe was dependent on China, at the least with regard to Gunpowder). --Grimhelm 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

3. "Not until the late 18th century to early 19th century did the Western gunpowder technology supersede those of other ethnic groups or nationalities."

Not true. It is well know that as early as the early 17th century Jesuit missionaries were put in charge of Ming Chinese cannon factories due to their superior know-how. In SE Asia larger cannons were not of indigenous production but imported either from the Portuguese or the Turks (see: Pierre-Yves Manguin: Of Fortresses and Galleys. The 1568 Acehnese Siege of Melaka). And the Turks, in turn, had their artillery knowledge mostly acquired from Europeans, even that cannon of Constantiople was constructed by an Hungarian engineer (for technology transfer see: Jonathan Grant" Rethinking the Ottoman 'Decline': Military Technology Diffusion in the Ottoman Empire, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries). I have therefore deleted the statement.

Problem is that now the paragraph looks pretty much amputated, but better no statement like wrong statements.

Nice job. You could have signed your name by using(~~~~) (Wikimachine 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

The section of the article titled "First use of cannon in battle" seems rather inconsistent with the previous section, or other articles in wikipedia for that matter. According to the previous section of the article the first examples of bronze-cast cannon did not appear until the 1300s with evolutionary precedants appearing either too early or too late, when the war between Genghis Khan's mongols and the Chinese Jin Dynasty occured during the 1210s, and, for that matter, may not have involved the Great Wall at all.

(Most people are unaware that the Great Wall and similar such walls in the region were constructed largely to isolate conquered subject nations from potential allies. Those that were built before Ghengis Khan's era were largely in disrepair by then, while the Ming Dynasty's Great Wall -the one that is classically identified as the THE Great Wall- itself was not built until long after.)

Also I'm dubious of the notion that the very first battle using bronze-cast or other cannons would involve "more than 3,000" of such. One would think that experimental weapons would not be seized upon so earnestly even in the face of Genghis Khan.68.48.160.243 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Grimhelm. Not mind you that I'd dispute that the first use of cannon was in China. It's just that everything about that statement was fantastic and unsupportable. 68.48.160.243 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

That cannon really doesn't look American Civil War-era - possibly English Civil War (the handles on the barrel give it away) but since the cannon in question is in Bucharest, none of these are really appropriate. Mon Vier 12:00 20th April 2006

A cannon is a cannon and may be fired by people of any nationality regardless of their geographic position (if they are in working order) Ste4k 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannon shot inaccuracies

round shot: archeological evidence suggests that iron shot has been in common usage since the late 15th century, not the 17th as stated.

Grape & Canister confusion: the author has also mixed up grape and canister to some extent. Grape Shot contained a dozen or so smaller shot (each ranging from about an inch in diameter to the size of a tennis ball) contained in a canvas wrapping, while Canister (or Case shot) was a can containing as many as 100 or more musket balls. Both were intended for anti-personnel duty but Grape shot was generally used at longer ranges than Canister. The latter was most definitely a short-range shot and had the effect of a giant shotgun blast. The thin container would burst apart immediately upon leaving the barrel and spray its contents to devastating effect.

[edit] Shotguns are cannons?

Article asserts shotguns are cannons. I find this claim highly unlikely. Can anyone defend this claim? -- Geo Swan 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It only truely says that with grapeshot the cannons are essentialy large shotguns, not the other way around.Them308 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Cast Iron

Cast Iron cannon wasn't developed in the 16th century, nor by the Dutch. That is a common error that goes around in the Net. Cast-Iron cannons had been arround since the begining, but they were considered inferior to bronze cannon since they were more prone to burst due to casting imperfections and they had a nasty tendency to rust. Also in the beguining there wern't foundries big enough to cast large cannon, so most cast-iron pieces were small.

Since the 15th century many nations were using wrought-iron and cast-iron cannon in their vessels. But navies were small by then and demand was scarce so there weren't so many foundries around, big enough to produce cast-iron pieces.

Durability was the only reason why the bronze cannon were tougt to be better, but with the increase in naval activity and warfare in the 16th century, that become a minor flaw, since a bronze cannon only lasted longer if not used often, otherwize it's bore wold erode faster than the iron conterparts. So, the leading sea powers of the time started using iron cannon more often. The Dutch found it easier to arm theyr ever growing fleet with iron pieces, since they were cheaper, lighter and they lasted longer in battle. The only drawback was that they were still susceptible to come apart.


Yeh, cast iron was invented by the Chinese, then spread to Europe. Quality of the iron depended on its source, and the Chinese and Japanese actually later incorperated charcoal into their fuel, creating steel. -intranetusa

[edit] Recoiless Rifle

Should it be considered a cannon? Dudtz 12/22/05 5:55 PM EST

I don't think so. See recoilless rifle. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 23:32 Z

Actually I don't think that's wrong. Cannon are distinguished as cannon for their preferred elevation and trajectory, and their bore size. Both of which rifles, recoilless or otherwise, may fit the definition of. If you doubt see Fort Rinella. And yeah, that is a rifle.68.48.160.243 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Shot?

Does any one have info on "hot shot", a type of projectile used to start fires inside fortifications? or is this the "Carcass" mentioned?Mike McGregor (Can) 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hot shot was normal shot, round or otherwise, that was kept in hot coals to make it red hot. It was loaded very very carefully using tongs. Gun crews were careful not just for the burning hazard but also because the heat of the shot could set off the gun's charge prematurely. I believe for this reason the shot was probably not rammed all the way home and was instead pushed maybe halfway down the barrel. Accuracy would have suffered for this. There's a cool scene in an Erol Flynn movie (maybe Captain Blood) were his pirate crew are preparing a hot shot. 68.48.160.243 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Probably, you say? "… having before put some clay over the powder the cannon is loaded with, lest it should be set on fire by the red hot bullet", according to EB 1771. (SEWilco 05:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC))
Ah good point, well not to nitpick (no really not, refer back to the start of this sentence), but I expect many gunners may still not have rammed all the way home simply because one might not trust their hands and fingers to some clay down inside the barrel that they couldn't see having formed a perfect seal. Besides hot shot often times did not need to be a precision weapon. 68.48.160.243 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Another possibility is that the clay was forming a barrier to block powder trails from igniting the main charge. Sometimes "hay" was used instead of clay. If the "hay" was green (wet) animal food, a hot shot could have been tamped down on it. Or maybe the delay in burning through packed dry hay would be sufficient. "But when a trench is before the battery of red-hot bullets, hay is rammed-over the powder; because, if it was clay, the pieces of it would wound and kill the workmen." (SEWilco 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
The range and precision might not be as much of a factor as one might believe, if small guns were used. Tamping might not have been as critical as with a long-range shot. EB 1771: "Red-hot bullets are never fired but with eight or four pounders. For if they were of a stronger caliber, the bullets could not be served easily." (SEWilco 06:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Canister/Case Shot confusion possible

I'm concerned that the article doesn't properly distinguish between canister and case shot. Both certainly had the same basic function, but there are important differences. Canister, as mentioned, is basically a can shaped container filled with iron or steel balls. When fired this thin container disintegrates, creating the anti-personnel effect of a giant shotgun. Canister is only useful over short distances. Case shot was developed (by Shrapnel, if I'm not mistaken) to partial remedy the range shortcomings of canister. Case shot is basically a thin skinned shell that has been filled with steel or iron balls. Upon firing, the case shot behaves like any other shell until a bursting charge goes off after a pre-determined period of time. The bursting charge blows the case off and the balls continue on their way with, hopefully, a minimum of dispersion.

As "cartouches, which are cases loaded with …" is mentioned in the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica, the terminology may require clarification. Shrapnel was developed later than this. (SEWilco 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
The following section from the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica may be useful (some spelling modernized). (SEWilco 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
Sometimes, in lieu of bullets, the pieces are charged with cartouches, which are cases loaded with musket-balls, nails, chains, and pieces of old iron; sometimes, also, with small cannon-balls. There are cartouches made in form of grapes, which are musket-balls joined together with pitch, and disposed on a small board, in a pyramidal form round a wooden stick, which arises from the middle of the board. The cartouches made of tin are the best, because they carry further. There are also cartouches made in form of pine-apples, whose figure is pyramidal. Their base is equal to the caliber of a bullet, proposed, for the piece they are to be fired with; their height is of a caliber and a half; they are dipped in tar, and afterwards rolled in musket-balls, and when well covered with those balls, dipped again in the same tar, after which they may be used, thrusting the biggest foremost into the piece. These pine-apples are very good at sea, because, besides that the musket-balls flying about wound a great number of people, the bullet which is at the bottom of the cartouche does also much execution.

[edit] Modern usage

In modern usage, the word "cannon" is now mostly used for small, automatic, shell-firing guns. Such usage is mentioned in the article. However, with regard to artillery, the word "gun" is generally used to describe relatively high-velocity, low-angle weapons, to distinguish such pieces from howitzers and mortars as mentioned in the article.

[edit] Skew comments

>During the Second World War, artillery became less important

This is [expletive deleted] The eastern front (which was THE WWI, as all other fronts were mere auxillary to it) was all about artillery. Especially the soviets had massive artillery, never seen before, e.g. the opening firestorm of the Stalingrad counter-offensive or the incredible number of barrels they amassed to besiege Berlin in 1945. 213.178.101.228 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It matters little that these comments speak of two different wars. Ste4k 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess. Though I think that fellow MUST have meant WWII rather than "THE WWI", as I'm fairly certain neither Stalingrad nor Berlin were besieged during the First World War. To his credit the Ostfront in terms of number of units was twenty times as large as the Westfront. But I think that's beside point. Much of the roles once fulfilled by artillery were then superceded by other arms. Tactical aircraft took much of the work away from indirect firing artillery, tanks took on the work of nearly all direct firing artillery, and on the sea aircraft carriers defeated battleships from standoff ranges. Going back to the Ostfront for examples we have the Sturmovik on the side of the Soviets and the Stuka on the side of the Germans, along with too many examples to get into of tanks on either side. 68.48.160.243 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Grapeshot entry

I have now amended the Grapeshot entry to read:

An anti-personnel weapon, similar to canister shot, but with the shot being contained in a canvas bag, and generally of a larger calibre. So called because of the resemblance of the clustered shot in the bag to a cluster of grapes on the vine.

I tried to find a reliable online reference for this but could not after a brief search. I will look again. For now, I'm relying on personal knowledge- that is, a number of books on 17th/18th century warfare i have read and personal visits to HMS Victory, The Mary Rose and the associated museums in Portsmouth, England- 20 miles from where i live. Grapeshot was larger calibre balls, from the size of grapes up to that of tennis balls, depending on the calibre of the cannon being used, contained in a canvas bag and used for longer-range anti-personell fire. Canister, in the 17th-early 19th century at least, referred to a thin metal case contining a large number (up to several hundred in large cannon loads) of musket balls, which would split when fire resulting in a lethal but short range anti-personnel load. In this period at least, it did NOT contain any internal explosive charge, unlike later and modern shrapnel ammunition. If the term "canister" is used in modern usage (my knowledge of 18th century warfare is better than that of 21st century!) to refer to shrapnel rounds, the 2 usages need to be distuingished. As all the other terms used in the "Projectiles" section refer to pre-20th century usage, it seems that should be (as it currently is) the primary one for canister too. Ian, 03.12.06

[edit] More Information!

I find this article EXTREMELY lacking. I visit sites EVERYWHERE that have references to "cannon", and they all lead here, but the information here is extremely obscured and minimal. There at least needs to be several sections including time periods, around the world uses (Cannons at sea, in the Orient, European continent, American continent), what exactly was the first cannon, and other variations. This article on cannon is severely limited to those of the late Middle Ages. Colonel Marksman 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India's contributions

I added some of India's contributions into the History Section and an image of a wheel mounted cannon from India. Hope it adds to the article.

I find it implausable that a cast iron tube firing round cannon balls with black powder would have the same range as one of the Mk7 triple turrets that form an Iowa class battleship's main armament

The test was actually done recently before tourists as I've read. I'll try to find an English link for that. I'd believe the range especially when it says they used almost 100 kgs of black powder!

Anyway, I found this lik. If anyone can help me use it as citation, I'd be grateful. Thanx

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/yw/2002/03/30/stories/2002033000150100.htm

65.95.199.166 (Darkness1089 not logged in).

[edit] Korean vs Western

The question about which was superior put as example a korean cannon with a superior range to an english cannon; in fact, the culverins of the europeans had many more range than that english example (i think, false example), and the cannons too, as you see at the end of the XVI century

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/source/is3/is3c.htm

So i think we must change that portion of the article.

-Fco

[edit] Direct and indirect fire?

I'd like to see these terms explained in detail, please. I have now a vision of a thing that hits you on the head being indirect and from the front being direct even if each was aimed at you. Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two is merely whether or not the attacking unit can see it's target. Usually meaning it is a direct fire attack if it there is an unobstructed line-of-sight between them. Direct fire can be as much as a laser attacking ballistic missiles at strategic ranges, and indirect fire can be as little as a grenadier lobbing grenades at unseen enemies over a high wall.

I once suggested, not seriously, that indirect attacks should perhaps be outlawed under the conventions of war. But, given the utility of such attacks in modern warfare I doubt warfighters could be convinced to give them up. On the other hand, I remember a television documentary were a German general who had been on the receiving end of such demanded that direct fire of artillery into urban strongpoints to dislodge defenders should be outlawed. (Somewhat understandably as multiple building walls are not sufficient to slow, let alone stop, the level fire of modern artillery pieces.) 68.48.160.243 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be a basis for such claims. Check the laws of war. There's an agreement that weapons fired at a person should be survivable. I think anything of .50 caliber or larger is forbidden as an antipersonnel weapon. Perhaps under that clause, firing a cannon directly at a person is not acceptable. Probably when you're on the receiving end, it is even more unacceptable. There are a number of large weapons which are in the field because they're intended for use against vehicles, not against foot soldiers. (SEWilco 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC))
Ah but you gave the reason such attacks are an exception to those rules of war in your own writing. The cannon (manned, by the way, by Americans who did not feel like obliging the German's wish that they make a frontal assault on a fortified town) were not attacking infantry, but just as with the vehicles you mentioned that happened to contain men, were attacking buildings that happened to contain infantry.
It may also be pointed out that indirect fires of artillery on infantry out in the open are at least tolerated internationally. (For that matter under the U.N. charter it is unlawful for nations to make military aggression on one another. But, noone has taken that one seriously since the Korean War.) The argument there I suppose is that bombardment is survivable, if you're lucky enough that no shells explode too close and you don't catch any shrapnel. 68.48.160.243 16:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some possible additions

  • Breach Loading
  • Rifling that came about as an accidental observation due to the original purpose of rifling being to help clean out the bore. Ste4k 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Da Vinci

Why there is no reference to Leonardo DaVinci? He invented the modern cannon. It was utilized in Europe from the Renaissance up to the 1900s. Do a search on google: Leonardo Da Vinci + cannon. BillyJo 21:40, Oct 16 2006 (UTC)

Um, as far as I know, there's no evidence that Leonardo da Vinci made any more than evolutionary improvements to cannon design, if that. It should not surprise people that da Vinci worked with modern cannon as, since he was a military engineer, casting many cannons was something that he did as part of his job. And, of course, applying his casting skills to sculpture was one of his great accomplishments in art. To say that Leonardo worked with modern cannon is far from saying he invented them. 68.48.160.243 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you like Leonardo da Vinci you might be interested in the Galata Bridge. I found it while researching the Fall of Constantinople for an ongoing dialogue further up this discussion page. It seems kind of fantastic, almost to the point where one might suspect an archeological hoax. But, I think a correspondence between da Vinci, the Sultan Bayezid II, and then Michelango would be awfully hard to fake. As the article reads the bridge would have involved known geometric concepts. But, the modernly natural form and the ambition of the design make it compelling nonetheless. 68.48.160.243 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Cannon was not an invention of Leonardo da Vinci. He invented the Cattapult. The first Cannon was built by a Hungarian named Urban for Mehemet II and used in battle first in the Fall of Constantinople. Is it worth mentioning that that was the first time it was applied in war and that Urban had presented it to Constantinople XI who had rejected it. One of thos cannons was later presented to Queen Victoria by Abdülâziz. It's either in some British Museum or in the Palace Kendirangu 07:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No offence, but this is absurd. Both the catapult and the cannon date back long before da Vinci and Mehemet II. Just look up Battle of Crécy, Trebuchet and Catapult, for examples. Even this article says the cannon predates 1453! --Grimhelm 13:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing invited

I added a bunch of material from the 18th century. Some editing and clarifications will be needed. Dive right in. Did I properly translate "spunge" as "sponge"? I'm also not certain that I properly identified the cannon instruments. They were not all labeled in the original plate. (SEWilco 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Spider shot

Overall, the spread of the military use of gunpowder technology seems to have been extremely rapid in the middle eastern and European region. there is no such thing as spider shot

What does "spider shot"mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.219.205.50 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An earlier edit claimed spider shot was similar to chain shot but with many branches of chain. I am aware of the term "spider shot" but don't have a good description of it. (SEWilco 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Seasonal Cannon

"A 24 pounder may well fire 90 or 100 shots every day in summer; at 60 or 75 in winter."

Why should a cannon be able to fire fewer rounds per day in cold weather? Wouldn't the lower temprature only improve the cannon's rate of cooling?

71.225.102.120 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Fronzel

The source did not give a reason for the difference in speed. I suspect what changes is the speed of the gun crew, not the physics of cannons. (SEWilco 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cleanup

Removed for lack of sources:

…in 1298 the use of psychological-warfare gunpowder is described being demonstrated to an interested Christmas feast in the same kingdom. The earliest depiction of smoothbore bronze-cast cannon, firing a large arrow, first appears in a manuscript from 1326. That same year the council of Florence employed masters for the making of "large iron arrows and balls and cannon of metal". An earlier Ghentian document mentions cannon in 1313, but this reference is disputed by some scholars.

If someone can find sources for these it would be appreciated. And could someone familiar with the topic write an article on scopettieri? --Grimhelm 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep these links at hand: [1] [2] --Grimhelm 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have userfied the material on 18th century British cannon. Feel free to edit here: User:Grimhelm/English cannon It could make a nice DYK when it is up to standard. --Grimhelm 14:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article series

English cannon has been passed as both a GA and a DYK article, and we could start a series on different types of cannon by period and nation. Two drafts that I am working on (where contributions would be welcome) are:

The first one seems almost ready to be used as an article, but I am less familiar with Spanish cannon so I would like some expansion from other editors. --Grimhelm 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECannon_ec19.html"