RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon?

RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

tocaff -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/7/2010 11:46:07 PM)
...this is a gun, one is for fighting, the other for fun...[;)]

Kwik E Mart -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/7/2010 11:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff ...this is a gun, one is for fighting, the other for fun...[;)] darn, you just beat me to it, tocaff!!! [;)]

pnzrgnral -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 12:21:46 AM)
Here's something to ponder... Cannon is basically a generic term, but the US Army further defined it as such: Low-angle trajectory, high-velocity, line-of-sight (e.g. antitank and anti-aircraft) are guns; high-angle, medium velocity, direct/indirect fire are howitzers; very high-angle, low-velocity, direct/indirect are mortars. As has already been stated, the type of shell is (usually) other than solid shot. Keep in mind I'm submitting this as an Infantryman, knowing somewhat of military history, and not as an Artilleryman. I hope this helps [:)]

Mynok -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 3:34:20 AM)
Wasn't the original concept of a cannon as a weapon that was situated on a carriage of some sort? Irrelevant probably in modern terms, but I think we can eliminate the shell vs bullet concept because most pre-modern cannon didn't fire only shell but also shot, which was equivalent to a big bullet. Gun and howitzer are pretty easily distinguished by trajectory and muzzle velocity, as are mortars by trajectory and propulsion mechanism. We probably will have to just accept the fact that words evolve in meaning.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 6:00:38 AM)
We seem to have lost track of the original poster's question..., which was what was the difference between a machine gun and a cannon where WW II aircraft armaments were concerned? I'm still betting on explosive vs. non-explosive rounds.

d0mbo -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 8:50:08 AM)
Indeed, keep it on topic guys, I need an answer. Just can't get no sleep at night over it! [:D]

gladiatt -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 9:28:21 AM)
Well, if i can highjack this thread on a not serious way... Just for fun, the french MEDIA ( here, the important and funny word is MEDIA [;)] ) usually know nothing about it. Look at a video in irak/afghanistan/africa/elsewhere with fightings. The mortar are called "heavy artillery" [8\|] The light machines-guns are called "light-cannon" [8\|] The rocket-launcher are called bazooka or missiles" [8\|] i even heard some howitzer called "heavy-anti-tank-cannon" [8\|][8\|][8\|] i think the reporters should have done their time of Military service, this would avoid those stupid comments [;)]

Sardaukar -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 9:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnowguy quote: ORIGINAL: dbfw190 here's a pretty neat website that deals with the subject http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm Great site! Thanks for the link. Indeed. Tony Williams is real expert and regular on military forum Tank-Net. If you want to ask specific questions, you could register in http://www.tank-net.org and ask him, he's very helpful.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 11:20:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gladiatt I think the reporters should have done their time of Military service, this would avoid those stupid comments [;)] They're REPORTERS! They can't be bothered with "facts"..., they just want good video so they can get their moronic faces on TV. "Journalism" has become a joke. Probably because they're reporting for an audience that believes "Reality TV" is "real". [8\|]

AW1Steve -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 12:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: d0mbo Indeed, keep it on topic guys,狢 need an answer. Just can't get no sleep at night over it! [:D] Maybe you should try warm milk? [:D] Sominex? [:D] A hot toddy?[:D] Read a government training manual? Any government, any manual! We used to call the P-3 flight manual "The big blue sleeping pill" (It had a light blue cover). [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 12:31:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gladiatt Well, if i can highjack this thread on a not serious way... Just for fun, the french MEDIA ( here, the important and funny word is MEDIA [;)] ) usually know nothing about it. Look at a video in irak/afghanistan/africa/elsewhere with fightings. The mortar are called "heavy artillery" [8\|] The light machines-guns are called "light-cannon" [8\|] The rocket-launcher are called bazooka or missiles" [8\|] i even heard some howitzer called "heavy-anti-tank-cannon" [8\|][8\|][8\|] i think the reporters should have done their time of Military service, this would avoid those stupid comments [;)] It's not just French "journalist". Do you recall a couple of years ago the AP reporter who held a handfull of unfired rounds and said that they had been fired at a woman's house? [X(][8\|][:(]

JohnDillworth -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 12:58:52 PM)
quote: Indeed, keep it on topic guys, I need an answer. Just can't get no sleep at night over it! Not our style! We reserve the right to take any thread and turn it into one of the claasics: Classics include but are not limited to: What if the Japanese had won Midway What if the Allies knew the attack was coming at Pearl Harbor Which is the Best Battle ship: Bismark, Iowa or Yamato Was the drive through the central pacific worth it or was McArther right all along I am sure there are 20 classic threads missing, please feel free to chip in

mike scholl 1 -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 1:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth Which is the Best Battle ship: Bismark, Iowa or Yamato HMS Warspite. Saw more action than all of the above combined... [:D]

sfbaytf -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 3:56:03 PM)
Ok to answer to OPs question so he can sleep soundly at night the rule for airplanes is if it's .50 cal or under and doesn't fire an explosive shell it's a machine gun. 16mm or over and fires an explosive shell it's a cannon. The one exception is the German 15mm which is for now classified as a hybrid-until it can be determined if fired solid shot or explosive shells or both. Land gets more complicated. You have inches, milimeters and pounds. One poster mentioned carriage mounting was a determining factor. Then there is the question of the period when cannons were referred to by names, not by the diameter or weight of projectile. Urbans bombard used in the siege of Constantinople or the US Civil War when cannons were referred to by names like Napoleon or Parrots. In more modern times referring to cannons by name is more arbitary. You has the M1 and M2 155mm referred to as "The Long Tom" while other 155mm models were not referred to by a common accepted name. Today that arbitary naming persists. The Navy seems to prefer inches with some exception-I see some British ships with guns using the "pound" convention. It was also mentioned that "naval rifles" was also once commonly used.

jmscho -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 6:01:04 PM)
Based on land usage, my opinion is: A gun is a direct fire weapon. Aimed directly at the target, or leading the target. A howitzer is an indirect fire weapon normally fired based on maths about where the "shells" are to land. Mortars are a type of howitzer having a higher trajectory. Taking in the air-to-air and air-to-ground arena, I used to work on RAF Phantoms. They carried the SUU-23A GUN. In training it fired 20mm solid rounds but used explosive rounds in real combat. Based on previous discussions does that make it both a gun and a cannon? But for naval guns - given the earlier land based definitions, at short range under local control they could be guns. But at longer range, and particularly under director control, they could be howitzers. A further complication is that cannon could be a term used for smooth bore weapons, whereas almost everything discussed (except mortars) is rifled. I think it is all semantics with no right or wrong answer.

witpqs -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 6:40:05 PM)
jmscho - I think part of the definition is that howitzers can fire both direct and indirect. Mortars can only fire indirect, guns direct. Or should I say 'are designed to' instead of 'can only'?

jmscho -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 8:59:48 PM)
witpqs. I did say "normally". But you're right, most weapons with sights can be used in a direct fire mode. Although mortars even break that rule because they have sights but are more an indirect fire weapon. As I said originally, it's semantics. There will always be exceptions that break the rule.

JWE -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 9:07:15 PM)
Well, now you all have it figured out, let me throw this dead skunk on the fire. "Every" term depends on "usage". There are some few hard technical definitions, but they are far and few between - and depend on the nation that's defining them. In the US Army Artillery Branch (ca. 1970) you had cannons, howitzers, guns. Cannons was a generic term for a tube. That's why people called us cannon-cockers. Howitzer is probably the most technical term - low chamber/barrel pressure, high angle mount, and "therefore" you can shoot some really nasty ammo designed to 'fit'. Gun is maybe next in technical terms (but not for fun). Gun is maybe 1/3 longer in calibers, and also has a high angle mount. An Arty gun is not DF. It has a higher chamber/barrel pressure and is designed for range. A 155mm Gun shoots different stuff from a 1m5mm Howitzer. But nobody cared what they were called. They were guns, cannons, tubes, whatever. There was no technical distinction; it was a howitzer, a gun-howitzer, a gun, and who gave a poopie. Everybody knew, from the name, what it was and what it could do. It was a spectrum and the "name" was meaningless.

LoBaron -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 9:20:20 PM)
Can愒 it be that 80% of all these explanations are the the reason why the terms are now stuck at about the current definitions? Welcome to "evolution of designation". [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 10:17:36 PM)
Machine guns go rat-tat-tat-tat! Cannons go BOOM! That's the none technical explaination! [:D]

gladiatt -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 10:21:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Machine guns go rat-tat-tat-tat! Cannons go BOOM! That's the none technical explaination! [:D] Damned, i got my tea spitted on my screen. [:D]

LoBaron -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 10:22:26 PM)
81% [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/8/2010 11:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gladiatt quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Machine guns go rat-tat-tat-tat! Cannons go BOOM! That's the none technical explaination! [:D] Damned, i got my tea spitted on my screen. [:D] Sorry about that![:D]

xj900uk -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 1:58:23 PM)
Worth noting that the M61 (I think) Vulcan carried by a lot of modern USAAF fighter aircraft (like the F15 Eagle) has just about the highest rate of fire of any air-to-air or air-to-groudn weapon (thanks to its six barrels) yet is still regarded as a cannon. And also the dreaded 37mm Gau-gun carried on teh A10 also has an even more fantastic rate of fire (sounds like a super-charged buzz-saw going) yet is also considered a cannon. So it's also not just down to rate-of-fire...

AW1Steve -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 2:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xj900uk Worth noting that the M61 (I think) Vulcan carried by a lot of modern USAAF fighter aircraft (like the F15 Eagle) has just about the highest rate of fire of any air-to-air or air-to-groudn weapon (thanks to its six barrels) yet is still regarded as a cannon. And also the dreaded 37mm Gau-gun carried on teh A10 also has an even more fantastic rate of fire (sounds like a super-charged buzz-saw going) yet is also considered a cannon. So it's also not just down to rate-of-fire... But do they go Rat-tat-tat-tat or BOOM! [:D]

xj900uk -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 2:23:36 PM)
More like a whiny buzz... bit disappointing when you think about it...

Nomad -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 2:41:18 PM)
So where does the water cannon fit in? Is there a water howitzer? I think I have heard of a water gun before. [8D]

Nikademus -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 2:48:26 PM)
a gun goes "POP!" a cannon goes "BOOM!" any questions?

Shark7 -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 4:37:16 PM)
Well a MG does have a faster rate of fire. MG typically 1000+ rounds per minute. A cannon will be around 60-100 rpms. Also, the cannon will typically have a higher powder charge for its projectile, thus increasing range and hitting point. Bigger gun, bigger shell, more power, slower rate of fire for cannon.

sfbaytf -> RE: What makes a cannon... a cannon? (4/9/2010 4:48:01 PM)
Water cannon is in a catagory of it's own. Don't know how that is classified or if they use inches, milimeters or the pounds ejected per second standard. It has to be included. The Egyptians used water cannons to hose down and cut openings for tanks in the sand embankments at the Bar Lev line in 1973 so they do have a place in the catagory. quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad So where does the water cannon fit in? Is there a water howitzer? I think I have heard of a water gun before. [8D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375