This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
QF 2-pounder naval gun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Talk:Pom-pom/old was copied or moved into QF 2 pounder naval gun with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Pedantry I know, but the correct form should be "mounting mark X" or "gun mark Y" rather than "mark Z mounting". Emoscopes 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move to 2-pounder gun. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 11:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
1700 Hours 14 April 2006
This article is about a nickname!!!! It should be moved to the anti-aircraft artillery page.
A seperate References sections with a little more sourcing and citing and this would be a B Class article on its way to a Good Article.-- Oldwildbill 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move to QF 2 pounder naval gun. — Mets501 ( talk) 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
2-pounder gun → QF 2 pounder naval gun – The current title is ambiguous over exactly what 2 pounder gun this is; the naval gun or the Ordnance QF 2 pounder, theoretically it covers both. The official designation for this weapon was QF 2 pounder, I feel the new title reflets this, and specifically refers to this weapon. I also feel that the use of the hyphen is innapropriate as it should only be used when referring to the gun in the adjective sense, not the noun. The official designation also lacks it. Emoscopes Talk 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
re; Oppose it should be at pompom gun. IT definitely should not be at 2-pounder though. IIRC, some horse artillery were also 2-pounders. 132.205.44.134 03:54, 19 September 2006
Why was it called a "pom-pom"? I'm guessing that the term isn't actually related to Pom-pom. —wwoods 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Was Maxim-Nordenfeldt not a British compnay, in which case why did a copy need to be produced by Vickers?
Someone's always trying to discredit the British.
"Although these were 2-pounder guns, in that they fired a projectile with a weight of 2 pounds"- there is something wrong with this statement, but I don't know what is correct. Epeeist smudge 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, what is the flaired cone shape on the muzzle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.33.136 ( talk) 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) AFAIK, the flared cone is a muzzle flash protector. It shielded the gunners from the bright flash when the gun fired, so they could use the gun at night. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you :) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.154.33.136 (
talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section QF 2-pounder Mark II: Is this a good use of the term "second-rate". It seems like it's being used in the modern attributive meaning of less good than first rate, rather than the Royal Navy use: British ship-of-the-line sail warship that has 90 to 98 guns dispersed onto 3 gundecks. By this system a naval trawler would be lower than sixth-rate. In an article about a British naval gun, this is surely a confusing use at best, and if it is meant pejoratively, probably wrong. Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
under specifications on the right side, the last part, there is a "filling weight" of 71g. I checked how much 2 Pounds are, it seems like it is 907,18474 Gramm. In the article, there is written that the only thing they had together with the 2 Pound Anti-Tank-Gun or Tank-Gun was the projectile weight of 2 Pounds.
40mm is not a small calibre, so I think 907,18 gramm could be correct, 71g is impossible for a 40mm projectile in my opinion. That is why I think ~907g is properly. If I'm right, can I add somewhere in the article after "2 Pounds" a "2 Pounds (907,18g) or so? For someone not from the UK 2 Pounds are not a real good information or in Germany for example many people use "1 Pfund" for a 500g butter piece for example, and in other cases 500g instead of the correct 453,59237 Gramm. This is a large difference! Greetings Kilon22 ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"although they both fired 2-pound (0.91 kg), 40-millimetre (1.6 in) projectiles" No, the anti-tank gun fired a 4.1 pound projectile. "2 pounder" has nothing to do with the projectiles actually fired from the gun. Why would two 40mm guns of completely different power and type both fire the exact same weight of shell as well as the exact same bore diameter (and which of the wide variety of shells would you chose to make the reference one?). I suspect this gun fired a generally lighter shell, but I doubt it was 2 pounds, and if it was, it was pure coincidence. The name refers to the theoretical weight of a spherical projectile fired from the bore, the same as an old smoothbore cannon. Otherwise it is useless as a bore diameter classification. You can make a cylindrical shell of 2 pounds weight in almost any bore diameter by varying the length. The "2 pounder" refers to the weight of a spherical ball that fits into the bore diameter of the gun. So a spherical 40mm solid shot would weigh 2 pounds (I believe iron was the metal). Since the actual shell was longer and the same diameter, it weighed more, although the content of the shell would make this vary. What would be the point in designating a weight of shell when the gun fires a whole range of rounds of different types and weights? What good would a nominal weight do you when it has no bearing at all on the relative size or power of the gun? It is much the same idea as shotguns, which are "12 gauge" or "20 gauge" referring to the number of balls of that bore size which could be cast out of 1lb of lead (if I recall correctly). It refers to the bore diameter indirectly by the weight of a spherical ball that would fit that bore.
64.223.159.241 (
talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
QF 2-pounder naval gun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Talk:Pom-pom/old was copied or moved into QF 2 pounder naval gun with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Pedantry I know, but the correct form should be "mounting mark X" or "gun mark Y" rather than "mark Z mounting". Emoscopes 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move to 2-pounder gun. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 11:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
1700 Hours 14 April 2006
This article is about a nickname!!!! It should be moved to the anti-aircraft artillery page.
A seperate References sections with a little more sourcing and citing and this would be a B Class article on its way to a Good Article.-- Oldwildbill 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move to QF 2 pounder naval gun. — Mets501 ( talk) 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
2-pounder gun → QF 2 pounder naval gun – The current title is ambiguous over exactly what 2 pounder gun this is; the naval gun or the Ordnance QF 2 pounder, theoretically it covers both. The official designation for this weapon was QF 2 pounder, I feel the new title reflets this, and specifically refers to this weapon. I also feel that the use of the hyphen is innapropriate as it should only be used when referring to the gun in the adjective sense, not the noun. The official designation also lacks it. Emoscopes Talk 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
re; Oppose it should be at pompom gun. IT definitely should not be at 2-pounder though. IIRC, some horse artillery were also 2-pounders. 132.205.44.134 03:54, 19 September 2006
Why was it called a "pom-pom"? I'm guessing that the term isn't actually related to Pom-pom. —wwoods 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Was Maxim-Nordenfeldt not a British compnay, in which case why did a copy need to be produced by Vickers?
Someone's always trying to discredit the British.
"Although these were 2-pounder guns, in that they fired a projectile with a weight of 2 pounds"- there is something wrong with this statement, but I don't know what is correct. Epeeist smudge 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, what is the flaired cone shape on the muzzle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.33.136 ( talk) 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) AFAIK, the flared cone is a muzzle flash protector. It shielded the gunners from the bright flash when the gun fired, so they could use the gun at night. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you :) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.154.33.136 (
talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section QF 2-pounder Mark II: Is this a good use of the term "second-rate". It seems like it's being used in the modern attributive meaning of less good than first rate, rather than the Royal Navy use: British ship-of-the-line sail warship that has 90 to 98 guns dispersed onto 3 gundecks. By this system a naval trawler would be lower than sixth-rate. In an article about a British naval gun, this is surely a confusing use at best, and if it is meant pejoratively, probably wrong. Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
under specifications on the right side, the last part, there is a "filling weight" of 71g. I checked how much 2 Pounds are, it seems like it is 907,18474 Gramm. In the article, there is written that the only thing they had together with the 2 Pound Anti-Tank-Gun or Tank-Gun was the projectile weight of 2 Pounds.
40mm is not a small calibre, so I think 907,18 gramm could be correct, 71g is impossible for a 40mm projectile in my opinion. That is why I think ~907g is properly. If I'm right, can I add somewhere in the article after "2 Pounds" a "2 Pounds (907,18g) or so? For someone not from the UK 2 Pounds are not a real good information or in Germany for example many people use "1 Pfund" for a 500g butter piece for example, and in other cases 500g instead of the correct 453,59237 Gramm. This is a large difference! Greetings Kilon22 ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"although they both fired 2-pound (0.91 kg), 40-millimetre (1.6 in) projectiles" No, the anti-tank gun fired a 4.1 pound projectile. "2 pounder" has nothing to do with the projectiles actually fired from the gun. Why would two 40mm guns of completely different power and type both fire the exact same weight of shell as well as the exact same bore diameter (and which of the wide variety of shells would you chose to make the reference one?). I suspect this gun fired a generally lighter shell, but I doubt it was 2 pounds, and if it was, it was pure coincidence. The name refers to the theoretical weight of a spherical projectile fired from the bore, the same as an old smoothbore cannon. Otherwise it is useless as a bore diameter classification. You can make a cylindrical shell of 2 pounds weight in almost any bore diameter by varying the length. The "2 pounder" refers to the weight of a spherical ball that fits into the bore diameter of the gun. So a spherical 40mm solid shot would weigh 2 pounds (I believe iron was the metal). Since the actual shell was longer and the same diameter, it weighed more, although the content of the shell would make this vary. What would be the point in designating a weight of shell when the gun fires a whole range of rounds of different types and weights? What good would a nominal weight do you when it has no bearing at all on the relative size or power of the gun? It is much the same idea as shotguns, which are "12 gauge" or "20 gauge" referring to the number of balls of that bore size which could be cast out of 1lb of lead (if I recall correctly). It refers to the bore diameter indirectly by the weight of a spherical ball that would fit that bore.
64.223.159.241 (
talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)