# Talk:68-pounder gun

Here's a suggestion: the "95 cwt" should be explained in the introduction. Some might be able to figure out from the infobox what it means, but it should really be made clear in the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point, although I'm not entirely convinced that this article shouldn't just be at "68-pounder".  What do you think? Ranger Steve (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's the 68-Pounder Lancaster gun, as well as the carronade, so it'd need to be disambiguated somehow (unless this gun is the primary gun by this name, which is what the current redirect for 68-pounder suggests). Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you might consider renaming it to 68-pounder 95cwt gun? The current name doesn't tell us what it is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Could do, or we could simplify it to 68-pounder gun.  What do you think? 95 cwt doesn't appear much in the literature I have when its named. I originally went with 95 cwt because I followed the link on the Victorian Arms template at the bottom of the page, but I'm not so sure now. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall 95 cwt being used very often either, possibly because the carronade had fallen out of favor by the time it was developed. So I'd be OK with 68-pounder gun, presuming that the carronade has that word in its title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
While the carronade is not a problem the 68-Pounder Lancaster is. It's frequently refered to as a 68-Pounder which can render some desciptions of the Crimean War unclear (gets particulary bad with gunboats they started by carrying the lancaster gun but unclear if they continued to do so). It's also not entirely clear if there was a seperate shore based version or not. There is also This which is claimed to be 96 cwt. It would appear to be an error but that would require the warrior restoration team and Lambert to be unaware of a gun on public display within a couple of miles of where the warrior ended up.©Geni 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I only ever see the Lancaster gun referred to by name.  Perhaps references to 68-pounders are actually references to this one? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Send a Gunboat The Victorian Navy and Supremacy at Sea on page 28 makes a reference to a 68 pounder that unless the arrow class were refitted before july 1855 has to be a lancaster gun. Hmm need to add a mention of gunboats to this article.©Geni 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
While perhaps not a reliable source, this site does at least suggest that the Arrow Class' Lancaster Guns would have been replaced eventually.  Unless there's any further objections, I'll change this title to 68-pounder gun.  I'm really not seeing anything that suggests the Lancaster Gun was ever referred to without using the word Lancaster somewhere in its title. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:68-pounder 95 cwt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nice work
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 
Fix capitalization of titles in references as per WP:CAPS#Composition titles. Did the formal name of the 80-pdr include the hyphens? If not then add them to that paragraph.
This gun was typically referred to formally as "68-pr. of 95 cwts., S.B." in British manuals and tables. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
Windage calculation needs to clarify that it's .1 inch on each side of the shell.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Cheers Sturmvogel.  Think I've got everything - also found a copy of Lambert's book in a second hand shop today, bargain at £4! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Lambert's great. It will be key if I ever start work on the Warrior article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've run across a refence to a blomefield patturn gun (referes to the one outside southsea castle. Does this mean there is more than one patturn?©Geni 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There were 2 as far as I know : 68-pounder 105 cwt and 68-pounder 95 cwt. The 95 cwt variant was by far the most common. Contemporary publications I've read that mention the gun always appear to refer to it as 68 pounder 95 cwt or even just 95 cwt gun - naval professionals tended to use gun's weight in discussion in the period when there were multiple versions - I refer to the reports on the Bombardment of Kagoshima quoted in the RBL 7 inch Armstrong gun article, also Brassey's Naval Annual tables.  I think a GA should describe the different models. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The gun I'm worried about is . It's apparently 96 cwt rather then 95. Is that just normal manufacturing tolerances of that era or are we looking at another subset (variation between manufacturers perhaps)? It was also apparently made in 1853 by walker co which by that point was the name gospel oak ironworks in Tipton was marking it's guns with.©Geni 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you give more info on where 96 cwt is stated ? I think gun weights were stamped on top  of the barrel at rear in format : cwt quarters pounds. There certainly was variation, and I don't know what the actual average weight of a "95 cwt" gun was - if it was closer to 96 cwt then a gun weighing just over 96 cwt, i.e. being 56 pounds heavier than average, is possible. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
96 is stated both on the sign by the gun and by A.L Boxell in his book The Ordnance of Southsea Castle (who went by the markings on the first reinforce which records the weight as 96-0-0).©Geni 03:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think 96 0 0 would fit within the weight tolerances of those days for a "95 cwt" gun. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Palmerston Fort Society links are broken, but the content has been transferred to the Victorian Forts site. Links here need to be changed accordingly. See here Vicarage (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)