Talk:Ordnance QF 25-pounder

message: I don't see why the 25 pounder Short Mark 1 needs its own article.  The description is very short and likely won't be expanded much further.  It could easily slip into the variants section here on the main article. Oberiko 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Bukvoed 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree. The Short 25 Pounder is sufficiently different from the standard gun to warrant its own article. In addition, the gun had an interesting development and service history which deserves to be covered in more detail than present. For instance, the development of the gun was a significant achievement of the Australian defence industry during WW2 and was probably the only artillery gun the Australian Army has ever customised to meet its needs. --Nick Dowling 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. The Australian short 25 pounder shares very little in common with the full sized one. It shares only the breech block and ammunition, other than that it is almost a completely new gun. An analogy might be the difference between the US and British 75mm, both are tank guns, both fire the same ammo, one is based on the french 75mm, the other on the 6 pounder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.253.146 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Given that the article has none of the content either of you mention here, there seems to be no reason to keep the split in place currently. If you can demonstrate some of this content then feel free, but given that all of the existing versions include such information, I'm skeptical that it warrants such a section. I am re-merging for now.Maury 13:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It was for use in jungle areas such as Burma that the 3.45 Burney was designed although the war ended before it could be used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal (25 pounder Short Mark 1)

message: This text was inserted into the head section by an anonimous editor and was later removed by other editor, apparently because of the wording. Nfe 02:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A 1972 documentary showing 25 pdr's being used during the Dhofar Rebellion here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.185 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Last use

message: Should probably be moved to Ordnance QF 25 pounder, in line with the titling of other British gun articles. Emoscopes Talk 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Consistency is a worthwhile approachGraemeLeggett 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: 1. MV for max range is not that of charge 3, it's charge Super, 1700 f/s is the Range Table standard MV for this charge.  Of course the RT standard MV is not the max MV.  The 'MV expected in a new Gun', given in the RT is higher, and the actual peak MV is higher still and occurs after a few hundred rounds have been fired by a new gun.  
2.  Weight, as for all guns this is tricky.  UK Handbooks usually provide at least shipping weight and in action weight.  In addition there's the towing weight and a 'bare' weight.  Weight in action usually includes some ancillary stores such as shovels, as well as gunnery stores such as fuze indicator(s).  Towed weight includes items carried on the gun such as aiming posts, sights in cases, etc.  There was also a marked weight differences between Mk 1 and the narrower later carriages, not forgetting the extra weight of the muzzle brake and double shield where these were fitted.
3.  Ammo, there were several more types than those listed, in addition other types were developed but did not enter service.
4.  Crew size, UK guns don't have crews, they have Detachments. The Gun Drill Book det size was 6 men (this exluded the driver), the official reduced det size was 4 men. 
Nfe 04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nfe, you're providing interesting infoemation. Can you please share the sources from which the info was taken? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The use of captured guns by either side depended to a large extent on whether there was an ample supply of captured ammunition to make the effort worthwhile. Most RA gun crews would not have surrendered, or abandoned their guns, until the ammunition had run out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

text: A good example is the Italian 20mm Breda Model 35 anti-aircraft gun. Large numbers of these guns & significant quantities of ammunition was captured in north Africa & was widely used by both Australian & British AA regiments & various RAN (especially) & RN naval ships operating in the  Med. It was said that you could identify an Australian warship by the colour & quantity of AA they could throw up compared to the British (the Italian tracer was a different colour). In the case of ships - they were additional to the ships normal (British) armament, with the Australians tending to jamb on as many captured guns as they could get.144.139.103.173 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: The description of ammunition is incomplete because it does not cover the cartridges and their propellant.
The picture of ammunition is highly misleading and must be removed.  It shows two shells 'mated' to cartridges this is fiction.  
Cartridges and shells were never mated - not in their packaging, not for loading and not when loaded. The normal cartridge (containing red, white and blue bags) was closed by inserting a leatherboard cup, the super cartridge propellant 'bag' projected beyond the metal cart case.Nfe (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first is covered here, the second can be adressed by a caption. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: If you have access to sources, could you edit both articles please. I only have access to "popular" treatments of the subject or the web.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The picture is misleading in that it shows shell and case together and so implies they might come like that. However the picture also shows the shells alone in reasonable definition and colour. Possible misunderstanding can be addressed with a caption which is what I have done. Should a better picture turn up then that can be used instead. Looking at the media available already "File:25 pounder projectile CMHM Brantford.JPG" from a Canadian Museum shows the two nearly together (and cold use a caption as well) but is of only one type of shell. So for the moment the current one will have to suffice.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I would think the fine detail goes on the image page itself, the caption is half way between a title and summary of the image - at "thumb" its hard to even tell the shades of colour.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd edited the description on the image file. More can be added yet. the modern Smoke is Base Ejecting Mk 6 if i guessed the stencilling right but if you could confirm that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ammunition

message: Not saying this page should have a "In Popular Culture" section but if this is true, it might make an interesting note on the film's article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the guns in the film are 25-pounders (it's been a long time since I last saw A Bridge Too Far) then I don't think that's a particularly noteworthy point - you would expect any properly resourced and researched film to feature the correct type of artillery. --IxK85 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that WW2 movies often don't or more accurately can't - due to no authentic material still around to utilize - Battle of Britain being an exception.  As I said, this would be more properly noted in the film's article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  these were the guns used in the artillery barrage scene of A BRIDGE TOO FAR, I think? 

message: Sorry to quibble, but the tone of the article will be improved by consistent spelling (correctly "25-pounder") and not using the abbreviation "25-pdr" in prose passages —other than quoted matter, of course. I'm applying for the title to be moved to accord with the consistency.  Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent spelling