Talk:Autocannon

message: From the article: "Modern tank guns (around 120 mm calibre)" I believe that caliber only refers to inch measurements.  A 9mm pistol is not a 9mm caliber pistol.
:Caliber is used with metric bore measurements as well.  The Jane's Infantry Weapons description of autocannon uses calibre and metric bore measurements together. W. B. Wilson 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=10845&dict=CALD Says nothing about inches. Just that its the diameter of the inside of a pipe -OOPSIE- 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calibre?

message: Would the article entry technically come under the heading of an autocannon, or a volleygun? Can we get more information to this effect? AllStarZ (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, Shirazi's invention was a volley gun and not an autocannon. It had multiple barrels, a characteristic of volley guns. It did not breech load or fire Shell (projectile)s, characteristics of autocannon. As mentioned above, it was not the first volley gun. Other inventions of this type had been documented as early as the 1300s. Dialectric (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Shirazi

message: "The BK 7,5 was the most massive forward-firing autocannon installation ever placed on any combat aircraft, up until the service introduction of the U.S. Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft, and its GAU-8 Avenger Gatling cannon in 1977."
This segment here seems to be tacked on by one of the sorts of internet lackeys who parades around with pictures of the Gau-8 next to volkswagens not realising the majority of the bulk is ammunition. The 75mm cannon as far as I'm concerned was much larger then the 30mm Gau-8 in caliber as well as weight of shot.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the largest was probably the Ordnance QF 32 pounder, fitted to a de Havilland Mosquito.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning a statement 

message: In the article there is a picture of an XM307 with a caption that calls it an autocannon. However it was my understanding that the XM 307 is an automatic grenade launcher. According to a different part of the article:
:Another weapon that is similar to the autocannon is the automatic grenade launcher. This is usually mounted on a tripod or on a 
:vehicle and is capable of firing explosive shells at a high rate of fire. The main items of distinction are that they too, are usually much smaller, and fire much lower velocity ammunition with a much more limited selection.
which fits perfectly with my understanding of it being an AGL. So either the picture is in the wrong article or this article needs some editing. Noha307 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autocannon/Automatic Grenade Launcher 

message: I think you are making an error in assuming that a contact fuse would have been used. 
AAA used timed fuses - if they don't, remember what goes up must come down and the AAA would do more damage than the bombs. 
The real problem is that prior to computer guidance of AAA, hits (or even close bursts) were extremely rare.
Whether the fabric is strong enough to cause an impact fuse to ignite a shell is irrelevant.NiD.29 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeppelin Shootdown

message: I've added a British English tag for consistency because this article was a mish-mash of British and American English
This article is headed by a picture of (I think an eighteenth or nineteenth century), muzzle-loading, single-shot weapon. Am I alone in thinking that this illustration is unsuitable for an article called 'Autocannon' whose content is also predominantly 20th century? I know that this offering is "Part of a series on CANNON", but a more up-to-date picture would be far better.
What do other editors think?
RASAM (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture 

message: It says the Polish wz.38 was "capable of knocking out all enemy tanks fielded in 1939", and it insinuates that the Hispano is unable to do this, because the wz.38 is "an upgrade" over the Hispano. First, a gun with half the firing rate, yet it's an "upgrade"? Second, do you seriously suggest that a 20x110mm rifle or autocannon firing AP ammo wasn't capable of knocking out enemy tanks of 1939? Obviously neither one is going to penetrate the frontal armor of all 1939 tanks, but as to "dealing with them with great difficulty" (i.e. shooting it from the side or rear where the armor is much thinner), the 20x110mm ought to be able to penetrate just about anything on the battlefield. Just because the Polish, lacking other AT weapons perhaps, pressed their 20mm into service as a AT gun and managed to knock out Pz IIs and even Pz IIIs and IVs (?), doesn't mean that a 20mm Hispano rifle or cannon isn't able to do the same thing if need be. A 20x110mm ought to be able to penetrate most tanks of 1939, or even later, if fired from the rear at the thinner armor. They certainly had no problem using aircraft mounted cannon to knock out early-war-era tanks from the vulnerable areas. This just sounds like a typical instance of someone who is a fan of the Polish gun using it as an excuse to illustrate how "superior" their own gun was (in spite of having hardly been built in numbers to even register on the battlefield).
Idumea47b (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knocking out tanks 

message: I deleted an unsourced section claiming grenade lauchers are similar weapons.  Discuss sources if you disagree with my deletion.-- Work permit (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autocanon and grenade laucher, deletion of section on similar weapons