Matrix Games Forums

But Ive never hear an A-10 pilot or ground crewman call the 30mm an autocannon. It's always referred to as "the gun".

Regarding the P-39s in Soviet use. I would imagine the 37mm was pretty useful against bombers and the fighter that got hit, but the 50 and 30 cals did most of the killing. The better gunsights must have also been appreciated.

My idea of a cannon is this:
-Larger than .50 cal but smaller than an Artillery or Main gun of a tank.
-Fires a shell

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I think its down to pure nomenclature. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Up to .50 its a machinegun.
Up to 14 inch its a cannon.
Over 14 inch its a CANNON.

Unless it's a naval rifle?

Another method of defining varied by nationality: For example in the case of Germany any weapon with a calibre over 1.5cm was considered a 'machine-cannon', in British service any over 0.5 inch was no longer classified as an automatic machine-gun.

Zipping back to JohnDilworth (#14) : A standard 'cannon' (20mm firing HE or SAP) was much, much better than machine-guns of up to three times their number EXCEPT when the air target had no armour or no fuel fire-proofing - which really means everywhere except in the the first two years of the Pacific War and in Europe up to mid 1940.

Oh guys, I am happy to have started this debate to settle the age old question: what is a cannon?!
 
And here i was thinking thre would be a simple answer [;)]
 
Carry on men!

What about a plasma cannon?

Yes plasma cannons will require a complete re write of the definition manual. They are no longer the stuff of science fiction. Rail guns and electro magnetically propelled guns/cannons will also muddy the waters. Other new technologies like the Metal Storm will also create confusion.

here's a pretty neat website that deals with the subject http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Let's see if I can hijack this thread:
What is the better aircraft armament. A large number of heavy caliber machine guns or smaller machine guns and cannons? Why did everybody else (Brit's , Japs, Germans and Russians) use the small machine gun cannon setup and the American's use the 4,6,8 x 50 cal setup?

I'll help.

Definitely a great discussion topic.

My opinion is that we Yanks stuck with the .50 because our fighters never had to deal with heavy bombers. The .50 is an excellent general-purpose round with good ballistics and gave good results against Axis fighters and light/medium bombers, especially when we started stacking 3 and 4 in each wing. Early in the war, the 4 x .50 armament was adequate to defeat opponents who didn't have armor or self-sealing tanks.

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.

...this is a gun, one is for fighting, the other for fun...[;)]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

...this is a gun, one is for fighting, the other for fun...[;)]

darn, you just beat me to it, tocaff!!! [;)]

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 [:)]

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.

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.

Indeed, keep it on topic guys, I need an answer. Just can't get no sleep at night over it!
 
[:D]

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 [;)]

ORIGINAL: minnowguy

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.

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|]

ORIGINAL: d0mbo

Indeed, keep it on topic guys, I 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]