| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Gribeauval 12-Pounder Cannon: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Like this: I do not think it's a "small crew". Originally I no wanted to put it, but I noticed some anti-tank cannon for direct fire is here, and so I have included also this cannon. In the film of him shooting the two royalist rebels (but another two accordance a ball, so all together about four), so I thought it would not matter ...--[[User:Pandolfini|Pandolfini]] 14:10, 8 June 2012 (CDT) | Like this: I do not think it's a "small crew". Originally I no wanted to put it, but I noticed some anti-tank cannon for direct fire is here, and so I have included also this cannon. In the film of him shooting the two royalist rebels (but another two accordance a ball, so all together about four), so I thought it would not matter ...--[[User:Pandolfini|Pandolfini]] 14:10, 8 June 2012 (CDT) | ||
Oh and another thing - here are mortars!--[[User:Pandolfini|Pandolfini]] 14:20, 8 June 2012 (CDT) | Oh and another thing - here are mortars!--[[User:Pandolfini|Pandolfini]] 14:20, 8 June 2012 (CDT) | ||
::I was referring to [[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] not your point, however, I did use your good trivia to talk about the crew size. re: mortars, And also just pointing out pages that may violate the rules doesn't prove anything. There are tons of stuff here which need review, but the Mods don't have the time to catch EVERYTHING. We have many members like you who have tons more free time than we do. The IMFDB mods are volunteer, not paid like IMDB. At any rate, I solicited more viewpoints on this matter at the end of my post. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] | |||
Revision as of 19:28, 8 June 2012
Does it qualify?
This is field artillery piece. Does it qualify? If yes - then there is a lot of similar weapons in lot of other movies and they must have their pages also. Greg-Z 00:18, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
"What we do not allow are weapons which are too large to be operated by either an individual or small crew or are used primarily as indirect fire delivery systems. This disqualifies fuel air bombs, all air dropped bombs, mortars, artillery, IEDs, most explosive ordnance." --Zackmann08 00:23, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
Yes, it´s right - 15 crews, 6 horses :) Sorry ...--Pandolfini 01:54, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
But it was used in the direct fire role, to shoot columns, which qualifies it. Sangheili1155 06:09, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
- Every field gun can be used for direct fire. There is no tactical difference between Napoleonic 12-pounder and WW1 French 75. Greg-Z 06:37, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
- Except this gun is ONLY capable of direct fire. --Funkychinaman 07:46, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
- If YOU consider 15 men and 6 horses a 'small crew' ..... Ultimately there will be SOME gun that will wiggle its way through the rules. you have to consider if you let it through, you'll have to live with ALL of the avalanche of the rest of them and deal with the arguments as to why the others aren't allowed. I say, NO GO. True, most cannons before 1870 had iron sights and were essentially direct fire because the powder and munitions had such short range. They were limited by their technology. More powerful loads would explode the cannon. In it's earliest incarnations, Cannons were siege weapons, replacing the catapults and the trebuchet, blasting the crap out of fortress or castle walls. Later when facing massed infantry, the cannons were sometimes loaded with chain and grape shot, but again it was still a 'general area' devastation weapon. Still, THE most common load was the cannonball which had a secondary charge inside that exploded later at an generally 'undetermined' time. Only after 1870 did the artillery become good enough to actually go Miles and miles against a target area (which was their primary purpose). Of course this is just me musing. I welcome the opinions of guys with more cannon expertise than me. I still cringe because of all of the cannons that we essentially have NO information on. Many, and I mean A LOT of them in movies are total mockups. Beautiful Fiberglass fakes with pyrotechnicals charges inside. There are SOME real ones and in movies like Gettysburg a lot of them are privately owned original examples. Just some things for you guys to think about. :) MoviePropMaster2008
- I'm well aware of the potential for more like these, but if you're going to scrap it, then scrap it for reasons covered in the rules. Kill the page because it's a replica, not actually the real thing. --Funkychinaman 14:28, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
- If YOU consider 15 men and 6 horses a 'small crew' ..... Ultimately there will be SOME gun that will wiggle its way through the rules. you have to consider if you let it through, you'll have to live with ALL of the avalanche of the rest of them and deal with the arguments as to why the others aren't allowed. I say, NO GO. True, most cannons before 1870 had iron sights and were essentially direct fire because the powder and munitions had such short range. They were limited by their technology. More powerful loads would explode the cannon. In it's earliest incarnations, Cannons were siege weapons, replacing the catapults and the trebuchet, blasting the crap out of fortress or castle walls. Later when facing massed infantry, the cannons were sometimes loaded with chain and grape shot, but again it was still a 'general area' devastation weapon. Still, THE most common load was the cannonball which had a secondary charge inside that exploded later at an generally 'undetermined' time. Only after 1870 did the artillery become good enough to actually go Miles and miles against a target area (which was their primary purpose). Of course this is just me musing. I welcome the opinions of guys with more cannon expertise than me. I still cringe because of all of the cannons that we essentially have NO information on. Many, and I mean A LOT of them in movies are total mockups. Beautiful Fiberglass fakes with pyrotechnicals charges inside. There are SOME real ones and in movies like Gettysburg a lot of them are privately owned original examples. Just some things for you guys to think about. :) MoviePropMaster2008
- Except this gun is ONLY capable of direct fire. --Funkychinaman 07:46, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
Like this: I do not think it's a "small crew". Originally I no wanted to put it, but I noticed some anti-tank cannon for direct fire is here, and so I have included also this cannon. In the film of him shooting the two royalist rebels (but another two accordance a ball, so all together about four), so I thought it would not matter ...--Pandolfini 14:10, 8 June 2012 (CDT) Oh and another thing - here are mortars!--Pandolfini 14:20, 8 June 2012 (CDT)
- I was referring to Funkychinaman not your point, however, I did use your good trivia to talk about the crew size. re: mortars, And also just pointing out pages that may violate the rules doesn't prove anything. There are tons of stuff here which need review, but the Mods don't have the time to catch EVERYTHING. We have many members like you who have tons more free time than we do. The IMFDB mods are volunteer, not paid like IMDB. At any rate, I solicited more viewpoints on this matter at the end of my post. MoviePropMaster2008