Talk:QF 2-pounder naval gun

Pedantry I know, but the correct form should be "mounting mark X" or "gun mark Y" rather than "mark Z mounting". Emoscopes 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to 2-pounder gun. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

1700 Hours 14 April 2006

This article is about a nickname!!!! It should be moved to the anti-aircraft artillery page.

Philippsbourg

I'd agree in principle about renaming it, although this weapon is so universally known as the "pom pom" that I'm not sure entirely what it would achieve. In the interest of representing user's views, I have initiated the correct procedure for suggesting the article be renamed on behalf of User:Phillipsbourg. I think an article named "2_pounder_gun" would be better, with pom-pom redirecting to that page, although this may just be sliptting hairs. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How about making pompom a disambig page with links articles titled about each individual weapon ? Might be hard to scrape together enough to justify an article on the 37 mm maxim gun. If you want to see a badly titled article checkout 88 mm gun. Move, disambig or do nothing. Any of the three is fine with me. Megapixie 00:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Diambiguation page I think. The term is common enough, but until I read this article I wasn't aware that it applied to various different weapons. Wiki-Ed 10:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article

A seperate References sections with a little more sourcing and citing and this would be a B Class article on its way to a Good Article.--Oldwildbill 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to QF 2 pounder naval gun. —Mets501 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

2-pounder gun → QF 2 pounder naval gun – The current title is ambiguous over exactly what 2 pounder gun this is; the naval gun or the Ordnance QF 2 pounder, theoretically it covers both. The official designation for this weapon was QF 2 pounder, I feel the new title reflets this, and specifically refers to this weapon. I also feel that the use of the hyphen is innapropriate as it should only be used when referring to the gun in the adjective sense, not the noun. The official designation also lacks it. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose it should be at pompom gun. IT definitely should not be at 2-pounder though. IIRC, some horse artillery were also 2-pounders. 132.205.44.134 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the 2-pounder gun link can then disambiguate between naval and land 2 pounders. GraemeLeggett 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Disambiguation makes sense here. Recury 17:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

re; Oppose it should be at pompom gun. IT definitely should not be at 2-pounder though. IIRC, some horse artillery were also 2-pounders. 132.205.44.134 03:54, 19 September 2006

It should not be at pom pom, that was a nickname and the page was previously moved from there for that reason. Additionally, there were a number of weapons known by that name. Secondly, yes, there were some older horse artillery pieces rated 2 pounder, which is exactly why the page should be moved to the title QF 2 pounder naval gun to disambiguate it from those and the Ordnance QF 2 pounder. Are you sure you aren't responding to the older move from "pom pom" to "2-pounder gun" ? Emoscopes ^Talk 11:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Pom-pom" gun?

Why was it called a "pom-pom"? I'm guessing that the term isn't actually related to Pom-pom. —wwoods 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

From the first paragraph;

The name came from the sound that the original models were reported to make when firing.

Although I don't have a reference for this, it seems to be widely agreed upon and I've never heard any contrary explanation. Emoscopes ^Talk 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Somehow I missed that. —wwoods 18:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Maxim-Nordenfeldt not a British compnay, in which case why did a copy need to be produced by Vickers?

Vickers owned Maxim Nordenfelt from 1897 onwards. What I presume the article refers to is that the British Army had Vickers make copies of weapons for them that had already been produced and made their way into the hands of the Boers. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone's always trying to discredit the British.

2 Pounds?

"Although these were 2-pounder guns, in that they fired a projectile with a weight of 2 pounds"- there is something wrong with this statement, but I don't know what is correct. Epeeist smudge 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Muzzle

Please, what is the flaired cone shape on the muzzle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.33.136 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) AFAIK, the flared cone is a muzzle flash protector. It shielded the gunners from the bright flash when the gun fired, so they could use the gun at night.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.33.136 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Second-Rate Ships

In the section QF 2-pounder Mark II: Is this a good use of the term "second-rate". It seems like it's being used in the modern attributive meaning of less good than first rate, rather than the Royal Navy use: British ship-of-the-line sail warship that has 90 to 98 guns dispersed onto 3 gundecks. By this system a naval trawler would be lower than sixth-rate. In an article about a British naval gun, this is surely a confusing use at best, and if it is meant pejoratively, probably wrong. Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Filling weight?

Hi,

under specifications on the right side, the last part, there is a "filling weight" of 71g. I checked how much 2 Pounds are, it seems like it is 907,18474 Gramm. In the article, there is written that the only thing they had together with the 2 Pound Anti-Tank-Gun or Tank-Gun was the projectile weight of 2 Pounds.

40mm is not a small calibre, so I think 907,18 gramm could be correct, 71g is impossible for a 40mm projectile in my opinion. That is why I think ~907g is properly. If I'm right, can I add somewhere in the article after "2 Pounds" a "2 Pounds (907,18g) or so? For someone not from the UK 2 Pounds are not a real good information or in Germany for example many people use "1 Pfund" for a 500g butter piece for example, and in other cases 500g instead of the correct 453,59237 Gramm. This is a large difference! Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A "2 pounder" gun does not fire a 2 pound projectile

"although they both fired 2-pound (0.91 kg), 40-millimetre (1.6 in) projectiles" No, the anti-tank gun fired a 4.1 pound projectile. "2 pounder" has nothing to do with the projectiles actually fired from the gun. Why would two 40mm guns of completely different power and type both fire the exact same weight of shell as well as the exact same bore diameter (and which of the wide variety of shells would you chose to make the reference one?). I suspect this gun fired a generally lighter shell, but I doubt it was 2 pounds, and if it was, it was pure coincidence. The name refers to the theoretical weight of a spherical projectile fired from the bore, the same as an old smoothbore cannon. Otherwise it is useless as a bore diameter classification. You can make a cylindrical shell of 2 pounds weight in almost any bore diameter by varying the length. The "2 pounder" refers to the weight of a spherical ball that fits into the bore diameter of the gun. So a spherical 40mm solid shot would weigh 2 pounds (I believe iron was the metal). Since the actual shell was longer and the same diameter, it weighed more, although the content of the shell would make this vary. What would be the point in designating a weight of shell when the gun fires a whole range of rounds of different types and weights? What good would a nominal weight do you when it has no bearing at all on the relative size or power of the gun? It is much the same idea as shotguns, which are "12 gauge" or "20 gauge" referring to the number of balls of that bore size which could be cast out of 1lb of lead (if I recall correctly). It refers to the bore diameter indirectly by the weight of a spherical ball that would fit that bore.

64.223.159.241 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The given weight of a QF 2-pdr anti-tank gun complete round is 4 to 4.5 lb. The projectile is around half of that.

A 2lb iron shot, as a metal sphere (relative density ~8 ) would be approx 60 mm diameter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)