Battle of Middle Boggy Depot

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Eliminated the specific mention of 18-pound balls, as both my recollection and the Britannica definition cited offer a wider range of weights. Wilhelm Ritter 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the unit "pound" is used when measuring size of shot, especially from cannons of this era. I feel that while useful, SI units aren't strictly necessary for this article

-Unregistered user: Dec 16 2007 4:00am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.21.129 (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's right.86.165.98.71 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the claimed performance (408ms / 450m+ range) from an episode of Battlefield Detectives titled "What Sunk the Armada", which tested a replicate culverin. It appears to be the weapon shown on the camera left of the current article image, and was fired by a representative of the Royal Armouries. Unfortunately, I can't find any online sources confirming this. If anyone has one, it would be much appreciated. Rogerborg 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off target?

I'm no expert, but Dean & Kemp's Oxford Companion of Ships & the Sea says the culverin was 5", demi-culverin 4" (9pdr). Who's right? Trekphiler 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess in dimensions. The article quotes the diameter of the culveins as about 5 inches but the correct phrase is a bore or caliber of 5 inches etc as clearly the outside diameter is much greater. Then the diameter(bore/caliber) of the various peices fails to match the shot size.

The article states "the culverin extraordinaire had a diameter of 5½ inches (140 mm), ------it carried a shot with a diameter of 5¼ inches (135 mm) The ordinary culverin had a diameter of 5½ inches (140 mm), --- --- it carried a ball of 5½ inches (140 mm)" so are we to understand that the ordinary culverin had bigger diameter shot than the extraordinaire, even though its shot weight was lower.

The culverin of the least size is stated as "had a diameter of 5 inches (130 mm), ------; it carried a shot 3¼ inches in diameter " whereas its bore must clearly be less than 5 inches and must match the shot size. JDN

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.178.117 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the term "culverin" apply to non-land use? For instance on Navy ships? If not, perhaps the article should mention that the term is exclusively an army term. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some errors here

'The culverin was later replaced by the field gun once technology had advanced to the point where cannonballs had become explosive.'

This is misleading. The term culverin was probably out of use among the technical experts in artillery by about 1700: solid roundshot did not become obsolete for another 120-150 years. In the interim cannon were distinguished by the weight of shot; 12-pounder, 18-pounder, 24-,36-pounder etc. At least in English-language usage.

Secondly, in the illustration showing a hand culverin and 'two small cannon' - they are not small cannon. They are breech sections of larger cannon, designed so that a cannon could be reloaded more quickly and without having to clean and reload through the muzzle, which might be inconvenient (at sea for example, or in protected fortifications in sieges). The problem was that the seal between the tube of the breech and the tube of the main part of the cannon could not at that time be engineered with enough precision for long-term use; eventually the hot gases of ignition would find a weakness and burst the gun. So this design did not prosper and was dropped after about 1490 (until breech-loading mechanisms came back into widespread use in the 19th century, when metals could be machined to finer tolerances).

I do not edit into wiki articles direct because I have no patience with the jargon, and I do not want to get into arguments with people. But you will find I am right.

86.165.98.71 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he is right.

80.17.36.33 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image embedded in this article labelled '"Murderer", 1410 France' is a photograph of the same weapon seen in this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrier_%C3%A0_bo%C3%AEte#/media/File:Perier_a_boite_en_fer_forge_Western_Europe_1410.jpg in the infobox at Pierrier_à_boîte. This is confusing as there is no content in either article comparing, distinguishing or equating (or indeed even mentioning) the other type of weapon. Is there some information available to provide clarity? Should one (or both) of the images be removed? 122.148.227.2 (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it says in the lead. Yet there is nothing in the body of the article about this. It would be good if someone who knows about this could add something. LastDodo (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]