Talk:Naval guns and gunnery/Archive 1

Another great ref

Another great reference on this subject is:

Peter Hodges, "The Big Gun: Battleship Main Armament 1860-1945", Naval Institute, Annapolis, 1981

which goes into a great deal of technical detail. It doesn't cover the entire period covered by this article, but for the period it does, it has to rate as close to a definitive reference work. J. Noel Chiappa 12:58, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Comments on content so far

Overall, it seems pretty good. One main large-scale comment is that in a few places it seems like there's more maritime military history detail than is really needed to provide context for the content of this particular article. Places I especially noticed this:

• British fleet decline, and growth of opposing fleets, after the 7 Years' War
• Frigates (the whole section would make a nice stand-alone article, but that is more naval history than weapons history)
• Fire/powder ships (again, interesting, and worthy of an article, but they aren't guns)
• Battle cruisers at Jutland, and the Washington Treaty comments (again, more naval architecture than guns specifically)
• Most of the Jutland section, except for the comments about the cause of the loss of the British ships, and the material about the tactical plans and the consequent lack of training in long-range gunnery. Again, good material, useful in an article on the battle itself, but out of place here, I think.
• Missiles; again, good material, but for an article on naval missiles
• The AEGIS system; AFAIK, this only controls missiles, not guns (although perhaps it sets loose anti-missile point-defense systems like Phalanx CIWS, although I thought that was basically a self-contained system).

Other comments:

• The article could use more content on the switch from round cast shot to conical shells, and the development of explosive shells (and in particular the development of contact fuses, which depended on spin-stabilized shot - i.e. rifling - to ensure that the shell is properly oriented on arrival, to activate the fuse). Conical shells also had better penetration properties against armor.
• More about rifling, because conical shells and rifling are synergistic - were they actually developed together, or was one first? (I don't know off-hand.)
• More about breech loading - another synergistic technology to the above, because rifling, especially large caliber guns, is really infeasible without breech loading. Breech loading probably also increases the rate of fire, and simplifies loading arrangements - particularly with very large caliber, i.e. longer, guns (which also use heavier shells, which need mechanical handling), since access to the muzzle is no longer required. Oh, I see, you mention that later in the article.
• Again, the timing relationship, and synergism, between all three; I suspect it's no accident that they (to a large degree) came into use at the same time. Maybe a section which is just about these three, and exploring their (probably interlocking) development?
• Could use more on the development of a suite of projectiles, designed for use against different classes of targets (analagous to the earlier round/bar/etc shot). A lot of work went into these in the period 18xx-1940, e.g. with the development of "windshields" (long thin-walled caps that made the shells more aerodynamic, increasing range and speed - i.e. penetrative power - at impact, and covered a nose designed to pierce armour). Specialised shells were also developed; full armour-piercing for use against other capital ships (with fuses in the base, designed to explode a fraction of a second after contact, when the shell would have penetrated inside the armour), high-explosive (designed for use against merchant ships, etc - a full AP round would go straight through one without exploding), etc.

Specific comments:

• "They would have been both awkward to handle and dangerous until the high wheels were replaced by low ones" - maybe explain why the large wheels were dangerous?
• "the 'Makalos', which burned in 1564" - was that a long time after it was built, or when it was new?
• "The effective ranges of these guns were only a small fraction of the extreme ranges. " - I assume that's an accuracy issue?
• "tearing, raking, and bilging the ships" - might want to explain that (I assume "bilging" is making a hole below the waterline (i.e. in the bilges) when the ship rolls (in the ocean swell).
• "'ships of the line' had to grow bigger" - I seem to recall reading that SotL in this era used very large-section timbers not just for strength, but also as a primitive form of armour (but my memory might be playing tricks on me here).
• "The carronade's short range eventually led to loss of interest in it as a naval weapon." - You might want to explain why, in tactical terms; I assume it's the same situation then as later, in that the vessel with the longer range - especially if it's faster - can 'stand off' and destroy her opponent while remaining untouched herself (even with the inaccurate shooting of the day). Although now that I keep reading, I do see this is alluded to in the description of the Battle of Lake Erie.
• "The greater range, velocity, and accuracy which were the advantages of rifled guns" - I don't think rifling increases velocity directly - although it may do so indirectly, because by allowing spun conical shot to remain aligned with the direction of flight, as opposed to tumbling, they are slowed down less by air resistance. (This will of course also increase range.)
• "slow rate of fire until elongated bullets permitting rapid loading" - Do conical muzzle-loaded bullets really load easier? Or was it actually the development of catridges (which included the powder and bullet in one unit), loaded from the breech, which really sped up the rate of fire?
• "The elevation that could be given to guns on British ships was increased from 13 in 1909 to 40 in 1917." - I think it depended on the specific turret and gun design. I don't have the reference books right at hand (and I'm too lazy to get up and go get it :-), but I seem to recall that the British standard 15" twin turrets, installed in the 'Renown' and 'Repulse' (built during WWI, along with the Warspite and 'R' class battleships) could originally only reach 20 or so, and when these two (along with the Warspites) were massively refitted in the 30s, the turrets in all of them were rebuilt and greatly increased the allowed elevation (to the 30 range, IIRC).

Hope this is all a) useful, and b) not too much! J. Noel Chiappa 21:23, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

Noel--that is terrific material and since you clearly know more than I do (my reading is mostly 1900-1945) I hope you will incorporate it! As for too much naval history--true, but at this stage CZ is very short on naval history and so I'm trying to cover bits of topics that deserve their own articles.

1. high wheels. I got that from Guilmartin (2007), but I can't tell you why they used small wheels!
2. Makalos was a new Swedish battleship, largest in the world, sunk by Danes, built a year or so before
3. effective range = shells wobbled and were inaccurate
4. bilging = shoot a hole in bottom
5. I'm not sure about timbers, but I think you're right
6. cannonade -- you're right
7. rifling = something I do know about. It's like a spiral football pass versus tumbling ball. so the ball does not slow down so quicky (so after 100 yards it has higher velocity)
8. slow rate --reference is to small-arm-rifles. To grip the rifling the old round bullet had to be rammed down hard. The elongated bullet was smaller & dropped down the barrell easily; but its flange in back expanded on firing & gripped the rifling.
9. "The elevation..." I'm not sure where I got that factoid (probably from Sumida) Richard Jensen 23:04, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

I wonder if the 40 degree elevation was on a mounting for smaller guns, ones that were used for anti-aircraft and anti-zepplin fire? Not that those were considered a direct threat (and wouldn't be until Billy Mitchell's bombing demo about a decade after WWI), but they were use for scouting (I'm pretty sure I recall the Germans using Zeppelins for this purpose at Jutland), and as such it would have been desirable to knock them out before they could report. I'll have to check and see if any guns (and, more important, mountings) were adapted for this purpose.

Also, I'm pretty sure the fire-control systems weren't up to accurately controlling fire at long ranges, especially the kind of ranges the large guns could reach at high elevations. I'll have to research this. (I was just reading about the 'Hood', and when she was lost she still had her original ca. 1920 fire-control systems, which were much inferior to those on the 'Bismarck'. J. Noel Chiappa 23:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Some research notes

Alas, I don't have time to incorporate all this into the article, and in any case it's not completely researched yet, but I did want to write it all down before I forgot it!

Content moved to Talk:Naval guns/Research Notes to keep the page size down.

Naval gun?

The article looks great! More about naval guns than I ever knew!

But why not naval gun, per Naming Conventions? --Larry Sanger 13:17, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

good point. maybe even better would be Naval Gunnery since it covers how the guns were used. Richard Jensen 15:20, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Hmmm. I must admit, 'guns' sounded more natural to me (probably because no warship ever had just one :-). The 'gunnery' thing I'm not so sure about, because to me that means just the usage (perhaps because this is the usual meaning in the literature, where it's most usually about practise in firing, and how accurate the results are), and not the underlying technology (which is really the focus of this article). Let me let this marinate for a while... J. Noel Chiappa 16:24, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

maybe "Naval guns and gunnery" ??? Richard Jensen 18:44, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

western centric view

I highly doubt that the use of naval guns were introduced by the European countries - China & Korea for long had been using cannons & rockets to fight off Japanese pirates on sea since the 14th centuries as well. See here and here - cannons on ships in 1300s.

I've read several western authors (including Samuel Hawley in his book The Imjin War a co-publication between UC Berkeley and the Royal Asiatic Society & Kenneth M. Swope in his article "Crouching Tigers, Secret Weapons: Military Technology Employed During the Sino-Japanese-korean War, 1592-1598" published by the Journal of Military History in 2005) talk about how it's a flawed western conception that the military revolution was solely a western phenomenon. (Chunbum Park 21:07, 22 March 2008 (CDT))

Quote Swope on the Korean War of 1592-1598 -

"In terms of sheer numbers, the conflict involved armies that easily dwarfed those of their European contemporaries... Expanding upon and challenging Michael Roberts’s and Geoffrey Parker’s thesis of a European military revolution, Sun Laichen has persuasively argued that Ming China was in fact the world’s first gunpowder empire and that the Ming were the primary exporters of military technology throughout Asia until at least the late sixteenth century...Before the coming of the Europeans in larger numbers in the sixteenth century, the Chinese were the major disseminators of military technology in Asia. The Ming Chinese had actually been using weapons similar to the Portuguese arquebus for some two hundred years.21 As indicated above, one scholar has even called early Ming China the first “gunpowder empire” in the early modern world and asserts that it was the Ming, not the Europeans, who started the military revolution, not only in Asian history, but also in world history.22 Therefore, when Europeans brought their arms to Asia, they did not introduce the technology, but rather they supplemented and expanded the options already available to war-makers"

I think that it's a good point to make for all in Citizendium who are interested in military history that Europe's military ascendancy did not materialize until the late 16th century. All A considerable amount of these "Europe...first in 14th century" stuffs are untrue or biased. I've seen many West is Best claims that are simply not true b/c the western scholars are not careful enough to study all other histories before publishing them.

Another example would the printing press - while the Chinese first invented the wooden printing, it was in Korea (not Gutenberg) that the first movable type metal printing was introduced. (see here) (Chunbum Park 21:18, 22 March 2008 (CDT))

we'd be very happy to add information regarding naval guns in China/Korea/Japan. we need some sources however regarding guns actually used on ships. Richard Jensen 22:10, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Thank you very much. The second link that I've posted says somewhere "In 1377, Koryo established an office for the manufacture of gunpowder and cannons, which were first used to fight Japanese pirates." While it may not be enough to write this article the quote just indicates that we should go in this direction. (Chunbum Park 09:32, 23 March 2008 (CDT))

Here is another link - see pg. 6. I've tried to find more but there's none left on Google Books. I'll add more occasionally. (Chunbum Park 09:51, 23 March 2008 (CDT))

Let me basically echo Richard, and say that I want the article to cover developments around the world in this field. As you surmise, I (along with many other Westerners) aren't as familiar with early naval developments elsewhere as we could (and perhaps should) be. I would therefore appreciate bringing to our attention any sources in this area. I am somewhat familiar with Japanese history, and know a little of Chinese (and I think I have that "When China Ruled the Seas" somewhere, which covers a part of the Ming period, and will look into it to see if it covers Chinese naval guns), but Korean history is something of a blank page to me (other than Korean ceramics :-). J. Noel Chiappa 14:01, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Thank you for being so open. I've almost written a thesis while beginning this section because I expected some strong-willed editors who would disagree with me on this issue. Then Dr. Jensen's reply reminded me that there were people like him all over the place in Citizendium & made me feel a bit awkward. It may be that there's simply not enough literature on this topic - all we need are who, how, when, why, where they used them, isn't that so? Thanks. (Chunbum Park 22:19, 23 March 2008 (CDT))

Another link here - shows that Koreans used cannons "in Chinese style" - in bombardment (this is what we mean by naval guns, isn't that so?) (Chunbum Park 22:20, 23 March 2008 (CDT))

made me feel a bit awkward - Please don't worry about it. As they say, "life is too short"! :-)

What I understand by "naval guns" are "guns placed aboard ships", because the technical issues involved in having large guns on board ships mean that these weapons are generally somewhat different and specialized. Also, the naval weapons sometimes had requirements (range, etc) which the land weapons didn't. However, I had to say "generally" (above) because from the earliest days until recently, there are examples of naval weapons being used in land settings (e.g. during World War I) and vice versa.

Also, there are cases of specialized weapons placed on land for use against ships (e.g. the heated shot weapons of ca. 1800, intended for use against wooden ships). Whether we would want to cover such weapons in this article is something that I don't think we have discussed, and I'm fairly sure we have not made any definite decision on it.

Anyway, hopefully we'll be able to dig up some things which give a usful level of detail about the employment of larger guns in naval settings in Asia, so we can cover that properly here. I will be looking at the links you provided as soon as I can find time. J. Noel Chiappa 22:45, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Another link here - shows that Koreans used cannons "in Chinese style" - in bombardment (this is what we mean by naval guns, isn't that so?) (Chunbum Park 22:20, 23 March 2008 (CDT))

I'm not good in reading Korean, but this local city gov site says in this article named "세계 해전사 바꾼 최무선의 화포" (Choe {or Chwae} Mu-saun's cannon that changed the world's naval history) has a section called "최무선 화포 사용한 해전, 유럽보다 200 년 앞서" (That naval battle featuring Choe Mu-saun's cannon, 200 years ahead of Europe). In the section, the words go something like "1380, 20,000 Japanese in 500 ships invade & pillage a coastal village... Koreans counterattack with 80 ships equipped with rockets & cannons... all Japanese ships were sunk... 1383 the Japanese pirates came again with 120 ships but the Koreans annihilated them all with 47 ships... 1389, the Goryo forces sink 300 ships... The battles of Jin-po & Gwan-eum-po were the world's first naval battle to use cannons and to have ships sunk by them..." Then it follows with "유럽에서 화포를 사용하여 해전을 벌인 것은 고려보다 무려 2 백 년이나 늦은 1571 년 10월 7일 아침, 베네치아, 제노바, 에스파냐의 연합 함대가 투르크 함대를 격파한 레판토 해전이다" (I don't get it b/c this article says that the Europeans first introduced naval guns in the 14th century (or 1300s) but here it says that Europe's first naval battle to see the usage of naval guns was 200 years late and occurred on 1571-10-07 when a combined fleet of the Bae-nau-chi-a (transliteration), Genova, and Spanish forces defeated the Too-roo-keu (transliteration) flotilla - the Battle of Le-pan-to (transliteration)." Thanks. (Chunbum Park 22:51, 23 March 2008 (CDT))

One article in English that seems relevant is Seiho Arima, " The Western Influence on Japanese Military Science, Shipbuilding, and Navigation," Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 19, No. 3/4 (1964), pp. 352-379 in jstor email me for a copy at [email protected] Richard Jensen 00:26, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

I have access to JSTOR from my school so I'll send you the PDF. It seems that the site I translated above may be correct that the 1st naval battle to see cannons sinking ships was that battle of Jinpo - it may be that the Europeans also had naval cannons before then but they never engaged in a naval battle until 1571. Could that be right? (Chunbum Park 07:44, 24 March 2008 (CDT))

Here's a more reliable site from the Korea Institute of Science & Technology - 세계 최초의 함포탑재 전함을 개발한 최무선 (Choe Mu-seon Who Developed The World's 1st Naval Gun-Equipped Battleship) - Notice "함포": 함 "ham" means naval/ship and 포 "po" means gun/cannon.

Quiz - what consists of urine, dirt, etc.? It's black powder... Then it talks about the chemical composition of the black powder. During the Goryo Dynasty of the 14th century, (roughly goes like) the Japanese invaded the Korean shores and made ruckus. The Japanese ships were very fast and the only way to beat them was by using cannons. But the Mongols who had the gunpowder technology would not give it to anyone. With much efforts Choe managed to develop the gunpowder himself. Some of the ingredients were not known... After 20 years of work he finally managed to develop them. This is how you make it: old wooden floor pieces... "화통도감(火筒都監)을 설치(1377년)하여 화포를 제작하게 하였다" (Hwa-tong-do-gam was established in 1377 for the purpose of overseeing the manufacture of cannons. "한편 최무선은 화포를 싣기에 적합한 군선을 개발하는 등 함포의 개발에도 힘을 쏟았다." New naval vessels were designed and built to accommodate the cannons. "최무선에 의해 제작된 다양한 크기와 위력의 화포와 군선이 그 위력을 발휘한 것은 겨우 3년 뒤의 일이다." These developments occurred only 3 years after his success with the black powder. "1380년 왜구의 두목인 아지발도(阿只拔都)가 5백여 척의 군선과 2만여 명의 졸개를 데리고 지금의 군산에 쳐들어왔을 때 최무선은 화포로 무장한 군선 단 40여 척만으로 왜구의 군선 전부를 궤멸시켰다." When, in 1380, the leader of the Japanese pirates A-ja-bal-do invaded the current-day area of Goon-san with 20,000 men on 500 vessels, Choe destroyed the entire Japanese flotilla with a fleet of 40 vessels armed with the naval cannons. "이때 배에서 화포를 사용한 것은 세계 해전사에 한 획을 긋는 세계 최초 해전사 대포 사용이었다." This event was the first time in the naval history of the world that the naval guns were used. "보통 많은 사람들이 알고 있기로는 세계해전사에서 대함용(對檻用)함포의 사용은 레판토 해전(1571년)에서 스페인 함대에 의해 처음 등장한 것으로 기록되어 있다. 하지만 실제로 우리나라가 서양에 비해 약 200년 앞서 사용한 것이다." Most people have come to know the Naval Battle of Le-pan-to (transl.) (1571) to be recorded as the first for the usage of the naval guns in the world's naval history - thanks to the Spanish fleet. However in reality Korea used them before the West by about 200 years.

(I'll translate more later)(Chunbum Park 17:24, 25 March 2008 (CDT)) As you can see some of the wordings don't make flow well in English - that's best I can do to compromise the differences between Korean and English. The ones following the quotes in Korean don't leave out anything. (Chunbum Park 21:32, 27 March 2008 (CDT))

The reference to urine might be a reference to the production of saltpeter (potassium nitrate), one of the constituents of gunpowder. You can read more about how urine is used to make it here. J. Noel Chiappa 19:52, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Yes, in fact that's how the KIST article described it - potassium something. I just wasn't sure enough. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 23:06, 25 March 2008 (CDT))

So I observe in Goryeo's case that ships were designed specifically for the cannons, not the other way around as the Europeans had went about - they developed cannons specifically for their ships. (Chunbum Park 23:08, 25 March 2008 (CDT))

what we need is a picture of a Goryo cannon and some description of how it was constructed and how it workedRichard Jensen 00:06, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

I'll try to find them. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 15:38, 26 March 2008 (CDT))

I found a site that talks about the Korean cannons during the Goryeo dynasty & that has pics. here. Find "제3절 고려시대의 화약무기", and you will go to the appropriate section. It's basically the last large section (out of 3) in the page. It's from the "Science Contents Promotion Center" of Korea Science Foundation so it must be reliable. Here's an animation of the Choe Mu-seon story here from Korea Academy of Science & Technology. From that same institution here's a page about him - I doubt that the pictures of the cannons are from the Goryeo dynasty - they're probably Joseon dynasty models that are similar to the Goryeo dynasty cannons. I'll check them out later. (Chunbum Park 20:49, 26 March 2008 (CDT))

If those images are restricted (e.g. by copyright), it's not clear we can use them. Best of all would be public domain images, ones that anyone can reproduce anywhere. J. Noel Chiappa 10:09, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

These are like the only images online and they're from copyrighted websites (SEIS' images are the best ones b/c they're actually from Goguryeo period). I'll e-mail SEIS right now & ask if we could use them. If they don't respond -that's predictable. Thanks. (Chunbum Park 20:18, 27 March 2008 (CDT))

Well, if they don't give us permission, we can always list the pages on the External links subpage, along with a description (in English :-) of what the relevant images are to look at, and what they are images of. J. Noel Chiappa 21:02, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

That's a great idea! Here's the e-mail that I wrote:

Hello, this is Chunbum Park and I'd like to ask you if we at Citizendium, a non-profit wiki encyclopedia project that requires real name and real credentials, could use some of the possibly copyrighted images from your website. The images are about the Goryeo dynasty cannons and we want to put them in the Naval Guns article. I am not the main author of the article but I've raised the issue that Naval Guns were first seen in Korea - as result of Choe Mu-seon's works in black powder and gunpowder weapons. Before the Citizendium editors can do anything to add Choe and Korea to the page, they need the resources like the images and the translations (which I am providing). The images are specifically from this page, and we'd like any of the following: 1st, and 2nd. If you're interested in allowing us to use your images, you may either keep the copyright and give Citizendium a special permission to use the image or you may change to copyright to GNU free documentation license or the creative commons license. Thank you. Sincerely

The actual email had hyperlinks so it's easier to read for people who're not familiar with Citizenidum. (Chunbum Park 21:07, 27 March 2008 (CDT))

By the way, all the Korean articles that I've been digging up seem to say that while Korea was not the first to invent the cannons (actually the question of who came up with it is ambiguous - Chinese? Italians?) & based their weapons on the Chinese models, the Koreans decided to deal actively with the wako pirate issue while the Chinese shied away from it - and that resulted in the Korean development of cannons only 3 years after Choe's development of the black powder (1st in Korea, the Chinese came up with the 1st black powder) aimed specifically at the Japanese pirates - and these cannons were not some land-based cannons that had heavy modification on them to be used at sea - they were almost sea-based to begin with & some of the burden of modifications was placed on the ships themselves (new ships were developed to accommodate them) instead of having the cannons share the entire burden of getting the modification. In other words, Korea's 1st cannons were aimed to be used at sea, but they were not the "naval gun" in the western historical sense that the cannons were originally land-based and came to have modifications before being used on sea (as someone described above). (Chunbum Park 21:14, 27 March 2008 (CDT))

That actually makes a certain amount of sense. With weapons, as with many thing, 'necessity is the mother of invention'. My impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that at this period in time, Korea was not involved in any land warfare, hence had no need for land weapons. So since the only place they needed cannons was in a naval setting (to combat the 'wako'), it makes sense that Korean cannons developed as naval weapons. J. Noel Chiappa 00:53, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Of course. Here's the translation of the SEIS page with the cannon pics -

The credit for the first appearance of the gunpowder in Korea goes to Choe Mu-seon during the Goryeo Dynasty (sounds awkward in English). In order to research about gunpowder and gunpowder weapons Choe established the Hwa-Dong-Do-Gam in 1377, after spending several years to found the institution. Choe's gunpowder weapons were modifications of the Chinese weapons, and, among those weapons, the ones that would be classified as guns or cannons were Dae-Jang-Goon-Po, Yi-Jang-Goon-Po, Sam-Jang-Goon-Po, etc.

Choe Mu-seon introduced the first cannons in Korea in 1372 during the Goryeo Dynasty. Of course, it is recorded that the Mongols used gunpowder weapons a hundred years earlier in their expedition to Japan, and it is speculated that since the Mongolians were still using them the Korean military used these gunpowder weapons also. However since there is a distance of 100 years between the development of these gunpowder weapons and Choe's making of the black powder, Choe works with gunpowder weapons do not seem to be related to the Mongol's weapons development.

During the 14th century, Korea imported and used gunpowder and gunpowder weapons from China in response to the huge increase in activity of the Japanese pirates. In the September of the 5th year of King Gong-min (1356) cannon was first tested by the River Nam. And, 16 years later, in October of the 21st year of King Gong-min (1372) Hwa-jaun (rocket?) was first launched experimentally. A year later, in October of the 22nd year of King Gong-min (1373), a battleship was constructed, Hwa-tong and Hwa-jaun installed, and launched experimentally.

(Chunbum Park 14:24, 28 March 2008 (CDT))

A gun is more than gunpowder. A "gunpowder weapon" might be a burning sack of gunpowder thrown onto a ship. The gun has to be some sort of cannon, where gunpowder is used to propell a ball to smash the other ship. These cannon are hard to make (because one mistake and the thing explodes in your face) and we expect to see a long-term pattern of development and invention, as we see in the European case. There will be photos and diagrams and dates.Richard Jensen 21:55, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

Oh, these were cannons - as you can see with the images from the site I linked (SEIS), and Koreans & the Chinese have used cannons for a long time & developed them constantly (500+ years until early 1900s when Japan took over) - and there were times when European cannon-making technologies transferred to China & Korea (shipwreck, sailors). Koreans used more than cannon balls with their cannons - in naval battles they used giant wooden arrows (for kinetic impact) as well. (also cylindrically grinded rocks & iron balls)

• This is a Joseon dynasty cannon that came about after a Dutch sailor came to Korea through shipwreck & made improvements on Korean cannon designs.
• These are Joseon dynasty cannons that were before the European design. They had a range of some 600 paces or something - you can see the cannonballs stacked up by them.
• the famous turtle ship has holes for cannons in regular interval (just like the European style of bombardment in naval warfare, instead of boarding & fighting w/ personal firearms & melee weapons)
• here's a wooden model of a Panokseon (battle ship) with cannons

(Chunbum Park 11:35, 31 March 2008 (CDT))

I can see that how you misunderstood the translations - Choe Museon developed more than cannons - and that's why the articles generally say "gunpowder weapons" etc - & they generally explain that Choe had to develop gunpowder first before making the weapons, but the articles do specify cannons & rockets. And see "화포" means "cannons" & "함포" means "ship cannon" or "naval gun" as it applies here. (Chunbum Park 11:41, 31 March 2008 (CDT))

we need authenticated dates for a history article. There ought to be some scholarly history books that explain the history in greater detail. Richard Jensen 12:03, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't quite understand - authenticated dates & books - are they required or do you think that the sites I've provided are not reliable? If books or scholarly journal articles are required at Citizendium then I probably can't do much because this is not known at all & especially in English I wouldn't be able to find anything (even on the web). Oh in fact, I have - on Google Books. I'll list them again - 1, 2, 3

If the latter is the case, I assure you that they're reliable - you probably never heard of these institutions because you live in the .. US? But the following sites are run by academic institutions that are equivalent of the Scientific American, etc. in the US - This site is run by KIST - equivalent of the National Lawrence Rivermore Laboratory (renowned for its possession of IBM Blue Gene/L, the world's fastest supercomputer).

Here are more links - this is from the Seoul National University, which is the best university in S Korea, equivalent of Harvard in the US. This article is an encyclopedia article in Korea written by the Korean branch of Britannica (as shown in license at bottom of the page) - so it must be reliable.

I'll try my best to translate all of them. Thanks. (Chunbum Park 17:03, 31 March 2008 (CDT))

The sites are excellent. What I was trying to say is that when it comes time to write a new section of the article, that the author (Chunbum) provide exact information including dates and characteristics of the naval gun--and a photo would be good (but not necessary). Footnotes are not necessary, but they are welcome.

Oh, I see, thank you. I thought that the original authors of the article would have better time with that because they know how the rest of the article flows - so do you want me to write this into the article or am I providing those exact informations to the people here? (Chunbum Park 07:42, 1 April 2008 (CDT))

Chunbum Park should write up the additions and everyone else can help him~ Richard Jensen 12:32, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Ok. (Chunbum Park 20:50, 1 April 2008 (CDT))

Missiles

I skimmed over all of the article. Missiles are naval guns- I thought Mr. Jensen said that only cannons could be naval guns... Then technically rockets are also naval guns? What about Hwacha - see here - multiple missile launcher? (Chunbum Park 10:01, 3 April 2008 (CDT))

I suggest a new section on the Korean weapons, including the hwacha. Did they come from China or Japan or Korea first? Richard Jensen 10:31, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

Further up the talk page, at #Comments on content so far, I had pointed out that material on the Aegis probably ought to go into a Naval missiles article; this one will undoubtly get long enough that we'll need to make it smaller, and the missile stuff clearly could go somewhere else. J. Noel Chiappa 10:58, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

I think that I could add a general section on Asian naval guns - the Chinese, Vietnamese, and the Japanese (and probably more) used naval guns so.. I think that hwacha could have originated from China (because I've seen a similar pic of it in some China-related article), but most sources say that they're distinctly Korean. (Chunbum Park 11:15, 3 April 2008 (CDT))

Guided missile does go into more detail on naval systems. For surface-to-air engagement, the same basic principles apply, although AEGIS can engage more targets than PATRIOT, and also has the Cooperative Engagement Capability. There is a considerable difference between the guidance systems of missiles intended to attack ships versus ground targets, as a ship radar seeker has to compensate for sea clutter. Given the unobstructed horizon, anti-shipping missiles tend to approach at very low "sea skimming" altitude, often with a terminal pop-up maneuver to deliver maximum kinetic energy to the target. There are some fairly exotic techniques, as with certain Soviet designed missiles of which one of a salvo flies high, sending target information to the remainder. If the high missile is shot down, another replaces it.

Yes, I do think that guns and missiles should be separate, perhaps with a third article for the hybrid problem of close-in defensive systems against anti-shipping missiles. AEGIS does not control guns, only Standard SM-2 and SM-3 missiles. Submarine-launched anti-shipping missiles need to go somewhere systematic, as do missiles that expect terminal guidance from a helicopter or aircraft, or are intended (e.g., Penguin, Exocet) for helicopter launch. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:18, 6 June 2008 (CDT)

other questions

"From 1500 to 1941 all the major fleets were built around platforms that could shoot bigger and more accurate guns." Could someone elaborate on this statement? I'm not sure if it would be safe to leave it as it is because I'm now adding the Asian developments with the naval guns. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 11:23, 3 April 2008 (CDT))

I think the article's trying to say that naval gun is this part of evolution? Ramming/boarding--> naval gun --> aircraft carrier? I think that could be worded better. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 11:24, 3 April 2008 (CDT))

the idea is that the usage of guns determined the architecture of the ships.Richard Jensen 12:06, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

Yes sir - but I also heard sometime ago that during WWII there was this argument in Japan to favor battleships over aircraft carriers & another in the US to favor aircraft carriers --> US won the Pacific. Right? The we could tie this article into how fleets were centered around big guns but now it's more centered toward the aircraft carrier - if there is such analysis from a reliable source(Chunbum Park 08:02, 4 April 2008 (CDT))

WW2 was a war between carriers. The battleships on each side played minor roles--they kept getting sunk by carrier planes.Richard Jensen 09:28, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Actually, I think it's incorrect to view the Japanese as being pro-battleship, and the US as being pro-carrier - I think most US admirals at the start of the war were also pro-battleship. They only relied on aircraft carriers after Pearl Harbour because... that's pretty much all they had left after Pearl Harbor. Later on, of course, they did come to appreciate that the carrier was the new capital ship - US battleships were relegated to secondary roles (including anti-aircraft protection for the carriers). And the US won the Pacific War for a number of reasons, one of which was that its industrial capacity was far larger than Japan's. I'm not sure what fleets are centered around now - there seems to be a fight between the submarine admirals and the aircraft carrier admirals that has a lot in common with that older carrier/battleship battles. J. Noel Chiappa 14:45, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Oh that makes sense too. It's just I heard from my dad who's very knowledgeable in history that there was this argument/discussion in Japan about which way to go - battleships or careers, and the pro-battleship groups won out. Well, I don't know much about this so... (Chunbum Park 15:10, 11 April 2008 (CDT))

Subpages

something's wrong with the subpages - when i click bibliography i'm led to naval guns bibliography, not the current one. (Chunbum Park 10:13, 8 April 2008 (CDT))

They got messed up when we renamed the page. I have fixed them all (I hope) now. Let me know if there are still any problems. J. Noel Chiappa 14:45, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Further reading

The firsther reading is a subset of our longer, more detailed, more advanced bibliography. It belongs on the main page as a service to the general reader. All the items are already listed in the bibliography. The bibliog itself needs to be broken down by subcategories as soon as more items get added, as it is at the upper limit of an undivided bibliog right now. Richard Jensen 13:30, 28 May 2008 (CDT)