Talk:Bombard (weapon)

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Medieval

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

link

a reference article

merge

yes, merge them. They are clearly just variant spellings for the same thing. -- Securiger 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree theres practicly nothing in each of them anyway.

Can't agree more. Merged.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this old discussion relates to merging the following stubs:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Can someone please add another picture. I've deleted the picture off this page in an edit. 72.197.135.10 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's a mortar, not a bombard. 74.112.49.141 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombard VS Cannon.

When exactly changes a bombard to a cannon, if anything? and if its nothing, why is there a difference made between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.251.246 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST assessment

Initially rate this as stub. Limited content and coverage, lacks references. I'd suggest it needs to cover the technological development in more detail and more examples of use. Monstrelet (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It was first invented by the Ottomans." - I'm not happy with this statement, it needs references. But if i read "Supergun" article, it seems to be incorrect. Could someone clear this controversy between the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.145.77 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzle Loading ?!

Really ?! It is clearly visible that at least the bombard on 3d picture is Breach Loading. That was the primary difference between a Bombard and a Cannon - the former was loaded from the breach, using a "camore" ("chamber" - the right part of the Great Turkish Bombard on the picture which was screwed into the left part which was the barrel), and the latter was loaded from the muzzle. Look at the cross section drawing of another Turkich bombard: [1]. 'Mary Rose' bombards were breach loading. Mons Meg also was most likely breach loading, the chamber at the breach end was removable. Muzzle loading bombards are indeed quite a new word in firearm history. 95.79.23.30 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cvikel source removed

In this edit, 50.53.38.200 (talk · contribs) removed the Cvikel reference partly because she/he couldn't track it down. Searching for the doi leads to Taylor & Francis where the abstract is publically available. However, having read the article, I couldn't find anything to support the claims about their impracticality in the field. The article is about their impracticality in being transported. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Chinese mortar or bombard of 1377.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]