Miscellaneous desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 22

Sustained rate of fire on all cannons of the Civil War

I am a Civil War buff. I read and watch all types of movies and books about the war. I have always wondered what the sustaind rate of fire was for the various cannons used in that war. I know that all kinds of marvalus things happen in the movies, but I would guess that the rate of fire is way off. Even with morden weaponary they only can be fired for a certian amount of rounds before they have to stop, and left to cool down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrod824 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind telling us which nation's Civil War you have in mind, please? It makes a substantial difference to the answer to your question. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American, most likely — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I didn't want to make the crass assumption that people who say 'the Civil War' and expect us to just know which one they mean are all Americans. There was a Civil War over here in England (indeed, a complicated bunch of them) in which the use of cannon was crucial - to take just the other really well-known English-speaking example. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do the English refer to it as "the Civil War", especially if there were several? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows unqualified terms like "president", "constitution" and "the Civil War" apply to America. That's why Truman airlifted in our boys to defeat the Brits in WWI. Jesus wouldn't have it any other way. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't very civil of you, old chap. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English (as opposed to the British generally) have certainly tended to refer to the English parts of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1640s) as 'The Civil War'. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have an idea. Rather than being snippy and unhelpful to the questioner, why not try to answer the question for multiple civil wars? I'm sure the cannon firing rate was different in the Spanish Civil War and in the American Civil War and in the various English ones. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Field artillery in the American Civil War KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it would be good if the OP could clarify which war. But the term "Civil War buff" sounds like an American expression. Would very many Brits be referred to as "buffs" (i.e. "enthusiasts") of their own civil war(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that members of the Sealed Knot would probably characterise themselves as such. And as to why I raised the question: as can be seen from the article that KageTora linked, each civil war was characterised by quite a range of field artillery. So doing as Jpgordon has proposed, and providing all the information for every civil war we can think of, would be a huge mass of information. As it happens, KageTora's article, though highly interesting to the right people, doesn't mention rates of fire. Assuming that we've guessed the OP's intent correctly, where could the relevant data be found - and could it be added to the article? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling [civil war rate of cannon fire] and [civil war sustained rate of cannon fire] turns up a lot of potential avenues worth looking into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, because I am a wargamer, and I think it was generally one shot every 30 seconds (about), and the same time it took to reload a rifle. They had to wait for orders to fire. However, it was unfortunate if you were called 'Will'KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the rate of fire was usually 12 rounds per hour normally for sustained barrages, perhaps 4 rounds a minute in dire emergencies. More than 1 round in 2 minute was sometimes a court-martial offense (either for wasting ammunition or for using up your supply quickly so you could withdraw and some other gunners would have to be in harm's way).[1][2] Rmhermen (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the things Ernest Hemingway is holding on this photo ?

Hello practical ones ! http://www.dhm.de/magazine/spanien/Abb. 22.htm

I wonder what Hemingway is holding in his hands while visiting a spanish battlefield with Joris Ivens & 2 german communist officers : I hesitate between sub-machine guns clips (italians ? found on the soil ? ) - and maybe macquerel or sardine tins (4 , for 4 men to picnic with...). All (sensible) suggestions welcomed and thanked beforehand. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the image seems to have been mistyped. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , Saddhi, sorry, seems I'm an old web-goofer. Here it is again:

http://www.dhm.de/magazine/spanien/Abb. 22.htm

Hope it works, but (for the really good samaritans) : you can find an OK-working link on the french version of Hans Kahle , quote n°25. Thanks again Arapaima (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that was still wrong, the image can be seen here [3]. --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Wikipedia has a bigger version of that photo (which they say they sourced at that dhm.de site; they may just have blown it up) here. It's clearer, but not hugely so. Cigars, perhaps. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They look awful large for cigars, but that's a far better guess than my original thought, beer bottles. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the way EH holds the items between his fingers makes you think of little bottles. But those hanging from his left hand look rather flat. Or are they very thin little bottles ? Hey, I remember something...In his short story « The Denunciation » (4th page) , EH answers (in 1937, in downtown Madrid) to a friend who asks him what he is drinking at Chicote's : «Gin and tonic. Schweppes Indian Tonic water. This was a very fancy café before the war... ...We just found out they still have the tonic water and they are charging the same price for it ». Were 1930 Schweppes bottles sold in Spain so thin ? I am going to try & ask on WP spanish if that image rings a bell, they are very keen on every subject touching their Civil War. Thanks a lot to all again Arapaima (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think they're bottles of anything. Full bottles are heavy. These things are so light that he's holding them easily between his 2nd and 3rd fingers on his left hand (our right), and between his 3rd and 4th fingers on his right hand (our left). Further, the pairs seem to be attached, so it may be just be one odd-shaped object he's holding in each hand. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly shocked, Jack, that you think they must be light objects. I can carry four full 16 oz. beer bottles per hand that way. (These look half that size.) You macho Aussies should do even better. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like to frankly shock people. It's all part of being a macho Aussie. (So I'm told.) But seriously, can you carry bottles that way, without using either of your thumb or forefinger, as Hemingway seems to be doing? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two bottles between my three middle fingers? I guess you have never been a waitress. Or hosted a party. I mean, really. I must be misunderstanding your question. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You at least know I could not possibly have ever been a waitress. I haven't even been a waitrice. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in his right hand look like they are connected at the bottom end (the end nearest his hand). Is it some kind of tool, like a pair of tongs of sorts? --Viennese Waltz 05:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was suggesting above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen SMG magazines taped together at an angle for quick reloading on the move. The angle seems to be larger than necessary, though. Sjö (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gloves? —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no focusing knob on rifle scopes?

I have never personally used a rifle with a telescopic sight. I have used binoculars thought. In video games and from looking at pictures, there never seems to be any focusing knobs on the rifle telescopics that adjusts for blurriness depending on how far the object you're looking at is. In contrast, you have to focus the binocular to look at an object a certain distance away and have to re-focus when you look at something at a different distance.

How come rifle telescopics do not have focusing knobs? Is it because it has something to do with the fact that you're only looking through it with one eye? Acceptable (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telescopic sight#Adjustment controls has a picture: no knob, but you can adjust the focus ring. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) There are no knobs, as where would you put them? There are focus rings at the back, the same as in binos. It has more to do with the production costs and development costs of the weapon itself. As well as making the weapon more usable. Nobody wants to carry around a weapon with loads of extra buttons. So, they make it simple. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The focus adjustment on a rifle scope brings the aiming reticle into focus; this is an adjustment that need only be performed once for a given user: [4]. This doesn't answer the OP's question, which could be rephrased as, 'why doesn't the focus have to be adjusted to form sharp images of targets at different distances, as one has to do with a pair of binoculars or a telescope?' TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then somebody needs to fix the article: "Focusing control at the ocular end of the sight – meant to obtain a sharp picture of the object and reticle". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some sniper scopes do have focus adjustments e.g.. In practice, you need a sniper rifle to shoot things that are hundreds of feet away, when the focus is (or might as well be) at infinity (if it was close, you wouldn't need a scope, and could just shoot using the iron sight). So some scopes are just set to infinity, which means there's one less thing to go wrong. Long-range target shooting scopes have parallax adjusters info. Much of this doesn't really map in a worthwhile way to the simulation on a computer screen, so it's no surprise that they don't try to simulate it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason binoculars to have a focus is that you might reasonably want to look at a small bird in a tree 50 feet away, and see the details of its pretty plumage. But snipers (military ones) aren't shooting at nearby birds and don't care about the fine details of such things. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, at half a mile, the location of someone's head is a fine detail. --Jayron32 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acceptable ! If you care for the souvenirs of someone who hunted in the past & happened to do some very short range shooting with a scoped rifle : through the scope you then see something grey or yellowish going or coming unto you very fast, & you are grateful that the scope-builder bored through the mount a little tunnel to allow you to quickly & instinctively aim under the scope and shoot shot-gun wise, & you are not thinking of pixels at all. I'm of course referring to hunting (not to snipering or varminting) , with what was the european standard scope kit : a x4 with thin cross reticle , allowing you to reasonably hit any still target within 50 to 200 m (knowing your bullet's ballistics) , which was quite far enough . T.y. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arapaima (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a head at half a mile is fine detail, but the difference in focus between half a mile and infinity is very tiny, and probably not worth making the adjustment. Fixed-focus sights seem to be set somewhere around the range at which they are expected to be used. The bird in the tree fifty feet away would be slightly out of focus, but a sniper who can hit a head-sized object at half a mile (I can't -- I've tried, though not on a real head) would not have much problem with an out-of focus bird at 50 feet. Dbfirs 08:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope nobody's shooting a rifle into the air... or at a tree. Shadowjams (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At distances like that, you have to adjust for wind direction, and in many cases you might not even be looking at the target. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my understanding is that you are always looking at the target, but when you adjust for things like wind direction, temperature, curvature of the earth, local gravitational anomalies, or whatever else goes into the sniper's calculations, what you adjust is the relationship between your sight and the aim of the gun. After all, your target isn't standing still waiting to get shot, and you still need to track your target in order to reliably hit him. So the adjustments needed to compensate for the distance and all that other stuff is done to the gun, but not the sight. The sight stays trained on the person you want to shoot. --Jayron32 14:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking your target is one thing, but shooting it at long distance is another. There was one sniper in Afghanistan who had to aim his gun 45 degrees to the left and up just to hit his target 1.5 miles away. Apparently the world record. Even if you have a scope, you would not be able to see the target through it by doing that, at that range, because you are not even looking at the target. You need visual presence to estimate where your target is. At ranges such as this, this is all the scope is useful for. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting 45 degrees off-target at a range of 1.5 miles is not sniping, it's almost random shooting. You couldn't hit a barn door by that method, but I suppose you could hit somewhere within a large complex. I wouldn't have felt safe anywhere within half a mile of the intended target! Dbfirs 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was accounting for wind direction and wind speed, and scored a head shot on his intended target. This is not random shooting into a market full of people. This was expert shooting. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems (mathematically) highly implausible <cough>bullshit</cough>. If he had to aim 45 degrees sideways, the wind speed would have to be 1/sqrt(2) - or about 70% of the speed of the bullet in order to pull it back on-target within the travel time to the target. Even if he was using an ancient muzzle-loading musket with a muzzle velocity of 350mph rather than a modern sniper rifle, the wind would have to be going at 250mph for that degree of windage to be plausible. Put it another way, the highest wind speed in history (during a hurricane) was 253mph - if the bullet speed was 360mph (requiring a 45 degree windage allowance) then it would only have made a distance of about 800 feet before the bullet would hit the ground. If the bullet had somehow slowed down so much by the time it approached the target that it would have been travelling close to a more reasonable wind speed (tens of mph) then the bullet would be unlikely to do more than raise a bruise! Unless you've severely misunderstood the source that you're quoting, it's got to be complete and utter bullshit. Where is your reference for this highly dubious claim? SteveBaker (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh math! --Jayron32 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably based on a sniper shot by a Royal Marine named Matt Hughes in Iraq: as reported in TVTropes, he had to aim 56 feet off to the side (about 1.5 degrees, given the reported range of 860 meters) to compensate for a stiff crosswind. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1.5 degrees is one hell of a shot - but it ain't 45 degrees! There is a heck of a lot of difference! I want to know how this information got to be stated as a fact here on the ref.desk. The most simple mental calculation shows it to be 100% bogus. Where did this mis-information come from? SteveBaker (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be beligerent, old boy. I cannot find the source I read it from, but I actually think it was a Canadian, and not a Brit, as the post below says. This was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source re Sniper shot, " ... and (apparently) 35 feet high" too, "Matt's shot in a million".The Sun (UK), 4 August 2007 - 220 of ^Borg 11:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of trade-offs in a lens system - the degree to which you need to re-focus as the distance changes is called "depth of field". There is a trade-off between depth of field (more is good), the magnification and the light-gathering ability of the lens (ie, how bright the image appears to be). It's certainly possible that telescopic sights are designed specifically for better depth of field at the cost of brightness and/or magnification where binoculars are designed for (perhaps) a brighter image or higher magnification and, as a result, need manual re-focussing. Also, I wonder whether adjusting the optics in the telescopic sites to improve focus wouldn't result in the various reticles being incorrectly placed or sized or something? SteveBaker (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]