Jump to content

Talk:Mons Meg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated information

[edit]

I've updated it with information from the Royal Armouries monograph, which seems to be the most up to date source of information on Mons Meg.Calcinations (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but your additions state two differect calibres: 18" and 20". Which is correct? Also, what does it mean that "Megs official statistics were"? Have they changed? And if so how and when? Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, missed one. I'm working off the Royal Armouries monograph, which describes the most up to date research I've seen- they even X-rayed Meg to find out how it was made, but I am not yet sure how to put footnotes into the text. Calcinations (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Looking at the page, I am having trouble working out how to put references in, and since the first writer didn't, I don't know which bits are quoted from which sources, therefore I could re-write the entire page with references if I can only work out how. That would be much better, but I don't have access to some of the sources mentioned in the notes. So would that count as losing information or what? Calcinations (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

[edit]

1.It seems to be the biggest pre-18th century cannon... Maybe calibre records for firearms by date, much like the "Timeline_of_three_tallest_structures_in_the_world" could be made... And one for muzzle velocity too... 2.What's Mons Meg's muzzle velocity?Undead Herle King (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - The 15th-century Great Turkish Bombard apparently had a calibre of 750mm. And 2 - I have no idea. But maybe the book Calcinations mentioned could tell you. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mons Meg fires again

[edit]

Since I (And I assume millions more) saw Mon Meg firing on the battlements of the Castle to bring in 2010, I've added a wee part to the article. The Telegraph have an article on it - http://living.scotsman.com/hogmanayandthechristmasfestivals/Hogmanay-will-be-a-blast.2286348.jp

Kaenei (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I concur http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.mod.uk:80/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/shannonTheCannonEdinburghsDistrictGunner.htm Brendandh (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good enough for me, thats all i wanted was verification. thanks Smitty1337 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use in combat

[edit]

Are there any records of this weapon actually seeing any combat use, or has it turned out to be a bit of a white elephant? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Puzzle

[edit]

The article quotes shot "weighing about 400 lb (180 kg)". I assume this is iron, most probably cast iron. If solid wrought iron, it should weigh closer to 1200 lb (520 kg). I calculate this from the well-known geometrical formula volume of a sphere v = 4/3*pi*r^3. Diameter = 20 inches --> radius = 10 inches --> r^3 = 1000. 1000*4/3=1333.33*pi cu. in. = 4189 cu. in. or, equivalently, 0.0686 m^3. Since cast iron weighs (depending on the specific alloy) between 6800-7800 kg per m^3, this calculates to a weight (at 2.2 lb per kg) of 1026-1178 lb for a solid cast iron ball 20 inches diameter. If plain iron,(e.g. wrought iron, a density of 0.286 lb/in^3 can be assumed, whence the 1200 lb estimate first mentioned. Not 400 lb. Jornadigan (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handling and loading a shot weighing about half a ton seems an excessive challenge. That is, I doubt tht the people who had the idea of creating this weapon were intending to set any imaginable gun crew a task like that. And the shot itself is - obviously - a 'disposable', short-life /single-use product - so fairly cheap-and-cheerful production techniques were probably intended. What do we know about iron-casting and -wreaking technique at the time? And smelting? Is it likely tht designers were expecting the shot to include a lot of voids? or slag from a low-quality smelting process? Basically, what would be the actual composition of a contemporary 20"-dia "iron" round-shot? Anyone know about this? Anyone have any relevant sources? – SquisherDa (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Scots Navy

[edit]

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention in the article of this weapon being deployed at sea, yet "Used by Royal Scots Navy" appears in the infobox. Anyone know why?--AntientNestor (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has taken it down. Thanks.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]