Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: mayse@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: What is a 6-pounder gun?
Message-ID: <7127@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Jun 89 02:43:25 GMT
References: <7030@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: mayse@p.cs.uiuc.edu


It used to be that artillery were described simply by the weight of the
projectiles.  Back around the time of the Revolutionary War, for instance,
the heaviest naval armament (at least on British and American ships) 
consisted of "24-pounders" and "32-pounders," also known colloquially
(I believe) as "long toms" and "carronades."  (The 24's were for firing
"accurately" at some distance; the 32's were for close-in bashing).  
This latter term/role are probably the reason the first USN purpose-
designed fire support ship (for amphibious assaults) was the USS Carronade.

[mod.note:  I believe that the term "carronade" refers to a gun mounted
on the ship's gunwales via a pintle mount, as opposed to being mounted
on a carriage.   As they couldn't recoil, the powder charge had to be
small, reducing the effective range of the gun.   Correct me if I'm
wrong...  In any case, the name derives from the town of Carron, Scotland,
which apparently had a fine ironworks. - Bill ]

The above designation scheme was probably descriptive enough when all 
(or most) projectiles were cast-iron balls, but when varying projectile
shapes came along it became useful to describe the guns themselves (e. g.
"five-inch") rather than indirectly by their ammunition.  As I recall, a
"two-pounder" is roughly a 37mm, and a "six-pounder" is probably about 
a 75.