Talk:Coaxial weapon

Coaxial?
How come that a parallel weapon is called coaxial weapon? To me a 'coaxial weapon' must be a (practise) barrel mounted inside the main barrel. KjellG (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They already share two axis, namely the Z and (X or Y) axes, since they (generally) always rotate identical to the main barrel, and are generally mounted directly adjacent, either vertically or horizontally. Coaxial cable, which is what you're probably trying to reference here, is better thought as concentric than simply coaxial, as it's coaxial on all three axes, instead of at least one, as the definition requires. (blame it on the english language I suppose?) --71.9.106.176 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In accordance to your definition any other weapon on a tank would be coaxial - they would share x-,y- and z-axis with the chassis. I would like so see a good reference to coaxial weapon. The German article has a reference to a rifle. Here a second barrel may be mounted inside the larger caliber main barrel. In which case the two barrels are coaxial!, but not in the sense of this article. A second ref. decribe a rifle again with two barrels, but they are interchangable and the one not used is stored in the stock. By coinsidence the barrel in operation and the stored barrel happen to share the same axis, but again they are not 'coaxial'.KjellG (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Need Reference
I am concerned about the assumption in this article re: use of coax as a ranging machine gun. A reference would be nice. From my extensive searches it appears this ranging concept comes from miniature wargaming and not from actual historical references. Tractics first used this concept in its modern rules supplement (correctly), but the notion has infected many rulesets since.

The Centurion tank and T55 experimented with ranging mgs but this tech tree withered. The pictured T-26 wouldn't have used its coax as a ranging weapon, would it? If there's any historical reference to the assertion, leave it; otherwise remove it.--Etzel33 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)