| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Type 99 cannon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I attempted to clean up the entry somewhat. I limited my edit to grammer and word usage while keeping the original author's content intact. I hope this helps Liquidvelvet (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The article suffered from the widespread confusion between the Type 99-1 and Type 99-2, which each have their own development history and different models. I tried to clean it up, but I suspect that the full detail is lost in the mists of time. I hope that a Japanese-speaking historian can be found to check the designations in Japanese, I can't tell whether they are correct. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
U.s. data from wwii is different than some in the article. I don't know which is correct. See http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/20-mm-aircraft-cannon-type-99-mk-ii.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsellers123 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)