Is the principle of cannon an enlarged gun, and the shell is equivalent to the bullet of the gun?
Guns are more similar to cannons.
But in modern artillery, artillery is far more complicated than firearms and involves more parts.
But there are many differences between artillery and firearms in many specific details. For example, large-caliber guns, especially western guns, generally use charges instead of metal magazines, while Soviet artillery, such as China and Russia, all use metal magazines, while firearms still use metal magazines at present.
Ammunition is a big difference, and shells are far more complicated than bullets.
The necessary thing for the shell casing is the fuse, which is not in the bullet.
As for warheads, artillery warheads are much more complicated than bullets. A bullet is basically a Grenade, that is, it contains explosives and a fuse. At present, the bullet is still a solid pimple. Of course, there is some lead, steel and aluminum in this pimple, but the bullet is basically solid, and all the shells are replaced by flowers.
In the early years, there was little difference in principle between guns. Propellants were black powder and warheads were solid bumps. At first, they were all smooth-bore, and then they all had rifling, but after a hundred years of development, the gap between guns became wider and wider. However, the principle is basically similar. The new concept must be used on guns first, and then miniaturized on firearms. Artillery and guns are basically pushed out by gunpowder gas in the bore. So what does this mean? It's simple. The explosion will produce gunpowder gas, right? When I was a child, almost everyone who played firecrackers knew that the little things next to firecrackers would be blown up, and bullets could almost be understood as bullets being blown up.
The greater the difference in caliber and weight, the greater the difference in specific structure.