This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Oppose - merging would tend to bloat Artillery and further expansion of the article would lead to this topic being spun off anyhow. GraemeLeggett
Oppose for the same reason. Perhaps the Artillery article should be modified to reflect the existence of the SP artillery, something like a section with short summary and link to this article as "main article", but not the complete merge of this article into Artillery. Bukvoed 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Merging would simplify the subject. Not all artillery is self propelled. Self propelled artillery has a different use, design and history.
Oppose- I dont think that you should merge the two because they are two different things really.
Oppose ( Herbm 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)) -- Other opposition above it correct, but the key reason is that artillery is a much larger concept (including both the units which support such artillery and the equipment itself) with self-propelled artillery being a specific type. This specific type is commonly confused with a "tank" and needs it's own specific article. This article DOES need to be merged with (the stub) Self-propelled gun, and links need to be added to hook this to Howitzer etc. (going to do some of that now.)
Oppose - Very similar machines, different purposes. SP Artillery and SP (Assault) Guns are not normally used in the same manner. SP Artillery is primarily used for Indirect ranged fire. SP Guns are driven within direct view of the target, the barrel practically boresighted at the target and then they engage in Direct fire. SP artillery can do that, but only as a last resort.
"A modern battery (6 guns), firing 43 kg projectiles with a burst firing speed of 4 rounds per minute, can deliver over 1 metric tonne (1000 kg) per minute, for up to 4 minutes. This is an immense weight of fire which can be delivered with very high accuracy."
4 * 43 kg = 172 kg per minute. Not "over 1000 kg"? wtf?
Either link to a page which shows how this is to be understood, or explain. I don't get it.
Your article has the following sentence in it: "Modern self-propelled artillery vehicles may superficially resemble tanks, but they are generally lightly armored, too lightly to survive in direct-fire combat. However, they protect their crews against shrapnel and small arms and are therefore usually included as armored fighting vehicles." As a retired Field Artillery Officer, I take exception with you incorrectly using the word "shrapnel". Modern ordnance has not use "shrapnel" since the Civil War. Most if not all casualties and damage on the battle field is from fragments from the exploding rounds, This can also be correctly stated when personnel are struck by pieces of bullets from small arms fire.
This misuse of the word "shrapnel" can be traced to a Medical doctor during World War I.
Leslie B. Scott Major USArmy FA, Retired
I'm not sure why this was included, but it is just not the case. All smooth bore artillery before mechanisation was horse drawn from introduction of gunpowder into Europe. However, the point of being self-propelled is that the ordnance design combines the means of locomotion and the ordnance (gun) in the same system/platform, which was clearly not the case with the horse drawn limbers. Once unlimbered the guns were immobile (by and large), movable only by their crews which is clearly not the case with mechanised artillery where guns can be moved independent of the crews. The precursor to self-propelled artillery was the "tank", which was in fact the turretless piece of ordnance that self-propelled artillery mostly were before 1945 (late 1950s), so in fact the self-propelled artillery came first, and MBTs later when turrets were introduces into post-WWI "tanks". This is what happens when the Army allows the Navy to get involved :)-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I had gotten the notion that a unit of the US Army counted as a precursor. The "Flying artillery" of the Mexican-American War attempted to be a similar kind of quickly redeployable unit. See here or here Protin2art ( talk) 04:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
the real question is- is an Ordnance tractor a prime mover or an SPG? see G-numbers. Brian in denver ( talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
the section on Russian WW2 self-propelled guns ignores the most common one, the Su-76. This was a converted light tank altered to have a thinly armoured open-topped superstructure and armed with the 76mm field gun. It was used in direct fire roles as well as for indirect fire. It was the second most produced Soviet armoured vehicle of World War II.
The text should be altered to read "All major nations developed self-propelled artillery that would be able to provide indirect support while keeping pace with advancing armoured formations. These were usually lightly armoured vehicles with an open-topped hull; the US M7 Priest, British Sexton (25 pdr), the Soviet Su-76, and German Wespe and Hummel being typical examples."
The sentence "A different route was chosen by the Soviets, who didn't develop a specialized indirect fire vehicle, but following a tradition of dual-purpose towed artillery, built a series of versatile assault guns with indirect fire capabilities (example ISU-152)." should be altered to read "The Soviets and Germans built versatile assault guns with indirect fire capabilities example ISU-152, Brummbar, StuH 42" Sitalkes ( talk) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Self-propelled guns and self propelled artillery are the same thing, so why shouldn't it be one article? I propose a merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:44C8:2F41:EC33:F409 ( talk) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems the article is blending these together. There is quite a bit of difference between the M-10 Tank Destroyer and the M7 Priest, or the Marder II and the Wespe, though in both examples two different guns used for different purposes are mobilized using the same chassis. Should this page not confine itself to mobilized artillery? Gunbirddriver ( talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Oppose - merging would tend to bloat Artillery and further expansion of the article would lead to this topic being spun off anyhow. GraemeLeggett
Oppose for the same reason. Perhaps the Artillery article should be modified to reflect the existence of the SP artillery, something like a section with short summary and link to this article as "main article", but not the complete merge of this article into Artillery. Bukvoed 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Merging would simplify the subject. Not all artillery is self propelled. Self propelled artillery has a different use, design and history.
Oppose- I dont think that you should merge the two because they are two different things really.
Oppose ( Herbm 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)) -- Other opposition above it correct, but the key reason is that artillery is a much larger concept (including both the units which support such artillery and the equipment itself) with self-propelled artillery being a specific type. This specific type is commonly confused with a "tank" and needs it's own specific article. This article DOES need to be merged with (the stub) Self-propelled gun, and links need to be added to hook this to Howitzer etc. (going to do some of that now.)
Oppose - Very similar machines, different purposes. SP Artillery and SP (Assault) Guns are not normally used in the same manner. SP Artillery is primarily used for Indirect ranged fire. SP Guns are driven within direct view of the target, the barrel practically boresighted at the target and then they engage in Direct fire. SP artillery can do that, but only as a last resort.
"A modern battery (6 guns), firing 43 kg projectiles with a burst firing speed of 4 rounds per minute, can deliver over 1 metric tonne (1000 kg) per minute, for up to 4 minutes. This is an immense weight of fire which can be delivered with very high accuracy."
4 * 43 kg = 172 kg per minute. Not "over 1000 kg"? wtf?
Either link to a page which shows how this is to be understood, or explain. I don't get it.
Your article has the following sentence in it: "Modern self-propelled artillery vehicles may superficially resemble tanks, but they are generally lightly armored, too lightly to survive in direct-fire combat. However, they protect their crews against shrapnel and small arms and are therefore usually included as armored fighting vehicles." As a retired Field Artillery Officer, I take exception with you incorrectly using the word "shrapnel". Modern ordnance has not use "shrapnel" since the Civil War. Most if not all casualties and damage on the battle field is from fragments from the exploding rounds, This can also be correctly stated when personnel are struck by pieces of bullets from small arms fire.
This misuse of the word "shrapnel" can be traced to a Medical doctor during World War I.
Leslie B. Scott Major USArmy FA, Retired
I'm not sure why this was included, but it is just not the case. All smooth bore artillery before mechanisation was horse drawn from introduction of gunpowder into Europe. However, the point of being self-propelled is that the ordnance design combines the means of locomotion and the ordnance (gun) in the same system/platform, which was clearly not the case with the horse drawn limbers. Once unlimbered the guns were immobile (by and large), movable only by their crews which is clearly not the case with mechanised artillery where guns can be moved independent of the crews. The precursor to self-propelled artillery was the "tank", which was in fact the turretless piece of ordnance that self-propelled artillery mostly were before 1945 (late 1950s), so in fact the self-propelled artillery came first, and MBTs later when turrets were introduces into post-WWI "tanks". This is what happens when the Army allows the Navy to get involved :)-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I had gotten the notion that a unit of the US Army counted as a precursor. The "Flying artillery" of the Mexican-American War attempted to be a similar kind of quickly redeployable unit. See here or here Protin2art ( talk) 04:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
the real question is- is an Ordnance tractor a prime mover or an SPG? see G-numbers. Brian in denver ( talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
the section on Russian WW2 self-propelled guns ignores the most common one, the Su-76. This was a converted light tank altered to have a thinly armoured open-topped superstructure and armed with the 76mm field gun. It was used in direct fire roles as well as for indirect fire. It was the second most produced Soviet armoured vehicle of World War II.
The text should be altered to read "All major nations developed self-propelled artillery that would be able to provide indirect support while keeping pace with advancing armoured formations. These were usually lightly armoured vehicles with an open-topped hull; the US M7 Priest, British Sexton (25 pdr), the Soviet Su-76, and German Wespe and Hummel being typical examples."
The sentence "A different route was chosen by the Soviets, who didn't develop a specialized indirect fire vehicle, but following a tradition of dual-purpose towed artillery, built a series of versatile assault guns with indirect fire capabilities (example ISU-152)." should be altered to read "The Soviets and Germans built versatile assault guns with indirect fire capabilities example ISU-152, Brummbar, StuH 42" Sitalkes ( talk) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Self-propelled guns and self propelled artillery are the same thing, so why shouldn't it be one article? I propose a merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:44C8:2F41:EC33:F409 ( talk) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems the article is blending these together. There is quite a bit of difference between the M-10 Tank Destroyer and the M7 Priest, or the Marder II and the Wespe, though in both examples two different guns used for different purposes are mobilized using the same chassis. Should this page not confine itself to mobilized artillery? Gunbirddriver ( talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)