Talk:List of artillery by type

Gun control

I'm far from convinced antitank rifles deserve to be listed as "guns". Comment on deleting or reclassifying? Trekphiler 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind them here: it's only four items, and they complete the bottom end of the antitank gun list nicely. Although only four have "rifle" in the English name, it would be difficult to absolutely define a cut-off point, anyway. For example, the 2.8 cm sPzB 41 is "officially classified as heavy anti-tank rifle (schwere Panzerbüchse)...," but it has a larger calibre than the two French 25mm guns.

And when they were first fielded, the antitank rifles represented the only antitank guns. —Michael Z. 2006-11-15 02:43 Z

I agree. The Finnish L-39 is another great example, with proven anti-tank capability in the early stages of WW2, and "personal artillery" applications later in the war. The gun was effective against pillboxes, for example. Aki Korhonen 08:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A good cut off is probably the point at which the weapon is too big to be carried by a person and is there no longer "small arms". So I would lose the Boys (which came into service later than the 2 pdr).GraemeLeggett 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure the Boys isn't a man-portable crew-served weapon? It weighs 36 lbs, and a box of eight loaded mags is another 21 lbs (calculated from data here)—a bit much for one man to carry along with his standard field kit. —Michael Z. 2006-11-15 18:08 Z

I'd say that the Boys is not a crew-served weapon. Its weight (and caliber) is similar to the modern 50 cal Barrett M82A1M rifle, which is issued as a personal weapon.Aki Korhonen 08:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But how was the Boys actually used? —Michael Z. 2006-11-17 21:10 Z

The definition is "Modern artillery is distinguished by its large caliber, firing an explosive shell or rocket, and being of such a size and weight as to require a specialized mount for firing and transport." which would be reasonable basis for inclusion in the list. GraemeLeggett 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one or two of those probably don't fit into a general definition of "artillery", but if a list of about 40 "anti-tank guns" appears here, it may as well be comprehensive and not leave you wondering whether one or two should be omitted or not. We could just as easily spend a lot of time discussing whether particular light mortars, recoilless rifles, tank guns, RPGs and bazookas are technically "artillery", but dropping a few individual items from these self-consistent lists would just reduce their integrity.

The general topic here is artillery, and each list's heading falls within that category—and each item falls within the scope of its particular list. Even if a few stray rounds have fallen outside of the predicted beaten zone, I'd still call this "rounds on target, fire for effect." —Michael Z. 2006-11-17 21:10 Z

First of all, there are more AT rifle articles in wikipedia (Category:Anti-tank rifles, and some of them are at least as heavy as some of those included in the list (all these Solothurns, possibly 13.2 mm Mauser). Should we include them ? Then somebody might ask where are 7.92 mm German rifles... ok, kidding, but the way things are organized now we are going to have too many stray rounds, I think.

Second, guns typically have wheeled carriage, recoil system, traverse mechanism. AT rifles, just like firearms, typically don't. sPzB 41 is borderline, somewhat closer to guns IMHO (carriage, recoil system, no traverse mechanism). Solothurns had kind of light carriage, like those of some heavy MGs. Boys etc - same as rifles, just a bit larger.

So... I'd remove all AT rifles except sPzB 41 which is often referred as anti-tank gun (e.g. see US intelligence bulletin from 1944: http://www.lonesentry.com/german_antitank/index.html) Bukvoed 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Then perhaps it's better to break off a comprehensive list of antitank guns as a separate article. The alternative is to have an incomplete "#List of antitank guns which are considered artillery" section here, and possibly a full list forked elsewhere anyway. —Michael Z. 2006-11-18 22:10 Z

I am not sure I understand. There are AT guns. Pieces like PaK 36 or 17 pounder or BS-3 etc.. They are considered artillery. There are AT rifles. Like Boys or PTRD, basically larger firearms. AFAIK they are not considered artillery and they are not a subclass of AT guns. Or am I wrong ? I don't see why we need a separate list of AT guns - we have it as a section here and IMHO it's ok. Perhaps we do need a list of anti-tank rifles. Perhaps even here (don't think so). Perhaps as a separate article (not sure, IMHO the list is going to be too short to "deserve" it). Perhaps it's enough that there is something like a list of AT in the Anti-tank rifle article. Bukvoed 10:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends how they're classified. You're right that antitank artillery stops at some point where a weapon is small enough not to need a carriage. I liked the fact that this list was comprehensive, including the full spectrum of antitank guns. We should ensure that all of the AT rifles here are added to the list of examples in antitank rifle, and perhaps it would be useful to have a separate list of infantry antitank weapons, including rifles, grenades, RPGs, etc. —Michael Z. 2006-11-21 18:36 Z

>We should ensure that all of the AT rifles here are added to the list of examples in antitank rifle

They are (except sPzB 41)

>perhaps it would be useful to have a separate list of infantry antitank weapons, including rifles, grenades, RPGs, etc.

I'm undecided. Perhaps. Bukvoed 13:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The logical think to do is to at the least link a "list of AT rifles" as a See also, but it might be better as a {{further}} somewhere in the bottom end of the AT guns list. GraemeLeggett 15:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CITER 155mm L33 Gun entry

I renamed the entry acording the teminology used in the official website of the Artillery Branch of the Argentine Army (http://www.artilleria.ejercito.mil.ar/quees/ac/subsistema01.htm).
DPdH (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AMX 30 F1 155mm SP Gun duplicate entry

I've found 2 entries ("GCT AMX 30 AuF1" and "AMX 30 AuF1") pointing to the same WikiArticle, I guess that it has been an error that lead to duplication but unsure which designation is the correct one. If nobody opposes before next week, I'll eliminate the duplication in the table (will decide which entry to keep based on a bit more research).
Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

sortabable

i cleaned it up and made the boxes sortable 24.163.117.231 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "artillery" on its own is meaningless in a list. The list opening sentence reads "A list of the world's artillery, by type.", but the sentence is unfinished because all artillery "types" are different, the gunners call them all collectively "ordnance" as opposed to the carriage or mounting, which is the other part of all artillery systems. See Chapter 4. Ordnance, p.45, Ryan, J.W., Lee, R.G., Col. (Gen.Ed.,), Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, United Kingdom, Guns, Mortars & Rockets (Brassey's Battlefield Weapon Systems & Technology), Vol.II, Brassey's Publishers, Oxford, 1982 --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It works well as an easily-found List of what most people would call Artillery. Any change would needlessly complicate the whole search strategy. We could argue forever over the precise definition of Artillery, but the current name List of Artillery meets any commonsense usage requirement. We could add our definition at the top of the page e.g. Military weapons that fire projectiles above rifle calibre i.e. typically above 13 mm... Rcbutcher (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly a redirect can be added. Secondly Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference which means the article entry (its title) has to match its contents. As it happens, not all ordnance in the list is of the rifled gun type. May I enquire where the "Military weapons that fire projectiles above rifle calibre i.e. typically above 13 mm" definition for artillery came from?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, albeit I remember having read (but not where!) that for example automatic guns with caliber above 13mm were referred as "autocannons" (eg: MG-151) and those under that caliber as "machine guns" (eg: Browning M-2). Will do a bit of research in my bookcase to try to find the source where I read this "definition". Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thinking with the 13mm may have come from the 13mm aircraft cannon that were used by Wehrmacht to equip mobile flack units later in the war in multiple mounts. However, just because they were artillery units using them does not make the "guns" artillery ordnance --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support move - move simply reflects the content of the list--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose move - "ordnance" is not a common English term (and I suspect unlikely to be understood by many readers) I think other terms could be used - "weapons" would be a better for a start.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

List of artillery weapons? Would you support this? Its more general, but acceptable for the list so far as I'm concerned sinc it broadly matches the list contents--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just don't understand the objection to the longstanding title, or why the introductory sentence is unfinished. The well-known meaning of artillery corresponds to what my dictionary says: “large-caliber guns used in warfare on land.” The articles artillery, rocket artillery, and naval artillery indicate that the term can also encompass a number of other related weapons. I need a clearer explanation of the reason for the requested move to even discuss this clearly. —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 18:54 z

Michael, just look at the main article for Artillery. "Artillery" is more than its hardware (ordnance), but the list is only about hardware. It excludes such subjects as artillery units, artillery tactics, artillery organisations, etc, to name a few of the more obvious subject areas. It has been long standing because no one had paid attention to it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem. Lists of those other things can be under List of artillery units, list of artillery tactics, or list of artillery organizations, without any conflict or confusion.

I wouldn't oppose a move to list of artillery weapons if other editors were in favour, but I still think this simple title is the best. —Michael Z. 2008-08-05 00:38 z

I've changed my vote to “comment” for now. You might want to leave a note on other editors' talk pages that the request has changed. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-08-06 20:13 z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A few problems with the list

• 1 Mortars
  • 1.1 Light and towed mortars - these need to be separated. I have my doubts as to whether light hand-held infantry mortars are in fact classed as "artillery". Source for this would be required.
• 2 Grenade launchers - this needs to be removed from the list since grenade launchers are infantry weapons.
• 3 Recoilless rifles - same as above. Although some fairly sizeable RCL weapons have been designed, like the 106mm Recoilless Rifle in NATO, these have always been issued to and serviced by the infantry as far as I know.
• 4 Guns
  • 4.1 Cannon - although several countries name their guns as cannons, it seems to me that as a term "cannon" in English refers to the muzzle-loading ordnance and not the breech-loaded systems of he modern artillery. Interestingly muzzle-loaders are not on the list!
  • 4.2 Light Autocannons - needs to include those systems issued to artillery units
  • 4.3 Infantry and mountain guns - these are not one and the same. Needs to be separated
  • 4.4 Tank guns - needs to be removed since they are not artillery, with the possible exception of the First World War "tank" mounted ordnance.
  • 4.7 Naval guns - ?! Naval guns in artillery use? I think navies the world over would object being classed as artillery on the water. That's why they have naval gun fire and not naval artillery fire. Naval ordnance, particularly the more modern type, is significantly different in design and performance.
• 5 Howitzers and Field Guns - I wonder why howitzers are lumped with field guns? Gun-howitzers should also probably be in a separate section

Comments welcome--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a few points, but I think this is being too pedantic about the definition of artillery.

I only have the NOAD at hand—its definition of artillery is “large-caliber guns used in warfare on land,” and this is perfectly understandable to most people. But there's no reason to delete all related weaponry from the list: why not present the naval guns and smaller-caliber guns alongside the artillery? —Michael Z. 2008-08-01 06:57 z

The New Oxford American Dictionary may not have consulted actual people who serve artillery ordnance, but may I point out that the list even now includes types of artillery ordnance which does not match its definition.

The naval guns are not designed in the same way as Army Artillery despite obvious similarities. No one in the military thinks of naval ordnance as "artillery", so I would want to see Wikipedia ridiculed in this obvious way.

Which smaller-calibre guns do you think should be retained? Being pedantic is what creating a reference work is all about; anyone can think of the "close enough" name, but we do research--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Artillery pieces are guns. The artillery branch of an army is so called because it fields artillery. To insist that the word only denotes a military organization and never a weapon is extremely pedantic, if not just plain incorrect.

This is a general encyclopedic reference for general readers, not a technical work for people who serve artillery ordnance. But the general meaning of artillery is clear to people in both of the mentioned groups. Nothing here says or implies “naval guns in artillery use” or calls the navy “artillery on the water.”

But we do have to be accurate. Please bear in mind that this list has been stable for a long time, and therefore passes the test of general consensus. So please discuss structural changes here first. I'll try to respond to your specific suggestions when I have more time. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-01 18:28 z

Please look at the list. Does the list include ONLY guns? Where did I say the artillery is defines only as an organisation? However, this list is about the types of artillery ordnance - the hardware! What does "general encyclopedic reference for general readers" have to do with #4.7 Naval guns? Are these naval guns used on the warships, in which case they are NOT artillery, or are they naval guns used by artillery units, in which case they are artillery ordnance? The list has been stable because no one bothered to ask the questions! It is also completely unreferenced--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your argument. I don't understand why artillery ordnance should be acceptable to you, but artillery is not.

I don't see this list classing navies as “artillery on the water” so I assumed you were implying something else. I guess I don't understand what you mean here. Are the article about naval artillery, and references to naval artillery in the article artillery, incorrect? —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 18:38 z

I see your confusion because the article on Naval artillery is written very badly, and is unreferenced. Naval artillery currently refers to land-based systems operated by navies. The firing of naval guns, torpedoes and missiles is called gunnery, and is operated by naval gunners. However, Army troops, when operating in coordination with the Navy request naval artillery support as opposed to ordinary artillery support, at the insistence of the armies everywhere, so while the type of support navies provide to land forces is called "artillery" the naval gun systems themselves are not artillery when mounted on warships. Since the First World War the land based naval artillery is called coastal artillery. In the 18th-19th centuries there were also parties of naval artillery which were gunners responsible for servicing the lighter guns which were taken to shore from warships with the infantry as the requirements called for it. However, since the article is about artillery systems as a whole, I suppose we can leave the naval guns in there with an appropriate introduction and a renaming and rewrite of the naval artillery article to reflect some reliable sources on the subject--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal : we could leave the page and tables as is, and add an explanation at the top of the page : that while strictly speaking mortars and naval guns are not usually called "artillery", for convenience of access by the general public all weapons above the calibre of infantry rifles have been included as artillery. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not strictly true. Even if it is a list, we still need to treat it as an article, and that means citing sources for any statements made. While infantry mortars are not artillery, there are mortars at are artillery, and there are naval guns that are coastal artillery. What I was asking (not really questioning) is - are the ordnance included in the list meant to represent guns mounted on a warship? Rifles usually refers to naval systems and not land-bases, even if they are the same weapon in terms of design.

I would suggest that for the purpose of the list an artillery weapon is defined as any weapon used by ground-based artillery units. This way any weapons used on warships can go to List of Naval Weapon Systems--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the naval guns are actually already at List of naval guns. naval weapon systems is a bit of mess by comparison. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the urge to split off, subdivide and classify weapons may be scholarly and technically correct, it just means more lists that end up stagnant backwaters. There are no lack of lists on wiki! The real problem is that these lists have absolutely no unifying theme and the average user looking for anti aircraft guns isn't going to look for a category labeled "land/sea/air transportable anti-aircraft guns". Does each mode of transport deserve its own list? There are plenty of lists and plenty of un-categorized articles that desperately need introductions and linking to make them viable.Idsnowdog (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Stagnant is good, if this stagnation takes the form of an FA article. Aside from that wikipedia is supposed to provide a reference, with preference for correct information it provides. It is pointless having a list that has infantry mortars as artillery weapons although they had never been issued to artillery units. I rectified this last night. Anti-aircraft weapons are not same as anti-aircraft artillery, and I think that the Wikipedia reader ought to know this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mortars were treated as artillery by the Soviet Union. Organizationally they were considered divisional or corps level assets, not infantry weapons. The control of all explosive ordinance whether delivered from a mortar, a howitzer or field gun were centralized in the Soviet system in WWII. The simple reason was a lack of trained observers, a lack of communications and a lack of motor transport.Idsnowdog (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mortars were treated as artillery by the Soviet Union.

Organizationally they were considered divisional or corps level assets, not infantry weapons.

The control of all explosive ordinance whether delivered from a mortar, a howitzer or field gun were centralized in the Soviet system in WWII.

The simple reason was a lack of trained observers, a lack of communications and a lack of motor transport.

please provide sources for your statements--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that the Soviet army was absolute shit, that still wouldn't make it true that artillery organizations never operate mortars.

Anyway, the 160mm Mortar M1943 equipped artillery battalions of Soviet artillery divisions from 1944, and the 240mm 2S4 Tyulpan mortar is currently held by heavy artillery brigades of Russian artillery divisions. —Michael Z. 2008-08-15 00:31 z

I didn't enter into the discussion of the Soviet Army since this is not a forum, and the subject is not related tot he list. I also never suggested that mortars are not used by Artillery units. All I said was that most mortars are infantry mortars, and are not used by artillery units. After all, if weapons are classified by who uses it, how it works, and what it targets, that there is a distinct difference between the 160mm Mortar M1943 and the vast majority of 82mm and 129mm pieces--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At least some mortars used by artillery units were removed from this list to the list of infantry mortars, including the Soviet M1938 mortar and 120-PM-43 mortar, and French Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1. If the reason for splitting this off is to make the members of the respective lists meet your strict criteria, then I don't think you're being successful. —Michael Z. 2008-08-15 15:50 z

This was why I opposed changes - there are many variations on definitions across countries and timelines. We could argue forever about whether a minenwerfer was a light howitzer or a mortar and if so a trench mortar or infantry mortar etc. Meanings and definitions change as weapons usage and warfare types change. Was a Crapouilot an infantry mortar ? I don't think so, it was a trench mortar. was a Stokes mortar an infantry mortar ? It turned out to be one, but was called a trench mortar at first. Some weapons are partly all 3 - e.g. the ligh minenwerfers. Some were operated by Artillery units, some by infantry. These details appear in the articles themselves... this is just a directory, not the datasheet itself. All we need is something at the top saying : "for simplicity, this list includes all weapons over 37mm (or whatever) - see the article itself for more specific description of its role and usage". Rcbutcher (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the "New Format"

Hi all, just wanted to say that I do like the new format given to this list. I concur that it seems to be more like a directory of artillery lists than a list in itself! ;)
Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• QTN: Why the Talk Page for List of Artillery (a "directory of lists") redirects to the one for List of artillery by type (one of the lists in that directory)? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision of argentinian artillery entries

Hi All, I've noticed duplicated entries for the Pampero MRL and the CITER 155mm L33 Gun, and unified them under the name I could identifiy as more accurate. I'm unsure if I picked the more representative name for the 155mm gun, as both which were used in Wikipedia are used by the Argentine Army.
Additionally, will add an entry for the VCA 155mm SP gun based on the TAM tank; and will check consistency among all the existing Artillery Lists (this will take me a couple of days, pls be patient...).
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Few changes in the Recoilless rifles section

I have made a few changes in the Recoilless rifles section, which is now Recoilless guns. I have put in the table the French Vespa 150 TAP and the Japanese Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm recoilless Gun. I have also written a few words about recoilless guns in general. Megaidler (talk) 13 December 2009

Recoilless Rifles

I noticed that the section on recoilless rifles only has a few listed under a self-propelled section. Also the link to the main article on recoilless rifles does not list recoilless rifles. I added the entries from the list of recoilless rifles. If anyone feels that this clutters the article to much we could at least link to the list of recoilless rifles like the section for anti-aircraft guns does. Idsnowdog (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for re-categorization

The current categorization has no logic.
There is no distinction between gun types and gun system type. Take for example a gun that is manually or semi-manually loaded and fires fixed or semi-fixed ammunition. When installed on a battle tank it is called a “tank gun”. When installed on other types of vehicles, the entire system is called “tank destroyer”, “self propelled anti-tank gun” or “assault gun”, if installed on a fully enclosed turret-less armored vehicle. When installed on a towed carriage, with elevation limited to low angles and limited traverse, the entire system is called “anti-tank gun”. When installed on a towed carriage with elevation available for both high and low angles and unlimited traverse its called “anti-aircraft gun” like the soviet KS-19. Some times the stated name of a gun installed on a self-propelled system are not the true name of the armament but actually the name of an entire towed system armed with the same gun. For example, the name of the gun installed on the Russian 2S19 Msta-S a self-propelled artillery system is definitely not 2A65 Msta-B, a towed artillery system although both 2S19 and 2A65 may share the same 152 mm armament.
I suggest unification of the sections covering field-guns and howitzers. Today there is no real differences between weapons named “guns” and weapons named “howitzers”. All have barrels longer than 25 times of their diameters and all can fire at high angles.
I suggest removing or renaming the section “self propelled infantry guns”. It covers assault guns which have nothing with the light infantry guns.
I suggest removing the section “self propelled anti-tank guns” because most vehicles armed with AT guns do no appear on the table - conventional battle tanks.
Any opponents ? Megaidler (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that me and Denniss are disputed on the way we title the kinds of various weapon systems. While I prefer to title their kind according to their technical characteristics, Denniss prefer to to title their kind as same as done by the nations that developed them, and by the purpose they were given by those nations. I think Denniss's method is somewhat problematic, because different nation categorize their weapons differently.
The Germans use the term “infantry gun” or “Infanteriegeschütz” for any relatively light weight gun system, capable of defeating soft targets at short ranges, like uncovered personnel and machine gun emplacement, but other nation simply call these weapons “field guns”. On WWI there were weapons called “field guns” that were lighter than 1 tonne, like the 7.7 cm Feldkanone 96.
However, on the french army, the term “infantry gun” or “Canon d'Infanterie” is used to describe the kind of the 108 kg Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP, capable of being broken into 3 sections and carried by personnel. In the Japanese army, the term “Infantry Support Gun” or “Jyūiichinen-shiki Heisha hoheihō” is used to describe the kind of the 93.4 kg Type 11 37 mm Infantry Gun, capable of being carried by 4 men together.
I think we should be consistent on the way we categorize weapons, and therefore name their kind according to their technical characteristics. Otherwise there would be a mess. I am asking Denniss. What is yours definition for Infantry guns and assault guns ? Megaidler (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)