Talk:Self-propelled artillery

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Shell (projectile)#High-explosive|HE]] Anchor Shell (projectile)#High-explosive links to a specific web page: High explosive. The anchor (#High-explosive) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Merge with Artillery

Oppose - merging would tend to bloat Artillery and further expansion of the article would lead to this topic being spun off anyhow.GraemeLeggett

I would also suggest that the suggestion should have been labelled with a mergeto and mergefrom rather than just merge.GraemeLeggett 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E 38.158.205.36 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

Self propelled artillery also includes rocket artillery which i have added to intro. GraemeLeggett 11:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nonsensical mishap

"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.

4 * 43 kg = 172 kg per minute - this is only for one gun. There are 6 guns in a battery, so entire battery can deliver 6 * 4 * 43 = 1032 kg of steel and explosives. LostArtilleryman 08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue of Semantics:

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

All covered by the article on shrapnel in the introduction to same article. GraemeLeggett 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Private of reserve of Rocket Troops and Artillery of Russian Army I can say that shrapnel was employed in World War II (see here ) by Soviet Artillery and there are some ordnance of that type on Russian stocks now. So words about shrapnel protection is true. LostArtilleryman 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse artillery removed

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)[reply]

A precursor is just a very early versions of a concept. It does not need to be belong in the same category as its modern offspring if very strict definitions are applied. Prehistories should always be allowed to extend backwards more than the actual history section. The use of horse artillery was extremely similar to that of modern self-propelled artillery, except that practical means of self-propelled vehicles didn't exist back then. I don't see any good reason to remove information in this way. Try adding information (preferably with sources) instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Terminology

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)[reply]

Su-76

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)[reply]

Merge with self-propelled guns

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)[reply]

Opppose Big topic, there's room for several articles. Also (and as is already noted), rocket artillery is self-propelled artillery without being a self-propelled gun. Further (and this varies by national practice) some direct-fire SPGs are tank destroyers and seen as distinct from artillery. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While common civilian usage may not make a distinction, in military terms, guns and artillery are not the same. Guns focus on lower trajectory fire, while artillery focuses on high-trajectory (thus we have "anti-tank guns" and "anti-aircraft artillery"). The self-propelled versions of both of these should maintain this same distinction. I agree that some SP guns and SP artillery can have overlapping capabilities, may be based more on intended role than technical abilities, and even that some militaries name their weapon based on their own relative criteria that can conflict with others. But I don't think we should abandon the distinction as long as military sources maintain it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-propelled artillery vs Tank destroyers (or Self-propelled anti-tank guns)

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)[reply]

I would recommend the paragraph beginning "The Germans also mobilized their anti-tank guns..." should be removed or cut down, as tank destroyers are not the same as self-propelled artillery. I see I am agreeing with myself from 2 1/2 years ago. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]