Talk:List of artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of artillery article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force

1 Gun control
2 CITER 155mm L33 Gun entry
3 AMX 30 F1 155mm SP Gun duplicate entry
4 sortabable

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)