Talk:Self-propelled artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force

1 Merge with Artillery
2 Merge type
3 Nonsensical mishap
4 An issue of Semantics:

[edit] 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

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.)

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

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.

[edit] Merge type

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)