Jump to content

Talk:Artillery/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Terms

There are a few errors that seemed to follow throughout. A cannon is not just a ancient weapon, it is also part of a howitzer. For instance the cannon mounted on a M198 Howitzer is the M199 Cannon. Also, I believe the paragraph about Artillery not refering to guided munitions seems misguided (sorry could not resist). Traditionally artillery did not refer to breach-loading weapons either. Cannon artillery has been firing guided munitions (Copperhead) since the Vietnam era. Rocket artillerymen fire all sorts of guided munitions. I am not sure what this paragraph is trying to say.--Counsel 05:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Merges

I have placed merge tags on a few other pages with the intent of bringing those articles in as headings in this article. Field Artillery and Self-propelled Artillery would be better placed as headings within this article to create a more comprehensive article on Artillery. Dividing up the information does not help and redirects will get those who want to do research on the individual areas to the main page.--Counsel 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

   * "Artillery, your area!" - A voice in the game Battlefield 2

Why is this here? 195.137.55.71 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Modern Focus

This page gives a brief history section, then the rest of the article is quite disjointed, but the main problem is a lack of older artillery usage, deployment, etc. For example it says very little about how the use of rifling and percussion caps in 1860-70 led to major changes - there's just a sentence in the history section. Shouldn't this article detail important things like the use of artillery in the battle line, which later changed to being fired from behind lines, then indirectly, etc. Also, the page is quite vague about modern artillery. What about assault guns? they aren't really mentioned, but a Nashorn, for example, was an assault gun, a howitzer on tracks really, not a tank destroyer, but those sort of vehicles aren't mentioned. Or the StuGs: the Sturmgeschutz was another assault gun, but the ausf F and auuf G changed it to a tank destroyer. All the same, ausf A-E were direct fire support, not tank destroyers. This sort of vehicle isn't mentioned, and the only self propelled artillery mentioned refers to vehicles more like the priest, or wepse or SU-76 "bitch", and the more modern versions like the 2S19 MSTA-S or PzH-2000 or MLRS. Does anyone else think the article needs expansion and signifigant alteration to give a better history and explanation of uses? Biscuit Knight 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I've removed the quotes section and transwikied (is that the correct term?) them all to Wikiquote. Cheers. L0b0t 15:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture of a British 60-pounder appears twice

The picture Image:60_pounder_Cape_Helles_June_1915.jpg appears in sections Equipment Types and Sub-types. I am just passing by, so I won't try to decide which of the two places is better for it. —Marvin talk 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancient warfare

This article is a chicken without its head. Its basically missing over 1000 years of artillery history, since, though Artillery has a medieval origin in wording, it was in use by the Greeks for quite some time, Archimedes invented countless siege weapons and catapults, This is artillery, pounding your enemy from afar. Tourskin 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Arty in WW2

The new 2 paras are somewhat inadequate. There's also several errors of fact. Furthermore, in WW2 the most significant user of arty was the USSR, they dwarfed the efforts of everyone else, they also used their arty a tad differently to the western allies, who differed amongst themselves, as did the axis powers.

If a section on WW2 arty is needed, then it needs careful and considered scoping and should be preceded by a section on WW1 arty because that's the foundation for what happened in WW2. However, these are both big subjects and it would probably be better for them to be entries in their own right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nfe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Parham System

How can there not be mention of the Parham System anywhere on Wikipedia? For shame.139.48.81.98 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Calibre

perhaps a word on this subject is in order, especially if it's different for field artillery than it is for naval artillery.in naval terms the calibre is the barrel length divided by the bore diameter. i.e. a 5"/38 calibre gun has a barrel 190" long.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I have just double-checked its B-class assessment and I confirm its start class status. It needs more citations, lots of them. I also feel it is far too complicated in places. It goes into far too much detail, we have huge chunks of un wikified text, almost as if it is a manual for a Staff-course. In places, WP:SUMMARY style should be used, it is far too in-depth on tangential topics. These could be ported out to separate articles and then summarised here. Other than that, the images are well used, the structure for the main part is good. The one qualm I have with it is we have the section "types of artillery" and then later on we have "Types." Types of what, it certainly isn't clear to me. Any further comments would need a Milhist peer review. I think that could be beneficial. Regards. Woody (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Photographs need to be appropriate to the text they appear with

The images used are just splattered about randomely. They need to appear next to the text that they are meant to illustrate. E.g. a 320--mm railway gun next to "Field Artillery" ??? A picture labelled World war I gun next to Post-WWII ????Rcbutcher (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

MRSI

Someone can undo this if they want, but I just removed the part under MRSI questioning its usefulness. I'm not military myself, but I'm on a first name bases with enough shoulders and marines to speak with some confidence about the ability to land 5 shells at one time as opposed to 1 shell at a time.

~Cisco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.239.127 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Transporting Amunition

How do they carry the shells? I assume there is more than one way it is done, but it would be nice if they could be listed somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obolisk0430 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Artillery Types

The section on Artillery Types needs a chart to summarize the infomation defussed thruout its text. -şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ

Firing mechanisms for modern artillery?

We have plenty of info on firing mechanism of firearms, but on artillery it stopped at the 18th century flintlock type, with no info whatsoever how the powder charges of modern artillery/cannons are fired. An additional section is in order, i think Life is short, but the years are long! (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Caliber categories

  • A third form of artillery typing is to classify it as "light", "medium", "heavy" and various other terms.

Why is there no information on how guns are so classified? Heavy artillery redirects to this article, but this article gives us no clue as to what heavy artillery is! 86.41.32.66 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ribauldequin

The (very short) ribauldequin article claims that it was used entirely in the Late Medieval period. As such, it isn't a 17th century innovation as claimed here.--Menah the Great (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Why no article on "guns" as opposed to "howitzers"?

We have seen fit to create an article especially about howitzers, and about mortars, and probably siege guns and heavy artillery, maybe anti-tank guns, why is there no article focusing on direct fire, high velocity guns themselves? I believe there is one on AT guns, but that is just a specific use of guns, on the upper edge of the velocity envelope, with mid-sized bore. There are plenty of pages that mention a piece of ordnance being a howitzer, as opposed to a gun/cannon, or vice versa. For those readers who don't understand the difference, a link can be made to the page on howitzers, but there is nowhere to link for "gun" except to Cannon or Artillery. Sure, the necessary information can be gleaned from either page, but it'd be better if guns had a page of their own. The closest that I can find is Field gun, but that refers to a certain type of gun. Maybe I'm mistaken and Cannon is the correct page; it just seems like that covers the whole concept of artillery, not just guns in the modern sense. If howitzers somehow warrant a separate page just to cover all the important information, it seems like guns/cannons could benefit from a page that is dedicated to that topic as well.

64.222.158.24 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nathan1152. Peer reviewers: Joe Sygulla, Mitcht608.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency

There seems to be some inconsistancy on the page. Under types of artillery it mentions Field Artillery as a type of artillery (along with mortars yet further down the article it goes into describing the "Field Artillery Team". Shouldn't this be on the field artillery page (ignoring that there is not one currently)? Maclyn611 15:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Little appreciation for the field artillery out there outside of Arty community, itself

  • I ask readers to think about it, there's just not much out there in our civilian world that approximates the whole world and culture of the artillery. I mean, unless you've seen rounds "go down range," or, unfortunately, been on the receiving end of the artillery or its mortar cousins, its a fairly hard topic to get ones hands around. I remember studying it at the US Marine Corps' Basic School as a fresh lieutenant, but even that experience gave me little appreciation for the actual experience of directing (spotting for) artillery or having it called in on the bunker they use at Fort Sill to expose students to what that feels like. My point is, its a field that is little understood or appreciated outside of the military. Even some career infantryman have little appreciation for it. One excellent example is US Marine Commandant, Gen. Al Gray, who I knew as Commanding General at 2nd Marine Division and then 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Even as Commandant, he was unwilling to support the newer self-propelled rocket artillery saying to me personally, that the Corps would never need it, and even if it did, it could always ask for a US Army Corps to supply it. So if a career infantryman and Commandant didn't really seem to appreciate it, we shouldn't be to suprised if readers and folks with no military experience lack any appreciation for it.
  • I'd like to suggest an entire wiki course of classes to show just how Army and Marine land forces are organized and employed. It takes years even for people actually in the military to understand such things and many go thru 20-30 years as a supply sergeant or motor transport sergeant (non combat arms) and still have little appreciation for it. The Officer Corps, however, in their mid-level, intermediate and advanced education, is exposed to the proverbial "big picture." I'd like to suggest an article called "MILITARY 101" that would branch out to coherently school the unintiated in all these big box concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonATL (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

FIRE DISCIPLINE

No mention of fire discipline? This is the bread and butter theory of the Artillery. Should this be included? Any other Gunners out there??

FIRE DISCIPLINE I started this..see if you can build on it.

Motorfix 04:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for fire should be moved to Fire discipline. Motorfix 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ammo

The whole ammo and projectile section should be scrapped and rewritten. Should include Classification by use (service, practise, dummy, blank), structure (fuze, projectile, Charge) and within projectile, types of ammo perhaps.

Comments??

Motorfix 23:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Too Late! I changed as I thought best. Take a look and let me know. Please see my User talk page for ongoing discussions on changes needed in Arty section.

Motorfix 02:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Counter Battery

It says in this section that Soviets developped acoustic techniques for locating enemy batteries; I had thought that acoutsic and even visual location using muzzle flashes were successfully and regularly used in World War One, which would likely be before the Russian Revolution. Anyone else hear of this, or am I way off? 216.191.239.82 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the claim is pre-revolution, it gets a mention in the Soviet artillery encylopedia. I suspect it involved aural methods. WW1 Germans used this, basically a man listening to a different mike in each ear and timing the difference in sound arrival.
Quote from article:
"Flash spotting and acoustic measurements continued to be used until near the end of World War II, when radar coupled to (initially primitive) computers began to be introduced. "
This is wrong and needs changing. Flash spotting remained in use until the '50s and 60s in some armies and possibly until the end of the cold war in the German Army. Sound ranging remains in use to this day, but with modern systems such as HALO. Late and post war included developments such as multiplexing signals down the wire from all microphones and effective radio links (WW2 radio link was a bit iffy) and electronc calculator programs. Radar in WW2 was very limited, basically AA radars, and I'd like to see evidence that computers, however primitive were involved, UK seems to have used the radar data with a manual plotting device. Furthermore this could only locate mortars (and possibly guns shooting high angle) because these have parabolic trajectories, and this shape is very simple to define and calculate mathamatically. Guns have an eliptic trajectory, algorithms to compute location from an eliptic trajectory were not developed until the 1970s or so (Hughes Aircraft for the Firefinder program, presumably the Russians also). Nfe 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the sub-section on CB. I think it's reasonably comprehensive without being excessively detailed or too skewed towards one particular army or period. I've also use the official NATO spelling 'counterbattery'. 203.164.96.185 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Shadowbot has challenged the link with reference to WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Clearly the linked site violates neither policy. It would appear that the link was first added by the author of the site (Nigel F Evans / User:Nfe ) and so its inclusion likely violates WP:COI. I have re-added the link as a reference. The matter can be discussed here. --Dystopos 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL states: "Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).". The information available on members.tripod.com is includable in the wiki, and hence is not suitable as an external link. Please discuss addition first, before adding a link. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The linked page absolutely includes "further research which is accurate and on-topic". It is explicitly allowed by WP:EL on that count. If it is better for Wikipedia to incorporate Evans research, the link can be removed after that is done. Since the link is not against policy, please see WP:OWN before reverting the contributions of other editors. --Dystopos 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think WP:OWN does apply here, this was my first edit to this article. The information in the link may include further research, but it is includable, please read the full sentence of the intro. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The first full sentance reads "Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia." OK. I'm down with that. The next sentence is a long one, so I may need to break it down. The subject of the sentence is "pages" and the verb phrase is "could contain". This is followed by three dependent clauses which are linked by the conjunction "or". I believe that means that the pages could contain a, b, or c. In this case, A is "further research which is accurate and on-topic". That seems to be precisely what Mr Evans website is. B is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail." Evans does make a copyright claim on the website, which is much more detailed in its scope than any encyclopedia article of which I am aware. And, lastly, C is "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." Certainly some of the information is includable, and it would appear that User:Nfe is working hard at expanding the article from his research. Very good of him, I would think. However, since his site is much more detailed, I don't know the extent to which the information could be transposed. It would certainly require work on numerous articles while the sections of the site that could not be transferred (diagrams, lengthy quotations, etc) would still probably merit direct linking. In my estimation, therefore, the link clearly satisfies... or rather embodies, two of the three clauses while only partially conflicting with the third. I suggest that if you are right and all of the worthwhile information is includable, that researchers using Wikipedia will appreciate preserving the link until such time as the information is all included. --Dystopos 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I only see two dependent clauses: "further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks);" and "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)". I don't believe it reads "further research which is accurate and on-topic; or information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)". I see the first semicolon as a further explanation of the first clause, not as another option, and I don't think it is meant to be another option. In that case any external link can be incorporated, and that would not be in line with wikipedia is not a linkfarm But I see we have a difference in meaning here about how this sentence is to be read (or can be read), I think that is something that has to be discussed at WT:EL. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether one clause expands on the other or is independent, the result is more or less the same. The only issue in question is whether includable information CANNOT be linked, or whether it SHOULD be incorporated rather than linked. The first would tend to argue against keeping the link. The second would tend to argue for keeping it while the community improves the article. Addressing that disagreement on WP:EL might be productive. I should also note that the automated process by which the link was first removed is incapable of evaluating the relevant issue and instead makes false appeals to WP:SPAM to defend its blunt actions. Perhaps WP:EL would be a good place to discuss whether information hosted by tripod.com represents another category of forbidden material. --Dystopos 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
My reading of the rules is that it is allowable. One page of the site is already referenced in the Sound Ranging wiki entry, although as a citation for particular facts.
The total site currently sits at about 500+ A4 page equivalents and the different pages link to one another. As has been pointed out an encyclopedia entry is a different beast to a web site trying to deal with a big subject at moderate depth and limited to one nation (well group of nations if you want).
Just in case anyone misses it, the site is not commercial, it neither seeks nor gets any income from any source, in fact the research has left me well out of pocket. It's on Yahoo because I'm a cheapskate and see no need to pay for a hosting service! Nfe 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Nfe, for you a thing that might apply is WP:COI, it is better not to include links to sites you own yourself, but first discuss them on the talkpage the link could be added to. The question whether pages on members.tripod.com are suitable references is another one. IMHO, almost never. Anyone can write a page on members.tripod.com, and it is very hard to check whether the information there is accurate, stable and reliable (I am sure that you have done your best to be as accurate as possible, but how do we check that?). The information you have gathered on that site is probably from other sources, which you have judged as being reliable, and hence, these sources are probably better sources than your site (and they are probably primary sources). The only proof that your site would be reliable would be that it is referred to by independent 3d party sites. If that is the case, your site can be included and used as a reliable source (though still, primary sites would be better). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears you are confusing Wikipedia's policy on external links with the policy on Wikipedia content. The link being discussed is very suitable as an external link because of its breadth and detail, much more than would be appropriate for a single encyclopedia article. If someone believes it to be unreliable, they can bring that argument here. The site has a lengthy bibliography of sources, almost all of which are offline, here. The quality of the site's scholarship has NOTHING to do with its host. I am sure that the breach of WP:COI was accidental and I am pleased to restore the link. --Dystopos 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Link normally to be avoided, #2. Pages like this may contain good information, but it can not be checked, they are not backed up by independent sources. Hence, they should be avoided, and are thus better not included. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, I have not heard any independent editors state that this link was indeed proper, I would have liked to hear some more votes before the link got added again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As I stated the material is referenced to verifiable (though offline) sources and I have heard no claims against its accuracy. --Dystopos 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The material is indeed referenced to verifyable sources, but is the contents of the page also verified by independent sources? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the arguments against the link don't apply to the link, I consider the editor most involved in this page to best be able to judge its suitability to the subject. --Dystopos 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there are editors having arguments against the link, so apparently there is not yet consensus whether the link should be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some alternate sites:

Really, there are alternative sites, but what would be far better then some old link in the "external links section" would be if someone were willing to use some of these links as citations. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another alternative, per WP:EL would be a {{dmoz}} -> {{dmoz|Society/Military/Weapons_and_Equipment/Artillery/}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A better alternative would be the site linked originally. It's pretty darned comprehensive and well-sourced. I don't see what Britannica has to offer at all. --Dystopos 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm told, but haven't checked, that Fort Sill site links to mine. You may or may not consider that a recommendation. I'm also told that at least two other artillery schools use it as a source of instructional material or for student projects. I also get a fair number of emails with complimentary words from people who seem to know something about the subject.
The problem with this area is that there is very little cohesive published information, and certainly not online. On several occasions I've been asked whether I know of sites that deal with other nations' arty in a similar way, the honest answer is that there don't seem to be any. Book wise, for example, the only ones in English are Gudmundsson's 'On Artillery' which covers France and Germany but nowhere near the depth of my site, and Professor Chris Bellamy's 'Red God of War' on Russian, and ditto.
I'll be presumptious and say if you know anything about UK artillery then you'll recognise that my site is pretty right - find an expert and ask them. Obviously there are minor errors of fact that neither I nor anyone else has picked up yet butI get very, very few errors pointed out to me - literally a handful over the years, the last I remember was the approximate date that UK converted 25 pdr to mils! Not exactly earth shattering. There are obviously omissions, sometimes for reasons of information granularity others because I haven't yet found the information. And I'm always happy to debate any conclusions I've drawn.
To be blunt my site represents original research, it's just that I don't have a supervisor for a PhD! There's some genuine 'discoveries' - for example the US 25 pdr, which I unearthed in a file in National Archives in Kew. However, my site is not an academic exercise and, bluntly, footnotes all over the place deter the average reader. The sources page is WW2 focussed, but the fire control pages mostly state the source publications in the text. The gun datasheets also list the HBs and RTs, and yes I have looked at most of them, which is almost certainly more than can be said for the authors of not a few books, based on the errors I find.
I'm not taking offence, but the notion that I or anyone else could have invented the content of my site as an exercise in creative writing beggars belief. This of course raises another issue, how to assess the reliability of any body of information? The only reliable method is peer review, which I believe is how Britannica works. Clearly this is a problem for wiki, and I don't see how looking for references to other work that is not peer reviewed is much of a step forward. I seldom read anything about arty without spotting errors.
I will also say that I think most of the wiki entries related to artillery need serious work done on them, but I'm on the case :-) Nfe 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Hydro-Pneumatic Recoil Omitted?

This article needs a section on the invention of hydro-pneumatic Recoil, which made rapid fire possible, the French "famous 75," and its effect on the battlefield. There also should be an article on hydro-pneumatic recoil and its development. I can't understand how the most important technical development in the history of artillery is omitted from the article.68.4.106.252 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The current text about recoil is ill-informed nonsense and quoting an ill-informed source does not make it right. The recoil system 'significantly reduces' recoil forces on the lower carriage or mounting, not eliminate them. The evidence for this is spade(s) on the end(s) of the trail(s). If there were absolutely no recoil forces then the spades would not dig in and there would be no need for them. Even the FR 75mm pole trail had a spade on the end of it! Nfe (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

?

Who, in what Army, ever decided that Artillery was not a combat arm? In the US Army it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.112.126 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2004 (UTC)

It is also a combat arms branch in the U.S. Marine Corps. Maclyn611 15:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the page that says Artillery isn't a combat arm (perhaps it's been removed). It shouldn't reappear, since it seems this designation is country-specific. The British Army is divided into three categories:
  • Combat (or "teeth arms"). This includes Infantry, Armour and the Army Air Corps (ie helicopters) but not Artillery. The reason for this is that the definition includes the phrase "direct fire" - artillery operates exclusively in the indirect role and hence is not included. This annoys them immensely.
while this may be true in the UK, it is NOT the case in either the US Army or the Marine Corps and that is because both organizations, and historically, the Marine Corps has stressed the absolute importance of fire support coordination and combined arms. Don't know exactly how its handled, doctrinally, at the NATO level. I'd have to look into that. Obviously, everyone in NATO has to agree on the terms and I know there is even a glossary of NATO military terms that I've seen. Maj Simon USMCR (Ret)SimonATL 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC) PS. Hey brit brothers, I dig all that "whilst" and "colour" stuff. Adds colour to the Queen's English!
  • Combat Support. This, broadly speaking, is everyone who's likely to be shot at but doesn't come under Combat, and this where Artillery end up, along with the Royal Engineers and some other things I can't think of right now - perhaps the Royal Signals?
  • Combat Service Support. This is everyone else, in particular the Royal Logistics Corps (blanket-stackers and truck-drivers) and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (armoured Kwik-Fit) but also medics, pen-pushers and the Mobile Bath and Laundry Units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.136.129 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2004 (UTC)
The US Armed Forces make the same distinction, but Combat Arms is not defined with "direct fire;" Artillery is considered Combat Arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.35.182 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Same goes for Canadian Forces ( who are modeled after the British). Artillery is a combat Arm Motorfix 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we REALLY appreciate the absolutely profound IGNORANCE by virtually all civilians in "civilized" countries about the military, in general. I remember when I told some folks at a church convention that I was a lieutenant. Some cute college girl innocently asked, "Is that kinda like a sergeant?" Think about it! Maj Simon SimonATL 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet you had no clue how to talk to her, either, jarhead. :) After you showed her your corps tattoo and barked out the standard greeting from the manual, how did you get on?139.48.81.98 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If you follow the thread of the NATO terms and definitions as given in AAP-6 Glossary then its fairly clear that artillery is a supporting arm. Nfe 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"artillery operates exclusively in the indirect role and hence is not included."
Ignorant. Artillery certainly can and does operate in direct fire mode. This annoys non Deity of Battle POA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgy8 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not just US or NATO

This article is very much in perspective of US or NATO in terms and composition of troops in artillery. I think the artillery would be better if it only describes the action in general, not specific terms or actions taken by one single army system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.103.200.25 (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, also was under this impression. The confusion between general terms, like "artillery" in the sense of "set of techniques to apply with a thing that goes *boom*" vs "some unit or corps of the US Army in the second half of the 20th century which happens to be named 'artillery'", tends to favour this kind of blunder, I fear. Rama 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
All Nato and US allies regularly train at FT. Sill for Artillery Doctorine, so most nato allies should follow the same doctorine (in theory). Getting info on some of the other countries may prove difficult. Artillery is easliy shifted to light infantry when the guns are not needed, like in Iraq. Anyone remember if AA and CA are combat arms? (I know one dosent exist anymore but would be interesting to know. adding mortar team info would be nice as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:E80:33C:5453:4DC8:3CBB:13C0 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Advantages of

In this era of fast air and cruise missles, folks who are unfamilure with Artillery may ask why bother? Perhaps including advantages of Artillery over Air: Sustained fire support, Immediate fire support, survivability, multi mission capability, cost, ect.. comments??

Motorfix 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Many people see artillery as an outdated weapons system. What is the tactical value of artillery? Why cannot it be replaced with missiles? What was the previous historical advantage of artillery (why did Napoleon favour artillery so much; how did it help him?), what are current trends towards artillery? Unlike other weapons, like, say, a gun or a tank, people aren't going to see the tactical advantage of artillery; why is what most people would call a "tank with a really big gun" still used on today's battlefield?71.235.66.254 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
uh, what? Sustained fire, for one. Relative invulnerability to countermeasures and counterfire, for another (at least if you're on the side with better ECM capabilities and air superiority; counterbattery radar operators have a very short life expectancy if their opponents have air superiority and can drop HARMs on their heads at will). Long-range guided missiles that can do the job of artillery are still tremendously expensive, so much so that even wealthy nations like the US only buy a few hundred at a time, but artillery shells are stockpiled in the tens of millions. Modern artillery with cluster munition shells and precision-guided shells is quite terrifyingly lethal as well, even against hard point targets like bunkers and armored vehicles. Over the course of the 20th Century, artillery accounted for over 90% of battlefield casualties in all wars. It is THAT deadly. It is THAT effective. It doesn't require a very expensively trained pilot and a fifty-million-dollar airplane to fly over enemy-held ground and run a gauntlet of surface-to-air missiles and antiaircraft guns to put steel on target. Not that I am knocking CAS, it has its place too, but there is a reason every army on Earth either has or desperately wants the capability for its front-line soldiers to be able to pick up the radio and call for "steel rain." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.254 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

It comes back to indirect fire, which gives firepower mobility. Firepower mobility means you can concentrate fire anywhere within range, you don't have to move the platform to where it can see the target. Platform mobility, the truly archaic approach, is the preserve of tanks, aircraft, etc.

It doesn't matter whehter the platform moves at 10 kph or 100kph, it still takes longer to reach the target than a shell starting at 900 m/s. What's more artillery responds far quicker that air can. As already pointed out out it can sustain the attack.

Surface to surface tactical missiles also use indirect fire and are used by artillery. The real question is why launch missiles from aircraft when they can be launched from the ground by artillery. The answer is the profits of the aerospace industry, aircraft are vastly more expensive that ground vehicles. Nfe 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Artillery System

I've added a major new section, Artillery System. This attempts to provide a broad view of indirect fire artillery in terms of the main functions of this system. In particular it tries to avoid describing the system of any one nation. Obviously, given the size of the subject, it does not go into great detail, first because it would take up far too much space and second because it would quickly become a catalogue of what each national artillery does.

I think that the sub-section 'Field Artillery Team', which basically describes the US FA should be removed. In my view there is no place for a particular nation-centric view in an entry about artillery. Nfe 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a reference for the NABK entry but I am unsure of whether to refer to this site www.aop37.org or the NABK public brochure as an external file: https://mipcee-sps.lsec.dnd.ca/sites/s4_public_info/S4%20Document%20Information/NABK%20brochure.pdf
Any suggestions? Firepower Canada (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Application of fire

I've added this sub-section. I think all sub-sections after counterbattery fire can now be removed. Nfe 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuzes

Removed error about UK military spelling, all UK arty publications and ammo packaging are spelt 'fuze' and have been for a very, very, long time.

Nfe 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Error? The British Army web site (even some artillery pages) talks about fuses more than it does about fuzes. See here and here for just two examples. While I'm at it, it's not always spelled fuze in the United States army either. The word fuze and fuse get similar numbers of hits (380-ish) in the search engine on the U.S. Army homepage. In the light of light, the article text should read something like usually spelled "fuzes" by artillery purists. Roger 09:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't treat the MODUK page as authoritative on military spelling, it's written by PR folk. UK artillery publications spell it fuze, and that's what's written on the boxes they are delivered in. Fuse is used for the stuff military engineers use. The derivation was explained by OFG Hogg.
Nfe 10:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt for a minute that it can also be spelled "fuze": archaisms add charm and enrich the language. What I'm challenging is the categoric statement "Fuze" is always spelled with a "z" for artillery. This is clearly not the case as the websites of the British Army and the United states Army demonstrate. Two of the dictionaries Wikipedia recommend we consult in this kind of issue - Merriam-Websters and Oxford English - do not have a standalone entry for "fuze", noting it as a variant spelling of "fuse". Roger 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
To repeat myself, web sites produced by PR folk are not authoritative on nomenclature.
Try googling 'school of artillery fuze' or a manufacturer, eg 'junghans fuze'. These reveal sites that actually know what they are talking about.
Nfe 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're disagreeing. The only issue is how emphatically the variant spelling ought to be treated in an encyclopedia. I've recast the sentence as The preferred military spelling is "fuze". That seems to cover all bases (and, more importantly, the verifiable sources) without getting pedantic about it. ← Roger → Talk 11:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A current example of the official use of Fuze https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318192/RAN_03_14.pdf Nfe (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Horse Artillery

1. Regular arty units were formed in the 16th century.

2. Irregular is a meaningless term in relation to artillery, even before regular units permanent artillerymen formed the nucleus of armies because 'gunners' with the necessary skills could not be created by inducting the local peasantry and monarchs were keen to have a monopoly on such skilled persons.

3. There was never irregular horse artillery.

4. European armies created horse arty as elite units because of the skills needed (and the cost!). They recognised them as elite - this is why in armies like UK horse arty on parade with its guns still occuppies the most senior position on parade.

5. Horse arty was created for the specific purpose of accompanying cavalry. This meant the entire unit (bty or troop depending on national term) had to be mounted, not just the gun detachments and officers. Eg farriers, etc. Nfe 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Smoothebore

I think there's a lot of tosh being written on this subject. To claim that smoothebore is entering the mainstream for artillery is total fiction.

It's true that Bull developed smoothebore for his high altitude research stuff in the early 1960s and for the so-called Iraqi 'supergun'. What seems to be forgotted tis that in the mid 1950s the USSR developed a smoothbore 420 mm SP, its unclear if it entered service and there's nothing to suggest that Russia has done anything with smoothebore since. Neither has any Western Nation (nor Japan, nor India). If you exclude all these then claims of 'mainstream' seem gross exageration at the very least.

I'll have to do some fact checking but I'm unconvinced about G5 being smoothebore, last time I looked (several years ago) the S Afican stuff was all rifled and apart from idiosyncratic ordnance design the novelty was highly streamlined projectiles. Nfe 03:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely rifled, I found an authoritative article written in 1982 giving the length or rifling in the GC=45. Nfe 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Page 9 of the G5 brochure also mentions a 1:20 rifling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see the relevance of tank guns to a page about artillery. (and the statements are misleading, very few modern tanks don't use smoothebore). Modern smoothebore arty, with the exception of mortars is extrely rare, as I previously noted the last was probably the 1950s Soviet 420mm (there's one on exhibition at the arty museum in St Petersburg).

I'm not sure that its entirely true to claim that the purpose of stabilisation is to stop the shell tumbling. Its more accurate to say that it keeps the axis of the shell aligned with the trajectory, a shell can be both under and over stabilised.' The latter means it can land base first in extreme cases, but it doesn't tumble.

I can't see the relevance of the references to patent. These don't seem to have anything to do with stabilisation, they seem to be for pop-out control surfaces. Their novelty seems to be that before popping out they are kept in the propellant/BB container. Pop-out fins for rifled arty were/are used with Copperhead and the Russian equivalents. If you want guided projectiles you have to have control surfaces. This is rocket science. Nfe 08:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PPD Fuze

What is it? --Cancun771 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Proximity Point Detonating. For a decade and more some armies have used these as their 'standard' artillery fuze fitted to all HE shells, previously mechanical PD fuzes were standard. PPD fuzes do vary a bit in their function, they don't all offer delay and some offer a choice of preset height of burst, from the low 'daisy cutter' at about 2m then higher preset options. Nfe (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Maximum range and accuracy

I would like to see information about the maximum range of artillery. Also so rough information on the accuracy on those lengths. This information is what is interesting to get an overview of the potensial of artillery in a battle situation. --Hulagutten (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be overhauling the article in the next few weeks, and will include this in the article, but really the maximum range depends on the ordnance system used, and the purpose its used for. I think the maximum range for field rocket artillery now is about 70km, while that of the HE assisted rounds is about 40km--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Max range is the range given in the firing table for the highest charge. It is also the range that is to be expected under standard conditions including the standard muzzle velocity when firing at a target at the same altitude. But these conditions almost never exist. It is possible for a shell to go further that max range, eg a new gun firing in hot and high conditions. However, more usually actual max achievable range is less mainly due to barrel wear and hence reduced MV.
Whether max range can be exploited depends on various features of the artillery system. Of course firing at close to max range is often a bad idea due to dispersion.
Accuracy is a much abused term for artillery, because most people don't know what it means. In artillery there are two things 'accuracy' meaning the distance between the mpi and the aimpoint and 'consistency' meaning the extent of dispersion around the mpi. However, in the accuracy equation the historic problem for indirect fire has been the aimpoint not being where the target is. Contrary to popular view accuracy has very little to do with the gun per se, it actually a function of the accuracy of the data in the firing tables (or these days the aeroballistic data used by the computer) and the accuracy of the data about the non-standard conditions of the moment. It's actually the latter that is the main problem, although most western armeis have now reached the stage where its quite good if their artillery system is performing properly. And is it vital to view modern (ie post 1915) artillery as a system.
I will review the 'overhauling' with interest and blue pencil. I'm looking forward to references to everything with relish, not least because various pundits have often published nonsense, just because something has been published somewhere doesn't make it correct. Peer review is mostly unknown for many subjects.Nfe (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You can help. Its a huge job because the subject is diverse, complex, and the article in its present state the article is just bad. I will do what I can, time permitting, but I always try to reference my contributions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a big subject. First it has an evolutionary history going back several centuries, second from the early 20th century it starts to get technically quite complicated, third there is no universal approach, different nations evolved it somewhat differently. Fourth, while its possible to syntheisse something vaguely like a modernish 'NATO' perspective (although there are differences between member nations, some quite significant), this ignores the rest of the world. Of course some of these have taken their training from certain NATO nations and hence follow somewhat similar lines. 20th Century artillery is about processes and procedures as much as anything else. Furthermore AFAIK no one has written a comprehensive global overview at any useful level of detail. Finally there is a lot that is not in the public domain.Nfe (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The current structure I'm working with is as follows
  • Introduction (mostly as it is now with three additions I can think of now)
  • Definition
  • History of development (in five major periods of history)
  • Design considerations
  • Munitions
  • Ordnance systems
  • Gunners
  • Gunnery service (i.e. firing the ordnance)
  • Artillery operations
  • Artillery organisations
  • Artillery deployment
  • Artillery employment
  • Tactical gunnery
  • Artillery doctrines
  • Effect of artillery fires
  • Artillery statistics
  • Contribution of artillery to science
  • Artillery traditions
  • Famous gunners
The ancient artillery was essentially a mechanical one, and is drastically different to the chemical reaction based gunpowder gunnery. From the middle ages I will seek to trace the transfer of knowledge from China to Europe where it was developed to a more advanced state of technology over the next three periods.
After that it gets technical :)
I have access to a significant amount of literature, but obviously I am not going to include anything that is classified. Nor do I think there is a need for that, Wikipedia being what it is. Some people here are having trouble with the term ordnance :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Techically speaking you don't actually 'fire the ordnance', you fire the gun (using that word in a generic way - historically English speaking nations all used to use the word 'piece' but most dropped it before WW2, the lone exception is the US). 20th century artillery is a complex socio-technical system the elements of this system must all be addressed if you are to make sense of the whole and what it does.Nfe (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I will try to avoid using "gun" because of the inclusion of other artillery equipment such as mortars, rockets, and missiles which are all part of gunnery. Unfortunately "gun" is much overused as a term.
Yes, its very complex. It is the more complex of all combat arms, and also combat support arms for a good measure--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with lede

The lede is very long and speckled with redlinks. Could any of the regulars have a look at that? Ingolfson (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a big subject area, and the redlinks are articles that need to be written--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary spells matériel, however, it also spells apparatus. Nfe (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparātus here is used as a reference specifically to Roman usage to include equipment of the ancient period that would be better known to the English reader since the words engine, systems and machine are only extant from the middle ages and renaissance. In this case apparatus was I think used in general in the same way as gun is now, and is why the general meaning it acquired later of any engineered contraption. Just needed a general term that applied to something before gunpowder--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins

OFG Hogg states that there is NO evidence to suggest that the gun emerged in the East. Rockets may be a different matter. After considerable discussion and review of the evidence he states "On present evidence, therefore, the year 1326 may be taken as the point in history when artillery first emerged from the womb of time in the shape of a grotesque vase-like body." (pg 34) Anybody who is going to assert that Hogg was wrong will have to provide some really authoritiative references.

Hogg also divides the history of the gun into 4 epochs, the last starting in 1854 and divided into 5 periods. This is a gun-centric view and ignores rockets and the key advances in ammunition. It could be argued that rockets are an ammunition issue. A review of artillery has to address these issues. The other issue is the one that defines modern artillery (talk of post-modern is nonsence unless it means the emergence of precision munitions, computers and data networks have not had revolutionary effects, to date they are only evolutionary) this is indirect fire, which was driven by advances in gun and ammunition technology and the need to effectively exploit(and negate)these. Nfe (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally have Artillery: its origin, heyday, and decline if that is what you are referring to, but will look in the libraries. If you have it and don't mind contributing, please do so.
My division is based on the general periodisation in history as a discipline, and I have not yet made any attempt to distinguish what is now called generations to the ordnance since the introduction of breach-loaded rifled artillery.
Rockets are an ammunition issue because they are, aside from the kit issued for firing them such as that used by the early British carriages, essentially do not require any further systems. This is best exemplifies in the MRLs with the Katyusha having all the basic (very basic) features of an artillery system, with rockets as its ammunition. Fired singly as for example during he Vietnam War or by Hizbullah, they are just unguided ammunition used in much the same way as unexploded artillery rounds are used as IEDs. Crude, but effective.
Post-modern is the term used in general history. I have since switched to using "after 1945" for military history.
Interestingly direct fire, what most artillery did until use of gun tables, is redirected to indirect fire. The article, as many others, needs attention. What specific issues do you see (I see many).
One issue I am trying to deal with is the vast lack of articles that define the terms people use elsewhere. For example no on had bothered to define what a military objective is, and interestingly many articles on various battle sand campaigns simply omit mention of objectives as if they were obvious. I am trying to add these and eventually artillery and other articles will fit into the overall structure of all things under the headings "military" and "war". As it is now Artillery exists on its own, but thanks to recently created article I can now add that it is in fact a major contribution to the military capability of armed forces :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't say that I'm familar with any military historians talking about modern and post-modern. I'd also argue that the decades after 1945 were more of the same as far as artillery is concerned, although some people might suggest that nuclear weapons changed everything. Tac nucs have never been used and might now be regarded as an evolutionary dead end, precision having made they obsolete not to mention the changing military legal environment.
Incidentally, in English at least (not sure about literal translations), no nation has used the term 'gun tables', and I assume this isn't supposed to be gun platforms.
I can't see why terms like 'objectives' have to be defined, it's a term in everyday usage.
The pre-indirect fire period isn't my thing but I believe O.F.G. Hogg (not the late I.V.) is the generally recognised authority in English on the subject as far as guns are concerned, I can't comment on authorities writing in other languages.Nfe (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There are several various ways of defining artillery eras. One is by propulsion – mechanical devices, then from circa 1300 gunpowder (guns and rockets) and from the second half of the 19th century ‘modern propellants’, originally often called ‘smokeless’ but perhaps better described as ‘chemical’. At this time advances in mechanical engineering enabled breech loading and recoil systems that significantly increased the rate of fire.
Another perspective is organisational. Mechanical devices were built/assembled in the field by engineers, who probably operated them with unskilled assistance. Gunpowder devices were originally operated by a few specialist ‘master gunners’, who were permanently employed, and assisted by unskilled men recruited for the campaign. However, from the 17th century or thereabouts permanently formed artillery units started appearing. These provided batteries in the field, sometimes separately and other times massed but constrained by the limits of voice control, which generally limited them to direct fire. The emergence of chemical propellants and mechanical improvements coincided with the telephone and better methods for indirect fire. This led to organisations where observers who controlled fire were separated from the guns themselves, and this in turn led to the capability to mass the fire of widely separated units controlled by one person to give firepower mobility.
Its also worth noting that mechanical, gunpowder and chemical devices had both crew and individually operated forms. However, in the chemical era many crew operated devices are not operated by artillery.
Terms such as medieval, modern, post-modern are totally irrelevant to all this.Nfe (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree of course, but the issue here is that of a larger reference work consistency. Most readers are familiar with the general history periods even if they do not define history of artillery. However, I note that the crudeness of the Middle Ages many associate them with reflects the early forms and use of artillery, Renaissance begun with the basic scientific thought often due to the considerations of the new technology of gunpowder (chemistry), ballistics (force physics) and optics (light physics) that offered the commanders ability to see far enough to site the guns. Modern period was dominated by the organisational improvements to the Arm, and modern period by the engineering sophistication, so broadly speaking they do match--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I remain totally unconvinced that historical periods add anything, it's also an heroic assumption that they mean anything much to general readers. It is far clearer to refer to centuries in order to establish the historical time line. I'm also less that convinced by the Renaissance example. Gunpowder evolved continuously, it's not an area I expert in, but I've never come across anything to suggest any notable advances coinciding with the Renaissance. Ballistics were basically empirical practices by master gunners until into the 18th century. Optics were irrelevant until the late 19th century because until then the range of guns was extremely short, and of course commanders didn't site guns in detail, they left that to their artillery commanders having given them the general areas (not forgetting that in the earlier periods guns were mostly used in seiges).
Like any account of multi-faceted technology and its application the difficult bit is coherently combining the temporal and thematic. When the system perspective is critical, as it is for artillery, it is particularly challenging. Nfe (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

when did tanks become arty?

Tanks are artillery. The word "tank" is merely an in-development/production code for designation of a vehicle that was intended to create a new capability in artillery employment, i.e. artillery that could accompany infantry to, and over the enemy trench lines without employing horses. "Tanks" remain a form of artillery to this day, although their role has been overshadowed during the Second World War and subsequent conflicts by the need to engage and defeat other "tanks". However, in absence of this opposition, they pretty much revert to artillery support role, which is what they were used for in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, SP and assault guns were on occasion used to counter tanks also, and there is no disputing they are artillery. So, would you mind replacing the tank as a development of artillery please. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? So how come the rest of the world doesn't seem to see it that way? What are the military doctrinal publications that take this view? What about the central issue of fire control - tanks basically select and engage their own targets, artillery engages its targets collectively? Nfe (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Have you conducted a survey of how "the rest of the world" sees it?
I can quote a few doctrinal publications, but that is not necessary yet. Lets look at the "tanks".
The early, pre-WW2, development of the "tank" will show you that there was a strong tendency towards the fire support vehicles. Where speed was more important was in designs of fast/cavalry tanks intended to support that senior arm after the envisioned breakthrough. The "medium" battle tank Germans entered the war with was armed with an infantry support weapon. The Soviet T-34 was a compromise, albeit one that proved highly successful, its main weapon becoming more anti-tank as the war went on. The 45mm tank gun on Soviet 1940 tanks was quite adequate to defeat any German 1940 tank, so why mount a 76mm weapon? The answer is that the Soviet conduct of war was envisioned with as much artillery supporting the infantry as possible. The 76mm gun remained the standard infantry division artillery ordnance in the Red Army for the duration of the war. The standard German towed artillery piece was the 105mm, but Germans felt that the 88mm was adequate until well into the war. The 105mm did become the NATO standard for much of the Cold War. This was not dictated by the capability of the ammunition, but by its consumption. Artillery consume more ammunition, therefore tanks use whatever there is produced more of, and not own ammunition. Simple production economics.
Post war the light tanks were essentially eliminated, and after the 1950s so were the heavy tanks. Balance required mobility and survivability because the "main" tank firepower was adequate for every other battlefield application, save the defeat of the other tanks! Do you realise that tanks are issued with HE ammunition for direct fire support, the other feature of artillery service practiced for most of its history?
It seems to me you need more reading on fire control of both tanks or artillery.
Tanks are organised into units, and usually engage the enemy not singly, but as units. The usual doctrinal use of tanks was (until recently) en-masse, or at least in company-sized units (when attached to infantry). The depiction of tank "skirmishes" in movies is an outcome of both script writing, and lack of funds/vehicles to depict in more realistic use. However, the nature of tank fire control is to provide direct fire regardless of the target. If you read on the use of artillery during the Napoleonic wars, you will often find single (more often two) tubes being used to engage specific targets on the battlefield. The smallest tactical tank unit in the Second World War was five tanks (at least at start), only one less than the six-tube artillery battery. And this, despite added expense differential.
Artillery need not fire collectively as you say, but do so to ensure delivery in a volume of fire appropriate to the target, because they are not firing directly at it (i.e. area fire). This is not an issue of fire control, but survivability of artillery and evasion by the enemy through dispersal. In fact, single tubes can, and do engage targets indirectly, including when they are used to either range the targets, or for harassment fire. Moreover, artillery units also fire direct fire, namely the anti-tank, self-propelled and assault artillery. During the Second World War on several occasions the Red Army MRLs were recorded firing in direct fire support, i.e. flat trajectory.
Now of course this is English Wikipedia, and many people editing the tank article associate with the US Army Armour Branch and the British Army units with Cavalry histories, all of which like to think they "really" are cavalry. Its called romantic thinking, or in Wikitalk, POV. They are at best, horse artillery, but artillery none the less. Cavalry requires engaging in close combat, something tankers just are not trained or equipped for. The "cavalry" of today, by a long stretch of the imagination, are the mobile infantry, evolved from the mounted infantry, a.k.a the dragoons.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for an improvement to the article? (Hohum @) 19:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't have time to critque the many dubious assertions, distortions and misunderstandings. However, which notable army defines tanks as artillery? This is important because tanks and artillery almost invariably only exist in armies. Therefore while an academic view (and possibly the Wikip nono of 'research') may or may not be interesting it is irrelevant in an article that deals with artillery as it is and how it evolved because the view that matters is how armies have and now see it.Nfe (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

polish multiple gun

HOLY SHIT IS THAT ONE REAL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Famous artillery officers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.144.117 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Large/Heavy

The opening sentence of the lede says: "Artillery is a class of heavy military weapons built to fire munitions far beyond the range and power of infantry's small arms."

A trench mortar is a type of artillery; depending on its calibre, it might or might not be capable of delivering munitions further than 2000m (the range of a powerful sniper rifle). "Artillery" also includes mediaeval through napoleonic cannon, whose range was not greater than infantry small arms. And there are small field guns that are unquestionably artillery, but whose effective range isn't much more than about 2000m.

Surely the distinguishing characteristics of artillery are that they are guns, and that they deliver relatively large munitions. The size, weight or range of the weapon itself seems to me to be largely irrelevant, unless it is so small and light as to be man-portable.

The rocket artillery used at e.g. the battle of Waterloo was neither large nor heavy. For the purposes of the introductory sentence, I would prefer to ignore rockets and man-portable weapons, which can be discussed parenthetically afterwards, if necessary.

Another approach might be to start from the premise that artillery is the kind of weaponry in whose use artillery officers are trained. They are not generally trained in the use of man-portable weapons (nor, I think, of trench mortars). Rather, they are trained in the use of guns (and rockets) to gain a strategic advantage in the field; perhaps emphasising the strategic nature of artillery, rather than its size or weight, might help.

I have tried to compose a suitable alternative sentence, and I have given up for now. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have never heard of "strategic" artillery, unless maybe the German's V3 is counted. "Strategic" means disrupting enemy industry, directing the war in the course you wish it, effecting civilian morale, calculating war aims, etc. Artillery is tactical; it is used on the battlefield to defeat enemy forces. Bombing enemy industry to effect war production = strategic. Bombing enemy supply lines to prevent them from arming the front line = tactical. It can be hard to decide in some cases, but I can't think of any cases (V3 excepted) where artillery could be called "strategic".
02:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.158.24 (talk)

the most important concept and terms are missing: ranging, bracketing

Both of these terms mean adjusting the precision in both dimensions, i.e. also left/right not just distance (depth / range), as shown by examples even in dictionaries that claim they only mean distance.

‘You stand up, which is the exhilarating part, to see the fall of shot; then you adjust - add, drop, left, right - till you have the target bracketed.’

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bracket

This lack of precision, that both terms and especially "range" at least originally only meant distance, is probably why the official military term is apparently "registration fire":

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/registration+fire

--10:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espoo (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artillery/Archive_1&oldid=1251935145"