Talk:Field artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

There's got to be a sweet pic of some artillery out there. In fact, I have some military frieds - what would be the processes of including a picture they might have taken in Iraq? uriah923(talk) 20:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus; should have been closed long ago; mergeto article is has become a redirect. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Field artillery and Field gun should be merged. They need improvement, though. Field artillery is a military branch, a sub-branch of artillery, which is mainly used against enemy ground forces. It's a type of organisation, not just "category of mobile weapons" as said in the article. Artillerymen are as big part of artillery as their guns are. SGJ 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. We might however have separate article on artillery fire control. Some of the material could me moved there. Petri Krohn 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Merge.As for the article on fire control, it is under Fire discipline. Not very organized right now thoughMotorfix 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Opposed to merge. I like the organization suggestion, but Field Artillery is comprised of field guns and howizters. The main difference being howizters are rifled and field guns are not. It's like saying we should merge fruit trees in apples. Greg LaVanway 16:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether a artillery piece is rifled or not has AFAIK nothing to do whether it is a howitzer or not. Howitzers have generally shorter barrel and higher trajectory. Guns with longer barrel and flatter trajectory are called cannons or (usually) just guns, which is a bit confusing since both "gun" and "cannon" are often used as generic words meaning almost any artillery piece, or any weapon in general. To add more confusion, the word "cannon" is reserved to mean only direct-fire artillery by some definitions. SGJ 22:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to merge. A field gun, rifled or not, howitzer or not, is but one component in the Field Artillery (FA), and as such, the Field Artillery is the obviously larger topic. The FA includes the people, weapons, support, command and control systems, fire direction systems, motor transport, supply/logistics, etc. - all that's necessary to "shot, move and communicate." as the artillerymen say. Maj Simon retired USMC FA guy SimonATL 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between a cannon and howitzer above is incorrect. In fact a cannon is often part of a howitzer. The cannon employed as a part of the M198 howitzer is the M199 cannon. The distinction between field guns and howitzers is generally in velocity. Howizters are a medium velocity weapon. Morters are a low velocity and guns, high velocity. Take a look at the FMFM 6-40--Counsel 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some additional research, since this sounded quite odd to me. I doubt that cannon is a part of the weapon. I couldn't find FMFM 6-40, but globalsecurity.org [1] has FM 6-40, which I hope is almost the same. Glossary of this manual defines cannon as "a complete assembly consisting of an artillery tube, a breech mechanism, a firing mechanism, and a sighting system mounted on a carriage." Thus it is a generic term for an artillery weapon. However, "cannon tube" seems to be used for a part of a weapon. The manual doesn't contain a definition of howitzer, but does contain a following phrase: "Cannons capable of high-angle fire (howitzers) require a greater choice in the number of charges than cannons capable of only low-angle fire (guns).". So now we have a classification based primarily on firing angle, too. More confusion.
I was wrong when I assumed that gun is a more generic name than a cannon, because it seems to be the opposite. But this doesn't seem to apply worldwide. Wikipedia Howitzer article states that a howitzer generally has a barrel lenght of below 30 calibers, and this definition is also used by Finnish army where I served in field artillery support. Germans also use this definition. Additional definition of Finnish army is that howitzers (haupitsi in Finnish) usually have a firing range of less than 20 km. We called artillery pieces with long barrels "kanuuna", which is loaned from Germanic languages (in English "cannon", in German "kanone", Swedish "kanon" - but swedes seem to demand 40 calibres of barrel before calling it kanon). So I supposed that this is how it goes in English, too.
Perhaps US Military is eager to classify weapons as howitzers when they are capable of high-angle fire, where Finns are eager to classify weapons as "kanuuna" when they have long barrels? For example, the M198 has (according to a google search) a barrel length of 39 calibers, but can shoot with an elevation of over 70 degrees. This weapon would propably be classified as kanuuna in Finland because of it's berrel length and shooting distance of over 20 km. The Finnish 155 K 83 is a kanuuna, but would it be called a howitzer in the US because it is capable of firing at 70 degree elevation?
The velocity versus barrel length, then. Length of barrel and muzzle velocity are really just two sides of a coin. With same projectile weight, caliber and amount of propellant, a longer barrel generally gives larger muzzle velocity. SGJ 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Artillery Recce[edit]

What about the Artillery Recce team? This team evaluates proposed gun positions,surveys the gun position prior to the arrival of the battery, and then passes "line" to each gun when the battery arrives. Motorfix 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Field artillery team - fire direction centre[edit]

This section seems to be based on the organisation of US artillery units, yet it seems to imply that all armies worldwide have the same organisation. There needs to be some inclusion of other armies' methods of organisation, or at least a statement about which army the description is based upon. Dallas 23:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

External Professional US Field Artillery Links[edit]

General Coment[edit]

This article should be renamed US Field Artillery. If a general item about field artillery is required (doubtful, see artillery, indirect fire, artillery battery) then it needs to be written in more general terms. As written this article doesn't even apply to other NATO field artilleries, never mind the wider world.

Incidentally, a sure sign that an author doesn't know what they are talking about is when they state that mils and milliradians are the same thing!

Alexander of Macedon used artillery to support troops in the field but there are no photos surviving (ref Plutarch's Life). The Romans didn't leave photos of their field artillery either, but there are some good reconstructions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.71 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo caption clarification[edit]

There is a photo captioned, "French Napoleonic artillery battery. Photo taken during the 200th anniversary reenactment of the battle of Austerlitz in 1805." While the battle may have taken place in 1805, the caption suggests the reenactment took place in 1805. Replacing the word 'in' with the word 'of' would make the caption less confusing.

There is also a question of whether the first sentence labeling reenactors as a 'French Napoleonic artillery battery' should also be changed, as reenactors clearly aren't the real thing, even if it's subsequently called a reenactment. I guess it isn't likely people will think there was color photography during the Napoleonic wars, but an encyclopedia should strive for accuracy in what it presents.

Finally, is the Battle of Austerlitz important enough that it should be considered a proper or historical name and have the word 'battle' capitalized?

99.24.219.211 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)