Talk:Naval 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.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Merge Naval Gunfire into this article[edit]

This page is little more than a definition. See wiki policy on dictionary entries. Naval Gufire is essentially the same thing.--Counsel 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This page needs expansion, not merging. Naval Gunfire support (which appears to be a particular term) is an application of the (main) armament of a warship for supporting land operations as opposed to merely engaging with a shore target. The main use of naval guns through the years has been between ships. A proper article on naval artillery would include an overview of the development of the armament of warships from the middle ages forward. GraemeLeggett 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I regard Naval artillery as a term that was current in the early 20th century. IMO, Naval Gunfire Support is a specific term of art referring to the use of gunfire from ships to "soften up" beaches before an amphibious landing is initiated. The idea that Naval Gunfire is used by ship against ship is a good one, too. I agree with GraemeLegget about the content of a proper article on Naval Artillery, but I think maybe a better name could be found. Lou Sander 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately most newcomers wouldn't recognize the term Naval Gunfire Support even though that's the correct techical term - so it should remain Naval Gunfire. I'm a school-trained spotter from the US Marine Corps - former artillery officer and naval gunfire support officer trained at Ft. Sill and Little Creek in the 80s.
I don't see why newcomers wouldn't recognize Naval Gunfire Support but would recognize Naval Gunfire. Is there some particular reason for thinking so? Lou Sander 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it will need the requested move procedure. The sooner we initiate the formal procedure the sooner it'll move. GraemeLeggett 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this page should be expanded and NOT merged with Naval Artillery. Naval Artillery is just a small subset of NGFS. While the details may be complex, naval artillery is a fairly simple concept. NGFS includes a high level of coordination with any amphibious assault teams and is more of a mission rather than a class of weaponry. NGFS may utilize forward operating aircraft, be it manned or unmanned, as an aid in targeting and damage assessment. It is more complicated than simple "naval artillery". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the Naval Gunfire article be renamed Naval Gunfire Support? Lou Sander 12:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what it originally was, before someone started moving & merging without discussion...--Jpbrenna 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Naval Gunfire back to naval gunfire support, which is the correct term. I also disagree with the merge, and since over the course of four months there seems to be a consensus not to merge, I'm removing the merge notices. TomTheHand 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Aside from the capitalization issue, there does not seem to be any consensus or compelling evidence presented here that naval gunnery would be the best, or even a precise, term. Naval guns seems to have some support, but it should probably be a new move request at this point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Naval artilleryNaval Gunnery – The literature consistently refers to "naval gunnery" or "naval guns." In external sources, "Naval artillery" has a specific and limited meaning: it refers to land-based guns manned by naval personnel. I haven't encountered anyone using the term "naval artillery" to indicate shipboard guns in any cases other than WP, recent Internet forum posts, and excessively literal translations of German texts. This article should be renamed "Naval Gunnery." Chelt (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose I can't recall many mentions of naval artillery specifically as naval-manned guns on land. You'll need to give specific citations before I believe that that's the commonest meaning of the term. And your preferred alternative is incorrect as I understand gunnery as the means used to hit the intended target, forex, methods of fire control, etc. Not anything to do with the guns themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

HNSA maintains a library of manuals and historical documents, at; the titles and descriptions on that page never include the term "artillery," though "guns" and "gunnery" do appear. Norman Friedman's book on battleship gunnery is titled Naval firepower: battleship guns and gunnery in the dreadnaught era.
I'd propose the opposite challenge: find a reliable source that uses the term "naval artillery" to refer to guns mounted on ships. Even a quick Google search for the term "naval artillery" reveals no examples of the term being used to indicate naval weapons, with the exception of recent Internet forum posts, lousy German translations ("artillerie" taken literally), and WP articles. Those search results do, however, quickly turn into historical texts referring to naval guns on land.
I'll grant that "Naval guns" might be more semantically equivalent to the current title. However, writers about naval topics just don't talk about the guns in isolation from the control systems. Chelt (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I could accept "Naval guns" as the most common term, but Hodges & Friedman and Schmalenbach (both listed here, IIRC) put the lie to your assertion about books only dealing with guns and gunnery both. Not to mention any book about naval guns prior to Tsushima.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Schmalenbach? Again, literal translations of German terms. Can you provide a 20th century English source that talks about "naval artillery," and if you can, can you find enough sources to outweight the preponderance of writing that refers instead to guns and gunnery? Chelt (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The OED defines "gunnery" as "(1) The science and art of constructing and managing guns, esp. large military and naval guns" - that is, not only control, but the design and service of guns. Chelt (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You deliberately missed my point in furtherance of your own agenda; I pointed out that Schmalenbach only covers German naval guns, not gunnery. I didn't use him to support the terminology point one way or another. I've already said that a better title is "Naval guns", although you lose the parallel with ordinary artillery which, presumably, is why the original term was used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Why a capital should be introduced is beyond normal understanding, for one thing. NoeticaTea? 05:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - "gunnery" should not be capitalized. Both "naval" and "gunnery" are common nouns and are capitalized only when they occur at the start of sentences, titles and headings. Jojalozzo 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose "naval gunnery" is the use of naval guns, such as the accuracy of a ship's gun crews, not the guns themselves. (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: There should be no capitalization of "gunnery". HandsomeFella (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The term "Naval Artillery"[edit]

I did a little researching and have determined that that the strict definition of Naval Artillery is: Naval guns ashore used in coastal defense and (usually) manned by naval personal. The naval guns are designed to track and fire on moving targets. Two way time (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And your source is what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a Navy publication. This link will take you to a pdf: (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting stuff, thanks. No use of naval artillery, but a clear distinction between naval ordnance and naval gunnery. Naval ordnance would also be an acceptable name for this article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I was a fully-trained Naval officer back in the 1960s, and I never heard the word "artillery" used in connection with naval guns. That, coupled with the total absence of citations, makes me VERY suspicious of the term "Naval artillery." I certainly support moving the article, but of course "Gunnery" shouldn't be capitalized. I think this article should be "Naval guns", because that is what it is about. Lou Sander (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed several generations of United States Navy publications (and interviewed two generations of naval and Marine Corps officers) during my Vietnam war era active duty, which included teaching midshipmen in a class entitled Naval Weapons Systems following practical experience as secondary battery officer aboard a cruiser. The United States Naval Academy textbooks of 1915 and 1920 were entitled Naval Ordnance and used the 16th-century terms gun and gunnery almost exclusively when describing rifled tube weapons and their use. United States Marine Corps officers trained from those textbooks often used the naval term gun for their indigenous rifled artillery. The above-noted Naval Ordnance and Gunnery reference was published in 1957 reflecting nomenclature adopted in 1948 (although it may have been in use during the second world war). The officer in charge of a warship's weapons is described as the gunnery officer, although the first lieutenant controlled weaponry aboard auxiliary ships, reflecting the older tradition of deck department officers including gunnery among their responsibilities. By the 1970s the senior warship officer's title had changed to weapons officer and navy textbooks were entitled Principles of Naval Weapons Systems. These textbooks focused on sensors and guidance systems and gave comparatively little space to what they described as tubular impulse launchers. United States naval focus on guided anti-vehicle weapons has left the impulse launchers largely within the realm of anti-personnel weaponry controlled by the Marine Corps; and the 1985 textbook uses the terms gun and artillery somewhat interchangeably reflecting predominance of land targets falling within the traditional responsibility of the Army (and Marine Corps using army weapons). I like Lou Sander's suggested title of Naval guns to conform to the terminology of the era of their importance in ship vs ship combat, although the present title may be more useful for 21st century users accustomed to modern terminology.Thewellman (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

15th / 16th Centuries - Contribution based on a part of a chapter (artillery) of the article Portuguese India armadas[edit]

Time ago I introduce two paragraphs based on part of one of the chapters of the article Portuguese India Armadas. The authorship and credit goes entirely to the true author Walrasiad. And we have the most complete matter in that chapter by the author himself in that article. Perhaps the author might contribute or correct in the future to put it in another way or even more complete, if necessary. I might have changed a bit over the paragraph, but honestly, it seemed best to leave it roughly, in the words of the true author (although it is a part), to guarantee better accuracy and quality. I do not see any inconvenience in the case, but I leave this warning in case some cautions about possible plagiarism, since I never had such an intention.

The second aspect is to develop further the contributions and other Mediterranean navies and other states (and search about it), in case you find it gets a little "unbalanced" the role of Portugal at that turning point in naval artillery. The big leap was taken in Portugal since the late 15th century and is recognized by historians, and I think the reference was missing in the article. Then I leave to you all the assessment of all the evaluation of this and the eventual better development and more balanced information for this chapter of this article, if it is the case. Thanks --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to belive that Portugal imported cooper since it is one of Europe's largest exporters And producers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)