This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tanks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tanks 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.
There's no reason to merge this with a particular one. It should remain a stub or short article which acts as an umbrella and gateway to those four articles and their related (non-motorized) artillery articles. It should also explain the differences in their roles and military organizations, and leave the details to the individual articles. —MichaelZ. 2006-07-14 04:26 Z
Those guys have a point and they pretty much have a consensus to oppose a merge.
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.)
The discussion was about a possible merge of Self-propelled artillery with Artillery, so it's irrelevant here. Bukvoed 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
4) I am OPPOSED.
"Gun" is not equivalent to "artillery". The page "self-propelled GUN" clearly states that it concerns itself also with self-propelled anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank weapons. These instruments are not only denominated differently, they are also used in a different tactical role and therefore should not be mixed up with the artillery concept. I also aggree with the argument that self-propelled artillery units are often confused with tanks and that consequently a separate section "self-propelled artillery" is necessary to clarify this difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
5) Opposed, see Michael Z.'s comment. Bukvoed 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I think most oppose the merge – in either direction – on similar grounds as discussed on Talk:Self-propelled artillery, i.e. there is some overlap between the two concepts, but they are distinct enough to both warrant separate pages. Can we remove the merge tag now? --Deon Steyn 11:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have now removed the merge tag, because almost everyone opposed the merge and the article has now been expanded (including comments on distinction to self-propelled arty) and it is looking a lot better than when it was originally tagged for a merge: . --Deon Steyn 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
So where exactly is the line between a tank and a self-propelled howitzer? They look very similar. Do self-propelled howitzers just have longer ranges? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
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: no consensus to move. The argument for the move, which is based on WP:COMMONNAME, is weakened by the nominators own comment that many are called "guns" or "gun-howitzers". Further no evidence was given to support the move while some evidence, albeit weak, was given in opposition. Taken together I find consensus to be opposed to this move. Dpmuk (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:Common name. Wikipedia won't let me move article even though there is only one line of history. MarcusQwertyus 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Contested uncontroversial request. Article was just rewritten to change the usage. Since gun and howitzer are both used to describe these, it is not clear that we should rewrite articles and rename without at least discussing. Note that operators are/were know as gun bunnies and not howitzer bunnies. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
All of the so-called SPGs had howitzers. Some are called "gun-howitzers" and others just use "guns" but are howitzers by nature. The previous article's claims that anti-air guns and tank destroyers were SPGs were outrageously false. MarcusQwertyus 01:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are they called gun crews and not howitzer crews? It might be worth reading gun. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
English can be rather silly sometimes. Gun used to be an ambiguous term but has recently come to be associated with flat trajectory weaponry (hence the name change). The definitions of many other artillery terms like howitzer and mortar have flip-flopped from time to time. MarcusQwertyus 04:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose artillery, howitzers and mortars have all been selfpropelled. Tank destroyers are frequently counted amongst tanks and APCs. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Self-propelled howitzers are a completely different thing from mortars and tank destroyers. MarcusQwertyus 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That's why the page should be split into two, and this rebuilt as an overview article of all self-propelled guns, such as self-propelled artillery units, mortar units, tank destroyers. Indeed SPGs frequently refers to tank destroyers instead of howitzers. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Not where I come from. :) MarcusQwertyus 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
WWII vets use the two interchangeably... and the internet shows modern usage of SPG as tank destroyer 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose this article ought is anything to be a proper sub-article to self-propelled artillery, and cover anything that is tubelike firing a projectile that isn't a sub-sub article such as tank destroyer. Splitting howitzers from gun seems counterintuitive. Most modern "guns" are more gun/howitzers due to overlapping characteristics - too long a barrel to be a traditional howitzer and too much firing at high trajectory to be a field gun. More work should be spent on referencing and giving history of the development and use of motorised artillery. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a neologism and is strictly disallowed. MarcusQwertyus 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
That's use of "gun-howitzer" you are referring to. I don't think it is in common use and I don't have material to hand that directly attaches it to say the 25 pdr, so I'll have to pass on that. The British use of "Ordnance" rather than either "gun" or "howitzer" in official naming is also unhelpful (though you do get documents like "Gun Equipment 25-pr Mks 2/1, 3/1 & 4 on Ram Carriage" which I'm guessing is the Sexton). FV 433 Field Artillery, Self-Propelled "Abbot" muddies the water too, though according to its article AS-90 is officially "Gun Equipment 155 mm L131". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)