Talk:Self-propelled artillery

message: Oppose - merging would tend to bloat Artillery and further expansion of the article would lead to this topic being spun off anyhow.GraemeLeggett
:I would also suggest that the suggestion should have been labelled with a mergeto and mergefrom rather than just merge.GraemeLeggett 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E 38.158.205.36 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

message: "A modern battery (6 guns), firing 43 kg projectiles with a burst firing speed of 4 rounds per minute, can deliver over 1 metric tonne (1000 kg) per minute, for up to 4 minutes. This is an immense weight of fire which can be delivered with very high accuracy."
4 * 43 kg = 172 kg per minute. Not "over 1000 kg"? wtf?
Either link to a page which shows how this is to be understood, or explain. I don't get it.
: 4 * 43 kg = 172 kg per minute - this is only for one gun. There are 6 guns in a battery, so entire battery can deliver 6 * 4 * 43 = 1032 kg of steel and explosives. LostArtilleryman 08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical mishap 

message: Your article has the following sentence in it:  "Modern self-propelled artillery vehicles may superficially resemble tanks, but they are generally lightly armored, too lightly to survive in direct-fire combat. However, they protect their crews against shrapnel and small arms and are therefore usually included as armored fighting vehicles."  As a retired Field Artillery Officer,  I take exception with you incorrectly using the word "shrapnel".  Modern ordnance has not use "shrapnel" since the Civil War.  Most if not all casualties and damage on the battle field is from fragments from the exploding rounds, This can also be correctly stated when personnel are struck by pieces of bullets from small arms fire.      
This misuse of the word "shrapnel" can be traced to a Medical doctor during World War I.
Leslie B. Scott
Major
USArmy FA, Retired
:All covered by the article on shrapnel in the introduction to same article. GraemeLeggett 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Private of reserve of Rocket Troops and Artillery of Russian Army I can say that shrapnel was employed in World War II (see here ) by Soviet Artillery and there are some ordnance of that type on Russian stocks now. So words about shrapnel protection is true. LostArtilleryman 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An issue of Semantics: 

message: the real question is- is an Ordnance tractor a prime mover or an SPG? see G-numbers.Brian in denver (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: the section on Russian WW2 self-propelled guns ignores the most common one, the Su-76. This was a converted light tank altered to have a thinly armoured open-topped superstructure and armed with the 76mm field gun.  It was used in direct fire roles as well as for indirect fire.   It was the second most produced Soviet armoured vehicle of World War II.
The text should be altered to read "All major nations developed self-propelled artillery that would be able to provide indirect support while keeping pace with advancing armoured formations. These were usually lightly armoured vehicles with an open-topped hull; the US M7 Priest, British Sexton (25 pdr), the Soviet Su-76, and German Wespe and Hummel being typical examples."
The sentence "A different route was chosen by the Soviets, who didn't develop a specialized indirect fire vehicle, but following a tradition of dual-purpose towed artillery, built a series of versatile assault guns with indirect fire capabilities (example ISU-152)."  should be altered to read  "The Soviets and Germans built versatile assault guns with indirect fire capabilities example ISU-152, Brummbar, StuH 42"Sitalkes (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Su-76 

message: Self-propelled guns and self propelled artillery are the same thing, so why shouldn't it be one article? I propose a merger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:44C8:2F41:EC33:F409 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with self-propelled guns

message: It seems the article is blending these together. There is quite a bit of difference between the M-10 Tank Destroyer and the M7 Priest, or the Marder II and the Wespe, though in both examples two different guns used for different purposes are mobilized using the same chassis. Should this page not confine itself to mobilized artillery? Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend the paragraph beginning "The Germans also mobilized their anti-tank guns..." should be removed or cut down, as tank destroyers are not the same as self-propelled artillery. I see I am agreeing with myself from 2 1/2 years ago. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-propelled artillery vs Tank destroyers (or Self-propelled anti-tank guns)