Question: Artillery??????

                                     Haha,my wife says they are seperate categories and shes always right even when she does not know what we are discussing.

redleg12

Wow.....it looks like I missed all the fun.....and there was not even a discussion of the difference between a gun, howitzer and mortar 

Funny, I just had a little heated discussion with my superiors on the very subject this morning

The Artillery also has St. Barbara, their patron saint, and you have a ball every year where you get extremely drunk on artillery punch.

I don't think anti-aircraft or anti-tankguys do that.

I would say a mix of internal, intermediate, external ballistic and design.

Also, an howitzer is designed to fire a projectile at high angles of elevation, with a high trajectory and a relative low muzzle velocity.

A direct fire weapon system (tank) fires a projectile with a relatively flat trajectory and at high velocity.

That would be my explanation on the technical side as  a  "Gun Tech". However, as users, I am sure that gunners might know more reasons than that.

Wow.....it looks like I missed all the fun.....and there was not even a discussion of the difference between a gun, howitzer and mortar 

As far as a howitzer doing direct fire, I will agree to some extent with Gino....a howitzer round against a tank is an underware filler...fire one shot then BOHIC.....but troops in the open or in light equipment...a beehive round or a killer junior round clears a lot of space quickly.   As far as hitting targets.....practice

As for Tony's original question.....anti-tank artillery in the US was under the Infantry and taught at the Infantry school. anti-tank artillery was designed to be direct fired and were usaully light calibre guns.

Field Artillery spanned from light to heavy caliber howitzers and guns. some of the larger weapons could send a 200lb projectile 30KM.

Well....back to my artillery punch

Rounds Complete!!

HeavyArty

 

Sprue-ce Goose:

 

I hope this isn' t too far off the mark regarding the topic of this thread.

Is the M777 Howitzer considered indirect artillery due to the howizter classification  even though the

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/

lists optics for direct fire ( but doesn't mention shell types used ) ?

 

 

Yes, is is an indirect fire asset, a field artillery howitzer.  All howitzers have the capability to be fired in the direct-fire mode.  They are not good at it and it is usually a last-ditch effort if it is used in direct-fire.  We train on it, but it is still usually not very effective. 

I was with a battery of M109A6 Paladin howitzers a couple years ago at NTC as an O/C (Observer/Controller - trainer) and they were doing direct-fire practice.  The targets were only 50m away and I think we only had one hit out of 6 howitzers.  Not what you want when you are firing direct at an over running enemy.  Needless to say, direct-fire is not the preferred method for howitzers.

Thank you.

Do you think the direct fire deficiency is due to optics / fire control / manual adjustment controls or training ?

Sprue-ce Goose

I hope this isn' t too far off the mark regarding the topic of this thread.

Is the M777 Howitzer considered indirect artillery due to the howizter classification  even though the

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/

lists optics for direct fire ( but doesn't mention shell types used ) ?

Yes, is is an indirect fire asset, a field artillery howitzer.  All howitzers have the capability to be fired in the direct-fire mode.  They are not good at it and it is usually a last-ditch effort if it is used in direct-fire.  We train on it, but it is still usually not very effective. 

I was with a battery of M109A6 Paladin howitzers a couple years ago at NTC as an O/C (Observer/Controller - trainer) and they were doing direct-fire practice.  The targets were only 50m away and I think we only had one hit out of 6 howitzers.  Not what you want when you are firing direct at an over running enemy.  Needless to say, direct-fire is not the preferred method for howitzers.

Thanks so much gentlemen I think you've answered my question very well.

Tony lee

I hope this isn' t too far off the mark regarding the topic of this thread.

Is the M777 Howitzer considered indirect artillery due to the howizter classification  even though the

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/

lists optics for direct fire ( but doesn't mention shell types used ) ?

It depends on where you are from and your perspective.  To a true artilleryman, Redlegs who fire indirect guns and howitzers and are members of the Field Artillery, an anti-tank gun and an anti aircraft gun are not artillery. 

As Gun Tech said,

" the definition applies to an "indirect fire" weapon system, which roughly means that it is not firing at a visible target. However, some may have the capabality to do so if required."

In modern terms, a Patriot ADA Missile is not considered artillery.  It is a SAM, surface-to-air missile. 

It mainy deals with the way the weapon is sighted on the target.  If you are looking at the target through the sights, it is a direct-fire gun.  If you are laying on an unseen target by set coordinates, it is usually artillery. 

Our Army used to have two branches of artillery; field artillery and coastal artillery, but it's all just artillery. Even in WW2 there was field artillery, anti-tank artillery and anti-aircraft artillery.

It's basically what the gun is used for that determines its type.

Today, missile artillery are still basically artillery (except ICBMs, etc.)

I think that any crew served gun that fires a large caliber projectile/missile, fixed or mobile, including AA guns could be considered artillery.

It depends in what country you are from. In the Canadian Army, the definition applies to an "indirect fire" weapon system, which roughly means that it is not firing at a visible target. However, some may have the capabality to do so if required.

Our references for small arms and armament theory are coming from both the British and US army, which sometime leads to some confusion...

So what you're saying is any weapon that is not fired from the shoulder, a rocket or a designated AA piece is "Artillery"? Forget about model shows but real life stuff.

Tony lee

Pvt Mutt

Open top,closed or towed,I just gave the Hummel and Nashorn as examples of two different guns.

Real World is what i'm asking about. If a Group Build was for "Artillery" would a Nashorn be considered a legal entry?

Follow me now?

Tony lee

I say yes. Is a Pak 40 considered artillery? It could be anti tank artillery, yes? An 88 is anti aircraft artillery, right? So a Nashorn is simply mobile anti tank artillery. IMO.

Depends on the show rules...most shows I've been to would consider a Nashorn an open-topped AFV...

Open top,closed or towed,I just gave the Hummel and Nashorn as examples of two different guns.

Real World is what i'm asking about. If a Group Build was for "Artillery" would a Nashorn be considered a legal entry?

Follow me now?

Tony lee

I don't think the allied tankers cared what it was called!

VanceCrozier

I think it just comes down to what the system was optimized for. The Germans turned 88mm AA guns into pretty effective tank-killers...

I think it just comes down to what the system was optimized for. The Germans turned 88mm AA guns into pretty effective tank-killers...

It depends on why you are asking.  If you are asking for purposes of model shows, typically if it is on a track then it is considered an open-topped AFV; otherwise it would typically fall under the generic: "artillery"...

If you are asking is there a difference in the "real" world: "yes"...and you answered that question in your question...