Self-propelled arty is....

[Sabrewolf]

are they basically light tank?

[Andreas]

That depends

[Guest Mike]

SP artillery is artillery - using them as "tanks" on a battlefield is usually a mistake - more so agaisnt Russians with bucket loads of ATRs!!

They do have uses tho - they usually have a decent HE value, but normally also a crappy AT performance, so they are only any use vs infantry.

Their light armour makes them vulnerable to anything that can penetrate any armour - so HMG's, MMG's at short range, infantry in close ('cos they'r almost always open topped!), ATR's, 20mm cannon, etc will easily dispose of them.

If you use them like a tank - even like a light tank - they'll be toast very quickly.

If you use them as a mobile on-table artillery reserve to pound the enemy infantry from a position of complete safety then they're just fine.

Sort of like any other weapon really!!

[ November 26, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Grisha]

The Soviets had SU's which were self-propelled artillery in the direct fire sense. The heavier calibers are well-armored, but in general the Soviets placed their SUs furthest back of all the AFVs to be used as a base of fire.

[Battlefront.com]

Selfpropelled artillery is designed to take on things that directly oppose infantry. For example, bunkers, infantry emplacements, buildings, etc. They are not designed to take on other tanks. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are bad at it. Some, like the StuG were excellent AT vehicles. But generally, they were better in one than the other.

the SU-152 and ISU-152 SPAs were specifically designed to fill the gap between prepatory artillery bombardments and on call artillery (which they had little of by design). These vehicles were designed to take out things that artillery missed. They were not supposed to take on enemy tanks.

The Brumbar was specially designed to take out urban defensive points.

Steve

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sabrewolf:

are they basically light tank?

The clue's in the question, really. They are guns or howitzers on armoured chassis -- and so they have as wide a variety of tasks as artillery does.

Self-propelled field artillery (Wespe, Hummel, Priest, Bishop, Sexton, most modern SPs) does the same job as field artillery, overwhelmingly by indirect fire, but emplaces and displaces more rapidly than towed artillery and is less vulnerable to counter-bombardment.

Self-propelled rocket artillery (Maultier, Calliope) does the same job as rocket artillery, overwhelmingly by indirect fire, but emplaces and displaces more rapidly than towed rocket artillery and is less vulnerable to counter-bombardment.

Self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery (Ostwind, Wirbelwind, Flakwagens, Skink, Crusader AA) does the same job as towed AAA, but emplaces and displaces more rapidly.

Self-propelled close-support artillery or infantry howitzers (SU-76, Grille) does the same job as the infantry's own IGs or "accompanying guns", but with more mobility and a small measure of armoured protection.

Self-propelled anti-tank artillery (PzJag I, Marder, Hornisse, SU-57, 2-pdr portee, Deacon) destroys enemy armour in the same way as anti-tank guns, but with more mobility and a small measure of armoured protection. The Americans have a curious habit of giving their self-propelled anti-tank guns rotatinmg turrets, and calling them "tank destroyers" (M-10, M-18, M-36).

Self-propelled direct-fire artillery with thick armour protection (StuG III and IV, StuH 42) is called assault artillery (Sturmartillerie) by the Germans if it is general-purpose, or a hunting tank (Jadgpanzer) of it is intended mainly for anti-tank work (JagdPz IV, Elefant, Jadgpanther). Most Soviet SUs could be more or less accurately described by one or other of these categories, the SU-122 and -152 being of a more general-purpose nature and the -85 and -100 more tank killers.

All the best,

John.

All the best,

John.

[ November 26, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by Grisha:

The Soviets had SU's which were self-propelled artillery in the direct fire sense. The heavier calibers are well-armored, but in general the Soviets placed their SUs furthest back of all the AFVs to be used as a base of fire.

Artillery is generally considered to be those guns whose primary job it is to fire indirectly - ie they cannot see the target.

Russian SU's were not artillery - they were assault guns or tank destroyers - large guns mounted on chassis that couldn't support them if they were tanks (at the time they were made) to provide additional direct firepower.

Yes - even the SU-76 - built on a T-70 chassis that couldn't have taken a 76mm if it was built as a tank, similarly the Su-85 built at a time when the T34/85 wasn't an option.

They are not really artillery at all IMO.

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Artillery is generally considered to be those guns whose primary job it is to fire indirectly - ie they cannot see the target.

Russian SU's were not artillery - they were assault guns or tank destroyers - large guns mounted on chassis that couldn't support them if they were tanks (at the time they were made) to provide additional direct firepower.

Yes - even the SU-76 - built on a T-70 chassis that couldn't have taken a 76mm if it was built as a tank, similarly the Su-85 built at a time when the T34/85 wasn't an option.

They are not really artillery at all IMO.

You are partially incorrect in your beliefs. Vehicles like the SU-85 and SU-100 were used in more of an AT role, but all SUs were tasked with the role of infantry support. To classify an ISU-152 as an assault gun is incorrect. Certainly, it was well armored and armed, but its deployment per Soviet tactical doctrine was to the rear where it was to provide timely direct fire artillery support for the infantry.

You may be unaware of this, but even in 1945 Soviet artillery was being used in a direct fire role. There are several advantages to this. Less ammo expediture for target destruction, far fewer personnel for operation, and less lag time for a fire mission. Direct laying of fire by artillery pieces was usually done during the penetration phase of a Soviet operation, but it was done nonetheless.

For the Soviets, artillery was a gun or a mortar or a rocket launching platform. It didn't matter to them whether it was layed indirectly or directly. In fact, direct fire was quite common for artillery use in the Red Army until the war ended. Artillery was further delineated into: cannon, mortar, rocket, antitank, and antiaircraft.

Your terms are much more applicable to German usage than Soviet.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Artillery is generally considered to be those guns whose primary job it is to fire indirectly - ie they cannot see the target.

Not really. John Salt was on the money.

Taking, for example, the Royal Artillery and its affiliated Commonwealth cousins, artillery is all large calibre ordnances. This includes AT, AA (both light and heavy), Coastal, Field, Medium, Heavy, Searchlights, Rockets, and on occasions Mortars.

Of those only Field, Medium, Heavy, Rockets, and Mortars are strictly indirect. The others can do it, but its not their primary role. And even the indirect classes can do direct fire if and when required. Yet they are all 'artillery'.

Regards

JonS

Edit: forgot rockets

[ November 26, 2002, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

and its affiliated Commonwealth cousins,

Aren't you bighearted today!

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

and its affiliated Commonwealth cousins,

Aren't you bighearted today! </font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Grisha:

You are partially incorrect in your beliefs. Vehicles like the SU-85 and SU-100 were used in more of an AT role, but all SUs were tasked with the role of infantry support. To classify an ISU-152 as an assault gun is incorrect. Certainly, it was well armored and armed, but its deployment per Soviet tactical doctrine was to the rear where it was to provide timely direct fire artillery support for the infantry..

Which IMO makes them assault guns - as yuo say - it's a matter of terminology.

You may be unaware of this, but even in 1945 Soviet artillery was being used in a direct fire role. .

Yep - where it was appropriate, whereas otehr nations had pretty much entirely abandoned using artillery in teh direct role entirely.

however the occasions where direct artillery fire can be used are fairly limited in teh attack - in the defence you can sit still and let the enemy come to the guns.

In hte attack direct fire requires each gun be able to see its target.

This of course also means the target can see teh guns, which can be quiet unhealthy for teh guns.......unless you put them behind armour.....and of course teh enemy is hopefully retreating so moves out of sight of the gunes...unless teh guns are mobile.

And then lo and behold you have guns used for direct fire mounted behind armour and self-mobile....wonder where I've read that before??!! lol

Your terms are much more applicable to German usage than Soviet.

How is that?

When would Soviet infantry require the support of SU's? When they came up against strongpoints and fortifications?

Is that any different from when German infantry required mobile heavy artillery support??

[Foxbat]

Factoid: the ISU-152 was actually capable of indirect fire and (at least theoretically) provided with siting equipment. Whether it was actually ever used in this role is not known

Factoid 2: Shermans were not normally equipped for indirect-fire but were occasionaly used in that roie by US forces.

[ November 27, 2002, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Mike:

Which IMO makes them assault guns - as yuo say - it's a matter of terminology.

It's a subtlety, but maybe I can elaborate on this further down.

Yep - where it was appropriate, whereas otehr nations had pretty much entirely abandoned using artillery in teh direct role entirely. . . .

Soviet fire plans were comprehensive, complex operations in their own right. Direct fire artillery generally had a specific mission and purpose within that operation.

When would Soviet infantry require the support of SU's? When they came up against strongpoints and fortifications?

Is that any different from when German infantry required mobile heavy artillery support??

The Germans tended to use their StuGs and whatnot as substitutes for tanks in combat. Hence, German assault guns were used similarly to tanks in combat.

The Soviets tended to use their SUs with their tanks, deploying the tanks forward to cooperate with the infantry, while the SUs remained further back to deliver direct fire support from a distance. Incidently, Soviet SUs tended to have better radio communications than Soviet tanks.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Factoid: the ISU-152 was actually capable of indirect fire and (at least theoretically) provided with siting equipment.

Siting or sighting? Say what you mean and mean what you say, kid.

Factoid 2: Shermans were not normally equipped for direct-fire...

WHAAAAAAAT!???

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Michael, I am sure he meant to say "indirect-fire" There are pictures of Sherman 75s driven up on a prepared embankment. Got about a 45 deg angle out of the deal, which gave the gun enough elevation to fire indirectly. Not done very often, but I can think of one battle (name slips me entirely) where a large number did this in combo with conventional artillery.

Folks... let's remember that there are differences of opinion about what these terms mean and which vehicles fit them:

SPG (self propelled gun)

SPA (self propelled artillery)

Assault Gun

Assault Artillery

The way I think of it is that a SPG/Assault Guns was primarily designed to take out enemy armor. SPA/Assault Artillery was designed to take out "soft" targets, either directly or indirectly.

The difference between "Assault" ones was they were designed to be shot at, the others not. An AT gun or howitzer on a soft skinned vehicle is obviously not an "Assault" weapon.

Although this keeps things nice and neat for me, it is absolutely not like this when you read books The terms are used without consistancy. StuGs, for example, are often called SPGs, or SPAs, but the Germans clearly called them Assault Artillery (Sturmartillerie). Same with most of the SU familiy of vehicles.

What this means is that people should not get too hung up on what people call various vehicles but how they should be used. A SU-100 is much like the StuG in that it is good at both AT and infantry support roles. The ISU-152 is very good at infantry support and fairly lame at AT. It more important to know this than to know what to call them

Steve

[Andreas]

Interestingly, the German Stugs were a branch of the Wehrmacht Artillery service as John and Steve pointed out, manned by artillerymen, so any generalisations along the lines indirect/direct fire etc are not quite correct in the WW2 context.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Michael, I am sure he meant to say "indirect-fire" There are pictures of Sherman 75s driven up on a prepared embankment. Got about a 45 deg angle out of the deal, which gave the gun enough elevation to fire indirectly. Not done very often, but I can think of one battle (name slips me entirely) where a large number did this in combo with conventional artillery.

Oh yes, that I know. In fact, I have a photograph somewhere in my collection (taken in Italy, IIRC) of them being used that way.

It's just that when sloppy writing goes so far as to completely obscure or even, as in this case, contradict what the person meant to say, I just can't let it slip by unremarked. Lord knows, I stay silent a thousand times a day for lesser infractions that nevertheless set my teeth on edge.

Michael

[Stalin's Organ]

Somewhere I think there's a photo of tanks firing almost vertically and they're described as firing at aircraft!!

That doesn't make them anti-aircraft tanks!!

Similarly Soviet ATRs were sometimes used against aircraft - heck, so were rifles, submachine guns and pistols I'm sure.

Somali "militia" used RPG-7's against American helicopters

None of it makes them AA weapons.

The British Marines at Port Stanley and Sth Georgia used Carl Gustav 84mm recoiless rifles against Argentinian

However I will retract my initial definition of artillery - firing indirect is only a modern development.

Historically artillery has been any projectile weapon too large or heavy to be vcarried and operated by 1 man - from bolt shooters to cannon to nuclear missiles.

Strictly speaking therefore you might reasonably call tanks self-propelled artillery.

However for all intents and purposes IMO the primary purpose of firing indirect is the only characteristic that you can use to differentiate modern artillery (ie anything since 1915) from other guns.

Hence SP Artillery needs to have that purpose - or else calling it artillery is not accurate - whether it's part of the Artillery arm or not.

[JonS]

And I can call an apple an orange, because they are both round and both are fruit.

Doesn't make me right though ...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

And I can call an apple an orange, because they are both round and both are fruit.

Doesn't make me right though ...

Come on Jon, you are just a monkey when it comes to artillery, admit it, I have photographic proof!

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Both I think, the equipment to lay the gun (I honestly have no idea what the correct english term is).

Crews hated that, fortunatly it was fixed in the Version 1.M3 by putting a gun in the sponsoon (the bit that was named like the rains in Africa)

Anyway that's what you get from posting late at night, the mind wanders...

[ November 27, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Michael, I am sure he meant to say "indirect-fire" There are pictures of Sherman 75s driven up on a prepared embankment. Got about a 45 deg angle out of the deal, which gave the gun enough elevation to fire indirectly. Not done very often, but I can think of one battle (name slips me entirely) where a large number did this in combo with conventional artillery.

Rhine Crossing

[kevsharr]

As to tank's firing indirect I have a photo book on the Italian campaign that not only show's sherman's firing indirect but quite a few m-10's doing the same thing,rolled up onto dirt ramp's to increase elevation,it seem's that tank's were'nt as effective in their normal role given the generally rugged terrain and every gun tube was needed in the wwI type fighting that the it.camp degenerated into so frequently.

I also believe that all type's of gun's are artillery like AAA-anti-aircraft artillery,anti-tank artillery so on...even tank gun's are a form of artillery

[ November 27, 2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: kevsharr ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Foxbat:

Factoid: the ISU-152 was actually capable of indirect fire and (at least theoretically) provided with siting equipment.

Siting or sighting? Say what you mean and mean what you say, kid.</font>