Talk:Artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Who, in what Army, ever decided that Artillery was not a combat arm? In the US Army it is.

It is also a combat arms branch in the U.S. Marine Corps. Maclyn611 15:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do we REALLY appreciate the absolutely profound IGNORANCE by virtually all civilians in "civilized" countries about the military, in general. I remember when I told some folks at a church convention that I was a lieutenant. Some cute college girl innocently asked, "Is that kinda like a sergeant?" Think about it! Maj Simon SimonATL 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the page that says Artillery isn't a combat arm (perhaps it's been removed). It shouldn't reappear, since it seems this designation is country-specific. The British Army is divided into three categories:

• Combat (or "teeth arms"). This includes Infantry, Armour and the Army Air Corps (ie helicopters) but not Artillery. The reason for this is that the definition includes the phrase "direct fire" - artillery operates exclusively in the indirect role and hence is not included. This annoys them immensely.

  while this may be true in the UK, it is NOT the case in either the US Army or the Marine Corps and that is because both organizations, and historically, the Marine Corps has stressed the absolute importance of fire support coordination and combined arms. Don't know exactly how its handled, doctrinally, at the NATO level. I'd have to look into that. Obviously, everyone in NATO has to agree on the terms and I know there is even a glossary of NATO military terms that I've seen. Maj Simon USMCR (Ret)SimonATL 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC) PS. Hey brit brothers, I dig all that "whilst" and "colour" stuff. Adds colour to the Queen's English!

• Combat Support. This, broadly speaking, is everyone who's likely to be shot at but doesn't come under Combat, and this where Artillery end up, along with the Royal Engineers and some other things I can't think of right now - perhaps the Royal Signals?
• Combat Service Support. This is everyone else, in particular the Royal Logistics Corps (blanket-stackers and truck-drivers) and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (armoured Kwik-Fit) but also medics, pen-pushers and the Mobile Bath and Laundry Units.

The US Armed Forces make the same distinction, but Combat Arms is not defined with "direct fire;" Artillery is considered Combat Arms.

Same goes for Canadian Forces ( who are modeled after the British). Artillery is a combat Arm Motorfix 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the thread of the NATO terms and definitions as given in AAP-6 Glossary then its fairly clear that artillery is a supporting arm. Nfe 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

There seems to be some inconsistancy on the page. Under types of artillery it mentions Field Artillery as a type of artillery (along with mortars yet further down the article it goes into describing the "Field Artillery Team". Shouldn't this be on the field artillery page (ignoring that there is not one currently)? Maclyn611 15:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

This article is very much in perspective of US or NATO in terms and composition of troops in artillery. I think the artillery would be better if it only describes the action in general, not specific terms or actions taken by one single army system.

Yes, also was under this impression. The confusion between general terms, like "artillery" in the sense of "set of techniques to apply with a thing that goes *boom*" vs "some unit or corps of the US Army in the second half of the 20th century which happens to be named 'artillery'", tends to favour this kind of blunder, I fear. Rama 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Terms 2 Merges 3 Quotations 4 Little appreciation for the field artillery out there outside of Arty community, itself 5 FIRE DISCIPLINE 6 Ammo 7 Advantages of 8 External Professional Artillery Links 9 Modern Focus 10 Counter Battery 11 Quotes 12 External link to members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ 13 Artillery System 14 Application of fire 15 Picture of a British 60-pounder appears twice 16 Ancient warfare

[edit] Terms

There are a few errors that seemed to follow throughout. A cannon is not just a ancient weapon, it is also part of a howitzer. For instance the cannon mounted on a M198 Howitzer is the M199 Cannon. Also, I believe the paragraph about Artillery not refering to guided munitions seems misguided (sorry could not resist). Traditionally artillery did not refer to breach-loading weapons either. Cannon artillery has been firing guided munitions (Copperhead) since the Vietnam era. Rocket artillerymen fire all sorts of guided munitions. I am not sure what this paragraph is trying to say.--Counsel 05:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

I have placed merge tags on a few other pages with the intent of bringing those articles in as headings in this article. Field Artillery and Self-propelled Artillery would be better placed as headings within this article to create a more comprehensive article on Artillery. Dividing up the information does not help and redirects will get those who want to do research on the individual areas to the main page.--Counsel 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

   * "Artillery, your area!" - A voice in the game Battlefield 2

Why is this here? 195.137.55.71 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little appreciation for the field artillery out there outside of Arty community, itself

• I ask readers to think about it, there's just not much out there in our civilian world that approximates the whole world and culture of the artillery. I mean, unless you've seen rounds "go down range," or, unfortunately, been on the receiving end of the artillery or its mortar cousins, its a fairly hard topic to get ones hands around. I remember studying it at the US Marine Corps' Basic School as a fresh lieutenant, but even that experience gave me little appreciation for the actual experience of directing (spotting for) artillery or having it called in on the bunker they use at Fort Sill to expose students to what that feels like. My point is, its a field that is little understood or appreciated outside of the military. Even some career infantryman have little appreciation for it. One excellent example is US Marine Commandant, Gen. Al Gray, who I knew as Commanding General at 2nd Marine Division and then 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Even as Commandant, he was unwilling to support the newer self-propelled rocket artillery saying to me personally, that the Corps would never need it, and even if it did, it could always ask for a US Army Corps to supply it. So if a career infantryman and Commandant didn't really seem to appreciate it, we shouldn't be to suprised if readers and folks with no military experience lack any appreciation for it.
• I'd like to suggest an entire wiki course of classes to show just how Army and Marine land forces are organized and employed. It takes years even for people actually in the military to understand such things and many go thru 20-30 years as a supply sergeant or motor transport sergeant (non combat arms) and still have little appreciation for it. The Officer Corps, however, in their mid-level, intermediate and advanced education, is exposed to the proverbial "big picture." I'd like to suggest an article called "MILITARY 101" that would branch out to coherently school the unintiated in all these big box concepts.

[edit] FIRE DISCIPLINE

No mention of fire discipline? This is the bread and butter theory of the Artillery. Should this be included? Any other Gunners out there??

FIRE DISCIPLINE I started this..see if you can build on it.

Motorfix 04:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for fire should be moved to Fire discipline. Motorfix 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ammo

The whole ammo and projectile section should be scrapped and rewritten. Should include Classification by use (service, practise, dummy, blank), structure (fuze, projectile, Charge) and within projectile, types of ammo perhaps.

Comments??

Motorfix 23:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Too Late! I changed as I thought best. Take a look and let me know. Please see my User talk page for ongoing discussions on changes needed in Arty section.

Motorfix 02:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages of

In this era of fast air and cruise missles, folks who are unfamilure with Artillery may ask why bother? Perhaps including advantages of Artillery over Air: Sustained fire support, Immediate fire support, survivability, multi mission capability, cost, ect.. comments??

Motorfix 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Many people see artillery as an outdated weapons system. What is the tactical value of artillery? Why cannot it be replaced with missiles? What was the previous historical advantage of artillery (why did Napoleon favour artillery so much; how did it help him?), what are current trends towards artillery? Unlike other weapons, like, say, a gun or a tank, people aren't going to see the tactical advantage of artillery; why is what most people would call a "tank with a really big gun" still used on today's battlefield?71.235.66.254 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

uh, what? Sustained fire, for one. Relative invulnerability to countermeasures and counterfire, for another (at least if you're on the side with better ECM capabilities and air superiority; counterbattery radar operators have a very short life expectancy if their opponents have air superiority and can drop HARMs on their heads at will). Long-range guided missiles that can do the job of artillery are still tremendously expensive, so much so that even wealthy nations like the US only buy a few hundred at a time, but artillery shells are stockpiled in the tens of millions. Modern artillery with cluster munition shells and precision-guided shells is quite terrifyingly lethal as well, even against hard point targets like bunkers and armored vehicles. Over the course of the 20th Century, artillery accounted for over 90% of battlefield casualties in all wars. It is THAT deadly. It is THAT effective. It doesn't require a very expensively trained pilot and a fifty-million-dollar airplane to fly over enemy-held ground and run a gauntlet of surface-to-air missiles and antiaircraft guns to put steel on target. Not that I am knocking CAS, it has its place too, but there is a reason every army on Earth either has or desperately wants the capability for its front-line soldiers to be able to pick up the radio and call for "steel rain." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.254 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Professional Artillery Links

• http://www.army.mod.uk/royalartillery/ Official Royal Artillery Site
• http://www.army.mod.uk/gunnermag/ Journal of the Royal Artillery (UK)
• http://sill-www.army.mil/ Fort Sill, Oklahoma, the home of the US Field Artillery
• http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/index.asp Excellent US Army Magazine
• http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/art-eng-sig/RA.htm Excellent UK site
• Even though I'm a yank, notice that I put the UK journal first as the Royal Artillery, obviously predates its American Army and Marine Corps decendants. SimonATL 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Focus

This page gives a brief history section, then the rest of the article is quite disjointed, but the main problem is a lack of older artillery usage, deployment, etc. For example it says very little about how the use of rifling and percussion caps in 1860-70 led to major changes - there's just a sentence in the history section. Shouldn't this article detail important things like the use of artillery in the battle line, which later changed to being fired from behind lines, then indirectly, etc. Also, the page is quite vague about modern artillery. What about assault guns? they aren't really mentioned, but a Nashorn, for example, was an assault gun, a howitzer on tracks really, not a tank destroyer, but those sort of vehicles aren't mentioned. Or the StuGs: the Sturmgeschutz was another assault gun, but the ausf F and auuf G changed it to a tank destroyer. All the same, ausf A-E were direct fire support, not tank destroyers. This sort of vehicle isn't mentioned, and the only self propelled artillery mentioned refers to vehicles more like the priest, or wepse or SU-76 "bitch", and the more modern versions like the 2S19 MSTA-S or PzH-2000 or MLRS. Does anyone else think the article needs expansion and signifigant alteration to give a better history and explanation of uses? Biscuit Knight 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Battery

It says in this section that Soviets developped acoustic techniques for locating enemy batteries; I had thought that acoutsic and even visual location using muzzle flashes were successfully and regularly used in World War One, which would likely be before the Russian Revolution. Anyone else hear of this, or am I way off? 216.191.239.82 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the claim is pre-revolution, it gets a mention in the Soviet artillery encylopedia. I suspect it involved aural methods. WW1 Germans used this, basically a man listening to a different mike in each ear and timing the difference in sound arrival.

Quote from article: "Flash spotting and acoustic measurements continued to be used until near the end of World War II, when radar coupled to (initially primitive) computers began to be introduced. "

This is wrong and needs changing. Flash spotting remained in use until the '50s and 60s in some armies and possibly until the end of the cold war in the German Army. Sound ranging remains in use to this day, but with modern systems such as HALO. Late and post war included developments such as multiplexing signals down the wire from all microphones and effective radio links (WW2 radio link was a bit iffy) and electronc calculator programs. Radar in WW2 was very limited, basically AA radars, and I'd like to see evidence that computers, however primitive were involved, UK seems to have used the radar data with a manual plotting device. Furthermore this could only locate mortars (and possibly guns shooting high angle) because these have parabolic trajectories, and this shape is very simple to define and calculate mathamatically. Guns have an eliptic trajectory, algorithms to compute location from an eliptic trajectory were not developed until the 1970s or so (Hughes Aircraft for the Firefinder program, presumably the Russians also). Nfe 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the sub-section on CB. I think it's reasonably comprehensive without being excessively detailed or too skewed towards one particular army or period. I've also use the official NATO spelling 'counterbattery'. 203.164.96.185 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I've removed the quotes section and transwikied (is that the correct term?) them all to Wikiquote. Cheers. L0b0t 15:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link to members.tripod.com/~nigelef/

• User:Shadowbot has challenged the link with reference to WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Clearly the linked site violates neither policy. It would appear that the link was first added by the author of the site (Nigel F Evans / User:Nfe ) and so its inclusion likely violates WP:COI. I have re-added the link as a reference. The matter can be discussed here. --Dystopos 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL states: "Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).". The information available on members.tripod.com is includable in the wiki, and hence is not suitable as an external link. Please discuss addition first, before adding a link. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The linked page absolutely includes "further research which is accurate and on-topic". It is explicitly allowed by WP:EL on that count. If it is better for Wikipedia to incorporate Evans research, the link can be removed after that is done. Since the link is not against policy, please see WP:OWN before reverting the contributions of other editors. --Dystopos 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:OWN does apply here, this was my first edit to this article. The information in the link may include further research, but it is includable, please read the full sentence of the intro. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The first full sentance reads "Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia." OK. I'm down with that. The next sentence is a long one, so I may need to break it down. The subject of the sentence is "pages" and the verb phrase is "could contain". This is followed by three dependent clauses which are linked by the conjunction "or". I believe that means that the pages could contain a, b, or c. In this case, A is "further research which is accurate and on-topic". That seems to be precisely what Mr Evans website is. B is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail." Evans does make a copyright claim on the website, which is much more detailed in its scope than any encyclopedia article of which I am aware. And, lastly, C is "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." Certainly some of the information is includable, and it would appear that User:Nfe is working hard at expanding the article from his research. Very good of him, I would think. However, since his site is much more detailed, I don't know the extent to which the information could be transposed. It would certainly require work on numerous articles while the sections of the site that could not be transferred (diagrams, lengthy quotations, etc) would still probably merit direct linking. In my estimation, therefore, the link clearly satisfies... or rather embodies, two of the three clauses while only partially conflicting with the third. I suggest that if you are right and all of the worthwhile information is includable, that researchers using Wikipedia will appreciate preserving the link until such time as the information is all included. --Dystopos 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I only see two dependent clauses: "further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks);" and "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)". I don't believe it reads "further research which is accurate and on-topic; or information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)". I see the first semicolon as a further explanation of the first clause, not as another option, and I don't think it is meant to be another option. In that case any external link can be incorporated, and that would not be in line with wikipedia is not a linkfarm But I see we have a difference in meaning here about how this sentence is to be read (or can be read), I think that is something that has to be discussed at WT:EL. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether one clause expands on the other or is independent, the result is more or less the same. The only issue in question is whether includable information CANNOT be linked, or whether it SHOULD be incorporated rather than linked. The first would tend to argue against keeping the link. The second would tend to argue for keeping it while the community improves the article. Addressing that disagreement on WP:EL might be productive. I should also note that the automated process by which the link was first removed is incapable of evaluating the relevant issue and instead makes false appeals to WP:SPAM to defend its blunt actions. Perhaps WP:EL would be a good place to discuss whether information hosted by tripod.com represents another category of forbidden material. --Dystopos 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the rules is that it is allowable. One page of the site is already referenced in the Sound Ranging wiki entry, although as a citation for particular facts.

The total site currently sits at about 500+ A4 page equivalents and the different pages link to one another. As has been pointed out an encyclopedia entry is a different beast to a web site trying to deal with a big subject at moderate depth and limited to one nation (well group of nations if you want).

Just in case anyone misses it, the site is not commercial, it neither seeks nor gets any income from any source, in fact the research has left me well out of pocket. It's on Yahoo because I'm a cheapskate and see no need to pay for a hosting service! Nfe 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nfe, for you a thing that might apply is WP:COI, it is better not to include links to sites you own yourself, but first discuss them on the talkpage the link could be added to. The question whether pages on members.tripod.com are suitable references is another one. IMHO, almost never. Anyone can write a page on members.tripod.com, and it is very hard to check whether the information there is accurate, stable and reliable (I am sure that you have done your best to be as accurate as possible, but how do we check that?). The information you have gathered on that site is probably from other sources, which you have judged as being reliable, and hence, these sources are probably better sources than your site (and they are probably primary sources). The only proof that your site would be reliable would be that it is referred to by independent 3d party sites. If that is the case, your site can be included and used as a reliable source (though still, primary sites would be better). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• It appears you are confusing Wikipedia's policy on external links with the policy on Wikipedia content. The link being discussed is very suitable as an external link because of its breadth and detail, much more than would be appropriate for a single encyclopedia article. If someone believes it to be unreliable, they can bring that argument here. The site has a lengthy bibliography of sources, almost all of which are offline, here. The quality of the site's scholarship has NOTHING to do with its host. I am sure that the breach of WP:COI was accidental and I am pleased to restore the link. --Dystopos 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Link normally to be avoided, #2. Pages like this may contain good information, but it can not be checked, they are not backed up by independent sources. Hence, they should be avoided, and are thus better not included. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• As I stated the material is referenced to verifiable (though offline) sources and I have heard no claims against its accuracy. --Dystopos 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The material is indeed referenced to verifyable sources, but is the contents of the page also verified by independent sources? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, I have not heard any independent editors state that this link was indeed proper, I would have liked to hear some more votes before the link got added again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since the arguments against the link don't apply to the link, I consider the editor most involved in this page to best be able to judge its suitability to the subject. --Dystopos 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there are editors having arguments against the link, so apparently there is not yet consensus whether the link should be there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some alternate sites:

• http://www.civilwarartillery.com/glossary/glossary.htm
• http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/ngp_arty.htm
• http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9024515/coastal-artillery (yeah I know its Britannica :S).

Really, there are alternative sites, but what would be far better then some old link in the "external links section" would be if someone were willing to use some of these links as citations. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another alternative, per WP:EL would be a {{dmoz}} -> Artillery at the Open Directory Project (suggest site) . --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• A better alternative would be the site linked originally. It's pretty darned comprehensive and well-sourced. I don't see what Britannica has to offer at all. --Dystopos 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm told, but haven't checked, that Fort Sill site links to mine. You may or may not consider that a recommendation. I'm also told that at least two other artillery schools use it as a source of instructional material or for student projects. I also get a fair number of emails with complimentary words from people who seem to know something about the subject.

The problem with this area is that there is very little cohesive published information, and certainly not online. On several occasions I've been asked whether I know of sites that deal with other nations' arty in a similar way, the honest answer is that there don't seem to be any. Book wise, for example, the only ones in English are Gudmundsson's 'On Artillery' which covers France and Germany but nowhere near the depth of my site, and Professor Chris Bellamy's 'Red God of War' on Russian, and ditto.

I'll be presumptious and say if you know anything about UK artillery then you'll recognise that my site is pretty right - find an expert and ask them. Obviously there are minor errors of fact that neither I nor anyone else has picked up yet butI get very, very few errors pointed out to me - literally a handful over the years, the last I remember was the approximate date that UK converted 25 pdr to mils! Not exactly earth shattering. There are obviously omissions, sometimes for reasons of information granularity others because I haven't yet found the information. And I'm always happy to debate any conclusions I've drawn.

To be blunt my site represents original research, it's just that I don't have a supervisor for a PhD! There's some genuine 'discoveries' - for example the US 25 pdr, which I unearthed in a file in National Archives in Kew. However, my site is not an academic exercise and, bluntly, footnotes all over the place deter the average reader. The sources page is WW2 focussed, but the fire control pages mostly state the source publications in the text. The gun datasheets also list the HBs and RTs, and yes I have looked at most of them, which is almost certainly more than can be said for the authors of not a few books, based on the errors I find.

I'm not taking offence, but the notion that I or anyone else could have invented the content of my site as an exercise in creative writing beggars belief. This of course raises another issue, how to assess the reliability of any body of information? The only reliable method is peer review, which I believe is how Britannica works. Clearly this is a problem for wiki, and I don't see how looking for references to other work that is not peer reviewed is much of a step forward. I seldom read anything about arty without spotting errors.

I will also say that I think most of the wiki entries related to artillery need serious work done on them, but I'm on the case :-) Nfe 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artillery System

I've added a major new section, Artillery System. This attempts to provide a broad view of indirect fire artillery in terms of the main functions of this system. In particular it tries to avoid describing the system of any one nation. Obviously, given the size of the subject, it does not go into great detail, first because it would take up far too much space and second because it would quickly become a catalogue of what each national artillery does.

I think that the sub-section 'Field Artillery Team', which basically describes the US FA should be removed. In my view there is no place for a particular nation-centric view in an entry about artillery. Nfe 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Application of fire

I've added this sub-section. I think all sub-sections after counterbattery fire can now be removed. Nfe 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of a British 60-pounder appears twice

The picture Image:60_pounder_Cape_Helles_June_1915.jpg appears in sections Equipment Types and Sub-types. I am just passing by, so I won't try to decide which of the two places is better for it. —Marvin ^talk 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient warfare

This article is a chicken without its head. Its basically missing over 1000 years of artillery history, since, though Artillery has a medieval origin in wording, it was in use by the Greeks for quite some time, Archimedes invented countless siege weapons and catapults, This is artillery, pounding your enemy from afar. Tourskin 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)