Talk:Assault gun

Untitled

It would be nice if we could find a (legal) photo of a truck-mounted assault gun, to help readers see the breadth of types covered by the term "assault gun". — B.Bryant 02:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Since when is the Sv 103 considered an assault gun? Its role and description is universally that of a main battle tank.Sacxpert 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, and by the definition given at the top of the page, I find most of the vehicles in the Post-WWII end of the article to be inaccurate as well. The M551 was developed as an airborne light tank and reconnaissance vehicle, the AMX-10RC has been more regularly classified as a Heavy Armored Car, and both the Stryker MGS and Centauro would be better classified as tank destroyers (and this term even appears in this article). Supporting infantry in the assault is not a specific mission profile of any of those vehicles as far as I know. -- Thatguy96 8:54, 16 June 2006

I think there are few vehicles produced specifically for this limited role today. IFVs give infantry significant integral fire support, especially the Soviet-designed BMP with its 73mm gun/launcher. Modern main battle tanks fire a large HE round, and large forces employ tanks and infantry together. The Soviet Union, for example, deployed the 2S1 and 2S3 howitzers with forward units, to provide heavy direct-fire support but also work as a general indirect-fire artillery piece: fulfilling the role, but more flexible. —Michael Z. 2006-09-03 12:42 Z

Definition of "assault gun"

I'm removing the ugly fact tag from the introduction, which seems to have had the support of consensus for some time. This is an article in military science, and a general dictionary definition is hardly a basis for contradicting it. "An AFV with no turret" qualifies as a superficial description, but is inadequate as a definition in an encyclopedic context.

In the meantime, would someone with access to a good military source please look for a definition to satisfy the request for a reference (sorry; I don't have one at hand right now)? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-09-03 12:27 Z

Well I think there is a problem with finding a universal definition for various pieces of military hardware. The current definition in the article could easily (and more accurately in my mind) be also applied to close-support/infantry tanks, many of which fit the description. The majority of vehicles termed assault guns during the Second World War, were in fact well defined by the description "AFV with no turret" as they were often just a large gun fitted to a tracked chassis to provide mobility for infantry guns and other support weapons within a mechanized TO&E. I think it would be a much better definition than one that also seems to bring close-support/infantry tanks and a number of specialized engineering vehicles into the category as well. -- Thatguy96 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

All AFVs without turrets are not assault guns. That description includes many tank destroyers, APCs, half-tracks, self-propelled artillery pieces, armoured trains, etc -- it is useless. Your own explanation of that definition qualifies the definition by mentioning "infantry guns", so obviously that definition alone is inadequate even for you.

The problem you mention is not a problem, because close support tanks and infantry tanks essentially had the same role as assault guns. Assault guns were most commonly used in WWII, when the idea of infantry tanks was obsolescent. Assault guns can also be considered to include some turreted vehicles, such as the Soviet BT-5A, BT-7A, and KV-2 "artillery tanks". —Michael Z. 2006-09-04 02:36 Z

I'm not sure I would consider those vehicles assault guns though. They were incorporated into the Russian TO&E as infantry support tanks IIRC. I think I made my point exactly with another vague definition. You'll notice my first sentance talks about the issues of finding universal definitions for military hardware. I honestly think that in terms of AFVs with no turret, those mounting guns previously in the TO&E as infantry guns in my mind are assault guns, whereas those mounting anti-tank guns are tank destroyers, and those mounting field pieces are self-propelled artillery (another catch-all term that rarely does justice to the vehicles it encompasses). I just feel that vehicles developed as reconaissance vehicles (the M551) or specifically for other roles do not fit any definition of assault gun. -- Thatguy96 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Assault gun is a role. I think it's a mistake to define it strictly by the family tree of its armament, but if you know of a reliable source which does so, please cite it here. I don't know how an infantry support tank is different from an assault gun, except that it happens to have a turret. These vehicles were not infantry tanks in the pre-WWII sense of infantry/cavalry tanks.

Assault gun a limited role, and became obsolete rather quickly, as infantry support weapons were designed to be more flexible. One problem with defining them by their weapons is that various field and naval guns had to become antitank pieces during WWII, because early 37 and 45mm purpose-built antitank guns quickly became obsolete in that role. The SU-76, for example, mounted a divisional field gun and was intended to be a tank destroyer, but was built too late in WWII to serve in that role. It ended up being used as a general infantry support weapon, capable of direct and indirect fire. Because of its flexibility, 12,000 were produced.

I don't understand exactly what you're proposing to change in the article, anyway. Perhaps there is no such thing as a "universal" definition, but "I know it when I see it". But we have to define it by its main characteristics, and write an article about it. And I don't think we can write that its any AFV without a turret, except antitank guns, and except artillery pieces, and except reconnaissance vehicles, etc. —Michael Z. 2006-09-04 13:38 Z

I don't know what to propose as a change in the article, because I feel that the article itself is so vague because of the title. Personally I feel that the article should be worked to the period where these vehicles actually existed, without trying to find post-modern examples of vehicles that might fit the profile. I mean, this would be like trying to expand the Tankette article to include the German Wiesel. That really wouldn't make sense. My major complaint has been the modern section of the article. -- Thatguy96 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. —Michael Z. 2006-09-05 03:39 Z

Mini Review

These are the things that should be ameliorated so that this article can fit in B-Class;

1. Needs Citation.
2. Lots of punctuation errors.

Flubeca 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't help as far as citations go, but I tried to improve the punctuation and overall readability of the page. --Kampfers (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherman 105mm

The 105-mm armed Sherman was considered an assault gun by the US Army. Tank Battalions had a 3-vehicle assault gun platoon made up of 105mm howitzer armed M4s, plus one 105mm in each medium tank company for a total of 6 per Battalion. See for example this unit history: http://www.100thww2.org/support/781combat.html "....As the assault guns from Headquarters Company contributed their 105mm rounds...." This refers to 105mm armed Shermans.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Modern assault guns

The article needs a proper section about modern assault guns. The US-army's new M10 Booker is essentially an assault gun by its description: "The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams by suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles," said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, program executive officer of Army Ground Combat Systems.[1] Blockhaj (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)