Tonkawa Massacre

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Most of the artillery pieces pictured here are Civil War era guns fired at very low angles close to horizontal. They are not howitzers. Jfgrcar (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old spellings like hobbits and hobits can refer to a single specimen of the sort of artillery gun called a howitz or a howitzer.

Someone may wish to incorporate this into this article —jiy (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the name Howitzer is a U.S. Registered Trademark for "Howitzer AEC Suite" software owned by American Reprographics Company through it's wholly owned subsidiary, Engineering Repro Systems.

Some one may wish to incorporate the mechanism/ devices used to measure the total and effective recoil of howitzers and other firearms

How come the text says that howitzers fire at high angles, but most of the pictures show howitzers firing at low angles? CuriousOliver 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the description is wrong. Howitzers can fire both at high angles and in direct fire. I corrected this. 69.69.73.94 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it still states they fire at high angles. By military definition (army field guide) a howitzer is an indirect fire weapon but this does not indicate it must be at a high angle. Civil War howitzers did mostly fire at a steep angle but modern weapons fire at a much lower and flatter trajectory. The article also indicates these weapons have “relatively short barrels” and “use comparatively small explosive charges.” Neither of these are true. The pictures with the article of the French 155, the German self propelled PzH 2000, and the US M198 all clearly demonstrate the inaccuracy of this statement. (A 155 mm artillery shell is larger than the projectile from the 5 in. main deck guns on a destroyer and is absolutely NOT a "comparatively small explosive charge".) CharmsDad (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the typical modern "howitzer" is really a "gun-howitzer" able to effectively fire both low and high angle indirect fire, and fire low angle fire at ranges typical of a true gun. Advances in recoil mechanisms, tactics, and the availability of a range of charges have allowed modern howitzers to perform the work of both to an acceptable degree. A mortar is usually, and has always been, THE true "high-angle-only" weapon. Caisson 06 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In drawing a distinction between guns and howitzers, the page says “Howitzers – lower velocity and shorter range, multi-charge propellant, maximum elevation typically more than 45 degrees.” Yet if you go to the list of howitzers there are many listed with maximum elevations of 45 degrees or less. Examples include the British 4.5 inch howitzer of the First World War and the various German 10.5 cm field howitzers of the Second World War.Jeremy1961 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find the spelling "hauwitzer" (which was added to the article on 13 January 2004) in any (print) English dictionary. Most Google hits turn out to be versions of this very article found at Wikipedia mirror sites. Seeing that "howitzer" is loanword (from Dutch houwitser < German Haubitze, < Czech houfnice), there are probably a lot of infrequent variant spellings that are not found in any modern English dictionary (including the old spellings mentioned by jiy above), but that doesn't mean they should be listed as permissible variant spellings in the article. Unless someone comes up with a reference to a modern (print) English dictionary that includes the "hauwitzer" spelling, I believe it should be removed from the article. (I have created a Hauwitzer redirect page so as not to "lose" any readers who enter that spelling and hit the "Go" button.) --Bwiki 14:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "hauwitzer" spelling has been removed. I also removed the phrase about the word being "of Germanic origin" because Czech is a West Slavic language. --Bwiki 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artillery piece described as a "World War I 105mm Howitzer used in the Battle of Turtucaia" is clearly from a later era. That is, it has features, such as rubber tires and a muzzle brake, that were not employed on howitzers of its size during World War I. I have therefore changed the caption to read "World War II 105mm howitzer employed as a monument on the site of the World War I Battle of Turtucaia." User:Trossknecht 5 May 2007

June 12, congratulations, removal of 'bullcrap' has achieved a 49 word sentence with 3 commas. Breaking up slabs of text like this are a good use of bullets.

Being Czech, I found the reference to "houfnice" as a "catapult" quite funny. Though in the 15th century, the Hussites already used firearms including houfnice AP cannons - indeed, it was a small wheeled field cannon used against herds of enemies (in Czech "houf" stands for a group or a herd)

Please note that the Hussite army was considering tactics and armaments probably the most advanced military force at that time. Modern words like "pistol" also derive from there as "píšťala" ['pi:shtialah](Czech for the "pipe") was the name for their hand-held firearm.

Martin85.71.171.224 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and where does "houf" come from, if not from the targets, German "Haufen" formations? -- Matthead  DisOuß   04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the First World War, the word "howitzer" has been increasingly used to describe artillery pieces that, strictly speaking, belong to the category of "gun-howitzer"." That's a very important point, but I'm not sure what the strict definition of the gun-howitzer is. Are we talking about (a) absolute barrel length, (b) relative barrel length (in calibers), or a design feature like (c) maximum elevation or (d) the existence of a chamber. Did guns in the WWI still lack chambers? I gather that they did in the 1860s, while howitzers had them. If (b) is the answer, is there a caliber ratio which would qualify a piece as gun, gun-howitzer, etc? Artillery in mid-20th century is often described in "inch, caliber" format which may allow us to tell at a glance if it is a howitzer. Boris B (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The standard German light field howitzer at the start of the war..." I noticed that a reference to light field howitzers used by the germans linksb instead to Light field, a topic which seems completely out of context. Is there a different page this should be linking to or should the link simply be removed?(Edgeoffaiths (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The article says "The onset of trench warfare after the first few months of First World War greatly increased the demand for howitzers that gave a steep angle of descent, which were better suited than guns to the task of striking targets on a horizontal plane (such as trenches), with large amounts of explosive and considerably less barrel wear." How is a trench in a horizontal plane? Kinzele (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After having read entries on the Skoda 305 mm Model 1911 and Big Bertha, I was struck by the fact that they are both labelled Mörser in German. This means mortar, not howitzer (that would be Haubitze). Any particular reason to relabel them as howitzers in English? If so, a section of national-specific use of mortar vs. howitzer may be relevant.

Mojowiha (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do the reliable sources describe then as?GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited in the articles use the designation Mörser, and some translate this as mortar. Some use howitzer, but without using the German original designation at all. As far as I can see, the Czech website cited also calls the Skoda a mortar. The Polish Skoda article calls it a howitzer but adds (siege mortar) afterwards. The German Skoda article does the opposite. My question was simply raised to find out whether there was a clear definition that can distinguish between howitzers and mortars in the case of this kind of heavy siege artillery? Or perhaps it is simply a question of national variations?

Mojowiha (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant English language sources rather than making our own interpretation. Generally mortars fire high, are smoothbore and muzzle loading while howitzers fire a flatter trajectory (though higher than a field gun) are rifled and breech loading. Except there are rifled mortars and breech-loading mortars, so we can't trust our own opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 'making my own interpretations', simply translating directly. The distinction between mortars/howitzers are present in (most?) European languages. And why is English language sources the authoritative arbiters on this quite Germanic topic? I don't have anything against going with the current howitzer label, but we might simply be reproducing sloppy labelling from the past. Again, I was simply curious as to whether the 're-labelling' of the two artillery pieces in question were based on deliberate nation-specific differences in distinguishing mortars/howitzers, or just tradition?

Mojowiha (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through the German Wiki entry on mortars, as well as the list of artillery, it does indeed seem that there's a nation specific use of the mortar/howitzer designation. English sources tend to classify all of the artillery pieces the Germans designated ' schwerer Mörser ' as ' heavy howitzers '. In contrast, the various types of Minenwerfer are classified as mortars. Perhaps the English system emphasise barrel length more than the German when distinguishing mortars/howitzers? Anyone know of any authoritative sources to deal with this German/English designation issue?

Mojowiha (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translating is personal interpretation. If a German source translated by the publisher into English says X is a howitzer, though its German Army name may be Grossermorser, then howitzer is what you'd write in the article. Any general statemetns on the disticntion between morser and minewerfer would go in the mortar article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kaiser's Army : The Politics of Military Technology in Germany during the Machine Age, 1870-1918 (Eric Dorn Brose, 2004, eISBN: 9780195346299). This book describes the 42 cm Gamma Mörser (Gamma Device), which Wikipedia has classified as a howitzer, as a mortar (pp. 222, figure 22, as well as the index). However, the same publication mostly calls them howitzers (pp. 169, 188, 212, 225) while its predecessor, the Beta Device, IS called a mortar (pp. 169)...

(DAMN! [Frustatingly tears at his hair, grumbling, goes to get more coffee])

Mojowiha (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even on Wikipedia there is a lack of consistency with regards to mortar/howitzer designations: In the List of the largest cannons by caliber, the 42 cm Gamma Mörser is labelled a 'mortar' , while in the article devoted to it, it is called a 'siege howitzer' .

Mojowiha (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the resources listed on this article is another Wikipedia article. I just thought this should be brought to attention. Link5794 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede contains the statement: "Until fairly recently (about the end of the Second World War) such weapons were characterized by a barrel length 15 to 25 times their caliber." It is un-sourced and at odds with what I understand of American Civil War usage--not unlike that of contemporary European practice. For example, 12-pdr Federal field howitzers of the standard 1841 bronze pattern had a bore length (minus powder chamber) of 9.36. (Hazlett et al. Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War, Rev. Ed.) The diminutive 12-pdr Mountain howitzers model 1835 that were standard until 1870 or so, had ratios of 5.5 by the same measure or 6.7 based on full bore length including chamber (from specs on page 136.) 24-pdr field howitzers of standard 1841 pattern came in at 10.48 calibers full bore length including chamber. (page 184). Austrian 24-pdr howitzers of the same period purchased by the Confederates were much shorter and lighter, perhaps 8.4 calibers when their slightly larger bore diameter is considered. The 12-pder Napoleon "gun-howitzer" Model 1857 had a ratio of 13.77 per specs from p. 90.

With the "gun-howitzer" coming in at a ratio of 14, the lede is clearly mistaken, perhaps referring to a period between WW's? The ACW period 6-pdr field gun Model 1841 comes in at 15.67 (page 41.) The unused 12-pdr field gun (too big and bulky, replaced by the Napoleon before hostilities commenced) had a ratio of 16.0 (p. 180.) I can't remember where I've seen the contemporary caliber lengths discussed, but the above are consistent with what I recall: guns around 16, Napoleons around 14, and howitzers for field service below 12, typically around 10.

Siege and sea-coast howitzers have similar caliber lengths, the Model 1840 8" siege howitzer is around 5.8 (per Olmstead's, The Big Guns, p. 17) while the 8" sea coast howitzer runs 11.6 total bore length, and the 10" sea coast 10.55. (p. 62) Red Harvest (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100 foot, 400 foot, a mile, 5 miles??? Doesn't seem to be much info on the range92.23.184.194 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere from under 0.25 miles to over 25 miles; we're talking about several hundred years difference in technology. I don't think it's useful to try and make a single statement of range about all howitzers. Also, info on range before the 19th century is often poorly sourced and contradictory. I'll look if there's some way to work in some useful and reliable info on range in few places, but I'm not very hopeful. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A D Monroe III You said Mortars are for high-trajectory, guns are low-trajectory, howitzers are either, so trajectory doesn't distinguish, which on consideration seems to be reasonable, but the lead sentence of the article states A howitzer /ˈhaʊ.ɪtsər/ is a type of artillery piece characterized by a short barrel and the use of small propellant charges to propel projectiles over high trajectories, with a steep angle of descent which tends to give a different impression. A reading of the whole article suggests that the term has rather variable meaning depending on context. As you seem to be more familiar with the topic, perhaps you can try to clarify the lead. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this has nagged for some time. Like a lot of articles about military subjects with notable history, this article has a narrow emphasis; sometimes it's a modern-only view, but the worst are ones with a single "popular" viewpoint from a randomly-selected short period in its history. So I didn't consider this article "outstanding" in its skewed emphasis -- until now. As you've pointed out, this article's lede is a fair description of a Mortar (weapon) rather than a howitzer ("short" barrel, "small" charges, compared to what?). I'll put this on my to-do list. But anyone else is welcome to give this a go, since my bandwidth is limited. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little. I've replaced the unsourced and inaccurate first paragraph on howitzer history with sourced info, and then used that as a basis to replace the lede definition. The previous definition was from 1911, before modern howitzers were actually developed during the WWI. (That definition of howitzers was actually already obsolete even for 1911, describing them as being short and small in comparison to cannons -- a definition left over from the Napoleonic period!)

Though these changes may make the article less egregiously wrong, it still needs a lot of work. But I think I'll leave that to other editors for now; my to-do list keeps growing longer. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the discussion above, we have been changing the definition of this subject in the lede. Deeday-UK has just changed the description from one basically saying a howitzer is about versatile trajectory (described as "too much waffle" in the edit summary) to one that basically says a howitzer is something between a cannon and a mortar. I agree that the previous definition (mostly mine) was somewhat waffle-y. But this is because the description as corrected by Deeday is not correct for the US army; it reflects the UK-centric definition, only. A US-centric definition wouldn't use any comparison to cannon, as only things like auto-cannons are called cannons now; it otherwise implies artillery leftover from the Napoleonic period. What the US calls a howitzer is called a gun-howitzer in the UK -- more or less.

So, we have a biscuit-like problem here; the word howitzer means one thing in the UK and another in the US. It would be misleading to at least some readers if we stuck to either of the two definitions. So, do we do like the biscuit article, and state both definitions in the lede? Or do we do a waffle-y definition that avoid the problem at least for a sentence or two? There is actually more overlap in howitzer than biscuit, so a blend definition may be possible. (I'll accept my attempt at this could stand improving.)

(Also note that our cannon article could be described as going the waffle-y route, starting with a very general description that could apply to most any artillery, and then going on to refining definitions with "In the past...".)

Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should target the general, uninitiated reader, who may have a very vague idea of what a howitzer is. To describe it as a "type of artillery piece characterized by its wide variety of capabilities and roles" isn't going to help much clarify. The paragraph that followed (which I made into the opening sentence) placing the howitzer roughly between a cannon and a mortar, is a lot more meaningful. If that gives only half of the picture, then yes, the lede can be expanded 'biscuit'-style. A further paragraph in the lede could start for example with something like "The general definition of howitzer refers mostly to European armies in the 17th to 20th centuries. In the present-day US army, a howitzer is intended as such and such... " --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's between a cannon and a mortar is a lot more mis-meaningful in the US, where a "cannon" is a 19th century bronze smoothbore gun firing roundshot. If we start with any comparison to cannon, we'd have to also state that this works only with the UK-centric definition of cannon. Even then, a lot of those general, uninitiated readers may not know well enough what a cannon or mortar is (for UK or US). Unless we somehow insist they click the links and read those other articles before trying to understand the comparison, we'd have explain the US and UK definitions of cannon and mortar in our opening sentences before we can give the comparison, and define them better than their articles currently do, since the definitions they use aren't good for this comparison.

Overall, I see three options.

1. We state the cannon/mortar comparison as the general (UK) definition, including better-than-currently-available general (UK) definitions of cannon and mortar. Following this we then admit that the US -- with two-thirds of the howitzers in the world -- has been using some other definition for as long as anyone can remember. We hope the reader doesn't stop at the first apparently complete definition, or we acknowledge the US one isn't the "correct" one and isn't really necessary to know.

2. We state some useful general definition that applies to both US and UK (like versatility and trajectory?) and then give the US and UK definitions as clarifications. We hope we editors can find some pithy way of doing this.

3. We give up and just state the UK and US use different definitions. Then we give the two definitions, complete and independent, likely ending up a paragraph for each, again also including new and improved definitions of any terms used for comparisons. We hope the reader is patient to fully understand all of this before coming to any conclusion.

I don't see how we can make #1 work. I think #2 is best, if we can craft some good wording. If we can't, we end up with #3, and have this article look as bad as our biscuit article. Or is there some other option? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the US term for a cannon in the UK/European sense, large-calber gun? field gun? We could say for example "A howitzer is generally a type of artillery piece that stands between a large-caliber gun (sometimes called cannon) and a mortar" - plus the rest of the info about barrel, velocity trajectory etc. (which helps clarify) added in some way. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US classifies artillery as either a gun (trajectory less than 45°), a mortar (trajectory more than 45°), or a howitzer (ranging both below and above 45°, which covers just about all the big ones). (With the exception that anti-aircraft artillery are guns.) Basically, no modern artillery is called a cannon, only some things dating back over a century or some very new specialized weapons that aren't like traditional artillery. So relying on a comparison to cannon in the most basic description is less-than-helpful to US readers. For similar US-centric -use reasons, gun can be unhelpful as a class of artillery for comparison; it might be okay if used as "any weapon that fires projectiles".

The latest suggested wording is better, but still needs further improvement to cover US use, as well as readers -- US or UK -- who aren't knowledgeable enough on what defines cannon, gun, and mortar as classes of artillery to make a useful understanding of howitzer when compared to these. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot explain in one sentence what a gun, a howitzer and a mortar are, or else it becomes too winding; the reader only has to follow the links to know more. We could use the phrase 'artillery gun' to avoid confusion with handguns, shotguns etc. For example (avoiding also repetition of 'artillery'): "A howitzer is generally a ranged weapon that stands between an artillery gun (known also as cannon) – characterized by a longer barrel, larger propelling charges, smaller shells, higher velocities, and flatter trajectories – and a mortar, which fires at higher angles of ascent and descent". --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a definite improvement; I see only a couple of nits left. The use of cannon only means the UK cannon, so should probably mention that to avoid misdirecting US readers. Also, guns (cannons) don't always use a physically larger propelling charge, as they use smaller shells as noted; the charge is "larger" only proportionally. The noted combination of "smaller shells" and "higher velocities" basically encompasses this already.

Putting these together, perhaps something like A howitzer is generally a large ranged weapon that stands between an artillery gun (known as a cannon in UK terms) – which have smaller, higher velocity shells fired a flatter trajectories – and a mortar – which fires at higher angles of ascent and descent.

Or, maybe, rewording to lessen the overlap of dashes and parens, A howitzer is a class of artillery (large ranged weapon) that generally stands between an artillery gun (known as a cannon in UK terms) and a mortar, where an artillery gun has smaller, higher velocity shells fired at flatter trajectories, and a mortar fires at higher angles of ascent and descent.

Anything close to either of these would be fine with me. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find this sentence pretty meaningless (mainly because "cannon" is not sufficiently defined): - "The howitzer is an artillery weapon that falls between cannon and a mortar." FangoFuficius (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6 crewmen 2001:D08:1838:F1E5:BAE5:F6B1:BF69:6CBD (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would to more correct to talk about Bohemian language. Since at that time there didn't exist a clear distinction fe. between Czech and Slovak language or ethnicity. These are more modern attributions and developed step by step in later centuries.--212.95.7.236 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing like Bohemian language. In Czech Bohemia=Čechy, so Bohemian and Czech language are synonyms. Slovakia at that time was part of Hungarian kingdom, as Czechia and Slovakia shared history only 7.-9. century and then later after WWI. Slovak language at that time was much more different from Czech then now. During Czech National Revival and Slovak National Revival many Slovak elites lived in Czechia and that brough these two cultures together but that was in late 18. and 19. century, not in Hussite era. JanaKometaDušková (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is said comparing the range, accuracy, and damage levels for each generation and/or type, even in a rough sense. 2603:8000:F201:2879:5C2D:77D7:69BA:9650 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the word is from an earlier version of the modern German "häufig" which means often. It meant a weapon that could be loaded and shot quickly (or often, a lot) in succession. The first use of the term comes from Breslau in the year 1427, so has nothing to do with the hussites. Probably a German-Sorbian word combination, typical for mixed language areas in silesia at that time.

Source for this : Schlesische Gesellschaft für vaterländische Cultur: Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum. Band 6. Breslau 1855, S. 55.

Besides that, it's a bit of a strange concept to call this a "czech" word either way when in fact the word the hussites used for those types of weapons was a loan word from German to which a common slavic ending for machinery was added. But that's rather irrelevant anyways considering the first use of this term doesn't originate from the hussites. 178.24.245.223 (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houfnice was used by hussites even before 1427 (like in Battle of Malešov 1424). It's from word houf (crowd), that means crowd. It is Czech word with German origin, but the word houfnice and houfnice's real origin is Czech. The same as pistol, Hussites at that time were leading in development of tactics and weapons. And the term originate with Hussites (Hussite wars started in 1419). JanaKometaDušková (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]