Jump to content


Why is a gun caliber a gun caliber?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Rakkedyman #41 Posted Apr 25 2016 - 03:24

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22816 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Apr 23 2016 - 15:22, said:

~SNIP~

 

Congratulations on being the only one to read/answer the OP's question. Excellent post.

 

I find it hilarious that the UK had at least four different guns in service in WWII with the same bore and different names - their 17-pbr, 76mm, 77mm, and 3-inch guns all had the same 76.2 bore. My understanding is that it was to keep folks from using the wrong ammunition, like why the Japanese 10.5cm guns are called 10cm, because the characters for "75" and "105" were very hard to tell apart in a rush.



Vanagandr #42 Posted Apr 28 2016 - 14:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 24993 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLethalhavoc, on Apr 23 2016 - 09:48, said:

US makes a 75mm gun to take on the German short barreled 75mm and long 50mm guns.

The Germans adapt an 88mm gun, the US makes a 90mm gun.

For every bigger gun that was developed by one side it was countered by the other.

Guns are a counter to armor, not other guns; you're going to be just as dead being shot by any caliber of gun regardless of what caliber of gun you have yourself. The incremental increase in gun caliber over the years has been more or less a response to the incremental increase in effective armor.

 

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Apr 23 2016 - 14:22, said:

Sometimes a gun diameter becomes popular due to people copying each other.  The 81mm french Brandt Me 27/31 mortar from the 1920s was such a good design that almost everyone started to copy it, making their own similar 81mm mortar.  Why did the French pick the rather odd number 81 for the barrel diameter?  Because they were copying the British Stokes mortar which was 3.2 inches (81mm).  Why did the British choose 3.2 inches?  No idea.  The Soviets, being the clever lot that they are, decided that when they would design their mortar, they would make it 82mm.  Why the extra 1mm?  So that they could fire captured 81mm ammunition but if their own 82mm ammo was captured, it could not be fired back at them from a 81mm mortar.  At least, that's the story I remember hearing somewhere.  

 I'm pretty sure also that barely one-upping other nation's artillery to be able to use captured ordinance and deny the enemy the same opportunity has been a thing since the Napoleonic Wars at least, and probably since the introduction of field pieces. It's something clever that's been around for a long while which doesn't get much attention. 


Edited by Vanagandr, Apr 28 2016 - 14:30.


Burning_Haggis #43 Posted Jul 20 2016 - 04:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39233 battles
  • 1,129
  • [-BTU-] -BTU-
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View Postwerecat, on Apr 23 2016 - 09:17, said:

 

The shell came first, they had slingshots and trebuchets back in the middle ages

 

But those were not "shells" they were shot.   Shells by definition are... ready for it?   Shells!  Hollow cases that originally had a quick-match wrapped around them in a groove to ignite the bursting charge.    Any solid projectile (like the slingshot rock) is called "shot".    Or is would be a slingSHELL.

SmirkingGerbil #44 Posted Jul 20 2016 - 15:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 33620 battles
  • 4,759
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostCaptain_Rex33, on Apr 23 2016 - 09:50, said:

 

​honestly the imperial system needs to die and everybody should go metric, I'm American and I find it very annoying how I was gimped as having learned imperial up till high school where I had to teach myself metric which is actually applicable in the real world because people are too stubborn to stop using an old, illogical, and stupid system, you need to suck it up and catch up with the rest of the world.

 

metric > imperial

 

Here let me help you with that. 25.44 mm in an inch. 2.54 cm in an inch.

 

Math R Hard. I grew up on the 60s, and somehow I managed to adopt both.

 

Your analogy would be like saying, Spanish is the language, English is stupid, everyone should speak Spanish and abandon English.



sonza68 #45 Posted Jul 20 2016 - 16:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22198 battles
  • 1,509
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Jul 20 2016 - 08:31, said:

 

Here let me help you with that. 25.44 mm in an inch. 2.54 cm in an inch.

 

Math R Hard. I grew up on the 60s, and somehow I managed to adopt both.

 

Your analogy would be like saying, Spanish is the language, English is stupid, everyone should speak Spanish and abandon English.

 

It's not like metric is some cure all system either. There are only 3 conversions I use on a regular basis. Metric would make 1 of them easier, my conversion between square inches and square feet. My conversions between lbs/hr and lbs/min and lbs/sec would still be factors of 60 or 3600, and my temperature conversions between F and R would change from +/- 459.67 to +/- 273.15 if they changed to C and K.



SmirkingGerbil #46 Posted Jul 20 2016 - 17:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 33620 battles
  • 4,759
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View Postsonza68, on Jul 20 2016 - 09:19, said:

 

It's not like metric is some cure all system either. There are only 3 conversions I use on a regular basis. Metric would make 1 of them easier, my conversion between square inches and square feet. My conversions between lbs/hr and lbs/min and lbs/sec would still be factors of 60 or 3600, and my temperature conversions between F and R would change from +/- 459.67 to +/- 273.15 if they changed to C and K.

 

Kelvin is the only real temperature, abandon all other metrics!!!!!

 

While we are at it, only Joules for energy and power.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users