Author Topic: Caliber confusion ???  (Read 815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Will Bison

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 591
Caliber confusion ???
« on: January 28, 2008, 01:27:35 PM »
Why do we have oddball artillery calibers? Example 105mm =4.134 inches. Why not just 100mm or just 4.0 inches? Another is the 4.2 inch mortar (106.680mm).

Must be the fresh foot of snow on the ground and I have nothing better to do but think of dumb questions.

Bill

Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2008, 02:33:02 PM »
This is one Cannonmn can answer better...... but I surmise we adopted Millimeters during WWI as we adopted several French artillery pieces, note for the longest time it was land based guns.
And not until WW II, as the Navy adopted European designs 20MM & 40 MM did it creep into the Navy.
But through the 1890's most land based cannon were inch or pound and sea based inch or pound. Hope that's of some help...


Allen <><
Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline MikeR C

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 178
  • Gender: Male
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2008, 02:49:21 PM »
Yeah, or .243, .308, .444, .221, and .223 which you might say "Oh has a base in metric", so whats with 5.56?!?!? Things would be different if I was king!

MikeR C

Offline GGaskill

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2008, 03:07:35 PM »
I don't really know, but the first really modern artillery piece was the French 75mm of 1897.  3" = 76.2mm.  American tank artillery started at 37mm, then 57mm, then 75mm for the Sherman.  Can't say much about howitzers although the 105mm was in use at the beginning of WW II and was more effective than any American tank guns.

It may have something to do with how heavy a shell can be projected for a given bore diameter.  Or it may be the human love of round numbers.
GG
“If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
--Winston Churchill

Offline Cat Whisperer

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7493
  • Gender: Male
  • Pulaski Coehorn Works
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2008, 03:24:56 PM »
I'll take a shot at it - a guess - that it's related to manufacturing standardization.

As George said, in WWI we learned a LOT from the French (they were ahead the game at the time) and we NEEDED artillery. 

Wartime production demands most efficient production - hence standardization - it started, did it not, with Eli Whitney - standard locks, stocks and barrels?  Replaceable standard parts.

Why not standard 'nominal' sizes, 100 vs 105mm?  We have 120mm, 175mm, 8" and in mortars a wide variety.
Likely started with some standard sizes of available materials.

Probably a lot of reasons behind each caliber.

Tim K                 www.GBOCANNONS.COM
Cat Whisperer
Chief of Smoke, Pulaski Coehorn Works & Winery
U.S.Army Retired
N 37.05224  W 80.78133 (front door +/- 15 feet)

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2008, 01:31:56 AM »
Thanks for thinking I'd have "the" answer but I don't.  I think you'd almost have to look at how each "popular" bore size evolved, case-by-case basis, and 37mm is probably a good example. 

From a website I linked below:
Quote
From the nineteenth century up to the end of the Second World War, 37mm was a common calibre in military service. This occurred because an international agreement, the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, banned explosive shells weighing less than 400 grams (just under one pound), for which 37mm was then the appropriate minimum calibre.

The Hotchkiss 1-pounder cartridge as used in the Hotchkiss 5-barrel revolving guns ca. 1880's is a good case in point.  That was one of the first rifled breechloading guns to use that cartridge, and in fact the cartridge may have been developed by Hotchkiss (then a French company.)   The caliber was variously known as "one pounder," "37mm," and (US Navy) "1.457 inch."  This round became very popular because even with a black powder filler in the projectile, you could have an explosive projectile which was a good anti-personnel round at fairly long ranges, say one kilometer.  The idea of course was to hit field works, fortification embrasures, or shipboard structures to wound or kill people nearby.  Every arms maker in the world, more or less, came out with their own version of the 37mm single-barrel, "rapid-fire" naval deck gun in the 1880's-1890's, and they played a significant role in the Spanish-American War.  Many single-barrel one-pounder/37mm guns were used in WWI as anti-machine-gun-nest sniping weapons, and as light tank armament.   After WWI, many 37mm anti-tank guns were developed in many countries.

 The cartridge collectors, and the arms industry refer to all metallic cartridges by the metric bore diameter and cartridge length in mm. Here's more info on 37mm history etc.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/37-40mm.htm
 

The metric cartridge designation goes like this, one example in the popular 30mm size is "30 x 173mm" which happens to be the particular size and shape of cartridge used by the "GAU-8" 7-barreled Gatling gun carried by the A-10 "warthog" attack aircraft.  That kind of designation helps avoid confusion with another very similar but non-interchangeable round used by the Brits, the "30 x 170mm" they use in their main gun on their armored fighting vehicles.  The cartridge cases for the 30x170 are always made of aluminum in the US, and the 30x170 cases are always made of brass in the UK.  Various other countries manufacture either of those cartridge cases in steel for their own specific weapons.

Offline Cat Whisperer

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7493
  • Gender: Male
  • Pulaski Coehorn Works
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2008, 07:03:52 AM »
Good example - someone prescribed by law, design accommodated.

Let's drift back OT now (pre 1899)  (ok - I started the off topic drift - it's my fault).

Tim K                 www.GBOCANNONS.COM
Cat Whisperer
Chief of Smoke, Pulaski Coehorn Works & Winery
U.S.Army Retired
N 37.05224  W 80.78133 (front door +/- 15 feet)

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2008, 02:08:16 AM »
 My Dad once told me that during WWII, the Japanese made some of their guns 1mm larger than US guns so that they could use ammo that they captured from us, but we couldn't use their ammo in our guns.

 Is there any truth to that?

 Was anything similar done in older cannon designs (To get back on topic)?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline Will Bison

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 591
Re: Caliber confusion ???
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2008, 07:55:02 AM »
Thank you all for your input. It was just a curious question.

Victor3;

Not wanting to violate the board rules I will say simply that Jap WWII ammo ain't even close. That's an area in which I have considerable expertise. Nuff said.

Bill