random thought

[Tony Lawrence]

Having a discussion in the pub last night and somebody asked why the Americans, who work in Imperial measurements use metric for artillery, i.e. 37mm, 75mm, 76mm, 90mm, etc. There must be some obvious explanation but nobody could think of it.

[Tony B]

Probably because most of the time they were borrowing Kit from everybody else? French kit particullay during the Great War.

[Adrian Barrell]

Early US artillery was often licence built European designs and retained the original calibres. Russian artillery used Imperial sizes because they originally used British guns. 152mm (6") being a good example.

[hummermark]

So what's the story on the 3 inch m10?

[cordenj]

Or the 0.5" Browning.

 

The conversation started yesterday around why the US used a metric 37mm shell in WWII

[Tony B]

The .50 calibre was John Browning's design, he was American so thought Imperial. Russian home built small arms were designated in Lines (Approx 1/10 of an inch) so I suppose it depends on where the design came from originally.

[cosrec]

the holmes cranes fitted as wreckers during ww11 where built and designed in the US with imperial structural work steel sizes. but all bearings and shaft sizes/ gears are to metric sizes

[andym]

So why in the UK does the army have metric artillery (105mm, 155mm) while the RN has imperial guns such as the 4.5" Mk.8?

 

Andy

[cosrec]

when the m62 motorway was been built in our part of the world we had two Swedish guys who lodged in my parents pub. They were doing piling for a Swedish company called Balken piling. When there company had quoted for the job from british engineers all measurements had been in mm. they arrived here and asked for the measurements in feet and inches as that is was then used in Sweden. Things were not going right for these guys and we all sat down with these guys to see if we could help. we got out our 16 ft retractable tape measures along side theirs and spot on same as theirs. Then some one spotted they only had ten inches to the foot Feet were spot on

True I swear

[Tony B]

So why in the UK does the army have metric artillery (105mm, 155mm) while the RN has imperial guns such as the 4.5" Mk.8?

 

Andy

 

Because the Royal Navy as the Senior Service does things it's own way! Though the Army did use the Pounder designation as well, 13lb, 18 lb 60lb, then WW2 2lb 6 lb 17lb and the 25 lb, along with the 5.5 inch.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Tony B

[DUNSFOLD]

I Found a very rare Metric adjustable in the shed, but it would not fit any of the fixings on my .50 Cal!

[Tony B]

I Found a very rare Metric adjustable in the shed, but it would not fit any of the fixings on my .50 Cal!

 

Turn it up the other way! I do know one muppet bought two ratchet spanners, beacuse one worked to undo the other did up.

[ploughman]

I Found a very rare Metric adjustable in the shed, but it would not fit any of the fixings on my .50 Cal!

 

 

Is that the one that I sent a gullible trainee on my plant course to get from the stores?

The storeman sent him back saying "Sorry no, I only have AF Adjustables."

[Tony B]

Mine was 'Twist the loupe to focus it', with Prussian Blue around the eye pice.:mad:

[andym]

Because the Royal Navy as the Senior Service does things it's own way! Though the Army did use the Pounder designation as well, 13lb, 18 lb 60lb, then WW2 2lb 6 lb 17lb and the 25 lb, along with the 5.5 inch.

 

And going back to the original question, the US must have copied the tradition as their ships have 5" guns.

 

Andy

[Tony B]

As far as Naval gunnery goes, first the idea of fitting artillery to a ship was down to the Potugeses, in the 15th century. At that time and for a couple of hundred years afterwards artillery was named. The Canon was just one type. The other day on TV a Proffesional Archeologist 'Expert' refered to a gun as a 'Sakar' then callec it a 'Canon' , sshes!

 

The first scientific approach to gunnery was Benjamin Roberts in 1742 who applied the ground breacking 'Newtonian' laws to shot and started Ballistics.

 

The intention for many centuries, was to caputre the enemy vessel, then sell it. Both the RN and USN paid prize money into the 20th century. The RN paid out in 1916 and the last recorded was USS Omaha in 1941.

 

The main stir up of Naval Artillery for centuries was in 1841 when Henry-Joseph Paixhans developed his gun to fire explosive shells, at that point ships could be sunk. This was followed by La Gloire, the first ocean going ironclad in 1859, and the British response HMS Warrior in service 1861 (Two years to design an entire new class of ship, though the same year she was launched, the RN launched its last three wooden 'Ships of the line' )

 

 

That and the French (Again!) development of Pouder B AKA White powder or Smokeless propelant led to much higher velocitys and thus smaller bore guns with longer range penetrating projectiles.

 

 

If your in Portsmouth the Museum of Naval Firepower is well worth the visit. They also have a drool worthy collection of small arms including trophy pices from the German High Seas Fleet. http://www.explosion.org.uk/

 

Found this site, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data.htm

Edited October 31, 2015 by Tony B