mikeadams Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 This is maybe a trivial point, but why did the German's build the 88mm gun? Why not 90mm or some other size? Was there a compelling reason for the final choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 They used "88" so that if the crates of shells were stacked 'up-side down' they would still say "88". ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They used "88" so that if the crates of shells were stacked 'up-side down' they would still say "88".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. Actually, I think (Of course, I'm probably wrong so don't be shy about pointing it out) the width of gun barrels has to do with the heat and stress tolerances for the metal they're using. Don't forget that I am half-talking out of my ass here. To make a longer, more accurate barrel they had to shorten the width so it wouldn't disastrously fail when firing. Can someone who knows what they're talking about back me up on this? -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Top ten reasons the Germans built 88s instead of a round number: 10) Tried to copy the Brit 25 lb-er and messed up. (It's bore is 88mm, too) 9) Was secret weapon program started in 1888. 8) It just rolls off the tongue (esp. in German) 7) Dual-purpose gun, dual numbers 6) Couldn't afford the extra 2mm. 5) # of engineers that can dance on the head of a pin. 4) Heard the French were making an 87mm gun. 3) Amount of pfennigs in Herr Krupp's pocket one day. 2) What Scott said. 1) Hitler was drawing pictures of headless snowmen one day... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rienzi Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 No,it was because they use the "metric" system...you know,like they dont call a McDonald's quarterpounder a quarterpounder,it's "Royale w/Cheese" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Excuse me rienzi; we stubborn Dutchmen do call it a quarterpounder! "Royaal met Kaas" just wouldn't sell, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 The FlaK 18/36/37 was designed as an anti-aircraft weapon first- somebody probably sat down and figured out that 88mm would be the optimum size calibre that would fill 'x' area of the sky with enough lethal fragments at the right altitude to make it uncomfortable to fly through. Bigger may have been better in the above respect, but then, weight would have increased, the gun would be less movable, a different prime mover might be needed, etc. Smaller, and you need more guns to fill the same job, max ceiling would be lower...ad nauseum The FlaK 18 was designed by Krupp engineers working for Bofors in Sweden about 1931. They brought the plans back to Germany and the gun went into service in 1933. The FlaK 36 was an 18 with a simplified platform, with front and rear made identical, as were the limbers, so the gun could be easily re-limbered and towed in either direction with equal facility. The barrel came in three interlocking pieces, so that only a worn section had to be replaced, not the entire barrel (saved on metal). The FlaK 37 was a 36 with a two piece barrel and a simplified, electrical, gunlaying system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Peltz: The FlaK 18/36/37 was designed as an anti-aircraft weapon first- somebody probably sat down and figured out that 88mm would be the optimum size calibre that would fill 'x' area of the sky with enough lethal fragments at the right altitude to make it uncomfortable to fly through<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All kidding aside, I think Kevin has it pretty much right. The requirement to "produce this effect" will usually dictate the caliber of the projectile. Since physics are the same for everybody, that's why most bullets/shells designed for the same purpose will have the same general shape. I imagine they figured how much explosive they needed, combined with range and a few basic shell shapes is what produced the final 88mm diameter. The only reason I know of where a caliber was dictated to the designers beforehand would be for commonality of ammunition with a current weapon. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4) Heard the French were making an 87mm gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is much better than mine. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 LOL! IntelWeenie, you made me laugh so hard my girlfriend had to come over and what was so funny. Naturally, she didn't get it, so she gave me the what-was-I-smoking-when-I-decided-to-live-with-you looks. This is all your fault. Thanks, Sten ------------------ Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 4) Heard the French were making an 87mm gun. Has to be this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 I confess I'm not enough of a historian to give a definitive answer, but I believe that caliber traces its pedigree back to a naval gun of the last century. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sten: LOL! IntelWeenie, you made me laugh so hard my girlfriend had to come over and what was so funny. Naturally, she didn't get it, so she gave me the what-was-I-smoking-when-I-decided-to-live-with-you looks. This is all your fault. Thanks, Sten <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have the same problem with this site and my wife. I thought I was safe trying to explain my laughing at the thread a week or so ago that did all the Monty Python, but she gave me one of her "my mother was right" looks! As to 88mm, everyone knows that they picked that calibre because it has such a fearsome reputation! ------------------ The conception of such a plan was impossible for a man of Montgomery's innate caution...In fact, Montgomery's decision to mount the operation ...[Market Garden] was as startling as it would have been for an elderly and saintly Bishop suddenly to decide to take up safe breaking and begin on the Bank of England. (R.W.Thompson, Montgomery the Field Marshall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 Why do some American tanks have a 76mm gun? I mean, how much difference and ONE millimeter really make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milt Smegma Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Why do some American tanks have a 76mm gun? I mean, how much difference and ONE millimeter really make?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite a bit of difference really Check out this excellent article on the M4A1(76)W at CMHQ,it explains the differences for you http://combathq.thegamers.net/articles/usmedtanks/m4a1.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts