Fly Pusher Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I just wondered if someone could throw a little light onto the significance of the 88 and 105mm gun calibers. They do not seem to represent 'round' numbers in either mm or inches yet seem to have been adopted by several different armies. Are these 'magic' numbers in that they represent an optimum balance between different characteristics ? If so then which.... ? Thanks... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortlund Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Yes, they are magic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I've been wondering the same about the 37mm. You are most likely right in that these calibres represent some optimum of balance between certain characteristics. But I wouldn't know which one either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I've always wondered the same about small arms. Why 7.62mm? Can't it just be 8mm? 5.56mm.. why not 6mm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I've been wondering the same about the 37mm. 1.5 inch. I've always wondered the same about small arms. Why 7.62mm? Can't it just be 8mm? 5.56mm.. why not 6mm? .30 cal and .22, respectively. These are basically just redesignated American rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Fly Pusher: I just wondered if someone could throw a little light onto the significance of the 88 and 105mm gun calibers. They do not seem to represent 'round' numbers in either mm or inches yet seem to have been adopted by several different armies. Are these 'magic' numbers in that they represent an optimum balance between different characteristics ? If so then which.... ? Thanks...To be honest, I've not noticed a proliferation of 88mm outside of the Germans of WWII. 105, yes, but not 88. As far as the 88 goes, it is my understanding that the bore diameter itself was a product of studies done by German ballistic experts designing a high altitude flak gun. The size provided a good compromise allowing for a shell that provided good explosive capabilities while still being manageable enough to be shot to high altitudes. So, intitially, the requirements of flak service led to this bore diameter. Fairly quickly, it was realized that the gun was also quite effective in the AT role, and eventually the 88L/56 was mounted on the Tiger once it was realized the purpose-built AT gun 75L/70 would not be ready in time. I'm not sure as to the specifics of why the 88mm diameter was continued in the 88L/71, but I have to think the combination of good AT capabilities (independent of muzzle velocity) and superior HE capabalities (superior to any of the 75mm guns) were considerations, as well as logistical benefits of uniformity. This may be a gross over-simplification, so don't quote me on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I'm not entirely sure but I believe the post-war Brit 20 pounder tank gun was an 88, or something close to it... which of course lead to the 105mm L7 gun. Two reasons for the common round sizes are conservatism and commerce. For example, 75mm and 76mm shells seem redundant, but each size has its own legacy from the earliest days of rifled artillery pieces. If an early French 75mm gun had widespread sales success, then any local attempts to reproduce the gun would mean multiple manufacturers with the same 75mm bore. And if one of those local manufacturers then wanted to compete internationally for sales it'd be a dangerous move financially to stray too far from the international 'standard'. [ January 03, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 i heard that the soviet 76, 82, and 152 were designed so they could use other peoples' ammo, but no one could use their ammo... 76 versus 75 82 versus 81 152 versus 150 so they could capture a load of say, 81mm mortar ammo and use it in their own tubes... but no one else could capture their 82mm ammo and use it in 81mm tubes... this is what some marine dude told me... said they told him that in boot camp... maybe he was just making it up... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Dear MickyD, The 25 pdr was 88 mm. Served as a howitzer and an anti tank gun. Mostly in the towed mode, but some mounted on an AFV carriage. The 2 pdr was 40 mm. Found on most british tanks and armored cars, also towed anti tank guns, until the 17 pdr was introduced, and even after that. Can't recall when but I believe it was after mid 1944. (Someone will be along and be more accruate. Towed .... Toad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 The 20 pdr was 84.5mm, the 105mm = 4.1 inches, the Russian 76's date from the imperial times when their artillery was 3 inch calibre and ther factories were all geared up to make that size tube. The Russian 152mm is similarly linked to Imperial/Tsarist 6" artillery. Similarly the Russian 122's are 4.7" and linked to naval gun manufacture of that calibre. The 82mm russian mortar could use German 81mm rounds, with some loss of accuracy and range, but I have no idea if that was a design feature or a happy coincidence. The 76 and 152mm guns had no such capability unless reworked because cartridge size is also a factor in guns and if a cartridge doesnt fit then you just can't fire it, or, worse, if it's too small to seal properly then I suspect you've got a bit of a problem with crew survival!! Oh yeah - and the Germans had an 88mm AA gun in WW1 IIRC - I think it was developed from a naval calibre. [ January 03, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewallen Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 i've read (perhaps somewhere here on the forum, but can't remember now) that the soviets used different sizes for all of their guns because supply problems often led to the wrong ammo getting to the wrong unit, and there were times when the wrong ammo (but of the correct bore size) were fired in a weapon, damaging it. therefore each type of gun used its own size of ammunition so that only the correct ammo would fit. ~sam 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryl60 Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Quiz time Which German General is credited with being the first to use the 88 in an anti tank role in WW2? Darryl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Rommel, France, 40. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelt Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Some of these figures are rounded-off numbers chosen for convenience, and they do not match the actual size of the round. Gun was actually 76.2 mm, but was called 77 mm to avoid confusion with the 17 pdr. It could penetrate 130 mm at 30° at 2,178 yards using APDS ammo. From WWII Vehicles One of the web of notes in the back of Churchill's The Second World War indicates that when the British recieved a quantity of American .30 calibre rifles through Lend-Lease, they painted the barrels to help soldiers distinguish them from the usual British .303s. David 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Germans chose 37mm anti-tank gun size because the overall weight allowed infantry to move gun in desired ways. British 25 pdr was 87.6mm, which rounds to 88mm, if my fading memory still retains some valid recall power. Could someone verify 25 pdr as 87.6mm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryl60 Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Damn...right on the first try. At Amiens I think it was...my memory isn't what it used to be. Darryl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by rexford: Germans chose 37mm anti-tank gun size because the overall weight allowed infantry to move gun in desired ways. British 25 pdr was 87.6mm, which rounds to 88mm, if my fading memory still retains some valid recall power. Could someone verify 25 pdr as 87.6mm?Serriously Lorrin. Is anyone going to argue with you when it comes to grog issues? I've always understood the 25 pounder was of 88mm calibre so 87.6mm is close enough for me. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyTexan Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by Darryl60: Damn...right on the first try. At Amiens I think it was...my memory isn't what it used to be. DarrylI think they were first used against the maginot line. But remember it was not Rommel who came up with the idea to use them in this role, soldiers in the Kondor Legion did it 4 years earlier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 It is my understanding in the widest sense that "strange" calibre sizes have historical roots going back centuries. In the days of black powder and muzzle loading cannons pretty much everything was judged by weight of cannon ball. Cannons could be typically 4lb,6lb,8 or 9lb or the big 12lb of French Napoleonic and ACW fame. Calibre was not so important. Naval guns were likewise measured but much bigger, 24lb or 36lb. The British AT guns, 2,6 and 17lb,and the 18lb of WW1 and 25lb field guns are hang overs in terminology. As gun technology developed in the 19th century it was only then that calibre rather than weight of shell was used to measure the piece more often. Often it was the navies of the World that were most interested in the latest/largest developments and because they had facilities set up to produce barrels the armies frequently followed where they lead. Field pieces are therefore modifications of older existing naval calibres which in turn derive from old inch calibre sized pieces or are pitched to deliver a shell of a certain poundage. Over time the boundaries have become blurred slightly so that the size and shell weight have varied but "types" still exist clustered around certain sizes eg. 37-40mm(1.5 inch or 2lb shot), 57mm(6lb),88mm(25lb),105mm(4inch-ish old naval calibre) and so on. That's my understanding for the reason behind the strange calibres when measured in mm. Could be wrong though. Anyone? [ January 04, 2003, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Doodlebug ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alsatian Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by RowdyTexan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darryl60: Damn...right on the first try. At Amiens I think it was...my memory isn't what it used to be. DarrylI think they were first used against the maginot line. But remember it was not Rommel who came up with the idea to use them in this role, soldiers in the Kondor Legion did it 4 years earlier.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 There was no 20 pounder AFAIK. At least the term was not used. 2 pdr, 17 pdr or 25 pdr yes. Refers to the approximate weight of the shell. 25 pdr was 87.6 mm or thereabouts but not called an 88 by the Brits. They referred to the shell weight. Half pounder ... Toad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by Louie the Toad: There was no 20 pounder AFAIK. At least the term was not used. 2 pdr, 17 pdr or 25 pdr yes. Refers to the approximate weight of the shell.I've read that it refers to the weight of a round shot (iron?) of the appropriate diameter. Probably dates back to the Age of Sail I would guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by Doodlebug: It is my understanding in the widest sense that "strange" calibre sizes have historical roots going back centuries. In the days of black powder and muzzle loading cannons pretty much everything was judged by weight of cannon ball. Cannons could be typically 4lb,6lb,8 or 9lb or the big 12lb of French Napoleonic and ACW fame. Calibre was not so important. Naval guns were likewise measured but much bigger, 24lb or 36lb. The British AT guns, 2,6 and 17lb,and the 18lb of WW1 and 25lb field guns are hang overs in terminology. As gun technology developed in the 19th century it was only then that calibre rather than weight of shell was used to measure the piece more often. Often it was the navies of the World that were most interested in the latest/largest developments and because they had facilities set up to produce barrels the armies frequently followed where they lead. Field pieces are therefore modifications of older existing naval calibres which in turn derive from old inch calibre sized pieces or are pitched to deliver a shell of a certain poundage. Over time the boundaries have become blurred slightly so that the size and shell weight have varied but "types" still exist clustered around certain sizes eg. 37-40mm(1.5 inch or 2lb shot), 57mm(6lb),88mm(25lb),105mm(4inch-ish old naval calibre) and so on. That's my understanding for the reason behind the strange calibres when measured in mm. Could be wrong though. Anyone?Thanks Doodlebug, This sounds like the most plausible explanation. I know that during the early 19th century the Royal Navy referred to almost all its guns by weight of projectile (generally solid shot) and that the cannon (or caronade) that fired these balls had considerable 'windage' or space between the walls of the barrel and the projectile. I guess the actuall caliber woiuld therefore depend on the density of the iron used to cast the balls and the minimum acceptable windage that still allows them to be muzzle loaded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 20pdr did exist - it was the main gun for the Centurion MBT, introduced post WWII 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Yep - 20pdr Centurions saw action in Korea and Vietnam I think - the later with the Australians. IIRC the 105 fitted to the Tortoise super heavy assault gun was designated as "32 pdr". Dunno if that's what was developed into the L7 tank gun (the "famous" 105) tho' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.