flamingknives Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 2.4lbs, or 1.1kg for a lead sphere of diameter 57mm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodent Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I have a 6 pdr cartridge case (is that correct?) as an ornament. I think it's from North Africa. End of the story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locksley Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hey guys aside from the argument over weight of shells and that cheers veery much for the help the seminar went pretty well, the info I got from your links were very helpful in answering the questions so thanks again. On the name issue though, I had always heard and read that the reason the guns were called as they were 6, 17, 25 pdr was because of the weight of the shell, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the 6lb shell fired from the 6 pdr gun cost £6, is it? Sadly I upgraded to a OSX only machine last year so am dearly missing Combat Mission so haven't been on the forums much recently, is there any hope for us OSXers? I really would like to play it again and try out CMAK for the first time it sounds unbelievable. If it is anything like CMBO and BB it will be like nothing else. Heres hoping for a CMOSX Locksley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Perhaps at one point the shell cost £6, but money changes in value all the time, so it's hardly a good basis for a nomenclature system. Certainly I rather doubt that the 25pdr shell was more costly than a 17pdr one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Locksley, You're welcome! To my mind, the assertion that the pdr rating was cost based is patently ridiculous. It is, in fact, a carryover from the days of muzzle loading cannon and is simply the weight of the SHOT (not shell) fired by the weapon in question. I refer doubters to Ian Hogg's THE GUNS 1939-1945 in the section dealing with antitank weapons. Hogg is a retired Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery and is a weapon expert known worldwide for his books on artillery, ammunition, small arms and other ordnance. As for being marooned in OS X, now you know why I bought the best available model of the lampshade dual OS iMac. Huge improvement in capability while still fully CM compatible! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Except of course the AP shot from a 25pdr weighed 20 lbs.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 is simply the weight of the SHOT (not shell) fired by the weapon in question.you mean the big ass thing which comes flying out the back when they open it up after they have fired? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 the_enigma, That particular item is known as the shell casing or cartridge brass. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Originally posted by the_enigma: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />is simply the weight of the SHOT (not shell) fired by the weapon in question.you mean the big ass thing which comes flying out the back when they open it up after they have fired? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 right o guys ... hmm well ive always assoisated for some reason shell with the whole thing. Will not from this day forth 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Mr. flamingpicky thinks that shot is, in fact, always solid. A shell, by contrast, can have all varieties of filling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Originally posted by flamingknives: Mr. flamingpicky thinks that shot is, in fact, always solid. A shell, by contrast, can have all varieties of filling. You reckon? Then it would be improper to call the German AP rounds shots? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I'd think Mr. Flamingpicky would be wrong. The Brits referred to all kinds of ammunition as shot. Solid/spherical shot, grape shot, cannister shot, spherical case/shrapnel shot and indeed shell shot. If they could bung it down the barrel in front of a charge, they called it a shot. Because that's what you did, you shot it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 But well before WW II, which after all is the era that we are interested in, a careful distinction was being made between hollow shells and solid shot. Indeed, even much earlier, a lot of what you are calling shot, I have heard described by the term 'round', e.g., cannister round. And a shrapnel round was a shell that contained shot (and a dispersive charge). So there! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 a 'round' is the whole thing, incl the fuze, projectile (of which the fuze is part), propellant, and cartridge case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma: I'd think Mr. Flamingpicky would be wrong. The Brits referred to all kinds of ammunition as shot. Solid/spherical shot, grape shot, cannister shot, spherical case/shrapnel shot and indeed shell shot. If they could bung it down the barrel in front of a charge, they called it a shot. I don't think so - case shot was small shot enclosed in a case while Grape shot was again made up of linked solid shot smaller than the usual. Shrapnel was never "shot" AFAIK, and neither was "shell". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Stormed at with shot and shell Boldly they rode and well Into the jaws of death Into the mouth of hell Rode the six hundred. - Tennyson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Mr. flamingpicky thinks that shot is, in fact, always solid. A shell, by contrast, can have all varieties of filling. You reckon? Then it would be improper to call the German AP rounds shots? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 BTW the plural of "shot" is "shot" - not "shots" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Originally posted by JonS: a 'round' is the whole thing, incl the fuze, projectile (of which the fuze is part), propellant, and cartridge case. That too. Michael 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.