Chosun-few Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 In combat Mission, the Firefly is listed as mounting a 76mm gun. Anyone know if this is a typo?? the Firefly mounted the 17pdr anti-tank gun. Cheers. Vomit don't dribble - Erwin Rommel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chosun-few: In combat Mission, the Firefly is listed as mounting a 76mm gun. Anyone know if this is a typo?? the Firefly mounted the 17pdr anti-tank gun. Cheers. Vomit don't dribble - Erwin Rommel<hr></blockquote> And that is... HEY! 76mm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Not a typo, the calibur of the 17pdr was 76.2mm Firefly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chosun-few: Vomit don't dribble - Erwin Rommel<hr></blockquote> Out of curiosity.. Did he really say that? Seems analog to the proverb often attributed to Heinz G. but in somewhat poorer taste M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosun-few Posted January 4, 2002 Author Share Posted January 4, 2002 Many thanks, have only ever seen the gun listed as 17pdr, never by it's calibre... cheers. Don't attack the hill that's quiet and dark - that's where the british are!. Chinese army in Korean war (I am British) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chosun-few: Don't attack the hill that's quiet and dark - that's where the british are!. Chinese army in Korean war (I am British)<hr></blockquote> They were probably talking about the 25th Canadian Brigade ... who sometimes wore American helmet liners so the Chinese would think they were Yanks. The Chinese had less respect for the US troops in Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gredeker Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 I've also seen some references designating the gun as the "77mm" (even though its true caliber is 76.2mm) to differentiate it from the American 76mm. It doesn't appear to have caught on, however, and most people just refer to it as the 17-pounder. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: redeker ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: [QB]I've also seen some references designating the gun as the "77mm" (even though its true caliber is 76.2mm) to differentiate it from the American 76mm. It doesn't appear to have caught on, however, and most people just refer to it as the 17-pounder.<hr></blockquote> I thought that the US 76's were copies of the brit gun? Maybe I'm wrong and confusing that with the early offer by the brits to re-arm some US tanks as fireflys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> They were probably talking about the 25th Canadian Brigade ... who sometimes wore American helmet liners so the Chinese would think they were Yanks. The Chinese had less respect for the US troops in Korea. <hr></blockquote> They had less respect even for the "yellow legs"? Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Compassion, they were not copies. And who gives a flyin' monkey's what calibre it was anyway, it was still the best soddin' gun in the effin' war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: I've also seen some references designating the gun as the "77mm" (even though its true caliber is 76.2mm) to differentiate it from the American 76mm. It doesn't appear to have caught on, however, and most people just refer to it as the 17-pounder.[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: redeker ]<hr></blockquote> I has nothing to do with US guns. In order to avoid confusion the shortened version of the 17lb cannon mounted in the Comet tank was called 77mm. M. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Mattias ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gredeker Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias: I has nothing to do with US guns. In order to avoid confusion the shortened version of the 17lb cannon mounted in the Comet tank was called 77mm. M. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Mattias ]<hr></blockquote> I stand corrected. I knew it had to do with differentiation somehow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Speaking of it, did the Comet shoot the same ammunition as the Challenger and the towed 17 pdr (assuming those shot the same)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 The 77mm and the 17lb used the same ammunition (Chamberlain & Ellis) and if CM is right it seems the AT gun did so as well. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias: The 77mm and the 17lb used the same ammunition (Chamberlain & Ellis) and if CM is right it seems the AT gun did so as well. M.<hr></blockquote> They did, the 77mm was shorter, with a redesigned breach, and was the (somewhat distant) basis for the post war 20 pounder 84mm weapon, which was designed in hopes of increasing the killing power of the 77 without sacrificing rate of fire by poor chamber placement as occurred in the 17 pounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Exactly why do the Brits refer to their guns by "pounds"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Commissar: Exactly why do the Brits refer to their guns by "pounds"?<hr></blockquote> I've heard two different answers. One is the weight of the actual round, and the other is what it cost to make each round. I think the first is the correct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosun-few Posted January 5, 2002 Author Share Posted January 5, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish: I've heard two different answers. One is the weight of the actual round, and the other is what it cost to make each round. I think the first is the correct answer.<hr></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosun-few Posted January 5, 2002 Author Share Posted January 5, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chosun-few: [QB][/QB]<hr></blockquote>It's the weight of the shell, i think it is a hangover from cannonballs which were done by weight. howitzers were measured in inches. the 25 pdr being classed as a gun or gun/howitzer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted January 6, 2002 Share Posted January 6, 2002 It's the weight of the shell. I've also read that it's not really the weight of the shell, but the weight of a lead ball with the diameter of the barrel. I.e., a cannonball. But a quick reference check shows that the shells for the 2, 6, and 17 pounders weigh 2, 6, and 17 pounds, respectively. I've always found it interesting that the brits didn't use the pound measurement for mortars and other artillery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 6, 2002 Share Posted January 6, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chosun-few: It's the weight of the shell, i think it is a hangover from cannonballs which were done by weight. howitzers were measured in inches. the 25 pdr being classed as a gun or gun/howitzer.<hr></blockquote> It is actually the weight, in pounds, that an iron sphere of that diameter will be, so you should be able to plug in the formula for figuring the area of a sphere, and multiply the weight of iron per cube inch, and get the "pound" designation. This is approximate, because the iron cannonballs were not pure, and I believe the cannon balls used for the designation where actually hollow, when this system of measurement was first put into place, so your numbers may vary, but they will retain the relationship between each weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted January 6, 2002 Share Posted January 6, 2002 IIRC, the volume of a sphere is 4/3(pi)r^3. I'm not sure how to find the weight of iron. But, as I mentioned in my post, I'm not sure if they really used this method in WWII, given that the weight of the shells actually used seems to correspond with the pound designations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 6, 2002 Share Posted January 6, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias: The 77mm and the 17lb used the same ammunition (Chamberlain & Ellis) and if CM is right it seems the AT gun did so as well. M.<hr></blockquote> Yes, and no. They both fired the same projectile, they did not fire the same "round". The reason why they differentiated the calibre of the weapons (17 Pdr versus 77mm) was to make it quite clear that they fired different rounds. Whilse both weapons were in fact 76.2mm calibre, and hence could fire the same projectiles, the size/shape of the chamber on the two weapons was markedly different. The 17 Pdr, originally being an artillery weapon (which was shoe-horned into a tank turret) had a long, thin, cartridge case. The 77mm, which had been designed from the outset, to be fitted inside a tank turret had a comparatively short, stubby case. The 77mm in fact was a completely different weapon to the 17 Pdr and developed independently (albeit for a similar purpose) by Vickers, whereas the 17 Pdr was a Lulworth Arsenal/ROF development. The 77mm began live in fact designated as the "Gun, High-Velocity, 75mm" and was meant to be replace both the 17 Pdr and the 75mm medium-velocity gun mounted in the Sherman and later marks of the Churchill/Valentine/etc. David Fletcher talks at some length about it in his book, "Universal Tank". Its change in designation came about after a slight change in calibre (from 75mm to 76.2mm), after it was discovered that it would not fit into a Cromwell turret as had originally been promised when it was first developed - instead they had to design the Comet to take it. As Slappy mentions, the 20 Pdr was an effort to combine the best of both worlds - the 17 Pdr and the 77mm. As it in turn led directly to the L7 105mm gun (in fact the barrels were interchangeable between the two), and that in turn to the 120mm ROF gun mounted in the Chieftain and thence to the 120mm CHARM gun in the Challenger - its a remarkable ancestry for a weapon which as Fletcher points out, no one really wanted. [ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagdratt Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It is actually the weight, in pounds, that an iron sphere of that diameter will be, so you should be able to plug in the formula for figuring the area of a sphere, and multiply the weight of iron per cube inch, and get the "pound" designation. This is approximate, because the iron cannonballs were not pure, and I believe the cannon balls used for the designation where actually hollow, when this system of measurement was first put into place, so your numbers may vary, but they will retain the relationship between each weapon.<hr></blockquote> I think we should all be grateful that the war ended before some brilliant boffin decided to maintain the integrity of the British Empire and its culture by expressing gun calibre in stones or fractions thereof. This likely would have been the final straw that broke the back of the Anglo-American alliance. BTW is it true that the Sherman's sloped glacis was actually designed to deflect small British motorcars whilst driving on the right side of the road in Cornwall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graaf Spee Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It is actually the weight, in pounds, that an iron sphere of that diameter will be, <hr></blockquote> Are you sure that it's iron? I have always heard that it was lead. Maybe I'm confusing it with the shotgun calibers where 'they' use one pund of lead divided by the caliber. When I think about it it actually makes sense, shotguns use mostly lead pellets(?)but with guns you would want something harder. /Kristian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts