Myth or fact about Russian calibre size?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Is it a myth that the Russian hierachy deliberately manufactured weapons such as the 76 mm gun and the 82 mm mortar to be deliberately 1mm larger than their likely enemie's calibre in order to be able to use any captured shells (at a pinch)? I have heard it bandied about a number of times and have always wondered if it was for real or just co-incidence with regard to the USSR's calibre size of these common weapons.

Hopefully some grog like people will know the definitive answer to this.

Regards

Jim R.

[flamingknives]

Hardly a definative answer, but in my experience, with air rifles, using a projectile thats even slightly too small results in a terrific loss of accuracy and power, as the propellent gasses can vent around the projectile.

This would be bad for a tank gun, not so much for mortars - they appear to be a little loose anyway.

The reason that the T34 main gun is 76mm is that it is 3" calibre.

In addition, when using captured ammunition, the calibre is not the only variable. If the round is a one piece (projectile and propellent fixed together, like a rifle round) then the length of the cartridge comes into play. For example, a soviet/russian 7.62x39mm round could not be fired by a rifle designed to fire NATO 7.62x51mm.

Hope this helps

[MikeT]

Back in the 80s a Russian defector wrote a book about the Soviet army and told about a live fire exercise for Stalin.

A truck mounted 82mm rocket system had been developed and the generals wanted to show it off. The truck arrived and set up, the generals arrive, and Stalin arrived. What showed up was a shipment of 82mm mortar rounds, instead of rockets. It seems that part number for both were very similiar and the supply sargeant sent the wrong batch.

Needless to say, according to the story, the Generals were red faced and more than a little fearful about Stalin's reaction. It seems he though a bit and from that point he ordered that no weapon system was to use the same caliber size. Each was to be unique. This was to prevent getting the wrong shipment during the heat of battle.

I have no idea of this is totally or even partially true but it might explain why some Soviet era equipment was a bit larger than western. The 81mm might have been taken up by another weapon.

MikeT

[Michael Emrys]

I am not an authority on this subject nor can I quote one, but I have been told that the Soviet system of calibers at the time of the Second World War was a holdover from the days of the Czarist regimes, which were based on the inch. Thus you have the 76mm=3", 152mm=6". It's a little harder to apply this explanation to the 122mm and 130mm though, as they do not readily fall into any round figure (4.8" and 5.1" respectively). Perhaps they were later developments?

I think the thing about German ammunition being able to be fired through Soviet mortar tubes was just serendipity, and worked more to the Germans' advantage than the Soviets'. You see, the Germans were able to use captured Soviet tubes with their own ammo, but the Soviets enjoyed no corresponding liberty.

Michael

[ May 15, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Michael Emrys]

Double postitis.

[ May 15, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Determinant]

Yes, MikeT's reference is from Victor Suvorov's (a pseudonym for the obvious 'don't want all my family to be shot now that I'm a defector' reasons) book 'Inside the Soviet Army'.

Suvorov explains it that when you've called up your hastily trained reservists and the like you don't want them confusing types of ammunition nature in the resupply chain.

I seem to recall (but then I'm getting like Guy Pierce in Memento) him saying something along the lines that the 73 mm gun mounted on the BMP1 was in fact 76 mm but was called 73 mm to prevent confusion with the 76 mm gun already mounted on the PT-76.

Fascinating if true. I always thought the British Army were at risk by having a 120 mm tank gun, and the 120 mm Wombat recoiless rifle.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Determinant:

...Victor Suvorov's...

Many of Suvorov's assertions have been subsequently shown to be false, to the extent that it has even been suggested that he might have been a KGB plant.

Michael

[Skipper]

Regarding mortars, if it's a myth, it's an officially propagated one - I've heard it from my tactics instructor in RVSN training center.

76.2 mm, on the other hand, is a traditional 3 inch caliber.

[Chelt]

I've read that the Russians, this in Czarist days, built railroads to broad gauge not only because of the greater efficiency of wider track, but to hinder an invader's supply efforts; a country pushing into Russia would find all of the rolling stock burnt or withdrawn, and would have to re-lay track at standard gauge. Probably a myth.

On a related note, I remember from somewhere that the British chose .303 calibre to stop enemies from using captured British ammunition.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Determinant:

I seem to recall (but then I'm getting like Guy Pierce in Memento) him saying something along the lines that the 73 mm gun mounted on the BMP1 was in fact 76 mm but was called 73 mm to prevent confusion with the 76 mm gun already mounted on the PT-76.

Fascinating if true. I always thought the British Army were at risk by having a 120 mm tank gun, and the 120 mm Wombat recoiless rifle.

For the same reason, the US Army designated the ammo for the Vietnam-era 105mm Recoiless Rifle as being "106mm" to avoid confusion in supply issues.

[lcm1947]

I know nothing about mortars or field piece cartriges but knowing something about rifles and pistol cartridges I would say that that is probably incorrect but watch somebody that really knows come along and correct me. My thinking is that say take a rifle cartridge for example each cartridge is different in shape. It is formed to fit very tight in the breech. This is what keeps the cartridge from expanding too much and blowing up the rifle when fired. The other thought is that while the captured enemy ammo is smaller bullet diameter wise and would fit and fire it would surely mess up the inside of the barrel and might even cause an explodion and if not that certainly would have a great effect on accuracy. I assume tank and field gun barrels are grooved like a rifle. This is what stabilizes the bullet or shell effecting accuracy. If anything I would think that the Russia's would have made their calibers larger to keep the enemy from being able to use their captured ammo. Now none of this might apply to mortars as they may very well all have the same shape. I really don't know. Anyway, my thoughts.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Determinant:

...Victor Suvorov's...

Many of Suvorov's assertions have been subsequently shown to be false, to the extent that it has even been suggested that he might have been a KGB plant.

Michael</font>

[Brian]

My understanding that all of you are basically right. Yes, the Soviets did call different weapons, different calibres in order to avoid confusion in their logistics system. In addition, many of their calibres were hangovers from the previous Tsarist regime's, being based upon the older imperial method of measurement.

However, they were not alone in both points. Other armies used similar tricks - the British 3in Mortar, was in fact not 3 inches in calibre (76mm) but actually 81mm. The French who introduced 155mm calibre weapons, actually manufactured the rounds to be 152mm in calibre. The difference between the round and the tube was made up for in the driving bands on the round.

It was in fact that last point which allowed the Germans to continue using the captured Russian 76.2mm guns, which they had found to be so effective in the AT role, after the ammunition had run out. All they did was rechamber them (ie put a new chamber on the existing barrel) to the same shape/capacity as their own Pak40 round and utilise Pak40 ammunition in them - the difference in calibre was made up by fitting slightly wider driving bands on the rounds.

As to the parable told by Suvarov, I have no idea whether its true or not. It rings true, although I'd have thought it more likely Stalin would have had those responsible also reduced to the Gulag.

Speaking of Suvarov or rather Suvarov(s), I've been under the impression for some time that there was no single person who was writing as Suvarov - rather it was a group of defectors who shared the pen-name. I seem to remember reading somewhere or other that had been revealed after the Cold War. I've also been a tad skeptical about his claims. He appeared to have no real understanding of the Geo-Political aspects of the Cold War he was writing about. I personally still get a laugh out of reading what he claimed the Chinese Politburo was thinking WRT Australia. He always seemed to tend towards exaggeration a bit. He reminded me, if nothing more than of those various writers who were writing at the turn of the 20th Century, who were trying to "alert" Britain to the dangers that Germany represented. His descriptions about conditions within the Red Army though, were I admit, pretty spot on. It was the stuff which was obviously not based upon personal experience which appeared a bit suspect, I felt.

[ May 16, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[edgars]

There is an extensive article about Suvorov/Viktor Rezun on the Russian Military Zone. It's in Russian, but i suggest you read it if you know the language.

Find the article here .

[Bruno Weiss]

Oh all this about the Ruskies being bigger. It's just an old wives tale.

[edgars]

I just remebered that some time ago (when Soviet Union still existed) i was told, that the diameter of standart soviet vodka bottle was excactly 76mm ( i think i even measured that myself ).

Coincidence?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Trap One:

I've read that the Russians, this in Czarist days, built railroads to broad gauge not only because of the greater efficiency of wider track, but to hinder an invader's supply efforts; a country pushing into Russia would find all of the rolling stock burnt or withdrawn, and would have to re-lay track at standard gauge. Probably a myth.

Intentional or not, it kinda worked, although not for the Czar. Barbarossa would have gained quite some speed if they could use the railroad system unchanged. As it was, they lost time, they had engineers busy who could do more useful things elsewhere, and there is more than just simple regaugeing work, for example all the 1435mm switches were probably shipped in from Germany and occupied factories.

The different railroad gauges at the turn of the century had in part been chosen to be incompatible to other countries for a variety of reasons, but in the case of Ruassia I gues they just went with what was most convinient with likely suppliers.

[flamingknives]

I just remebered that some time ago (when Soviet Union still existed) i was told, that the diameter of standart soviet vodka bottle was excactly 76mm ( i think i even measured that myself ).

Coincidence?

Is a vodka bottle an AT or AP weapon? If it was issued, would it get fired or drunk?

I know that if I were a russian tanker issued with vodka rounds, my tank would have the highest ammunition consumption in the Red Army

[Determinant]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I just remebered that some time ago (when Soviet Union still existed) i was told, that the diameter of standart soviet vodka bottle was excactly 76mm ( i think i even measured that myself ).

Coincidence?

Is a vodka bottle an AT or AP weapon? If it was issued, would it get fired or drunk?

I know that if I were a russian tanker issued with vodka rounds, my tank would have the highest ammunition consumption in the Red Army </font>

[Skipper]

> The full vodka bottle has a powerful AP effect.

Only on NATO and other 'potential opponent' personnel.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Barbarossa would have gained quite some speed if they could use the railroad system unchanged. As it was, they lost time, they had engineers busy who could do more useful things elsewhere, and there is more than just simple regaugeing work, for example all the 1435mm switches were probably shipped in from Germany and occupied factories.

The failure to provide for an adequate capacity to quickly bring the Soviet rail system on line, along with all the other logistic inadequacies of the campaign, were occasioned by Hitler's overconfidence that the Red Army would be annihilated on the frontiers, leaving not much more than a mopping up and occupation for the interior. Such, of course, proved not to be the case.

Michael

[Lopaka]

Originally posted by Determinant:

I seem to recall (but then I'm getting like Guy Pierce in Memento)

I feel your pain! Wait...what were we talking about?