Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Calibers Keywords: calibers Message-ID: <7129@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Jun 89 02:43:28 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 41 Approved: military@att.att.com From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) [imported from rec.guns] In article <28043@ism780c.isc.com> techsup!trsvax!earl@sys1.tandy.com writes: > Have you figured out the British "pounder" system yet? > > They used to used neat guns like "12-pounder", "24-pounder", and so on. > Somebody always has to mess up things. The "pounder" system was a holdover from the earliest days of artillery, when a gun was classified by the weight of the shot it threw. Hence, a 24-pounder fired a 24-pound ball. This usage continued as standard up through the American Civil War, by which point it was being superceded by bore diameters. The largest "pounder" I'm aware of was the 300-pounder Parrott Rifle. The usage continued, mostly in the British Army, until shortly after WWII. The only ones that come to mind in the WWII era are: 2-pounder (40mm) tank/antitank gun 6-pounder (57mm. Note that the US used the exact same gun, and called it 57mm, not 6-pdr) Also tank/antitank 13-pounder (76.2mm) WWI-vintage horse artillery, issued to Home Guard 17-pounder (76.2mm) tank/antitank gun. Unlike 2- and 6-pdr, it had HE capability 18-pounder (83.8mm) artillery 25-pounder (87.6mm) artillery 32-pounder (94mm) tank gun (postwar) Of course, with the advent of ogival projectiles, the diameters of the modern guns were smaller than their older equivalents, which fired round shot. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu