Printable View
Except that there is a 90 thousandths of an inch difference between the two dimensions that you quote for the body diameter, CINDERS, or for the younger forum members 2.286mm, precisely. Anyone who thinks that 6.09027" and 6.000" are pretty much bang on the same size is clearly not an engineer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
According to the book, for 155 cannon tubes, (TM 9-1000-202-14, table 3-6) the bore measurement 47.75 inches forward of breech face is 6.100 inches a for a new tube. The gun has reached its service life when the pullover gage measures 6.210 or .110 inches of wear. With .090 wear the gun is still good for about 200 more full charge rounds.
Does not matter what the damn measurement is the cold hard facts if that round lands near you or on you either the shrapnel will tear you to bits or the shear concussion will mush every soft organ in your body or just vaporise you...... who gives a toss if it is 90 thou out wont matter you'll be toasted.
To the young/new forumers the caliber of a weapon may not directly correlate to the stated size given by its description the above case proves this as stated Actual body dimension 154.71mm = 155mm as declared by the Armed services of the United States Army who is the end user of this long range artillery which I may add can fire the "Copper Head" to hit lasered targets.
I have no idea what wave length the laser designator is perhaps those with the engineering degrees would be so kind to get their tape measure out and give us the data.
Here is the data on that round incase you have never heard of it and how it works just to prove it exists = The M712 Copperhead is a 155 mm (sorry is it 154.71mm or was it 157.98mm!) caliber cannon-launched, fin-stabilized, terminally laser guided, explosive shell intended to engage hard point targets such as tanks, self-propelled howitzers or other high-value targets. It may be fired from different artillery pieces, such as the M114, M109, M198, ... The projectile has a minimum range of 3 km and a maximum range of 16 km.
I just wish I could examine the projectile with my glasses on...
You are trying to use these facts to prove that a 155mm shell is what has been posted in post 1. The sizes that you have quoted for the body diameters don't match because they are out by 90 thou. Of course it matters what the diameter of the shell is in relation to the barrel; it needs to compatible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
You will need to do better than this CINDERS.
No offence F10 why don't you contact the armaments supplier and get the cold hard facts from them on shell body diameter and driving band diameter verses bore size instead of being a right PITA with interjections and palava that degenerates the thread which should be informative and courteous to all involved.
Why do you think they put driving bands of a softer metal onto the bodies of the projectiles so it can take up any inconsistencies of that body so it can obturate get the engraving done to impart the spin for gyroscpopic stabilty so the shell can go and kill the baddies.
So with that forumers Im done with this thread I have endevoured my best to assist with the O P's ID of the shell but sadly I have fallen short because I tried to hard if you have any queries on life or ordnence I suggest you contact those members whom obviously know more about the whole universe than Stephen Hawkins............................
CINDERS out.....
OP hasn't been here for a week about...I think he just wanted to ask about this one was all and is gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
I'm exhausted ... :surrender: :lol:
Thread Closed.... :cheers: