login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Rechambered Pak 36 (r)
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,142 posts
Armorama: 1,111 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 05:52 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The Germans measured the O.D. of the projectile differently (actually bore I.D.) than the Soviets. One measured from the diameter of the lands, while the other went by the diameter of the grooves . . . I seriously doubt there's much difference between the two bores.



Two statements here that need to be corrected:

> Both the Soviets and the Germans measured artillery in the same way.

> The 76.2mm Russian and 7.5cm German bores were different.

Both of these questions were resolved earlier and are apparent from manual illustrations referenced by Philipp. The bourrelet of a German 7.5cm projectile was 74.85mm in diameter and the projectile for the Russian gun was 76.1mm. The bourrelet diameter is a very close fit to the bore diameter of the tube, so the bourrelet diameter is effectively the same as the bore size.

KL



if you'd ever shot a cannon, you'd know that the round has to slip into the bore till the driving band seats into the rifling. There must be some clearance to get the driving band to seat. Also the rifling would be trashed after one round
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,142 posts
Armorama: 1,111 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 05:57 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

If (as one poster has stated) the German round was much longer, it would possess a higher ballistic co-efficient.



The round, i.e. the cartridge, was longer. The projectiles were similar.


Quoted Text

My guess would be that they redesigned the base of the projectile to fit the 75mm I.D. of the PAK 40 case . . . Reason why? The cases are made on an extruder, and then finished out in a die. Just going from 75mm to 76mm would have required a major tooling change.



The documentary evidence is that the Pak40 case simply had an expanded mouth. This is not a significant change.

** Ah but that is important. The chamber and throat could not be a standard PAK 40 due to a major increase to pressure spikes.


Quoted Text

I also suspect that the projectiles were similar to the OEM Russian ammo, but with the bigger PAK 40 case.



Yes, but that's because the Russian and German projectiles were very similar to begin with.

** length has little to do with my thoughts. It's the ballistic co-efficient that has to be similar.

KL



glt
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,835 posts
Armorama: 1,816 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 05:15 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The Germans measured the O.D. of the projectile differently (actually bore I.D.) than the Soviets. One measured from the diameter of the lands, while the other went by the diameter of the grooves . . . I seriously doubt there's much difference between the two bores.



Two statements here that need to be corrected:

> Both the Soviets and the Germans measured artillery in the same way.

> The 76.2mm Russian and 7.5cm German bores were different.

Both of these questions were resolved earlier and are apparent from manual illustrations referenced by Philipp. The bourrelet of a German 7.5cm projectile was 74.85mm in diameter and the projectile for the Russian gun was 76.1mm. The bourrelet diameter is a very close fit to the bore diameter of the tube, so the bourrelet diameter is effectively the same as the bore size.

KL



if you'd ever shot a cannon, you'd know that the round has to slip into the bore till the driving band seats into the rifling. There must be some clearance to get the driving band to seat. Also the rifling would be trashed after one round
gary



What does that have to do with anything?? Nothing I wrote contradicts that. The point is that the largest sphere that would fit in a German 7.5cm gun was 75mm and the largest sphere that would fit in a Soviet 76.2mm gun was 76.2mm. That means:

1. The Germans and the Soviets both measured artillery bores the same way, not differently as you and others stated.

2. The German 7.5cm gun bore was different than the Soviet 76.2mm gun bore, not the same as you stated.

KL
Removed by original poster on 03/17/17 - 10:39:43 (GMT).
casailor
Joined: June 22, 2007
KitMaker: 160 posts
Armorama: 92 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 06:22 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

Probably
wont help but the AK47 could fire N.A.T.O. 7.62 but the British S.L.R could not fire the soviet rounds

You are wrong. The Soviet 7.62x39 round is a mid-power round that is far shorter than a NATO 7.62 round. The projectile MIGHT fir the chamber, but the cartridge case is not only a different shape, but the NATO round is significantly longer. Neither would fit in the chamber of the other.
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 1,365 posts
Armorama: 1,360 posts
Posted: Monday, May 29, 2017 - 02:21 PM GMT+7
Thank you for pointing out the obvious to a bunch of no-nothings who wouldn't know what to do with an AK and would be dangerous on the range if someone foolishly offered to let them try a shot. Perhaps said individuals could stick to styrene models and leave matters of firearms to the professionals who actually use them. I laugh when I read such utter nonsense perpetuated by said no-nothings. As if!
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 1,365 posts
Armorama: 1,360 posts
Posted: Monday, May 29, 2017 - 02:26 PM GMT+7
Thank goodness for the voice of reason! There is a distinct reason for different calibres and differing weapons systems and it is infantile fantasy to assume interchangeability. Even if the case lengths were the same (which I do not believe they were!) I, for one, would never even dream of shoving a German PAK 40 round into a Soviet 76.2 F-22 gun as I have no idea what the rated breach-pressure would be, and the case-formed shell after firing would probably prove to be impossible to extract! It might be funny to watch from a distance, though.
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 1,365 posts
Armorama: 1,360 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 05:18 AM GMT+7
Hello Gary!
Normally I wouldn't bother, but as you seemed reasonable in your responses to some silly questions I thought that I'd let you have this one: neither the M1 Garand or M1 carbine are Assault rifles as the definition is now understood to mean. They are considered by the military as Main Battle Rifles (MBRs) as they do not employ an external magazine and use full-power cartridges. So the German FG42 was NOT an assault rifle by this definition as it used the full-size 7.92 round while the STG44 was, using as it did the 7.92 Kurz round. The German Gew43, likewise, was an MBR owing to its full-size round even though it used an external mag. As such I can't think of anything that saw production that predates the Stg44 as the original assault rifle. It is interesting to note that no one in the know ever referred to the FN FAL or G3 as "Assault rifles" either.