Right before the first gulf war we integrated stinger missiles onto Apache Helicopters. Those guys go into contests to see how far they could kill an Iraqi pickup with a $50,000 missile. So yeah I believe some of them did  it

To clear that up. Yes, the LENGTH is measured in CALIBERS (as in a unit of measurement). But the CALIBER itself is 155mm. The length is referred to as...LENGTH. Notice that L is placed so nicely in front of the 52? The only people who do not do that are Naval guns because that is where length is factored into the caliber.

 

Every reference I have provided says it is only diameter. So either find a reference that says it includes length or shut the hell up.

Note the desperation here, folks? He cannot admit he's wrong about anything?

 

I was wrong about the 'padlock' and I did not go this way. No need too. Wrong is wrong.  What's wrong with you, Santa?

 

What is YOUR malfunction and system error here?   

Herald

Read the thread, Santa. It would ENLIGHTEN you about how much you really don't know about the Russians or the Americans or TANKS. You see I was in that thread to LEARN some armor history and ancient tech, not to teach; like apparently I am teaching here. 

 

I certainly am learning NOTHING from you.

 

Herald 

Actually, I think how the pad lock thing went down was that you originally implied I was wrong by showing a video of a Stryker raising its ramp, not realizing that a door is on the ramp with statement that I should "look and listen" or something to that effect. Then when I asked you about it you about what you meant your post was something like you didn't imply anything. Of course. I'm sure you just posted that video to show me a ramp of the Stryker (sarcasm). Then, you asked me why a pad lock was on the back of a picture of a Stryker trying to catch me in something, which you didn't even bother to look that there is no where to pad lock the door.

 

And now you bring up this caliber thing which has so magnificently back fired on you. Maybe I hurt your pride the first couple of times or something. So, I hope you're enjoying that pop corn. I don't know. Anyways, you copied wiki and purposely edited it to suit your needs. And I know you did because that quote is only found on wiki and the only other sources on the net copied it from there as well. Then, when I asked you your source, your "original source" states,

 

"4-5. Caliber.The caliber of a cannon is a measure of  the diameter of the bore, not including the depth of the rifling."

 

If you had actually bothered to read your own source that might have stuck out to you. At this point I'm thinking to myself, not only are you a liar, but you're an idiot as well.

 

By all means go find a source that says I'm wrong. I'm sure with your 98345739857 years experience in ballistics that should be no problem for you. And do take the time to check your source. You know I will.

Since the Army never planned in that and never billed it as such...I really doubt they told their IOBC students that....sorry I call Shennigans, on your memory at least.

 

 

"Caliber" IS a measure of barrel length?  What is the point and problem, again?

Wow, you're slow. Caliber refers directly to the diameter of the bore. Caliber does not include length in army artillery. Length, can be measured by units of caliber, like inches or millimeters. But it is not included in caliber.

 

I'll break it down Barney style for you.

 

Caliber can be expressed in units of millimeters or inches. Is caliber inches or millimeters? No, it's expressed using those measurements.

 

Length can be expressed in units of caliber. Is length caliber? No, it's expressed using caliber as a measurement.

 

Now back away from your statement and your ego, examine it CLOSELY and tell me, "Is caliber a measure of barrel length?"  OBVIOUSLY, by your own admission, "Length can be expressed in units of caliber " that, INDEED, caliber IS a length of measure....

 

Now we'll skip over Barney and move onto to more formal argumentation, and say, YOU admit caliber is a unit of measurement, and then you deny it..you are being ILLOGICAL.

 

You screwed up in your L/55 M-256 comment and just can't own that you were wrong in giving Herald "Guff" about caliber.

 

So a 120 mm main gun L/44 is SHORTER than a 120 L/55....see L/44 < L/55, and "L" is defined as barrel length in calibers? 

 

See leave Barney at home, join the adults at the table....