American joke on the Brits

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

US forces shot 30-06's, pretty much the same caliber as the .303.

.303 is actually a .311 bullet
.30 caliber is actually a .308 bullet
so it doesn't make sense from that perspective


C'mon Harry, you can do a better comparison between these two
rounds than that. Hell, that's like comparing the cartridge
primers.

The 30-06 is twice the round that the .303 is isn't it now?. I've
fired thousands of each and there's no comparison at all.

I've got almost the full collection of Enfields. (Rifle, SMLE No. 1 Mk
III, Pattern 14, M1917, and Rifle, SMLE, Mk IV), in both .30-06
(M1917), and .303, (The other lot). The biggest problem I have with
the .303 is those danged rims. A Royal (Arms Factory) pain in the
butt. How they made machine guns work with that cartridge has to be
an amazing example of dogged determination.

Odd that you'd mention primers, though. I picked up a case of
ex-Yugoslav .303 (Back before we blew it all up) and they had the
_worst_ primers you'd ever encountered. Pukk the trigger, hear the
click, think "Oh, ****!", and start counting before touching the
bolt (And doing it "One Hippopotamus, Twho Hippopotamus...is a good
idea.) The round would go off somwhere between "One and "otamus". It
wasn't weak primer strikes, either. Wierd, thouh, like firing a
bolt-action flintlock.

Worse. None of my flintlocks ever hungfire that long, unless the priming
charge was wet.

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

US forces shot 30-06's, pretty much the same caliber as the .303.

.303 is actually a .311 bullet
.30 caliber is actually a .308 bullet
so it doesn't make sense from that perspective


C'mon Harry, you can do a better comparison between these two
rounds than that. Hell, that's like comparing the cartridge
primers.

The 30-06 is twice the round that the .303 is isn't it now?. I've
fired thousands of each and there's no comparison at all.

LOL, but where does one start? Books have been written...
Yes the .30-06 is a much more powerful round, but the joke was
primarily about size.

I've fired a "few" of each, too, although the most painful I remember
was from a friend's Mk5 Jungle Carbine (a real one too).
Recoil was vicious, and from prone the muzzle blast kicked up a hell of a
dust cloud.

Pretty well all my 30-06 was from an M-1 Garand...used to be
great fun toting that monster along on hunting trips with a
couple good old boys armed with "Sure-Shot" 12 gauge singles and
Marlin 44-40's with hexagon barrels. They'd say 'What in 'ell is
that, an artillery piece?'...they'd quiet down when I'd "walk" a
large block of wood all over the yard from the hip while chipping
large hunks out of it and the yard surface. Those 30-06 rounds
packed a wallop. You used to get away with things (on yer daddy's
farm) like that years ago

Guess most of my .303 was from twin Brownings in the nose turret
of Lancasters firing at smoke markers on the sea surface plus my
dad's Ross and my P-14 Enfield
--

-Gord.

Re English automotive technology my brother-in-law taught me this one when I
was helping him restore an MGA- The english drink warm beer because they
have Lucas refrigerators.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

"Jim Atkins" wrote in message
t...
Re English automotive technology my brother-in-law taught me this one when
I
was helping him restore an MGA- The english drink warm beer because they
have Lucas refrigerators.

Lucas : The Prince of Darkness

Nick

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:25:55 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:
Not from most front-line aircraft, at least during most of the war in
which we participated.

But surely by the time the US joined the war, UK front line aircraft
were 20mm armed - all the 8 x .303 fighters had gone IIRC?

The only fighter types that I can think of from the start of '42 which
still used the 0.303" were the Spitfire (some variants), with 2x20mm
hispano cannon and 4x0.303" Brownings in each wing, the fighter-bomber
version of the Mosquito (4x20mm hispano, 4x0.303" browning) and, of
course, the mighty Beaufighter, with four hispanos in the nose and
four brownings in one wing, two in the other. Regardless of the presence
of 0.303"s, the Beau was not short of the abilities to throw nastieness.

Bombers were another matter: there were good reasons for sticking to
0.303"s in the night bombers, where ranges were very short and the role
of the gunners was keeping a look-out (and where the volume of fire from
the 0.303" was more desirable than the heavier weight of the 0.5"), but
the day-bomber force (the mediums) would certainly have benefited from
the 0.5", as would the fleet air arm bombers (the Barracuda could well
have done with a 0.5" instead of the futile pair of Vickers K-guns).

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:25:55 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:
Not from most front-line aircraft, at least during most of the war in
which we participated.

But surely by the time the US joined the war, UK front line aircraft
were 20mm armed - all the 8 x .303 fighters had gone IIRC?

The only fighter types that I can think of from the start of '42 which
still used the 0.303" were the Spitfire (some variants), with 2x20mm
hispano cannon and 4x0.303" Brownings in each wing, the fighter-bomber
version of the Mosquito (4x20mm hispano, 4x0.303" browning) and, of
course, the mighty Beaufighter, with four hispanos in the nose and
four brownings in one wing, two in the other. Regardless of the presence
of 0.303"s, the Beau was not short of the abilities to throw nastieness.

Bombers were another matter: there were good reasons for sticking to
0.303"s in the night bombers, where ranges were very short and the role
of the gunners was keeping a look-out (and where the volume of fire from
the 0.303" was more desirable than the heavier weight of the 0.5"), but
the day-bomber force (the mediums) would certainly have benefited from
the 0.5", as would the fleet air arm bombers (the Barracuda could well
have done with a 0.5" instead of the futile pair of Vickers K-guns).

Apparently, the reason the Brits didn't have .50 cals on their bombers is
because they (AM Harris, before taking over BC) had arranged to set up four
factories produce them. Unfortunately, the four factories were in the U.S.,
and just about the time they were coming into production we entered the war
and commandeered them to meet our own needs.

Guy

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
I remember during the war in England there was a joke that went around. The
best time and place to tell it was in an English pub with lots of RAF around.
The joke went like this:

Eveything in England is smaller.
The cars are smaller.
The trains are smaller.
The rooms are smaller
The houses are smaller.
And they shoot .303's.



Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

The people are smaller, too.

On 30 Jul 2003 18:50:10 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: (bendel boy)

The people are smaller, too.

They were back then. But with more protein in their diet and cleaner air, they
are now growing a lot bigger.

Spot on. My Dad's generation (b. 1944 - average about 5'8") average
about 3" shorter than mine (b.1975 - average a hair under 5'11"),
mainly from good nutrition compared to the war and the austerity
period afterwards compared to the modern day - critical for the first
10 years or so.

All heights are IIRC since it's a long time since my biology classes.

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: (bendel boy)
Date: 7/30/03 8:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
The people are smaller, too.

They were back then. But with more protein in their diet and cleaner air, they
are now growing a lot bigger.

Horizontally as well as vertically, sad to say.

Oddly, I was tall compared to most of the passers-by in DC, while in
London I've usually got a fair few people at or above my eye level. No
idea why - less crowded sidewalks so fewer people total so fewer tall
ones?)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: Peter Kemp
Date: 7/30/03 12:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 30 Jul 2003 18:50:10 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: (bendel boy)

The people are smaller, too.

They were back then. But with more protein in their diet and cleaner air,
they
are now growing a lot bigger.

Spot on. My Dad's generation (b. 1944 - average about 5'8") average
about 3" shorter than mine (b.1975 - average a hair under 5'11"),
mainly from good nutrition compared to the war and the austerity
period afterwards compared to the modern day - critical for the first
10 years or so.

All heights are IIRC since it's a long time since my biology classes.



We were surprised when we got to England during the war. The men were short,
hollow chested, round shouldered and pale. They looked ill. Then we saw some
German prisoners, tall, strapping, well muscled and energetic. We just shook
our heads in bewilderment.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer