Caliber of Rifled Guns

[Polygon]

So it caught my attention that the 20lb Parrot is the same caliber of the 14lb James Rifle. I always assumed the “lb” designation was commensurate with the caliber size. Obviously that is not the case.
Does anyone know what that designation signifies?
Also, in comparing the two I did some research and the James Rifle was apparently 3.8” caliber. The game shows it as 3.67.

[76561199294730044]

lb designation is for shell weight, it's possible to have shells of various weight fired from the same caliber gun.

[A_P_Hill]

Originally posted by CRook:

lb designation is for shell weight, it's possible to have shells of various weight fired from the same caliber gun.

Not entirely true ... it is a weight designation, but it is the weight of a solid bolt fired from a rifle, or a solid ball fired from a smoothbore.

Shell ammunition and Case ammunition as well as canister ammunition are all different from solid shot.

The bore is a calculated diameter based on design to withstand the powder charge to launch said round ... the external diameter vs the bore internal diameter equal the theoretical safety of the weapon.

[Polygon]

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback. So is it correct the 14lber was actually larger in caliber than the 20lber?

[A_P_Hill]

the 14 pound bolt was also shorter and stubbier than a 20 pound bolt. Most 14 pound tubes were converted 6 pound tubes, Where a manufacturer would re bore the tube and then slide/force a steel tube down the new bore for the 14 pound rifled round.

Most all 20 pounders were cast with the bore roughed in at the time of pour and only needed light post machining and rifling put in the bore.

[guderian]

Good knowledge, thanks.

[A_P_Hill]

You are welcome.

[Polygon]

Out of curiosity, how do you know this obscure information AP? Pretty impressive

[Stone]

Originally posted by Polygon:

Out of curiosity, how do you know this obscure information AP? Pretty impressive

One place to start would be field artillery weapons of the Civil War revised edition. You can pick it up on Amazon there are also many other books out there that covers artillery.

[A_P_Hill]

It's not really "obscure" I have made a study of ordinance in my learning about the ACW. I started at the age of 10. I am now 67. I've picked up quite a bit of information in that time.
But Stone is correct. There are plenty of books out there on ACW Artillery if one has a motivation to go find them. :)

[Bramborough]

Originally posted by A_P_Hill:

It's not really "obscure" I have made a study of ordinance in my learning about the ACW. I started at the age of 10. I am now 67. I've picked up quite a bit of information in that time.
But Stone is correct. There are plenty of books out there on ACW Artillery if one has a motivation to go find them. :)

Also out of curiosity. :-) Based on those 57 years of reading on the subject, what in your opinion is the one *best* thing GT:CW has done modeling artillery from a gameplay-vs-historical-accuracy standpoint...and what is the one *worst* thing that perhaps they should have another look at?

[Polygon]

I’m gonna bet he says LOS on the worse part. lol

[A_P_Hill]

Originally posted by Polygon:

I’m gonna bet he says LOS on the worse part. lol

Pretty much nailed it. :)

As far as historical accuracy, again, this is a game and it is programmed that way but it is not a complete rewrite of the war as it was in Real Life. There are many contingencies programmed in.

As far as troop movements I fail to understand why when you move a single line battle front that all the units cannot and do not remain in the line they started with but for whatever reasons seem to think that they need to re-arrange their positions during the movement to the new front. I have no idea what code Oliver is using for this but personally I dislike that part of the game.

Other than those "problems" There is very much that is historical and I enjoy the game very much.