Hello all, I'm still researching the MKIV prior to building a replica of the RYDE presentation tank (RE: My earlier posts). In all the books and documents I've seen, the tanks dimensions are quoted in feet and inches, but armour plate thickness always seems to be quoted in milimetres. Does anybody know why?
I know here in the UK we have always talked about engine capacity in Litres and Cubic Centimetres (cc) maybe there is a link between the two?
Dave
__________________
Conspiracy theory? Maybe that's just what 'they' want you to think...
I don't know why but it does seem the two systems were used simultaneously at that time. The description of Mother in Stern's "Tanks 1914-18: Logbook of a Pioneer" uses Imperial for the overall dimensions and metric (millimetres) for armour thickness.
A good many years ago I had the opportunity to see Challenger MBTs being built at ROF Leeds. At the time, the factory was running two courses. One was for younger members of the workforce to teach them the Imperial system; the other was for older workers to teach them metric. So obviously there was use of both systems even then.
It was, perhaps,�an industrial agreement between French, American and British Army. Some of�the armour plates used by French�was built in�United States�or Great Britain. For the French tanks most of these plates were in five, eight or twelve millimeters and they were tested and choosed for their shock-resistance in these thickness.
I know here in the UK we have always talked about engine capacity in Litres and Cubic Centimetres (cc) maybe there is a link between the two?
I guess that litres and cc's have their origins on the continent, as Otto, Daimler and Diesel were the initial constructors or inventors, fine tuning an earlier French invention to be precise. But that's not an answer on your millimetre question of course.
regards, Kieffer
�
-- Edited by kieffer on Sunday 31st of October 2010 10:34:11 AM
I work for a boiler manufacturer that does work both in the US, Canada and Europe so I have to live with both imperial, metric and SI (for thermal/hydrodynamics calcs). It gets a little confusing at times, but when it comes to steel plate work I can see how using millimeters instead of inches would be much cleaner. There would be fewer fractions to deal with and less chance of error in QA. Plus there is zero risk of a steel rolling mill just blindly fulfilling a order for 12 or 14 inch thick plate.
When I started serving my time as a plater back in the days of imperial measurements, we refered to material thicknesses by their gauge number e.g. 1/8th plate was 10 gauge etc
