Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jveritas
The limited information found by ISG that ties Iraqi nuclear entities to the tubes also appears related to the 81-mm rocket program

OK, someone who has familiarity with armaments please comment on this: the aluminum tubes had an outer diameter of 81 mm, not an inner diameter of 81 mm. When armaments are being discussed in terms of their dimension (for example 105 mm tank ammunition or 122 mm artillery rocket launcher), wouldn't the meaningful dimension of the tube/barrel from which that round was launched be the inner diameter, and not the outer diameter? So, if the Iraqi intent was to use the tubes for such purposes, why isn't it described as a "74 mm rocket program"? Was the 81-mm program designation invented by the ISG, or was it used by the Iraqis?

19 posted on 04/24/2006 10:07:01 AM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Zeppo
Moreover 900 mm long tube seems long for a Howitzer 81 mm caliber but I will differ this to military experts on FR.
24 posted on 04/24/2006 10:14:20 AM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Zeppo

What if the 81mm also refers to the inner diameter of the tube that is used to launch the rocket?


31 posted on 04/24/2006 10:21:47 AM PDT by michaelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Zeppo
wouldn't the meaningful dimension of the tube/barrel from which that round was launched be the inner diameter, and not the outer diameter?

Just guessing, but it appears that under that alternative scenario, the tubes would have comprised the projectile not the launcher -- hence the lightweight aluminum composition. I'm still not convinced that these tubes would have been effective as rockets though.

117 posted on 04/24/2006 1:19:46 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: 2111USMC; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; ALlRightAllTheTime; armymarinemom; ...

ping for expertise and input


122 posted on 04/24/2006 1:28:28 PM PDT by freema (Proud Marine FRiend, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Zeppo

"OK, someone who has familiarity with armaments please comment on this: the aluminum tubes had an outer diameter of 81 mm, not an inner diameter of 81 mm. When armaments are being discussed in terms of their dimension (for example 105 mm tank ammunition or 122 mm artillery rocket launcher), wouldn't the meaningful dimension of the tube/barrel from which that round was launched be the inner diameter, and not the outer diameter? So, if the Iraqi intent was to use the tubes for such purposes, why isn't it described as a "74 mm rocket program"? Was the 81-mm program designation invented by the ISG, or was it used by the Iraqis?"

I don't know about the inside diameter vs the outside diameter as far as armaments standards. I am wondering about rockets vs missiles. I used to work at an airplane factory that also built drone missiles. These missiles used about the same thickness of sheet metal that we used for small airplanes. We used 1/16th inch thickness for the outer skins of most planes. If my calculations are correct, and I believe they are, this material is about double that. It is over 1/8th inch thick. Would rockets require that additional thickness?

I have used metal a little less thick than that when building much larger jets for Boeing (737 next generation).


187 posted on 04/24/2006 8:30:12 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson