Tanks and muzzle brakes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Tanks and muzzle brakes

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tanks and muzzle brakes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 9:44:33 AM

p1t1o

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline

Hi All,

A fairly random question popped into my head the other day and I couldn't think of an answer, I thought this was a good a place as any to ask it:

Why don't [modern] tanks have muzzle brakes? If they do, it doesn't seem to be often.

Post #: 1

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 10:22:07 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Muzzle breaks are part of a recoil system, they assist in countering the rearward momentum of the gun as the projectile heads toward the enemy. Newton's 3rd law kicks in and the higher the velocity of the bullet, the more effective the recoil system needs to be. As engineering and innovation evolved the hydro-pneumatic systems which form the bulk of recoil systems became more efficient. The main disadvantage of the muzzle break is weight and balance, as ballistic computers improved, gyro stabilizers introduced and the predictable accuracy of the tank gun became more important, designers don't really want this heavy bit of steel bouncing around at the end of a 5 meter gun-barrel. Another disadvantage of a Muzzle break is flash and smoke, the break disperses this into a large area making detection easier. Also the design of the projectiles has improved and some tank guns will fire ATGMs, the break is not needed with an ATGM and newer projectiles use force and Newton slightly differently.

You will still see Muzzle breaks remaining on artillery pieces where the barrel can be locked for travel and it is advantageous to disperse the smoke & flash sideways and backwards. Tanks however have moved beyond them.

B

(in reply to p1t1o)

Post #: 2

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 10:40:27 AM

p1t1o

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline

Great answer! Thanks :)

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 3

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 11:33:09 AM

TheOriginalOverlord

Posts: 440
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: The Marines
Status: offline

Great answer..nailed it.....sounds like a tanker!

_____________________________

Semper Fi!

Jeremy

(in reply to p1t1o)

Post #: 4

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 11:42:45 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Overlord

Great answer..nailed it.....sounds like a tanker!

Say it's not so!

Artillery all the way but ballistics are ballistics

(in reply to TheOriginalOverlord)

Post #: 5

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 11:54:30 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

But I am also curious of a particular deck gun on naval ships are artillery based, but no nuzzle brakes. Why?

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 6

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 12:03:17 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Not 100% sure on that one but I suspect it has something to do with weight and using the bulk of the ship itself to absorb some of the recoil. Muzzle breaks are also a bit of a maintenance issue, not really a problem but they need constant cleaning and inspection (the blades crack) involving removing them from the barrel and cleaning, might be a problem on ships. Would also suspect pointy sharp edged bits are not good when fighting ice accumulation and they would not assist stealth. Doesn�t explain why they weren�t use in the past, don't really know.

B

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 7

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 1:03:42 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Great answer Gunner

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 8

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 3:08:11 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Muzzle brakes also make firing discarding-sabot ammunition problematic as the sabot will tend to rip off the muzzle brake as it exits the muzzle. This actually happened to Commonwealth anti-tank forces in Normandy that received the first APDS ammunition in 1944 for their little 6-pounder anti-tank guns. Anecdotally, this had little or no effect on the guns themselves but firing that ammunition was officially forbidden until modifications were made, which in most cases involved removing the muzzle brake completely. There are engineering solutions to the problem of firing APFSDS through a muzzle brake for modern guns but at some point the costs and complexity outweigh the benefits

I can field the ship-mounted muzzle brake question!

Because you want the blast overpressure to directed away from the skin of the ship. Muzzle blast was a very real problem for large calibre guns or those with significant muzzle energies. For example the wing turrets of early dreadnoughts were typically restricted to arcs of fire of 120 degrees or less (measured from directly abeam with 60 degrees each side of perpendicular to the long axis of the ship) because the blast would tear up the decks, wreck the ship's boats, collapse ventilators and cause all sorts of auxiliary damage. The British finally adopted enclosed bridges (and the tower bridge structure) for the Nelson Class battleships (1925) because of concerns over blast from her 16" guns injuring the command elements. The ships' boats on the Yamato Class battleships where kept inside the skin of the ship to protect them from their own guns' muzzle blast. Imagine if you will, a forward 5"/54 firing when traversed slightly aft of broadside. Fit a conventional muzzle brake and suddenly a significant amount of the muzzle blast will be directed right at the bridge of the ship.

Blast overpressure can kill or injure and its effects need to be mitigated by directing it away from people and things that can break whenever possible so placing a muzzle brake on a ship is counter intuitive in many situations. Besides, the structure of a ship is far better at absorbing the recoil energy not absorbed by the recoil systems than a mere 70-tonne tank. All that said I recall that there was a class of gunboat that mounted a PT-76 (or maybe 85?) tank turret complete with muzzle brake. There are probably other significant exceptions like the Vickers 4.5"/55 Mk8 but if you look at pictures of that gun firing it appears that the blast is deflected at angles to minimize potential damage to the ship.

Bore evacuators are handy for warships since you do not want the toxic byproducts of firing getting into the skin of the ship in quantities. In the old days they often fitted compressed-air devices called Scavengers to blow the gases out the muzzle automatically when the breech unsealed.

-C

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 9

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 3:19:36 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Just like the old days back at the Arty School eh C? If the Ballistics shop doesn�t have the answer 'Guns & Ammo' did!

I remember the first time I did Safety officer on an M-109 - blasted flat on my butt. Embarrassing for a young Lt - probably why I was put there.

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 10

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 3:40:47 PM

Tomcat84

Posts: 1952
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline

So the question from this airhead:

Is it a muzzle break or a muzzle brake?

I always get annoyed when people say speedbreaks or defensive brake turn so I wanna know what is the right way in this case :)

_____________________________

My Scenarios and Tutorials for Command

(Scenarios focus on air-warfare :) )

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 11

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 3:43:29 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Its a muzzle brake, I just spell poooorly

(in reply to Tomcat84)

Post #: 12

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 7:54:30 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Just like the old days back at the Arty School eh C? If the Ballistics shop doesn�t have the answer 'Guns & Ammo' did!

I remember the first time I did Safety officer on an M-109 - blasted flat on my butt. Embarrassing for a young Lt - probably why I was put there.

Of course, but then you were not the first or last safety officer to do that! And the time during the ERFB trials with the GC-45 (firing Zone 11 - the top charge) when the muzzle brake failed at the first baffle and most of it shot down range. The civilian engineers in the command post got really excited and dropped everything to get the survey troops out to calculate the exact bearing and distance from the muzzle to point of impact in order to validate their muzzle energy data with additional empirical data. I got to spend four days in the woods as part of the gun guard until a spare could be flown to Gagetown.

-C

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 13

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/18/2015 8:08:24 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

I remember that one - the round landed ~4Km short of the target as well IIRC.

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 14

RE: Tanks and muzzle brakes - 9/19/2015 3:30:20 AM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

You're correct, one of the boffins told me that they suspected the broken muzzle brake touched the base of the shell after it failed, which resulted in moderate nutation that degraded the drag-reducing effects of the BBU but was not enough to cause breakup of the projectile due to excessive aerodynamic loads. For a Basic Tech gunner I learned a lot about ballistics during those trials! The worst failure as I recall was the base-bleed malfunction during the first maximum range serial that dropped a round on the South Boundary Road over 12 km short of the target. Range Control was not amused and had us at Check Firing for hours but the Locators did a crater analysis on the shell hole and I recall driving the IG to the scene and collecting a bunch of ERFB shell fragments that I left for display in the Ammo and Equipment room when I taught there a decade later.

-C

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 15