Ron Meier Posted August 28, 1999 Share Posted August 28, 1999 I understand why Muzzle Breaks are applied, but can someone here explain the conceputal physics of how they actually work? Do the "re-direct" the gases from the firing to oppose the kickback of the barrel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted August 29, 1999 Share Posted August 29, 1999 I haven't seen a technical dissertation on the subject but it would appear that some of the gas pressure is applied to the surfaces in the baffles of the brakes to apply forward pressure to the gun and reduce recoil. I don't know how effective they were in this regard. They aren't used on modern tank guns, though most if not all howitzers still use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Meier Posted August 29, 1999 Author Share Posted August 29, 1999 PS.. I just realized I misspelled brakes... Thanks for not razing me over the coals on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted August 29, 1999 Share Posted August 29, 1999 I found the following surfing the web to try and find out more on this subject. For the most part it sounds like what Mr. Cunningham has described is pretty much how a muzzle "brake" (sorry I couldn't resist a little razing here Ron ) works. http://www.hallowellco.com/muzzle_brake.htm It doesn't say much, but it does give a general idea of how it works. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester PS: FWIW Ron you are not the only one that misspelled brake, I saw at least one web page header for some gun dealer as I was out surfing that also spelled it muzzle "break". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 29, 1999 Share Posted August 29, 1999 And you wouldn't want to buy a gun from a guy who advertises that they have breaks would you ? ------------------ _________________________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Not sure how I missed this one. Mr. Cunningham is pretty much correct on the physics of how they work. Interesting to note that the Germans kept improving the designs of their brakes during the war. At first they had no brake, then a single brake...a double brake and finally a double brake with bigger flanges (larger area for the gasses to act upon). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know how effective they were in this regard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it is not the most efficient way to mitigate recoil energy but it did lessen the recoil forces. The reason the Germans invested time and effort in developing this concept is simple (albeit longwinded) . The Germans actually produced very few tank chassis and most of these were designed either before the war or in the early part of it. They did not envision the magnitude of the escellation of tank developement (especially the Russians T-34 & KV-1). This being the case, they underestimated the impact energy that it would take to knock out these more developed tanks. They had to field tanks with larger more powerful guns in order to keep pace with the next door neighbors. You cannot simply put a larger or more powerful gun on an existing chassis. The turret ring can only transmit so much recoil energy to the chassis before the turret just rips off the tank! Dampers help by spreading the force of the gun recoil over a longer period of time (they also dissipate some of the recoil energy into heat, but this ain't much). The problem with dampers is that they take up space. Space inside a tank turret is very limited so due to practicality reasons you just cannot slap a bigger damper in with the bigger gun. This is the reason why the PzKw III was phased out of service. Its turret ring could not withstand the recoil forces of a 75mm gun. Thus the StuG III was upgunned from a short barreled howitzer to a long barreled PaK. The StuG became the tank killer and the PzKw IV was also converted from an infantry support tank to a tank that could take on other tanks (it's turret ring was capable of handling the greater forces). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They aren't used on modern tank guns, though most if not all howitzers still use them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The modern main battle tanks rolling off the assembly line today were designed to accept the recoil forces of the gun they are mounting (mostly a 120mm smoothbore). There fore the addition of a muzzlebrake is not required. Also it is possible (I'm not sure) that a muzzlebrake is incompatable with discarding sabot rounds. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Thanks for the science lesson Rhet! Very well done Just a note... I was reading up on the Jagdpanzer IV (gee, wonder why...) and noted that they had 3 official versions. There was also a last ditch hodgepodge, but forget about that one for a sec. The first had the same KwK 40 L/45 as the StuG III, muzzle brake and all. However, it was only 1.7m (4' 7") off the ground. The gasses had the nasty escaping the brake had a habit of kicking up a lot of dirt and dust, which blinded the vehicle and made a nice indicator of its position. So the second version had the muzzle brake lopped off. The third one had the same KwK 42 L/70 as the Panther. It too had the brake lopped off. To take the extra kick from the bigger gun they had to rearrange the way the hull armor was welded together to give the superstructure more strength. But other than that, same vehicle. Great thing for me is that all I have to do is take the L/45 model, stretch the gun barrel and make a slight adjustment to the mantlet and BINGO, I have a new model Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Rhet: I am not sure if sabot rounds are affected by muzzle brakes (makes sense though), but I did read somewhere that a muzzle brake will prevent the bore evacuator (the bulge or "can" partway down the barrel) from doing it's job, which is keeping propellant fumes out of the turret when the breech is opened. Improved recoil dynamics and stronger structure also would make a brake less of a necessity, as you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Hehe, nah, bet you read up on that sort of thing on your day off anyways Steve (not that that Ive seen you have one the last month). The Jpz IV always gets me how sleek the thing looks. Steve, any ideas if the same reason is why the 128mm on the Jadgtiger had no break either? I guess it would make sense, that thing would have a hell of a blast [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To take the extra kick from the bigger gun they had to rearrange the way the hull armor was welded together to give the superstructure more strength. But other than that, same vehicle. Great thing for me is that all I have to do is take the L/45 model, stretch the gun barrel and make a slight adjustment to the mantlet and BINGO, I have a new model <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean we won't SEE the different welds? You call Combat Mission "realistic" and you can't even get the WELDS right?!?!?! Good heavens! This is tantamount to heresy - roast him over a burning Sherman. Sort your priorities out, man. (Sad thing is I could post this on some newsgroups and they wouldn't think it was a joke...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 It's a good thing you told me it was a joke. I was just about to send a private email to Steve asking where he gets off altering the model of one vehicle to create another. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Ummmm, hehe, actually Im pretty comfused here as to what is a joke and what isnt now Doug, you probably already realise this, but I think Steve was talking about lenghtening the gun on the Jpv IV to represent the version that came out with..a longer gun, hehe. The same at the Panther I believe. I think the hull and I believe mantlet was excatly the same but I will have a bit of a check up on this. Anyways, sorry if you already knew this and Im just looking plain stoopid, hehe, just trying to clarify. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-02-99).] [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Man, I shoulda gone into politics. I can lie and make up total fabrications with the straightest of faces. Kwazy, I was joking about Brian's joke. To be honest, I don't have a mental picure of any kind of JagdIV, short gun or long. I know it was sorta similar to the StugIII, or maybe that's the StugIV I'm thinking of? It's a good thing it's my soldiers that are going to be IDing enemy vehicles, and not me. Hey Steve, howzabout some shots of CM's JagdIV to illustrate the differences? DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 I believe the term is muzzle "brake" not muzzle "break". Both exist but are very differnt animals. A muzzle "break" is whay happened to the Jumbo after the StuGIII hit it -- note the droop. Hi Ron, as a follow up, I saw you correct your own spelling. Was not "razing over the coals", just having a little fun. Plays on words are my favorite form of humor. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime. [This message has been edited by Pixman (edited 09-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Meier Posted September 2, 1999 Author Share Posted September 2, 1999 /Sarcasm Start Actually Pixman, my first post was not well written.. I was really looking for what breaks a muzzle and the physics behind it. I was really hoping to get some debate going between the metallurgy folks around here about who used the best steel. //Sarcasm End Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Hehe, sorry Doug, it was late where I am when I posted so thats me excuse Heres a site with piccies of the Jpz IV... http://www.inf.upol.cz/~stepanos/museum/jagdpanzer4.html and heres a great site with walk arounds of museum vehicles, including the Jpz IV http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.shillito/afvgal.htm enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Here's a link to a good short article on tank muzzle brakes: http://www.mo-money.com/AFV-news/muzzle.htm ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Steve, When the tanks in CM fire they produce a visual shock wave and if my imagination is correct, an awesome sound. The question is does the tank shudder from the recoil forces? If not, could it be added to the list please? The shadows under the vehicles really do add alot! It gives the illusion of mass to the vehicles. I would imagine that they would look like models just scooting across the landscape if the shadow was missing. My thanks to the person who brought this up and to you guys for putting it in. Harold, thanks for the excellent link! I found two thing intriguing: first, the delay of the damping forces (free recoil)until the shell has reached the brake (Engineers Rule! ) and second, the localized pressure increase caused by the brake. If you consider standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi (IIRC) then a people friendly muzzle brake can increase this pressure by some 34%. Just amazing. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts