Lt Bull Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 I've just fionished reading "Death Traps, The Survival of an American Armored Division in WW2". It is writtren by B.Y. Cooper who was an ordanance lieutenant in the 3rd Arm Div. He probably made more ordance inspections and witnessed more battle damaged tanks than probably anyone else in any war. A MUST read by anyone interested in WW2 armor IMO. In it, he described the time when the first 20 Pershings were issued to the the 2nd and 3rd Arm Divs (10 each, 5 per regiment). AS part of the preliminary firing tests, they lined up a Pershing to fire at some German targets. They set up, as a safety precaution, tapes at about 45deg from the front of the tank extending back about 100ft on either side. "The 90mm gun had a muzzle brake similar to the one on the Sherman 76mm gun. The brake was a heavy steel casting on the front end of the gun barrel with a clearance hole through the centre to allow the projectile to pass. On either side were dual blast deflectors, which deflected the blast to the rear and sides. The reversal of the gun blast offset the recoiling forces to the rear. Because the space inside the turret is limited, the recoil distance from the rear on the gun must be confined to nine to twelve inches. The muzzle brake makes this possible." No prob, but here is the interesting part. "Anyone standing inside the tapes could not only have his eardrums ruptured, he might be killed by the shock of the blast. This same situation occured with the Sherman 76mm gun, but the effect was magnified considerably by the power of the 90mm gun. Although our armored infantry knew about this, we had to make sure that anyone attached from other divisions was also warned." Interesting from the point of view of how infantry positioned themselves around a tank in actual combat. I don't think the crew of the tank would really be weary (or even care) of the location of nearby friendly infantry when engaging their main gun. I guess it just would've been "too bad" if infantry were in the wrong location and were caught in the blast. I wonder how weary infantry were of the gun blast when positioned around a tank. Were all infantry trained to consider where the "danger spots" around a tank were with respect to the muzzle blast? This also raises the question of the safety of exposed tank commanders and tank riding infantry on tanks when the main gun was fired. Not all guns had muzzle brakes but for the ones that did it presents an interesting situation. BTW, can tanks with carrying infantry fire their main gun in CM? Cheers Lt. Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 03-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 Tank crew were not in any danger from the muzzle blast of their cannons, nor would any passengers have been. Passengers on the back deck might be a concern when traversing the turret. I have personally experienced the muzzle blast of 105 and 120mm cannons, and they both pack one heck of a wallop, but neither will kill or even seriously injure an exposed crewman or back deck passenger. This leads me to conclude that the 75 and 90mm cannons also posed no danger to the crews or passengers of the vehicles these guns were mounted on. Of course those grunts too close to the muzzle may have been in danger of having their ear drums ruptured or even receiving some minor burns. I suspect that in order to be killed or even seriously injured you would have to be extremely close (a meter or two) to the muzzle when the gun fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Zeares Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 I can second this. Being on your own tank when it fires is no big deal (assuming you have hearing protection). Not much blast at all. If the tank next to you fires, though... ouch. I was on the back deck of an M60A3 once. When the tank next to us fired, if I hadn't been prepared for it and holding on to the bustle rack, I would've been on the ground. As for troops on the ground, I was within 50 meters of a firing tank once. Didn't get my hearing protection in in time. It didn't knock me down, but my right ear hasn't been right since. Those guns are LOUD. -- Mike Zeares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 tHTA'T WHY i CRANK THE VOLUME RIGHT UP!!!! ccj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted March 4, 2000 Author Share Posted March 4, 2000 Ok seems like there is no problem with crew/infantry on a tank when it fires (or for modern tanks it seems). I guess that the muzzle brake would direct the ejected gases more laterally than backwards obviously, so crew and passengers would be safe. I would still think that there would be locations infront of and to the sides of the barrel where infantry would be warned not to occupy or to stay clear of. Kind of obvious but not so when the barrel is fitted with a muzzle brake. Mike, you said you were within 50m of a tank when it fired and your ears suffered. Thats quite some distance. Where were you positioned relative to the tank? I take it you were in the army. If you were ever a infantry soldier, would you be conscious of how you deployed yourself around a tank in the event that it fired its main gun? Is there also a difference between muzzle brakes and muzzle flash suppressors? Isnt one to account for recoil the other for reducing the gun flash out the barrel (to aid in concealment)? Lt. Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCHANGEL Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 Bull, Mike and Harold have it 100% correct. Combat is loud..it wasn't until the seventies that the US ARMY got seriously interested in hearing protection (If my aged memory serves) A firefight with just small arms is loud as hell, add Arty, jets, choppers, mortars, rockets etc. and it is deafening.(or, for WW2, remove jets and choppers and add fighter-bombers) I was Infantry but spent a brief time assigned to Armor (M60A1 tanks) after Vietnam. Mike wasn't kidding when he said being near a firing tank could be tough on the ears. Also, on several occasions I was near Arty, up to and including 175mm's when they fired...the concussion around them will beat you up, much less the noise. Flash suppressors are to reduce muzzle flash...same idea on anything from a pistol to a cannon, and everything in between. Muzzle brakes diffuse the gasses...as you already knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Zeares Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull: Ok seems like there is no problem with crew/infantry on a tank when it fires (or for modern tanks it seems). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not with concussion. In fact, on Tank Table 6, we had an evaluator perched up on top of our turret. He wore hearing protection, of course. It would probably be best to dismount infantry before combat, but in an emergency, yeah, you could shoot without killing any of your passengers. They might not be too happy about it, but they're only crunchies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Mike, you said you were within 50m of a tank when it fired and your ears suffered. Thats quite some distance. Where were you positioned relative to the tank? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I recall, directly behind it, more or less. It was at the first firing position on the range. From slightly farther away, the tank guns made a loud "boom," but weren't painful. That close, however, it was more of a "crack," due to the shockwave, I imagine. I can hear in my right ear, but sounds are a little "muddy". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you were ever a infantry soldier, would you be conscious of how you deployed yourself around a tank in the event that it fired its main gun? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I'd get as far away from the damn thing as I could. Besides the noise/shock hazard, they tend to draw fire. -- Mike Zeares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts