Runyan99 Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 This seems like something I should know by now, so I figure it is time to ask the Board. Very simply, how does this thing work? What happens to the gasses when they pass through this thing? Why do some guns have muzzle brakes, and some do not? What would happen if you took the muzzle brake off of, say a Panther gun? [ August 10, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Hey, I know this has been discussed in some detail here in past. You'll probably have to search back into the 2001, or even maybe the 2000, post archives though to find it. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Try: Here's just 2 I found. I'm sure there are others. Both these were in the 2001 archives. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=018023 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=020913 Regards, Mikester aka Mike D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted August 10, 2002 Author Share Posted August 10, 2002 Okay, thanks for the search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 In short, the muzzle brake acts like a sort of parachute. It traps some of the gasses, and drags the muzzle brake - and therefore the barrel - forward. This reduces the amount of recoil control required, making gun mounts smaller, lighter and simpler. A side effect, and one that can be seen in the Panther muzz, is that it directs the escaping gasses. On the panther it directs them horizontally, reducing the amount of dust and debris kicked up upon firing. This means that there is less of a signature for enemy forces to observe, and also reduces the obscuration that hinder the observation of the fall of shot. Regards JonS [ August 10, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 One thing not mentioned, is why many guns did not have muzzle brakes. IIRC, in the case of American tank destroyers including the M10, and M18, muzzle brakes were not installed on many of these vehicles because the HVAP discarding sabot round used by these weapon systems was incompatible with muzzle brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 HVAP is not the same as discarding sabot. If I am not mistaken, it more closely resembles the APCR round of the Germans. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: HVAP is not the same as discarding sabot. If I am not mistaken, it more closely resembles the APCR round of the Germans. Quite correct. The only anti-tank weapons to use APDS during WW2 (not counting German field artillery non-tungsten APDS) were the 6-pdr 7 cwt, the 77mm ("HV 75") and the 17-pdr -- all of which had muzzle brakes (the 6-pdr in its later version and the 77mm and 17-pdr in all versions). All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: HVAP is not the same as discarding sabot. If I am not mistaken, it more closely resembles the APCR round of the Germans. MichaelYou are correct. The round is a tungsten cored APCR round. Unfortunately the book I was thinking of when I made the above statement went back to the library a long time ago, so I can not clear up for myself or anyone else the relationship between muzzle brakes and discarding sabot rounds. Either my memory is faulty or the author made an overly sweeping statement based on problems with a specific round/gun combination, or both. Thanks for correcting that misconception. Cheers Eric Edited for really bad typos. [ August 10, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Diceman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 If you remove the muzzle brake from a Panther, the gun recoils off its mounts into the back of the turret when fired. Naturally this slows the second shot down somewhat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 Originally posted by Diceman: Unfortunately the book I was thinking of when I made the above statement went back to the library a long time ago, so I can not clear up for myself or anyone else the relationship between muzzle brakes and discarding sabot rounds.I would be interested in this myself. I have always assumed that the problem was that as the round passed through the muzzle brake that it commenced disassembly which then caused it to foul on the last baffles. But I could be way off on that, so I would be glad to hear from anybody that has actual knowledge on the subject. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 Sherman book errata This site is an erata for a book about the Firefly - one of the coorrections is that the "original" muzzle break did not allow for clean separation of Sabots (APDS) - so presumably the MB's we see on Firefly's in use is a subsequent modification to allow such seperation. Interestingly in searching around the Web for thsi stuff I found a heap of interesting info - including the problem with APDS accuracy was uneven seperation of the sabots, a problem not solved until the ubiquitous 105mm L7 arrived in the 1950's - apparently the Brits used more "solid shot" than APDS on their 20 pdr Centurions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts