The Loose Association of Wargamers

Excellent article - two questions:-

1) Excuse my ignorance as a fossilised H&M gamer, but what does a muzzle brake bring to the party? I seem to recall seeing a BBC programme that said they were a game-changer on the 25-pdr, but with no further explanation*.

2) On a recent "We have ways of making you talk" podcast, James Holland says it was a myth that the US turned down the offer to supply them with "funnies" and there just weren't enough to equip them in time for D-Day. However, a reply on another forum, from a former Army officer, says that the Yanks (and specifically Bradley) wanted nothing British in their repertoire and actually did refuse them, leaving some 300+ converted Shermans back in the UK that could, for example, have prevented a lot of the bloodshed on Omaha. Which is correct?

(* All right, all right - but with no further explanation that I could understand.)

A muzzle brake catches some of the propellant gases which push the brake and the attached barrel forwards, offsetting some of the recoil pushing the barrel backwards. The downside is they kick dust up everywhere and can damage the crew's hearing.

The yanks had DDs (many of which were released too far offshore in lousy weather. I have heard that they were offered Churchill AVREs and rejected them but I can't remember where (Mil mod articles on 79th AD?). Some petard mortars and a couple of crocodiles might have made bloody Omaha a German legend not an American one.

Thanks. So is this offsetting of the recoil a "good thing"? I know sophisticated modern artillery has mechanisms for absorbing recoil, so how does this improve the gun's performance - greater muzzle velocity/range/penetration?

Less chance of misalignment after a shot, reduces wear on recuperator.

Well, the less the recoil, the lighter the piece frame, the more likely the piece is to stay put between shots, the less distance you need to leave for the breech to slide back (handy in a tank). Conversely, if you have already built the piece and you add a brake, you may be able to use higher velocity ammo, which translates into range/penetration, or you may be able to elevate more without breaking the carriage.

Take the sov 14.5mm Atk rounds. Without a brake they would have probably broken your arm. And taken it back to the rear for the doctors to look at.

The most interesting muzzlebreak ever was on the Rhodesian FAL.

All automatic weapons climb as you fire rounds on Auto. The more powerful the round the worse the climb, so SMG with a pistol round are controllable with practice, ARs like M16s nad various AKs less so, but a full power NATO 7.62 in full auto is more dangerous to aircraft than that bloke in the bush after the first round.

So the Rhodies developed a muzzle brake that exhausted the gases up to counteract the climb and reckoned they got good value out of full auto FNs.

Funnily enough, a gunnery mate called Sieg did the same thing with a bullpup configuration automatic rifle, in 1946!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_automatic_rifle

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:58 am Excellent article - two questions:-

...
2) On a recent "We have ways of making you talk" podcast, James Holland says it was a myth that the US turned down the offer to supply them with "funnies" and there just weren't enough to equip them in time for D-Day. However, a reply on another forum, from a former Army officer, says that the Yanks (and specifically Bradley) wanted nothing British in their repertoire and actually did refuse them, leaving some 300+ converted Shermans back in the UK that could, for example, have prevented a lot of the bloodshed on Omaha. Which is correct?

(* All right, all right - but with no further explanation that I could understand.)

Q1 has been done.

Re Q2, it's a bit of six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure just what the 'converted Shermans' were. Most of the funnies were based on the Churchill with the exceptions of the DD (used by the US), the Sherman BARV, used to a limited extent & the Flail tanks, of which the US had it's own equivalents, (eg the Aunt Jemima, no relation to Big Jem of this parish) which didn't see much operational use. There were also US Sherman Fireflies but they only saw action in Italy. The flails might have come in handy, but mines were more of an issue once the allies got inland.



There probably weren't enough to fully equip the Americans in June 1944, but there was also a dislike among some US officers of the British offers of equipment ("Not invented here, old chap"). They were happy enough to use British crewed 'funnies' later in the war, in a lot of the battles along the German border and against the cut off channel ports.

Thanks - I imagine the US taking on Churchills would have required considerable logistical/training upheaval that might have seemed like too much hassle for too little reward prior to D-Day (but perhaps not thereafter!!!). As you say, they were certainly quick to whistle up some "funnies" for the capture of Cherbourg, for example.

Wg Cdr Luddite wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:46 pm Stunning article ! Passed on to a certain pattern-maker of my aquaintance because I really need all these variants in COTOTS. Actually, need may be the wrong word but you know what I mean.

You definitely NEED them...

Also Mk IV NA75 and the Mk I CS with two 3-inch Howitzers if you're doing Italy... Oh sod it; go the whole hog and do the Mk I, Mk ICS, Mk II and Mk II Oke as well... And the bridgelayers… And the AVREs... And all the bits to go on the AVREs...