The Loose Association of Wargamers

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:26 am 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?

Yes, what they said. It doesn't reduce muzzle velocity/range/penetration at all, but what it means is that the wear and tear on the gun is reduced and the gun stays on its zero for longer and is thus more rapid and accurate for prolonged firing. In the case of towed guns, it reduces the tendency of the gun to launch itself backwards (doubly important for the 25pdr, which was sat o top of its turntable).

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:50 am 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.

Yes, the early versions of the Thomson SMG also had that feature.

Yes, I've heard all those versions on why the Americans didn't accept Funny support (apart from DDs) and they're probably all correct to one degree or another. The apologists generally go on about the interlocked anti-tank guns and Pak 43s at Omaha and that armour would have been sitting ducks, while ignoring some key points:

1. There was no greater concentration of heavy AT guns and Pak 43s than on any of the other beaches. They were also set at beach-level rather than overlooking the beach (presumably due to issues of gun-depression). So Omaha was no different to the other beaches in this regard.

2. Where Omaha was massively different was the massive concentration of anti-infantry weapons overlooking the beach, which made life miserable for soft, squishy, unarmoured combat engineers...

3. When armour was eventually landed on Omaha it made a massive difference. Even something as lightly armoured as an M15 AA halftrack (which had a turret with 2x .50s and a Bofors Gun) had a massive impact on the battle, as did the Shermans landed directly onto the beach.

I didn't know about the Thompsen, was this the military version or Al Capones favourite?

Hey.. we need some early war kit as well..

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:06 pm I didn't know about the Thompsen, was this the military version or Al Capones favourite?

This was the Al Capone version, though that did tend to be the standard British military version. The US Army mostly used a simpler version one without the muzzle-brake (I'm not sure if we ever got that version). Note the slots on top of the muzzle here:

I note the brits didn't waste time on rubbish like that for the STEN, did they find it useful?

RMD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:12 pm

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:06 pm I didn't know about the Thompsen, was this the military version or Al Capones favourite?

This was the Al Capone version, though that did tend to be the standard British military version. The US Army mostly used a simpler version one without the muzzle-brake (I'm not sure if we ever got that version). Note the slots on top of the muzzle here:

The Cutts Compensator. http://www.hallowellco.com/cutts_compensator.htm The later M1 model Thompson didn't have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

The British received issues of the M1.



This looks like an M1, here being used by a Gurkha. https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php ... 93-07-8-62



M1, Burma 1944 according to the original . https://www.quora.com/Why-wasn-t-the-To ... in-warfare



"For you Tommy, ze war is over!"

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:31 pm I note the brits didn't waste time on rubbish like that for the STEN, did they find it useful?

It just made it more expensive. As mentioned above, the US Army deleted it as an austerity measure.

Ah cheers Huw, I thought we must have used it somewhere, just didn't recall seeing it.