Another idle technology question for everyone.

During the war, muzzle brakes appeared everywhere, and they stayed around for a while after the war too. If anything, their use spread - they started on tank guns but gradually became a feature of artillery too. But now, there don’t seem to be that many on tanks, even though tank guns are as big as they’ve ever been. At the same time, a lot of artillery still uses muzzle brakes, especially the bigger guns.

So, where did they go? Is it because tanks’ recoil systems are good enough now not to need them? If so, what is it about artillery that requires muzzle brakes still to be used? Enlighten me!

I think the muzzle breaks went away with the advent of the bore evacuator, but that is only a guess.
Shaun

I am no expert but I have wondered the same thing.

I am going to guess that the recoil systems are alot better now then in the past.

Also the size and weight of MBT's now is much greater then say 40-50 years ago. I am guessing that a 70 tonne tank can take alot of recoil just due to its mass. Which might explain why arty pieces still need them.

I am sure someone who knows more will clarify this for you.

Jeff

The Tankies read the posts about non sooty muzzle breaks on Big A and removed their sooty ones in embarrassment...

I wondered if that might be it, but the Tiger II was the thick end of 70 tons and it still had a muzzle brake. I can't do the calculations right now but I'd be surprised if the recoil load from a 120mm shell going down an L/55 barrel would be lower than an 88mm shell going down an L/71. And it can't just be a German habit, or the Jagdpanzer IV/70 and the Hetzer would have retained their muzzle brakes.

It's a mystery...

Maybe tanks don't want the attention a muzzle break causes by kicking up dust, so they try to deal with recoil other ways. For artillery it's completely irrelevant, I guess, that's why they still have them. (And because of the big shells, too.)

A completely uneducated guess. I have a degree in biology.

i tend to agree with you Andras

I have worked on 5 inch MK 54 for the navy and they have gas ejection and no muzzle break. I would guess the advancment in gas ejection and the rerouting of spent gas, muzzle breaks are no longer needed. But however muzzle breaks tend to cut down on the flash of the weapon, which at sea is minimum ,Artillery guns have breaks i would guess for the reason of counter battery fire, the enemy can zero in on them with a spotter. Just my 2 cents Mike

I suspect it has more to do with advances in ammunition. The old WW2 & immediate post-war tank guns relied on kinetic energy to effect penetration of enemy armour, it was simply a case of getting the muzzle velocity as high as possible. In order to deal with the recoil forces involved, the muzzle brake was fitted. Nowadays, with HESH & HEAT ammunition it is no longer necessary to generate such high muzzle velocities, as penetration is achieved by chemical means & in fact some tank guns are smooth bores. In contrast, in artillery, the achievement of range is more important, and the only way to get a shell to go further is to make it go faster.
Of course I could be completely wrong....

I don't know the answer, but I'd like to comment on a few of the theories here...
As far as not kicking up dust, Just watch a few Vids of the M1's in Iraq to put the kibosh on that. The 3+ metre muzzle blast form the 120mm smoothebore kicks up so much debris that it obscures the entire 71 ton monster for a second or 2.
Same can be said for lower-velocity Rounds-if you're only firing HEAT or HESH rounds through your smoothbore, this could be the reason. But what about high velocity kinetic energy kill rounds( Armor Piercing Fin Stablilised Discarding Sabot )? Definitely not Low Velocity.
And most of our (USMC) Long-range Arty (198's) used a RAP or rocket assisted projectile- essentially a JATO in the base of the round) to achieve extreme distance.
Anybody ever seen a Muzzle Brake on a 16"Naval Gun? Them suckers were able to lob gunpowder-packed VW beetles (essentially) into the Bekkah Vally from the Med.

Just my recession devalued .02 USD.

Robert, I'm not sure the recoil forces are increased in a discarding sabot device, I think the principle is that it allows a higher muzzle velocity for the sub calibre device without increasing the stresses on the weapon or carrying system. The discarding sabot ammunition was originally developed by the Allies to increase the punch of existing pieces. As for the "rocket propelled" shells, surely they would put less stress on the weapon, after all the German Nebelwerfers were very lightly built, & the "High/Low pressure" artillery built by the Germans were similar? I would reiterate that muzzle brakes were not developed with supression of dust or other considerations in mind. They were developed to allow the use of higher performance ammunition in an existing weapon without having to completely redesign it.
In his book on German Artillery of WW2, Ian Hogg makes the point that if you want to increase the performance of a weapon, you are best employed looking to the ammunition.
16" naval ordnance is attached to a ship weighing many thousands of tons, and the construction of a naval turret system is not governed by the need to make a vehicle of practical size to move around a battlefield. I don't think recoil stresses and distances are an important consideration.

I think muzzle breaks were used to deal with the recoil forces generated. The smaller the recoil forces, the shorter the recoil of the gun, which was important when considring the weapon to be mounted with respect to the turret size and turret ring diameter. Without muzzle breaks the germans wouldn't have been able to arm the late war tanks with the guns they eventually had. This is the reason why the 75mmL70 on the Panther had a muzzle break (and was prohinbited to be fired without) while on the Jagdpanzer IV/L70 the same gun didn't. Recoil force absorbtion by the chassis and drivetrain IMHO comes second.