Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Gun Recoil
easyco69
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 03:12 PM UTC
Does the Sherman Firefly main gun recoil? What about the Sherman 75mm & 76mm ? Does the German Stuk 40 recoil? Should I be adding recoil marks to my models? Any examples?
CMOT
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 03:20 PM UTC
I believe all vehicle mounted guns recoil, the only exception I am aware of is battleship main guns where the recoil is absorbed by the ship itself.
GazzaS
#424
Joined: April 23, 2015
KitMaker: 4,648 posts
Armorama: 2,248 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 03:24 PM UTC
They recoil, but that doesn't mean they leave a recoil mark.
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 03:37 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Does the Sherman Firefly main gun recoil? What about the Sherman 75mm & 76mm ? Does the German Stuk 40 recoil? Should I be adding recoil marks to my models? Any examples?
Main Guns in Tanks, Assault Guns and enclosed Self-propelled Artillery do recoil, but their "damping" is greater than in conventional Artillery; this is to prevent injury to Crew Members and Interior Components. Recoil marks? Not really necessary...
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 03:41 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I believe all vehicle mounted guns recoil, the only exception I am aware of is battleship main guns where the recoil is absorbed by the ship itself.
That may be true on SOME ships, but there are plenty of film clips showing naval guns of all types firing, with quite obvious subsequent recoil... Not to be a wise-guy...
CMOT
Editor-in-ChiefJoined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 04:01 PM UTC
When I said main guns I was thinking of the 15, 16 and 18inch guns. But I am happy to be proved wrong in my belief.
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 04:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
When I said main guns I was thinking of the 15, 16 and 18inch guns. But I am happy to be proved wrong in my belief.
Yeah, so was I, and I'm also willing to concede that there are ALWAYS exceptions to any "rules"...
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 04:42 PM UTC
Hmmm. Now you have me thinking I need to look at ship design some more. IIRC the Iowa-class had no recoil devices, and a full broadside would push the ship SIDEWAYS by at least 10 feet!
As for the OP, the Firefly mounting didn't leave outwardly visible recoil marks, as the sliding part of the barrel was behind the mantlet. The 75mm does not show any marks IIRC, but I thought the base of the 76mm did show wear on the last 6in or so after intensive use. This would start as polishing of the paint, before eventually wearing through to bare metal in some photos. But generally guns are designed so the sliding parts are all under cover if possible, to keep dust etc out of the carefully machined parts.
As for the OP, the Firefly mounting didn't leave outwardly visible recoil marks, as the sliding part of the barrel was behind the mantlet. The 75mm does not show any marks IIRC, but I thought the base of the 76mm did show wear on the last 6in or so after intensive use. This would start as polishing of the paint, before eventually wearing through to bare metal in some photos. But generally guns are designed so the sliding parts are all under cover if possible, to keep dust etc out of the carefully machined parts.
sdk10159
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 556 posts
Armorama: 433 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 06:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I believe all vehicle mounted guns recoil, the only exception I am aware of is battleship main guns where the recoil is absorbed by the ship itself.
CHeck out this video. At the 3:50 mark, you'll definitely see the gun recoil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soY34Xb3klc
jrutman
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 06:49 PM UTC
Yep,battleship guns recoil. Otherwise the pressure would rip the tubes from the mounts!
I think a lot of folks get this wrong and buy into the legend because of some well known films shot from above showing the main guns being fired. What looks like the ship moving sideways in the water is actually the concussive effects of the blast on the surface of the ocean. Very misleading.
J
I think a lot of folks get this wrong and buy into the legend because of some well known films shot from above showing the main guns being fired. What looks like the ship moving sideways in the water is actually the concussive effects of the blast on the surface of the ocean. Very misleading.
J
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 08:36 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Yep,battleship guns recoil. Otherwise the pressure would rip the tubes from the mounts!
I think a lot of folks get this wrong and buy into the legend because of some well known films shot from above showing the main guns being fired. What looks like the ship moving sideways in the water is actually the concussive effects of the blast on the surface of the ocean. Very misleading.
J
Correct. All of the battleship guns recoil and the ships do NOT move laterally 10 ft on firing.
You can see the recoil cylinders above the breech. Watch movies of battleships firing and you can definitely see the recoil. On all of them.
There is no way the energy of a large canon is going to be purposefully absorbed by the ship without a recoil system, it's grossly inefficient mechanically.
As for tank guns, they all have recoil mechanisms as well with a very few exceptions that were pretty much all experimental.
You don't need recoil scratches as there is generally a gap at the mantlet such that when the gun recoils it doesn't touch anything. On the rare occasions where there is a concentric recoil and the barrel tube is in contact with surfaces, those surfaces are almost always behind the mantlet and out of sight. The contacting surfaces are generally without paint and very shiny to begin with to provide a smooth surface for the seals that keep the recoil oil inside the system.
Paul
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2016 - 08:45 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Does the Sherman Firefly main gun recoil? What about the Sherman 75mm & 76mm ? Does the German Stuk 40 recoil? Should I be adding recoil marks to my models? Any examples?
There have been very few tanks made with rigid gun mounts. I only know of a few experimental mounts. All those you mention recoil.
Not sure what you mean by recoil marks. The design of many mounts is such that the visible surfaces don't telescope into tight fights so there is no evidence that the gun has moved.
One of the few exceptions was M3 and M4 mediums. You can see a small unpainted section on the tube immediately in front of the mount.
KL
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 20, 2016 - 12:52 AM UTC
I stand corrected! Another myth shattered...
Looking at the Fletcher book on the Firefly, it seems the original test-bed for the concept was built without any recoil mechanism, just to see if the gun could fit. Firing (from outside!) with lanyard was reported to be exciting. Needless to say, the production version was fitted with a recoil mechanism.
Looking at the Fletcher book on the Firefly, it seems the original test-bed for the concept was built without any recoil mechanism, just to see if the gun could fit. Firing (from outside!) with lanyard was reported to be exciting. Needless to say, the production version was fitted with a recoil mechanism.
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 20, 2016 - 03:29 AM UTC
I concur with the learned Mr Roberts and others.
However, the recoil of battleship guns is less than one might imagine because the mass of the barrel and breech ring is considerable so the recoil distance might be only a few feet, which is proportionately less (compared to barrel length) than that of much field and anti-tank artillery, for example. I recall seeing a side elevation cutaway of a battleship turret (possibly in Campbell's book on naval weapons of WW2) that showed a very short recoil, similar to the length of the breech ring itself.
However, the recoil of battleship guns is less than one might imagine because the mass of the barrel and breech ring is considerable so the recoil distance might be only a few feet, which is proportionately less (compared to barrel length) than that of much field and anti-tank artillery, for example. I recall seeing a side elevation cutaway of a battleship turret (possibly in Campbell's book on naval weapons of WW2) that showed a very short recoil, similar to the length of the breech ring itself.
easyco69
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 - 06:45 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextDoes the Sherman Firefly main gun recoil? What about the Sherman 75mm & 76mm ? Does the German Stuk 40 recoil? Should I be adding recoil marks to my models? Any examples?
There have been very few tanks made with rigid gun mounts. I only know of a few experimental mounts. All those you mention recoil.
Not sure what you mean by recoil marks. The design of many mounts is such that the visible surfaces don't telescope into tight fights so there is no evidence that the gun has moved.
One of the few exceptions was M3 and M4 mediums. You can see a small unpainted section on the tube immediately in front of the mount.
KL
That M3 has recoil marks..yes , that is what I am reffering too thx.
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 - 01:40 AM UTC
You can notice the bare metal collar caused by the recoil at the base of the 76 mm gun of this M4A3E8 :
H.P.
H.P.
Tankleader
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 - 03:48 PM UTC
Hello All,
Coming in a little late here, but most guns, screw into their mounts and the parts that move are their actual recoil pistons which are hidden and well lubricated. Must guns that I've seen out of battery or images of have a bare metal surface that would sit inside the recoil buffer or spring.
Thanks
Andy
Coming in a little late here, but most guns, screw into their mounts and the parts that move are their actual recoil pistons which are hidden and well lubricated. Must guns that I've seen out of battery or images of have a bare metal surface that would sit inside the recoil buffer or spring.
Thanks
Andy
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 - 05:48 PM UTC
A little more info...the part of the barrel that looks like bare metal does not rub down that way due to wear from recoil. The barrel is part of the recoil system and that portion of the barrel is milled and polished (sometimes chromed as well) so it can recoil smoothly. A barrel that is rubbing and hanging up would be an issue.
Most artillery pieces have a polished portion of the barrel.
M109A6 Paladin with small chromed portion near the base of the barrel, just above the step, a protective sleeve.
On some, it is the whole barrel, like on the M114A1 howitzer.
Most artillery pieces have a polished portion of the barrel.
M109A6 Paladin with small chromed portion near the base of the barrel, just above the step, a protective sleeve.
On some, it is the whole barrel, like on the M114A1 howitzer.
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 - 06:19 PM UTC
The Tiger's gun had a protective sleeve, but in this photo it's been removed and you can see an unpainted area of the barrel. This was in fact the bearing for the gun; it was oiled and allowed the gun to slide in a fixed sleeve (also visible here).
David
duttons
Joined: June 16, 2007
KitMaker: 193 posts
Armorama: 184 posts
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 - 06:36 PM UTC
On M198 howitzer that surface is dark grey, its molibond which is a dry grease.
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 10:13 PM UTC
Quoted Text
That M3 has recoil marks..yes , that is what I am reffering too thx.
I think you still may have it slightly incorrect. The bright area is not _because _ of the recoil. The recoil did not cause it.
The area has been left without paint and specially prepared at the factory to _permit_ a smooth recoil as those surfaces are part of the recoil mechanism.
A difference in intent, if not in the end result from a modelling perspective.
Paul
urumomo
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 10:34 PM UTC
I was going to post this back in the beginning , in response to the naval gun recoil ..
I know we're talking AFVs
.. but the animation is fantastic ( little long -- you can watch it @ X1.5 speed , or even 2X, seriously )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3rvxlz03U
I know we're talking AFVs
.. but the animation is fantastic ( little long -- you can watch it @ X1.5 speed , or even 2X, seriously )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3rvxlz03U
NebLWeffah
Joined: October 13, 2004
KitMaker: 1,683 posts
Armorama: 1,248 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 12:38 AM UTC
Yes, the Firefly 17lbr gun recoils. See this YouTube video at about the 1:19 mark. It's definitely a recoil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxwTwGW3bAE
Cheers
Bob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxwTwGW3bAE
Cheers
Bob
srmalloy
Joined: April 15, 2012
KitMaker: 336 posts
Armorama: 298 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 01:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Correct. All of the battleship guns recoil and the ships do NOT move laterally 10 ft on firing.
They move laterally, just not by an amount anyone is going to notice.The recoil has to be absorbed by the ship, even with the recoil dampers spreading the force over time. However, the mass of the ship means that the recoil is very small. An Iowa-class battleship firing a broadside horizontally while resting on ice would acquire a velocity of about 6 inches per second (firing both the 16" and 5" guns, it's 6.4 inches/sec). And because the ship moving sideways makes a huge surface pushing against the water, the momentum is absorbed within a negligible distance.
fhvn4d
#159
Joined: April 07, 2008
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 564 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 01:43 AM UTC
16" gun recoil from the inside...... https://youtu.be/MTW_xpK-Twc
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.