sferrin said:See attached.
A 60 calibre barrel for increased range
SpudmanWP said:I don't understand why I have never seen a naval gun with a muzzle break. This should help reduce stress & recoil through the ship.
A muzzle brake also significantly increases blast overpressure in the surrounding area. On ground vehicles this isn't such an issue, provided that the surrounding area doesn't have too many people around, because dirt is pretty hard to break and nobody really cares if you do break it. On ships, you have to provide additional structure to deal with the overpressure. In general, it's preferable to make the gun mount strong enough to handle the full recoil of the weapon, rather than have to beef up quite a bit of the upper decks and superstructure. Though there are always exceptions to any rule of thumb.SpudmanWP said:I don't understand why I have never seen a naval gun with a muzzle break. This should help reduce stress & recoil through the ship.
I know this is a decade after the post, but the USN did consider the MLRS for naval application. The problem, I read, is that the MLRS's rockets exhaust gases were very corrosive. While a less corrosive fuel-oxidizer grain could have been developed, this would have been non-trivial and could have resulted in a decrease in performance.Thanks heaps for this info Abraham Gubler
These look very impressive proposals/programs
Are there any drawings/artist impressions to go with these ? ??? ;D
One thing that I have never completely understood is the US Navy's apparent reluctance to consider, let alone field a navalized variant of the army's MLRS system!
Ok some people would say that to use them would bring US Amphibious units into harms way!
Some would say that the loading/reloading process is unacceptable on a ship!
Its strange - but as far as multiple rockets launchers on Western/NATO ships go in the amphibious support fire role, I think only the Italian navy utilize them aboard there ships(??)
Regards
Pioneer