tanks cannon/gun barrels

[76561198970978487]

if the barrel got longer does it improve power and penetrating of the shell/round hitting the target or it doesn't do anything at all?

[Shyue Chou]

Yes, it increases the muzzle velocity, thus the muzzle energy and penetration.

It results in lesser flight time for the shot and also increased accuracy.

[76561198970978487]

I see, and it affect tank weight (heavy front and light back) or is it not that big of affect?

[Spungy bob]

Originally posted by norin:

I see, and it affect tank weight (heavy front and light back) or is it not that big of affect?

It's not that big of a difference, depending on the caliber and amount added, like between the Panzer IV F1 and F, the F2 gets the longer barrel but isn't that much different

[Lx2ky]

Originally posted by norin:

I see, and it affect tank weight (heavy front and light back) or is it not that big of affect?

nah tank weight wont matter much. the barrel wont way that much either

[76561198970978487]

and longer barrel can mess a little tank weight as front heavy right?

[Kay]

Depending on what specific gun is mounted and how that effects the balance of the vehicle, counterweights may be added (usually to the rear of the turret).

The counterweights are usually there to allow the turret to rotate, particularly on inclines, so it isn't fighting against the weight of the barrel too much

[50Fathoms]

IRL, short barrels are better for infantry support, as their higher trajectory allows tank crews to fire over the heads of their own troops. They are also better for maneuvering in tight spaces and reload time might be an advantage as well. But in WT you want longer barrels. The higher muzzle velocity results in better accuracy and greater penetration. The additional weight of the barrels and their counterweights could slightly reduce turret traverse speed and overall balance on some tanks. But the advantages outweight the disadvantages.

[76561198970978487]

Ok that's why many short barrel with many tanks but do wonder why didn't short barrel cannon like US 75mm get longer barrel

[Wolfsmaul-GER]

one example is the tiger 1 and tiger 2 barrel, both have the caliber 88mm, but the tiger 1 has the "KwK 36" and the tiger 2 has the "KwK 43" which are wildly different in performance, the tiger 2 gun uses a longer shell, able to fit more propellant and has a longer barrel, which allows more pressure from the propellant gases to build up and push the projectile out.
While i curiously can't find the weight of the tiger 1 cannon, the one of the tiger 2 weighs ~2,2 tons, most of the weight comes from the breech, where the shell is fired from and needs to sustain the most amount of pressure, elongating the barrel wouldn't add much weight to it.
in another comparison, the american 76mm gun M1, found on the shermans and M18, while being a formidable gun to the germans, it only weighed 517kg, decreasing the over all weight of the vehicles and even able to be fit into light tanks

[mark felton gaming]

Originally posted by norin:

Ok that's why many short barrel with many tanks but do wonder why didn't short barrel cannon like US 75mm get longer barrel

One possible reason is weight. Overall weight it isn't much of a contribution factor to, but the weight of the cannon on the breech could slow gun laying and worsen depression/elevation because of the need to add weights to the breech for balancing.

Overall it heavily depends on the situation the tank was put in. Shorter barrels are better for urban combat while longer barrels are better for range. In War Thunder everything gets jumbled together, but in real life you would be able to keep units in an environment they can excel in.

[Pozieres]

Basic physics and the conservation of energy. If the charge in the round remains the same it wont matter how long you make that barrel it wont increase the energy. Because energy can never be created nor destroyed but change from one form to another

The most it will do it make it a little more accurate

[Kay]

Originally posted by Wolfsmaul-GER:

While i curiously can't find the weight of the tiger 1 cannon, the one of the tiger 2 weighs ~2,2 tons, most of the weight comes from the breech, where the shell is fired from and needs to sustain the most amount of pressure, elongating the barrel wouldn't add much weight to it.

Tiger 1's KwK 36 weighed around 1760kg, remember the barrel would also have to be thickened to withstand the increased pressure, the the bulk of the weight would end up in the recoil system for the gun (as an example, the total gun weight for the KwK 42 came out at 1860kg, despite the barrel and breech being lighter, thanks to the increased recoil needing more damping)

Originally posted by Pozieres:

Basic physics and the conservation of energy. If the charge in the round remains the same it wont matter how long you make that barrel it wont increase the energy. Because energy can never be created nor destroyed but change from one form to another

The most it will do it make it a little more accurate

This is why you should take more than basic physics when looking at more advanced concepts.

Depending on the cannon, there is an amount of energy wasted as propellant gasses lack the time necessary to impart all of it into the projectile before it leaves the barrel, leading to high pressure gasses escaping the barrel and potentially the breech, and/or incomplete burning of the propellant by the time the projectile leaves the barrel.

This is why lengthening the barrel of a gun usually increases the velocity of the round (for example, DM53 from a 120mm L/44 reaches 1,670m/s, while the same round from a 120mm L/55 cannon reaches 1,750m/s)

[76561198970978487]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by Wolfsmaul-GER:

While i curiously can't find the weight of the tiger 1 cannon, the one of the tiger 2 weighs ~2,2 tons, most of the weight comes from the breech, where the shell is fired from and needs to sustain the most amount of pressure, elongating the barrel wouldn't add much weight to it.

Tiger 1's KwK 36 weighed around 1760kg, remember the barrel would also have to be thickened to withstand the increased pressure, the the bulk of the weight would end up in the recoil system for the gun (as an example, the total gun weight for the KwK 42 came out at 1860kg, despite the barrel and breech being lighter, thanks to the increased recoil needing more damping)

Originally posted by Pozieres:

Basic physics and the conservation of energy. If the charge in the round remains the same it wont matter how long you make that barrel it wont increase the energy. Because energy can never be created nor destroyed but change from one form to another

The most it will do it make it a little more accurate

This is why you should take more than basic physics when looking at more advanced concepts.

Depending on the cannon, there is an amount of energy wasted as propellant gasses lack the time necessary to impart all of it into the projectile before it leaves the barrel, leading to high pressure gasses escaping the barrel and potentially the breech, and/or incomplete burning of the propellant by the time the projectile leaves the barrel.

This is why lengthening the barrel of a gun usually increases the velocity of the round (for example, DM53 from a 120mm L/44 reaches 1,670m/s, while the same round from a 120mm L/55 cannon reaches 1,750m/s)

And so if did that to 75mm or 90mm same implications and results?

[Kay]

Originally posted by norin:

Ex: if using US 75mm or was in service 90mm (got use almost everywhere) get bit longer only the velocity has higher improvement and it's penetrating not so much big? also if Soveit 120mm and good ol 105mm bit longer then same implications?

penetration would increase from the increased velocity, how much that makes a difference would be highly dependant on the gun but it usually isn't a huge amount, the L/44 to L/55 example is only an increase of 30mm of penetration from a shell that goes through 620mm of steel already

[50Fathoms]

Originally posted by norin:

Ok that's why many short barrel with many tanks but do wonder why didn't short barrel cannon like US 75mm get longer barrel

In World War II, it was not tanks, but anti-tank guns and fortified infantry positions that posed the greatest threat to US troops. Simply because of their numbers. The 75mm was good enough for that. Moreover, the 75mm cannon was pretty effective in destroying Panzer 4s. Later, when the Americans encountered more Tigers and Panthers, they installed larger cannons.