Why do dead tanks gun barrels "droop" ?

[BulletRat]

:confused:

[Bruno Weiss]

Well, you know how it is when your finished. Hard to keep it up.

[apex]

But usually that happens when I run out of ammo ...

apex

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

:confused:

Because they are barrel-heavy.

Those guns that are breech-heavy, such as for example the 2-pounder, should instead be cocked up in the air.

One of the features of the Sherman (barrel-heavy gun) that gunners transferring from the Valentine (breech-heavy gun) had to learn was to make sure, on bailing-out, that the big gun was not traversed to one or eleven o'clock, where it could flop down and obstruct the hatch of the driver or lap gunner.

All the best,

John.

[Bruno Weiss]

apex wrote:

But usually that happens when I run out of ammo ...

[BulletRat]

Hmmm well it seems to me that a panicked crew bailing out of a tank wouldn't exactly be thinking too hard about where the barrel is, and just be getting the hell out!

That being said, every dead tank I've seen in game and in various war photos has its barrel "drooping", I assumed the barrel was either electrically or hydraulically operated, therefore when dead the power stops/hydraulic pressure drops and the barrel droops.

However, parked tanks don't have drooping barrels - so it's got me stumped.

[Le Tondu]

There has to be some sort of graphic that visually shows us that the tank is knocked out. I mean that it wouldn't be right to just leave the tank looking the same and until they have flipped turrets or some other such graphics, a drooping barrel will do just fine.

[Visom]

The drooping barrel is in fact because of the hydraulic pressure. On some tanks (eg Shermans) the hydraulic system often failed when the tank was knocked out or they got a penetration. Otherwise, the crew often sabotaged it when abandoning the tank. I assume this was when they didn't expect it to explode the next second, more like when it got immobilized or some other heavy damage where they had to leave it.

As I recall it american crews left in in a specific angle to notify the tank 'restorers' regarding if the tank was completely burned out or if it only had some minor damage that was possible to repair.

[Other Means]

well, it used to happen to the daleks.

[Juju]

I asked this question before. Think I got an answer too. Search for "barrel droop" by member number 1195

[Mr Byte]

well, it used to happen to the daleks

Just what I was going to say

ROFL

[Michael Emrys]

I have also wondered if part of it was not also to get the breach out of the way to make for speedier and more convenient exiting of the turret.

Michael

[Juju]

Ah, yes, here it is: old Droopy Barrel thread

Never mind the jokers.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Hmmm well it seems to me that a panicked crew bailing out of a tank wouldn't exactly be thinking too hard about where the barrel is, and just be getting the hell out!

[snips]

If you don't believe me, check Bryan Perret's "The Valentine in North Africa" (sorry, don't have publisher and date, I don't own a copy).

AIUI tank crewmen bail out on command from the tank commander, not because they are "panicked". If you have any evidence suggesting otherwise, please post it.

All the best,

John.

[BulletRat]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BulletRat:

Hmmm well it seems to me that a panicked crew bailing out of a tank wouldn't exactly be thinking too hard about where the barrel is, and just be getting the hell out!

[snips]

If you don't believe me, check Bryan Perret's "The Valentine in North Africa" (sorry, don't have publisher and date, I don't own a copy).

AIUI tank crewmen bail out on command from the tank commander, not because they are "panicked". If you have any evidence suggesting otherwise, please post it.

All the best,

John. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Hmmm well it seems to me that a panicked crew bailing out of a tank wouldn't exactly be thinking too hard about where the barrel is, and just be getting the hell out!

You don't think trained crews practiced that sort of thing? That is why armies do drills. In theory, in an emergency, your training takes over. Admittedly, didn't always work, but it's not as preposterous as you make it sound, either.

[SgtMuhammed]

Never underestimate the power of training.

To take an example from another service. B-17 bombadiers were so thoroughly trained to protect the secret of the Norden bombsight that even when their bombers were plumetting from 35000 feet their primary concern was to destroy the sight.

You get things drilled into you until they become instinctive. You are also so close as a crew that your own safety often takes a back seat to that of one of your crew members. This especially applies to the tank commander. His primary concerns are his mission and his crew, personal saftey ends up being further down the list (of course there are always exceptions). The TC knows that if he doesn't ensure that the way is clear then his driver is going to die and this is a situation that is less acceptable than putting himself at risk.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BulletRat:

Hmmm well it seems to me that a panicked crew bailing out of a tank wouldn't exactly be thinking too hard about where the barrel is, and just be getting the hell out!

You don't think trained crews practiced that sort of thing? That is why armies do drills. In theory, in an emergency, your training takes over. Admittedly, didn't always work, but it's not as preposterous as you make it sound, either. </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

I'm not disagreeing with you

If expressing a contrary opinion isn't disagreeing, what do you call it?

Originally posted by BulletRat:

- just that when tank crews bail out in CMBB it's not usually in an orderly fashion and they're often "panicked" or worse. This suggests to me that they are exiting the tank with a great amount of haste and fear - and in such a state of mind, they're not too concerned about the elevation of the gun barrel.

That's CM:BB. I thought the question was about Real Life . If we're talking about CM:BB, then the criticism I have made in the past is that the bail-out timnes seem too short, compared to what few measured numbers I was able to find.

Originally posted by BulletRat:

(imagined vignette snipped]

I hardly think that would be the case.

You're quite right, I think your vignette is badly misleading in some important details. First of all, how do the other crewman (apart from the lap gunner, if there is one) know that the driver is dead? You can't see a lot of the other crewmen in most tanks, and at least the commander and gunner should have their attention focused outside it. Second, what's this nonsense about "when the next round hits us"? The command is "Bail out!", on which all crewmen carry out their bail-out drill.

Originally posted by BulletRat:

As far as I can see or reason, the droopy gun barrel is involuntary - therefore I'm more inclined to believe the above explanations to do with hydraulic systems being ruptured, etc...

"Common sense" alone is a remarkably poor guide to the way people behave on a battlefield. Still, if you are determined to understand such things by the exercise of pure reason, you might ask yourself how eager you would be to leave the protection of a tank's armour under machine-gun fire.

Personally, I prefer to rely on accounts written by or about the people who were there. Hence my reference to Perret; you might also look at the chapter entitled "Brewing-up" in Don Featherstone's "Tank Battles in Miniature". It includes a vignette not dissimilar to the one you invented, but his has the tank commander ordering the bail-out after a count of three.

Finally, do please note that the Sherman pre-bail-out action I referred to in Perret's book was making sure the gun barrel wasn't obstructing the hull crew's hatches. The drooping happened on its own; if it didn't there really wouldn't be much point to the story, would there?

All the best,

John.

[BulletRat]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BulletRat:

I'm not disagreeing with you

If expressing a contrary opinion isn't disagreeing, what do you call it?

If you don't believe me, check Bryan Perret's "The Valentine in North Africa" (sorry, don't have publisher and date, I don't own a copy).

You seem to think my not taking that as a complete explanation is in some way my calling you a liar - which I am not.

Originally posted by BulletRat:

- just that when tank crews bail out in CMBB it's not usually in an orderly fashion and they're often "panicked" or worse. This suggests to me that they are exiting the tank with a great amount of haste and fear - and in such a state of mind, they're not too concerned about the elevation of the gun barrel.

That's CM:BB. I thought the question was about Real Life . If we're talking about CM:BB, then the criticism I have made in the past is that the bail-out timnes seem too short, compared to what few measured numbers I was able to find.

As I understand it, CM:BB is meant to be very realistic (within the limits of a computer game), and therefore tank crews would behave in-game as they would in real life.

Originally posted by BulletRat:

(imagined vignette snipped]

I hardly think that would be the case.

You're quite right, I think your vignette is badly misleading in some important details. First of all, how do the other crewman (apart from the lap gunner, if there is one) know that the driver is dead? You can't see a lot of the other crewmen in most tanks, and at least the commander and gunner should have their attention focused outside it. Second, what's this nonsense about "when the next round hits us"? The command is "Bail out!", on which all crewmen carry out their bail-out drill.

The 88 round entered through the vision slit, the drivers head and guts are splattered all over the inside of the tank (they know he's dead).

Second, sorry I was never in the armed services to know exactly how a tank evacuation drill is carried out - I used my imagination. For the record, I said before the next round hits us.

Originally posted by BulletRat:

As far as I can see or reason, the droopy gun barrel is involuntary - therefore I'm more inclined to believe the above explanations to do with hydraulic systems being ruptured, etc...

"Common sense" alone is a remarkably poor guide to the way people behave on a battlefield. Still, if you are determined to understand such things by the exercise of pure reason, you might ask yourself how eager you would be to leave the protection of a tank's armour under machine-gun fire.

Think of it this way, the Tiger which just turned your driver into offal hasn't seen you bail out - sure as eggs he's going to put another round into you to make sure. Whether you die from MG fire when you bail out or stay to see where the next '88 round hits is a moot point - you're pretty much dead either way.

I think I'd take my chances with the MG - but then I've never been in a tank that got blasted by an '88 so fortunately I don't know how clearly I'd be thinking at the time.

Personally, I prefer to rely on accounts written by or about the people who were there. Hence my reference to Perret; you might also look at the chapter entitled "Brewing-up" in Don Featherstone's "Tank Battles in Miniature". It includes a vignette not dissimilar to the one you invented, but his has the tank commander ordering the bail-out after a count of three.

Finally, do please note that the Sherman pre-bail-out action I referred to in Perret's book was making sure the gun barrel wasn't obstructing the hull crew's hatches. The drooping happened on its own; if it didn't there really wouldn't be much point to the story, would there?

All the best,

John. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

In the game the answer is simply because that is how it was decided to show them as knocked out.

In real tanks the main reason is the loss of hydraulic pressure. Tank guns are not ballanced at the pivot point because this would mean that too much of the turret would be taken up by the breach. While the actual movement of the gun is initiated by screws and gears the gun is held in place and assisted in movement by hydraulic pressure, the lines for which pass through various parts of the turret and are easily ruptured. One of the most common injuries to Sherman crewmen was being scalded by hot "cherry juice" after a penetration of the turret (that and the whole bursting into flame thing). Even in the M1, when hydraulic pressure is lost the barrel will droop.

With AT guns it is much the same story especially if there has been major damage to the carriage. The guns are unbalanced at the pivot point and tend to go barrel down if they are dismounted or loose hydraulic support.

[BulletRat]

Excellent. Thanks sgtgOOdy - that's exactly what I wanted to know.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sgtgOOdy:

In the game the answer is simply because that is how it was decided to show them as knocked out.

I think that is the true answer. It is a convention that the designers adopted because it seemed to them poetically correct. I've seen gobs of pictures of knocked out/burnt out tanks with their guns pointing every which way.

The guns are unbalanced at the pivot point and tend to go barrel down if they are dismounted or loose hydraulic support.

I think that depends on the particular case. While true of the larger caliber long barrelled guns, the small caliber short barrelled guns tended to be breech-heavy.

Michael

[SgtMuhammed]

I think that depends on the particular case. While true of the larger caliber long barrelled guns, the small caliber short barrelled guns tended to be breech-heavy.

Good point Michael.

Alot of the pictures tend to be of the long guns because they are sexier than a stubby little pack howitzer or an IG. The same is true of the tanks. I have seen several pictures of the small gun British tanks in the dessert with their barrels in the air.