Jump to content


Double Barreled Tanks


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
53 replies to this topic

Katamariguy1 #1 Posted Oct 18 2011 - 11:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3904 battles
  • 807
  • [PONYR] PONYR
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
I'm guessing the requirement for two loaders and reduced ammo and speed would make them good for nothing but terrifying the enemy?  <_<

HOTA_CHATON #2 Posted Oct 18 2011 - 11:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 10495 battles
  • 9,643
  • [-BAT-] -BAT-
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011
It would be kinda fun though, I think.  I know it would make for a heck of a match what having all theams using one of those babies.  Hehehehehehehe
Might be somthing for the DEVS to look into.  Sorta like an all sniper match, COD has on one of thier maps.  so mutch fun.

Lert #3 Posted Oct 18 2011 - 12:45

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 37298 battles
  • 24,434
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
Why would having two guns make a tank a 'sniper' tank? What's this fascination with 'sniper' anyways?

Having two guns would decrease a tank's firepower significantly. Allow me to explain.

A chassis is suited for a specific weight. Guns weigh a lot. It's not just the barrel (Which is a long, thickwalled solid steel tube) but also the breech and recoil mechanism (which weigh about as much as the barrel) and the weight of the system suspending the gun in the turret. Having two guns doubles the weight. But, for a given suspension capacity, in order to keep the weight limit without tolerable levels, means you're going to have to make the guns a lot smaller. So you'll end up with, say, twin 75 L/48's instead of a single 88 L/56 in the case of the historical tiger. Why had they fitted an 88 L/56 in the tiger to begin with? Because the 75 L/48 didn't cut it anymore. I'd rather have one 88 L/56 than two 75 L/48's.

Second consideration is space. The breech, recoil mechanism and gun mount takes up a lot of space in a turret. See this picture for a 1:35 scale model of a tiger turret. The big lump of white in the middle is the gun breech. The 'basket' behind it is how much the gun recoils when firing. That's the entire length of the turret needed for the breech itself and the recoil action. Now imagine fitting two breeches into the same turret. You'd have no space left for crew or ammo.

The_Chieftain #4 Posted Oct 18 2011 - 18:47

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5203 battles
  • 7,351
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Nothing mechanically impossible with the concept.

Posted Image

http://www66.tok2.co...pe60sprr-03.jpg

http://media.moddb.c...39/152x2ft0.jpg

http://www.tanksinwo...sentinel-04.jpg

And, of course...

http://www.battletan...M50_Ontos-1.jpg

Lert #5 Posted Oct 18 2011 - 19:54

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 37298 battles
  • 24,434
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
How many of those are recoilless rifles instead of actual cannons? And for the ones that Are cannons, how much bigger a gun could you have fitted on the same chassis and within the same weight limit? You'd definitely have more space inside with a single gun.

The fact that these were made proves that the concept in it's very basis has some merit. The fact that none of the major militaries nowadays use tanks with multiple guns (afaik) is also a hint as to the viability of the concept.

The_Chieftain #6 Posted Oct 18 2011 - 20:00

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5203 battles
  • 7,351
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Ontos and Type 60 are the recoilless rifles. The others are full-recoil guns.

Mow_Mow #7 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 17:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11515 battles
  • 14,802
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
I would imagine, in today's world with today's technology, dual cannons would be more feasible because of the strength of projectile versus armor. For example, you probably don't need 120mm of shell to destroy APCs or infantry positions.

jdtherocker #8 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 17:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13946 battles
  • 11,241
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011
the churchill infantry fighter had a model with two guns
http://en.wikipedia..../Churchill_tank
read a-20 model.

minim8greyhound #9 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 20:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10007 battles
  • 1,338
  • [_SOC_] _SOC_
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011
How about a tank with 4 guns (very large caliber) that when fired it explodes but kills anything it has its sights on.
It would be a new tank for the Japanese faction and it would only be run by one crew member (poor guy)  :lol:

I think the problem is WOT is trying to use historical or close to historical tanks. Another one of my opinions...he he, is that I think with the technology we have today it would be easier and more efficient to make the tank be able to reload rounds faster than having 2 barrels. Kind of use a giant magazine to contain the shells and load  via mechanisms, electronics, etc. A few things that you need to consider with tanks is cost, how long it takes to make it, survivability, serviceability and its effectiveness/ on the battlefield. But then again anti aircraft guns gave multiple barrels.

thegavinator #10 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 01:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4175 battles
  • 118
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011
technacaly speaking doesn't the machine gun barrels count too? the topic is double barreled tanks we asume the cannons are the topic but in relitive terms all guns and cannons have a barrel and when put it that way then aren't all tanks multibarreled tanks? im just saying alright.

xiantom #11 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 01:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9765 battles
  • 5,456
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010
Doesn't seem necessary. One is often enough, if it's not penetrating, it's not gonna penetrate. A second gun would spring the cost up and if the tank gets destroyed, they lose 2 guns instead of 1.

FreeFOXMIKE #12 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 02:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 17055 battles
  • 4,960
  • [23RDB] 23RDB
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
http://www.battletan...M50_Ontos-1.jpg

they are working on it as per the  Austin meeting they want to have the top turret of the Lee fire as the main gun reloads  and have stations like in many Ship to ship ,and bomber flight sim games

FreeFOXMIKE #13 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 02:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 17055 battles
  • 4,960
  • [23RDB] 23RDB
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View Postthegavinator, on Oct 20 2011 - 01:43, said:

technacaly speaking doesn't the machine gun barrels count too? the topic is double barreled tanks we asume the cannons are the topic but in relitive terms all guns and cannons have a barrel and when put it that way then aren't all tanks multibarreled tanks? im just saying alright.

true in a sense,but most time they  are refuring to the Main gun the machine guns are considered secondary  armament.

EvenMoarDakka #14 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 02:11

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17935 battles
  • 229
  • [-GO-] -GO-
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
Apocalypse Tank on Red Alert 2.. nuff said

TwiztedMunky #15 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 02:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7437 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    02-23-2011

View PostFreeFOXMIKE, on Oct 20 2011 - 02:08, said:

http://www.battletan...M50_Ontos-1.jpg

they are working on it as per the  Austin meeting they want to have the top turret of the Lee fire as the main gun reloads  and have stations like in many Ship to ship ,and bomber flight sim games

that would be awesome, track a target in the Lee with the top gun while hes trying to flank and take him out with the main gun once youve turned. Brilliant idea Watson!!

FreeFOXMIKE #16 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 02:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 17055 battles
  • 4,960
  • [23RDB] 23RDB
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View Postxiantom, on Oct 20 2011 - 01:50, said:

Doesn't seem necessary. One is often enough, if it's not penetrating, it's not gonna penetrate. A second gun would spring the cost up and if the tank gets destroyed, they lose 2 guns instead of 1.

the thought behind the use of duel guns was to:
A shorten  the rate of fire at a target
B reduce the problem of over heating in long engagements
C shock factor
D a force multiplier 4 tanks with 1 gun (4 guns in unit)  ,seems not as good as 4 tanks  with 2 guns (8 guns in unit)


some of the main factors against it the maintenance level doubled if not tripled
in many cases the crew and to be  larger. and the ammo would have to be  more adding to the weight to the tank. Multi turrets worked best on Battleships and gun emplacements were weight and crew load did not matter.

xiantom #17 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 03:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9765 battles
  • 5,456
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010

View PostFreeFOXMIKE, on Oct 20 2011 - 02:14, said:

the thought behind the use of duel guns was to:
A shorten  the rate of fire at a target
B reduce the problem of over heating in long engagements
C shock factor
D a force multiplier 4 tanks with 1 gun (4 guns in unit)  ,seems not as good as 4 tanks  with 2 guns (8 guns in unit)


some of the main factors against it the maintenance level doubled if not tripled
in many cases the crew and to be  larger. and the ammo would have to be  more adding to the weight to the tank. Multi turrets worked best on Battleships and gun emplacements were weight and crew load did not matter.
You don't actually shorten the rate of fire. You still have to load the two guns one by one. If it were to be viable, most tanks now would have more than one gun.

Katamariguy1 #18 Posted Oct 20 2011 - 13:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3904 battles
  • 807
  • [PONYR] PONYR
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Also, note that the Maus had a 75mm co-ax.

tlmitf #19 Posted Oct 22 2011 - 01:35

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 99 battles
  • 785
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
http://www.battletan...M50_Ontos-1.jpg

I think you will find that they are missile tubes, not cannons. VERY different.

The idea for multiple cannons is fun, but not practical.
As said, multiple guns on ships works because they have a huge weight limit. The 12" cannons on the BB's allow an area to be saturated with shells, rather than trying to nail a single point on a ship (or shore) with a 5 foot wide projectile.

Auto loaders reduce the crew issue some what, but they take up weight and are prone to failure. Russians use autoloaders in an attempt to keep turret size small, and eliminate a crew member.
The auto loader in the T-64 is fast, able to spit out rounds every 5 seconds under ideal conditions, but could 'drop' a shell if the tank was rocked sufficiently hard (usually from driving the thing flat out across rough ground) - The autoloader in the T-72 is slow, and requires the gun to be elevated to 3* to line the breech up with the shell, however this one doesnt drop shells.

FreeFOXMIKE #20 Posted Oct 22 2011 - 01:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 17055 battles
  • 4,960
  • [23RDB] 23RDB
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View Postxiantom, on Oct 20 2011 - 03:09, said:

You don't actually shorten the rate of fire. You still have to load the two guns one by one. If it were to be viable, most tanks now would have more than one gun.

you fire the main gun,while its reloading you fire your secondary  gun . Once  the the main is loaded you fire it ,and repeat . Not talking about ROF per gun ,but over all fro the tank as a whole.

and as stated its double the maintenance,  double the failure rate  please read the whole text ,and not read into it ;)