Jump to content


Double Barreled Tanks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
53 replies to this topic

FreeFOXMIKE #21 Posted Oct 22 2011 - 01:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 18472 battles
  • 4,967
  • [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.
ans as to loading one by one that to is alternated  example:
Bradly fire the tow missile the backs up it fire with the  auto cannon  then gos back to the missile.  

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


"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."

Travlla #22 Posted Nov 12 2011 - 11:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5797 battles
  • 541
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View Posttlmitf, on Oct 22 2011 - 01:35, said:

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

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


I think you will find that they  are recoilless rifles not missile tubes,VERY  different
some poor bastard had to get out to reload it,

Quote

  
The Ontos, officially the Rifle, Multiple 106 mm, Self-propelled, M50, was an American light armored tracked anti-tank vehicle developed in the 1950s. It mounted six M40 106 mm recoilless rifles as its main armament, which could be fired in rapid succession against single targets to guarantee a kill.

Originally conceived as a fast tank killer, it was employed by US Marines who consistently reported excellent results when used for direct fire support against infantry during the Vietnam War.  Its mobility and firepower were proven in numerous battles and  operations. Produced in limited numbers and largely expended towards the  end of the conflict, the Ontos was removed from service in 1969.

  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos

Bourbydol #23 Posted Nov 12 2011 - 12:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15183 battles
  • 264
  • [ZDT] ZDT
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011
http://www.battletan...M50_Ontos-1.jpg

I would love this as the last "turret/gun" upgrade on my Leo, can still hide but with a real punch lol

blurr91 #24 Posted Nov 14 2011 - 21:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 13355 battles
  • 2,542
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View Posttlmitf, on Oct 22 2011 - 01:35, said:

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.

Gun size and numbers was even a consideration in battleships.

German battleship Gneisenau was originally planned to have 6 15" guns but was completed with 9 11" guns.

Newer WW2 American battleships opted for 9 16" guns instead of 12 14" guns used in earlier designs.

The never completed Montana class was planeed to have 12 16" guns, 3 more than the previous Iowa class.  This was achieved with in increase in size and displacement of the ship.  She would not fit to transit through the Panama Canal.

Bottomline, military planners usually opt for bigger guns vs. more guns when dealing with armored targets.  The throw weight of 2 90mm guns might be higher than a single 120mm gun, but 2 90mm rounds won't punch through a T-72 or T-80 the way a single 120mm round would.

If the target is unarmored, then you would want to maximize throw weight.  The more stuff you can throw at more enemy, the better.

FRUITKOMMANDO #25 Posted Nov 15 2011 - 04:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16429 battles
  • 1,501
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
E100 AA model with 2 long 88s, i would take that
http://fingolfen.tri...y/zwilling2.jpg

FreeFOXMIKE #26 Posted Nov 15 2011 - 04:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 18472 battles
  • 4,967
  • [23RDB] 23RDB
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View Posttlmitf, on Oct 22 2011 - 01:35, said:

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.




Posted Image
The Ontos (Greek for "the thing")
The Ontos, officially the Rifle, Multiple 106 mm, Self-propelled, M50, was an American light armored tracked anti-tank vehicle developed in the 1950s. It mounted six M40 106 mm recoilless rifles as its main armament, which could be fired in rapid succession against single targets to guarantee a kill.

Originally conceived as a fast tank killer, it was employed by US Marines who consistently reported excellent results when used for direct fire support against infantry during the Vietnam War.  Its mobility and firepower were proven in numerous battles and  operations. Produced in limited numbers and largely expended towards the  end of the conflict, the Ontos was removed from service in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos





http://www.youtube.c...h?v=wrg00gRRLog

thetap #27 Posted Nov 16 2011 - 05:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15209 battles
  • 3,758
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010
I think ships were a bit different in that they generally required a lot of hits to put them out of action, whereas tanks were usually knocked out by the first penetration.

Dregbag #28 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 12:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36740 battles
  • 1,005
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

View Posttlmitf, on Oct 22 2011 - 01:35, said:

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


Recoilless rifle (105 mm)

BaseDeltaZero #29 Posted Jan 13 2012 - 16:33

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 1641 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011
Lert and others essentially said it - if you have enough room to put two guns in your tank, then you have enough room to put a single, bigger gun.  A bigger gun means more penetration, which is rather important in tank-to-tank combat.  It works great in video games where reducing your opponent's HP bit by bit is the way to victory, but not so well in reality.  

Of course, there are still reasons to do it.  If you have a relatively small gun that can reliably penetrate your target, by all means, put in two of them - especially if your target is hard to hit.  This is why you often see anti-air or anti-infantry vehicles with twin linked (or more) weapons... the target has little armor, but needs to be engaged quickly.

This is also the case with warships.  A battleship couldn't reliably penetrate an enemy ship's armor belt, but a hit on top was almost certain to inflict damage to the superstructure and deck.  You'd need a 30" gun or so to be certain of heavily damaging an enemy battleship, which would be ridiculously heavy, expensive, and slow firing, and might just explode.  So instead, smaller guns, which could saturate the enemy and <I>often</I> inflict damage, were used.

With all that said, modern armor is good, but not compared to modern weapons.  There might be potential there, especially for an 'infantry support tank' sort of role... or, alternatively, a tank armed primarily with missiles.

Quote

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.
Well, if you have loaders (whether manual or automatic) for each gun, then you don't need to load them one by one.  And more than simply increasing 'rate of fire', it allows you to take a second shot quickly if your first shot misses.  Which is kind of important, I believe.

Quote

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)
Because it's easy to manually load a gun while riding in a violently moving tank.

ed_anger #30 Posted Jan 13 2012 - 16:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14054 battles
  • 7,700
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010

View PostBaseDeltaZero, on Jan 13 2012 - 16:33, said:

Lert and others essentially said it - if you have enough room to put two guns in your tank, then you have enough room to put a single, bigger gun.
well, would you take a single, bigger gun or a smaller gun and a stripper pole?

Kampfwagenkanone #31 Posted Jan 16 2012 - 13:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3724 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011
http://www.tanksinwo...sentinel-04.jpg

This was the test bed for the Australian Cruiser IV.  The IV was to be armed with a 17lb gun, but as no 17lb guns were available to test at the time it was decided to test it with 2 x 25lb guns, which would give slightly more recoil.  When 17lb guns became available they were used.  The twin guns was never intended for actual use.

BaseDeltaZero #32 Posted Jan 22 2012 - 07:55

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 1641 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

Quote

well, would you take a single, bigger gun or a smaller gun and a stripper pole?
Definently the bigger gun.  Have you seen military-issue strippers?  Trust me, you don't want to.  Besides, it'll make your penis feel bigger.  Two penises?  Just weird.

Angelsilhouette #33 Posted Mar 02 2012 - 03:42

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 202 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
Way back in beta, when the French tank tree was first being discussed, someone had posted a picture of an old French tank that had a turret on either side of the turret.  Other than the two guns, it looked like a fairly ordinary tank.  Still pretty cool, though; I've been looking for that picture for a while and couldn't find it.  I should have grabbed it when I first saw it.

NM I found it:

Posted Image

http://www.chars-fra...d=713&Itemid=36

SuperSentinal #34 Posted Mar 24 2012 - 02:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13409 battles
  • 284
  • [RE4PR] RE4PR
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 18 2011 - 18:47, said:

Nothing mechanically impossible with the concept.




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




I recall seeing a Russian mobile artillery piece with two guns. The purpose being that the recoil of each cannon would reload the other. The image above looks like it although the one I saw had them side by side. I can see the reasoning for area effect weapons like artillery but for tanks it seems a waste of time. I think the main idea with all tanks is to kill your foe in the first shot. With that, it always makes more sense to have one big gun.

SeanPwnery #35 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 22:19

    Major

  • Veteran Testers
  • 27157 battles
  • 8,553
  • [RELSH] RELSH
  • Member since:
    08-27-2011
I'll ... just leave this here....


Flakpanzer E100.. twin 88's .. mmmm.. it's good.

http://www.moduni.de...ikel/399661.jpg

There's an E75 and E50 version that use 5.5cm guns as well which would wreck some middle tiers or maybe upper tiers if it had good pen values being a high-velocity cannon.

conman5525 #36 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 22:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15747 battles
  • 463
  • Member since:
    10-28-2011
Not to forget the Wirbelwind, a variant of the Flakpanzer IV carrying 4 20mm guns in a turret.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Wirbelwind

A deadly AA tank as well as an anti-infantry weapon.

WotanX #37 Posted Apr 01 2012 - 11:49

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 935 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
Double? Meh...

http://milday.ru/upl...305281272_3.jpg

http://cs1364.vkonta.../x_fb50dfae.jpg

_Freddy_ #38 Posted Apr 01 2012 - 20:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 412 battles
  • 827
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View PostSeanPwnery, on Mar 29 2012 - 22:19, said:

I'll ... just leave this here....


Flakpanzer E100.. twin 88's .. mmmm.. it's good.

http://www.moduni.de...ikel/399661.jpg

There's an E75 and E50 version that use 5.5cm guns as well which would wreck some middle tiers or maybe upper tiers if it had good pen values being a high-velocity cannon.

Fairly similar to the Flakpanzer Panther 'Coelian' with twin 37mm
http://img265.images...aufpanther6.jpg

VonSchmuke #39 Posted Apr 02 2012 - 00:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 8897 battles
  • 260
  • [T-W-C] T-W-C
  • Member since:
    08-30-2011
Except for the Ontos, which is a recoilless stopgap for marine landings, most multi gun "tanks" were meant for the Anti-aircraft role. The Tunguska is the newest of this type. The 57 and 75mm AA mounts have become obsolete because of aircraft speed and tactics. It is more important to get a large number of rounds out than to have a few which hit extra hard. Mid and high level AA is handled by missles now.:Smile_harp:

Shackram #40 Posted Apr 03 2012 - 20:22

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9156 battles
  • 4,536
  • [PSTNS] PSTNS
  • Member since:
    01-17-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 18 2011 - 18:47, said:

Nothing mechanically impossible with the concept.
http://media.moddb.c...39/152x2ft0.jpg

http://www.cncsaga.c...iya_SV_10_M.jpg

:P




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users