Why dont double barrel tanks really work?
>>65144566Engineers too gay to make an over under configuration.
>>65144566
>>65144566Worked for the Chinese.
>>651445661 barrel is hard enough for a two man crew to operate. Try expanding to two barrels with no extra crew. Nightmare mode.
>>65144566I am not an expert, but if I were to guess:>extra gun likely needs additional crew to operate it>to contain extra gun (and potentially crew), tank must be bigger and (assuming comparable armor) heavier>bigger, heavier tank needs a bigger/heavier-duty engine, drivetrain, and suspension to get comparable performance>each individual tank is now bigger, heavier, and more expensive>you can't field as many on the same budget, they have shorter operating range due to burning more fuel, and you may have greater difficulty transporting them to where they are needed>meanwhile, your enemy is now able to take out two guns per ATGM/shell/etc instead of one
>>65144566Missing twice doesn't help you and hitting twice should not be needed.Two large guns on one platform is a concentration of expensive resources (crew + gun) which will sacrifice the protection of said resources since tanks have a weight limit. Better to have two well-armored one-gun tanks than one two-gun tank.
>>65144566>tanks are vehicles where internal space and weight come at a great premium>an additional main gun would mean less space for ammo, crewmen, and equipment that may make a single gun more deadly>for the bulk of two main guns, you could just fit a considerably bigger single gun, meaning more firepower, more range, and more options for your ammo>two guns are more expensive and require more maintenance compared to a single gun>as >>65144593 says, more volume of fire doesn't necessarily mean many more hits, and even then, more hits doesn't necessarily mean higher lethality
>>65144566BECAUSE EXISTENCE IS GAY AND GOD HATES US
>>65145169>>65145326>>65145725Hear me out though>Superimposed turrets. Vertically parallel.
>>65145742Why not a bigger gun that can actually penetrate the enemy tank? Though if the current gun can already do that, why waste money on a second gun when an Abrams can already fire every 5 seconds? This double gun tank seems like a solution in search of a problem.
>>65145742>Superimposed turrets. Vertically parallel.After answering you seriously I realized you may be joking but the Russians actually tried prototyping an artillery system vaguely similar before realizing it was a retarded idea so I took it at face value.
>>65145752>>65145774I was joking, but both no.An independent turret atop an independent turret. A la battleships, but shifted. The bottom gun doesn't even need 360°, it could be liberal elevation and traverse casemate.Think M3 Lee, but symmetrical and equal or near equal calibers.
>>65145752One tank can simultaneously track and hit two tank.Obviously answer is give MBTs an independently aimed TOW or Javelin station, but guns are cooler.Mentioning that, How viable is it to put a 6 pack of APKWSon Abrams?
>>65145793>Think M3 LeeThe m3 Lee was a compromise made to the people shouting TANK NOW FFS REEEEEE because a real tank wasn't ready.
>>65145905The Lee had an excellent combat record.Couldn't be killed in North Africa or the Pacific and still an excellent support tank in Italy and Europe because the 75mm HE and 37mm cannister shot were excellent.Btw the 75mm still penned every german tank frontally at 100m.
>>65145932Yeah, people give it shit for being riveted, over-crewed, unable to decide wither it is a SPG or a tank and being quite frankly ridiculous looking but it had good speed, thicker armor and a 75mm gun in a time when the enemy was mostly using Panzer III's, snub gunned IV's and 38(t)'s. Also that 75mm carried enough explosives to make those repurposed 88mm AA guns have a bad day whereas I'm not even sure the Brit 2lber even had a widely available HE round let alone an effective one.
>>65145951my understanding is that lees / grants gave a major edge in north africa
Idk shit about tanks but I’m gonna guess the problem is torque. The tank will want to spin around if only one gun is fired. You’d have to fire both at the same time. But if you’re doing that, why not just use one big gun in the center?
>Why dont double barrel tanks really work?Reloading
>>65144574>gets scalped by incoming T-72sNGMI
>>65146047>The tank will want to spin aroundIf you make it Russian style with no recoil system
>>65145951The 2pdr did have a HE shell, but it was pretty shit (with 85g of explosive! Whoo!) and the Brits in north Africa mostly had AP equipped anyway. Surprisingly capable gun all things considered, with decent ammo. Its kinda a shame it gets overlooked... bit like the 6pdr.
>>65145951So, if the Sherman was already drafted when the Lee came into production, why did the Lee have thinner armor?
>>65145951>I'm not even sure the Brit 2lber even had a widely available HE round let alone an effective one.I am trying to get to the bottom of this. There was an APHE round which as far as I can tell was quickly removed from service and replaced with solid shot for being lackluster and unreliable which falls in line with experiences a lot of other nations had with APHE rounds on tanks.There was supposedly an HE round developed and issued to the AT gun crews only which seems insane yet makes a lot of sense when AT guns were often pushed into an infantry support gun role i.e. fighting other infantry or emplacements rather than tanks.Australians also apparently made their own HE rounds out of BOFORs rounds but I am skeptical of the evidence here not helped by the fact whenever they show a picture of it supposedly in action its a Matilda II with a 3 inch howitzer not a 2pdr.
>>65145932The soviets nicknamed their lend lease Lees "grave for seven brothers".
>>65146730Brit tanks equipped with 2 or 6 pounder guns were not carrying HE shells. Instead they had mixed formations with one tank armed with a snubnose gun firing HE and 3 (IIRC) tanks armed with 2 or 6 pounders with AP only.
>>65145793>An independent turret atop an independent turret.Contra-rotating? With aerodynamically shaped barrels?
>>65148160>one tank armed with a snubnose gun firing HE80/20 mix smoke/HE in CS tanks because muh infantry support means letting the infantry advance behind smoke, which will definitely protect them from enemy HE and MG fireReading british military history is so fucking annoying, you want to strangle everyone involved
>>65148164Are you suggesting it could do a tankopter like in that Chinese animation?
>>65148276The inspiration came from the zany undead, not the chinks.
>>65148317Terrifying. Horrifying, even.
>>65145774The French looked at this for one of their superheavy tank plans, the FCM F1 - it was a breakthrough type tank, for beating fortification lines rather than tank fighting, and the design was complicated enough (and had enough revisions/reworks) that the escalation to war overtook it and it never got made.Also kind of interesting that the builders for the superheavy tanks were primarily a shipyard - though that's probably more to do with armor production/experience than specifically making land battleships.
>>65144964>no extra crewWhat a silly constraint.
>>65146676I'm not sure I understand the question but it sounds like you're asking why an older tank design has less armor than a newer one?
>>65148317God, I miss old /tg/
>>65145932>>Couldn't be killed in North AfricaBattle of Gazala:>In the preparations for the battle the Eighth Army received 167 M3 tanks. The 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars, 3rd and 5th battalions Royal Tank Regiment went into action with Grant tanks. Retreating in the face of a large attack, the 8th Hussars had only three Grants remaining, while 3rd RTR reported losing 16. >>Btw the 75mm still penned every german tank frontally at 100m.>at 100m.
They sort of did
>>65148151Soviet use was probably driving straight at German AT guns
The situation must have been so shocking that it forced the deployment of the long-barreled Panzer IV, which was so highly desired on the Eastern Front, to Africa.
>>65146127>takes both barrels from XM-DOUBLEDICK >heads explodes like a fembot overloading on mojoHow it would really play out
>>65148985Its the truth tho.
