Why no twin barreled tanks?

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2002-12-11 12:30pm

Atlan wrote:Whoot, first post!

It's W00t!

Oh, and

POKE

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-11 09:33pm

Sir Sirius wrote:The WW2 German Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus had two cannons, 1 128mm KwK 44 L/55 und 1 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5.

Click here for more details about the Maus.

Maus was too big and clumsy. King Tiger was already pushing the limits of the technology.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-12-11 09:39pm

Atlan wrote:Whoot, first post!

The Germans seriously considered a double barreled tank(destroyer) as a replacement for the Leopard-1.
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/vt1-2.jpg
Several prototypes were build, the one above having two autoloaded 120 mm cannons. OTOH, it would have been driven more like a jetfighter than a conventional tank: the driver aimed and fired the guns, and the commander looked for targets to relate to the driver.
The two cannons were there to ensure at least one (or two) hits during the swinging side to side motion the tank would have made while driving/aiming, and quite a intricate FCS was build in. This vehicle weighed less than a LEO-2, but still carried a1.5 times the armor over the frontal arc. It would have been, and would still be, virtually invulnerable to all current AT assets, apart from maybe a Maverick or a LOSAT missile. With it`s low weight ithad a 2000 HP engine. Performance would have been.... interesting, to say the least.

Ultimately the Germans went with the LEO-2 not because the tankdestroyer didn`t work, it did so very well, but because it would have been a primarily offensive weapon, whereas the bundeswehr has a mostly defensive duty.

Atlan.

What an inane design.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2002-12-12 06:15am

Maus was too big and clumsy. King Tiger was already pushing the limits of the technology.

Yes, I know, but it did have two cannons mounted on a turret.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 2002-12-12 06:32am

Why not two Cannons?

~why~ two Cannons?

Given two tanks, in all other ways identical save that one has devoted its mass and volume available for offensive armament to two weapons, rather than one... I know which one ill bet on.

I dont have the calculations handy, and im no expert on modern weaponry... but ultimately, IIRC... the point of a tank is to get places more quickly than infantry, be hard to stop from doing so, and be able to fuck up anything that gets in your way.

With the limitations on engagment for a modern MBT being more in the nature of 'how fast can I find a target and lay the gun' rather than 'what is the rate of fire on my main cannon' (This based on conversations with ex-tankers, not personal experience) then your simply giving up one very hard hit for two smaller ones. The more powerful the blow, the greater the chance of a penetrating hit, and thus a kill. A single good hit is sufficent, two equal hits require too much tank, and two lesser hits are less effective.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-12-12 06:32am

You can see the serious problem in the concept of a double-barrel tank in the picture posted by Atlan. It is simply the problem of space. The amount of space you need to run the big gun makes having two simply impractical. You need to be able to reach the breech (even in an autoloader, so you can deal with misfires and jams). The breeches of two tank guns (I think they are mostly 125-mm these days) would take up about 2/3 of the front of the inside of the turret area. There wouldn't be room to move, let alone load the guns.

The Germans got around that problem in that prototype by putting the guns on the outside of the hull rather than the centreline. Apart from off-axis load problems and the vulnerability of two long barrels sticking about nine feet out of the front of the hull, I think there must have been some serious manoeuvrability issues for that design, especially when it got into town.

A more interesting idea I've recently heard mooted was that of adding missile racks (TOW, HOT or maybe even Hellfire) to the tank. Give them either HEAT or thermobaric warheads and use them as long-range town-busters.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2002-12-12 08:14am

The russian had a multi barreled tank in ww2.
The T-35 AFAIK.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-12 08:33am

Thunderfire wrote:The russian had a multi barreled tank in ww2.
The T-35 AFAIK.

Multi-turreted. It was massive, thinly armored, and got severely OWNED.

America also had the M3 Lee- the Russians who got it for lend-lease called it a grave for six brothers. It had a crew of six.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-12 12:14pm

Vympel wrote: America also had the M3 Lee- the Russians who got it for lend-lease called it a grave for six brothers. It had a crew of six.

Actually, the Lee was pretty good, with a long barrelled (at the time)
75mm gun capable of OWNING any german tank at the time....the
germans learned this the hard way in North Africa....

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-12-12 02:29pm

Atlan wrote:Whoot, first post!

The Germans seriously considered a double barreled tank(destroyer) as a replacement for the Leopard-1.

Several prototypes were build, the one above having two autoloaded 120 mm cannons. OTOH, it would have been driven more like a jetfighter than a conventional tank: the driver aimed and fired the guns, and the commander looked for targets to relate to the driver.
The two cannons were there to ensure at least one (or two) hits during the swinging side to side motion the tank would have made while driving/aiming, and quite a intricate FCS was build in. This vehicle weighed less than a LEO-2, but still carried a1.5 times the armor over the frontal arc. It would have been, and would still be, virtually invulnerable to all current AT assets, apart from maybe a Maverick or a LOSAT missile. With it`s low weight ithad a 2000 HP engine. Performance would have been.... interesting, to say the least.

Ultimately the Germans went with the LEO-2 not because the tankdestroyer didn`t work, it did so very well, but because it would have been a primarily offensive weapon, whereas the bundeswehr has a mostly defensive duty.

Atlan.

Uhh...wouldn't the swinging motion make the crew VERY sick?

KG

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-12 05:14pm

Vympel wrote:
Thunderfire wrote:The russian had a multi barreled tank in ww2.
The T-35 AFAIK.
Multi-turreted. It was massive, thinly armored, and got severely OWNED.

Never saw combat to my knowledge, the only ones that tired to go into action ran out of fuel before they found anything to shoot at. The T-28 with three turrets did very poorly in Finland though.

gravity · Post by **gravity** » 2002-12-12 08:07pm

Well, here's another question about tanks: Why do tanks have a loader, rather than reloading automatically from a magazine like a hand-held gun? Wouldn't that be more efficient?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-12-12 09:05pm

Big-ass shells don't work quite so easily, for one.

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-12-13 11:04am

There was one, I believe. A German tank prototype in the sixties, a turretless twin barrel monstrocity that never got into mass production.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2002-12-13 12:02pm

Well, here's another question about tanks: Why do tanks have a loader, rather than reloading automatically from a magazine like a hand-held gun? Wouldn't that be more efficient?

Actualy several tanks do have autoloaders. Many Soviet/Russian tanks...hmmm...at least the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 have them. Also the French Leclerc is fitted with an autoloader and it is supposed to have the greatest rate of fire of any modern tank.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2002-12-14 02:44am

That makes me wonder, why do ships all have double or triple barreled turrets?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-14 03:31am

DD's & FF's do not

are you proposing that we start building tanks larger then the Iowa class?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-14 03:44am

SWPIGWANG wrote:That makes me wonder, why do ships all have double or triple barreled turrets?

Even a 16" gun is very small relative to an Iowa-class battleship. The ratio of gun to hull size is much greater for a tank, so there is a huge difference in the proportional impact of recoil. Moreover, the space issues we cited for tank turrets are not a problem with the huge turrets of a battleship.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-14 03:47am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:DD's & FF's do not

are you proposing that we start building tanks larger then the Iowa class?

Actually the germans worked on something of similar in WW2
Ladies and gentlemen,the 1000 (actually more likely 2000) tons panzer.
http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/su ... p1000.html
I think however that the idea was to use it as a mobile coastal artillery emplacement.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-14 04:40am

Remind me not to send a copy of Keith Laumer's Bolo back in time ever.

They just might try and build it.....

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2002-12-14 11:24am

I used a double barrled tank in my fan fic Bug Splatt. I admit i know very little and my idea was a homage to the Mammoth Tank from C&C. If any tank enthusiatst here wanna pm me with suggestions to imprive my "Tank Killer" class tank feel free.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-12-14 12:00pm

SWPIGWANG wrote:That makes me wonder, why do ships all have double or triple barreled turrets?

Most do not. A few ships do, but those are fairly rare.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-12-14 12:01pm

IDMR wrote:There was one, I believe. A German tank prototype in the sixties, a turretless twin barrel monstrocity that never got into mass production.

Yeah, it was posted in the Armor private forum. Funky thing.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-14 09:21pm

Admiral Piett wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:DD's & FF's do not

are you proposing that we start building tanks larger then the Iowa class?
Actually the germans worked on something of similar in WW2
Ladies and gentlemen,the 1000 (actually more likely 2000) tons panzer.
http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/su ... p1000.html
I think however that the idea was to use it as a mobile coastal artillery emplacement.

Point? This a early 40's German project, purpose comes after construction...

That spawned the same way the H-44 did, the designers wanted to keep busy to avoid being sent to the Eastern Front. Hitler liked big guns and big things made of metal. Thus producing designs of such things was a good way to keep in his favor and away from the bullets.

Well, the H-44 had something a point, how big a BB do we need to have deck armor to take modern aerial bombs? But it was still mainly busy work.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2002-12-15 07:29am

phongn wrote:
SWPIGWANG wrote:That makes me wonder, why do ships all have double or triple barreled turrets?
Most do not. A few ships do, but those are fairly rare.

remember the dreadnought age? WWII?

Or even the wooden wall age, but that is a different story.