Why Are There No Double Barrel Tanks?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Download World of Tanks for free today and get a special bonus: tanks.ly/49lMC1a
Throughout various fictional universes and games we regularly see tank designs with double barrels. Why then are there no double barrel tanks in the real world? Join me as we explore this topic followed by looking at what they might look like if they did exist through the vehicles in World of Tanks.
Link to the article on my website: www.coneofarc.com/articles/do...
Thumbnail by: www.deviantart.com/spacer-bat...
Social links:
My Website: www.coneofarc.com/
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / coneofarc
Instagram: / coneofarc
Twitter: / coneofarc
TikTok: / coneofarc
Merch: teespring.com/stores/coneofar...
Merch(Amazon): www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc
References:
www.tankarchives.ca/2023/04/b...
TS-54 video: • Double Barreled Fake, ...
Neubaufahrzeug video: • Armored Cerberus, the ...
Steam tank image: www.newgrounds.com/art/view/b...
Things I use:
Camera: amzn.to/2OppVnR
Editing software: Sony Vegas 17 amzn.to/3kOwtIu
PC Hardware: www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc...
Recording Equipment: www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc...
You can check out more stuff I use on my Amazon Store:
www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc
Provided links are affiliate links which allow me to earn from qualifying purchases
Want to send me something?
ConeOfArc
PO Box 305
Thompson, CT 06277
Or support the channel using Crypto:
BTC- bc1qjs2fqh6zupnwzjhyd9kjvqfld728sqnea4r67s
ETH- 0x5547e17113640c162Ded5B664155227058060C54
Thanks to my ConelyFans:
JLS1001
ThatHusk
Anchii_Kyara47
ccc973
Skoshi
Steven G
Maho
j3llefly
Pervitin
Blue Knight
Jan Ram. Dodge2727
Ivan
Ivan Velazquez
Limmy K
Chrome-Chan but JJF
Trkr
Paul Walsh
O D
Sukoshi Tiger
Yuk-Luen Man
Flying Pachyderm
pompomchan
Braňo Kohút
Become one today and get a Cone badge next to all your comments as well as other spicy perks!
/ @coneofarc
Some music provided by Epidemic Sound.
License music for your videos without fear of copyright claims
www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Timestamps:
0:00 - 1:33 Intro
1:33 - 2:52 What makes a double barrel tank?
2:52 - 6:31 Real world examples of double barrel tanks
6:31 - 10:33 Why do these designs fail?
10:33 - 17:35 How realistic are World of Tanks double barrel designs?
17:35 - 19:50 Double barrels don't exist because...
#history wot #worldoftanks #tanks
Thanks to World of Tanks for supporting the channel and my ability to cover this interesting topic. Download World of Tanks for free today and get a special bonus: tanks.ly/49lMC1a
Have you ever heard of the ZSU-57-2 a Russian SPAA with two 57mm guns that fired APHE and HE
I knew it. Updated WOT and saw your video
World of Fakes.
ah, you're grifting for this ruzzian cash grab too? Luckily I don't have to play this dreck
Warthunder much better and more realistic
You point out all the logical reasons why double barrels are inefficient and counterproductive, however people always forget the soft factors of how much I want one and how cool they are.
I wish I could have a modernized Maus. :(
@@dubuyajay9964How about Object 279 ?
@@Raptorblue21 ?
@@dubuyajay9964You don't know object 279?
@@gabrielho1874 Just looked it up. Still prefer a modernized Maus.
Cons:
-Weight
-Procedure for loading ammo
-Ammunition conservation
-Dubious utility of two underpowered cannons vs one that can penetrate armor
-Dubious utility of two powerful cannons that could both penetrate armor, but are both heavy and take up more space
-Complications with aiming either using set convergence, parallel barrels with two offset sights, or a complicated and vulnerable convergence/rangefinder combo
-Need for heavy duty turret motor... possibly suffering from slow rotation and elevation
-If lost or damaged you are losing two large, expensive guns instead of one
Pros:
-It's cool
-Aint no kill like overkill
I'm pretty sure these concerns were somewhat answered by the concept of adding a coaxial sub-cannon for lighter targets.
There's also "If the barrels are close enough together, firing 2 very powerful cannons close together will cause the shells downrange to have a wildly varying dispersion, ala the problems found with certain battleships"
@@novatopaz9880only if shot at the same time.
Coaxial sub-cannon also seems to be a more complicated solution than adding another type of ammunition for the main gun. Though I must admit that those types of ammunition (like HE-DP or HE-MP or barrel-launched ATGMs) are a relatively more modern invention, and adding a second gun still makes more sense in case of a large caliber disparity (like say a 140mm main gun with a 20mm or a 25mm coax). Though, again, such a small weapon would make even more sense as a separate remotely-controlled weapon station.
@@novatopaz9880 Machine gun and Autocannon and Rocket can go multiple by 4s but not cannons due to weight and stability issues.
There are more benefits to it though like an increased rate of fire, though even more downsides. Or in short, it's not viable.
The key answer to the double barrel tank, is the fact that if you have the space and weight for 2 small guns, you can fit one bigger one.
But the rate of fire of one big gun would be much lower than that of two smaller guns.
@@minervszombiesthen you put an autoloading one
@@cherno8336 That could work, I guess.
@@minervszombies Theoretical rate of fire would be counter-balanced by the practical effect on target.
@@minervszombiesbut then you have to load two guns so it probably would take longer with two.
Even from the earliest ages, the quest for more Dakka is unending
There is never enough dakka!!
@@Usinghealer099 Amen!
WAAAAGH!
Vegeta approves
Interesting to think about how influenced our culture as a whole is by NOT 'AVIN ENUFF DAKKA
One fact that also makes it difficult for double barrel tanks to be effective is the aiming itself. When shooting at targets from longer ranges, there is a high likelyhood that shooting will cause one or both rounds to miss (crosshair/ sight is on target but the guns technically arent). When firing you have to adjust for each gun seperatly because of the distance between the 2 guns. If they are close to eachother the effect is less noticable, but if they are further away the problem becomes larger. Simply putting a sight on one side is difficult, having 2 is cumbersome having to switch and putting one in the middle might be difficult.
I hope i explained it somewhat understandibly but in short: due to gun placement, aiming is made more difficult because you now have to adjust trajectory and distance between the sight and barrel for each gun seperateyl. (English is not my main Language so i do apologize)
This "feature" is present in the game, as when you are switching guns in "sniper mode", a vigenette can be seen briefly, indicating the switching of aiming optics.
It's possible that changing aim of the gun to be relatively simple, since most sights are offset from the gun, a second gearing for horizontal correction (for the other gun) can be added. Though this is still a problem for salvos.
This is parallax effect, basically
Probably wouldn't be super difficult to implement some kind of convergence adjustor. Multi-barrel SPAAs would have to have that kind of system.
The problem isn't as much to aim the two barrels into the same target even at the same time, the problem is more about the complexity of the system to do so. The solution is the same as with airplanes with guns in wings, gun harmonisation.
The wing guns do not shoot straight but they are aimed inward so the projectiles meet after some distance, as in the guns can be moved horizontally to create convergence point into which the aiming circle is also set. With planes thing is rather easy, just loosen a bolt and tilt the gun and calibrate the sight for the new distance. With tanks this is a lot of trouble, not only do you need to make beefier gun mounts that could be turned horizontally to make the gun harmonisation possible and handle the weight and the recoil of the guns but you also need to make a system that can change the angle of the guns to move the convergence point according to the distance set into the tank sight because, unlike planes, tanks cannot engage enemies only at the right distance for their guns. Also tank rounds are rather big and most of them would completely loose their impact if they were to hit with another one half-way to the target.
How is it any different with one gun? The sight is offset anyway and the distance between the gun and sight isn`t enough to make a difference, especially at range where the guns precision would be wider than the offset.
“The apocalypse has begun.”
And the army is using the fallout 4 tank ;)
"The end is at hand"
I was there, 25 years ago
"I cast a deadly shadow"
I wonder if enclave vertibirds could transport the US army's old double gun tanks
In the case of the U. S. Heavy Tank M6, I believe the inclusion of a coaxial 37mm was intended as an ammunition conservation measure. The 37mm M6 was a vehicle-mounted variant of the M3 towed anti-tank gun. As such it was designed to fire solid-shot AP rounds and anti-personnel canister (e.g. the Marines in the Guadalcanal campaign). The Ordnance Branch believed the 37mm would be more frequently used than the 3-inch M7 gun, given the AFVs used by the Wehrmacht in France in 1940 and in the ongoing battles in North Africa. The envisioned targets of the M7 were fortified positions and, especially, German anti-tank artillery positions. Out of the 75 rounds of 3-inch ammo carried by the Heavy Tank M6, most would be HE suitable to such targets, plus a reserve of AP ammo in case the rare German heavy tank showed itself. The 37mm M7 gun had a supply of 202 rounds. Being small, these could be stowed in many locations within the tank. Most of these would be solid-shot AP rounds. However, canister rounds were also to be carried as means to deal with enemy infantry on the flanks or otherwise invisible to the bow gunner.
Kinda like the French Char, their hull mounted howitzer was intended as a bunker buster while the turret was for anti tank work
An insight into French military thinking at the time is that the hull mounted gun was actually considered the primary armament while the turret was the secondary
@@gabespiro8902 The Heavy Tank M6 was designed when the "tank destroyer" doctrine was prevalent. The U.S.A. Ground Forces commander, Leslie McNair thought of tanks as primarily infantry support weapons, consequently, tank-on-tank combat was seen as a misuse of armor. Only a few M6 tanks were built. I'm quite certain that high-velocity 3-inch gun made McNair suspicious.
@@gabespiro8902 The Medium Tank M3, better known as the Lee/Grant was designed around the same doctrine that emphasized dedicated "tank destroyers" for the anti-tank role. Just like the M6, the M3 had a 37mm gun for dueling with German AFVs and a much more powerful gun firing HE rounds for dealing with fortified positions and FlaK-88s. However, being much simpler to build en mass and much easier to transport by sea, 30 tons to lift by crane versus 50, McNair could completely justify his position regarding the M6 Heavy.
In fiction we have the iconic Mammoth and apocalypse tanks of the Command and Conquer series. In addition to twin turrets, they use multiple independent suspension units. Which leads to the question of "how do four (or more) smaller track sections compare to just two large ones?"
Adding more gears decreases top speed but increases torque iirc.
You want torque when it comes to moving something heavy, seems on the right *track*
In Command and Conquer Red Alert, I could just modify the Rules.ini file to make the Mammoth tanks fire AP or HE guided dogs, set is bio? to O so they work against vehicls and buildings.. 🐕 Roolfff! 💀
Guided Dog missiles out of a Yak was the funniest though...I almost died laughing when I tested it.
the answer is "poorly"
Those were what I thought of immediately when I saw this video, along with the Overlord from Generals
Generally speaking poorly , if one tracks blows you can't move the tank , you add more moving parts . One of the few benefits is the increased torque , which helps to overcome some slopes , i remember seeing a UGV that had four tracks and it had a great climbing ability , some walking excavators has four tracks , but at that point you are a hybrid and not a purely tracked vehicle
Double barreled tanks, very impractical but by god do they look so cool. Before WoT even introduced double barrel tanks, I believe it was the Command and Conquer franchise the popularized it. From Mammoth Tanks to Apocalyse Tanks, and the Overlord Tanks.
It actually started with Dune 2. The Harkonnen Devastator.
Yeah man I was playing Command and Conquer and there was like the Chinese tank that when upgraded by a certain general had 2 barrels and a group bonus, and of course the overlord too
Yeah, but he's not being paid to talk about the cool ones
@@Th0ughtf0rce
Which was made by the same studio.
@@Web720 yes. Good old westwood.
In my younger days, I thought of a twin gunned tank for my fictional world. Once I learned more about tank design, I realized that a turret capable of taking the recoil of two guns... could handle a much larger one.
Two smaller guns alternating fire can dispose of ammo much faster though.
Tell me more about your fictional world.
Do you have a 10,000 page PDF? Only that will satisfy me tbh
@@arostwocents No PDF. It orbits a distant star and is similar to Earth, but with different geography and societies.
The twin gunned tank was for a WWIII type engagement, back when I didn't understand much about tank design... or even much familiarity with modern( in the seventies) tanks.
@@brunozeigerts6379hmm a ww3 scenario of what time period? More recently or kinda like the 50s-80s era?
@@rya7886 It changed as time went on. Maybe 1970, then 1980, 1990. Then I decided that they don't have a WWIII for a lot of the same reasons we didn't.(knock on wood)
There were a number of multi barrel anti aircraft guns but when it comes to anti tank guns adding a second barrel and all the other hardware only serves to make a vehicle larger, heavier, more complex and ultimately less combat capable.
Autocannons aren't as heavy and their ammunition isn't as big so makes sense
As I mentioned on screen they don't really suffer from the same problems as the vehicles we usually associate with the term "double barrel tank". The idea behind them is fairly similar though
@@ConeOfArc Closest thing I can think of to a "multi barrel tank" would be something like the Ontos, and the thing kinda sucked ...
@@user-op8fg3ny3j And autocannons don't require the same degree of precision, either, since you're putting a burst of shells in the vicinity of the target with the intent that at least some of them are going to hit.
the closest example like be the 2 barrels SPAAGs ZSU-57-2 with 2 57mm cannons, or its American equivalent with 2 40mm Bofor guns
Soviet ZSU-57-72 An example of an anti-aircraft version that was used, among other things, to destroy light armored vehicles and infantry.
ZSU 57-2 Sparka has probably seen more use in its ground engagements than the originally intended AA role. But its turret lacks a roof, as it is not mechanically ventilated and cooled and its very high rate of elevation would make a solid turret roof difficult to design (the roof would probably bring its own problems with selecting, tracking and aiming at targets). However, it is lightly armored (weighs about 30 metric tonnes) and thus quite vulnerable in frontline combat situations. But it has a high rate of fire and can devastate soft-skinned targets. It is also useful for targeting enemy positions on higher ground, e.g. in mountainous terrain or urban settings. A single-barrel 57 mm autocannon has recently been shown as one of the possible main armaments in a remotely operated turret placed on top of the heavy IFV T-15 Armata design.
Multi barrel designs make sense for AA guns because you need the higher rate of fire to strike such a fast moving target. That's why you'll find double, triple, and quad AA configurations as far back as WWII at least. The ZSU-57-2's successor, the ZSU-23-4 was a quad design for that very reason.
Why? Because it's grossly inefficient.
High rates of fire are the only reason for multiple barrels, and you're NOT going to get any higher rate of fire out of a tank main gun by doubling the weight and work needed to serve them.
The question is less 'why are double-barreled turrets impractical on tanks?', and more, 'why *are* they practical on warships?'. The answer is, they really weren't; rather, they were a work-around on issues of barrel size and loading of extremely large ship cannons. In the late 19th and early 20th century, when armored barbette turrets were introduced, the cannons were already approaching the feasible technical limits at which you could build artillery pieces, and while that technology did rapidly improve as the First World War approached, you still had a situation where a gun larger than 14"/355mm quickly became unwieldy to load and aim even with mechanical assistance.
While much larger artillery pieces were possible, it wasn't really needed, as the existing guns could penetrate any practical ship's armor of the time. While the size of the guns did increase to 16"/381mm and eventually 18"/458mm on the _Yamato_ class, the fact that these sizes were neither necessary nor practical in ship to ship combat meant that the focus came to be on volume of fire, range, and accuracy. As a result, ship designers turned first to multiple turrets, then to multiple multi-barreled turrets.
By the time ship-borne artillery had reached its zenith in the early 1940s, carrier-based aircraft were making battleships obsolete anyway, and soon after that, guided missiles became sufficiently powerful, long-ranged, and accurate that ship's armor became redundant. Consequently, ship guns actually became smaller, designed more for point defense against air attacks and small watercraft than for ship to ship clashes.
Tank guns have very different limitations than ship-borne weapons, mostly regarding weight and mobility. Unlike ship guns, practical tank guns never completely overmatched practical tank armor, and unlike a large ship, a tank has to be light enough to be able to cross bridges and other obstacles.
A ship's turret could and often was larger than any practical tank ever could be. Trying to apply ship design to tanks simply doesn't work.
It absolutely was bot a workaround. You had 15" guns by the revolutionary war. 17" mortars were commonplace by the 1910s, and 18 or 20" single pieces existed.
The reason they wernt used on warships, is that they wernt necesseary. The only time you wanted anything larger than a 6" was against a battleahip, and even there, a 12" got you there until the late 20s. No serious design was ever drawn up with an armament larger than 16", despjte the Karl Gustav being a thing. No the Yamato is not a serious design.
You will see multiple weaponsystems of the same rype being used, whenever making the existing one larger is unnecesseary, and further mechanizing it to improve its function is unfeasable.
Similarly, you will see multivarelled organ launchers for ATGMs and AShCMs in basically every instance of their mounting on vehjcles, because putting on a larger one is plainly unnecesseary. Same with anti air guns. Tanks will start getting multiple main guns, as soon as one with the firepower of a 6" gun can be miniuturized to the point a pair of them and their loading mechanism fits into the space and weight of what a 5" tank gun currently takes up.
The Guns themselves are complex engineering......Having too many guns on one platform is like too many eggs in one basket.
It's better to have 2 single barrelled tanks the one twin barrel from a tactical stance also, If one tank is lost you still have another gun, if a twin is lost that's 2 guns out of the fight.
There really are a whole bunch of reasons why twin barrelled tanks aren't really a thing
I think it would be much more efficient to just have 2 two barrelled thanks
@@user-wj8kv2rv4u You clearly don't understand the defintion of "efficiency".
@@cattledog901 There is an "Efficiency", you just have to look hard for it :)
Like transportation for example, moving one tank into the battle with twin guns is more efficient that moving 2 tanks into the battle......but the pros of a twin barrelled tank are outweighed by the cons for sure
@@Tommy-he7dx Resource wise it makes no sense. Twin gun tanks will be less efficient tactically because of the negative effects it brings to the individual tank (crew will be less efficient with less space, tank will be heavier and more complicated, less ammo, aiming issues) while also not being efficient on a strategic level. Like you said makes way more sense militarily to have more single barrel tanks than less double barrel tanks. It distributes the lethality across a larger force. Even the fire rate of a double barrel tank would not be more efficient since you would to load both guns, reducing the ROF. A single cannon tank could surpass its ROF easily simply because of crew efficiency.
@@Tommy-he7dx two tanks are better than one tank with twin cannons. One tank is just one, either if it has two or more guns won't change the fact it's just one tank. You lose one then you got no tanks left, that's why the soviets won the eastern front
You forgot about the soviet Mammoth / Appoclips tank for red alert if you are counting virtual double barrel tanks XP
Can’t forget the Overlord from generals
Your right come to think about it there is also the GLA marauder tank when you fully upgrade it with 2 scrap piles@@JordanJames_420
The DBT was seriously discussed in tank design in the late seventies / early eighties. The reason was having a real fast follow up shot when the first one misses. We are talking about seconds after observing the first shot. Double firing would be a no go as the support structures in the tank would have been much, much to heavy. The final solution was laser targeting and computerized auto correction to increase hit propability.
It's basically the same as a double barreled shotgun for shooting skeet/clay pigeons. Most of the time you'll hit with the first round (assuming proficiency) but the optional 2nd makes it unlikely that you'll fail to clear the targets before they go out of sight
Autoloaders solve this problem. Russian T-72 could fire 1 shot each 7,5 seconds. It is short enough delay
When I was a kid Command and Conquer came out and my buddy and I would take turns playing on his computer… the reverence we had for the mammoth tank was magical lol just because 2 barrels!
Heres cone of arc answering the real important questions.
Kudos.
I was happy to see the unique M50 Ontos mentioned but surprised you didn’t also mention the 1950s era Type 60 tank destroyer with two side by side recoilless rifles.
Each gun is lightweight, single shot, and can only be reloaded by getting out of the tank which can be under fire
One other issue (which is probably secondary to turret space for two recoiling breaches) is that closely spaced muzzled tend to cause shell deflection during simultaneous fire. IIRC, the British cruisers famously had to shorten the center barrel on their three rifle turrets to prevent shell deflection during salvo fire. Also, can you imagine the load on the turret ring, brakes, and suspension when two guns fire simultaneously?
Either that or put a few nanoseconds delay between the trigger for each barrel, they may appear to fire simultaneously in real time, but in slow motion one shell would exit the barrel first and be a about a half a meter ahead of the other one all the way downrange.
With regard to British cruisers, while it appears from the outset that the middle barrel is shorter, it isn't actually any shorter than the surrounding barrels as the cannon is just inset into the turret.
@@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785This would cause more problems of its own, unfortunately. The shell firing second would be flying through the shock front generated by the first shell. Basically, the second shell will see "dirty air". This can cause huge deviations in the trajectory of the second shell and will probably make it useless for hitting anything accurately.
@@poqqery8950 good point. still, i wonder...how about a coaxial chain gun, 25-40mm, that fires a 3-5 round HE burst, just a half second before the main gun fires? the dirty air may be negligable, and the smaller rounds can set off the ERA, allowing the main round to hit clean. like "brrrt Boom!" or something like that?
Multiple barrel armored vehicles are good when saturation is needed ... a lot of rounds in a very short time.
For example this is what the Wirbelwind did with 4 autocannons and this is what today the Gephard does.
Sturation with HE rounds is achieved by MLRS and not tanks and saturation by AP rounds is not that useful ...
you hit the other tank twice with smaller caliber possibly not penetrating either ... better hit once and pen.
Have to agree with you. The only purposes are where you need a "shotgun effect" (including dispersion and a "beaten volume"/"beaten zone over time") or barrel firing is interleaved to assist walking shots on to a target (typically this is only useful for aa).
In other words for short range SPAAG systems
They look soo cool in sci-fi genre because they look intermediating with the examples of the Apocalypes tank, Overlord tank, Mammoth tank and Grizzly tank from Halo.
Tanks are pretty much as small as possible while squeezing the gun in. Battleships were as big as possible and filled with the largest guns we could get.
11:27 Westwood Studios came up with those in Command & Conquer: Red Alert Retaliation (1996) real-time strategy game. Russia and Ukraine are having double barrel heavy tanks and double barrel Mammoth tanks in this game which gave the idea to other game developers in the future. They look cool and they are very powerful.
Its actually kinda surprising. They have a double barrel shot gun, i do not think it would be much harder. Its on mark, both probably using the same recoil system so it would be easy to get that second round very close to the same mark. Granted weight might be a factor, they always wanted to get the largest(heavy) cannon in most of the tanks. Two might be to much weight in the end.
Weight is always a factor on tanks.
It's too much weight for negliblely more firepower. you get 2 shots but then you'll reload at the same rate unless you have 2 loaders which means a bigger and heavier tank.
But most of all, you could just have 1 bigger gun, less weight, complexity, and the only issue is less ammo capacity.
consider that aiming two tank barrels at long distances increases the chance that either one or both shots will miss
Also in terms of tank on tank combat, it's generally better to stick a bigger gun into your bigger tank, instead of two smaller guns.
The recoil and effect of a 12 gauge double barrel is much much much less than the forces generated by firing even two smaller tank guns. Seriously, you could lose a hand or get killed by concussive force just being near the barrel of a tank gun as it's firing. That causes shells to get deflected by those forces if fired simultaneously.
Firing a double barrel shotgun also rocks the gunner, and you're much less likely to hit your target due to the greater recoil. Unless you're a massive mountain man, at any rate.
One other thing that could be a problem with two main caliber guns is that if they are side by side then if fired independently it would torque the turret every time the gun is fired, which could damage the turret ring and rotation mechanism as well as reduce accuracy. This would mean they could only really be fired in tandem at which point a larger gun would probably be better. They could be mounted on top of each other, though that presents it's own problems such as an absurdly tall turret.
I did not perceive that you mentioned this, but I have always had a concern about the torque on the turret. Off center gun(s) will twist the turret on firing and put a great deal of stress on the turret traverse mechanism, which is bad because turret traverse is an important part of precision aiming. Having a turret traverse mechanism that is much more robust to handle the off center torque and yet maintain the delicate precision needed to make an accurate shot would be a very hard technical problem to solve. With two guns, the firing of either would twist the turret and require re-aiming the gun system for the next shot which may be counter productive for the whole purpose of two guns. If the the guns were on top of one another, this would not be a problem. But then, there are other technical problems that would occur.
This is how I perceive one of the problems.
All we need is the Apocalypse Tank from Red Alert 3. It's basically an oversized massive artillery.
search ZSU-57-2, that's just a lite version of Apocalypse
Apocalypse tank existed in Red alert 1 and 2.
The Mammoth predates it. That thing is literally in some of the early concepts from '93.
So basically the same reason as multi turret tanks and landship tanks never took off
Yes very similar. I actually wish I had included that comparison in the video but I didn't think of it until I was already editing. I'll probably do a video like this specifically for multiturreted tanks as there are a few other reasons those fail as well.
Yes, because the armament of a tank makes up a much larger proportion of its overall weight than on a warship. Thus, adding more turrets or more guns per turret is much harder to do. It just turns out that tanks fall right in the size category where such concepts don't really work. And it's not remotely practical to built a tank that's big enough for double or triple-barrel turrets to be actually feasible. Land vehicles are just smaller than ships.
Before watching, what reasons I can think of:
- Turret Space for the guns themselves and the crew to load them
- Neglectable firepower gain compared to one, bigger gun
- More points of failure
- More strain on all components due to higher weight two guns + other accomodations to make them feasable
- Much bigger frontal surface that has to be armored and provides a bigger target for the enemy
Edit: Yay, I was pretty much on point!
The issue is you are putting 2x the complexity and problems of having a gun in the first place, while being half as useful. A commander would rather have 2 tanks than 1 double gun tank. It also means that if you lose tank you are losing 2 guns worth of firepower. Also tanks are generally firing at LOONG ranges, where precision is more important. There is a reason we do not have double barreled sniper rifles. What would be better is some kind of double shot system where you could fire 2 rounds back to back with 1 trigger pull. So if you know you will have a hit you can load the second shot.
“How many guns do you need?” “YES”
Something about having more than loader: it doesn't mean both loaders are loading the guns, it could be a relay system, with one loader passing rounds/charges from the hull to the turret, or some other form of team based work.
I was wondering if WoT was sponsoring this episode, and of course it is 😂.
Jus a heads up ….War thunder out classes WOT easily . Way better game
@@kooperativekrohn819 haven’t played either in a almost decade at this point
@@kooperativekrohn819no not really. They both have severe problems and are generally intendeds for different people.
@@kooperativekrohn819This is what i find bad about war thunder players......they act more like "elites" one thing,realism doesn’t really make the game better....it only makes it different,WOT is placed as an arcade game for people who want to have a simpler experience......war thunder is placed as realistic game for people who want to have a more complex and real experience........it's really a nerd move to compare them.......
@@samsuddin8249 I've been playing WOT for ten years and I'm telling you (very seriously) that WT is better. Because WOT launched fake tanks with too much information that could not be confirmed.
I think the real problem aren't really the mechanics themselves. The true issue is manning the guns. Extra loader takes space that could be replaced with other stuff. Single loader will take double the time to load the rounds. You can give the single loader the extra space you took for the extra gun + extra loader and allow the single loader to just load single gun faster. Also the extra gun could be put on a different tank, and now you have two tanks instead of one. The only advantage you get from two barrels is a fast followup on the first shot you fired, giving you more chance to kill your target before it could kill you. An advantage that is pointless if you get surprised by the enemy or get shot at with RPG's
The quest for more dakka is truly an never-ending journey.
How about the M3 Grant/Lee? A stopgap measure, but actually used in WW2. Sponson-mounted 75mm gun and turret-mounted 37mm gun.
2:46
the man is counting a haul as a turret which make my head hurt.
Funny fact: the Object 703 - II originally was supposed to used the 100mms like the IS-2 II and was actually designed based on that armament in mind and iirc exists in the game files. However the reason it uses 122mms was because it would sell better for wargaming's benefit.
Fun fact, the double barreled tanks in game also make you go faster if you rotate the turret facing the back, and fire both simultaneously lol.
Another thing is that in the place of a two barrelled turret, you can get one single barrelled turret that has a bigger and better gun.
Yes, the obvious point. Think the Panzer III when it was upgraded to the 5 cm gun. At some point you have the longer barrel 5 cm gun, which still struggled to penetrate the armor of T-34s. So is the solution to make a larger tank, like the Tiger, with two such guns? Trying to overcome stronger armor with rate of fire? I guess if you are the US Navy, you do (More guns, always add more guns).
@@iansneddon2956 TBF, the issue with ships is that they're very long, so you hit the limit of how big a gun you can fit for the weight of the ship. Also at the longer ranges ships fight at, you're probably going to miss a lot of shots, so you compensate by firing more shots per salvo.
@@Appletank8 Yes, but I was taking a dig at the USN taking this a bit far. Imagining US naval architects waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat with the thought that they might have missed some deck space on which they could have mounted another gun.
@@iansneddon2956 The marines can shoot a Maxim at the planes too
@@Appletank8 Heck, the sailors aren't going to be just standing around, either. They've been known to throw potatoes when they need to.
Not to mention that most likely it would be impossible to fire two large caliber guns simultaneously without wrecking something on the tank. Firing sequentially would still necessitate reaquiring the target after firing the first gun.
battleship regularly fire 3 barrels gun at the same time, why are they okay but not tank ? or is this more of issue of the relative size of gun to the main supporting body ?
@@keenheat3335I’m not an expert or anything, but you are probably right. Battleships are huge in size and they are built big enough to withstand recoils of their cannon. Tanks in other hand has much more limited capacity on weapons they can hold.
@@keenheat3335 If you look at battleships a turret on an Iowa class has a weight of around 2450 tonnes. The ship displacement is around 58,000 tonnes fully loaded. It also sits in water that the impulse can be transferred to. The ships are not standing on tracks with a supposition system that can move
The secondary 5 inch =127 mm guns are close to the same caliber as a tank gun today. They were twin mount and the weight was 77,400kg. That is more than a tank today. And they are attached to a large ship.
Tank guns are a lot larger part of the vehicle than ship guns are. There is likely a diffrence in the recoil absorption system. Tank is quite limited in size so you can fit a good and large system in them
Given the nature of the armour/gun race, if you've got space and weight margin for two medium-sized guns, then you're almost always better off fitting one much bigger gun instead. It'll have more range and penetration, and you'll probably still be able to carry more single shots for the big gun than you can carry two-round salvoes for the twin guns.
Having a pair of different guns that do different things is more sensible though. I've always rather liked the BMP-3 armament system. Giving the 100mm low-velocity gun a serious APFSDS round would mean carrying full-sized rounds with very sub-calibre penetrators, the big sabots being basically wasted space. Fitting a 30mm with a long barrel braced to the 100mm is probably a better solution: you get the same anti-armour capability, more compact ammunition, and, being a belt-feed autocannon, it doesn't significantly add to the crew's workload.
WoT should not be used as a measure of how realistic something is
Because to answer this question you would need to ask Drachinifels...😅
The Gamilas in Space Battleship Yamato 2199 had a triple barrel tank, but it is an interesting design that would make a good Friday video. Or an April Fools video.
FINALLY!!! I’ve always wondered this thank you!
According to another video I saw on the topic, there are more practical issues with the concept.
One is that the gunner would need to offset the aim every time they use the second barrel, if he wants to hit anything. Firing both guns at once would pretty much guarantee one of them misses, on top of the double recoil probably tearing the turret off the vehicle (maybe not immediately, but mechanical strain adds up).
On top of that, MBT cannons have enough firepower that doubling it is not worth the cost. A hit will either disable the target or do little damage depending on impact location and angle, and a second barrel so close to the first won't really change these factors. So you get either two glancing hits, or two killing blows, for the cost of double the ammo and other issues.
Multiplying barrels is a viable option with some weapons however: imprecise artillery that rely on saturating an area with somewhat light payloads; saturation weapons designed to provide cover against and for infantry or act as air deterrent weapons; and light calibre anti-vehicle, fast-firing weapons that use repeated impact on a target to "slowly" get through light armour. These weapons are much smaller and require small ammunition (except the artillery ones, but they're mounted on lightly armoured, slow and sometimes open-topped chassis) so issues posed by the concept are much less apparent.
In a setting in which landships exist, however, those -and tank destroyers designed to counter them- would likely find more use in having one double-barreled "turret" (TDs would likely have fixed guns). Such "tanks" would provide massive targets that might require more than one high calibre direct impact to disable. The thing is, those never existed despite some attempts covered on this channel (iirc).
its funny how 1 thing barrel effectively doubles everything and makes everything..... 2x complicated...
(also here 1 min after upload)
Two main guns fired at the same spot at once(or at split second intervals) might be a worthwhile way to get through reactive and active defenses. Though you'd need the mechanisms to be able to angle them inward.
Solved more easily by two stage atgm or simply a Kenetic round
ERA is already solved through the use of tandem-charge warheads, which are simpler to make than a double barrel tank gun.
After watching your video and giving your points a good thought, i would say that it makes more sense to put a single cannon that is as large as possible on a tank.
Which limits the size of the tank you have to build, making the package smaller and thus easier to amor and conceal.
The increased size of having two cannons has, compared to that, little to no pay-off except for the potentially higher fire rate.
Finally, a smaller tank is also lighter, which makes transporting it to where it should fight easier as well. And, you spread your potential wider, making each loss less devastating.
in command and conquer they got some
Thank you for this video!
About time someone looks at the obvious.
For a good concept for a twin-gunned tank, I look at two models from the Command and Conquer franchise; the Mammoth, and the Overlord. Both of these lean toward a mounting system akin to the Gepard, with the guns mounted apart from each other and the crew inside the turret between them. They are large, slow, heavily armored machines, and in both cases use split track configurations to overcome the ground pressure effect (and include additional weaponry, such as guided missiles or a roof-mounted anti-air gun system.)
About your auto-loader statement,there is a way to actually do that.
If you use just one source of ammo,which probably means only one ammo type(depending on how actual auto-loaders do it when it comes to the different ammo types),and only load the guns when both are emptied,you could just have only the actual manipulators that pick up the shells and stuff them into the breech duplicated whilst the ammo simply moves an extra step for the second manipulator.
So for about the same reload speed during each reload and some extra weight,you can have the same quantity of ammo but two rounds ready to go either at once for that sweet double whammy or a quick one two punch that occurs faster then the time taken to load each round at once.
Since you don't need to worry too much about space for the loader,the only remaining factors would be making the turret wide enough for the two guns in question,along with the associated weights and forces that come with it.
In our current era,though,since it is now possible to have the gunner not actually be in the turret,that would mean you don't need to much space beyond that for the second gun,whilst also meaning you can now have optics that automatically compensate for the even more offset weaponry...BY HAVING THE SIGHT BETWEEN THE GUNS!,no need to worry about fitting the gunner head between the guns too.
Now if further complexity ain't an issue,then perhaps making the guns adjustable so that their point of convergance can be changed so that they always merge at about the point of impact and you'd get a lovely concentration of firepower.
Probably not viable above 75 mm right now,but perhaps if power potent shells can be made without increasing calibre size,then they could be equivalent,like how the 90 mms are in Halo.
VT1-2: am i a joke to you?
It was a test vehicle. And it isn't turreted.
@@literal_f22 true, still could've had a mention here though
But it is mentioned right here 5:31 both variants are@@johnnyboy12029
@@johnnyboy120295:31
@@keeratijirananutwinyu8339 oh damn didnt see that thanks
Last reason. IT's far more effective to have one BIG gun that can penetrate more armor vs. two or more small guns that tend to bounce shots off their target.
I appreciate that you mention that knowing they are impractical doesn't mean we cant like them in game. Great content as always bud!
Imagine a double-barreled tank with unmanned turret
Hey Cone,if you can maybe you can dive to WT Auf PZ IV and Girlie 15 (the tank destroyer) for next video idea
*M61A5 MBT enters the chat.
Time to go Zaku hunting.
one of my favourite fictional double barrel tanks has to be the M850 Grizzly from Halo. Whilst it shares some bad design decisions with the smaller scorpion, it features a larger oscillating turret with two 120mm cannons fed by autoloaders. The real charm of this beauty isn't really visible in the Halo games, but in the Arma 3 Operation Trebuchet mod the tank not only allows for 2 very quick shots, it also allows you to use different ammo for both cannons. That way you can comfortably lob some HE to support your infantry, feeling safe knowing that with just one button press you can switch to the other gun which has AP loaded, if this is necessary.
Also you didn't really go into tanks which combine an autocannon and a cannon (probably because this isn't much different from combining a cannon and a coaxial MG), but there's the BMP-3 (not a tank) and some variants of the Panzer 58 and 61 which instead of a coaxial machinegun use a coaxial 20mm autocannon
I have an idea for defeating modern composite armor: Like tandem charges against ERA, a tank should have an over-under barrel configuration, one firing DU capped APFSHE (in theory wouldn't penetrate the armor itself, but it would explode in a specific point of the composite armor creating a cavity) and the other firing regular APFSDS with a trigger delay to compensate for the slower speed of the APFSHE round, and in theory it should hit the same weakened spot on the tank.
does the bmp 3 count as double barrel
Hungarian ammo at 14:03
Besides the weight and maintenance problems that would occur in a double barrel tank, the fact that you need to make more room and such makes it easier to hit the tank do to the profile becoming bigger.
And the weight of the guns would ld make the turn speed on the turret a lot slower and also increase maintenance if you didn’t make a whole new kind of tank were everything is specifically made for those tanks, and that increases the cost If the infrastructure to make tanks are already built for normal ones.
But the up side would be that the two guns would be like having two tanks in one and that one tank being worth 1,5 tanks in cost and also decreasing the amount of resources because you don’t have to build two tanks for two guns but instead just one, but if both guns would be damaged then the time to repair or replace them increases drastically mostly in time because the tanks are so specialized but if the nation literally makes there tank infrastructure just for them then the time would be only maybe 0,5 more time to repair the barrels but replacing the tank would probably cost 1,5 times more than the enemies tanks, do to the specifications of the tank.
But if the infrastructure is still for normal tanks then the cost of one double barrel tank would by my guess be between 2 to 3 times more expensive but 5 to 7 times more at the most if the infrastructure for the tanks are being destroyed.
But I’m probably being biased and I’m not a person who researches or stuff like that, and I’m basing my assumptions in the Second World War.
So the worse case scenario for this tank would probably be a King Tiger Tank in Berlin 1945 big, expensive, hard to maintain and an ammunition shortage, but I would se this kind of tank more as a ambush tank like the Stug.
My best scenario for this tank would be that you remove the turret and make a Stug tank with double barrel and adding some stuff that makes it easy to put a tarp or something over it so rain doesn’t affect it as much then put it on a hill near a field camouflage it and wait.
But if you made the tank a bit taller so the cannons are further up then you could probably get a decent depression and the name of pointing the gun upwards and if you had a larger spacing between the guns then you could fire one gun and turn a lot less to point the other gun and shoot and with a good crew you probably have the first gun loaded when the second has fired. This would make the tank a great ambush tank especially for convoys of enemy tanks or with some good HE-shells then they would be great for support convoys and if you made the tank longer for more space you could probably come with MG-crew and ammunition for them or you could just try to cram in them in the tank to reduce cost which has already been done by removing the complicated turret and the roof and by being an ambush tank you could decrease the amount of armor and reduce the cost that way as well and also increases the speed.
If the crew is given the proper training, supplies and equipment they could make a complicated ambush bye digging and camouflaging the ambush place and shot maybe 3 shots back up and drive to another position near them park and shot in the new position.
But this is just what I thought of for a double barrel tank, I’m not super into tanks or such things but I like thinking about them. But I won’t/can’t give specifics about the tank I’m thinking about, I’m not that good.
Thanks for reading if you come all the way here and I’m sorry if I have written with bad grammar and/or spelling English isn’t my first language
It’s worth noting that tanks rarely fight alone, so engaging multiple opponents would be such a rare occurrence that it’s still not worth doubling up.
I know you haven’t done a fake tank Friday in a while, but could you do a vid on the ridiculous super heavy tanks from the movie “The Creator?”
Your arguments are fine, but not conclusive. What reducing reload speed has to do with double barrel tanks? You can apply same logic to double barrel tanks and reduce reload speed for them even more. At the same time, increase in weight and size of a tank is worth it or not solely dependet on an eye of a beholder. These are design trade offs and not exactly a reason not to do it.
The major point of double barrel tanks is that it is difficult to control fire. This was true before 80s. However, digital FCS makes it an irrelevant issue. The reason why we are not using double barrel tanks is that they are redundant to mission parameters. Thinking is that you have to kill with a first shot. A second cannon is unlikely to have different outcome if the first round had failed to penetrate. Furthermore, this questionable need then directly affects all the other characteristics of a vehicle. It becomes a lot heavier, bigger and more expensive.
Double barrel tanks would perform better in a battlefield where you have to maintain high rate of fire. If we would fight fictional enemies like some kind of bug race, double barreled tanks would be the definite way to go as this maximizes firepower of a vehicle.
Also, I read wrong arguments of why have two barrels when you can have two tanks. You want two barrels, because it is incredibly cost efficient to put a second barrel in a turret compared to building an entirely new tank. Really...internet people first talk and then think. Or rather just do the former without later.
I'm unconvinced that a double barrel tank will be able to maintain faster rates of fire than a traditional tank fitted with an autoloader or even a human loader. Even if you were to somehow exceed them it comes at the cost of reduced ammunition per gun meaning that although you can fire faster you cannot fire for as long. That would mean that you could not maintain the rate of fire for the same amount of time as a traditional tank especially if you have two single gun tanks which can alternate their fire
@@ConeOfArc You can always implement same solutions to double barreled tank. You need to have an extra autoloader putting shells into a second gun. It will take up more space and cost more of course, but there is no inherent reason why double barreled guns are inferior.
They are not done due to weight, cost, complexity and size issues. If a nation would only compete in World of Tanks with their paper designs, they could design a double barreled tank which would be superior to a single barreled alternative.
That of course if we would ignore that double barreled version would inherently weight more.
there's a legendary tank that has 3 barrels dies pretty quickly in battle, but a huge asset all the same
I think the coolest and most realistic design ive ever seen would be the M61A5 from Gundam MS Igloo due to it having dual 155mm cannons and being like double the size of the Abrams. It also has a huge autoloader, which only allowed for 2-3 crew members 1-2 in the turret and 1 driver.
And obviously used nuclear reactor for power.
This video reminded me of something, I know a while back you did some research to find where the panzer of the lake was also the tonk. I’m not sure, but it might be an interesting video idea to see if you can find the tank memorial from the video where the guy says “I’m in a tank and you’re not.”
I don’t know just an idea. Great video though. Really informative. Love it!
DONT PLAY WORLD OF TANKS its a sham. play warthunder for MUCH BETTER double barrel tanks
I hate me some WoT. It's a mobile game that can be played on a console or PC. But they're paying our man to make some videos so I think we can muscle through it.
+10 gaijin credit
Haha wonder what double barelled tanks there are in WT
Coelian ftw
@@michaelhowell2326 WoT is just watered down warthunder
another reason that we don't have irl double barreled tanks that you didn't mention is irl we don't have hit points like we do in video games. IRL if a tank is penetrated it probably dies or is combat ineffective. in video games like WOT if a tank is penetrated it has hit points that says its either fine or destroyed depending on how much damage was done. so hitting a tank twice at the same time has a gameplay advantage because it is doing double the damage to the tank's hit points.
Irl we do have hits points , but the stats are different, tanks have a high defense stat (Front and sides) but not as high health , so when you attack a tank with a attack that doesn't penetrates it , the attack did close to zero damage , however when it penetrates it bypass the defense (since the hit was really strong) and now it can damage the tank health itself, and as you said , kill it or incapacitate it
One thing also is that two barrels of the same type do not give you more penetration. Without that the weight/cost isnt worth it. Multibarrel vehicles then run into ammo storage issues. sci-fi examples are goofy for these reasons
I think the prevalent thoughts on this topic are that in almost every situation imaginable an already well designed tank would benefit more if any weight added to it's design came in the form of
improved/additional/heavier armor with possibly a larger/more powerful main gun and or a larger ammunition storage capacity. An extra gun means extra maintenance, and assuming both guns are used equally then barrel replacement means 2 barrels. Sure, theoretically it may fire twice as many rounds as a single barrel version before needing to be replaced but it means that the tank will be offline for twice as long, and the financial expense is doubled each time. The economic factor may be offset by the fact that it should happen at twice the amount of time but it means that the logistics of transporting 2 barrels at a time which requires more room on transport vehicles...Replacing your car tires is much less painfull if you can spread the replacement of each tire out over say 4 months rather than all in one payment, barrels on a tank would be a similar situation. Replacing one barrel every 10k rounds fired, and having your tank down for one barrel replacement every 4 months of combat vs paying for 2 barrels and having your tank down for 2 barrel replacements for 20k rounds fired every, plus the added wear and tear on engines, transmissions, suspension, drive wheels, tracks, turret components etc... all adds up and with no additional armor protection to make it more survivable means youve got a heavier, slower, more maintenance intensive tank that is just as easily destroyed as it would've been with the same armor and a single gun.
I don’t know if you’re a huge halo guy, but I’d LOVE to see a cursed by design series from the “failed” lore variants of the scorpion (the sun devil), and the Grizzly (halo’s own twin barreled tank)!
There are one potential, and one definite issue that I didn't catch you covering.
The potential issue is blast interference when simultaneous firing due to the extremely closely placed guns. This was definitely an issue with closely spaced naval guns, causing excessive dispersion of the salvo, leading to designs like the staggered depth triple turret on the Royal Navy's Town-class light cruisers or the delay coil retrofit for various US Navy battleships (like the Pennsylvania-class). However it is possible that the much shorter range of tank engagements would mitigate much of the dispersion issue.
The definite issue is that (all else being equal) for a given tonnage of gun you can carry two smaller guns or one bigger gun and the bigger gun's shells should be better at armor penetration (and probably high-explosive capacity) that a pair of smaller shells -- so if you're willing to add all the mass of a 2nd gun you'd almost certainly be better off with upsizing the single gun
The best use case I can think of is if you a low to moderate chance of getting a 1st round hit due to limited optics/range finding/etc. You fire once, and hopefully hit the target. If not, you make the slight adjustment and fire again without having to wait for a reload. However, if this were a significant concern, I'd imagine that it'd be far more beneficial to have something like a 3 round revolver style gun instead of a double barrel. It'd be far lighter, give you an extra shot if you needed, and take up less space internally.
When trying to answer the question "why two barrels?" we first need to know why the designers arrived at a two-barrel design decision. In my mind the list of requirements that could land you on arriving at a two barrel design are:
1) the need to perform two different missions - a mix of anti-armor/infantry support/bunker busting/etc
2) Hitting harder - more shell mass on target
3) hitting more often - either quick follow-up shots or quicker time-on-next-target
4) must have twin cannons!!!1!one1
The correct design answers are
1) develop multiple round types for a single cannon. AP/HE/HVAP/etc. and service the target with the appropriate round.
2) Design a bigger, more powerful, higher velocity cannon to go in a bigger turret (than a single smaller cannon) that will still be smaller/lighter than a dual-cannon turret.
3) Simplify loading through vehicle design, simplify loading through cannon design, and/or build an autoloader. Also, design better optics and fire control computer.
4) NO! See 1-3 above and move to the back of the line!
Of course, solutions 1 thru 3 above for the corresponding design criteria have historically been the most common answer to criteria 1-3 when legitimate engineers are turned loose to solve the problem, and there's a reason for that:
These solutions _solve more problems than just the design criteria they fulfill._ In every case, the solution increases the combat effectiveness of every vehicle that includes a cannon designed to this criteria as opposed to creating a single combat system of questionable quality.
In fact, the beautiful thing about the design answers 1-3 is that _they can all be applied to the same gun system_ and as history shows, they absolutely _have been._
And this approach is what has driven the entire field of gun design in land-based combat systems.
Trying to stuff two cannons into one vehicle solves no additional problems and creates many more. This drives up development and production cost, development and production time, maintenance, logistics, battlefield support, and likely crew size. While it may do the job of two armored vehicles on the battlefield with fewer total crew, losing one unit costs twice as much firepower. And given the previously mentioned costs, you likely have fewer to begin with.
When considering a multi-cannon anti-armor vehicle, the only _real_ answer is a bigger (more powerful, higher velocity), faster-loading gun with more ammunition options.
I suspect there may be an added issue with firing both guns simultaneously in a double-barreled tank. I think it only makes sense at point-blank range, when accuracy is not an issue, and it actually decreases the chance to hit anything at range.
Here's why: it's a known issue in warship turrets that the blast wave of one gun in the same turret can interfere with the shell trajectory of its neighbour (and vice versa), when guns are placed relatively close together. Different solutions have been enacted by different nations, but I doubt any of these would make sense in a tank: 1. (US solution) - put an automated timer on the guns, making each gun automatically fire a fraction of a second after its neighbour; 2. (UK solution) place the middle gun in a three gun turret somewhat deeper in the turret (this can still be seen on HMS Belfast, for example), so the respective blast waves occur farther away from each other. Either solution, though, would exacerbate the already existing space issues in a tank turret.
I think the Double Barrel Tank may become a thing in the future but only when they will be firing laser or plasma.
One very significant limitation is the regular need for rail transport, which has limited tank width from time tanks were first developed. A side by side needs a wider turret. In a vertical stack layout the turret becomes significantly taller. Manual loading becomes nearly impossible & slow, even tank stability is compromised.
"This is the overlord tank"
"Gatling cannon will be ready soon"
"Speaker tower will be ready soon"
"Bunker will be ready soon"
"This better be good"
"Overlord is ready"
They will beg for mercy
If you twist the design its actually still a neat idea to combat trophy systems; Imagine you have a small caliber low recoil barrel right bellow the main barrel that fires half a second before the other as a decoy shot to clear reactive armor or waste countermeasures before the real shell hits.
Simple, the rule of min/max and trade-off. The need for a single gun outweighs the need for two.
Before I watch any bit of this I’m going to make a guess. It’s for a multitude of reasons but the ones I can think of are the impracticality of them, double the guns means double the reload times. It would also mean double the ammunition carried and many more loaders which all adds extra weight and takes more space. Speaking of space, a guns breach takes up a lot of space giving crews less space to work with.
It probably would’ve only been a viable design in the Interwar Period using two smaller caliber cannons when armor thickness was relatively small. After WW2 the tanks start having the issues stated in the video
The X-66 and Mark 3 Mammoth tanks are the coolest ones there are. GDI had the coolest double barrel tank.
Also a reason why you see them in games is because tanks have an hp bar in those, they don't just instantly explode and thus there would actually be an advantage in having 2 quick shots available. As we know irl they are made expressly to one shot, either the round goes in or doesn't. Plus in the real world there is usually only one loader and he can't do it at 2x speed so in actuality the fire rate would be the same. Also unless you could individually aim them the shots would converge at some range, If not they would just fly straight which would also be bad since at longer ranges one would always miss.
I think another key element of these double barrel monsters is maintenance
Not only does the additional gun (whether it be another of the same or smaller caliber as its sister) add even more parts needing maintenance time and the occasional spare part, the sheer recoil of the guns could stress other components (for example: the IS-2-2s suspension could be shattered if both guns were fired together or one side of the suspension/turret would feature less wear and tear than the other side if one gun was fired more often than the other..)
So not only are you further straining your logistics network because you now need roughly twice as many parts as a single barreled counterpart, you’ll probably need those parts more often as a result of the stresses placed on the hull, turret, etc. by both guns firing
2 solutions can be fixed for a potential double barrel tanks in the future.
1: Smaller Caliber guns to be the standard, but with the Auto-loading system like from the Italian Tech-tree.
2. Change the ammo type to a higher velocity hard hitting or more hybrid type ammo. Like the Scorpion Tank from Halo. That tank uses a 90MM instead of the standard 120, which means they’ve used a better ammo for it. Even though it is bigger and uses one Crew to operate it. It’s functional.
The double damage effect only applies if your guns are capable of penetrating the enemy vehicle. Doubling your guns doesn't magically double the penetration, whereas replacing the two guns with a gun twice as large could feasibly do just that.
Also, to paraphrase the Chieftain, a penetrating hit has "a significant psychological effect" on the enemy crew, which is enough to make them bail from the tank on the first hit, even if it is still fully operational. No one wants to be stuck in a tank when the second shot lands.
I fully expect drone tanks of the future to have double barrel guns simply because a remote controlled tank has no fear of death and will likely continue fighting even if heavily damaged. As such, the double damage would then be necessary to knock out the drone tank as soon as possible.
There's one major issue, that you missed completely: asymmetric recoil. Asymmetric gun placement (inevitable in case of double barrel turrets) results in significant turning forces on turrets. Even if the turret is arrested, modern high energy guns have enough force to throw the targeting of the second gun out of place. So, you have to reacquire the target anyway before follow-up firing and as this process takes time, it eats up pretty much all the benefits of the second gun. Making the benefits of the second gun negligible with all the costs mentioned in the video.
Growing up playing command and conquer will always make these cool and signs of a top tier tank
Realistically double guns would be a disadvantage
1. A second gun calls for a 2nd loader with another large breach if not an option an autoloader
2. Theres no actual accuracy, either you shoot it both at the same time or not you cannot shoot at a direct object a solution would need a 2nd rangefinder or a larger upgraded one
3. Weight would be a large problem to both, this mainly is the reason why its required to shoot both at the same time because if one would be shot singularly the other gun would weigh different aside from that is recoil
4. Space an ammunition is a problem usually tanks back from ww2 would have 50 less or more but seeing that there are 2 armaments it would take double the ammunition requiring frequent stocking
5. Armor a thick gun would eat up space entirely either sacrificing crew space or making the armor thinner
6. Gun depression is sadly a thing with the large breach making it impossible or less possible
7. Production cost would also be a problem most likely this would never have been set to mass production
Now I can think about twin barrels of tanks were from Command and Conquer, a Mammoth Tank, or the Russian tank, Apocalypse, a super tank with massive firepower so great for ground battlefield. Added to anti-personal rockets against unit troops. Why not they're should follow that design.
To me, it seems the main problem with double-barrel designs is: Why not remove the 2nd barrel and use that weight towards a larger / more powerful single-barrel caliber? When tanks are in battle, if you're facing multiple enemy targets, every second you see them, they can see you. If you have a double-barrel, you have to fire, rotate to the other target, then fire again. If the enemy is using 2 single-barrels, you shoot one of them, rotate, * dead * (shot by 2nd). Why tie-up 2 (single-barrel) tank assets to one hull, when you can have them in 2 tanks that can get a differing attack point? Just put 1 of the larger caliber that is practical, then make each one independently mobile.
These days, air power is far more important than any other (we have B2 Spirit stealth bombers that can take-off from Kansas, fly to the Middle-east, attack, then fly back to the US without landing anywhere else, with just a couple air-refuels... truly global air-power.) Ships, trains, and tanks can't deal with that. If you make a successful double-barrel (or bigger) tank, all the military is doing is painting a target on them saying, "Please Bomb Me, I want to be... 'thunderstruck' "😄. (Maybe "Another One Bites the Dust" would be more appropriate.) Effective-enough and mobility are probably 2 big reasons for 1 barrel.
You could really streamline the whole criteria for what counts in just a few words. "Double-barrelled... like a shotgun... but it's a tank tho."
Even if it is doable for artillery use, I still think the logistical issues surpass the usefulness, a self-propelled artillery with two guns would consume double the ammo, would be difficult to set and aim, even though it could have better volume of fire and even effect, is questionable how much would it, even more if used for different targets, which is a different scenario when we talk about mortars and recoilless rifles, that indeed is really useful mostly because of how they are used, closer ranges, firing for effect, fast target requisition, the reason why the latter isn't as used today is because the logistical issues of the recoilless guns, their ammo is different, not really share with other units and the list goes on, those guns were extremely effective after the WW2, when artillery was too heavy to be easily airlifted for the planes of that time, making some really light artillery units that could have limited range, but it was enough for their purpose, but things change, artillery accuracy increase, so as the ergonomic handling of those, as the airlifting stuff, so those guns became redundant and out of standards pretty quickly.