If you enjoy the content consider becoming a member by clicking the Join button or check out my merch! Support the channel by buying some merch: www.coneofarc.com/merch
Can we have a review of WoT’s Italian Tank Destroyers, the early tier Italian TD seem to be actual armored vehicles, but the later tier tanks don’t seem real to me, I don’t know who else would agree, but I would like a review on this tech tree of tanks…
The last time I saw a 2 or 3 gun tank like this one was an episode of "Starblazers" (aka Space Battleship Yamato) when they fought an enemy armoured unit on Pluto.
I have a fake tank to recommend: the Apocalypse tank of the Command and Conquer series. A super heavy Tier 3 vehicle in Red Alert 2 and Red Alert 3, it hits almost all the bad design faults that fake tanks tend to hit.
Too bad it´s just a fictional tank, not a fake one. "Fake" refers to something that is portrayed as real. "Fictional" is just a fantasy and does not hide it.
Hey Cone, the 12V-71T it has in the game is actually not too far off of horsepower. A power setting of 800hp is easily obtainable on a 12V-71 via larger injectors such as 80, 85, and 90mm (N80, N85, N90) injectors. The brochure you were referring to was advertising the highway truck power setting which has 75mm (N75) injectors. Industrial grade 12V-71Ts can be rated much higher as the respective vehicles they were destined for (scrapers, wheel loaders, etc) could tolerate the sheer power it outputs.
@@theonlymann1485 More like you will burn the rubber off the tires if you're too reckless. There have been several stories of standard 600hp KTA-600 trucks rolling bits of rubber off their tires rocketing up the grapevines heavily loaded. The truck chassis can tolerate it no problem, it just a matter of transmission and tire durability.
Another limiting factor for lots of industrial/heavy duty engines power ratings is durability. Even if an engine is capable of 800 hp, if it can't maintain that output for 10,000 hours or a million miles, then the engine will have its power de-rated to an output can achieve the reliability desired. In something such as a tank, it's not as important to have long lasting durability, so an engine manufacturer can "safely" crank the power up to meet the power demands.
The 8V-71T used in the Stingray light tank put out 535 hp, so scaling that up to 12 cylinders would give you 800 hp. I don't know about whether an engine from a time when they might use a British 32-pdr AT gun would be that capable. The 8V-71T engines used in early M109 howitzers put out about 340 hp, which would scale up to a 12V-71T engine with roughly 500 hp.
Yeah, you ca get a lot of power out of a DD engine. The catch is you have to get the heat out too. Detroit Diesels are easy to overheat if the cooling system isn't properly maintained and even what would be considered a "mild" overheat on any other engine can pretty much wreck a Detroit Diesel. (I own a 1954 PD4104 Greyhound bus with a DD671)
As cool as a double barreled tank (i’m a big fan of the mammoth tanks of command and conquer) is unless they can practically add a second gun on the turret without hindering the crews performance or making the vehicle so big and heavy as to make it unusable i don’t think a double gun turret tracked vehicle in the modern era is not going to happened
can see it have some potential in an unmanned turret, IF your autoloader is too slow. Firing one gun while reloading the other could then increase your rate of fire. But it'd probably be easier and certainly cheaper (and easier to maintain) to develop a faster autoloader.
better to just build two tanks. (I loved those c&c tanx too) one effective exception would be a tank with weapons that are not cannons like recoilless rifles or rocket pods mounted on each side of the turret.
I think it’d *really* depend on the calibre. 20-30mm autocannons feel like they’d be the limit of what you’d be able to pair up in a turret without a huge amount of machinery space for reloading.
If WG decides to put "historical information" into anything they should also put their reference in public. Otherwise just label it as fake. Although I'm not sure if that would do anything having watched Armoured Archive... Which is a real shame because I enjoy concept/what-if tanks as long as they're depicted reasonably.
I don't mind at all when Wargaming just makes up a tank, though I'd be nice if they just admitted openly that they're doing a what-if tank. What bothers me is when they take a real design and the completely change everything about it to shoehorn it into a different class. For example, the recently announced "KJpz T III", which is actually a design called the KPz T III. Wargaming is forcing it to be a tank destroyer by giving it ±60° turret rotation instead of 360°, cutting its gun depression and mobility stats in half, and removing all the frontal armor, explained over at Armoured Archives. Granted, an accurate interpretation of the KPz T III would basically be a Tier 12 medium tank (or an MBT in the "Cold War" mode of WoT Console), but that just means they should've found some other tank to be the latest German premium. If a tank is too strong for the game, it's too strong for the game. (There was a time when Wargaming understand this. It's why the *real* Object 279 never got added even though there would've been huge demand for such an iconically weird tank: its combination of armor, mobility, and a strong gun would've been completely broken, to the extent that it'd make the T95/Chieftain, "Object 279(e)", and pre-nerf Bobject and Kranvagn seem completely fair by comparison.)
One barrel, where you actually hit with precision, or two barrels that both hit without precision in a turret that gets heavier and a very much more complicated/cramped loading space and mech.
The biggest issue was really the strain it places on the turret ring. While a single gun pushes straight back, a double gun setup twists the turret if you don't fire both guns at the exact same millisecond. Even if you managed to do that electronically, the shockwaves from the guns would destablize the projectiles, meaning you can't hit a fucking thing
Almost reminds me of the Earth Federation's Type61/M61A5 and its 150-155mm (auto loading) dual guns from the Universal Century (U.C.) Gundam universe. Albeit with a crew of three or two for each variant respectively. (The commander is also the gunner in the M61A5 variant) Would be interesting to hear your take on these things. Let alone the Principality of Zeon's bizarre Magella Attack tank.
The most bizarre land vehicle in Universal Century Gundam is the Cui APC used by Zeon. It's a vehicle taller and wider than it is long. Basically, it is a small tower with a double autocannon on top, a tank tread at the bottom and two similar treads on side outriggers. The Zeon soldiers (equipped with jetpacks) are supposed to ride on a small platform behind an armoured plate. The fact that Ramba Ral used a Cui to successfully deploy his troops is another testament to his military skills. There's also a space Cui that replaces the treads with rockets.
I'm definitely interested in hearing about the 152mm SPG you pointed out at 0:57, I did some digging on it previously but information isn't that readily available. At least, not super detailed information.
Wargaming once again proves that you don't even need historical tanks, you can just make up a whole tech tree as long as the game itself is (a measure of) fun to play.
"Historical accuracy" for World of Tanks has always been more a polite nod than an actual sacrosanct rule, and that's only grown more and more as Wargaming tries to add fresh new tanks as their main attraction once the actual historical tanks run out.
@@StrikeNoir105E Oh, I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. if anything it proves there's a market for a tank game composed entirely of fictional tanks, from fictional nations, that would probably do quite well so long as the gameplay was enjoyably 'tanky'.
I think going into more detail on why a double-main-gun tank is impractical would be a good video idea. You mentioned weight, ammunition, and crew ergonomics. However, you didn't mention one major (if not the worst) impracticality: gun performance. For the weight, why would you take two smaller guns on your tank when you can have one big gun? A bigger gun will penetrate further, do more post-pen damage, and be easier to completely reload by comparison to a double-gun system. You also give up the advantages of a smaller and lighter gun: improved gun handling, faster reload time, and decreased tank weight.
This right here. The extra weight of the second gun would be better spent on more ammo (potentially with more variety), a bigger single gun, or more armor.
well their are 2-gun designs, just not 2 of the same gun. The bmp3 has a 100 and 30 mm gun and their are other such designs. I think one of the early kv prototypes had a co-axial 45 mm gun
In film, XXX 2: State Of The Union had an M1 Abrams tank with a smaller turret on top of the main turret with two smaller guns mounted on it This same tank was used as the Decepticon Brawl in the first Transformers movie in 2008 IRL, i think the nazis designed a super massive tank armed with two naval guns that never made it past the drawing board. I think it was going to be called the Ratta (rat) but I'm not sure
So the M61 from Mobile Suit Gundam? Also the 4 mobile tanks of Gundam would be fun to look at. The Hildlfr, Guntank, assault guntank , Guntank Mass production type and Zaku Tank.
In the end, one of the big advantages to multi-gun turrets is that if you miss, you might also hit. In other words, firing at targets that are beyond the range where you can easily hit a target if you correctly point at where the target will be, like with battles between warships. Tanks tend to get closer to each other before firing. The real question then, is why there weren't more artillery type platforms with multiple guns.
Mostly because it's better to produce a complete second Artillery piece for three reasons 1. Two pieces instead of one allows for more Distributed Fire to cover a greater area. 2. When under counter battery fire you're less likely to get suppressed or even lose both pieces from one enemy shot 3. Two pieces on one chassis lowers your mobility significantly
@@joelshaffer9320 Fair enough. Although a counterpoint could be made that multi-"barrel" does exist in the form of rocket-based systems. Of course, the weight of the launcher on a per barrel basis is much lower for rocket pieces, as they don't need a heavy cannon to launch the munition.
This reminds me of that time the Russians virtually made a double barreled MSTA called the 2S35 (2x152mm) but the guns are placed vertically instead of horizontally like usual double barrel designs. Though this project seems to have gone nowhere especially now with their current war in Ukraine.
The problem is that double-barrel gun can't fire both barrels simultaneously. Shockwaves from firing guns would destabilise projectiles, so they either have to be timed apart or spaced apart. With tanks it would mean that barrels should be on the edges of hull or close to that (about 2-3 m between them). Battleships deal with it , because they are big and their targets are slow.
2:24 You underestimate the power of turbochargers. The horsepower granted by turbos can vary wildly. Since the engine was manufactured by GM (which has experience with using turbochargers in civilian vehicles) it’s not completely impossible that the motor used in the TS-54 could have been tuned to produce the extra horsepower it has in-game. Although, at the time the tank would’ve been made turbocharger technology was not all that far along as it is today, so I’m doubtful it could have made 800hp with turbos alone. But of course this is all speculation since it is a fake tank.
I think it would be helpful for the purpose of having multiple types of rounds for different situations. You could even have different calibers and barrel lengths for a HE 155mm moarter and one 94mm
Honestly my guess is its a theoretical name assigned to a real 'concept drawing' there are tons of those, I've seen 'proposals' back in my physical media days and the idea that a 'proposal' was made with similar features (double barrels and ESPECIALLY double side machineguns) seems exactly like some commander's idea of a ideal tank he threw up in a drawing and sent with some detailed fiction. Though I'm sure the drawing varied a lot from what's being shown, it's probably just an attempt at taking these vague drawings and proposals and applying them more into what such a tank would have looked like with trends of tank design at the time.
I believe the Coax 75 on the Maus turret is an example of it being somewhat practical (on an impractical tank but that isn’t the point), smaller than the main and able to deal with smaller targets
@@doubledekercouch The practice of adding a smaller cannon along a big one on a tank isnt really new though, the B1 bis french heavy tank and M3 lee and grant are examples of this. (and they were in active service unlike the maus.)
@@doubledekercouch The US tried that with the T1 Heavy Tank by sticking a coaxle 37mm next to the 76mm. Turned out, it was more practical to just use a single 90mm.
1:35 I'll add the 75mm on the M3 GMC and M4 Sherman variants, the former being a modified French M1897 and second housing the M2 then M3 75mm gun, both derivatives of the one from the M3 GMC. Fun fact : that's the reason why their caliber is in metric and not imperial.
For almost every case, the only good time to have 2 or more main calibre "cannons" (Autocannons count too!) on a tank chassis is if it is an SPAA. P.S. 3:54 As a War Thunder player, I recognized that background music instantly.
Looking at the top of the turret, I can see where 4 crewmembers could be fitted: The commander's hatch is the most obvious, put the Gunner opposite of him - his observation periscope is visible. The two rear hatches for the Loaders. The Radio(s) would be in the bustle on the back of the turret, and this would leave room for the two breechblocks in the center. Ammunition would have to be stowed in the turret basket, though, but this would not be out of place in the early 1950's. The .30's would JUST (barely) have enough room to be fitted, tucked between the front and rear seats for the crew, although extra ammunition for them would be an issue. Some AFV's stow secondary ammunition externally...
With turbocharged diesels upping the power is generally a case of bigger fuel injectors and adding more boost pressure via adjustments to the wastegate (the bit that bleeds off excess air pressure generated by the turbo) and/or a bigger turbo. Assuming the transmission can take it (or a beefier one is available) the nature of diesel engines means that they're heavily overbuilt and can squeeze out a fair bit more power at the cost of fuel efficiency without needing a major redesign or too many uprated parts.
Well, lookie here - as a collector of model tanks and toy tanks (including at least a dozen cheap Army tanks that resemble Centurions), I have a small toy tank that resembles a TS-54 with the twin cannons. Thanks for the vid, Tank Jesus...
If I am correctly, most tanks that were designed to have a double gun system were designed in such a way where the guns would not fire at the same time. But rather they would fire in a staggered pattern. I believe the main idea was you fire one gun which initially hits your target and potentially defeats anything like reactive armor and such. You then fire the second gun at the same spot where you aim your first gun. This way, the armor protection has already been defeated, and thus you can force your way into a Tanks, regular armor, and not the appliqué armor. Overall, this idea of a double gun tank in terms of science-fiction is actually kind of neat. But in reality, I don’t think so. Not unless you had it so that the turret was completely unmanned, and thus had plenty of room for ammunition and an auto loader system.
That wouldn't even work in concept. The guns are in two different places, and so would be hitting two slightly different places. If you were even a meter off with your ranging, it wouldn't work like that. If the target is moving, this becomes completely impossible. This is all without mentioning that you could get the same effect by leaving a round on the tray
Speaking of fake Double Barreled Tanks can you cover the Type 61 from Mobile Suit Gundam, the tank has a 3 Man Crew and has the Soviet Style Carousel Style Autoloading System and the guns are both 155mm
I've been away from WoT for years at this point so I had to google this thing just to see how greedy they were being with it, $9 monthly subscription lol never change WG never change.
That service is completely optional, doesn't give you any advantage, you simply don't need it. But speaking about making credits and top tier economics, lets talk about state of War Thunder XDDDDDDD
@@cikuI00 Just because it's optional doesn't make it any less gross, they already sell tanks for $60+, they already have a battle pass system, why do they need more BS ways to nickle and dime everyone? WT is circling the exact same drain as of late, both companies can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
@@filmandfirearms Surprisingly (or not), WoT has been mostly listening to feedback for their major updates (a.k.a they will heavily modify or cancel a new feature/rework if most players hated it). Their economy/grinding is also miles better than WT. But yes, power creep is the area where WoT is terrible (they are also very inconsistent with this: sometimes they actually could produce balanced or even under performing tanks like all of their tier 9 premiums... And suddenly went batshit crazy and release something insane like Chinese Rocket boosted Premium). Then again I doubt WT is any better in that aspect.
Doubled barrelled rifles/shot guns exist because hunters want the option of an instant follow up. Especially true of big game which can get real angry at being shot and one hit is not always enough to take it down, and Wild Boar that won't realise its dead until next week. Maybe this was the thinking behind the double gun concept?
Sports shooters can also have different chokes on either barrell letting them choose which to engage with. Makes shot spread tighter at different distances but obviously only applies to pellets. A concept which might work for tanks is having different shell types in the chamber, maybe even rifled and unrifled barrells for specific munitions. Extreme overcomplication though.
The only way to make a twin barrel tank in the modern era is to make it an belt fed autocannon so probably no larger than 40-50mm bore. That likely means that you have a platform that can't knock out a MBT and is limited to taking out IFV's and APC's unless you also some how make the mount angle high enough for anti-air work which only adds more issues to feeding and ammo capacity. So in the end the unless you accept some serious limitations you are better off with a single well designed gun and a selection of effective ammo rather than trying to double up. That said I love my Mammoth Tanks and Baneblades.
With proper modifications, such as increasing the output of the turbos, you could get to 800bhp with that engine pretty easy. It would likely need new internals, though.
A 500 base horse power engine could easily be pushed to 800hp, longevity will suffer though. As an example, the Chrysler RB 440ci engine makes 370hp from factory, but Top Fuel dragsters modify them to make greater than 9,000hp, with the record holder pushing 11,000hp... for no greater than 10 seconds, past that they go boom.
Before wot and war thunder, the only double barreled tanks I know of were the Apocalypse tank, overlord tank and mammoth tank. All from command and conquer series of games.
I think two cannons only work logically without an autoloader. It would make sense to have two shots if the first one misses or does not do suffcient damage to the target. You could then put one shot right behind the first. Firing both at the same moment does not make any sense. This would btw also work with one loader, since in combat he could load every barrel successively.
I kinda dig this design. It looks very nice for a double-barreled tank. I can kinda envision how it'd work too, and how everything could be arranged. But a pair of 94's? No I think if it ever got into the prototype stage you'd have to junk those immediately and round up a pair of 20 pounders or something, and definitely nix the side .30 cals to make it possible to even fit the two loaders in. A french style autoloader would be a grand help for two guns but those require a certain style of turret so you'd have the scrap everything above the hull immediately to do that and each gun would probably end up with only one magazine each meaning at best, you had six rounds to a gun before replenishment as opposed to the 12 that the AMX-13 has. If that, with the caliber and turret size I'd have money on it being a five round magazine each. Would like to see someone take a crack at mapping out the interior for theory crafting. Very interesting piece.
Can you talk about the German VT Tank? It actually HAVE double barrel although technically it is a tank destroyer. Is so fascinating that it was design completely different from the double barrel turret tank, as the guns were so far apart from one another rather than being close to the center of the tank.
I feel like if the vehicle had an auto loader in an oscillating turret like the French design, the gunner was only firing 1 gun at a time, and the tank had the role of a TD, it wouldn't be that bad. You could have it ambush convoys of tanks and knock them out faster firing 1 gun, switching targets, fire the second, switching again etc and probably could knock out more than a single barrel tank could but this is a paper idea and we should all know by now that doesn't equal real life. War thunder has a much better usage of secondary guns than world of tanks. Personally, I think the m6 in wt is the best example that anyone can use because the 76mm/37mm combo isn't actually that bad. They both can do damage to vehicles around the same br rating as the tank (as long as they stop raising it) and both have a closer fire rate than the maus with its 128mm/75mm combo.
The Detroit 12v71 could theoretically make 800hp but you would need twin inter cooled turbochargers and marine injectors. This would necessitate an absolute beast of a radiator to keep the engine cool. A 12v92 would probably be a better pick for a tank.
To answer your question regarding engine output, WWII engines were an interesting blend of horrifically anemic and absurdly overpowered, in the case of the little V8 found in a Jenny biplane in the early war for example (granted most American WWI pilots were trained on these), that V8 engine produced a sad little 90 hp, for context, my Toyota from 1999 has a little four banger and it produces about 120hp Alternately you have the Merlin found in spitfires and mustangs among other planes, it too was a V12 engine and had many improvements made over the course of the war. In 1933 when they were first introduced they produced a very respectable 1,000hp, but by the end of the war they were putting out over 2,000hp The question is horsepower vs brake horse power, they aren’t quite the same thing, horsepower is the maximum power produced by the engine under a No Load situation, brake horse power is how much power the engine can produce under load This is not to be confused with torque, but I digress the main point being that as a mechanic I’m very confident that they could have increased the power output of the engine, however it would have taken time and development, and for them to arbitrarily assign it more horsepower without dates documents and proof that it was developed that far is just bias
Only way to really have double barrels is with automated systems, because then you remove the room for crew requirement depending on systems etc. Tho then your taking ammo space to have a 2nd gun....tho i do see 2 guns as feasable in certain cases... Because trophy systems and era advance....some trophy systems can deflect some shells (only some) so as they advance they may get better...then with era that can shatter shells too and stop certain rounds....so a double tandem shot could be used to defeat that....then i would see it be useful for 2 barrels
ok, side to side makes no sense, but how about under over design, with single breach asembly going up down? This avoid stress forces from asymetrically mounted canons, so turret ring will actually last, kinda solves internal space issue, with autoloader it actually could be made rapid fire capable and only astonishing stupidly of clockwork mechanism needed for it to work stops it from being viable!
Makes no sense when you think about it it’s better having a auto loader gun over double barrels. It’s like choosing between using a double barrel or pump action shot gun in combat everyone will grab the pump action first
the only reason to excuse double barrel tanks is improving firerate but that can be better dealt with by using autoloaders and if your gonna mount 2 guns youd be better off just using that space to mount a bigger single gun as either way your halfing your ammo it gets murky when you get into plasma and laser weapons but with conventional ammo it doesnt make sense
For a tank the HP really isn't that important, torque is what you need to move weight from a dead stop or slow crawl. My example isn't a direct comparison, but it's a good way to think about it...I had a friend with a small Isuzu turbo-diesel pickup truck years ago. It had maybe 75hp so it would struggle to reach speeds over 50mph. Torque is what you feel when the gas is smashed and your body gets sucked into the seat and it was amazing just how hard that truck launched and how easily it did burnouts and donuts. Say a tank has 1000hp and 200ft.lb.'s of torque...it's going to struggle to start moving, but depending on the rev range and gearing it could reach high speeds given enough time and space to accelerate. That's how land-speed vehicles do it...high HP, lower TQ and enough weight and aero to keep the vehicle planted to the ground for several miles in order to reach top speeds. Also I'd say most 500hp engines can easily be tweaked to produce 800hp. Torque needs to be carefully managed in lightweight frames tho, guys doing v8 swaps into 240z's decades ago could testify to how easily a light, aluminum car frame can twist when given a lot of torque it wasn't designed to handle.
Game-wise it's a tank to balance out Italian two-shell clip mediums. In reality only one tank ever was made with double barrel as a prototype and it technically was an SPG (VT 1-1\GVT 04)
Advantage of two barrels to me seems that you can have two different types of ammunition loaded at any given time. I am not sure when this would be useful in reality.
So I noticed something for world of tanks' tank description (info). Any tank that looks fake has a "no prototypes were built" on them suggesting they are completely made up. idk or its just me...
While yes the spec sheet for thé 12V71 say it makes only 500 Sum odd HorsePower, They often Go well Over Factory ratings. Just turning the fuel Screw will give you a Bit of HorsePower (granted that increases your runaway risk)
It's not just that there are problems with double mounting a large gun in a tank, it's that it's actually pointless. Big Battleships mounted gun batteries consisting of two or three guns in a turret, but they were designed to fire a spread with each gun mounted independently and firing at a different elevation. In a tank the guns are mounted coaxially as you only have one gunner. So, if you have room for two guns and the capacity to absorb the recoil , why not just simply mount a bigger gun ?
If you play frequently enough a year of WoT+ is equal to 104 dollars in gold compared to a yearly subscription cost of 108 dollars. 4 dollars for a rental tank, improved crew training whether playing or not, and free equipment demounting for most equipment types is well worth it in my personal opinion.
If you enjoy the content consider becoming a member by clicking the Join button or check out my merch! Support the channel by buying some merch: www.coneofarc.com/merch
Can you do su-2-122 tank destroyer next
Can we have a review of WoT’s Italian Tank Destroyers, the early tier Italian TD seem to be actual armored vehicles, but the later tier tanks don’t seem real to me, I don’t know who else would agree, but I would like a review on this tech tree of tanks…
could you do a video on Tanks converted to civilian use?
The last time I saw a 2 or 3 gun tank like this one was an episode of "Starblazers" (aka Space Battleship Yamato) when they fought an enemy armoured unit on Pluto.
I have a fake tank to recommend: the Apocalypse tank of the Command and Conquer series. A super heavy Tier 3 vehicle in Red Alert 2 and Red Alert 3, it hits almost all the bad design faults that fake tanks tend to hit.
Armageddon is here!
Armor superiority!
@@RavenAdventwings That goes to the Mammoth MK3. Another awesome C&C tank.
Too bad it´s just a fictional tank, not a fake one.
"Fake" refers to something that is portrayed as real.
"Fictional" is just a fantasy and does not hide it.
Hell's march starts playing on the radio
Hey Cone, the 12V-71T it has in the game is actually not too far off of horsepower. A power setting of 800hp is easily obtainable on a 12V-71 via larger injectors such as 80, 85, and 90mm (N80, N85, N90) injectors. The brochure you were referring to was advertising the highway truck power setting which has 75mm (N75) injectors. Industrial grade 12V-71Ts can be rated much higher as the respective vehicles they were destined for (scrapers, wheel loaders, etc) could tolerate the sheer power it outputs.
so trucks with higher horsepower can literally shred itself... noted.
@@theonlymann1485 More like you will burn the rubber off the tires if you're too reckless. There have been several stories of standard 600hp KTA-600 trucks rolling bits of rubber off their tires rocketing up the grapevines heavily loaded. The truck chassis can tolerate it no problem, it just a matter of transmission and tire durability.
Another limiting factor for lots of industrial/heavy duty engines power ratings is durability. Even if an engine is capable of 800 hp, if it can't maintain that output for 10,000 hours or a million miles, then the engine will have its power de-rated to an output can achieve the reliability desired.
In something such as a tank, it's not as important to have long lasting durability, so an engine manufacturer can "safely" crank the power up to meet the power demands.
The 8V-71T used in the Stingray light tank put out 535 hp, so scaling that up to 12 cylinders would give you 800 hp. I don't know about whether an engine from a time when they might use a British 32-pdr AT gun would be that capable. The 8V-71T engines used in early M109 howitzers put out about 340 hp, which would scale up to a 12V-71T engine with roughly 500 hp.
Yeah, you ca get a lot of power out of a DD engine. The catch is you have to get the heat out too. Detroit Diesels are easy to overheat if the cooling system isn't properly maintained and even what would be considered a "mild" overheat on any other engine can pretty much wreck a Detroit Diesel.
(I own a 1954 PD4104 Greyhound bus with a DD671)
I have never known the existence of a 94mm cannon until today.
32 pounder is 94mm
its a brit thing, they measure their guns not in mm
@@harrierrex3688
Thanks
the 3.7" AA is also 94mm
British Pounder 🗿
As cool as a double barreled tank (i’m a big fan of the mammoth tanks of command and conquer) is unless they can practically add a second gun on the turret without hindering the crews performance or making the vehicle so big and heavy as to make it unusable i don’t think a double gun turret tracked vehicle in the modern era is not going to happened
can see it have some potential in an unmanned turret, IF your autoloader is too slow. Firing one gun while reloading the other could then increase your rate of fire.
But it'd probably be easier and certainly cheaper (and easier to maintain) to develop a faster autoloader.
And the asymetrical recoil might be a harsh treatment for the turret ring, I guess. It's nice looking in games, but that's all ^^
better to just build two tanks. (I loved those c&c tanx too)
one effective exception would be a tank with weapons that are not cannons like recoilless rifles or rocket pods mounted on each side of the turret.
I think it’d *really* depend on the calibre. 20-30mm autocannons feel like they’d be the limit of what you’d be able to pair up in a turret without a huge amount of machinery space for reloading.
@@joshuahadams true, but that won't stop humans, just look at the ZSU-57
If WG decides to put "historical information" into anything they should also put their reference in public. Otherwise just label it as fake.
Although I'm not sure if that would do anything having watched Armoured Archive...
Which is a real shame because I enjoy concept/what-if tanks as long as they're depicted reasonably.
I agree, they really should provide whatever source they're using for the description they give. It would cost them virtually nothing
Totally agreed, mate =)
@@ConeOfArc What if source is yet another dude posting classified notes? :
@@KuK137About ages old, unused WWII concepts? I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be public knowledge by now.
I don't mind at all when Wargaming just makes up a tank, though I'd be nice if they just admitted openly that they're doing a what-if tank.
What bothers me is when they take a real design and the completely change everything about it to shoehorn it into a different class. For example, the recently announced "KJpz T III", which is actually a design called the KPz T III. Wargaming is forcing it to be a tank destroyer by giving it ±60° turret rotation instead of 360°, cutting its gun depression and mobility stats in half, and removing all the frontal armor, explained over at Armoured Archives.
Granted, an accurate interpretation of the KPz T III would basically be a Tier 12 medium tank (or an MBT in the "Cold War" mode of WoT Console), but that just means they should've found some other tank to be the latest German premium. If a tank is too strong for the game, it's too strong for the game. (There was a time when Wargaming understand this. It's why the *real* Object 279 never got added even though there would've been huge demand for such an iconically weird tank: its combination of armor, mobility, and a strong gun would've been completely broken, to the extent that it'd make the T95/Chieftain, "Object 279(e)", and pre-nerf Bobject and Kranvagn seem completely fair by comparison.)
One barrel, where you actually hit with precision, or two barrels that both hit without precision in a turret that gets heavier and a very much more complicated/cramped loading space and mech.
The biggest issue was really the strain it places on the turret ring. While a single gun pushes straight back, a double gun setup twists the turret if you don't fire both guns at the exact same millisecond. Even if you managed to do that electronically, the shockwaves from the guns would destablize the projectiles, meaning you can't hit a fucking thing
Designer: "Here, take a toke of this while I explain my new idea."
WG: "And this tank is based off a real proposal!"😂😂
As soon as you see how much a tank rocks on its suspension after firing the main gun you understand why two guns is silly.
Almost reminds me of the Earth Federation's Type61/M61A5 and its 150-155mm (auto loading) dual guns from the Universal Century (U.C.) Gundam universe.
Albeit with a crew of three or two for each variant respectively. (The commander is also the gunner in the M61A5 variant)
Would be interesting to hear your take on these things. Let alone the Principality of Zeon's bizarre Magella Attack tank.
I see you are a man of culture.
My man suggesting gold
The most bizarre land vehicle in Universal Century Gundam is the Cui APC used by Zeon. It's a vehicle taller and wider than it is long. Basically, it is a small tower with a double autocannon on top, a tank tread at the bottom and two similar treads on side outriggers. The Zeon soldiers (equipped with jetpacks) are supposed to ride on a small platform behind an armoured plate. The fact that Ramba Ral used a Cui to successfully deploy his troops is another testament to his military skills.
There's also a space Cui that replaces the treads with rockets.
@@ВасилийМорозов-л7х Oh yeah, I forgot about that particular vehicle Zeon uses.
My first reference to a two-barrel tank was from Fallout 4
I'm definitely interested in hearing about the 152mm SPG you pointed out at 0:57, I did some digging on it previously but information isn't that readily available. At least, not super detailed information.
Wargaming once again proves that you don't even need historical tanks, you can just make up a whole tech tree as long as the game itself is (a measure of) fun to play.
"Historical accuracy" for World of Tanks has always been more a polite nod than an actual sacrosanct rule, and that's only grown more and more as Wargaming tries to add fresh new tanks as their main attraction once the actual historical tanks run out.
There is nothing wrong with it in game like this. Statistics like HP are also made up because you know, this is arcade game so that's totally okay.
@@StrikeNoir105E Oh, I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. if anything it proves there's a market for a tank game composed entirely of fictional tanks, from fictional nations, that would probably do quite well so long as the gameplay was enjoyably 'tanky'.
Lol but it's not even fun to play though
@@lonesurvivalist3147 lol it is
I think going into more detail on why a double-main-gun tank is impractical would be a good video idea. You mentioned weight, ammunition, and crew ergonomics. However, you didn't mention one major (if not the worst) impracticality: gun performance. For the weight, why would you take two smaller guns on your tank when you can have one big gun? A bigger gun will penetrate further, do more post-pen damage, and be easier to completely reload by comparison to a double-gun system. You also give up the advantages of a smaller and lighter gun: improved gun handling, faster reload time, and decreased tank weight.
This right here. The extra weight of the second gun would be better spent on more ammo (potentially with more variety), a bigger single gun, or more armor.
well their are 2-gun designs, just not 2 of the same gun. The bmp3 has a 100 and 30 mm gun and their are other such designs. I think one of the early kv prototypes had a co-axial 45 mm gun
In film, XXX 2: State Of The Union had an M1 Abrams tank with a smaller turret on top of the main turret with two smaller guns mounted on it
This same tank was used as the Decepticon Brawl in the first Transformers movie in 2008
IRL, i think the nazis designed a super massive tank armed with two naval guns that never made it past the drawing board. I think it was going to be called the Ratta (rat) but I'm not sure
P. 1000 Ratte
@@killa361 Thanks
I couldn't remember if it was the Rat or another future tank that was going to have the naval guns on it
@@dragonweyr44 no problem
*Naval, not navel. One has to do with ships and navies while the other refers to your belly button.
@@Riceball01 What? You've never heard of a typo?
So the M61 from Mobile Suit Gundam? Also the 4 mobile tanks of Gundam would be fun to look at. The Hildlfr, Guntank, assault guntank , Guntank Mass production type and Zaku Tank.
In the end, one of the big advantages to multi-gun turrets is that if you miss, you might also hit. In other words, firing at targets that are beyond the range where you can easily hit a target if you correctly point at where the target will be, like with battles between warships. Tanks tend to get closer to each other before firing.
The real question then, is why there weren't more artillery type platforms with multiple guns.
Mostly because it's better to produce a complete second Artillery piece for three reasons
1. Two pieces instead of one allows for more Distributed Fire to cover a greater area.
2. When under counter battery fire you're less likely to get suppressed or even lose both pieces from one enemy shot
3. Two pieces on one chassis lowers your mobility significantly
@@joelshaffer9320 Fair enough. Although a counterpoint could be made that multi-"barrel" does exist in the form of rocket-based systems. Of course, the weight of the launcher on a per barrel basis is much lower for rocket pieces, as they don't need a heavy cannon to launch the munition.
This reminds me of that time the Russians virtually made a double barreled MSTA called the 2S35 (2x152mm) but the guns are placed vertically instead of horizontally like usual double barrel designs.
Though this project seems to have gone nowhere especially now with their current war in Ukraine.
There is the Swedish AMOS mortar that comes double barreled by default.
The problem is that double-barrel gun can't fire both barrels simultaneously. Shockwaves from firing guns would destabilise projectiles, so they either have to be timed apart or spaced apart. With tanks it would mean that barrels should be on the edges of hull or close to that (about 2-3 m between them). Battleships deal with it , because they are big and their targets are slow.
2:24 You underestimate the power of turbochargers. The horsepower granted by turbos can vary wildly. Since the engine was manufactured by GM (which has experience with using turbochargers in civilian vehicles) it’s not completely impossible that the motor used in the TS-54 could have been tuned to produce the extra horsepower it has in-game. Although, at the time the tank would’ve been made turbocharger technology was not all that far along as it is today, so I’m doubtful it could have made 800hp with turbos alone. But of course this is all speculation since it is a fake tank.
I think it would be helpful for the purpose of having multiple types of rounds for different situations. You could even have different calibers and barrel lengths for a HE 155mm moarter and one 94mm
Man this series is fire, I love wot for the projects/made up tanks, even if some are so op it hurts
In warthunder the M6 & T1E1 are my favorite tanks in the game. I know it failed irl, but with the right keybinds it works wonders in game.
Legend says that the second loader was sitting on the chief's knees 😂
Honestly my guess is its a theoretical name assigned to a real 'concept drawing' there are tons of those, I've seen 'proposals' back in my physical media days and the idea that a 'proposal' was made with similar features (double barrels and ESPECIALLY double side machineguns) seems exactly like some commander's idea of a ideal tank he threw up in a drawing and sent with some detailed fiction.
Though I'm sure the drawing varied a lot from what's being shown, it's probably just an attempt at taking these vague drawings and proposals and applying them more into what such a tank would have looked like with trends of tank design at the time.
Not hard to boost HP with bigger turbo or engine tweaks over the years. Happens everywhere all the time
I think a double cannon tank could only be practical with a crewless turret
Holy shit new armata design incoming????
I believe the Coax 75 on the Maus turret is an example of it being somewhat practical (on an impractical tank but that isn’t the point), smaller than the main and able to deal with smaller targets
@@doubledekercouch The practice of adding a smaller cannon along a big one on a tank isnt really new though, the B1 bis french heavy tank and M3 lee and grant are examples of this. (and they were in active service unlike the maus.)
@@doubledekercouch The US tried that with the T1 Heavy Tank by sticking a coaxle 37mm next to the 76mm. Turned out, it was more practical to just use a single 90mm.
@@Macrochenia ah, i’m only familiar with the maus’ implementation sorry
1:35 I'll add the 75mm on the M3 GMC and M4 Sherman variants, the former being a modified French M1897 and second housing the M2 then M3 75mm gun, both derivatives of the one from the M3 GMC.
Fun fact : that's the reason why their caliber is in metric and not imperial.
For almost every case, the only good time to have 2 or more main calibre "cannons" (Autocannons count too!) on a tank chassis is if it is an SPAA.
P.S. 3:54 As a War Thunder player, I recognized that background music instantly.
I would really like to see a video or even a short with fake world of tanks vehicles and what they might be based on
Looking at the top of the turret, I can see where 4 crewmembers could be fitted: The commander's hatch is the most obvious, put the Gunner opposite of him - his observation periscope is visible. The two rear hatches for the Loaders. The Radio(s) would be in the bustle on the back of the turret, and this would leave room for the two breechblocks in the center. Ammunition would have to be stowed in the turret basket, though, but this would not be out of place in the early 1950's. The .30's would JUST (barely) have enough room to be fitted, tucked between the front and rear seats for the crew, although extra ammunition for them would be an issue. Some AFV's stow secondary ammunition externally...
With turbocharged diesels upping the power is generally a case of bigger fuel injectors and adding more boost pressure via adjustments to the wastegate (the bit that bleeds off excess air pressure generated by the turbo) and/or a bigger turbo. Assuming the transmission can take it (or a beefier one is available) the nature of diesel engines means that they're heavily overbuilt and can squeeze out a fair bit more power at the cost of fuel efficiency without needing a major redesign or too many uprated parts.
The splashscreen gives me serious red alert 1 heavy tank vibes... and i'm here for it
I hope you can look at the tanks in The Saboteur!
They look like slightly off brand WW2 tanks!
Great vid ConeofArc, fascinating information.
Well, lookie here - as a collector of model tanks and toy tanks (including at least a dozen cheap Army tanks that resemble Centurions), I have a small toy tank that resembles a TS-54 with the twin cannons.
Thanks for the vid, Tank Jesus...
First double barrel tanks I ever saw was the GDi mammoth in the first CnC. Then shortly after the soviet mammoth and heavy tank.
god, i know he doesn't upload WT content anymore, but i LOVE the war thunder sound track in the background, it's such a good one
Maaannnnnn you're never gunna run out of content with fucking WoT premiums!
If I am correctly, most tanks that were designed to have a double gun system were designed in such a way where the guns would not fire at the same time. But rather they would fire in a staggered pattern. I believe the main idea was you fire one gun which initially hits your target and potentially defeats anything like reactive armor and such. You then fire the second gun at the same spot where you aim your first gun. This way, the armor protection has already been defeated, and thus you can force your way into a Tanks, regular armor, and not the appliqué armor.
Overall, this idea of a double gun tank in terms of science-fiction is actually kind of neat. But in reality, I don’t think so. Not unless you had it so that the turret was completely unmanned, and thus had plenty of room for ammunition and an auto loader system.
That wouldn't even work in concept. The guns are in two different places, and so would be hitting two slightly different places. If you were even a meter off with your ranging, it wouldn't work like that. If the target is moving, this becomes completely impossible. This is all without mentioning that you could get the same effect by leaving a round on the tray
Speaking of fake Double Barreled Tanks can you cover the Type 61 from Mobile Suit Gundam, the tank has a 3 Man Crew and has the Soviet Style Carousel Style Autoloading System and the guns are both 155mm
The design of a double barreled tank the earliest concept was the harkonin devastator and then the mammoth tank in C&C
I've been away from WoT for years at this point so I had to google this thing just to see how greedy they were being with it, $9 monthly subscription lol never change WG never change.
That service is completely optional, doesn't give you any advantage, you simply don't need it. But speaking about making credits and top tier economics, lets talk about state of War Thunder XDDDDDDD
@@cikuI00 Just because it's optional doesn't make it any less gross, they already sell tanks for $60+, they already have a battle pass system, why do they need more BS ways to nickle and dime everyone? WT is circling the exact same drain as of late, both companies can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
@@cikuI00 Both games are exploitative trash, War Thunder is just worse than World of Tanks. For now.
@@filmandfirearms Surprisingly (or not), WoT has been mostly listening to feedback for their major updates (a.k.a they will heavily modify or cancel a new feature/rework if most players hated it). Their economy/grinding is also miles better than WT.
But yes, power creep is the area where WoT is terrible (they are also very inconsistent with this: sometimes they actually could produce balanced or even under performing tanks like all of their tier 9 premiums... And suddenly went batshit crazy and release something insane like Chinese Rocket boosted Premium).
Then again I doubt WT is any better in that aspect.
Doubled barrelled rifles/shot guns exist because hunters want the option of an instant follow up. Especially true of big game which can get real angry at being shot and one hit is not always enough to take it down, and Wild Boar that won't realise its dead until next week. Maybe this was the thinking behind the double gun concept?
Sports shooters can also have different chokes on either barrell letting them choose which to engage with. Makes shot spread tighter at different distances but obviously only applies to pellets.
A concept which might work for tanks is having different shell types in the chamber, maybe even rifled and unrifled barrells for specific munitions.
Extreme overcomplication though.
Its because in past there were no mags. Especially for high caliber rifles. So only way to have more rounds in gun is...extra barrel.
@Alex, turn back the army! Not really, the first double barrell guns came after the first magazines.
@@DoddyIshamel ...Are you for real right now?
are two turrets better than one though? i'd love a fake tank friday video on that.
That would require the tank commander to operate both turrets simultaneously, which would overload him and reduce the overall performance of the crew.
As it tuned out, no. Too many extra space for too few benefits.
The only way to make a twin barrel tank in the modern era is to make it an belt fed autocannon so probably no larger than 40-50mm bore. That likely means that you have a platform that can't knock out a MBT and is limited to taking out IFV's and APC's unless you also some how make the mount angle high enough for anti-air work which only adds more issues to feeding and ammo capacity.
So in the end the unless you accept some serious limitations you are better off with a single well designed gun and a selection of effective ammo rather than trying to double up.
That said I love my Mammoth Tanks and Baneblades.
Well, most SPAAs are twin-barrel, it's an effective design given the small calibre guns and other stuff
With proper modifications, such as increasing the output of the turbos, you could get to 800bhp with that engine pretty easy. It would likely need new internals, though.
A 500 base horse power engine could easily be pushed to 800hp, longevity will suffer though.
As an example, the Chrysler RB 440ci engine makes 370hp from factory, but Top Fuel dragsters modify them to make greater than 9,000hp, with the record holder pushing 11,000hp... for no greater than 10 seconds, past that they go boom.
I love how there's War Thunder soundtrack music in the background of the World of Tanks footage
i really want to see an Guntank video from you
I will always mention that Westwood in 93 with dune 2 made the double barreled tank concept in gaming
For the engine, you could make more power via increasing the boost on the turbo.
Before wot and war thunder, the only double barreled tanks I know of were the Apocalypse tank, overlord tank and mammoth tank. All from command and conquer series of games.
Mammoth Tank assembled!
I would have appreciated a dive into the physics of the muzzle brake orientation on these. Why are they tiled down outward?
Can you do a video on the Object 703 Version 2? It’s a double barreled IS-3
The Type 61 Tank from the Gundam series is my double barrel love
I think two cannons only work logically without an autoloader. It would make sense to have two shots if the first one misses or does not do suffcient damage to the target. You could then put one shot right behind the first. Firing both at the same moment does not make any sense. This would btw also work with one loader, since in combat he could load every barrel successively.
I kinda dig this design. It looks very nice for a double-barreled tank. I can kinda envision how it'd work too, and how everything could be arranged. But a pair of 94's? No I think if it ever got into the prototype stage you'd have to junk those immediately and round up a pair of 20 pounders or something, and definitely nix the side .30 cals to make it possible to even fit the two loaders in. A french style autoloader would be a grand help for two guns but those require a certain style of turret so you'd have the scrap everything above the hull immediately to do that and each gun would probably end up with only one magazine each meaning at best, you had six rounds to a gun before replenishment as opposed to the 12 that the AMX-13 has. If that, with the caliber and turret size I'd have money on it being a five round magazine each.
Would like to see someone take a crack at mapping out the interior for theory crafting. Very interesting piece.
Can you talk about the German VT Tank? It actually HAVE double barrel although technically it is a tank destroyer. Is so fascinating that it was design completely different from the double barrel turret tank, as the guns were so far apart from one another rather than being close to the center of the tank.
Hey this channel is pretty cool.
I feel like if the vehicle had an auto loader in an oscillating turret like the French design, the gunner was only firing 1 gun at a time, and the tank had the role of a TD, it wouldn't be that bad. You could have it ambush convoys of tanks and knock them out faster firing 1 gun, switching targets, fire the second, switching again etc and probably could knock out more than a single barrel tank could but this is a paper idea and we should all know by now that doesn't equal real life.
War thunder has a much better usage of secondary guns than world of tanks. Personally, I think the m6 in wt is the best example that anyone can use because the 76mm/37mm combo isn't actually that bad. They both can do damage to vehicles around the same br rating as the tank (as long as they stop raising it) and both have a closer fire rate than the maus with its 128mm/75mm combo.
The Detroit 12v71 could theoretically make 800hp but you would need twin inter cooled turbochargers and marine injectors. This would necessitate an absolute beast of a radiator to keep the engine cool. A 12v92 would probably be a better pick for a tank.
detroit 12v71 engines are huge for mine trucks and boats. 525 hp in turbocharged version. 16v71 is two 8v71s mushed together for 800 hp
To answer your question regarding engine output, WWII engines were an interesting blend of horrifically anemic and absurdly overpowered, in the case of the little V8 found in a Jenny biplane in the early war for example (granted most American WWI pilots were trained on these), that V8 engine produced a sad little 90 hp, for context, my Toyota from 1999 has a little four banger and it produces about 120hp
Alternately you have the Merlin found in spitfires and mustangs among other planes, it too was a V12 engine and had many improvements made over the course of the war. In 1933 when they were first introduced they produced a very respectable 1,000hp, but by the end of the war they were putting out over 2,000hp
The question is horsepower vs brake horse power, they aren’t quite the same thing, horsepower is the maximum power produced by the engine under a No Load situation, brake horse power is how much power the engine can produce under load
This is not to be confused with torque, but I digress the main point being that as a mechanic I’m very confident that they could have increased the power output of the engine, however it would have taken time and development, and for them to arbitrarily assign it more horsepower without dates documents and proof that it was developed that far is just bias
i mean you can load high explosive and armor pear at the same time, so you can deal with what ever comes at you,
A video on the VT1-2 would be nice
Could you do a vid on the 53TP / fake polish heavies in WoT Blitz?
I support this statement.
@@Pr.Wyvern omg so heckin basederinno!!!! So true!!!! Wowza!!!!!!!!!!!
Only way to really have double barrels is with automated systems, because then you remove the room for crew requirement depending on systems etc. Tho then your taking ammo space to have a 2nd gun....tho i do see 2 guns as feasable in certain cases... Because trophy systems and era advance....some trophy systems can deflect some shells (only some) so as they advance they may get better...then with era that can shatter shells too and stop certain rounds....so a double tandem shot could be used to defeat that....then i would see it be useful for 2 barrels
ok, side to side makes no sense, but how about under over design, with single breach asembly going up down? This avoid stress forces from asymetrically mounted canons, so turret ring will actually last, kinda solves internal space issue, with autoloader it actually could be made rapid fire capable and only astonishing stupidly of clockwork mechanism needed for it to work stops it from being viable!
It's not exactly the first 2 gun tank they added. There's a whole line of them
If the military wants a risk free double cannon tank, build a bigger tank frame, incidentally making the iconic Mammoth Tank irl
Tbh wargaming should just let us straight up make us invent tanks designs for the game
like a contest
2:31 Bro hasn't heard of these two words:
Overengineering and tuning.
Makes no sense when you think about it it’s better having a auto loader gun over double barrels. It’s like choosing between using a double barrel or pump action shot gun in combat everyone will grab the pump action first
Bolt action double barrel with .500 magnum?
the only reason to excuse double barrel tanks is improving firerate but that can be better dealt with by using autoloaders and if your gonna mount 2 guns youd be better off just using that space to mount a bigger single gun as either way your halfing your ammo it gets murky when you get into plasma and laser weapons but with conventional ammo it doesnt make sense
Doesnt make sense for lasers as well. One bigger laser is more powerful then 2 smaller.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 ehh kinda depends on setting although definitely more tentative on that part
Battletech is the only setting I know of where double barrel tanks make sense.
For a tank the HP really isn't that important, torque is what you need to move weight from a dead stop or slow crawl. My example isn't a direct comparison, but it's a good way to think about it...I had a friend with a small Isuzu turbo-diesel pickup truck years ago. It had maybe 75hp so it would struggle to reach speeds over 50mph. Torque is what you feel when the gas is smashed and your body gets sucked into the seat and it was amazing just how hard that truck launched and how easily it did burnouts and donuts.
Say a tank has 1000hp and 200ft.lb.'s of torque...it's going to struggle to start moving, but depending on the rev range and gearing it could reach high speeds given enough time and space to accelerate. That's how land-speed vehicles do it...high HP, lower TQ and enough weight and aero to keep the vehicle planted to the ground for several miles in order to reach top speeds.
Also I'd say most 500hp engines can easily be tweaked to produce 800hp. Torque needs to be carefully managed in lightweight frames tho, guys doing v8 swaps into 240z's decades ago could testify to how easily a light, aluminum car frame can twist when given a lot of torque it wasn't designed to handle.
I never heard of a British 94 mm gun, but of course, it's the 32 pounder.
Game-wise it's a tank to balance out Italian two-shell clip mediums.
In reality only one tank ever was made with double barrel as a prototype and it technically was an SPG (VT 1-1\GVT 04)
This is some Red Alert level stuff right here.
Red Alert 3 moment
I'd love to see a video about the annihilator
Barrel doubled, but ammunition cannot be increased, rather may be reduced considering the space occupied and the increased weight by the extra gun.
Man, I love the WoT theme
Miss the good old times
Advantage of two barrels to me seems that you can have two different types of ammunition loaded at any given time.
I am not sure when this would be useful in reality.
Chieftain's rubbed off on me, I keep thinking the tracks might need tensioning
You should do a video on the german VT 1 series...
Me, a Jpanther with a 20 cm and a turret with a 8.8 cm: Helo, hesling.jpeg
Are you open for suggestion? il-2 sturmovik 1946 have Heinkel Lerche. 😊
Im more disturbed that the tank's front tracks are loose on the rotation while driving forwards rather than it having two barrels
great music choice
Heavy tanks war game is partially that after shot it must reload giving time to engage for oponent. Double barrel would keept him checked.
I love the videos you make
So I noticed something for world of tanks' tank description (info). Any tank that looks fake has a "no prototypes were built" on them suggesting they are completely made up.
idk or its just me...
If u use tanks that actually existed in WoT ur basically like a unicorn
Will you do a video on tanks in Japanese movies and TV shows? They were especially loving towards German tanks.
While yes the spec sheet for thé 12V71 say it makes only 500 Sum odd HorsePower, They often Go well Over Factory ratings. Just turning the fuel Screw will give you a Bit of HorsePower (granted that increases your runaway risk)
Some tanks have two cannons like the churchill 1 and char b1 but the cannons are seperated
It's not just that there are problems with double mounting a large gun in a tank, it's that it's actually pointless. Big Battleships mounted gun batteries consisting of two or three guns in a turret, but they were designed to fire a spread with each gun mounted independently and firing at a different elevation. In a tank the guns are mounted coaxially as you only have one gunner. So, if you have room for two guns and the capacity to absorb the recoil , why not just simply mount a bigger gun ?
The 12v71 would produce 800 hp in a marine configuration and 2 turbos 12v71tt
How about the Gundam M61A5 MBT which is a double barrel 165mm cannon??
Hope cone of arc would do and comment on that tank
If you play frequently enough a year of WoT+ is equal to 104 dollars in gold compared to a yearly subscription cost of 108 dollars. 4 dollars for a rental tank, improved crew training whether playing or not, and free equipment demounting for most equipment types is well worth it in my personal opinion.