Buy some tank themed merch: coneofarc.gunjigraphics.com Buy military themed brick sets from COBI and more at WarBricksUSA with code coneofarc5 to save 5%: warbricks.com?ref=1727
I actually would buy a shirt or two, I really like the artwork, but the website has no size chart with some measurements so I don't know what size I have to order and unfortunately I know from experience that L or XL can mean anything between way too small or family tent ..
@@cnikkor they are the normal US sizing for shirts so if you order your normal size it should fit fine. I'll email them about potentially adding a size chart though
you forgot the most famous multi-turreted serie of tanks: the pattons (with the m2 turret). Since you've done a video on multi-turreted/gun vehicle, what about a video on multiple armament vehicles, like the bmp, short and medium range spaas, etc?
One drawback that you didn’t mention is the increasing difficulty tanks have turning the longer they are. A longer tank means more track on the ground that has to be dragged in a turn. And this is compounded the heavier the vehicle is as the greater weight presses the tracks into the ground more and multi-turret designs tended to be heavier than more standard tanks. This was a problem with things like the British Vickers Independent, the Soviet T-35, and even the legendary TOG II which only had the one turret but was freakishly long and heavy. This is also the reason the Swedish cheese wedge STRV 103s had very short lengths of track in contact with the ground, it allowed them to much more easily rotate on the spot to aim the gun.
The Devils doorwedge also has neutral steering, due to ability to rotate tracks to opposite direction.although the mechanics affect mobility to a lesser effect over conventional physics.
@@apyllyon I would think a drawback of multi-turret tanks is putting a lot of your combat power at risk of uselessness for the loss of one tread linkage or drive sprocket, or blown oil seal, or... An armored "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" thing.
It's not just length overall. It's also an issue of the ratio between the length and width of a tracked vehicle. The length of the track dictates how much force it takes to drag the tracks, while the width of the vehicle dictates the amount of leverage the vehicle has to overcome the drag of the tracks. A short but wide vehicle will turn more easily than a long narrow one. However, this can go too far, and a tracked vehicle that is too short can have difficulty driving straight. This is why most tanks have a track patch that is about twice as long as the vehicle is wide. That ratio gives enough stability going forward, whilst also not making turning too difficult. But, if you have a vehicle that is too long, you can have even worse problems than just difficulty turning. The Vickers Independent actually had a lot of problems with the sprockets and tracks breaking, which happened during turns. There was simply too much sideways force on the tracks.
Wrong. Weight means nothing, the pressure is the number you're looking for. Tank with 2x weight but 4x the track area will sunk LESS than lighter one due to less pressure.
Weight is super important; not only is it the weight that makes you throw a track on a sharp turn, it’s also weight that ruins you crossing bridges, using feries and being lifted aboard ships.
One of the problems with multi turret tanks is that the two turrets are going to get into each others' way and it would be difficult to bring them both to bear forward and aft. Plus a multi turret will always have to sacrifice protection or mobility as the most powerful engine you can put in a single turret tank will be the same as you can put in the multi turret design.
@utrock5067 although i hate how warships being called water tanks it does actually kinda make sense and thierfore will start calling them that myself because its funny
Multiple barrel could work just not in the effect of treaded tanks For example the Sci fi tank the AT TE does multi turret tanks very well given the format
I think one important benefit of having multiple turrets is that you can give the turrets different armaments to fit different roles, which is basically what the M3 and Char B1 did: the main gun with limited traverse was used for firing HE shells to break through fortified defenses, while the smaller gun in the turret was used to deal with enemy armor.
@@MsZsc Yeah, I get that, I meant it as a benefit over one single-turreted tank. Ofcourse you can counter any argument in support of multi-turreted tanks by saying "just build 2 single-turreted tanks".
@minervszombies But would those two tanks be more expensive? They’d be more versatile, sure, but I can imagine having to completely duplicate every single part instead of just making some, like drivetrain, a bit bigger would have drawbacks in terms of manufacturing and maintenance.
@@GraingyAircraft Yeah, I was thinking that too. But I can imagine that 2 tanks are just much more efficient at performing combat tasks than 1 bulky, slow-moving tank with 2 turrets. So in the end, it's probably more cost-effective to build single-turreted tanks instead of multi-turreted ones.
Added to what you've already mentioned: greater complexity = more things to go wrong, more things requiring maintenance in the field, more time needed for field maintenance. There's also more training time needed to work up crews to efficiency, and if you have a hull loss, there's perhaps twice the personnel lost (and thus needing to be replaced).
Given how (not really) durable tanks are, its no surprise people figured "hey, iron coffins for 5 or less are better than iron coffins for 12 or 15". Its a nightmare for the commander to get everyone synchronized on what theyre meant to be doing; there isnt enough room in the vehicle to operate it properly, and those multi-turreted tanks usually lacked armor, due to weight constraints imparted on them by said turrets... who knew more steel on an already impressive amount of steel could cause logistical issues? Besides, these things always turned out huge, which goes against the idea and current development to reduce the height of tanks below 2 meters.
@@LiezAllLiez tanks in general lacked armour at that time. In comparison the soviet T-28 and 35 have more armour by design than T-26 or BT series, while german designs were on par with very early panzers. These were meant to be walking land battleships. You are right on that they were incredibly cumbersome and difficult to coordinate, especially for Soviet tanks early intercoms were sketchy at best. If these tanks had any they would mostly rely on shouts or series of internal lights to relay orders. The commander would be overburdened by scanning target's and ordering the crew meanwhile visibility from the smaller turrets was next to none.
@@apyllyon Yeah, designers didn't mind armor much until the Spanish Civil War showed them just how common (and lethal) anti-tank guns of the time (mainly 37s and 45s) would be. However, ConeOfArc is actually incorrect about the two competing KV-related Soviet designs in the Winter War. The multi-turreted SMK at 55 tons had 15-30mm less armor than the single-turreted KV-1 which was still 10 tons lighter. So this is a real thing, by necessity a multi-turreted tank will have less armor for a given weight, and maximum possible tank weight is never infinite. Another problem is that turrets generally present weak spots in the form of turret rings, shot traps, and poor all-around armor compared to a simple armor plate. With ammunition likely carried close to the gun, secondary turrets also present another place where a penetration equals an operational kill (through cook-off) rather than mere spall injuries. It's a reasonable interpretation to say that more turrets mean less protection. Turretless SPGs are also much easier to give effective armor than their turreted counterparts, even on the same chassis and within the same weight constraints.
Another sizeable issue that kinda follows from how multi-turreted designs didn't have much more in the way of armour protection for the increase in weight... Why have one tank with two turrets that can be taken out by a single AP round in the right spot (and is a larger target for such), when you can have two tanks that require at least an AP round each to take out. If one of your two single turret tanks is taken out, you still have one fully operational tank. If the two-turreted tank is taken out, you now have zero fully operational tanks especially in a flare up scenario.
The multi turreted tank is quite a sensible idea when you think about it as an early tank designer. Since you only expect to fight infantry, it's theoretically superior. The first tank ever had two cannons for this exact reason. It's the same logic as warships. Many canon=more boom=more dead energy In the context of trench warfare it seems to make sense on paper.
Well yes, but actually no... but yes?... To my knowledge they don't count because their combat role is secondary to the primary role of supporting main turret with visibility and detection. Modern remote turrets are attached with commander thermal viewer, they are simply a way for the commander to operate the thermal to spot target as well as not having to expose himself to operate the MG.
@@OberGefreiterZ Then when communications get back on and he turns the radio all the tanker can hear in Stalingrad German radio systems is: *"Tripaloski"*
This reminds me of an old Mico board game made in the 1980's called, "Hell Tank", and "Hell Tank Destroyer". It was set in the far future. The hell tank was a multi turreted beast that also could carry smaller tanks if I recall correctly. That was over 40 years ago. I didn't learn that the concept of multi turreted tanks was a reality until about 20 years ago. I keep living. I keep learning. Thank you.
Sounds similar to OGRE, which was (and is) a very popular pocket-sized paper-and-counters wargame when I was at school. A giant cybernetic "land battleship" called an OGRE and controlled by one player came down the board one way, and the other player had to defend a Command Bunker from it using conventional (if semi-futuristic) forces. The latter only had three states: alive, imobilised or dead, but the OGRE had to be engaged component-by-component by shooting at it's track units, gun turrets or missile launchers. There were a variety of different OGRE marks available with the conventional forces balanced accordingly. There were also a couple of follow-on games: GEV (Ground Effect Vehicle - hovertanks), which dispensed with the OGREs to have conventional vs conventional battles, and Battlesuit(?) which was individual small-unit actions, both in the same setting. There were also lots of expansions and upgrades.
@@MrHws5mp I played lots of games of OGRE, there even miniatures made for the game. And I still have a few. It was very one sided. But every so often I could beat my Dad, who always played the OGRE :) Those where good days.
@@longrider42 It definitely took a long time to learn how to beat the OGRE and you had to use _exactly_ the right tactics. In our school wargames club (stuffed full of military nerds of course), two new players tended to see OGRE's win more often than not, but when both players were more experienced it tended to come out even. In the first edition of the game, the printers accidentally printed some of the grey counters as black, which gave a conventional player who chose black the option for _far_ more GEVs than the game designers intended. This led to a tactic called "The Fuzzy Wuzzy Falacy" in which the player chose an all-GEV force and used them to swarm in, devastate the OGRE's treads, and then swarm out again in their second movement phase, leaving only a few of them within range of the OGRE's longest-range weapons. This got fixed in later editions by a) making sure the printing was right, and b) nerfing the GEV's second movement phase so it was shorter than the first (down from 4/4 to 4/3 IIRC).
The only place multi-turret tanks are flourishing is at Multi Turret Academy on Steam. Happy to see another video, young man. You've come a long way from your MrSteveCrafter days :)
I would argue if the manned machine gun turrets of tanks like the 2C and Independent count, then remote weapons stations mounted on MBTs are also multi-turret tanks. Doubly so when we count GMG and Autocannon RWS.
One idea i do have for fictional multi turreted tanks is usage in a droid/machine army. With no crew and an ai in command rather than an individual person, some of the major draw backs (command oversight, needing more space for more crew, communication issues) are completely eliminated. Theoretically, in a sci fi setting an ai could use multi turreted tanks in a similar role to breakthrough and heavy tanks
I was hoping to hear mention of things like the MBT 70 and AMX 30 having 20 mm on their tanks during the Cold War. And the recent designs like the Abrams x with the 30 mm on top. While ammo storage would of course be an issue I think having a remote weapon system 20 mm or 30 mm seems like a good idea
@@omarrp14 Amx 30 had a coax 20mill like early the centurion. Later models introduced commanders cupola mg(unsure of the caliber) in raised high-vis cupola.
They just evolved into RWS systems (yes I know thats redundant). We're now seeing cannon armed RWSs in 20mm & 30mm. The remote control nature makes them a much more viable option nowadays, as there doesn't need to be a crewman charging the cannon with clips of ammo or taking up an extra space. I think the CITV/Gun hybrids like Rheinmetall's "MSSA RCWS", the one of the T-90M and the ones KNDS showed off on the Leclerc Evolution at Eurosatory this year are the way to go.
well, they went to ball mounts over separate single-man mg turrets like the crusader (though idk how to explain the m60), and rws turrets are better than ball mounts
I think the multiple turret concept could and did work on stuff like armored trains. For tanks it depends on the requirements, but dispersing armaments on multiple hulls has an advantage of being able to be used at multiple locations, and being harder to take out at once. But nowadays maybe sticking vertical launchers, drone bays or remote control anti-air or anti-drone, perhaps even anti-personel weapon stations will appear. If the barrels or pods don't go further than the tank, then hitting them on stuff is less likely.
Very glad you mentioned CROWs and other such systems here! They are kiiiinda a modern evolution of the multi turret machine gun tank, just, without all the massive drawbacks (mainly no additional crew members)
They fail for two simple reason, if the first turret was good enough for the job, then you don’t need a second one. If the first turret wasn’t good enough, then a second won’t help you.
Fun fact: The M3 Lee was so tall that a man 1.7 meters tall could perfectly stand straight from the bottom of the lower hull to the top of the upper hull roof. The Soviets used their M3 Lee's like that, where an entire battalion of 16 men were squeezed with the rest of the tank crew. Sure, the cannons and crew were severely hampered, but if one of these M3 Lee APCs broke through, theoretically, you could have infantry, artillery support, a tank, and an anti tank weapon wreaking havoc on enemy lines
11:27 The M2 Bradley is actually an example of this. It has machine gun/ rifle ports on its side. They have since been covered up but in games like Warthunder and a few others if you look rear side view of the M2 you will see bulges where the ports used to be.
I'm pretty sure these were used more like battleships. They provided fire support and tech assist since many of them were fitted with radios they served as essentially mobile pill boxes and command centers
Honestly, because of guerrilla warfare and the easy to use drone strikes, even tanks themselves are seeing a fadeout in use. Instead of the original purpose of breaching enemy lines, they are now mostly an advanced defence post to where infantry can go back to. That is not counting tanks used to control civil unrest tho.
I feel like you missed a quiet big benefit of multi turreted tank is the firepower to weight ratio. To achieve the same firepower of a multi turreted tank consisting of two cannons there should be two separate chasis built for each cannons resulting in separate engines and the exponential increase of armor needed hence multi turreted tanks, although costly per unit, do have a leverage over multiple tanks being required to be build.
Fair point, but if you can get a single turreted single gunned tank to have a cannon with enough firepower for the required roles, then you don’t need a second turret. A good example of this would be the M3 Lee and the M4 Sherman. The turreted 37mm cannon on the Lee was to deal with enemy armour, while the 75mm cannon in the hull dealt with fortifications. The M4 Sherman used only a single 75mm cannon that could fulfill both roles by simply switching which shells are being fired. I feel multi-turreted tanks only really could’ve worked during WW1 and the early interwar era.
@@Gary-number31415did the gun in the M3 have the same performance as the one in the M4? That includes availability of different ammo types. I understood that the M3 gun didn’t have a capable AP round when the tank was designed. If this is correct, did better AP rounds come available during its front line service life?
@@Gary-number31415 the point you're talking about the gun being better sort of is irrelevant to my entire point. If you put two or more of the " better" gun on a single chassis it still will have more favourable firepower to weight ratio.
@@talon9639 The total mass of your tank fleet is not as important as the mass of a single tank. Lowering the latter will benefit mobility, including which bridges it can cross. The former may help you when transporting by sea or rail, but it's a problem that can be easily solved by bringing more ships and trains or doing more runs. And once you realize that a multi turreted tank is not even equivalent in firepower to multiple tanks in actual situations, the calculus becomes even worse.
@@Vengir No, the total mass of the entire fleet is important. A country such as nazi Germany in ww2 ought to have chosen multiturreted tanks, multiturreted tanks, due to their firepower to weight ratio, need less resources than two different chassis. This goes for crew and the resources put. It gives you a greater firepower with less cost, something the nazis should have considered. Mobility is king, however I still believe the importance of multi turreted tanks have been underestimated. They do have a worse mobility but should have definitely been part of the tank army as they provide significant power to weight ratios.
Another problem is maintenance. Multiple turrets means more guns to take care of for a maintenance crew. Meaning if they are damaged it takes longer to repair.
To an extent, some post-war IFVs have continued the multi-turreted idea. When Marders first came into service, they had a remote-controlled machine-gun mounted on top of the troop compartment, operated by one of the dismounts. This was essentially an improvement on mounted troops firing through ports or open hatches, since it has more field of fire than the former and better overhead+NBC protection than the latter. It echoes the pro-multi-turreted tank arguments of being able to fire in two directions at once and covering blind-spots from sneak infantry attacks, and it avoids the pitfalls of increased size and crew because the size wasn't excessive, and the additonal 'crew' were dismounts who were there anyway and otherwise had nothing to do. It must be significant that later upgrades of the Marder dispensed with this weapon though. The MG turret was made by MOWAG and they produced several IFV prototypes in the 1960s and 1970s which featured two such turrets side-by-side on top of the troop compartment, but none of them achieved any sales.
''Communication breakdown'' = ''command and control'' Great footage ! I read an account of some members of an A7V crew dismounting and engaging a target on foot while still being supposed by the tank. The crew on an A7V was 18 so that clearly worked for them .
While in theory multi-turreted tanks can have more firepower than regular tanks because, as you said, more weapons should equal more firepower. But in reality, multi-turreted tanks often had less firepower, because 2 turrets take more space and thus, often had smaller guns than other tanks. If you have more space on a tank, you can put a bigger gun with more firepower and penetration, then if you had to fit 2 guns into the same space. Very good video, as always, cone of arc.
The machine gun turrets on British cruiser tanks were removed because the small turrets were gas traps and the machine gun operators were asphyxiated by the exhaust gases from the machine guns.. I would guess that having a small turret on the glacis was also a bad idea when you were shot at as the turret would not have the same resistance to an AT round and would create a weakness in the glacis.
One thing you forgot is that bigger tanks with multiple turrets would also require bigger engines, which also means more cost, more fuel consumption, and a heavier demand on electrical power to move the turrets. More parts, more things that can break down.
Flaw. Ammunition.. you need to store more ammo for more guns, it makes you more vunerable and heavier target. Its big trouble on its own. Main and secondary guns mostly has different guns, so you need 2 seperate ammo storages. And ammo storage is obvious weakspot. And also, you need a loader to the bigger cannons, you need a space for the ammo, and in bigger tanks you need a loader increasing the crew.
On of the thoughts behind this evolutionary dead end can be found in the name of the Vickers Independent. It was intended to operate independently, as in on its own (no infantry needed). So machine gun turrets abound, the rear ones even had high elevation to act as AA guns. Later with the 16 tonner and A9 cruiser, the forward sub turrets were to hose down trenches either side as it crossed them. Of course, as a cruiser tank, it should have no business crossing defended trenches, that's an infantry tanks job.
A couple comments I had during the video: During your segments where you spoke on the benefits of Multi-Turret Tanks (MTTs) you mentioned how in many of those circumstances (crew transport/bringing more firepower) those roles could be filled by just bringing multiple more standard vehicles. I think the point you missed here is that even though a MTT would be more expensive and take longer to produce than a single standard tank, it's likely a save on time and resources to have the one extra large vehicle compared to needing multiple smaller vehicles to perform tasks. I think a better counter argument to this that you should have brought up would be the fact that the real issue is the "all in one" strategy of an MTT. It would be way more devastating to an operation if everything hinged on a single vehicle rather than multiple. With your APC example, imagine if the MTT got disabled or completely taken out. Now you've lost both your tank support for your infantry AND the infantry transport together. If you had a separate tank and truck instead, you can lose one and still maintain a level of viability. Secondly, and this is just a personal opinion, I don't think MG turrets should be counted making a vehicle a MTT. The idea of a Multi-Turret Tank is that each turret has a primary weapon. I think it's safe to say a roof mounted .30 or .50 on top of an Abrams or any other MBT is not going to be considered a "Primary" armament by the vast majority of people. Whether it's an automated/remote MG mount or not lol. Just as a side note: I think Multi-Turret (Or Multi-Armament) vehicles are a good idea. We generally see more of the latter than the former (Bradley, BMP, IFVs in general) with a main cannon (or autocannon) and a ATGM launcher. We even still see double barreled tanks today, the BMP-3 for example. Having two separate weapons that can fill two separate roles for a vehicle really increases the effectiveness, and usability of those vehicles. I don't personally think MTTs or Double Barreled tanks/vehicles failed. I just think they evolved over time due to increasingly better technology (and capability) to look so vastly different that unless you dig deeper into the subject, you'd not be blamed for thinking they had. A good example of this is the fact that many IFVs, from all sides of the spectrum (NATO/Soviet/Russian/Chinese) still have port holes to allow embarked infantry to fire their weapons from the vehicles sides and rear, helping clear blind spots.
One possible use case that I don’t believe was ever explored would be a super-heavy marine landing tank. For Army tanks the railroad gauge is a limiting factor, making them quickly too long to be practical. But for a vehicle which is transported via landing ship there is no such limiting factor. Reading about the pacific campaign there were numerous times when a heavy tank could have been employed to great effect. In fact the post war Marine Corps were the last to employ a heavy tank in the US Military for this exact reason. Imagine if the USMC had adopted the M6 heavy, a 58 ton beast which could have easily been ready by 1944. A single LST could have delivered at least 5 M6 tanks in a single go.
One theoretical benefit you did not touch on is: with the correct layout, a multi turreted tank could have a variety of weapons to choose from so the crew could avoid wasting ammo by picking the bigger gun when the smaller gun would do. For example, machine guns are not super great at taking out some armored cars, and 57-75mm would be better for that, but 140mm would be very overkill and you'd want to save that ammo for something else.
Studies performed by the US (when testing the idea of a secondary autocannon in tandem with the main gun) found that tank crews are liable to just jump straight to the main gun if a target is resistant to the MG. Anything the .50 cal couldn't handle, the crew would default to a main gun round to ensure the target _will_ be destroyed. The space taken up by considerably bulkier secondary-cannon ammunition would be far better utilized as added space for main gun ammo as a result. I mean, you _are_ right that it could be a benefit, but tank crews aren't liable to bother using that benefit and they'd be better off with more main gun ammo anyway (especially since the main gun is more versatile).
@@bluntcabbage6042 tank crews of a multi turreted behemoth have to deal with a completely different situation. The guy on one of the machine guns probably does not even have access to the main gun, and the turret commander of the main gun is probably looking only for targets that the main gun is actually needed for.
Modern BMPT Terminator can be somewhat called as continuation of multiturreted tanks. Aside of dual 30mm canon's turret it has 2 grenade launchers with own operator on each. They are not in own turrets - because they don't need, it's granade launchers. But they operate separately from main turret by own crew.
It would be perfectly feasible if you could have a bigger tank- operate it like a warship, which traditionally work fine with many, many turrets. Though of course really big tanks are not practical.
I think the Churchill mk1 design is quite telling, It was intended to have side sponsons for trench warfare and also had a 3 inch howitzer in the hull. It the final design sponsons were never added, just handy escape doors, and the later iterations deleted the howitzer to be replaced with a hull besa machine gun which then was also deleted and the gap welded over with additional armour
I feel like there was something called the KV-44, an unidentified soviet super heavy multi turreted tank. Not only it was seen in reality, but it was seen in the internet. It's incredibly mysterious that some people had never explained about that monster, just using it as a cartoon character for fun, certainly an influence of gen alpha. Imagine if you search up KV-44 on UA-cam, you'll see not documentary videos, but some random animations and music edited videos. Its main rival was the Ratte, for no reason. I think the KV-44 wasn't even known much by English speakers, not even if it was explained by the lore, or maybe it's just a myth.
It could have maybe worked for mobile artillery using smaller guns and firing a volley from one vehicle. Also an infantry support vehicle with a main turret up front and back turret with a mortar for indirect fire.
idk I think tanks might becoming obsolete. I mean the main idea was to be able to show up and surprise and flank like cavalry or provide cover fire but with drones and satellites it doesn't work like that anymore, maybe not so much in an area of the world other than flat Ukraine but its hard to out maneuver your opponent when each side can see what the other side is almost always doing.
Only one turret will have unobstructed 360 coverage, while smaller turrets will be obstructed by the main gun. Unless the turret cannot transverse 360 degrees at best a 2nd turret will just be a secondary armament and at worst obstruct the primary. The only way a multiple primary weapon tank could be viable is if it mounts a hull weapon that is too large for the primary turret, but that would make the turret a secondary armament.
I'm 3:30 in and you just talked about the hybrid designs of the Char B1 and the M3 Lee/Grant. I hope you didn't forget the British version of this concept, the Churchill Mk 1. I'd argue that one is worth more of a mention than the other two, because the Churchill did evolve from that concept while both others were dead ends, design-wise
Most port cranes in the WW2 era had a capacity of 30 tons. Okay for a Sherman but useless for the M6 heavy. A fully automatic small turret with a large gun and controlled by an A.I might be usefull
The turret is the most complex and expensive part of a tank...so yes to all the problems and limitations you stated. One major reason not stated however, was the fact that there are actually two kinds of multi-turreted tanks, where the secondary turrets have machine guns, and where the second gun is a different type of gun. Most of the time, multi-turreted tanks had two different guns, to do two different jobs. So the SMK has one low-velocity gun (76 mm) in one turret and a high-velocity gun (45 mm) in the second turret. The low-velocity gun was for soft targets and the high-velocity gun was for fighting tanks. When guns were developed that could do both jobs...the need for a tank with both fell away. The biggest reason was cost. As much as people talk about the Independent, it was not adopted mostly because of the cost. Multi=-turrets need a big tank. Big tanks with multiple turrets are going to be very expensive. The most destructive and efficient tank killer is the budget.
I do briefly touch on the machine guns turrets used by some designs towards the end of the video. While those did in some cases see limited success they suffer from the same issues I covered for the larger gunned examples.
@@ConeOfArc I watched your video, and it struck me that in many examples of multi-turreted tanks, the multiple turrets were not included to increase firepower, but instead to include different types of guns to engage different types of targets. It's something the SMK, T-35, and Neubaufahrzeug had in common...low velocity howitzers (for soft targets) in one turret and high velocity guns (for hard targets) in another. Maybe the engineers were trying to square the circle of tanks needing to fight infantry and other tanks. Including both types of guns was tried, and failed. The better idea, a tank's main gun being able to fire usable HE rounds at soft targets and AP at hard targets, was then used successfully. The Lee/Grant was more or less a test bed for this concept, retaining the 37mm just in case the concept didn't work. I don't know...that's the thought that popped into my head while watching your video.
Good comment. Ultimately it is cheaper to build one bigger better turret, than two good enough for two separate roles. You can put a machine gun on that turret, if you think that is important. IIRC, the Sherman had a .30 caliber bow MG, and a .50 caliber MG that could be used from a crewmember partially exposed on the top of the turret. And the main gun could be used at the same time. That is a withering amount of firepower. Another way to look at it is two turrets tends to make the vehicle heavier, and you are going to get the worst of both worlds -- the too often overtaxed engine of a big tank that can get bogged down in poor terrain coupled with the limitations of smaller guns on a less big turret.
One thing re the coordination and communication was probably that pre war tanks didn't have a any reliable intercom system or none at all. So in a T-35 for example you'd have to shout and probably clamber around the interior to communicate your intentions to your own crew. I have no idea how the driver knew where he was to go but maybe he had an electric direction display like in some french tanks because otherwise I can't see how the commander was supposed to tell him with (as far as I could google) no intercom being installed.
Would be super interesting to see multi turret tanks make a comeback with remote control/ AI controled designs. A small group of Ai/ remote control infantry support tanks with a chaingun turret in the front and a small mortar turret in the back would be nasty. They could shadow a company around the battlefield and watch the flanks, and then at a command, spring forward and pound the enemy during an assault with constant direct and indirect fire.
You probably will never see this, but Thank you for coming to the Canadian Tank Museum today, Mr Cone. It was quite exciting to see you come in, and you managed to get my mom excited about the Jadgpanzer 38T they had brought out, and it was just great to actually see you in person, even if i never got to speak to you in person
I think it would only really be effective if you were to have a remotely operated gun, say an Abram’s with the MGS gun system on top (weird I know) but if you could add a single extra man or even just have the commander operate it, it would be more effective. Not to say that ammo and autoloading wouldn’t be an issue.
@@jfangm you have 0 clue about what is happening if you think that the iranian's retaliation strike was anything but a show of force and it showed Israel they will respond to any further attack on them and their personnel. They shot just enough drones and missiles to deplete the Iron Dome and western Aegis systems in the vicinity. The plan was just to shoot enough of them to mount a response to Israeli murder of Irianian army staff in the embassy, but not enough to escalate the situation further, the Israeli bet the Iranian would escalate, they were wrong.
To me, it makes sense to have a tank that looked like land battle ships because when they were first introduced, they were called that. In the same way that cars were called " horse less carriages," and the first cars looked like carriages that were not pulled by horses.
13:11, Keith Laumer's Bolos, the self aware cyber tanks of the future, initially go with this concept. It takes them centuries into a sci-fi future before they go to multi turreted vehicles. Before then, it's mostly combat support like mortars, SAMs, and the anti infantry side machine guns. The Bolos are heavily automated even before they become AI, at first they're not much more than M1 Abrams capable of operating with programmed instructions. Their third model of Bolo is a mobile firebase, and it's advantages are in computer coordination and communication more than simple firepower. Its a fascinating and underrated series.
Hi @ConeOfArc you could have mentioned that due to the increase size of the vehicle it would be harder to armor it and single turret tanks are more easy and more eficient to armor
SF writer Keith Laumer wrote a number of stories about the Bolo Arms Co, set in the distant future. Bolo started with somewhat conventional tanks that ultimately evolved into the Continental Siege Unit, a space-traveling weapons system the approximate size of Mt. Rushmore. It moved across terrain using force fields, since no amount of treads could support its incredible weight. It was operated by an AI fire control system that was programmed to advance the goals of the galactic empire that produced it. Onboard weapons included missiles, terawatt lasers, artillery, combat drones, detachable robotic armored units, and gravity-wave projectors. Its purpose was to pacify an entire planet with one unstoppable weapon. And yes, it had multiple turrets.
I think it was one of the David’s at the Tank Museum who said something along the lines of: “The extra turrets are useless because you’d be lucky to keep one in working order”
Awesome video for any tank lovers. Surprised I didnt see any shot of the T-28s or T-35s in there. Those were always my reference for "multi turreted" tanks.
I believe the concept for the T-35 was for the two turrets with the 37 or 45mm guns to be anti-armor weapons. The short 76.2 in the main turret was strictly HE. And the two machine gun turrets were for dealing with close in infantry.
In a sense, the remote machine guns/auto cannons mounted on the roofs of MBT's could in a way be considered "turrets", in that they operate independently of the main turret and house weapons. I can't see them going away anytime soon.
Not to forget, the Crusader II crews usually took out the secondary machine gun turret as a field modification, and the Crusader III(Stop-gap vehicle to mount a 6-Pdr before the A24/A27 tanks were produced) straight up removed it for more ammunition space.
A flaw I don't think you covered is that, if trying to compensate for the communication breakdown by having sub commanders for any extra turret, you have to have a larger turret to fit them in, which would add to the weight and cost problems.
To me the most important omission is twofold. A two turreted vehicle will either have to carry two types of ammo, reducing it's cargo space for its primary gun, of, if both guns are the same, will use up the ammo supply twice as fast. The extended size would allow form some more ammo space, but not likely enough to really make up for this detriment. This sort of thing was seen in the Char 2B, where the ammunition for the howitzer reduced the ammo supply for the primary turret.
One thought I've always had on multi-turret tanks is that you would be better served by using the same amount of resources on making a normal tank with 1 big gun vs a tank with multiple small guns.
We do have multiple turret tanks now, but it secondary weapons only... the remote turrets on tanks, now with their own sensors, gyro stability, and independent slewing, allowing the remote turrets to lock onto and keep aim on a target, while the hull and turret move independent...
Going along with what you said, to have a larger tank, you also have to accommodate for a larger and more powerful engine, which means more space and fuel required, which in turn would have eaten up natural resources
It wouldn’t be a real multi turret as it would likely be unmanned or even computer controlled. I would be very surprised if this *doesn’t* become a thing
@wackyotter1235 My counter argument to that is we still consider it a turret on a M1 TTB or T14 Armata and those are completely unmanned. Now ai agree the small unmanned turrets with just a small MG in them doesn't quite feel like turret is a good definition for that
The M3 Lee/Grant, had multiple turrets, and a hull mounted 75mm cannon. But, they where also some what of a Stop Gap Tank. Until the Sherman was figured out. But the M3 did quite well against the Japanese in places like Burma. And North Africa, before the arrival of the Tiger Tank.
It's useful to have a multi-turret tank with a big crew in War Thunder because the extra manpower acts like ablative armour, but I suspect it wouldn't work that way in real life, somehow.
MTT's are definitely a relic of the past. However, I like that they've gained an almost fantastical status in works of fiction just like the airship/zeppelin has
The ratio of track length (in contact with the ground) to width of the tank is important. If the ground contact length is too long, it becomes much harder to turn the tank. This adds stress to the tracks, suspension and final drives. Beefing up those components adds weight. Those multi-turret designs are long beasts. I think Lindybeige discusses this in one of his videos.
4:17 One thing that engineers can outright add more turrets simply *trench crossing tanks tends to be the long boy* thrust space enough for a turret (less ammo ofc) and turret motor back in the day was not as strong as today so have multiple turrets face multiple directions and be quote suppression infantry to not get close
One thing, that stands out morale wise to me is, that it is probably devastating seeing one of your few tanks with a whole schoolclass of people inside going up in flames than one of many with just five people
The only way we're going to see multiturret tanks come back is when we inevitably build fully AI controlled drone tanks, who will then inevitably use their new found firepower to eliminate us
Couple more disadvantages: Higher profile making them easier to spot and target; and if a country builds smaller numbers of multi-gun tanks, each one such tank lost is a bigger proportion of the forces deployed.
They weren't called "landships" for nothing. They were thought of as battleships on land. However you cannot use the same principals in design and construction as with ships. Oceans (when calm) don't present an obstacle, terrain however is not always flat and has many different features that make bigger tanks very hard to operate (forests, hedgerows, rivers, urban environments). So faster, agile designs are usually more preferable. Also on sea you cannot really hide (except for subs of course). So being big and heavily armed was necessary to being able to absorb attacks but also to dish out enough to destroy the enemy as fast as possible because you were practically always visible to the enemy. On land manouvering, flanking and hiding etc. are much more viable, which made smaller, flexible designs the better option again.
One could argue that the current automatic defences that fire to intercept incoming ATGM's are, in effect, a return towards a form of multi-turret tank. In general the reason why they failed is down to the mathematics of tank design, where multi-turret vehicles tend to be very large, difficult to manoeuvre, tall, not well armoured, but still heavy, and had indifferent main-armament. All this means that after WW1, the designs were not compatible with the realities of warfare at that time. That does not mean that some aspects of multi-turreted vehicles will not re-occur as the nature of warfare changes. It may be, for example, that the advent of drones sees a return to unmanned turrets for sensors/weapons to engage them. Or Multi-turreted IFV's so that dismounts can operate support weapons from within prior to dismounting, or in support of other IFV's and APC's. If APC and IFV armour becomes unsustainably vulnerable, then it can be lessened and the weight saving used to increase offensive capability.
I think one thing you overlooked is that it’s easier to kill one multi-turreted tank (especially one that poses a bigger target) than 2 individual tanks that can disperse in the same way that it’s easier to kill a bunch of guys standing in one place versus a group that is spread out. Any tank that has 8-12 guys inside is going to make a very tempting target to enemy tanks, and might be even easier to destroy completely given that ammo is going to have to be distributed differently. Same issue holds true for things like anti-tank mines, etc.
The lee was a special case. The US army really wanted to field the 75mm gun, but the sherman was still in production and not many were ready to ship yet. So the lee was fielded as a stop-gap replacement for shermans. The 37mm gun was considered underpowered once it started running into panzer 3's, and even moreso when panzer IV's started showing up in 1942. Also as far as HE shells go, the 75mm was the best performing HE round the US army developed during the war. The 105mm did perform better damage-wise, but it took longer to reload, aim, and was a lot less precise due to the slow muzzle velocity and therefore the steep arc of the 105 shell. But the lee was also meant to be taken out of service as soon as shermans were widely available, which is exactly what happened. It's percieved shortcomings became enough of a reality to convince the army that a multi-gunned tank of any sort was not an optimal layout, as the lee was basically a TD with a turret on top.
The expense of building large vehicles with multi-turrets was prohibitive, also the large crews that needed to be trained. But there were also issues of crewing small turrets such as those on the A9 Cruiser were heat and fumes made them unusable. Then there is difficulty of the tank commander directing fire from multiple turrets under battle conditions and some tanks were difficult to exit is hit. They were a fad of the 1930s that proved impractical.
Contingent on tech developments i understand there is intrest in splitting tanks and planes in to groups of man- un manned teams. From what I understand this is due to the same advantage as having multiple tanks vs one big one. They are cheaper, smaller, can support one another, and are more dispersed, so a hit to one that is say, poping over a hill, still leaves more of the 'unit' alive.
Buy some tank themed merch: coneofarc.gunjigraphics.com
Buy military themed brick sets from COBI and more at WarBricksUSA with code coneofarc5 to save 5%: warbricks.com?ref=1727
okay
I actually would buy a shirt or two, I really like the artwork, but the website has no size chart with some measurements so I don't know what size I have to order and unfortunately I know from experience that L or XL can mean anything between way too small or family tent ..
@@cnikkor they are the normal US sizing for shirts so if you order your normal size it should fit fine. I'll email them about potentially adding a size chart though
Ok :)
you forgot the most famous multi-turreted serie of tanks: the pattons (with the m2 turret). Since you've done a video on multi-turreted/gun vehicle, what about a video on multiple armament vehicles, like the bmp, short and medium range spaas, etc?
One drawback that you didn’t mention is the increasing difficulty tanks have turning the longer they are. A longer tank means more track on the ground that has to be dragged in a turn. And this is compounded the heavier the vehicle is as the greater weight presses the tracks into the ground more and multi-turret designs tended to be heavier than more standard tanks. This was a problem with things like the British Vickers Independent, the Soviet T-35, and even the legendary TOG II which only had the one turret but was freakishly long and heavy. This is also the reason the Swedish cheese wedge STRV 103s had very short lengths of track in contact with the ground, it allowed them to much more easily rotate on the spot to aim the gun.
The Devils doorwedge also has neutral steering, due to ability to rotate tracks to opposite direction.although the mechanics affect mobility to a lesser effect over conventional physics.
@@apyllyon I would think a drawback of multi-turret tanks is putting a lot of your combat power at risk of uselessness for the loss of one tread linkage or drive sprocket, or blown oil seal, or...
An armored "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" thing.
It's not just length overall. It's also an issue of the ratio between the length and width of a tracked vehicle. The length of the track dictates how much force it takes to drag the tracks, while the width of the vehicle dictates the amount of leverage the vehicle has to overcome the drag of the tracks. A short but wide vehicle will turn more easily than a long narrow one. However, this can go too far, and a tracked vehicle that is too short can have difficulty driving straight. This is why most tanks have a track patch that is about twice as long as the vehicle is wide. That ratio gives enough stability going forward, whilst also not making turning too difficult.
But, if you have a vehicle that is too long, you can have even worse problems than just difficulty turning. The Vickers Independent actually had a lot of problems with the sprockets and tracks breaking, which happened during turns. There was simply too much sideways force on the tracks.
Wrong. Weight means nothing, the pressure is the number you're looking for. Tank with 2x weight but 4x the track area will sunk LESS than lighter one due to less pressure.
Weight is super important; not only is it the weight that makes you throw a track on a sharp turn, it’s also weight that ruins you crossing bridges, using feries and being lifted aboard ships.
One of the problems with multi turret tanks is that the two turrets are going to get into each others' way and it would be difficult to bring them both to bear forward and aft. Plus a multi turret will always have to sacrifice protection or mobility as the most powerful engine you can put in a single turret tank will be the same as you can put in the multi turret design.
I also wonder, if it is okay to say that multiturret tanks exist and are called warships.
@utrock5067 although i hate how warships being called water tanks it does actually kinda make sense and thierfore will start calling them that myself because its funny
@@dishmeup Actually, the first tanks were originally known as landships.
Multiple barrel could work just not in the effect of treaded tanks
For example the Sci fi tank the AT TE does multi turret tanks very well given the format
Or you could do a slanted design if you'd want to do multi turret
"Breakthrough Infantry Carrier"
Sir did you just reinvent the BMP ?
pre-invent really
Man really invented the IFV
Nah, pre-invented. Like the first guy said
BMP was not the OG. Even during WW2 it was common to ride on tanks.
@@TheRezro That’s not the same. If you fire a rifle in the air, does that suddenly mean it’s a mortar?
I think one important benefit of having multiple turrets is that you can give the turrets different armaments to fit different roles, which is basically what the M3 and Char B1 did: the main gun with limited traverse was used for firing HE shells to break through fortified defenses, while the smaller gun in the turret was used to deal with enemy armor.
Good point =)
coordination of target acquisition though and again, 2 tanks
@@MsZsc Yeah, I get that, I meant it as a benefit over one single-turreted tank. Ofcourse you can counter any argument in support of multi-turreted tanks by saying "just build 2 single-turreted tanks".
@minervszombies But would those two tanks be more expensive?
They’d be more versatile, sure, but I can imagine having to completely duplicate every single part instead of just making some, like drivetrain, a bit bigger would have drawbacks in terms of manufacturing and maintenance.
@@GraingyAircraft Yeah, I was thinking that too. But I can imagine that 2 tanks are just much more efficient at performing combat tasks than 1 bulky, slow-moving tank with 2 turrets. So in the end, it's probably more cost-effective to build single-turreted tanks instead of multi-turreted ones.
Added to what you've already mentioned: greater complexity = more things to go wrong, more things requiring maintenance in the field, more time needed for field maintenance. There's also more training time needed to work up crews to efficiency, and if you have a hull loss, there's perhaps twice the personnel lost (and thus needing to be replaced).
Given how (not really) durable tanks are, its no surprise people figured "hey, iron coffins for 5 or less are better than iron coffins for 12 or 15". Its a nightmare for the commander to get everyone synchronized on what theyre meant to be doing; there isnt enough room in the vehicle to operate it properly, and those multi-turreted tanks usually lacked armor, due to weight constraints imparted on them by said turrets... who knew more steel on an already impressive amount of steel could cause logistical issues?
Besides, these things always turned out huge, which goes against the idea and current development to reduce the height of tanks below 2 meters.
@@LiezAllLiez tanks in general lacked armour at that time. In comparison the soviet T-28 and 35 have more armour by design than T-26 or BT series, while german designs were on par with very early panzers. These were meant to be walking land battleships. You are right on that they were incredibly cumbersome and difficult to coordinate, especially for Soviet tanks early intercoms were sketchy at best. If these tanks had any they would mostly rely on shouts or series of internal lights to relay orders. The commander would be overburdened by scanning target's and ordering the crew meanwhile visibility from the smaller turrets was next to none.
@@apyllyon Yeah, designers didn't mind armor much until the Spanish Civil War showed them just how common (and lethal) anti-tank guns of the time (mainly 37s and 45s) would be. However, ConeOfArc is actually incorrect about the two competing KV-related Soviet designs in the Winter War. The multi-turreted SMK at 55 tons had 15-30mm less armor than the single-turreted KV-1 which was still 10 tons lighter. So this is a real thing, by necessity a multi-turreted tank will have less armor for a given weight, and maximum possible tank weight is never infinite. Another problem is that turrets generally present weak spots in the form of turret rings, shot traps, and poor all-around armor compared to a simple armor plate. With ammunition likely carried close to the gun, secondary turrets also present another place where a penetration equals an operational kill (through cook-off) rather than mere spall injuries. It's a reasonable interpretation to say that more turrets mean less protection. Turretless SPGs are also much easier to give effective armor than their turreted counterparts, even on the same chassis and within the same weight constraints.
Another sizeable issue that kinda follows from how multi-turreted designs didn't have much more in the way of armour protection for the increase in weight... Why have one tank with two turrets that can be taken out by a single AP round in the right spot (and is a larger target for such), when you can have two tanks that require at least an AP round each to take out. If one of your two single turret tanks is taken out, you still have one fully operational tank. If the two-turreted tank is taken out, you now have zero fully operational tanks especially in a flare up scenario.
Bro a warbricks partnership??? That’s sick as hell
I'm bricked up already
@@warpatato real
The multi turreted tank is quite a sensible idea when you think about it as an early tank designer. Since you only expect to fight infantry, it's theoretically superior. The first tank ever had two cannons for this exact reason. It's the same logic as warships.
Many canon=more boom=more dead energy
In the context of trench warfare it seems to make sense on paper.
Wouldn't those remote machine guns on the top of modern tanks count as multi turret?
not really
I don't think so, because it isn't manned, and is controlled my someone in the main turret.
Well yes, but actually no... but yes?...
To my knowledge they don't count because their combat role is secondary to the primary role of supporting main turret with visibility and detection. Modern remote turrets are attached with commander thermal viewer, they are simply a way for the commander to operate the thermal to spot target as well as not having to expose himself to operate the MG.
He covers that.
No it’s not enclosed
*_"Am I A Joke To You!"_*
~ _Several Baneblade Crewmen_
*coughs in advanced targeting cogitators*
Yes. But so is the entire setting.
Literally yes but unfortunately the joke is told badly enough that a certain loud portion of the fandom doesn't realize it's a joke.
XV88 Broadside Battlesuit: Yes
There's a fantastic kitbash of the Baneblade converted into a single turreted vehicle, it surpasses the original design in pretty much every aspect.
Dear sweet Lord, the reference and use of Led Zeppelin was not expected, but most certainly welcomed.
"A suprise to be sure, but a welcome one" -Palpatine
@@StarWarsExpert_Aka, THE SENATE.
Communication breakdown, it's always the same
Havin' a mechanical breakdown, (doesnt)steer me insane
-german tanker somewhere in Russia
@@OberGefreiterZ Then when communications get back on and he turns the radio all the tanker can hear in Stalingrad German radio systems is: *"Tripaloski"*
This reminds me of an old Mico board game made in the 1980's called, "Hell Tank", and "Hell Tank Destroyer". It was set in the far future. The hell tank was a multi turreted beast that also could carry smaller tanks if I recall correctly. That was over 40 years ago. I didn't learn that the concept of multi turreted tanks was a reality until about 20 years ago.
I keep living. I keep learning.
Thank you.
Sounds similar to OGRE, which was (and is) a very popular pocket-sized paper-and-counters wargame when I was at school. A giant cybernetic "land battleship" called an OGRE and controlled by one player came down the board one way, and the other player had to defend a Command Bunker from it using conventional (if semi-futuristic) forces. The latter only had three states: alive, imobilised or dead, but the OGRE had to be engaged component-by-component by shooting at it's track units, gun turrets or missile launchers. There were a variety of different OGRE marks available with the conventional forces balanced accordingly. There were also a couple of follow-on games: GEV (Ground Effect Vehicle - hovertanks), which dispensed with the OGREs to have conventional vs conventional battles, and Battlesuit(?) which was individual small-unit actions, both in the same setting. There were also lots of expansions and upgrades.
Both of which were inspired by Keith Laumer's BOLOs
@@MrHws5mp I played lots of games of OGRE, there even miniatures made for the game. And I still have a few. It was very one sided. But every so often I could beat my Dad, who always played the OGRE :) Those where good days.
@@longrider42 It definitely took a long time to learn how to beat the OGRE and you had to use _exactly_ the right tactics. In our school wargames club (stuffed full of military nerds of course), two new players tended to see OGRE's win more often than not, but when both players were more experienced it tended to come out even.
In the first edition of the game, the printers accidentally printed some of the grey counters as black, which gave a conventional player who chose black the option for _far_ more GEVs than the game designers intended. This led to a tactic called "The Fuzzy Wuzzy Falacy" in which the player chose an all-GEV force and used them to swarm in, devastate the OGRE's treads, and then swarm out again in their second movement phase, leaving only a few of them within range of the OGRE's longest-range weapons. This got fixed in later editions by a) making sure the printing was right, and b) nerfing the GEV's second movement phase so it was shorter than the first (down from 4/4 to 4/3 IIRC).
The only place multi-turret tanks are flourishing is at Multi Turret Academy on Steam. Happy to see another video, young man. You've come a long way from your MrSteveCrafter days :)
I would argue if the manned machine gun turrets of tanks like the 2C and Independent count, then remote weapons stations mounted on MBTs are also multi-turret tanks. Doubly so when we count GMG and Autocannon RWS.
Love that game. The dev is pretty active and has weekly votes on what tank to add next. Also putting a Maus turret on an LT is funny.
One idea i do have for fictional multi turreted tanks is usage in a droid/machine army. With no crew and an ai in command rather than an individual person, some of the major draw backs (command oversight, needing more space for more crew, communication issues) are completely eliminated. Theoretically, in a sci fi setting an ai could use multi turreted tanks in a similar role to breakthrough and heavy tanks
I was hoping to hear mention of things like the MBT 70 and AMX 30 having 20 mm on their tanks during the Cold War. And the recent designs like the Abrams x with the 30 mm on top.
While ammo storage would of course be an issue I think having a remote weapon system 20 mm or 30 mm seems like a good idea
Yeah, not mentioning that is kinda dumb...
@@omarrp14 Amx 30 had a coax 20mill like early the centurion. Later models introduced commanders cupola mg(unsure of the caliber) in raised high-vis cupola.
And the PATTON Tanks during the 60s
They just evolved into RWS systems (yes I know thats redundant). We're now seeing cannon armed RWSs in 20mm & 30mm. The remote control nature makes them a much more viable option nowadays, as there doesn't need to be a crewman charging the cannon with clips of ammo or taking up an extra space.
I think the CITV/Gun hybrids like Rheinmetall's "MSSA RCWS", the one of the T-90M and the ones KNDS showed off on the Leclerc Evolution at Eurosatory this year are the way to go.
well, they went to ball mounts over separate single-man mg turrets like the crusader (though idk how to explain the m60), and rws turrets are better than ball mounts
I think the multiple turret concept could and did work on stuff like armored trains. For tanks it depends on the requirements, but dispersing armaments on multiple hulls has an advantage of being able to be used at multiple locations, and being harder to take out at once. But nowadays maybe sticking vertical launchers, drone bays or remote control anti-air or anti-drone, perhaps even anti-personel weapon stations will appear. If the barrels or pods don't go further than the tank, then hitting them on stuff is less likely.
Very glad you mentioned CROWs and other such systems here! They are kiiiinda a modern evolution of the multi turret machine gun tank, just, without all the massive drawbacks (mainly no additional crew members)
More so no extra armored turret taking up space and weight.
@magnemoe1 yes, that's mostly what I meant. No additional crew means they have no need to make a large Turret thankfully
They fail for two simple reason, if the first turret was good enough for the job, then you don’t need a second one. If the first turret wasn’t good enough, then a second won’t help you.
Fun fact: The M3 Lee was so tall that a man 1.7 meters tall could perfectly stand straight from the bottom of the lower hull to the top of the upper hull roof. The Soviets used their M3 Lee's like that, where an entire battalion of 16 men were squeezed with the rest of the tank crew. Sure, the cannons and crew were severely hampered, but if one of these M3 Lee APCs broke through, theoretically, you could have infantry, artillery support, a tank, and an anti tank weapon wreaking havoc on enemy lines
11:27 The M2 Bradley is actually an example of this. It has machine gun/ rifle ports on its side. They have since been covered up but in games like Warthunder and a few others if you look rear side view of the M2 you will see bulges where the ports used to be.
Tank design shifted mainly during the break between WW1 and WW2, towards less of armored troop carriers, to mobile artillery pieces
I'm pretty sure these were used more like battleships. They provided fire support and tech assist since many of them were fitted with radios they served as essentially mobile pill boxes and command centers
Honestly, because of guerrilla warfare and the easy to use drone strikes, even tanks themselves are seeing a fadeout in use. Instead of the original purpose of breaching enemy lines, they are now mostly an advanced defence post to where infantry can go back to. That is not counting tanks used to control civil unrest tho.
I feel like you missed a quiet big benefit of multi turreted tank is the firepower to weight ratio. To achieve the same firepower of a multi turreted tank consisting of two cannons there should be two separate chasis built for each cannons resulting in separate engines and the exponential increase of armor needed hence multi turreted tanks, although costly per unit, do have a leverage over multiple tanks being required to be build.
Fair point, but if you can get a single turreted single gunned tank to have a cannon with enough firepower for the required roles, then you don’t need a second turret. A good example of this would be the M3 Lee and the M4 Sherman. The turreted 37mm cannon on the Lee was to deal with enemy armour, while the 75mm cannon in the hull dealt with fortifications. The M4 Sherman used only a single 75mm cannon that could fulfill both roles by simply switching which shells are being fired. I feel multi-turreted tanks only really could’ve worked during WW1 and the early interwar era.
@@Gary-number31415did the gun in the M3 have the same performance as the one in the M4? That includes availability of different ammo types. I understood that the M3 gun didn’t have a capable AP round when the tank was designed. If this is correct, did better AP rounds come available during its front line service life?
@@Gary-number31415 the point you're talking about the gun being better sort of is irrelevant to my entire point. If you put two or more of the " better" gun on a single chassis it still will have more favourable firepower to weight ratio.
@@talon9639 The total mass of your tank fleet is not as important as the mass of a single tank. Lowering the latter will benefit mobility, including which bridges it can cross. The former may help you when transporting by sea or rail, but it's a problem that can be easily solved by bringing more ships and trains or doing more runs. And once you realize that a multi turreted tank is not even equivalent in firepower to multiple tanks in actual situations, the calculus becomes even worse.
@@Vengir No, the total mass of the entire fleet is important. A country such as nazi Germany in ww2 ought to have chosen multiturreted tanks, multiturreted tanks, due to their firepower to weight ratio, need less resources than two different chassis. This goes for crew and the resources put. It gives you a greater firepower with less cost, something the nazis should have considered. Mobility is king, however I still believe the importance of multi turreted tanks have been underestimated. They do have a worse mobility but should have definitely been part of the tank army as they provide significant power to weight ratios.
Better to have a well-trained, tightly-integrated crew with commander and all crew members focused on making optimum use of the main gun.
Another problem is maintenance. Multiple turrets means more guns to take care of for a maintenance crew. Meaning if they are damaged it takes longer to repair.
To an extent, some post-war IFVs have continued the multi-turreted idea. When Marders first came into service, they had a remote-controlled machine-gun mounted on top of the troop compartment, operated by one of the dismounts. This was essentially an improvement on mounted troops firing through ports or open hatches, since it has more field of fire than the former and better overhead+NBC protection than the latter. It echoes the pro-multi-turreted tank arguments of being able to fire in two directions at once and covering blind-spots from sneak infantry attacks, and it avoids the pitfalls of increased size and crew because the size wasn't excessive, and the additonal 'crew' were dismounts who were there anyway and otherwise had nothing to do. It must be significant that later upgrades of the Marder dispensed with this weapon though. The MG turret was made by MOWAG and they produced several IFV prototypes in the 1960s and 1970s which featured two such turrets side-by-side on top of the troop compartment, but none of them achieved any sales.
Thanks for showing some love to the Type 95 Ro-Go! Very underrated vehicule.
''Communication breakdown'' = ''command and control''
Great footage !
I read an account of some members of an A7V crew dismounting and engaging a target on foot while still being supposed by the tank. The crew on an A7V was 18 so that clearly worked for them .
The Char B1 Bis is a proud member of Team Anglerfish,Team Usagi!💘💘💘
While in theory multi-turreted tanks can have more firepower than regular tanks because, as you said, more weapons should equal more firepower. But in reality, multi-turreted tanks often had less firepower, because 2 turrets take more space and thus, often had smaller guns than other tanks. If you have more space on a tank, you can put a bigger gun with more firepower and penetration, then if you had to fit 2 guns into the same space. Very good video, as always, cone of arc.
The machine gun turrets on British cruiser tanks were removed because the small turrets were gas traps and the machine gun operators were asphyxiated by the exhaust gases from the machine guns.. I would guess that having a small turret on the glacis was also a bad idea when you were shot at as the turret would not have the same resistance to an AT round and would create a weakness in the glacis.
One thing you forgot is that bigger tanks with multiple turrets would also require bigger engines, which also means more cost, more fuel consumption, and a heavier demand on electrical power to move the turrets. More parts, more things that can break down.
Flaw. Ammunition.. you need to store more ammo for more guns, it makes you more vunerable and heavier target. Its big trouble on its own. Main and secondary guns mostly has different guns, so you need 2 seperate ammo storages. And ammo storage is obvious weakspot. And also, you need a loader to the bigger cannons, you need a space for the ammo, and in bigger tanks you need a loader increasing the crew.
On of the thoughts behind this evolutionary dead end can be found in the name of the Vickers Independent. It was intended to operate independently, as in on its own (no infantry needed). So machine gun turrets abound, the rear ones even had high elevation to act as AA guns.
Later with the 16 tonner and A9 cruiser, the forward sub turrets were to hose down trenches either side as it crossed them. Of course, as a cruiser tank, it should have no business crossing defended trenches, that's an infantry tanks job.
A couple comments I had during the video:
During your segments where you spoke on the benefits of Multi-Turret Tanks (MTTs) you mentioned how in many of those circumstances (crew transport/bringing more firepower) those roles could be filled by just bringing multiple more standard vehicles. I think the point you missed here is that even though a MTT would be more expensive and take longer to produce than a single standard tank, it's likely a save on time and resources to have the one extra large vehicle compared to needing multiple smaller vehicles to perform tasks.
I think a better counter argument to this that you should have brought up would be the fact that the real issue is the "all in one" strategy of an MTT. It would be way more devastating to an operation if everything hinged on a single vehicle rather than multiple. With your APC example, imagine if the MTT got disabled or completely taken out. Now you've lost both your tank support for your infantry AND the infantry transport together. If you had a separate tank and truck instead, you can lose one and still maintain a level of viability.
Secondly, and this is just a personal opinion, I don't think MG turrets should be counted making a vehicle a MTT. The idea of a Multi-Turret Tank is that each turret has a primary weapon. I think it's safe to say a roof mounted .30 or .50 on top of an Abrams or any other MBT is not going to be considered a "Primary" armament by the vast majority of people. Whether it's an automated/remote MG mount or not lol.
Just as a side note: I think Multi-Turret (Or Multi-Armament) vehicles are a good idea. We generally see more of the latter than the former (Bradley, BMP, IFVs in general) with a main cannon (or autocannon) and a ATGM launcher. We even still see double barreled tanks today, the BMP-3 for example. Having two separate weapons that can fill two separate roles for a vehicle really increases the effectiveness, and usability of those vehicles. I don't personally think MTTs or Double Barreled tanks/vehicles failed. I just think they evolved over time due to increasingly better technology (and capability) to look so vastly different that unless you dig deeper into the subject, you'd not be blamed for thinking they had. A good example of this is the fact that many IFVs, from all sides of the spectrum (NATO/Soviet/Russian/Chinese) still have port holes to allow embarked infantry to fire their weapons from the vehicles sides and rear, helping clear blind spots.
Bro wrote an essay but only got 3 comments? That sad show my boy some love by liking his comment
yo this is one of the best comments down here
One possible use case that I don’t believe was ever explored would be a super-heavy marine landing tank. For Army tanks the railroad gauge is a limiting factor, making them quickly too long to be practical. But for a vehicle which is transported via landing ship there is no such limiting factor.
Reading about the pacific campaign there were numerous times when a heavy tank could have been employed to great effect. In fact the post war Marine Corps were the last to employ a heavy tank in the US Military for this exact reason.
Imagine if the USMC had adopted the M6 heavy, a 58 ton beast which could have easily been ready by 1944. A single LST could have delivered at least 5 M6 tanks in a single go.
Dude I've been here for so long I still remember squading up years ago. So nice to see your doing well.
One theoretical benefit you did not touch on is: with the correct layout, a multi turreted tank could have a variety of weapons to choose from so the crew could avoid wasting ammo by picking the bigger gun when the smaller gun would do. For example, machine guns are not super great at taking out some armored cars, and 57-75mm would be better for that, but 140mm would be very overkill and you'd want to save that ammo for something else.
Studies performed by the US (when testing the idea of a secondary autocannon in tandem with the main gun) found that tank crews are liable to just jump straight to the main gun if a target is resistant to the MG. Anything the .50 cal couldn't handle, the crew would default to a main gun round to ensure the target _will_ be destroyed. The space taken up by considerably bulkier secondary-cannon ammunition would be far better utilized as added space for main gun ammo as a result.
I mean, you _are_ right that it could be a benefit, but tank crews aren't liable to bother using that benefit and they'd be better off with more main gun ammo anyway (especially since the main gun is more versatile).
@@bluntcabbage6042 tank crews of a multi turreted behemoth have to deal with a completely different situation. The guy on one of the machine guns probably does not even have access to the main gun, and the turret commander of the main gun is probably looking only for targets that the main gun is actually needed for.
Modern BMPT Terminator can be somewhat called as continuation of multiturreted tanks. Aside of dual 30mm canon's turret it has 2 grenade launchers with own operator on each. They are not in own turrets - because they don't need, it's granade launchers. But they operate separately from main turret by own crew.
It would be perfectly feasible if you could have a bigger tank- operate it like a warship, which traditionally work fine with many, many turrets. Though of course really big tanks are not practical.
I think the Churchill mk1 design is quite telling,
It was intended to have side sponsons for trench warfare and also had a 3 inch howitzer in the hull.
It the final design sponsons were never added, just handy escape doors, and the later iterations deleted the howitzer to be replaced with a hull besa machine gun which then was also deleted and the gap welded over with additional armour
I feel like there was something called the KV-44, an unidentified soviet super heavy multi turreted tank. Not only it was seen in reality, but it was seen in the internet. It's incredibly mysterious that some people had never explained about that monster, just using it as a cartoon character for fun, certainly an influence of gen alpha. Imagine if you search up KV-44 on UA-cam, you'll see not documentary videos, but some random animations and music edited videos. Its main rival was the Ratte, for no reason. I think the KV-44 wasn't even known much by English speakers, not even if it was explained by the lore, or maybe it's just a myth.
It could have maybe worked for mobile artillery using smaller guns and firing a volley from one vehicle. Also an infantry support vehicle with a main turret up front and back turret with a mortar for indirect fire.
idk I think tanks might becoming obsolete. I mean the main idea was to be able to show up and surprise and flank like cavalry or provide cover fire but with drones and satellites it doesn't work like that anymore, maybe not so much in an area of the world other than flat Ukraine but its hard to out maneuver your opponent when each side can see what the other side is almost always doing.
7:28 "Money." Could probably be a correct answer to most questions that start with "Why didn't"
Only one turret will have unobstructed 360 coverage, while smaller turrets will be obstructed by the main gun. Unless the turret cannot transverse 360 degrees at best a 2nd turret will just be a secondary armament and at worst obstruct the primary.
The only way a multiple primary weapon tank could be viable is if it mounts a hull weapon that is too large for the primary turret, but that would make the turret a secondary armament.
You can have a smaller turret on top of the bigger one, but then the obstruction happens between the operators inside them..
Yay new tank content for my autsim!!!
I'm 3:30 in and you just talked about the hybrid designs of the Char B1 and the M3 Lee/Grant. I hope you didn't forget the British version of this concept, the Churchill Mk 1. I'd argue that one is worth more of a mention than the other two, because the Churchill did evolve from that concept while both others were dead ends, design-wise
He already covered the Churchill in the linked double barrel tank video, stating that wasn't a multi-turret design.
Most port cranes in the WW2 era had a capacity of 30 tons. Okay for a Sherman but useless for the M6 heavy.
A fully automatic small turret with a large gun and controlled by an A.I might be usefull
The turret is the most complex and expensive part of a tank...so yes to all the problems and limitations you stated. One major reason not stated however, was the fact that there are actually two kinds of multi-turreted tanks, where the secondary turrets have machine guns, and where the second gun is a different type of gun. Most of the time, multi-turreted tanks had two different guns, to do two different jobs. So the SMK has one low-velocity gun (76 mm) in one turret and a high-velocity gun (45 mm) in the second turret. The low-velocity gun was for soft targets and the high-velocity gun was for fighting tanks. When guns were developed that could do both jobs...the need for a tank with both fell away.
The biggest reason was cost. As much as people talk about the Independent, it was not adopted mostly because of the cost. Multi=-turrets need a big tank. Big tanks with multiple turrets are going to be very expensive. The most destructive and efficient tank killer is the budget.
I do briefly touch on the machine guns turrets used by some designs towards the end of the video. While those did in some cases see limited success they suffer from the same issues I covered for the larger gunned examples.
@@ConeOfArc I watched your video, and it struck me that in many examples of multi-turreted tanks, the multiple turrets were not included to increase firepower, but instead to include different types of guns to engage different types of targets. It's something the SMK, T-35, and Neubaufahrzeug had in common...low velocity howitzers (for soft targets) in one turret and high velocity guns (for hard targets) in another.
Maybe the engineers were trying to square the circle of tanks needing to fight infantry and other tanks. Including both types of guns was tried, and failed. The better idea, a tank's main gun being able to fire usable HE rounds at soft targets and AP at hard targets, was then used successfully. The Lee/Grant was more or less a test bed for this concept, retaining the 37mm just in case the concept didn't work. I don't know...that's the thought that popped into my head while watching your video.
Good comment.
Ultimately it is cheaper to build one bigger better turret, than two good enough for two separate roles. You can put a machine gun on that turret, if you think that is important. IIRC, the Sherman had a .30 caliber bow MG, and a .50 caliber MG that could be used from a crewmember partially exposed on the top of the turret. And the main gun could be used at the same time. That is a withering amount of firepower.
Another way to look at it is two turrets tends to make the vehicle heavier, and you are going to get the worst of both worlds -- the too often overtaxed engine of a big tank that can get bogged down in poor terrain coupled with the limitations of smaller guns on a less big turret.
you have a nice channel with friendly tone it is a pleasure to listen to. imma get me some brick kits hot damn. much respect from Mass
Commanding a multi turret tank in combat must have been a nightmare.
One thing re the coordination and communication was probably that pre war tanks didn't have a any reliable intercom system or none at all. So in a T-35 for example you'd have to shout and probably clamber around the interior to communicate your intentions to your own crew. I have no idea how the driver knew where he was to go but maybe he had an electric direction display like in some french tanks because otherwise I can't see how the commander was supposed to tell him with (as far as I could google) no intercom being installed.
Just discovered your channel and subscribed as soon as you finished this multi-turret video. Looking forward to watching more!
Would be super interesting to see multi turret tanks make a comeback with remote control/ AI controled designs. A small group of Ai/ remote control infantry support tanks with a chaingun turret in the front and a small mortar turret in the back would be nasty. They could shadow a company around the battlefield and watch the flanks, and then at a command, spring forward and pound the enemy during an assault with constant direct and indirect fire.
You probably will never see this, but Thank you for coming to the Canadian Tank Museum today, Mr Cone. It was quite exciting to see you come in, and you managed to get my mom excited about the Jadgpanzer 38T they had brought out, and it was just great to actually see you in person, even if i never got to speak to you in person
Glad you enjoyed the show, I'll be on again tomorrow both for the crowd there and the live stream world of tanks is running
I saw you at the Aquino tank weekend I loved the explanation on the Hetzer and I love your content keep it up dude.
I think it would only really be effective if you were to have a remotely operated gun, say an Abram’s with the MGS gun system on top (weird I know) but if you could add a single extra man or even just have the commander operate it, it would be more effective. Not to say that ammo and autoloading wouldn’t be an issue.
1:05 T95 pace car lmfao. That just hits something special for photo editing.
Funny. I was playing multi turret academy (indie tank arcade game) and as soon as I check youtube this pops up. Perfectly timed
I wonder if the lower gravity of Mars accounts for Anime Land-Battleships portrayed there. Or was that Venus?
What anime are you thinking of?
@@plussum3255 My memory is terrible, but I think Venus Wars and Big Wars had them. There are probably others.
Tbh I think implementation AI and multi turret vehicles would be a speed run strategy to a skynet scenario.
Drone: *exists*
U.S. Navy: Do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior Aegis Combat System.
Aegis won't protect you from saturation barrage
@@SniPantsu
It absolutely will, as the Navy demonstrated during that Iranian drone "attack."
@@jfangm you have 0 clue about what is happening if you think that the iranian's retaliation strike was anything but a show of force and it showed Israel they will respond to any further attack on them and their personnel.
They shot just enough drones and missiles to deplete the Iron Dome and western Aegis systems in the vicinity.
The plan was just to shoot enough of them to mount a response to Israeli murder of Irianian army staff in the embassy, but not enough to escalate the situation further, the Israeli bet the Iranian would escalate, they were wrong.
To me, it makes sense to have a tank that looked like land battle ships because when they were first introduced, they were called that. In the same way that cars were called " horse less carriages," and the first cars looked like carriages that were not pulled by horses.
13:11, Keith Laumer's Bolos, the self aware cyber tanks of the future, initially go with this concept. It takes them centuries into a sci-fi future before they go to multi turreted vehicles. Before then, it's mostly combat support like mortars, SAMs, and the anti infantry side machine guns.
The Bolos are heavily automated even before they become AI, at first they're not much more than M1 Abrams capable of operating with programmed instructions. Their third model of Bolo is a mobile firebase, and it's advantages are in computer coordination and communication more than simple firepower. Its a fascinating and underrated series.
Hi @ConeOfArc you could have mentioned that due to the increase size of the vehicle it would be harder to armor it and single turret tanks are more easy and more eficient to armor
I mentioned that in the size and weight section. Larger vehicles require more steel for the same armor protection and the more armor the more steel
SF writer Keith Laumer wrote a number of stories about the Bolo Arms Co, set in the distant future. Bolo started with somewhat conventional tanks that ultimately evolved into the Continental Siege Unit, a space-traveling weapons system the approximate size of Mt. Rushmore. It moved across terrain using force fields, since no amount of treads could support its incredible weight. It was operated by an AI fire control system that was programmed to advance the goals of the galactic empire that produced it. Onboard weapons included missiles, terawatt lasers, artillery, combat drones, detachable robotic armored units, and gravity-wave projectors. Its purpose was to pacify an entire planet with one unstoppable weapon.
And yes, it had multiple turrets.
I think it was one of the David’s at the Tank Museum who said something along the lines of:
“The extra turrets are useless because you’d be lucky to keep one in working order”
Awesome video for any tank lovers. Surprised I didnt see any shot of the T-28s or T-35s in there. Those were always my reference for "multi turreted" tanks.
I believe the concept for the T-35 was for the two turrets with the 37 or 45mm guns to be anti-armor weapons. The short 76.2 in the main turret was strictly HE. And the two machine gun turrets were for dealing with close in infantry.
In a sense, the remote machine guns/auto cannons mounted on the roofs of MBT's could in a way be considered "turrets", in that they operate independently of the main turret and house weapons. I can't see them going away anytime soon.
Not to forget, the Crusader II crews usually took out the secondary machine gun turret as a field modification, and the Crusader III(Stop-gap vehicle to mount a 6-Pdr before the A24/A27 tanks were produced) straight up removed it for more ammunition space.
A flaw I don't think you covered is that, if trying to compensate for the communication breakdown by having sub commanders for any extra turret, you have to have a larger turret to fit them in, which would add to the weight and cost problems.
To me the most important omission is twofold. A two turreted vehicle will either have to carry two types of ammo, reducing it's cargo space for its primary gun, of, if both guns are the same, will use up the ammo supply twice as fast. The extended size would allow form some more ammo space, but not likely enough to really make up for this detriment. This sort of thing was seen in the Char 2B, where the ammunition for the howitzer reduced the ammo supply for the primary turret.
One thought I've always had on multi-turret tanks is that you would be better served by using the same amount of resources on making a normal tank with 1 big gun vs a tank with multiple small guns.
We do have multiple turret tanks now, but it secondary weapons only... the remote turrets on tanks, now with their own sensors, gyro stability, and independent slewing, allowing the remote turrets to lock onto and keep aim on a target, while the hull and turret move independent...
Going along with what you said, to have a larger tank, you also have to accommodate for a larger and more powerful engine, which means more space and fuel required, which in turn would have eaten up natural resources
A video series going over unique tank engines like the chrysler multibank or the m56 with an x shaped engine the detroit 3046 etc
I wonder if a multiple turret design similar to the T35/Independent would be *useful* in moden combat with urban combat along with drones.
It wouldn’t be a real multi turret as it would likely be unmanned or even computer controlled.
I would be very surprised if this *doesn’t* become a thing
@wackyotter1235 My counter argument to that is we still consider it a turret on a M1 TTB or T14 Armata and those are completely unmanned. Now ai agree the small unmanned turrets with just a small MG in them doesn't quite feel like turret is a good definition for that
The M3 Lee/Grant, had multiple turrets, and a hull mounted 75mm cannon. But, they where also some what of a Stop Gap Tank. Until the Sherman was figured out. But the M3 did quite well against the Japanese in places like Burma. And North Africa, before the arrival of the Tiger Tank.
CROWS System is badass...loved that thing!
It's useful to have a multi-turret tank with a big crew in War Thunder because the extra manpower acts like ablative armour, but I suspect it wouldn't work that way in real life, somehow.
MTT's are definitely a relic of the past. However, I like that they've gained an almost fantastical status in works of fiction just like the airship/zeppelin has
That cover art looks really cool.
The ratio of track length (in contact with the ground) to width of the tank is important. If the ground contact length is too long, it becomes much harder to turn the tank. This adds stress to the tracks, suspension and final drives. Beefing up those components adds weight. Those multi-turret designs are long beasts. I think Lindybeige discusses this in one of his videos.
4:17 One thing that engineers can outright add more turrets simply *trench crossing tanks tends to be the long boy*
thrust space enough for a turret (less ammo ofc)
and turret motor back in the day was not as strong as today so have multiple turrets face multiple directions and be quote suppression infantry to not get close
One thing, that stands out morale wise to me is, that it is probably devastating seeing one of your few tanks with a whole schoolclass of people inside going up in flames than one of many with just five people
The only way we're going to see multiturret tanks come back is when we inevitably build fully AI controlled drone tanks, who will then inevitably use their new found firepower to eliminate us
Couple more disadvantages: Higher profile making them easier to spot and target; and if a country builds smaller numbers of multi-gun tanks, each one such tank lost is a bigger proportion of the forces deployed.
Another point - them multi-turreted tanks were usually rather slow.
They weren't called "landships" for nothing. They were thought of as battleships on land. However you cannot use the same principals in design and construction as with ships. Oceans (when calm) don't present an obstacle, terrain however is not always flat and has many different features that make bigger tanks very hard to operate (forests, hedgerows, rivers, urban environments). So faster, agile designs are usually more preferable. Also on sea you cannot really hide (except for subs of course). So being big and heavily armed was necessary to being able to absorb attacks but also to dish out enough to destroy the enemy as fast as possible because you were practically always visible to the enemy. On land manouvering, flanking and hiding etc. are much more viable, which made smaller, flexible designs the better option again.
One could argue that the current automatic defences that fire to intercept incoming ATGM's are, in effect, a return towards a form of multi-turret tank. In general the reason why they failed is down to the mathematics of tank design, where multi-turret vehicles tend to be very large, difficult to manoeuvre, tall, not well armoured, but still heavy, and had indifferent main-armament. All this means that after WW1, the designs were not compatible with the realities of warfare at that time. That does not mean that some aspects of multi-turreted vehicles will not re-occur as the nature of warfare changes. It may be, for example, that the advent of drones sees a return to unmanned turrets for sensors/weapons to engage them. Or Multi-turreted IFV's so that dismounts can operate support weapons from within prior to dismounting, or in support of other IFV's and APC's. If APC and IFV armour becomes unsustainably vulnerable, then it can be lessened and the weight saving used to increase offensive capability.
I think one thing you overlooked is that it’s easier to kill one multi-turreted tank (especially one that poses a bigger target) than 2 individual tanks that can disperse in the same way that it’s easier to kill a bunch of guys standing in one place versus a group that is spread out.
Any tank that has 8-12 guys inside is going to make a very tempting target to enemy tanks, and might be even easier to destroy completely given that ammo is going to have to be distributed differently. Same issue holds true for things like anti-tank mines, etc.
The lee was a special case. The US army really wanted to field the 75mm gun, but the sherman was still in production and not many were ready to ship yet. So the lee was fielded as a stop-gap replacement for shermans. The 37mm gun was considered underpowered once it started running into panzer 3's, and even moreso when panzer IV's started showing up in 1942. Also as far as HE shells go, the 75mm was the best performing HE round the US army developed during the war. The 105mm did perform better damage-wise, but it took longer to reload, aim, and was a lot less precise due to the slow muzzle velocity and therefore the steep arc of the 105 shell.
But the lee was also meant to be taken out of service as soon as shermans were widely available, which is exactly what happened. It's percieved shortcomings became enough of a reality to convince the army that a multi-gunned tank of any sort was not an optimal layout, as the lee was basically a TD with a turret on top.
The expense of building large vehicles with multi-turrets was prohibitive, also the large crews that needed to be trained. But there were also issues of crewing small turrets such as those on the A9 Cruiser were heat and fumes made them unusable. Then there is difficulty of the tank commander directing fire from multiple turrets under battle conditions and some tanks were difficult to exit is hit. They were a fad of the 1930s that proved impractical.
Contingent on tech developments i understand there is intrest in splitting tanks and planes in to groups of man- un manned teams. From what I understand this is due to the same advantage as having multiple tanks vs one big one. They are cheaper, smaller, can support one another, and are more dispersed, so a hit to one that is say, poping over a hill, still leaves more of the 'unit' alive.