Why did Multi-Turreted Tanks Fail?

[@ConeOfArc]

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

[@IAmAdam1009]

okay

[@cnikkor]

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 ..

[@ConeOfArc]

@@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

[@Stumtiger12345]

Ok :)

[@tigerbesteverything]

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?

[@LOBricksAndSecrets]

"Breakthrough Infantry Carrier"
Sir did you just reinvent the BMP ?

[@dragonkingofthestars]

pre-invent really

[@matthewjones39]

Man really invented the IFV

[@NayuzAqua]

Nah, pre-invented. Like the first guy said

[@TheRezro]

BMP was not the OG. Even during WW2 it was common to ride on tanks.

[@matthewjones39]

@@TheRezro That’s not the same. If you fire a rifle in the air, does that suddenly mean it’s a mortar?

[@PitFriend1]

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.

[@apyllyon]

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.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@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.

[@saberwing7930]

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.

[@KuK137]

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.

[@RaidDK]

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.

[@davidjordan697]

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]

I also wonder, if it is okay to say that multiturret tanks exist and are called warships.

[@dishmeup]

​@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

[@CharlesStearman]

@@dishmeup Actually, the first tanks were originally known as landships.

[@redmafiapanda509]

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

[@redmafiapanda509]

Or you could do a slanted design if you'd want to do multi turret

[@minervszombies]

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.

[@fridaycaliforniaa236]

Good point =)

[@MsZsc]

coordination of target acquisition though and again, 2 tanks

[@minervszombies]

@@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".

[@GraingyAircraft]

@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.

[@minervszombies]

@@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.

[@cowboymf1013]

Dear sweet Lord, the reference and use of Led Zeppelin was not expected, but most certainly welcomed.

[@StarWarsExpert_]

"A suprise to be sure, but a welcome one" -Palpatine

[@WatermelonDog202]

​@@StarWarsExpert_Aka, THE SENATE.

[@OberGefreiterZ]

Communication breakdown, it's always the same
Havin' a mechanical breakdown, (doesnt)steer me insane
-german tanker somewhere in Russia

[@WatermelonDog202]

@@OberGefreiterZ Then when communications get back on and he turns the radio all the tanker can hear in Stalingrad German radio systems is: *"Tripaloski"*

[@bagelmaster2498]

Bro a warbricks partnership??? That’s sick as hell

[@warpatato]

I'm bricked up already

[@cinnamon_hedgehog]

​@@warpatato real

[@LiezAllLiez]

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.

[@apyllyon]

@@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.

[@bpz8175]

@@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.

[@Tyler-sy7jo]

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.

[@All_Hail_Chael]

Wouldn't those remote machine guns on the top of modern tanks count as multi turret?

[@IAmAdam1009]

not really

[@kildeer1897]

I don't think so, because it isn't manned, and is controlled my someone in the main turret.

[@dannyzero692]

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.

[@oldesertguy9616]

He covers that.

[@rychelwebster7106]

No it’s not enclosed

[@ColonelFrontline1152]

*_"Am I A Joke To You!"_*
~ _Several Baneblade Crewmen_

[@qiushuang239]

*coughs in advanced targeting cogitators*

[@krisztianpovazson4535]

Yes. But so is the entire setting.

[@thefez-cat]

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.

[@reginaldpasao8390]

XV88 Broadside Battlesuit: Yes

[@MediumRareOpinions]

There's a fantastic kitbash of the Baneblade converted into a single turreted vehicle, it surpasses the original design in pretty much every aspect.

[@YmusAnon]

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.

[@ToshioThunder]

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 :)

[@HunterLee2600]

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.

[@Aerynolae]

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.

[@robincowley5823]

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).

[@bigearl3867]

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.

[@MrHws5mp]

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.

[@cmdrgunslinger5955]

Both of which were inspired by Keith Laumer's BOLOs

[@longrider42]

@@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.

[@MrHws5mp]

@@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).

[@omarrp14]

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

[@KuK137]

Yeah, not mentioning that is kinda dumb...

[@apyllyon]

@@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.

[@Gravity_studioss]

And the PATTON Tanks during the 60s

[@MrHws5mp]

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.

[@maxo.9928]

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.

[@MsZsc]

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

[@felafnirelek8987]

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

[@otakubancho6655]

The Char B1 Bis is a proud member of Team Anglerfish,Team Usagi!💘💘💘

[@talon9639]

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.

[@Gary-number31415]

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.

[@morstyrannis1951]

@@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?

[@talon9639]

@@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.

[@Vengir]

@@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.

[@talon9639]

@@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.

[@user-hs8vu4uj6w]

Commanding a multi turret tank in combat must have been a nightmare.

[@iain-duncan]

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)

[@magnemoe1]

More so no extra armored turret taking up space and weight.

[@iain-duncan]

@magnemoe1 yes, that's mostly what I meant. No additional crew means they have no need to make a large Turret thankfully

[@nathangreig5884]

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

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

''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 .

[@tyray3p]

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.

[@757_Offical]

Bro wrote an essay but only got 3 comments? That sad show my boy some love by liking his comment

[@purpled4864]

yo this is one of the best comments down here

[@eduard-andreigorincu9125]

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

[@ConeOfArc]

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

[@calebdean2440]

I wonder if a multiple turret design similar to the T35/Independent would be *useful* in moden combat with urban combat along with drones.

[@wackyotter1235]

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

[@calebdean2440]

@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

[@owenadams1169]

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

[@ConeOfArc]

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

[@sniper6823]

Dude I've been here for so long I still remember squading up years ago. So nice to see your doing well.

[@letsplaygtag4842]

7:28 "Money." Could probably be a correct answer to most questions that start with "Why didn't"

[@Marinealver]

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.

[@VascoDaGamaOtRupcha]

You can have a smaller turret on top of the bigger one, but then the obstruction happens between the operators inside them..

[@RoggenrollaWT]

Yay new tank content for my autsim!!!

[@gotterdammerung5527]

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

[@the7observer]

Funny. I was playing multi turret academy (indie tank arcade game) and as soon as I check youtube this pops up. Perfectly timed

[@olivierr.5752]

Thanks for showing some love to the Type 95 Ro-Go! Very underrated vehicule.

[@jfangm]

Drone: *exists*
U.S. Navy: Do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior Aegis Combat System.

[@SniPantsu]

Aegis won't protect you from saturation barrage

[@jfangm]

@@SniPantsu
It absolutely will, as the Navy demonstrated during that Iranian drone "attack."

[@SniPantsu]

@@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.

[@christopherwebber3804]

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.

[@NicolaJudson]

His thought process was on so many levels that he gave himself a phobia of heights.

[@GarGhuul]

I wonder if the lower gravity of Mars accounts for Anime Land-Battleships portrayed there. Or was that Venus?

[@plussum3255]

What anime are you thinking of?

[@GarGhuul]

@@plussum3255 My memory is terrible, but I think Venus Wars and Big Wars had them. There are probably others.

[@addan3002]

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.

[@Ninety-ou8re]

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

[@MattnessLP]

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

[@Atlas552]

He already covered the Churchill in the linked double barrel tank video, stating that wasn't a multi-turret design.

[@connorsmith1005]

Tbh I think implementation AI and multi turret vehicles would be a speed run strategy to a skynet scenario.

[@joetuktyyuktuk8635]

Explained simply by SNL 'Why have a plate full of little beans... when you can have one *BIG GIANT BEAN* "

[@sethmiller2532]

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.

[@tristynpitard8493]

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.

[@Boo_Yeah]

The Lee/Grant should not be considered double barrel. The guns are in separate locations on the tank. Double barrel should only refer to tanks with 2 main guns in the same turret and of the same caliber.

[@urbanelyinsane]

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.

[@arrick4132]

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

[@niccocampanelli2678]

I saw you at the Aquino tank weekend I loved the explanation on the Hetzer and I love your content keep it up dude.

[@basedsketch4133]

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

[@charlesphillips4575]

IMHO large size was one of the advantages of multi-turreted tanks. They were breakthrough tanks intended to cross the massive obstacles of the WW1 Battlefield. Trench crossing ability is directly proportional to length and a high front idler/sprocket important for vertical obstacles. Needing a big tank they might as well give it lots of guns.
Regarding communications. Commanding a multi-turreted tank is harder than commanding a single turreted one. But it is a lot easier than commanding several single turreted tanks, particularly when the tanks don’t have radios.
A useful accidental effect was developing powerful engines and transmissions for the day that equally heavy but single-turreted tanks were required. Note that the US M2 medium was that big because it mounted lots of machine guns, OK it was one turret and 4 casements, but the effect is similar. This enabled the development of the M3 and then M4 with little difficulty.

[@Riceball01]

Commanding multiple tanks , I'd argue, would be easier than commanding a single mufti-turreted tank. This is because when you're commanding multiple tank, you're not directing what & when to engage. You're telling them where to go, where to be in relation to your tank, but as far assuagements go, you tell them where to look and then that tank's TC will be responsible for engaging anything in their area of responsibility..

[@charlesc.9012]

@@Riceball01 Early tanks did not have radios, which is why it was so difficult to command other tanks. Multi-turreted tanks have specialised armaments, so crews knew which targets were their priority. Because they also have multiple turrets to look out of, the commander actually has better situational awareness because he will have more eyes out.

[@MisdirectedSasha]

@@charlesc.9012 You get diminishing returns from all those extra eyes because the information they gather will often need to be passed on to the commander, who will then have to give instructions to the gunner or driver.
In a single-turret tank with decent visibility for the commander, he will do most of the spotting and then issue commands, cutting out a whole layer of extra communications.

[@charlesc.9012]

@@MisdirectedSasha That matters less, because situational awareness is always gained through this way, whether by crew or an infantryman on a telephone.
More importantly, the crew can immediately suppress anti-tank weapons etc. within their field of fire, so there is a lot of utility for a trench warfare machine

[@charlesphillips4575]

@@Riceball01 The secondary turrets can be given a degree of independence. Just like the separate tank, you tell them where to look and then that turret commander will be responsible for engaging anything in their area of responsibility. The difference is you can easily change their area of responsibility, whereas a separate tank without a radio has to carry on with the initial assignment. Also the turrets can easily report to you what they see.

[@MMA10mm]

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.

[@pnz4aufsh]

1:05 T95 pace car lmfao. That just hits something special for photo editing.

[@02suraditpengsaeng41]

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

[@tmutant]

One caliber for the main gun makes ammunition storage easier, with machine guns to deal with lighter targets. Also allows it to be more compact, easier to maintain, lighter, and less expensive.

[@thundermite1241]

A video series going over unique tank engines like the chrysler multibank or the m56 with an x shaped engine the detroit 3046 etc

[@beor2193]

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.

[@keithalaird]

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.

[@ffjsb]

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.

[@Omegasutoraiki]

I am going to be completely honest.
It would be extremely cool to see a super armored TOG with 3 turrets broadsiding something on a battlefield and just having too much armor to be stopped easily.

[@khaen-tw9yw]

You can have 50 smaller tanks divided and faster which can easily overwhelm 1 giant tank and or don’t get obliterated by terrain, weather and CASP before arriving to the battlefield. The issue isn’t technology, you can definitely build these, if you invest enough tech and money, but even with late war US USSR and British industries being powerful enough they just didn’t see any uses in them

[@rcrawford42]

Brook's Law: the overhead of communication is proportional to the factorial of the size of the team. So large tank crews are just too big to effectively communicate.

[@LeonmitchelliGalette]

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.

[@stanislavczebinski994]

Another reason for failure back in WW2 was the lack of engines powerful enough to give reasonable mobility to very heavy tanks.
The general rule for tank design:
1. Firepower
2. Mobility
3. Protection
In this very order.
Except for breakthrough-tanks or other niche applications.
Another reason might have been reliability.
Basically all super-heavies were very prone to break-downs - and hard to repair in the field.
It was a lot easier to make parts for regular tanks - and get them where they were needed.
Hence the decision for and success of Sherman, T-34 and Panzer IV.

[@VonGrav]

It is interesting though that we are kinda seeing multi turreted tanks today with the inclusions such as Crows.. but its more like a periscope with a .50 on it.

[@bensonofthunder9229]

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.

[@brianniegemann4788]

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.

[@marxel4444]

Multi Turreted tanks would basicly turn into actual land battelships, not just in name but in function.
Several turrets that would be presented to fire a broadside on a single target all directed by the same fire controll, getting a zitadel to protect the crew and ammo with heavy armored turrets fronts that would act like regiments in the time of napoleon, driving in collums, lining up side by side and then unleashing volley fire on the enemy where each tank could use its 2-4 guns facing towards the side create its own continiously salvo against the enemy, or a massive salvo and then sitting there for 30 seconds where the enemy is not suppresed and can fight back

[@cptshelly]

11:26 one thing I'll say too is it could also we used as a mobile bunker . Much like how the Austrian painter wanted the Maus to be a mobile bunker.
Love that you actually address the psychological aspect of all of this. Say what we will about Adolf , he understood a bit of psychological warfare.

[@codenamehalo9847]

Would the Commanders MG on the M60 series count as a separate turret?

[@thegamingshiba]

No, i think that’s just part of the cupola

[@JimmySailor]

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.

[@jmanj3917]

CROWS System is badass...loved that thing!

[@scottthewaterwarrior]

Solution: instead of making the tank longer or wider to fit the additional turrets, just stack the turrets on top of eachother and make the tank taller!
Tank commander: "We shall sneak through this forest so they don't see us!"
Procides to drive his tank through the woods with the top two gun turrets clearly visable to the enemy above the treetops.
Tank hits slightly tilted ground and falls over: "Timber!"

[@michaelmoore1403]

I think that the closest thing to a multi turret we are likely to see is the addition of remote controlled autocannons like the system that you pointed out in the video.

[@Mini_Knight17]

what about the machine gun cupola on the M-48/M-60 Patton also what about the one on the Conqueror?

[@shmartin024]

It was great seeing you at Aquino!

[@DuneRunnerEnterprises]

Another point - them multi-turreted tanks were usually rather slow.

[@rc59191]

That cover art looks really cool.

[@schootingstarr]

interestingly, the ammunition argument is also the reason why modern war ships have fewer guns and turrets than those of yesteryear, although here it's the other way around
modern guns have a much higher rate of fire and will eat through the ammunition faster than a bunch of old guns combined. but the size of the ammunition remains the same. so modern ship designs just got rid of those extra guns and made room for other fun activities.

[@dcmccann11]

The best way to think about this question is to ask, "Why would I not want each turret to have its own chasse?" Basically anything bigger than a machine gun, should get it's own tracks/tires.
Or why do ships benefit from multiple turrets but not tanks?

[@StarWarsExpert_]

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.

[@longrider42]

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.

[@Elpresidente98]

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

[@wraithcadmus]

5:47 - I do love that quote

[@TallDude73]

As with any new thing, you try some variations, maybe something outlandish (the flying wing concept by the Hortons was revolutionary, if weird, at the time, and eventually became accepted) and if it doesn't work, don't use it. Eventually you'll get something practical.

[@TheyBrutus]

I think the biggest economical argument has not been brought up: You will loose some vehicles, some after a fight and some even without them firing a single shell. Maybe because they are the first blood on the battlefield, maybe because of an incident on their way to the frontline. If you split up your firepower and your wonderful dollars on multiple vehicle, loosing a number of vehicles isn't as tragic when they all have just one gun and five crewmember instead of two or more with double the guys inside. Having fewer but multiturret tanks also has negative effects on your mobility. Attacking with fewer tanks (that may pack a bigger punch) will result in getting out flanked, surrounded and ambushed more easily. Having more tanks means spreading out and having a bigger area of denial

[@Fidd88-mc4sz]

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.

[@nicholaswallen8147]

Well, we could always go 40k with a Leman Russ mbt, main cannon, secondary cannon on front, 2x sponson heavy machine guns on the sides; plus not to mention the amount of variants we could make.

[@cheesesniper473]

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.

[@AdmiralJT]

Something about last time this early yadda yadda 😅

[@xenocyde8498]

i would say they would have a much larger cost in operational logistics such as oil multitude of different ammo types, strain on the power supply on the tank itself, fuel cost, increased grease on to mention maintenance alone in a repair bay as the time there could very well be doubled if not tripled before it can be deployed again

[@captainnutzlos3816]

Tanks are relics aswell !! If you have air and drones you can take out all kind of enemy stuff...

[@Tehn00bA]

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.

[@sgtNACHO]

The weight problem is severe. Because you have to armor 360 degrees of turret multiple times over. In the modern day where ANY weak spot will be a detriment and having ERA facing towards your tank os a BAD idea, I doubt it will happen. Best ai can think of is a drone tank with like 5 controlled weapon mounts that can just drive into a town square and unload in every direction at once.

[@nonethelessfirst8519]

Don't give the new American government any ideas. They are on a kick the past two weeks. Trying to kill trump. Killing biden. They gonna use this idea.

[@spinnereight6794]

In short I suppose the reason is because all you need to win in tank against tank fight is one good hit and enough protection to not die to the opposing tank. Multiple turrets or guns make it overall less effective and more expensive. You could argue that the machinegun is sometimes it's own thing but it really is just a secondary weapon for different targets and should really just be considered part of the turret even if it can move somewhat independently from the turret.

[@I3oo1ve]

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.

[@oliverkromann1902]

you forgot to mention the prototype vt 1-2 such a cool prototype

[@Chesleigh]

Do the British Mark I,IV, and V count as multi turret tanks? I can’t tell if sponsons count as multiple turrets