It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

two gun tank

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Would a tank with two main guns be possible?

It hasnt been possible but with the advances in computer technology would it be possible? maybe the gunner could use one gun and a computer the other, or the gunner (maybe the comander as well if he wasnt busy) could specify targets and the computer could select the ammo, target and fire.

Since the turret would only be able to turn one way each gun would have to be able to move slightly to aim or maybe the guns would just hit the same target doubling the damage, or they could fire independantly but with double the fire rate.

Would any of the above be possible with todays technology and if not how long before it will be possible?

Justin

www.gamasutra.com...

i was thinking a bit like this

[edit on 9-4-2006 by justin_barton3]




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Well the tank would have to be pretty imense to fit these guns and then would become an easier targt for helis and anti tank missiles, guns. It would surely be pretty slow as well and cumbersome. Would have to be a hell of a design to work.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
maybe it could be a defensive tank then. like the tanks did in africa during ww2. dig a hole deep enough that only the turret shows then sit and wait. This would provide good access to ammo wich would run out fairly quickly if it was on the move constantly. if the guns fired at thesame target together they could use lesser calibre ammo so they could carry more ammo and wouldnt need to be much bigger than normal tanks.

Justin



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
look up the German VT-1 [twin 105mm guns] and VT-2 [twin 120mm guns] designs from the late 1970s. Back then the extra gun doubled the cost of the tank, which is why it was not selected....that and the asymmetrical recoil forces stressed the frame too much.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
It would be useful if you had 2 targets at the exact same range spaced to match the spacing of the 2 tank barrels. Not very likely.

If there were two turrets so you could aim and fire on different targets then suddenly you would need to make the tank twice as large as you would need two loaders, two ammo storage cabinets, two commanders and two guys to aim and fire the guns....no I don't think it would work that well.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
With the advent of unmanned technology, metal storm, and lasers, I think tanks will become obsolete.

If you want two barrels, think like the pentagon - just buy two tanks.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
look up the German VT-1 [twin 105mm guns] and VT-2 [twin 120mm guns] designs from the late 1970s. Back then the extra gun doubled the cost of the tank, which is why it was not selected....that and the asymmetrical recoil forces stressed the frame too much.


Voilá... le VT 1-2



It has a similar MTU 1500hp engine than the Leopard 2 - but weighs only 43,5t, giving it an unprecedented power/weight ratio of 34 hp/t - it also had a short time "boost" mode giving it 2175hp - so 50hp/t. Additionally it had two electric engines to aim while in a prepared position and with the main engine off - also had a limited silent-running capability.

Of course this was a necessity to achieve the necessary chassis turning speed of 60° per second. Hydropneumatic transmission, and the 3-man crew sat side-by-side in a specially suspended closed cabin.

The official reason why the study wasnt followed further is that, although doable from the tchnological point-of-view, the degree of tactical flexibility and restrictions in combat were unbearable.

[edit on 9/4/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
It would be useful if you had 2 targets at the exact same range spaced to match the spacing of the 2 tank barrels. Not very likely.

If there were two turrets so you could aim and fire on different targets then suddenly you would need to make the tank twice as large as you would need two loaders, two ammo storage cabinets, two commanders and two guys to aim and fire the guns....no I don't think it would work that well.


i answered all your questions in my first post. read dude read.

lonestar - thats a cool looking tank although i was thinking something with a turret.

Oh well it was a cool idea i thought. shame its incredibly inpracticle

justin



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
It hasnt been possible but with the advances in computer technology would it be possible?
Would any of the above be possible with todays technology and if not how long before it will be possible?

Justin

[edit on 9-4-2006 by justin_barton3]


I don't think with current technology it's possible, due to the obvious drawbacks as stated in the above posts. However, with next generation tech such as rail-guns, better lasers, kinetic energy weapons, etc. it may be possible to avoid these faults. Your probably need to wait just a little longer. It will be interesting to see if anyone tries though as most previous attempts have been disappointing (French CHar B1 and Soviet T-28 most notable).

[edit on 9-4-2006 by passenger]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Mabey both guns could be on one turent, so it would be like a double barreled shot gun, but instead a double barreled tank gun.

Could try making them the same size as a regular tank gun for its size, then it might have some support/weight issues, so mabey two slightly lighter tank guns.

For recoil issues, don't fire both of them at the same time (duh, unless you are trying to show off like a moron). Shot one, then 1-3 seconds latter shot the other one.

The advantage would be well, rapid fire. say if it was fighting another tank and it fired one shot which misses or fails to do damage shoot the other.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The picture of a two gun tank www.gamasutra.com... certainly looks intimidating. It might be worth it to have a tank like it just for the psycological effect.

"its twice as good"

Spacy looking weapons would be good. Not olny will the youth or odd enthusatics whatever front like them (a kid in a occupyed country seeing a guy in power armor might be like "hey its master cheif", or "its spaceman") so it would improve PR with the country who has them, a occupyed country, AND the people who use them. Also enemys facing them would be intimidated by something that would be a bit out of this world. The things wouldn't even need to be overly effective in how they function, but the whole psycological effect and PR rating would be worth it.



[edit on 9-4-2006 by jazz_psyker]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
....
lonestar - thats a cool looking tank although i was thinking something with a turret.

Oh well it was a cool idea i thought. shame its incredibly inpracticle

justin


Well, I think the turret mount IS the problem in your train of thoughts, not the guns. The only reason why a tank should have two comparable or identical guns is when its intended purpose is that of a pure tank hunter - because a "multi-role" tank would be better suited with a variety of weapons. But if we look at the historical dedicated tank hunters you´ll find a lot of turretless tanks among them. A turretless design simply has distinct advantages in an armor-on-armor engagement, even moreso with current advanced fire control technology.

The VT 1-2 was intended to zig-zag at high speed towards his target, and every time the gun axis crossed the enemy position the fire control computer would automatically shoot.

But I dont think there would be a real technical limtation not to put two cannons into a turret - self-propelled howitzers have been around for years and the have a LOT more recoil powers than regular tank guns. The tactical need for such a heavy additional weight (increased turret size, twice the gun weight + the necessary autoloader, more ammunition, heavier recoil buffers) in a turreted tank however has to be questioned - I´d say its better to integrate an ATGM launcher.

[edit on 9/4/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Technically we should not really be calling the VT-1 a "tank". It should be classified as either a tank-destroyer (jagdpanzer) or assault gun.
Note that historically one reason tank-destroyers were utilized was because they were able to carry larger caliber weapons than could be turreted. The dual gun upon chassis design here may be evidence of the engineering difficulties in putting on two turrets.
Even if it doesn't work that great it's still pretty cool looking



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
During WW2 the Australian ordnance manufacturers produced a prototyp 2-gun tank.

However, the two guns were short 25 pounders and were there so the designers and engineers could test the trunnion pull and ensure that it would be strong enough to take the 17-pounder which was then becoming the Commonwealth standard tank and AT gun.

In the end the project was dropped entirely because the shipping lanes had been made safe and Shermans could be supplied in huge numbers, to be replaced shortly after by Centurions.

Much like the CAC single-seat fighter that was cancelled when it became clear jets were the way to go.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
There are twin gunned tanks in the 'Command & Conquer' games

The Light Tank is a Bradley troop carrier

The Medium Tank is an Abrams MBT

The Heavy Tank is an MBT with twin guns

And the MAMMOTH TANK is the most powerful tank in the game, It is so big, has twin guns, side mounted rocket pods and uses 4 tracks like the 'Halo' Tank

Would the MAMMOTH TANK ever enter service in reality?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Twin guns? Nah, not worth it. What it gains in fire rate it loses in mobility. More weight, might get stuck in mud more easily. Bigger and easier to hit. Probably much harder and costy to maintain too.

With laser guided rounds, tanks can pretty much hit and destroy their targets on the first shot anyway. If the warhead of the round is not enough to destroy the target then I'd design more powerful warheads instead of trying to fit two barrels on a tank.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
What I heard was that experiments with double barrel tanks was that due to engineering difficulties mounting 2 guns on one turret that the guns would start ripping them selves out of the turret since it's very hard to reinforce.

Also it would be a nightmare to aim and the only real advantage of two guns would be probably less reload time but if they made a fast auto-loader then it could be much faster IMO.

The only real possible uses are on ships and maybe artillery, but you would need a massive turret to compensate for the forces applied to a vehicle...

What would happen if you would put an Iowa-class turret on a large framed tracked vehicle?
I think it might blow it away due to the recoil!
that would be a sight to see!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Yea, if you realy wanted a higher rater of fire, one could have a belt feed of tank rounds into a tank, kind of like a machine gun but biger, or mabey a clip of ammo like 5 rounds.

Now that might be hard to lift for a gunner, so thats why a machine would put it in place. I don't get why tanks use a hand loading system, its philistinic. It takes extra man power, and its slower.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
imho it looks like the german "ratte"

the biggest tank every conceived of, though never built. its treads would have each been as wide as the maus



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazz_psyker
Now that might be hard to lift for a gunner, so thats why a machine would put it in place. I don't get why tanks use a hand loading system, its philistinic. It takes extra man power, and its slower.


Because the prime example of an auto-loader is T72 and prime among its problems is the fact that if the gunner isn't careful the auto-loader has a tendency to auto-load his arm along with the shell.

Besides which, auto-loaders are not always faster.

The most successful auto-feed was on the Frnech AMX13 light tank, think of two giant revolvers feeding a single barrel. Real fast to fire, real slow to reload because you have to reload the entire magazine.

The most obvious 2-gun tank was Maus, which had a 75mm gun as co-axial! It also showed why giant tanks like the Mammoth will never be built. Too big, too slow, too easy to hit and you only need one IED to take out the tracks anyway. No tank can withstand a 500 pound bomb going off underneath it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join