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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Rapid targeting of multiple threats can be achieved with a sensor based lock on system . The gunner keys in multiple targets through the computer and the gun automatically fires as fast as possible dispatching one target after another. Rapid loading can be achieved by loading clips of 2-3 rounds at a time so reload is just recoil and chamber a new round.Could mean a shot every couple of seconds.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by psteel]




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
im not sure i think its a good idea the VT2 has to completely turn around to get a shot it can only engage targets in front of it.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I'm no expert on armament but I don't see why a completely robot tank cannot be produced. Space saved not having humans in it could allow a lot of auto reloading weapons etc. The sucker could go non-stop until it ran out of fuel or ran out of ammo or it was destroyed. If it was nuke then it could go a long time.

These things could be run by signals from satellites while satellites watch their positions on the ground. You could have numerous cameras on the tank and the signals picked up locally by the manipulators... in aircraft??

Myself I can see the potential for tanks getting bigger as they become moveable land artillery where aerial bombing or off shore naval vessels cannot strike the target.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
im not sure i think its a good idea the VT2 has to completely turn around to get a shot it can only engage targets in front of it.


As does the Bofors S-tank. As did the Elefaunt tank destroyer.

The problem with the Bofors was that it was so good at fulfilling its mission requirements it was actually useless to everyone else. It was the perfect SPG for defending Sweden against Soviet attack, it could shoot and scoot in the forests, digging in with its own dozer blade and then movin on. It couldn't fire on the move.

Maybe VT2 was based on the "attack is the best defence" theory!



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by urmomma158
im not sure i think its a good idea the VT2 has to completely turn around to get a shot it can only engage targets in front of it.


As does the Bofors S-tank. As did the Elefaunt tank destroyer.

The problem with the Bofors was that it was so good at fulfilling its mission requirements it was actually useless to everyone else. It was the perfect SPG for defending Sweden against Soviet attack, it could shoot and scoot in the forests, digging in with its own dozer blade and then movin on. It couldn't fire on the move.

Maybe VT2 was based on the "attack is the best defence" theory!




I always saw the VT-1 & VT-2 as replacements for the Jadg Panzer Kanone system, which is the more conventional assault gun role [AKA Stug-III]. The Jadg Panzer Rakette was more of the traditional SPAT role.The role was to fill a mobile gun for light Jager battalions.

With more money they probably would have done something like that but their were bigger priorities at that time 1980. As I recal the bulk of these jager divisions were converted into Panzer grenadier divisions with the Jager brigades being mixed in with Panzer and Panzer grenadier brigades. With the failure of that concept both the Rakette and Kanone were converted to modified Jaguar AT vehicles with HOT ATGM and later TOW ATGMs, to at least fill the expanded brigade AT company.

I remember reading a late 1980s article where they proposed using surplus Leopard 1 to fill this concept [mobile infantry gun] but issued to the infantry units to train. To prevent it from being used as a tank it would have blocks to prevent the turret from rotating more than 60-90° either side of the vehicle access. Prior to the JPz Kanone they used M-48 organic to reserve Jager Brigades/Battalions....although that may have more to do with the planned wartime expansion of the Heer that was supposed to reach 30 divisions quickly. In that case the bulk of any newly raised divisions would have to be Jager Divisions.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by psteel]

[edit on 12-4-2006 by psteel]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The demands for the VT1 were :
-firepower
-mobility
-survivability in a tank vs tank combat while being outnumbered
-ability of operating in a nuclear contaminated area

The VT1 fired 10-20 rounds per minute for one gun so actually the VT1 fired 20-40 RPM.

The only thing I miss is a coax-MG or a MG mounted on the roof.

That makes the VT1 only useful against other tanks or vehicles.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zimmerolm
...
The only thing I miss is a coax-MG or a MG mounted on the roof.

That makes the VT1 only useful against other tanks or vehicles.


I doubt that they wouldnt have included a 360° close-range defense on a finished product. Dont forget that the VT´s weren´t even prototypes, they were technical demonstrators.

Even the German Heer isnt so stupid to waste a HE shell on a single infantryman



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Here's an assortment of Russian tanks from the 1930s:

T-100


T-35


T-32 MII


Also, check out this beauty:

external image

mod edit:

How to resize an image (review link)
ATTN: Image Size Guidelines (review link)

[edit on 19-4-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Funny how the Soviets went through some of the worst designs in history before coming up with possibly the best.

Compare the multi (or Sub-) turreted tanks' performance in the Winter War against the Finns with the T-34's performance against the Wehrmacht.

The major British pre-war tank was also sub-turreted. With two heavy machine guns in sub-turrets on the front, each of which was restricted in its arc to firing front, or inside and across the other turret, but not to it's own outside.

That was replaced by Matilda, which couldn't be killed, but equally couldn't kill anything.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Funny how the Soviets went through some of the worst designs in history before coming up with possibly the best.

Compare the multi (or Sub-) turreted tanks' performance in the Winter War against the Finns with the T-34's performance against the Wehrmacht.



We can thank the Great Purge for that, since the T-34 designer was a junior engineer in the late 1930s. After the purge Firsov was replaced with Koshkin who took the initiative and pushed his design over the competition.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Comparing Winter war to Barbarossa is not fair to the Russians, In WinterWar most of their armor casualities were due Molotov Cocktails and Satchel Charges used by Finnish infantry and there were no real armor on armor battles.
As opposed to massive armored thrusts of Wehrmacht during the Barbarossa and rest of the war in east.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Even the germans developed a multi turreted tank the Nbfz. or Neubaufahrzeug. 3 Turrets, two Panzer I turrets with two 7,92x57 mm MGs and one turret with a 37mm KwK and a 75mm Kwk. KwK stands for Kampfwagenkanone that means something like armored vehicle cannon.
The Topspeed was 29Km/h to slow for the Blitzkrieg tactic. The armor plates were too thin (13-20mm) for a tank vs. tank combat. They only produced 5 Nbfz.s two prototypes and 3 test vehicles.

And I think that the VT1 would have in his final version a MG3A1 as an Fla-MG
but it could also be used as an anti infantry gun.

@Lonestar:
Even the name says that the VT1-1/VT1-2 was a technical demonstrator.
VT=Versuchsträger=(analogously) test model



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Reading this thread made me wonder 2 turrents could be stacked on top of one another and allowed to independtly spin 360 degrees, but still have a low enough profile? I know a low turret profile and overall height is important so maybe suto loaders could be used to keep the profile small and the crew could be housed in the hull. Maybe the hull could even be slightlyy taller so some of the system could be housed below if you will.

I don't think 2 guns side by side would be that impressive, but if you could simultaneously engage 2 targets anywhere it might be.

Hre is a crde drawing I made in paint so you can envision what I'm talking about





posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
warpboost :

the immediate problems with your radical new design are :

1 = the breech of a tanks gun depressses below the turret tung

2 = where will the gunner / loader stand and sit ?

the reall answer IMHP yo your " problem " - is faster firing gun with auto loader - and faster traversing turret - so you can fire @ one target - then traverse to engage the second



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
warpboost :

the immediate problems with your radical new design are :

1 = the breech of a tanks gun depressses below the turret tung

2 = where will the gunner / loader stand and sit ?

the reall answer IMHP yo your " problem " - is faster firing gun with auto loader - and faster traversing turret - so you can fire @ one target - then traverse to engage the second


Thats what I was thinking...some times these complex alternative solutions can be gotten around by just plain better designs....some warships have 3-5" guns with auto loaders with ROF of 30-80 RPM . Clearly they have more room to play with but maybe there are other ways to 'play with the design'.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Keep thinking guys. this just isn't plausible. You might as well build a battle ship on land. something that is so big it would take a tactical nuke to get rid of it. Why not go for some huge firepower while your at it



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Comparing Winter war to Barbarossa is not fair to the Russians...


No, because Marshall Mannerheim used one of the least technically equipped and smallest armies to thrash one of the most mechanised and largest armies in Europe.

But, all snide insults aside, much of T-34's success was that it didn't break down and didn't freeze solid.

Those Molotov cocktails and satchel charges were delivered to frozen and broken tanks. The standard Finnish A/T-gun was 37mm, already obsolete by 1940.

Multi and sub-turretted tanks were, generally speaking, over-complex, under-armed(!) and under-armoured, as a previous poster just pointed out.

Which left Russian designs vulnerable in the frozen forests and Karelian Isthmus. And which performance allowed Hitler to think Barbarossa would be a walk-over.

One exception to this rule was M3 Grant, with a sponson-mounted 75mm, and a turret-mounted 37mm and top/sub-turret mounted .30cal. Effective against the Jap light tanks in the Paicific/SEAsia theatre and more popular than Brit designs such as Crusader and Cruiser Mk 6 in the Western Desert campaign before arrival of Sherman and Churchill.

edit:sp

[edit on 23-4-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Here are some pictures of 40k tanks that have multiple guns.

kofler.dot.at...

www.hillcity-comics.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Ignorant_ape,

>>
The real answer IMHP to your " problem " - is faster firing gun with auto loader - and faster traversing turret - so you can fire @ one target - then traverse to engage the second.
>>

To which I would add that if you have six vs. three tanks 'on cost alone' you make the job of reducing an entire tank team in one go much more difficult because the lag in engagement is relative to the angular displacement of ALL vehicles. As well as the potential splitting of the team into assault and overwatch elements relative to ballistic range (effecting SE as well as round choice and kill effectiveness). And sustaining rate of engagement capabilities through a datalink sorting system that works something like the CITV but with a much greater degree of multitarget tracking resolution for turret-rate buffer handoffs to dumb-shooter associates.

While I don't generally believe in a dual-barrel system ala E-100/Maus and the VT's (Because they increase problems with the gun mantlet armoring as well as recoil factors), I have a feeling that we may well see a return to a system like that of the M60 where a cupola'd 'second gun' serves to support a fast reaction, autonomous, mount that is indeed capable of doing everything that todays systems do not. Namely sorting and assigning an automatically generated target list.

Whether this system is used offensively or to reaction-suppress optics, muzzle sources or inbound rounds, it is likely that a high right/intelligent fires (Trophy etc.) and/or ZTOF (laser) system will be seen as an appropriate addon system.

Not least because it may well be able to either target or actively defend for multiple other units attached to the parent vehicles protection.

The secondary mount decision then becomes how powerful, how fast a burst rate and how long a recharge/cooling interval you are looking at. IMO, it is entirely possible that defense will become a principal means of thwarting both open field (weapon range and time of flight vs. detection LOS) and close in (reaction time, pure and simple) threats to armor.

At which point, the main gun caliber may well be traded down in pursuit of faster engagements on multiple (autotracked) smaller targets with less overkill in builtup areas particularly. Killing another tank then becomes a sensor (masted) game for which BLOS fires predominate and a given 'trade value' call may be made (I can't kill more than X but he must mass Y number of his friends to beat down my defenses and he cannot marshal that many without engagement by someone else).

The resulting 'ideal', zoneally optimized, system then being a midrange auto-cannon with rounds in the 35-45-75mm range. And a rack of LOCAAS/SMACM or CKEM to kill over-obstacle as much as heavy targets (especially if the main gun rounds gain smart-fuzed top attack capabilities). Topped by a suppressoin and terminal defense system composed of mechanical intercept, multispectral obscurrants and the laser cupola. At which point you must ask- Do you want one turret atop the other or to go with a Marder like secondary installation to simplify co and opposed slew?

Myself, robots that you can afford to lose will beat super tanks that cost more than the total number of (simultaneous) missions they can accomplish are worth.


KPl.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join