I'm Still Right About Multi Gun Tank Turrets

I answer a few question I keep getting about Tanks with 2 main guns.
I had to use a lot of euphemisms thanks to the latest changes in the TOS., i hope its still understandable.

Music: Mirny Hopes - World of Tanks OST
All video and photos used under CC SA 3.0 and Fair Use transformative for the purpose of education

[youmukonpaku]

Consolidating the guns into a smaller number of turrets on a warship is also actually a scaling issue - one, the turrets are already the size of a house so there's plenty of space to deal with articulation and building dummy thicc rotation mechanisms that can withstand the rotational forces imposed by asymmetrical recoil distribution; two, when your guns weigh more than a cement mixer, and you're hiding them behind two feet of steel in the first place, it's worth the loss of accuracy to save ten tanks' worth of iron by putting two or three of them in one turret. If a tank were of a size where either of these issues are coming up, the tank designer needs to be dragged out back and shot for terminal stupidity because he has designed a vehicle that will not be mobile and which *will* be some bomber pilot's raging erection in short order.

[aaronbosen]

The closeset thing we ever got to a true multi gun turret tank in real life was the Ontos. To simply make that work, a lot of compromises had to be made, not the least of which was changing the guns from actual guns to externally mounted recoilless rifles, which had to be carefully mounted and barrels extended just to keep the backblast from interfering with visibility and ability to fire the other recoilless rifles. This is decidedly less then ideal from a keeping crew alive or keeping the vehicle firing perspective.

[Deridus]

My big brother was a tanker. Me, just an Arch-REMF. Even so, physics is one of my strong suits. The only time I will ever accept a multiturated tank as if it is anti aircraft gunnery, or it is in a scifi setting using lasers or some other particle weaponry. Multiple gun turrets on a armored fighting vehicle is not a tank, it is a self propelled gun... And even then I have difficulty accepting it.

[lasselen]

In real life, tanks don't have hit points. A shot either kills or does nothing. Kill times two is overkill and nothing times two is still nothing.
I suppose there are edge cases where one of the two could be lucky an hit a critical part, but ruining your turret's tonnage, structural integrity and operability for potential edge cases is a big nope.

In games though? MOAR DAKKA!

[Eserchie]

As an additional point for battleship turrets - a large part of the reason for more guns was a lack of bigger gun option. If there was the choice between two 8" guns and three 6" guns, shipbuilders went with the lower count of bigger guns unless constrained by naval treaty, or aiming to build a dedicated AA warship (filling a cubic volume of oxygen with freedom). The aim was to maximize the amount of downrange hurt that could be achieved on a given tonnage without sacrificing protection, which design process usually started by working out overall dimensions, then going "Okay, so what is the largest gun we've designed, and how many can we fit into this volume of ship?" Adding a second or third gun is usually less investment than adding another turret, but more than going up a gunsize. Any naval architect tasked with building a tank isn't going to look at shoving a second gun into the single turret until they have weight and space budget left over after fitting the biggest gun their country can manufacture. If there is no bigger gun designed for tanks available, and their boss is set on making a 200+ ton tank, they'll shove a naval artillery piece in there before they plan on making a dual turret. Once the largest bit of naval artillery is in use, then maybe they''ll stick a second 16" barrel into the 8000 ton landship thaat congress has demanded and funded for whatever reason.

[XCRunningMan]

I refute all of your points with this simple fact: you can never have enough dakka

[engine]

Best case for more advanced Double Barrel designs would be in Quake
If bears suddendly reproduced like rabbits, shat lightning and teleported enmasse with world dominating malicious intent (shambler)
we would be getting some fatter guns out to deal with that shit

[LoneEagle]

If you have the spare mass to add a second main gun to your tank then it is invariably a better choice to increase the capability of that main gun instead. Go for larger payload, go for higher velocity, go for improved handling… Or take that mass and move it to the machinery and increase either protection or mobility.
The only reason to put two main guns on a tank is logistics stress - you don’t have time to fully develop the new 130mm rifle (for example) or supply munitions for it on the front line; but “hey, we have all these 105mm guns just lying around…”
Even the Ratte only had that turret because it was already in inventory…

[brutalchicken]

Great points. The Mammoth tank is still cool though

[roguecarrick]

The gau 8 would be a hilarious tank gun. Just not sure where one would put the massive ammo drum without leaving it out in the open or ending up with something the size of a baneblade . Pretty sure the army mounts their angry r2d2 on a flat bed trailer so they can keep it fed like a fat guy at golden corral. The A10 is just wings and a pair of engines strapped to the gun and ships have well. Tons of wiggle room when it comes to keeping it fed. Where a tank might only have a ton or two to play with between being able to use a bridge or having to pretend its a boat.

[eichler]

Great video and people who have never been in warfare like to have the biggest opinion not based in facts.

[Kitkat-]

Exception: different caliber guns, or mixing weapon types. Coaxial autocannon? Not a terrible idea, although it does take up some turret space. AA missiles on the turret roof? It's been done by nations which don't have enough dedicated AA vehicles to support their tanks. Autocannon plus ATGM? A potent combo for IFVs. Russia has been known to put cannons, autocannons, missiles and grenade launchers all on the same turret for their IFVs.

[Erikreaver]

Heya! I've a question. Liking yer vids a lot, seeing someone who has been around tanks is enlightening. In your previous vid on the Mammoth tank, you said in the outro you're gonna do flame tanks vid. Is that still in the pipes? Would be interested in that.

As a sidenote, and it is going to put a few rageworthy words for ya next to eachother (probably) - I am still going to put a double barreled gun on my 40k ork landship, hur hur. But to be at least a bit fair, I am going madmaxy, scrap-punk direction with my lads, and scavenging what they could, and they couldn't find single larger high velocity gun is my headcannon, so two it is, AND, orks are accuracy by volume of fire in the first place, hah!

[jesperohlrich]

As for the battleship comparison there is one more thing to consider, the guns of a battleship are naval artillery. So if we are to talk about a multi gun turret on a tank chassis being like a multi gun turret on a battleship, then it would be in the form of artillery. Not the form of a 120mm sniper rifle.
But I could see a 1980’s multi gun Paladin howitzer concept, as something DARPA might have spend money on.

[randomusernameCallin]

There are multi-barrel guns use like the A10 and ships also have that. The thing is they are a single firing barrel. The extra mass to make a multi-barrel would hinder other aspect of a tank.

[afallencheetah]

Still would like you to have a look at the Type 61/61+ from Mobile Suit Gundam. While it is a double barrel tank, it was designed to act more like an Self Propelled Artillery and shoot at targets miles away but was forced into a more frontline role thanks to interference with long range communication and radar.

[maddlarkin]

Would this be a bad time to draw your attention to the 40k Stormhammer, the battleship principle in tank form and the answer to the question of just how many turrets can be fitted onto a Baneblade chassis (it makes a Mammoth tank look sensible by comparison, especially in its original configuration)

[hadesdogs]

Yes and no it’s really dependent on what the tank is designed for and what basis we’re actually calling a tank such as say the CVRT90 is considered a tank due to its 90mm cannon, but the same could be said about the cv90 as for science fiction things like the leman Russ exterminator and the annihilators both use twin barrels the exterminator uses a twin linked auto cannon whilst the annihilator uses a twin linked lascannon where the exterminator is ideal for light to soft skinned targets ie tyranids or infantry as well as lighter vehicles including low flying vehicles, the annihilator is more of a dedicated anti tank vehicle ideal for dealing with heavy armor as well as being cheaper and easier to produce and supply due to the lack of ammunition outside of the tanks fuel tanks, as for tanks like the halo grizzly or the COC mammoth I agree that tanks with multi guns are kinda silly unless they’re on a super heavy platform or on an AFV then I suppose it’s okay

[Leo___________]

So what you're clearly saying is that we need an over-under multi gun layout, instead of side by side.

[archind]

Now mount a GAU-8 and see the chassis fall apart