Fallout Studios Forums

Has anyone ever wondered why no military has made a Mammoth/Apocalypse-style double-barrelled tank? I mean, if you give the two turrets seperate aim abilities (meaning #1 can go left and #2 can go right), you essentially have 2 tanks in one and it would be SO much cheaper, of course it would be slower and what not, but it would be a super-heavy tank, meant to take out other tanks. So, what do you think?

Two barrels that can go separate way is BS, you obviously forgot the inner mechanism of the guns in the turret itself would collide have they traverse a few degrees left and right

And of course adding a second barrel would make a tank too heavy anyway. The Abrams tank currently is ~60 tons in weight, imagine adding a second barrel would be like fitting a concrete floorboard in a car

You'd have the power of two tanks, but the vulnerability and armour of one. And speed of maneuvrability worse than a normal one.

And that's not counting the obvious difficulties designing this sort of unit would bring with it.

Its just not works like in the games, it may look superior and withstand more rockets but giving two barrels to a tank in real will make it heavy and its easier to hit a slow moving tank, well ; it will not withstand tens of rockets so maneuvrability is important.

It's more expensive and doesn't take much more punishment than the average tank. If you built one, you now have an extremely slow moving, heavy tank that has 2 barrels, that has a higher chance to have mechanical difficulties. Aircraft still wtfpwn it too.

If you can barely transport Abrams on a plane, whats the point of making a tank bigger? Real Life military works nothing like C&C. If you want a game that more accurately portrays the armour of current fighting vehicles play Act of War. Even then, vehicles aircraft etc. can't really take that much damage. Just reinforcing the point stated by everyone else but it would be rather worthless.

Not to mention that two barrels is actually a bit of a liability for three main reasons:
Placement: Two barrels fired together run the risk of dislodging or damaging the turret mounting thanks to the recoil being twice as large as normal, making them only able to be fired one at a time. They must also be placed together in the middle of the turret to stop the turret from being torn sideways on firing (the cannon placement on Overlords would probably rip the turret off after a few volleys!), and this creates big problems with reloading, ammunition access, aiming (as you will need to aim each gun individually no matter how close you put them) and many others besides.
Risk: If one of these super-tanks is destroyed, you've just lost twice the armament (which is I think the most costly single component of a tank) than you would usually; if you double the armour to prevent this, then you'll end up with the extreme speed and manoeuvrability problems already outlined. If you double the engine size to make up for this, then you'll limit the tank's range because it will use up fuel extremely fast; and overall it's just not cost or risk-effective to make a super-tank that retains the abilities of a normal tank.
Efficiency: Given that tanks are such tightly-packed bundles of vital components, just one good hit with a modern APFSDS round or two-stage missile will destroy the opposing vehicle, making a second shot hopefully unneccessary. Even if you don't take out the enemy with a single shot it's unlikely that your fire-rate will be much if at all greater than a tank with one barrel given that you have to reload and aim each barrel individually, and reloading will be very difficult because there will always be one gun that the gunner can't get to. Autoloaders sound good in theory, but in practice they take up too much room and give too little of an advantage over a well-trained turret crew that they're just not worth the trouble.

So there you are, as many good reasons as I can think of presented in an overly verbose style! But really, there's a reason why military tacticians and technologists haven't deployed these things in battle (the French did try the super-tank concept, but they were really just not good) in the almost one hundred years since the tank was invented.

Edit - evidently I can't count. ("One, two, five!" "Three, sir!" "Three!")
Edited by CommanderJB, 21 May 2008 - 02:36.

Exactly as CommanderJB said. It simply won't work.
~Swimmer

JB really just cut this down. It's ineffecient and un-needed tbh. And remember, games and real life are two completely different things. Just because in C&C there's laser tanks, walkers, double barreled tanks, hovercraft, and such, and it all works there, doesn't mean it'll work IRL.

Waris, on 20 May 2008, 8:24, said:

Fun fact: most European MBTs are 30 tons lighter because, among other things, they have lower profiles because they use autoloaders.

The Ariete is 56 tons.

Challenger 2 62.5 tons.

The Leclerc 54.5 tons.

Leopard 2 62.3 tons.

Hardly '30 tons lighter' I call them.

Yeah, they are just about the same weight as the Abrams which is...

67.6 short tons (61.4 tonnes)

Regardless of their weights, if any of them was fitted with a second barrel, they would be overweight.

And the british use manual loaders since it improves morale and he can help maintain it.

@Waris: Very true, approximately 60 tons is the most common weight for a Western MBT. The T-90 however is considerably lighter than anything on the list at 46.5 tons. Just thought that was worth mentioning, not that it has space for a second gun or anything anyway.

Something like that would be a huge waste of money. You'd have an oversized tank which would crush any roads it travels on or any truck transporting it. It would also be too big and heavy for air transport. So logistics would be a MAJOR problem, especially as something that big would go about 5mph tops. It would still be just as easy to kill as a single tank, if not easier due to the larger profile. But it would be at least twice as costly to lose one of those to losing a regular tank. In addition, it might as well have a target painted on the roof for aircraft to hit.

CommanderJB, on 22 May 2008, 20:42, said:

A PT-91 weighs 45.9.

Double barreled tanks also generate far more smoke when firing. Giving there position away easier then it already is. And such a slow moving chunk of steel is excellent target practice for Tank Killing Helicopters.

@ Alias: I've never really heard of the PT-91 before, I have to say. After a quick google, I have to say that while it may not be a minor tank design it's also probably slightly lower-profile than the rest of the tanks on the list. Still, an interesting vehicle, and it seems to fulfil the ex-Soviet tradition of making tanks as mobile, light and fast as possible while keeping the same gun and spreading out advantages.

First off, the recoil of two of those massive guns would be intense stuff :minigunner:

Also, twin barrels in the turret would leave a tiny space for the gunners and loaders and also the commander who's gotta spot targets...

The cost issue too ... stuffing twin barrels in a tank calls for MAJOR redesigns or the structure and layout of the turret. Imagine the Brits plopping down another turret in their beloved Challenger <_<

A double-barreled tank is like the Paris Gun. You're not gonna be moving it much, or doing much with it.

@Waris: I dunno where I read that...really should check my sources from now on. [/n00b]
Edited by Foxhound, 24 May 2008 - 02:50.

What I think IS possible (or should I say plausible) is to make a dual barreled Howitzer..

You mean like this?
http://img216.images...84/152x2ft0.jpg

Foxhound, on 23 May 2008, 19:49, said:

The Paris Gun was a gigantic rail artillery piece.

...
He was making a comparison, as in, a double-barrelled tank will not be moved around much, or used much, just like the Paris gun.

Learn2Simile.