125 replies to this topic

[Strategia]

rich19, on 23 May 2008, 16:14, said:

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.

You just basically described my favouritest tank evar.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 24 May 2008, 8:28, said:

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

That actually might be practical because it would deliver increased firepower, without the need for a larger barrel and therefore larger shell, and hence making the artillery piece incompatible with ammunition types that may be more standardized.

[CommanderJB]

Aiming would probably be hell though because over any considerable range shots from each barrel would land in different places. Might be good for saturation fire (which is after all what Soviet/Russian artillery is best at and very well known for) but for precision work you're going to need something else.

[Penguin_Pyromaniac]

For precision work, you're going to need guided rocket artillery.
Which almost always have multiple "barrels."

Edited by Penguin_Pyromaniac, 25 May 2008 - 03:10.

[The Wandering Jew]

I do not want to throw cold water on the subject, but I will.

It appears that all armed forces did not continue the oversized tank project the Germans initially made (WW2) due to "feasibility" issues. If it were successful, maybe the Russian did made an Apocalypse Tank.

1. Bulky
2. Expensive
3. Very-slow
4. Very vulnerable (if the Abrams, Black Eagle, Le Clerc, etc. were already vulnerable to shaped-charge portable missiles, why not these mammoth tanks?)
5. Mammoth tanks are like Dreadnought-class battleships of the 1940's. Guess what, we have aircraft carriers.
6. Mammoth tanks are like fixed position turrets (and history tells us time and again that no fixed position artillery/guns can stop a highly mobile division.) So the same thing applies to oversized tanks.
7. But mammoth tanks look damn good. "It is day of judgement..."

[partyzanpaulzy]

Maybe one day, with lighter material, but better armored, nuke/fusion/some-other-powerful fuel, normal speed, AA defence, double cannon and using skyscraper transport ... Who knows? There's also psychological effect and fear of enemy tank crew from being smashed by mammy's tracks.
... but this is devastator then! ("Excavating the core"! )

[Eddy01741]

Please refrain from posting on topics like a month old or later, that is what we call necroing. But then again... there is so little activity in this section of the forum anyways (the warfare section) that it was probably still on the front page of topics anyways, so i guess it's alright....

Anyhow, point is, too bulky, too vulnerable. You put on another gun, you need a larger turret to accomodate for the space (seriously, the recoil of the modern guns already gives the gunner very little leway when its firing), also it has to be more sturdily mounted on, too much recoil. So basically, you make the turret bigger, which makes the tank heavier and its profile bigger and taller. The tank then needs more armor to accomodate for its large turret, which makes it heavier, which requires a larger more powerful engine. It's a stupid god damned circle which led to tanks like the Maus from germany in WWII. In reality, germany was better off only making Panzer IV tanks than experimenting with super heavy tanks. I mean, the Russians had a good, solid backbone tank in the T-34, and they crushed germany good.

The point? Nowadays everything is heavy enough, if you make heavier, slower, more expensive tanks, what do you say to the public when they get raped by attack helis? Great use of tax dollars there.

[tank50us]

I may have only been Infantry, but I have poked the idea around in my head about double-barreled tanks, and I have thought it through.

Turret Design and Crew Accomidation = Likely these tanks would only have a two mand crew, with the turret housing a magazine for the shells, since most modern tanks have 'blow-out' hatches incase the ammo goes, that doesn't become a major issue. Also, the guns would have to be mounted on the sides of the turret, but you can use a recoil damper that reduces the overall force of the gun firing.

Fire-power = Armament is a major concern, since what ever gun is chosen, you have to keep well supplied with ammo. the auto-loader can be a new design, one that loads the rounds much like a machine gun loads a round, with the ammo on a belt system. Natrually this may expose the ammo, or force the guns to be mounted outside the tanks turret, which ofcourse serves as a double edged sword, yes you risk losing the guns in heavy combat, but at the same time, if built for that possability, you can make the guns mount a modular design, so that IF you lose the gun, you can quickly replace it.

Engine and fuel = big concerns, fuel being the biggest. if you went with a C&C Mammoth, you'd have the equivelent of a mobile chernoble, not good for infantry who rely on that tank for fire-support. Instead of a high-tech fision/fusion engine, use a simple multi-fuel engine that delivers plenty of power. Being a multi-fuel engine, you can fill'er up just about anywhere, and with just about anything. Making the fuel problem somewhat smaller. However, if you make the tanks drive system like that of a diesal locomotive, in that the engine supplies power to a bunch of smaller electric motors, you could still move the behemoth without burning much fuel, since the engine is simply in idol the entire time (the US Army Stryker uses a similer set-up).

My 2cents, expand on what is known too work, this keeps the cost, maintenence, and even training down on such a unit. Can I solve all the problems? If I could, I would've designed a working prototype on my own, but since I can't I'll just stick with my studies at ITT.

and to future posters, ask yourself, is it possible, and if so, IS IT PRACTICLE

[CommanderJB]

It still doesn't address the issues of accuracy caused by the off-centre placement of the guns on the turret. The recoil effects and placement would mean that you have to re-aim each gun after each shot, meaning you lose most of the rate of fire advantage, not to mention it's sheer overkill anyway since one tank gun is either useless or more than enough for all current armoured combat situations. And no matter whether the engine was multi-fuel or not, the sheer weight means that this thing is never going to be air-transportable, is going to have serious battlefield mobility issues and will generally eat up fuel faster than just about any other battlefield vehicle around, which is (especially in the current environment) very uneconomical and unsustainable and results in huge logistical challenges.
Basically I just can't see what you actually gain with an extra gun. It's that simple. And even if you do gain something, it's never going to be enough to outweigh the downsides.

[Zero]

[indent][/indent]Okay, okay boys and girls, I am not stupid, I know things don't work in real life like they do in games, but I also know what is possible and what is not. To start off, propulsion, no matter how you look at it, they could've propelled this thing, they had enough to power to propel the P.1500 Monster, during WWII (although it would've been expensive) and let's face it, this is would only weigh (at most) 200 tonnes, not a massive 1500 tonnes, it would be expensive, but you could get a good 20 MPH out of it. Second, price and weight, this would save on the costs and weight because it would put two tanks in one, making it harder to destroy, and able to supply more firepower. Next, survivability, NO tank can possibly survive in combat today, our RPGs and aircraft are too good, this would apply to the WWII and early Cold War days, when everything was bigger and better because it had to be. Next, the splitting turret, not easy, but possible, I didn't mean to just rotate the cannon but to move the actual half of the turret (by that I mean that the insides can revolve and accommodate to the revolution, the gunners and loaders would stand on the moving edges while the commander, pilot and ect. would be more towards the center, or below the turret. No matter how you look at it, this would be a huge, heavy, slow tank that packs a 2 punches and a half.

[indent][/indent]I state it again, it is difficult and expensive, but technologically possible (even with WWII tech.) so stop saying it can't be done! Also, note the ever, this applies to every era since the beginnings of good old fashioned armored tractors to the kickass Challenger II (I'm American, but I love the brits too, and let's admit it, the Challenger's the best there is. Russia kicks ass too!).

[indent][/indent]As for modern use..... we could swap out the fuel engine for a much more powerful hydrogen/diesel muti-jet turbine engine, in fact you could use two-yes two- of them and use the hydrogen part to help with the gas problem (in other words, a hybrid tank, like a Prius but with two huge barrels, treads, and a high caliber mg-or simply, a Prius for a real man), hell, you can even slap a jet engine on it to help it jump over obstacles (*joke* just saw the new batman and loved it and the tumbler-again!). Recoil could be compensated by a set of good old springs, and dampening, sponge-like materials. Also, for accuracy, you could A: fire one cannon at a time-with half the time in between shots due to reload-, or B: sync them so that they fire simultaneously, allowing only milliseconds in between shots, there will be almost no recoil in between shots, or C (my personal favorite as a Metal Gear fan): since it will probably only take a few decades to make it feasable, why not use a railgun which will make relatively no recoil (but the heating, will be a problem, but I give it 15 years to get fixed) like the Metal Gear Rex, although the power needed may call for much more powerful generators although that's easy enough to fix. Speed, add an engine- as for range, well, the Hydrogen/Fuel combo should work well enough and give it more than satisfactory range. Survivbility vs airboys?....... Give it SAMS (like stingers)? And while we're at it, why not add a 30mm cannon to help against armor and- as I like to call them- the meat puppets (cynical laugh) (just a joke, although it'd be cool). Again, for the 2 way shooting, it would be very complex bu get a few good engineers in the same room and they'll have it down within a month.

"Boku shinsei kai no kami da!" Thank you and have a nice day. *does an evil Light Yagami laugh, eating potato chips with my left hand and writing names in my note with my right.......dramatically!*

Edited by tskasa1, 05 August 2008 - 14:59.

[Zeke]

If you've heard of the Yamato class battleship then you'll know why mammoth tanks aren't practical in today's battlefield.

Bigger isn't the way to go, these days, smaller and more efficient is the new trend.

With various improvments to Armored Infantry fighting vehicles, the tank is becoming more and more obsolete.

I imagine in the future, the only place you'll see "big fucking guns" are in heavy artillery.

Edited by Zeke, 05 August 2008 - 15:44.

[tank50us]

just make sure you feed those poor engineers

Anyway, you do bring up a good point, you don't have to fire simo, which my plan doesn't do anyway (the recoil would rip the turret off!) you fire one, and while it reloads you fire the second. granted, my design is made for a game I'm planning, where the tank was develouped to deal with the 7 to 1 threat ratio (and that's just MBTs!) from long range. Sure modern tanks can do it, but the best even the Abrams can do is about 3 before shells start coming back (while not accurately, shells landing neer you will still persuade you to move from that spot!) this tank, could have two more shots in the air just as the first is striking home. And with a computerised fire-control (all the gunner/commander has to do is point, and shoot, and the shell hit's its inteded target, works like the leed-computing gunsight on most fighters), the tank can tag targets from the same distance the Abrams can, with no problems. This tank also has a 360 screen inside the turret (where the commander/gunner sits), allowing for full 360 degree visability, and aiming.

As for it being air-trasportable... it takes up about the same space as a standord Abrams, (the hull is a little longer to accomidate the engine, and fuel tank), and it wieghs in at rougly 73tons, well within the 84.5 ton cap for the C-17. Trucks however might have a harder time, but whats designing a new truck anyway. (either that, or upgrade the old ones to carry more weight)

[Eddy01741]

My simple question, why make one slow, lumbering tank with 2 guns instead of two faster tanks, which are smaller (smaller target) and faster, which can flank the enemy (one goes head on,the otther goes around to the side or behind). Two barrels is simply not needed. Why double the firepower of a tank when you could just get two tanks each of which have half the firepower of the dual barreled tank instead.

This is like why the Shermans won over the tigers. Superior numbers, cheaper production, faster speed, more reliable, less complicated.

[Zero]

Zeke, on 5 Aug 2008, 15:43, said:

If you've heard of the Yamato class battleship then you'll know why mammoth tanks aren't practical in today's battlefield.

Bigger isn't the way to go, these days, smaller and more efficient is the new trend.

With various improvments to Armored Infantry fighting vehicles, the tank is becoming more and more obsolete.

I imagine in the future, the only place you'll see "big fucking guns" are in heavy artillery.

Did you read what I wrote? I specified I meant back in the days of old, when bombs where inacurate, true the Yamato was sunk for being huge, but these tanks are a hell of a lot smaller, harder targets for the already hard to aim bombs. Moreover, don't forget the Yamato is famous for giving an ass load of kickass before it went to meet the great shipyard in the sky, back then because they lacked portability and accuracy, bigger was better.

Also, as for the dude about 2 lighter tanks.... the point of this tank would be to make one heavy tank for the cost of 1 and a half, in other words, if 2 Tigers cost 100 million, this would cost 150 million and would be able to take more punishment albeit it too has it's limits. Also, only an idiot would only make these. As always, you would need lighter tanks to be able to maneuver and attack while these would take hits for them and attract attention, that's a given in warfare. Alsoo, in wide open fields, more power means more kills at long to medium range

To reitarate, stop talking about aircraft, aircraft PWN everything, especially stealth ones, back in the olden days, aircraft were almost useless against tanks in those days. Also, in wide open fields more power means more kills at long-to-medium range, as well as in chokepoints.

Also, for the dude making the game....cool! tell me when you have it done, I'd love to try it!

[Sharpnessism]

Already said, it will crush the roads it is on AND if it breaks down, a dual barreled tank will be too complicated to fix.

In combat it has the same vulnerability as 1 regular heavy tank with 1 barrel. Even with more armour it will be easily destroyed. And what is the point of a dual barreled tank? It's only purpose would be to destroy other tanks. And tank vs tank, 2 heavy tanks would whip this 1 super heavy tank.

[Zero]

Sharpnessism, on 5 Aug 2008, 17:28, said:

Already said, it will crush the roads it is on AND if it breaks down, a dual barreled tank will be too complicated to fix.

In combat it has the same vulnerability as 1 regular heavy tank with 1 barrel. Even with more armour it will be easily destroyed. And what is the point of a dual barreled tank? It's only purpose would be to destroy other tanks. And tank vs tank, 2 heavy tanks would whip this 1 super heavy tank.

I retaliate with this: In modern days (well, near future actually), we can use strong electromagnetic waves to actually levitate the vehicle, in other words an electromagnetic-based anti-grav drive which will work over sand, and if powerful enough (theoretically), most terrains. As for maintenance...... probably true but then again, that was a given to begin wih.

[Eddy01741]

You do know that in order to use electro magnets in a similar fashion to a maglev train, you need permanent magnets in the ground. Yeah.. good luck on that, have some magnet layers in front of the heavy tank? Yeah, that's reasonable, once they get destroyed, its an easy mobility kill.

No military vehicles use hover or electromagnet technology as their form of transport, they definitely won't start with a super heavy tank.

[CommanderJB]

I have seen an interesting proposal that produces lift from an extremely powerful microwave emitter focused through a special waveguide, but it's not going to be ready for a tank for a good fifty years or more, if ever. These things are ridiculously heavy.

Okay, let me just re-state my primary problems with the super tank:

(1) Need for firepower. With two guns, you get more shells out. Great, fine, all good. Why do you need more shells out? One shell is good enough for most targets, providing it's properly aimed, and two guns are hardly going to be easier (or even as easy, see point two) to aim than one. For the times when one shell isn't good enough, then saturating the target with shells still isn't likely going to give you the advantage that outflanking it with a second tank, likely produced for less in total than the cost of one super-tank. Please, I'd be fascinated to hear of scenarios where you really need a better rate of fire than one every three to four seconds, because I just can't think of any.

(2) Aiming. Firing both barrels simultaneously will produce a horrific shock to the turret and likely damage the bearings and tracking gear unless they're in extremely heavy mountings, a problem from both a weight (read:mobility/efficiency) and target tracking capability point of view. Thus this is effectively off the cards. So you're left with firing one at a time. Granted you'll likely be able to do this faster than a single tank, but even so, each time the gun is fired the turret and vehicle will slew slightly in that direction. This means that there has to be some sort of system to compensate for the gyroscopic effects of firing, which in turn means more expense, more complication and a longer production time, and it also means that to re-aim the gun will probably take another second or so. So there's a very sizeable chunk of your rate of fire advantage gone.

(3) Vulnerability. How do you intend to protect this monster? Once the enemy gets a bead on it, and at this size and speed they're going to, it's as good as dead. They will instantly be able to order an aistrike on it which it is guaranteed not to survive in almost all cases, no matter what you armour it with; a 1500kg armour-piercing laser guided bomb, potentially hundreds of unguided rockets or a salvo of supersonic ATGMs to name just a few of the likely payloads leave little room for argument here. It's not going to be able to weather more than a normal tank unless you armour-plate it to match, and even then you can't protect it against the majority of threats it's now more vulnerable to.

(4) Mobility. You could theoretically use two giant gas turbines or some other equally powerful method of propulsion to attain comparable speeds to a normal tank, though it's unlikely you'd match it, but the tradeoff is a corresponding rocket in fuel consumption. For these things to carry enough fuel to give them the same unrefuelled range would be to turn them into rolling fuel tanks, never mind the logistics of then resupplying them - if they end up like the Abrams in the Gulf Wars, which were constantly outrunning their support vehicles, then they haven't got to ability to make it on their own. If you don't do this, you're left with something which will go 40km/h tops and probably won't be able to get to the battlefield on time, let alone fight effectively when it gets there thanks to its larger sensor signature.

(5) Transportability. Much modern armour depends on getting something else to carry it to the front, usually by aeroplane, ship, or occasionally train. So, let's examine each of these in turn; Air: You're maybe going to get one on the largest planes out there, probably not if you've decided to armour it to match its greater vulnerabilities (keep in mind you're not only doubling the armament weight, but also potentially the engine, transmission, fuel and ammunition weight too). That's just plain not economical. So scratch that. Sea: No real problems here, freighters have a lot of deck space (though soe - probably most - will require reinforcing; having said that they probably would anyway). Rail: Firstly, you have to hope it's actually going to fit on a rail carriage. Next you have to make sure the rail carriage will carry it; you'll probably need a specialised one for both of these reasons, which means this will be a very limited option. So not a lot going for it here, either.

(6) Weapons. Putting more weapons on something, contrary to popular belief, doesn't actually make it more difficult to kill. Stingers or similar MANPADS adaptations won't even touch jets for the most part, and anything else adds ridiculous weight and expense, and needs a radar. Coaxial/separate chainguns, much the same story; what more do they do than the main gun, exactly, for all the systems, fire control, mountings and ammunitions problems they bring? There's a reason they have dedicated anti-air vehicles, and it;s not because there's a practical way to make tanks do it themselves.

Look, it's just not viable. Anything you add adds problems with it. There is no advantage. It's heavy, costly, no less vulnerable, less mobile, less efficient - and for what? One or two seconds' less delay when firing shells, probably. That's all.

Edited by CommanderJB, 06 August 2008 - 03:57.

[Zeke]

tskasa1, on 6 Aug 2008, 2:46, said:

Sharpnessism, on 5 Aug 2008, 17:28, said:

Already said, it will crush the roads it is on AND if it breaks down, a dual barreled tank will be too complicated to fix.

In combat it has the same vulnerability as 1 regular heavy tank with 1 barrel. Even with more armour it will be easily destroyed. And what is the point of a dual barreled tank? It's only purpose would be to destroy other tanks. And tank vs tank, 2 heavy tanks would whip this 1 super heavy tank.

I retaliate with this: In modern days (well, near future actually), we can use strong electromagnetic waves to actually levitate the vehicle, in other words an electromagnetic-based anti-grav drive which will work over sand, and if powerful enough (theoretically), most terrains. As for maintenance...... probably true but then again, that was a given to begin wih.

first you say "in the old days" now your giving it futuristic mag lev? WAT?

[General Kirkov]

Dr. Strangelove, on 24 May 2008, 20:16, said:

CommanderJB, on 24 May 2008, 8:28, said:

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

That actually might be practical because it would deliver increased firepower, without the need for a larger barrel and therefore larger shell, and hence making the artillery piece incompatible with ammunition types that may be more standardized.

Thats an artillery vehicle in service in the Russian armed forces.


As many of you have pointed out you can build a mammoth type thingy, maybe even make it acceptable to drive at medium speeds 45 MPH (It's doable) but neither Air or Sea Transport would be able to get it overeas, unless you make a dedicated loading dock to maneuver the beast onto a ship and then another location to unload it, fuel it and a mobile maintenance station.

Also most tanks don't follow roads (too easy to get picked off.) And in a hostile country who gives a shit if you fuck up their roads. Most Military vehicles are capable of dealing with that and before you guys bring out the we don't want to piss off the locals, this tank would probably be used in the oppening shots of a war anyways.'

-edit spelling and probably still have some mistakes.

Edited by General Kirkov, 06 August 2008 - 14:53.

[Zero]

I'm saying the old days, but I'm giving a modern alternative. Also, about about the maglev, it would work pretty easily over sand because sand contain quite a bit of iron (or some other magnetic metal, can't remember which one) and when you face the fact that a lot of today's wars happen in sandy places (terrorists), a huge, behemoth, flying (hovering) tank would be more than sufficient in psychological warfare (and since they have no airforce........). Also, the dude about the same problems again, I answered quite a few of those. The real problems would be Aircraft and roads, but then again we thought that aircraft carriers would not be very useful during WWI and just look at modern warfare and explain to me what the single most powerful, important, intimidating, and groundbreaking (non nuclear) weapon on earth.

[Eddy01741]

Iron doesn't=magnet, it isn't god damned magnetized. It is magnetic, meaning that iron will stick to a magnet, so if you try to do that, then you'll just have an incredible amount of sand stick to the bottom of your tank. You need real magnets, and god damned strong ones to lift a 100+ton tank off the ground (because lets face it, the abrams already weighs over 70 tons, adding armor, a larger turret, another gun, and a larger engine will put it over the top).

[Zero]

well, I did state that you need a pretty god damn strong magnet, and also, it is possible to use the magnetic properties of sand to your advantage, although I'm not 100% sure how, I've been told it's possible, yet again I state: Power will be the single biggest problem (especially with the railgun- that is if you want to fire both guns off at once without ripping the turret off).

Oh! and thanks for the tidbit about the roads, I completely forgot, most tanks don't use roads, except when they're parading, too vulnerable. Another mobility idea, give it an air cushion to ride on (like a hovercraft) and cover the sides with iron plates, haa-haa-haaaaa-haaaaaa! (just kidding, although I wonder if it'd work). Also, you could carry these on ships, it'd just be hard to load, but then again...... it takes a day or two to load up a ship anyways. And thanks even more for the defense bit, put these on a defense force and blam! Normandy all over (joke again). But seriously, these'd kick ass on defense.

And one last tidbit, everyone kept saying that adding the second cannon and mechanical aspects would double the weight, no where near that. You just add the cannon and mechanics, not another turret. Without the base (or the bottom part that has the treads and very heavy engine and fuel tank), and the another turret, I say it'd only add 1/4-1/3 of the tank's total weight. In other words, the Abrams is about 63 tons, this'd weigh about 84..... not too much considering the fact you made a tank with the firepower of two and the cost of one and a half (maybe less, but most of the money-I think- goes into the electronics and the main systems, especially in the turrets. Also, this would never be a main battle tank, it'd be an assault tank, meant to be used with faster tanks and able to attract fire from some other tanks, and also fire on other tanks as they focus on the smaller ones. Please don't use my referencing to Abrams to mean this has to be modern tech, I'm just using a modern, well-known tank as an example.

Oh, and almost forgot, one small misconception- Germany didn't lose the "tank war" just because it's tanks were bigger, better, and pricier. The real problem was production, Germany had more than enough money to make tanks well into the end of the war (although fuel was a problem since Germany had no oil fields on the motherland and no one wanted to import and all it's conquered oil-rich land was gone, it was just because they couldn't make them fast enough. Germany chose people who were unskilled to build tanks while we used people who were used to building vehicles- like cats- to build ours (I think Ford built the Sherman, but I'm not sure) and although they were more complex than our tanks, the Germans took too long to build them.... a lot of them didn't even have all the right machines they needed, that is really what caused the German tank force to be small, not really price, just as much lack of equipment and a bad choice in who built them (although Hitler did make a bunch of stupid mistakes such as invading Russia before finishing of G.B. and not telling Japan to wait to attack America- or even following the treaty with the Japanese, as well as choosing to stop the day bombings of Britain and switch to night, the dumb fucker could've won the war, but thank god he didn't or I'd be dead by now (I'm Dominican and neither blond nor have blue eye, nor am white-although I am light skinned).

edit- forgot to factor in engine and armor, that'll bring up about 4 to 10 tons. Sorry (0_0)! Oh, and I would draw some schematics for you but I suck at art (especially drawing) and I'm no good at using CADs.

Edited by tskasa1, 06 August 2008 - 16:59.

[Eddy01741]

I don't see how iron sand would help. you need powerful as hell permananet magnets on the ground, and then an even more powerful electromagnet (or acgtually, a super-powerful series of electromagnets) to propel the tank, do you see how illogical this is?

Plus, i'd probably rather have a coil gun (aka gauss gun) than a railgun if i had to mount one on a tank. Doesn't erode the barrel.

It'd be more than adding 33% more weight for a dual barreled tank. The M1A2 abrams weighs 69 tons, the M1A2 SEP weighs even more (DU isn't light). For a dual barreled tank of equal protection you'd need a turret almost twice as big (to make space for two guns, ammunition, and more crew to use the guns.). Then afterwards, because of the bigger, heavier turret, you'd need a larger hull to accomodate it, hence, making it heavier, then a larger engine to propel, which ismore weight (and more gas guzzling). If you were to use a maglev system, you'd need a monster of an engine to generate the energy, as I don't think a battery could power it for longer than a minute.

Overall, it'd porbably be more like 66-100% more weight for a dual barreled tank. Also not to mention that you could have two single barreled tanks of equal protection for half the price, which are also faster an d guzzle less gas, see where i'm going here? Also, if you have a small quanity of very heavily armored, super powerful tanks, it is still just as vulnerable to aircraft, so just less targets for them to kill. So therefore, with each missile/bomb they use, they are chewing up twice the money, and more crew members as well, a big waste in general.

[Zero]

actually, if you had a way of magnetizing the ground, you could very easily float over it, I have a theory on how to do that but that's different.