Fallout Studios Forums

Dual-gun tank designed in WW2? (but never rolled into battle?)

nope these are experimental tanks based on the leopard 1/2

they are actually pretty modern
Edited by IPS, 20 August 2008 - 10:20.

Interesting, I just Googled it and turned up this:
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%...=en&ie=UTF8
It's a bit difficult to read because some of the key words don't translate properly, but skimming through it, it appears that it was designed in the late 60s to mid 70s as a concept vehicle halfway in-between a tank and a tank destroyer - indeed it does not have autoloaders, so the second gun is to ensure target destruction even if the first round didn't finish it off because it took some time to re-load back then. Basically it's got a very big engine and very heavy armour, but obviously has no turret and limited range in order to achieve this, so it's meant to go into high-intensity armoured combat and use its mobility and firepower to knock out specifically enemy tanks. So not as support-oriented as a tank destroyer, but not as wide-role as a tank either. In fact, the complete lack of versatility of the thing, combined with the fact that Leopard 2s and M1 Abrams were giving comparable performance, was the primary reason the project was scrapped.
Interesting, but definitely not a Mammoth Tank in any real sense.

Actually, I can't stop laughing because this is still going on! LOL! Seriously, this may sound like a completely propostrous idea, but in reality you guys have both solved and came up for arguments (sometimes even for the solution) for the tank's problems. Please keep in mind though, don't count aircraft as in today's warfare, planes pwn everything so they are not in question right now.

The idea for a double barreled tank isnt bad. They just need to come up with lighter and stronger materials to make it practical.

Dominator, on 20 Aug 2008, 14:36, said:

I agree exactly!! And no matter what, I think deep inside we all want to see one (although that may come from the fact most of us are C&C fans !

dual barreld monster tanks would be perfect for psychological warfare (just imaging such a monster crushing everthing in it's way approaching you =O) but for not much else...

If the thing that was crushing everything in its way coiuld only travel 10 mph, i wouldn't be afriad of it at all, blow out the tracks and its even more useless.

you whant to blow of tracks like that? *cough cough*

(oh and it would be 25 mph XD)
Edited by IPS, 20 August 2008 - 21:48.

die Ratte (real tank project - inspiration for mammy)


images are from http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/
Umm this page is also about other beasts like:

Dora artillery (had to be build on Ratte chassis)

Siege Bot - something like this should had Saddam against Iran
Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 20 August 2008 - 21:55.

Lol, those remind me of two things since they are so rediculously massive (c'mon, the caterpillar track setup in that first pic was over 3 times taller than the halftrack, that thing is massive, as in like... as large as your local convenient store+5 stories tall lol) and have similar tracks. They remind me of the space shuttle launch vehicle, and the eh... vehicle used in star wars (in star was IV) to sell droids.

It's an ex-Corellia Mining Corporation 'Sandcrawler' mobile mining operations vehicle commandeered by Jawas. Just can't let that sort of thing go, I'm afraid.

partyzanpaulzy, on 21 Aug 2008, 5:53, said:

Hey, remove the howitzer and it is the thing ridden by Jawas in Star Wars: A New Hope!

IPS, on 20 Aug 2008, 13:30, said:

That isn't scary. Today's weapons can blast a hole in any size tank.
An MBT moving at 100+MPH would be scary becuase you'll think "Shit!!! That thing is closing in fast!! We're screwed!!"
A double-barreled tank is possible but impractical. In war, quantity is often better than quality and mobility is better than firepower. There is such a thing as overkill.

It remembers me what said Stalin during WW2: "Mess on quality, main is quantity!!!"
Well if one day will be need to broke fortifications, some sort of mammys with panzer from boricum carbide and large dual cannons (nuclear fuel) would be good on this + psychological effect. :cyclops: On the other hand modern artilleries have homing shells, so they can pwn tanks before getting crashed. But if you want give tank nuclear fuel, you will need really BIG tank, so mammy is the option then.
BTW, you don't need the newest RPG to kill tank crew, you need just proper bullets to your AK-47, unless tank panzer is from better material than hardened steel (boricum carbide composites). I have heard some anti-armor bullets can shot through 1m of hardened steel (rail) without any problem.
Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 21 August 2008 - 15:41.

tbh I would rather make a regular sized mbt with dual 30mm bushmaster chainguns.

You could probably mount two bushmasters just on an IFV, I mean, the BMP-3 mounts both a 30mm auto cannon, and a 100mm rifled tank gun.

I'd rather just have a more mobile, lighter tank that has a better gun (longer range, higher accuracy, more muzzle velocity) so you can snipe other tanks from stand off range (which the abrams and challenger have already shown can be done in the first gulf war).

Otherwise known as the Mounted Combat System, right? Hmm. I'm definitely not sold on the MCS concept (low visibility, high speed, high firepower, active defence, light armour). All it would take is a reincarnation of WWII anti-tank rifles to completely annihilate these vehicles.

Well, yeah, the MCS is basically a modern day tank destroyer. I was more suggesting just get some god damned higher range guns in our tanks lol, with such modern FCS, a long range gun could snipe at standoff range.

CommanderJB, on 22 Aug 2008, 8:07, said:

I wager today's high caliber sniper rifle (12.7mm and upwards) can do the job just well.

I kinda doubt that a barret .50 cal could destroy a vehilce with armor similar to a bradley.

Them I would say you somewhat underestimate 'anti-materiel rifles'. They are after all designed to penetrate armour to knock out armoured units, munition dumps, communications sets etc. from extreme range. Keep in mind that against these, a vehicle's armour is only as strong as its weakest spot.

@^:
Is the "anti-materiel" rifle you are talking about is the portable version?
The problem with anti-materiel rifles is that the recoil is very massive for the shooter's part. Ouch!

And no, for a tank to become a "Tank Sniper", it has got to be the size of a Sentinel right here in ROTR, which is economically not feasible.

The Wandering Jew, on 22 Aug 2008, 20:02, said:

1. Muzzle brake, unique rifle design reduces recoil to somewhere comparable to a normal sniper rifle, at least for the M82/M107.
2. How different a combat soldier compared to his more stealthy, sniper counterparts? What a 'sniper tank' needs are a) new higher velocity, higher caliber main gun, 2) limited auxiliary weapons, 3) lower profile and 4) lighter armour because just like its human counterparts, this type of tank probably used a fair distance away from a combat zone, thus requiring less protection.
Edited by Waris, 22 August 2008 - 10:43.

The Wandering Jew, on 22 Aug 2008, 6:32, said:

No, it really doesn't. A tank sniper only requires one thing, a long range gun, so whether you mount the gun in hull like the MCS design, or make the tank as armored and huge as teh sentinel in ROTR, it doesn't matter, as long as you have that huge gun, it can still snipe tanks.

All i'm saying is that I'd rather have new tanks have better, longer ranged guns than use two inferior guns.