Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.
- Thread starter Duke Nukem
- Start date
To be fair, the proposed Swedish Strv. 2000 was quite a bit smaller than any other 140mm concept, at only 52 tons. It also placed a high emphasis on mobility, being designed with a 1500-horsepower engine (i.e. equal horsepower to that of most other Western MBTs, but those other MBTs weigh 60-75 tons).
Double-barrel tanks don't actually make sense for numerous reasons, but one does have to concede that they look very, very cool.
Also, if you look at real-life tanks, you find that in the near totality of cases, the turret basket is not a completely enclosed cylinder like that; rather, it's a partial basket in order to provide access to equipment and/or space in the fixed hull.
Also, if you look at real-life tanks, you find that in the near totality of cases, the turret basket is not a completely enclosed cylinder like that; rather, it's a partial basket in order to provide access to equipment and/or space in the fixed hull.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Well, it's from one of the original Real Time Tactics games and it's basically a T-14 on steroids much like its smaller cousin, the Wolf.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
That's probably the main reason why the first prototype of 2S35 was double-barrelled
But then the lame asses in the procurement demanded that vehicle be practical, totally ignoring the power of the coolness factor
paulobrito
Well-known member
Are you talking about twin-barreled tanks?
The Versuchsträger 1-2 say hello.
Yeah, 2 barrels for a tank are impractical, because no tank really has them as a bottleneck in rate of fire, while they bring their own problems like weight and aim alignment. Loader, live or machine, capability, target acquisition and ammo reserve are much bigger issues for that.
In artillery it makes a bit more sense, but even then feeding ammunition to the thing fast enough to benefit is tricky, unless the artillery is mounted on a ship with a huge ammo magazine beneath.
So for it to be practical, either tanks have to go with small enough guns for the relative amount of ammo to be big enough (say hello to your nearest multi-barrel SPAA), tanks big enough to have this much ammo for big guns and moonlight as artillery occasionally (say hello to superheavies) or have some sort of exotic high performance gun technology with such a high thermal or metallurgical demand on barrels that the second barrel is needed just to let the tank fight long enough between barrel changes or cooling by dividing shots between the barrels.
In artillery it makes a bit more sense, but even then feeding ammunition to the thing fast enough to benefit is tricky, unless the artillery is mounted on a ship with a huge ammo magazine beneath.
So for it to be practical, either tanks have to go with small enough guns for the relative amount of ammo to be big enough (say hello to your nearest multi-barrel SPAA), tanks big enough to have this much ammo for big guns and moonlight as artillery occasionally (say hello to superheavies) or have some sort of exotic high performance gun technology with such a high thermal or metallurgical demand on barrels that the second barrel is needed just to let the tank fight long enough between barrel changes or cooling by dividing shots between the barrels.
Last edited:
BF110C4
Well-known member
And were replaced as fast as it was possible by the more practical M4.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
This is one of the cooler fictional tanks I have seen, I just wonder if it would actually be practical or not. The T-600 Titan from Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, It has the ability to walk over obstacles.
Doomsought
Well-known member
That is a fancy feature that might work on a scout tank, but is a terrible idea on a super-heavy like that one because that is a lot of ground pressure.
I think it would make more sense to have a active suspension system on the front of the tracks that lets you raise them over obstacles.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I just assumed the tank was probably built out of super light materials and was probably 40 tons or less.
It wasn't that bad
BF110C4
Well-known member
To be fair the Grant and Lee did serve well enough against the japanese. But the fact is that they were intended from the start as provisional models, and as soon as the M4 logistics were ready the priority was to replace it with its successor instead of modernizing it for support roles like the germans did with the Panzer IV after the Panthers and Tigers were made available as frontline units.
Still better then a lot of other tanks in the war
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
IMO the Pershing could have been the best tank of WW2 if it had a bigger engine. It definitely had a better hull design than any other WW2 tank.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Hello EMAC, I suppose. Whether rail or coil or whatever the fuck Weird Shit is still sitting in a shelf from the Cold War, virtually all of them have issues with heat buildup dramatically reducing the efficiency of repeated fire, so you have to considerably overbuild one way or another to sustain fire in any meaningful way.
Which makes it possible to be cheaper to split one extremely heavily built barrel carrying a giant cooling system with two cheaper ones that'll do the job with less conductor, coolant, capacitor, and ultimately generator.
Doomsought
Well-known member
If you suffer from barrel ablation, it would still probably be more weight efficient to have both barrels, and possible a third, emplaced on a central rotary mount rather than duplicating so much autoloader.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
I was just talking the barrel itself, not the full firing apparatus. And my concern was more the thermal load lowering conductivity, as that has a bunch of knock-on effects which can actually screw up firing sequences if a battle runs long enough. The longer you expect to run, the worse the problem gets, until it either fails outright or reaches thermal equilibrium. It's much more a consideration for autocannon implementations that have power supply be a more likely bounding factor than for full-size tanks, but it is a technical constraint that can crop up to demand a second barrel where it normally wouldn't come up.
(Edit note: Posted early)
Edit the second: Actual Addition:
I do believe it's at its most likely with coilgun designs, as they're a lot more sensitive to discharge rates and timings, as well as often relying on barrel-mounted capacitors to ease this which would mean charging while firing the other for minimized downtime, while railguns are primarily constrained by the barrel ablation issue due to the immense target velocities (and thus compression heating and mechanical wear) and electrical arcing that ensues whenever contact between conductor and projectile breaks.
Last edited: