You’d have a similar problem where your up/down aiming would be a problem. Unless you have a sight for a top barrel and one for the bottom barrel which wouldn’t be too hard
Because a revolver design is superior if you need to put more grenades downrange quickly.
You trade off a little bit in speed for a lot more magazine capacity. It's also a bigger maintenance burden.
There's a reason why the revolver replaced pepperbox designs.
G*rmans built an experimental casemated tank destroyer with two 120mm barrels with load assistance during the cold war to deal with ten thousand sovshit tanks pouring over the horizon, but the idea was dropped because it wasn't practical outside of very narrow ideal conditions.
Off-center recoil is a b***h, and would require a much more heavily built turret rotation mechanism to avoid throwing off the point of aim, or you'd have to always fire both barrels together.
Plus, aside from volume of fire uses like AA, two guns are usually less useful than one gun that's twice as large. Tank armor isn't really like HP in a video game; you either penetrate or you don't. Two shots that don't penetrate will inflict only trivial damage, while one shot that does penetrate will destroy the target. As a result, you want to put the biggest single gun on a tank that it can handle, to maximize the chance of getting that penetrating hit on the target.
Realistically, how would this thing work?
To those of you who haven't played SupCom: it's a heavy mobile artillery crawler. Once it sets itself up to fire, the barrels extend, then fire in a succession as they rotate. Essentially, an artillery revolver.
Swedes also made Mjölner as a cheaper option to AMOS.
It looks like it has four barrels, but the top ones are actually loading tubes for the autoloader - it literally brings the rounds outside and drops them in the barrels.
>"Gunner, right barrel ... FIRE!" >"Driver, right track forwards ... and halt" >"Gunner, left barrel ... FIRE!" >"Driver, left track forwards ... and halt"
repeat
That honestly sounds kind of janky, waiting for your opponent to move directly into your sights is just weird and there's no way those guns are stabilised enough in that mounting to fire accurately on the move.
In the technical and tactical test series, some advantages could be worked out: >Basic proof of the installation of two 120 mm smoothbore guns on armored vehicles over 40 t total weight. >No mutual interference when firing a salvo (double shot) >Proof of the applicability of the entire technology in the target passage procedure >Undercutting of enemy guided missiles in dodging mode, under favorable circumstances up to 0 % hit probability >Gain of knowledge on automatic loaders, guidance technology and concepts of casemate armored vehicles
These advantages were offset by a not inconsiderable number of disadvantages. Technically, the vehicle could have been realized, but the concept was too much geared to combat against massive tank attack. The weapon was less suitable for other purposes, mainly due to the lack of a rotating turret. Among other things, the following shortcomings became apparent during field trials at the troop school (KTS 2): >Reduction in hit probability in the event of severe ground unevenness >Insufficient stiffness of the hulls of both test carriers in the upper area >High load on the crew due to lateral acceleration of up to 6 m/sec2 during wedel travel >big problems during encounter combat >wide-ranging positions are required when fighting from cover (lateral direction) >insufficiently suitable for combat reconnaissance >completely unsuitable for combat in built-up or wooded terrain due to the external tube armament >Problems in commanding and maintaining battle formations and thus in the overall conclusion >The vehicle cannot be used universally in all types of combat.
In the further development of turret tanks, the supposed advantage of the higher hit probability of double-tube armament was completely offset by improvements in weapon and directional technology
because they haven't got enough money to purchase the upgrades to put the propaganda towers on them to heal your units, best just keep making these guys for the time being until you get enough hackers going for a steady income stream.
Would have to un practically huge. You don't just have two barrels you have two breaches, two sets of optics, more crew to load or even more space taken up by auto loaders. One big expensive less mobile target
A tank can only carry so much weight. Two guns instead of one for the same weight means that those two guns will be smaller than a single gun. Having one larger gun is better than having two smaller guns
Why just make another tank with the extra barrel?
Why not*
Why not just make an extra tank also with two barrels, what, are you running out of money or something lol.
Aligning the barrels to fire at the same spot is actually quite the b***h and a half.
Two barrels stacked instead of side by side
So what exactly can you accomplish with two barrels that you couldn't accomplish with one?
Two is better than one
>twice the weight of a single barrel
>twice as expensive
>twice the maintenance
>two guns taken out if the tank is hit
Two is better than one.
Two is one, one is none.
Double dakka
Shoot morer.
you can reroll your misses
>why would you want more dakka?
'umie hands typed this post
You’d have a similar problem where your up/down aiming would be a problem. Unless you have a sight for a top barrel and one for the bottom barrel which wouldn’t be too hard
I can only thik of one tank, the vt-1 that had two guns and they each had their own set of optics for that reason.
Why don't we have double barreled grenade launchers?
looks like the SPNKr from Marathon
Multiple chambers is superior multiple barrels. You'd be a pepper box having ass poor gay if this was the 1850s
Because a revolver design is superior if you need to put more grenades downrange quickly.
You trade off a little bit in speed for a lot more magazine capacity. It's also a bigger maintenance burden.
There's a reason why the revolver replaced pepperbox designs.
Because more isn't always better
because it's increasing mechanical complexity for no appreciable gains in effectiveness?
>tank gets disabled
>you've already wasted 50% of the barrels
mental omega is better
burn alive
seethe
G*rmans built an experimental casemated tank destroyer with two 120mm barrels with load assistance during the cold war to deal with ten thousand sovshit tanks pouring over the horizon, but the idea was dropped because it wasn't practical outside of very narrow ideal conditions.
No turret would hold those guns.
Off-center recoil is a b***h, and would require a much more heavily built turret rotation mechanism to avoid throwing off the point of aim, or you'd have to always fire both barrels together.
Plus, aside from volume of fire uses like AA, two guns are usually less useful than one gun that's twice as large. Tank armor isn't really like HP in a video game; you either penetrate or you don't. Two shots that don't penetrate will inflict only trivial damage, while one shot that does penetrate will destroy the target. As a result, you want to put the biggest single gun on a tank that it can handle, to maximize the chance of getting that penetrating hit on the target.
Not enough testosterone.
The combo of Finns and Swedes came up with the AMOS, a double barreled breach loading mortar.
wow that looks amazing
>Amos
Why stop at 2?
Why not 4? Or 6.
>Why not 4? Or 6.
I, for one, support the idea of six-barreled autoloading artillery vehicle!
Realistically, how would this thing work?
To those of you who haven't played SupCom: it's a heavy mobile artillery crawler. Once it sets itself up to fire, the barrels extend, then fire in a succession as they rotate. Essentially, an artillery revolver.
Swedes also made Mjölner as a cheaper option to AMOS.
It looks like it has four barrels, but the top ones are actually loading tubes for the autoloader - it literally brings the rounds outside and drops them in the barrels.
I was kind of hoping that it was going to be a rotary barrel automatic mortar.
short barrel tanks will always look castrated
Something about them looks cool to me. Especially that one Leopard variant, I think it’s the 2A7
ah, yes, the "grenadethrowerarmoredtrackedwagon"
>it is actually called that in swedish
you got a problem with the GRKPBV?
>ENTER
Would the VT1 have worked as a new Kanonenjagdpanzer instead of trying to replace the Leopard?
>"Gunner, right barrel ... FIRE!"
>"Driver, right track forwards ... and halt"
>"Gunner, left barrel ... FIRE!"
>"Driver, left track forwards ... and halt"
repeat
It was intended to automatically fire when a target crossed either of the cannons.
It was also supposed to zigzag across the battlefield.
That honestly sounds kind of janky, waiting for your opponent to move directly into your sights is just weird and there's no way those guns are stabilised enough in that mounting to fire accurately on the move.
They were high stabilized.
But the tech was never adopted so it probably wasn't that great.
There's information on it in German wikipedia
In the technical and tactical test series, some advantages could be worked out:
>Basic proof of the installation of two 120 mm smoothbore guns on armored vehicles over 40 t total weight.
>No mutual interference when firing a salvo (double shot)
>Proof of the applicability of the entire technology in the target passage procedure
>Undercutting of enemy guided missiles in dodging mode, under favorable circumstances up to 0 % hit probability
>Gain of knowledge on automatic loaders, guidance technology and concepts of casemate armored vehicles
These advantages were offset by a not inconsiderable number of disadvantages. Technically, the vehicle could have been realized, but the concept was too much geared to combat against massive tank attack. The weapon was less suitable for other purposes, mainly due to the lack of a rotating turret. Among other things, the following shortcomings became apparent during field trials at the troop school (KTS 2):
>Reduction in hit probability in the event of severe ground unevenness
>Insufficient stiffness of the hulls of both test carriers in the upper area
>High load on the crew due to lateral acceleration of up to 6 m/sec2 during wedel travel
>big problems during encounter combat
>wide-ranging positions are required when fighting from cover (lateral direction)
>insufficiently suitable for combat reconnaissance
>completely unsuitable for combat in built-up or wooded terrain due to the external tube armament
>Problems in commanding and maintaining battle formations and thus in the overall conclusion
>The vehicle cannot be used universally in all types of combat.
In the further development of turret tanks, the supposed advantage of the higher hit probability of double-tube armament was completely offset by improvements in weapon and directional technology
moronic on tanks but why not double barreled mortars? Like mortar carriers, not infantry mortars.
>IT IS MEANT TO SPREAD BOOLET BETTER
Why stop at two?
Why limit yourself to four?
Why don't you have double dick?
he better have 2 nose and 3 eyes
In the Malleus Malefecarum, the devil is said to have two penises.
why not single barrel tank that can fire twice as fast?
because they haven't got enough money to purchase the upgrades to put the propaganda towers on them to heal your units, best just keep making these guys for the time being until you get enough hackers going for a steady income stream.
I remember playing it thinking how good the RTS will be in decades to come
lmao
Would have to un practically huge. You don't just have two barrels you have two breaches, two sets of optics, more crew to load or even more space taken up by auto loaders. One big expensive less mobile target
they should use one inside the other
one 140mm cannon > two 120 mm cannon
If you mean mechanically, maybe, ballistically that's very complicated.
A tank can only carry so much weight. Two guns instead of one for the same weight means that those two guns will be smaller than a single gun. Having one larger gun is better than having two smaller guns
That's it. That's the reason
Just don't be poor.
The M3 Grant does exist.
There was also the Soviet T-35 but it's always multiple turrets or spontons, never multiple barrels per turret like in warships.
Why only double barrel?
I'm poastan it