Why Are There No Double Barrel Tanks?

Thanks to World of Tanks for supporting the channel and my ability to cover this interesting topic. Download World of Tanks for free today and get a special bonus: tanks.ly/49lMC1a

You point out all the logical reasons why double barrels are inefficient and counterproductive, however people always forget the soft factors of how much I want one and how cool they are.

Cons: -Weight -Procedure for loading ammo -Ammunition conservation -Dubious utility of two underpowered cannons vs one that can penetrate armor -Dubious utility of two powerful cannons that could both penetrate armor, but are both heavy and take up more space -Complications with aiming either using set convergence, parallel barrels with two offset sights, or a complicated and vulnerable convergence/rangefinder combo -Need for heavy duty turret motor... possibly suffering from slow rotation and elevation -If lost or damaged you are losing two large, expensive guns instead of one Pros: -It's cool -Aint no kill like overkill I'm pretty sure these concerns were somewhat answered by the concept of adding a coaxial sub-cannon for lighter targets.

The key answer to the double barrel tank, is the fact that if you have the space and weight for 2 small guns, you can fit one bigger one.

Even from the earliest ages, the quest for more Dakka is unending

In the case of the U. S. Heavy Tank M6, I believe the inclusion of a coaxial 37mm was intended as an ammunition conservation measure. The 37mm M6 was a vehicle-mounted variant of the M3 towed anti-tank gun. As such it was designed to fire solid-shot AP rounds and anti-personnel canister (e.g. the Marines in the Guadalcanal campaign). The Ordnance Branch believed the 37mm would be more frequently used than the 3-inch M7 gun, given the AFVs used by the Wehrmacht in France in 1940 and in the ongoing battles in North Africa. The envisioned targets of the M7 were fortified positions and, especially, German anti-tank artillery positions. Out of the 75 rounds of 3-inch ammo carried by the Heavy Tank M6, most would be HE suitable to such targets, plus a reserve of AP ammo in case the rare German heavy tank showed itself. The 37mm M7 gun had a supply of 202 rounds. Being small, these could be stowed in many locations within the tank. Most of these would be solid-shot AP rounds. However, canister rounds were also to be carried as means to deal with enemy infantry on the flanks or otherwise invisible to the bow gunner.

One fact that also makes it difficult for double barrel tanks to be effective is the aiming itself. When shooting at targets from longer ranges, there is a high likelyhood that shooting will cause one or both rounds to miss (crosshair/ sight is on target but the guns technically arent). When firing you have to adjust for each gun seperatly because of the distance between the 2 guns. If they are close to eachother the effect is less noticable, but if they are further away the problem becomes larger. Simply putting a sight on one side is difficult, having 2 is cumbersome having to switch and putting one in the middle might be difficult. I hope i explained it somewhat understandibly but in short: due to gun placement, aiming is made more difficult because you now have to adjust trajectory and distance between the sight and barrel for each gun seperateyl. (English is not my main Language so i do apologize)

In my younger days, I thought of a twin gunned tank for my fictional world. Once I learned more about tank design, I realized that a turret capable of taking the recoil of two guns... could handle a much larger one.

“The apocalypse has begun.”

You forgot about the soviet Mammoth / Appoclips tank for red alert if you are counting virtual double barrel tanks XP

The DBT was seriously discussed in tank design in the late seventies / early eighties. The reason was having a real fast follow up shot when the first one misses. We are talking about seconds after observing the first shot. Double firing would be a no go as the support structures in the tank would have been much, much to heavy. The final solution was laser targeting and computerized auto correction to increase hit propability.

Double barreled tanks, very impractical but by god do they look so cool. Before WoT even introduced double barrel tanks, I believe it was the Command and Conquer franchise the popularized it. From Mammoth Tanks to Apocalyse Tanks, and the Overlord Tanks.

There were a number of multi barrel anti aircraft guns but when it comes to anti tank guns adding a second barrel and all the other hardware only serves to make a vehicle larger, heavier, more complex and ultimately less combat capable.

In fiction we have the iconic Mammoth and apocalypse tanks of the Command and Conquer series. In addition to twin turrets, they use multiple independent suspension units. Which leads to the question of "how do four (or more) smaller track sections compare to just two large ones?"

When I was a kid Command and Conquer came out and my buddy and I would take turns playing on his computer… the reverence we had for the mammoth tank was magical lol just because 2 barrels!

The question is less 'why are double-barreled turrets impractical on tanks?', and more, 'why are they practical on warships?'. The answer is, they really weren't; rather, they were a work-around on issues of barrel size and loading of extremely large ship cannons. In the late 19th and early 20th century, when armored barbette turrets were introduced, the cannons were already approaching the feasible technical limits at which you could build artillery pieces, and while that technology did rapidly improve as the First World War approached, you still had a situation where a gun larger than 14"/355mm quickly became unwieldy to load and aim even with mechanical assistance. While much larger artillery pieces were possible, it wasn't really needed, as the existing guns could penetrate any practical ship's armor of the time. While the size of the guns did increase to 16"/381mm and eventually 18"/458mm on the Yamato class, the fact that these sizes were neither necessary nor practical in ship to ship combat meant that the focus came to be on volume of fire, range, and accuracy. As a result, ship designers turned first to multiple turrets, then to multiple multi-barreled turrets. By the time ship-borne artillery had reached its zenith in the early 1940s, carrier-based aircraft were making battleships obsolete anyway, and soon after that, guided missiles became sufficiently powerful, long-ranged, and accurate that ship's armor became redundant. Consequently, ship guns actually became smaller, designed more for point defense against air attacks and small watercraft than for ship to ship clashes. Tank guns have very different limitations than ship-borne weapons, mostly regarding weight and mobility. Unlike ship guns, practical tank guns never completely overmatched practical tank armor, and unlike a large ship, a tank has to be light enough to be able to cross bridges and other obstacles. A ship's turret could and often was larger than any practical tank ever could be. Trying to apply ship design to tanks simply doesn't work.

The Guns themselves are complex engineering......Having too many guns on one platform is like too many eggs in one basket. It's better to have 2 single barrelled tanks the one twin barrel from a tactical stance also, If one tank is lost you still have another gun, if a twin is lost that's 2 guns out of the fight. There really are a whole bunch of reasons why twin barrelled tanks aren't really a thing

Why? Because it's grossly inefficient. High rates of fire are the only reason for multiple barrels, and you're NOT going to get any higher rate of fire out of a tank main gun by doubling the weight and work needed to serve them.

Heres cone of arc answering the real important questions. Kudos.

They look soo cool in sci-fi genre because they look intermediating with the examples of the Apocalypes tank, Overlord tank, Mammoth tank and Grizzly tank from Halo.