Multi turret tanks

>>28640088
>Are they just a big, barely moving target?

Yes. Even if they'd be able to move due some super engines that do not exist at the moment they have a high profile which makes them an easy target for more conventional MBTs.

File: hms_cs_ii_by_giganaut-d8vk0o6.jpg (231KB, 1320x604px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1320x604px

>>28640098
makes sense

File: o_i_ultra_heavy_tank_v2__front_by_giganaut-d463ayk.jpg (70KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1032x774px

no wonder i only have animated pictures

File: maus_fcm_f1_size_comparison_by_giganaut-d5jh2th.jpg (102KB, 735x1086px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 735x1086px

that's all i had folks

>>28640107
In modern warfare it is crucial that you see the enemy before he sees you. Thus a low profile tank with the same effective range as its higher profile opponent will always get the first shot. Thus more than likely winning the engagement.

>>28640088

Intresting concept, but ultimately a very flawed one. Having two turrets doesn't really mean double the firepower, quite the opposite really.

And before anybody tries: No, a remote weapons system is not an actual turret. So no current tank in existence is multi-turreted.

File: british-tank.jpg (73KB, 850x285px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 850x285px

Why did this design cease to exist? It's got a very low profile for a old tank.

Some of these are the weird not real vehicles giganaut makes when he is bored. The ones that were actually proposed designs were...
>>28640113
>>28640091
sort of kinda
>>28640095
>>28640097
although he took some liberties with it
>>28640127
and finally
>>28640146

>>28640312
Because of the poor suspension strength and the advent of turrets and better/more protective armor layouts.

File: FT_17.jpg (363KB, 735x600px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 735x600px

>>28640312

>Huge ass hull
>Guns with limited firing arch
>Dead-zones all around where no fire can be directed
>Instead of having one turret with one gun, you gave to guns that cost twice as much and cannot fire as effectively as one
>To aim the guns you have to turn the whole huge ass box around

Gee mister, I don't know.

Especially when pic related did everything more efficiently, was cheaper, more mobile and a smaller target.

>>28640312
Maybe good to have several smaller guns to shoot at people, not other tanks

File: t_101z_land_dreadnought_by_giganaut-d487xrx.jpg (150KB, 906x882px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 906x882px

>>28640336
I really liked giganauts stuff, except maybe the tank-heads with six pacs.

File: kv_4_mikhailov.jpg (143KB, 922x866px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 922x866px

>>28640356
Yeeeaah I went to him as a resource for the KV-4 design propositions, I generally stay away from his 'HAHA LETS SMACK SHIT TOGETHER' and 'my tankmen have bigger pecs than your tankmen' shit.

File: run_by_giganaut-d9bqvba.jpg (126KB, 1095x730px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1095x730px

>>28640390
I can't help but laugh when I imagine the dude sitting and drawing the abs to the abs to the tank smashing the furrys

>>28640356
>the tank-heads with six pacs
I'm intrigued

File: FatTurret.jpg (375KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1600x1600px

>>28640088
Not with the size of most modern turrets. Even if you somehow managed to stack up several tumors on a modern tank, it would just raise their profile and make them a bigger target.
>>28640312
Low speed, thin armor, no turret, apparently horrible ventilation. This tank was meant to protect the crew from small arms fire, shrapnel, near misses from artillery, and provide moving cover to help break through trench lines. It wasn't meant to fight other heavily armed and armored vehicles.

File: latest.jpg (438KB, 1550x1108px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1550x1108px

This thread needs more turrets.

>>28640088
You're the combine SPG's with MBT's/submerisble aircraft carriers/mechs/wheels are obsolete/missile tanks guy aren't you
Begone from /k/ with your foolish questions.

>>28640312
Its utterly and totally obsolete, that's why. We'd already worked out that turrets were better, look at advances in military ships.
I fucking swear sometimes, do you people think before asking stupid questions?

File: t_35.jpg (27KB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x271px

>>28640088
USSR
T-35

Could any one tell me what features makes a tank a best tank?

>>28640107
> apparently modern production line
> riveted construction
seriously what the fuck

File: GbgdEBE.jpg (438KB, 2048x1333px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 2048x1333px

>Challenger II has a crew of four

>Mark IV had a crew of EIGHT

Fuck that with a side of fries

>>28642088
> Good visibility/sensors to acquire targets & aim weapons at them
> Weapon(s) strong & accurate enough to overcome those targets
> Enough ammo to stick around in combat
> Communications good enough to coordinate with other units
> Size small enough, noise low enough, etc. to reduce detection
> Armour thick enough & other defences good enough to resist a reasonable amount of incoming fire
> Speed & range good enough to get where it needs to go
> Interior comfortable enough for crew (if any) to operate in
> Crew tasks simple enough to be performed under the stress of combat (see: tanks where the commander also had to load, etc.)

Like all open-ended question, tank design is about trade-offs with regards to the enemy you face.

>>28642209
So if we compare Al Khalid tank with Arjun tank. Which one you think is better?

>>28640312
It was originally supposed to have a turret but they couldn't get it working without being unstable. They knew it was shit.

as soon as we get AI behind the wheel - multiturret may have a comeback.

It will be able to scan around constantly, and there's no delay in issuing orders. Two turrets will mean simultaneous engagement of two targets, with no additional time spent rotating and aiming, or waiting for engagement cycle on one to end on first target, to switch for second.

I don't think it will go more than three though.

>>28642285
Except then you're using up space for a larger weapon, like all the other failures of multi-turret tanks

>>28642255
It's hard to say objectively without really deep research and trials. On the surface of things they are pretty comparable since both are very modern tanks with basically all of the trimmings. It's worth mentioning that the Al-Khalid is a little older whereas the Arjun is basically brand new; Pakistan has 500 Al-Khalids whereas there's only 100 or so Arjuns in Indian service.

They do have some differences in range, in armament, in defence, and more. One or the other might be easier or harder to operate; not having been in one it's hard to say. Crew training and ability to coordinate with air & infantry forces probably matters even more than mechanical differences if it came to open war, not to mention reliability and ease of logistics.

The only really safe thing to say at this point is that they are very similar, but Pakistan has more of them.

>>28642361
Thanks a lot for the info

>>28642450
I would add one thing though: the Arjun is a much, much heavier tank. That implies it has more armour, which means it may be able to shrug off a few more hits at bad angles, but people are talking about how new reinforced train cars had to be built to carry it, how it might bog down more easily in the mud, bridges might have trouble supporting it, etc. In a mobile war, that's a real problem that the Arjun would have to deal with that the Al-Khalid may not have to. Whether it actually matters depends on how & when conflict breaks out.

>>28642319

except for when you don't really need a larger weapon - that is, like, most of the time? or when you don't have crew, so you have all the space you want?

File: 1353016542238.jpg (218KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 500x388px

>>28642198
i wanna have a mbt design with unmanned turret and 2 man crew, commanders can be gunners too!

>>28640088
I need more cool looking fictional tanks that look vaguely historical or are from some alternate history.

I'm not wargaming. Honest.

>though I wouldn't be surprised if they add a hundred other tank lines and 20 additional tiers of imaginary tanks that are all OP....and the majority of which are Russian or German.

>>28642488
Ammo and the main gun take up a significant part of interior space. One imagines that a fully automated feed mechanism would probably also take up a lot of space as well.

Multiple small guns makes sense as secondary weapons, and if automatic ammo changing proves difficult then even multiple "primary" guns loaded with different kinds & sizes of ammo makes sense (think of a Bradley's autocannon plus a full size tank cannon), but multiple tank-killing guns is likely to never make a return simply due to not being needed.

>>28642488
>except for when you don't really need a larger weapon - that is, like, most of the time?

What the fuck do you think tanks are used for?

>>28642675
Nowadays since most operations are not tank-on-tank, they're often used against infantry in the open or in unarmoured structures & vehicles. So something more like an M242 Bushmaster autocannon with explosive rounds might be more practical.

>>28640312
For crossing trenches...

>>28642699
No, if they only needed autocannons they'd use recon vehicles and IFV's.

They used tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq because they needed tanks.

File: strv.jpg (710KB, 3029x1461px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 3029x1461px

turrets r gay

>>28642708
I agree that tank guns are needed for tank-on-tank warfare. But after the Iraqi tanks were defeated, the American forces used tanks in Afghanistan because IFVs etc. are just not as well protected as tanks, and that's important given the number of anti-tank missiles being thrown around.

If we're designing some kind of prototype AI-driven tank, then given the type of warfare that we've seen in the last twenty years, it might make more sense to design it as a kind light tank with good armour and excellent mobility but a smaller cannon since it'll mostly be handling soft targets, servicing targets designated by infantry.

>>28642485
Though I have heard that Indian military us reluctant to buy the arjun tank. Even though it is a good tank.
And also I got curious, in between T-90 tank and Al Khalid tank which one do you think is better.
I heard this from Indians and Pakis arguing with each other on this topic. And you can't understand what they are saying

>>28642825
*is not us

File: kEoVkgX.jpg (37KB, 508x372px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 508x372px

>>28642654
I have some bad ones saved, allright

>>28642825
Honestly the T-90 is up there with the other two. It's still a modern-era tank with modern capabilities, and the Indian models have been customized and upgraded, including cabin air conditioning, improved thermal sensors, better active armour, etc.

In terms of raw numbers, again it's worth pointing out that the Arjun is a good 20% heavier than the T-90 & Al-Khalid and it might actually be 20% better protected but that doesn't necessarily mean it's 20% more effective in every situation. Shots from the other two tanks can and will penetrate the Arjun in the right conditions. And moving the Arjun around does involve more work than the other two owing to its weight. But whether any of that matters or not depends on the circumstances in which it's used.

A lot of the military spending in Indian & Pakistan is based around a kind of arms & prestige race with the other. For the Indians, the Arjun being a "native" design is a source of pride to many But the T-90 is cheaper at about USD$4.2 each vs about twice that for the Arjun (since the Mk2 is still in development it's hard to say for sure). A lot of the reluctance to buy the Arjun can be put down to the knowledge that they could buy almost 2 T-90s for the same money, and they'd rather have more tanks at this point. It's probably fair to say that whatever the qualitative differences, the Arjun is not outright twice as good as a T-90, so it's hard to justify the price.

>>28642981
Interesting. Thanks a lot for the info

>>28642672

well multiple antitank guns were never the case, even on the old tanks. there was always one "main caliber" and few secondaries.

>>28640893
Why did everyone have such a hardon for turrents facing backwards? If you had to shoot enemy behind youre arse then I wager you have bigger worries to thing about.

>>28643152
Yes, but the secondary guns could usually penetrate the armour of light & medium tanks, though. e.g. the 45mm cannons on the T-35. Also even some heavy tanks of that era could be penetrated by repeated shots of such medium-sized cannons.

>>28643188
Tanks were sometimes imagined as land-based battleships. In addition to needing to shoot behind after crossing a trench (which is what tanks of that era were for), designers also liked to imagine the tank firing a broadside with all its cannons.

>>28643188
They didn't have rocket launchers then, so your main threats are going to be infantry tossing nades at close ranges.

I'm sure it was effective back then, and a tank with multiple 40mm turrents would be effective today too

File: 1449606198075.gif (3MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x180px

>>28640088
>>28640091
>>28640095
>>28640097
>>28640113
>>28640121
>>28640127

>>28642857
Gibe me. Please post.

>>28640088
Anyone have the Modernized Ratte or Ratte 2 drawing?

It might have been from deviant art or some other site.

>>28640312
The tracks are super vulnerable and the side-mounted guns meant it could only bring its full firepower to bear against targets directly forward.

>>28640765
Leave it for some autistic warhammer drone to chyme in.

>>28647955

>autism

Back to >>>/pol/

>>28648009
look im all for keep stormfront in stormfront containment board but you can call someone autistic on any board fuck off

>>28648009
That post had nothing to do with /pol/

Accusing everyone of being autistic is a /v/ thing.

Lurk moar, newfag.

>>28640088
Two turrets are feasible.
Multiple "drone" turrets are possible, unarmored though and externally mounted.

Anything like a land kreuzer is stupid. The only reason two turrets can work is because Anti Infantry turret sitting on the existing AV turret chassis.

>>28642761
What the fuck is that even for?

>>28650585
modern Stug

>>28640765
Eleven barrels of hell they said, this thing reaches quota 23

>>28640336
>>28640342
>>28640344
>>28640689
>>28640801
>>28642275
>>28642707

When I mean't same design, I mean taking the same concept and modernizing it.

>>28652881

Yeah now its totally reasonable. Everybody knows that trench warfare is the warfare of the future. Like totally. You're absolutely right, they need to get those badboys out of the museums and copy them to create a modern version. That will totally work. No tank in the world ever needs to go faster than 4mph. Lets just abandon all that has been learned about tank design in the past 100 years, the Landship Committee got it right on the first try.

With regards: a 12-year-old

>>28652951
>Landship Committee
Say what you want but "Landship" sounds 100 times better than "tank".
And "Landship Committee" is simply orgasmic to the ear

>>28643215

well even a modern tank can be penetrated around the back with a 30mm cannon.

File: FB.jpg (590KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1600x900px

>26 images
>nobody posted best tonk

>>28640312
>tfw reading stories about the conditions in WW1 tanks by their crewmen
It's fascinating how these crews even bothered to operate these tin cans.

File: 1414489495706.jpg (18KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 413x395px

>>28640107
>HMS Cabbage Stomper II

Why isnt there a tank with a high caliber gatling cannon? It couldnt carry enough ammo? Im sure that a 50-60 ton tank could deal with the recoil.

>>28653081
Because the bullets will be too small to do shit