Why have two cannons when you could have one cannon that's

Balance?

>>14680754

Put it in the chest or sling it under the groin.

File: argyros1.jpg (28KB, 480x222px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x222px

Balance.

File: The Heavy Gustav, Hitler and generals inspecting the largest-caliber rifled weapon ever used in combat, 1941.jpg (222KB, 1200x925px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1200x925px

>>14680754

Because Hitler tried that, once.

File: cool16.jpg (334KB, 1200x588px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1200x588px

>>14680790

...AND HE LOST TO SOVIET POWER SUPREME!

Since when could you do the larger one though
It doesn't really work that way except for the dom since it had really stubby twin barrel mortars
You can't go bigger than a Guncannons' without building a Xamel or Guntank.

>>14680754
With two barrels you can alternate firing to keep heat from building up too fast. Theoretically you can shoot twice as fast as a single barrel before overheating. Shooting both barrels at the same time creates sort of a buckshot effect making it more likely to hit a target.

File: Jim, go fuck up that thing over there.jpg (189KB, 714x893px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 714x893px

>>14680754
You already have your one cannon MS

>>14680754
Because bigger isn't always better especially when you consider things like ammo storage, reload time, and nonconsecutive firing.

>>14680754
Faster firing frequency

Why not build a Guncannon with one really big gun designed to fire a high-yield tactical nuke?

File: Uta6Uz3.gif (2MB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x252px

>>14680895

Why would anyone do that?

>>14680754
Why not scrap the robot completely and just focus on building a giant gun that shoots more guns?

>>14680895
We should give it a shield, too, to make sure it can survive being on the edge of the blast. Oh, and some big thrusters to get it into position and then retreat.

File: 1458348632796.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>14680966
>a shield
>to make sure it can survive being on the edge of the blast

I think you overestimate the dangers of nuclear weapons. The troops will be fine.

>>14680895
A weapon to surpass metal gear.

>>14680986
>duck&cover.webm

>>14680790
What exactly was he expecting to destroy with such a cannon?

You'll wreck a few city blocks but that's about it. It's terribly impractical as far as combat goes.

>>14681056

Hitler was obsessed with superweapons. IIRC he wanted his scientists to build some sort of lightning cannon inspired by the idea of Mjolnir.

>>14680754
Why only have one cannon twice as large cannon or two smaller cannons when you can have both? And also underarm cannons, waist mounted cannons, arm mounted cannons, and maybe a big chest blaster?

Leg cannons and foot cannons optional but nice too.

Why are the canons on the shoulder wouldnt that be really bad for the joints

File: Schwerer_Gustav_shell_by_Daniel_Perez_Sutil.jpg (1023KB, 1920x3840px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 1920x3840px

>>14681056

The Gustav was designed to smash the Maginot Line, but it wasn't ready for that fight, and in any case, the Germans wound up bypassing it anyway. Instead, they used it on the Eastern Front, where it saw some success at the Siege of Sevastopol--like smashing an ammunition magazine that was under both water and 10 meters of concrete.

File: G1Six-Gun_toy.jpg (38KB, 480x654px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x654px

>>14681200
Really, the only thing Six-Gun is missing is a seventh gun in his torso and maybe an eighth gun in his head.

>>14680986
>missing the joke this much

File: 1462008437232.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>14680754

With Mechs it makes sense because of balance.

On everything else, it's fucking stupid.

File: MammothTank.jpg (143KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 750x600px

>>14681514
>On everything else, it's fucking stupid.

Bitch, I will cut you.

>>14681080
That's what you get for having a nutjob as right hand man

File: bg.jpg (486KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1024x640px

>>14680754
Because it's already a large cannon... one in EACH side.

This of a robot carrying (and shooting) a cannon on EACH hand. I go into that here >>14681155

File: 773852659635.jpg (64KB, 459x307px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 459x307px

>>14681514
>On everything else, it's fucking stupid.

Germans nautical engineers think you're stupid.

File: Generals-China-OverLordTankVariants.jpg (588KB, 731x504px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 731x504px

>>14681514
>On everything else, it's fucking stupid.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF CHINA PROSPERING!

>>14680754
Recoil you faggot.

File: 05f18b7978faa450c318bde7dd780321.jpg (50KB, 736x490px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 736x490px

>>14682139
The reason why warships have often mounted multiple guns in the same turret is because hit probability is much lower for warships than it is for land based weapons because the ocean is continuously moving and is not a stable firing position. For literally centuries it was widely considered that 1 gun mounted on a coastal defense installation was equivalent in effectiveness to 3 guns of the same type on a ship. Also for an extremely long time there was no way other than simply adding more guns to actually increase hit probability.

Main armament also comprises significantly less of the total mass of the vehicle than in ground vehicles and ships have far more space available too.

For most vehicles carrying two of your main weapon is just worse than having a single, weapon because it adds extra weight, consumes extra space, increases complexity and the only benefit is an increase in hit probability.

Unless it's something like an self propelled AA gun, where the weight of the weapon is fairly low to begin with and hit probability is extremely important you're not just better off having one, better gun, you're better off just having one of the gun you were going to have two of.

Other exceptions include things like fire support vehicles and artillery that tend to fire indirectly, a number of those with multiple guns/mortars have been produced, but it's debateable whether or not they're actually better than a single gun, since the single weapon will almost always have a higher rate of fire.

File: Not this shit again.jpg (113KB, 850x544px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 850x544px

>>14681514
>Anon thinks naval guns don't exist.

>>14682708
>since the single weapon will almost always have a higher rate of fire
idk about that,
reducing the amount of guns won't necessarily reduce the reloading time for that particular weapon. if anything cycling/consecutive firing/reloading from multiple barrels/guns are often employed.
having bigger guns also gives the problem of logistics (ammunition, etc.) and whether or not the platform can safely support it.

File: theyshouldvesentaninvestigativejournalist.jpg (55KB, 424x186px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 424x186px

>>14680754
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

They still want a Puerto Rican to go, Corporal. Wanna take a ride?

>>14681080
Everyone was obsessed with superweapons then, and everyone was for the cold war, and everyone is now
Stalin wanted to build ridiculously long tanks, and also dog bombs

>>14681080
Has there been any interesting work done on lightning weaponry? Or even just in sci-fi?

I've only read about creating a tunnel through the atmosphere using a laser to create a nice path for a lightning bolt, but that's just a precision-strike use, and how damaging can a single lightning bolt be if the target is moderately protected, with I think a Faraday cage? I'm talking about, I dunno, triggering ten thousand lightning strikes at once within a single battlefield, perhaps prolonging the effect for some time. I need something more than just another means to a big explosion. Chemical explosives, nuclear fission, antimatter, it's all the same, I need a visually unique superweapon.

File: 1470946433089.gif (863KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 1440x1080px

>>14680754
To have better chance to hit your targets.

Alternatively, because it looks cooler with 2.

Also, watch 0083

>>14680754
Why have two arms when you could have one arm that's twice as large?

>>14681080
Hitler would've totally been mecha fanboy.

File: House_Demolition.jpg (115KB, 800x603px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x603px

>>14683960

Are you asking in a mechanical sense or a biological sense?

Because biologically, it's MUCH better to have two of something rather than one better version because you ALWAYS want a back up for when you fuck up and lose a part of your body. Which can easily happen out in the wild.

That's just evolution right there.

But in a mechanical sense it's always better to have one long, strong arm than two shorter, weaker arms.

Why do you think Construction equipment have single arms, rather than two?

Why not just make a giant gun and built more guns on top of it, then add a cockpit and have someone pilot it?

File: 62278_009Blastoise_Mega_Dream.png (110KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 300x300px

>>14680754
Why not both options?

File: 1446423879958.jpg (85KB, 250x400px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 250x400px

>>14680754
Why not just forget about making it a long range suit and predesignate it as a superior hand-to-hand unit?

File: 20110720175841!Hollander.jpg (83KB, 626x566px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 626x566px

>>14680754
Why build a robot with a cannon on it when you can build a cannon with a robot on it?

File: Gau-8.jpg (172KB, 1273x809px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1273x809px

>>14685009
Worked for the A-10...

https://track3.mixtape.moe/rngsjr.webm

>>14684032
>Why do you think Construction equipment have single arms, rather than two?

because they're not /m/ enough

File: Tesla_trooper_RA3.jpg (94KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x683px

>>14683235
I need a physicist to run the numbers on this idea, but even the simple guided lightning could be devastating if we used enough of it. Imagine this: instead of a single bolt of pew pew electricity powered by some store bought capacitor, we arrange an array of such lightning guns in a circular pattern powered by an industrial capacitor like the ones they use on electric cars. I'm taking about a Gatling lightning that could either be fired in which succession or discharged all at once. That's got to be capable of doing so heavy damage, right? Burn things that could be burned. Electrocute anything that isn't completely insulated. Fry anything that had electronic components. The sky's the limit!

>>14685203
Anon just go make a thread on /k/, stop trying to hijack this one with your shit ideas.

File: kot blini concerned.jpg (136KB, 600x660px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 600x660px

>>14681080

>yfw the only reason nobody says the Mericans were obsessed with superweapons is because one of theirs actually worked.

>>14684032

eh?

I don't think we have two legs just in case one breaks. I think we have two legs because only one leg is pretty useless.

vertebrate life is mostly bilaterally symmetrical because that's how shit worked out since fishes, and any mutation that fucks with the developmental biology for symmetry would fuckin rek a developing fetus. Shit like halibuts are a bit of an exception, although they do start out as normal little fish.

Evolution is not a telelogical process, it's a semi-random process based on random mutation and semi-random selection. It doesn't work towards a goal, and it can only work with whatever mutations happen to occur. As much as you might like your descendants to sprout feathery wings from their back so they can go around being a bunch of glorious winged faggots, shit just ain't going to happen naturally, probably no matter how much time you give it. You'd have to dig down pretty deep in the part of the genome that shouldn't be fucked with lightly in order to get vertebrates with six functional bony limbs.

>>14684032
>Why do you think Construction equipment have single arms, rather than two?
Backhoe operator here. It's because it takes two human arms to operate one vehicle arm. There are two control sticks which each have an up/down and a left/right function. One turns the cab of the vehicle left/right and uperates the first joint (the "shoulder") up and down, the other operates the second and third joints (up/down operates the "elbow" while left/right moves the "wrist" or bucket up and down).

File: IS-7.jpg (223KB, 1280x787px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1280x787px

>>14683222
>ridiculously long tanks
KV-VI-6 was a hoax anon, a well done hoax. But a hoax nonetheless.
IS-7 on the other hand was a superheavy on crack, meth, and every performance enhancing steroid in existence.

>>14685284
American super weapons made more sense on paper though
>okay we have a giant tank that needs its own supply line and a railway and can't accurately fire its huge fuck off cannon

vs

>A really, really, really, really big fucking bomb

File: ms-09k-2[1].jpg (53KB, 267x400px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 267x400px

>>14680758
Fuck balance.

>>14686143
>A really, really, really, really big fucking bomb

Well, that's the end result. But on paper it was more like:

>You know the stuff that stuff is made out of? Let's find a way to smash THAT.

>>14685284

The nuclear bomb worked, but the rest of their projects made German scientists look sane.

>Bombs filled with bats carrying timed incendiary charges

>>14686176

That one is balanced asymmetry. The shoulder cannons offset by the forearm gun.

>>14686143
Japanese had the only sensible superweapons and they were trying to weaponise mosquitoes

File: RGC-80.jpg (1MB, 1414x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1414x1000px

>>14680835