an interesting U.S. tank concept from Rheem Manufacturing Company in 1955. It had two rocket boosted 105mm guns on a rotating turret, it is the only double-barrelled tank i've heard of. also, the entire back half could be lifted as a bonnet for maitenance or a quick escape. does anyone have any further information on this tank??
There's probably some information in one of Hunnicutt's book on the History of American Tanks (I've got eight volumes out of the 10 he published), I'll see if I can find anything further. It certainly looks familiar... As for double-barrelled tanks there was the VT-1 or VT-II that was looked at by the Germans as a possible replacement for Leo 1, but those guns were "semi-fixed" (i.e. they elevation but limited traverse). There was also a late-war proposal for Pzkpfw IV to have a 105mm recoil-less gun with a 30mm either side of it, and don't forget Maus was two have two guns (but of differing calibres).
It does if looked at from a hit probability point of view - if a given gun and sighting system have a hit percentage of, say, 60% then firing two shots simultaneously from the same vehicle gives an 84% chance of getting one round on target - a 40% improvement in hit rate. But using twice as much ammo, which may well work out to be cheaper than inventing a sighting/ stabilisation/ range-finding system that would give the same improvement. It's essentially a "volley-fire" method of achieving hits, but would only really be of any worth if both guns have the same ballsitic performance, e.g. the two differently-sized guns on Maus would not give this effect and were probably specified with the intention of using the smaller gun on less well armoured targets and save the larger calibre ammo for the targets that required that amount of firepower to deal with.
indeed, originally the maus was to have the shortn l24 75mm gun. This was replaced by a new gun of 36 cal length not because of its better penetration but because the longer gun tube would clear the engine deck better. ie the 75mm gun was mainly for HE only Aglooka
From that perspective, you have a point Oli. The Russians worked on a number of multigunned SPG's in the early 40's, but they were abandoned for their monogunned counterparts Having a single gun gives you the ability to: - Install something larger - Save space - Less crewmembers/stress on crewmembers - Save weight - Reduce cost and complications Take, for instance, the Panther. I am guessing wildly here... but would putting two smaller guns make it more effective, a more useful tank? I think not.
Double Barrelled Tanks Surely "double barrelled" tanks take us right back to the original Mk-1 etc, with two sponsons each mounting a gun. Also, what about the Lee/Grant? Tom
It was replaced by the Sherman, which was essentially the same chassis... just with a single, turret mounted 75 mm. Why were these designs abondoned? Because monogunned tanks are better.
Hi Panzerman. I agree about the wisdom of not putting two guns on a Panther, but the design above was done in the fifties and there were many weird and "wonderful" things put forward - I'll try to get home to dig out my copy of Hunnicutt and show some of the others - including nuclear-powered tanks! Honest. The problem was that (as it was seen at the time) they knew what the threat would be (super-JSIII no doubt) and had limits on what was affordable (or buildable) in terms of sighting devices. Like I said, it's probably far cheaper to use twice as much ammo to get a 40% increase in hit rate than develop a sighting sytem that does the same... It's not so much about gun calibre as hit probabilities... "Guaranteeing" a hit with a gun that will do some damage is better than probably missing with a gun that would have utterly destroyed the target. Bear in mind that guns are rocket-propelled 105mm, so will have a (relatively) small recoil force on the vehicle, so that at 45 tons it would be very heavily armoured... WWI tanks weren't designed for anti-tank fighting and even if they were they would have limited ability to engage a single target with both guns simultaneously, it the target wasn't dead ahead then you couldn't get both guns to bear. As for Lee/ Grant, again, like Maus, the two two have different ballistic performance, and, even worse, (like WWI tanks) use different sight baselines.
I have to concede your point there Oli - for this special purpose tank, two barrels does have a sense. For a MBT, I would still go with one gun. Developing a better sighting system and using it for a bigger gun would still make more sense to me though. Here is a multibarreled design that made into combat, the M50 Ontos:
Hunter details - not much I'm afraid: Design started Sep 53, report submitted Jun 55. 105mm spin stabilised rocket boosted guns, 120 rpm, 7 rnds in each mag, 80 in hull rubber band track in 6 foot sections, separate hydraulic drive in all 12 road wheels, it could still move despite loss of track or several roadwheels exceptionally good protection (fused silica core armour) Dropped in favour of air-portable tanks Firepower R. P. Hunnicutt
