Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

strange tank

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by smeghead phpbb3, Jun 9, 2006.

  1. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    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??
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I got nothing...

    I'm a little dubious about that hatch though - suppose the lifting arm failed? :eek:
     
  3. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    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).
     
  4. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Having two guns on a tank does not make sense.
     
  5. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  6. aglooka

    aglooka Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    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
     
  7. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  8. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    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
     
  9. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    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. :wink:
     
  10. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  11. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    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:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    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
     

Share This Page