Why did we stop making tanks with multiple main guns?

Holy crap. That is...big.

Except that definitely happens. Not saying it's a reason to have multi-gunned tanks, but still.

Attached: taewrtsew.jpg (285x177, 8K)

>going through ammo twice as fast

>bringing twice as much ammo

Attached: RX_Mammoth_1.jpg (1280x720, 391K)

Here you go OP. I will admit that tanks built by The Old Gang are probably among my favourites aesthetically, even if they've been outmodded.

Attached: thread ending pasta.jpg (2000x2000, 1.53M)

Maybe they'll make a comeback with remote controlled turrets where all the crew sits in an armored box in the hull like the T-14 and you just stack turrets.
You could in a stationary overwatch position have the gunner man the 125mm, the driver man the 30mm and the commander man the 12.5mm.

Attached: 1035219615_preview_M-3.jpg (1485x959, 528K)

God I love landships

Attached: E1949.327_Tank Mark V Male_WW1 Hall_2015_9333-A3.jpg (734x489, 82K)

Because in the same size and weight you can have two small guns or one big gun. Would an Abrams with twin 90mm cannons be cool? Sure. Would it be effective? Not really.

>magazine cut offs

The future is a simple turretless ATGM carrier with a low profile.

WE MUST DEPLOY A 100 BANEBLADES TO CHECHNYA

Attached: THE BAEN.jpg (500x384, 50K)

>M2 bradley with TOW missiles
>humvee with TOW missiles
>M113 with TOW missiles
>stryker with javelin missiles

missile armed vehicles are usually meant for operations against massed armored columns or for defensive measures against armor when your own arent available

they are not a replacment for tanks because missile carriers do not serve the same purpose as tanks
they are more analogous to modern day tank destroyers which also did not serve as tank replacements except out of desperation

One gun that can penetrate an enemy tank is worth more than two guns that can't.

All the reasons mentioned already. Still, the early tanks are awesome.
Would like to see a modern take on the landship concept. Composite armor, vision blocks and cameras for the crew, better weapons with firing arcs that give more cover, engines with proper isolation and exhaust to not gas the crew.

Attached: 1431363825735.jpg (2048x1333, 454K)

Why not make one gun with six barrels?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T249_Vigilante
inb4 not a tank
Give it a few atgms too and it’s game

The first tanks where mobile pillboxes, modern tanks are mobile direct fire artillery.

don't be silly user. warfare isn't about being more effective, but looking cooler.

>when you accidentally put a starter tank in your BR10 deck.

Short answer is that it made more sense to have 1 really good gun over >1 shitty guns. MGs made up the difference.

>50+ guys
That's why we still have MGs on tanks. 2 at a minimum although some tanks have 3.

Might make sense as an anti-insurgency platform as you've got guns pointed in all directions. All that extra internal space means you can double as a troop carrier too.

Sponson turrets work for 40k because their combination traditional-charge-and-gyrojet ammunition meant that those sponson bolters didn't need to have very long barrels to be effective. Perhaps if we were to develop ammunition along similar lines we might have tanks with side guns once again, though more of an infantry support / transport vehicle in an urban patrol or insurgency suppression role rather than an MBT.

>twice as much ammo bigger target for ammunition storage

>Exploding twice as often to ammo explosions.

Sounds like it would be using missiles fired out the gun tube like some tanks are capable of. Which would have ATGM options as well as HE.
Large gyrojet type ammunition would be for if the weapon was fed by a clip or magazine, being close to the machine gun armed "female" tanks of WW1. Those weapons would probably require a kicker charge like Bolter ammo. Something to give it initial velocity and cycle the weapon.

Wouldn't one of the guns just miss the target by 2 meters ?

The warheads have magnets that turn on just before impact. The force pulls them together to split the distance between the guns.

Sounds horribly complicated.

Sound pretty cool.

It would probably end up looking like the TOG II, and its niche would be in enviornments that are really, really mired in anti-tank wire and trenches, like those of the Iran-Iraq War that really tripped up conventional designs.

Attached: TOG_II Model.png (800x600, 1.03M)

So how are you targeting the impact point?

Laser rangefinder and it also adjusts the magnet strength automatically.
Impressive

So you'd need to track your target flawlessly until the shot hits ?

It is until the magnets drag the warheads into random debris.

Or a child with a laser pointer shows up.

>when grandma takes you to the park

EET IS THUH BEEEHHHNNBLAADDEEE

This is my wet dream, a multi cannon tank unloading a platoon into the night as tracers bounce off the armor and it fires back illuminating the darkness with balls of fire.

I HEV FACED MOAR FEARSOM TAAAAAANKS

Because having 1 big gun is better than having 2 small guns

You’re a big tank

Prokorovka
>youtube.com/watch?v=IMKZOcz4dJI

Attached: image.jpg (652x300, 36K)

>there are many cases where penetrating rounds didnt go through and destroy the tank
>unless the penetrating round hits a crewman or an ammo rack

Video game logic. Even at 75mm, armour-piercing rounds still typically carried an explosive charge. It isn't the case of some giant chunk of lead being hurled at you, where it only harms were it hits. If an armour-piercing round penetrates, it then explodes (depending on the fuse function and delay). While it may have only a fraction of the explosives as a typical shell, it's still akin to setting off a grenade in a small place. The pressure alone can cause concussions and blow out eardrums, but the explosive force and shrapnel (often parts of the tank and its crew) can shred the interior.

Furthermore, tanks didn't typically get "destroyed". A dead driver means a dead tank, and a dead gunner means a useless tank. As long as it was safe to exit and abandon the vehicle, a crew would typically bail or retreat the tank long before the tank was wrecked.

Unless you were an American tank crew in the Philippines, 1941. Then you'd just play dead and pray for the Japs to leave you alone.

>"I Don't Understand The Role Of Tanks: The Post"

...

> Limited firing arcs

Attached: Stridsvagn_103_Revinge_2013-1.jpg (2762x1870, 3.39M)

Because EA killed Westwood

Because Trench Warfare is no longer a thing

Unfortunately

/thread

Attached: Marauder.png (1347x422, 876K)

>Sweden still produces and operates the Strv 103

Attached: 1518996414557.jpg (284x288, 30K)

When Patton, Eisenhower and big Mac graduated from West Point. In the same year.

That depends on if you're using APHE or APCR Composite rigid rounds are solid with no explosive filler. They kill with shrapnel alone. There was also Shaped Charges which could penetrate a lot of armor but didn't create a lot of shrapnel or concussion.

Also, killing a driver or gunner just meant another crewman would take over. Crews usually didn't bail unless the tank caught fire.

APHE didnt have enough blasting charge to cause a grenade explosion especially since the thick walled AP round resisted an internal explosion

it, at best, made a wider spalling cone after it penetrated its target, which made it more likely to hit something important
but it didnt guarantee a one hit kill if nothing important was in its path

many tankers didnt notice they got shot if a shell didnt actually hit any crew

>All rounds are either APHE, APCR, or HEAT
wat?