Twin barrel tanks?

[Jack Johnson]

Hey I wonder, how many tanks (including artillery platforms etc.) where build or are still in use which feature twin barrels?

And why is the feature so rare, what are the biggest disadvantages? It strikes me as something that with todays computer-aided gyroscopic systems could feature a very high rate of fire.


Also, is this real or a photoshop: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/152x2e.jpg

 

[DavidDCM]

It's real, but it is a self-propelled howitzer, not a tank.

It's called Koalitsija-SV, comes from Russia and so far is nothing but a prototype.

 

[Feanor]

The Coalition-SV project was shut down last year, along with Object 195, BMPT, and a number of other projects. The prototype is actually a Msta-S modified with the firing system designed for the Coalition-SV. The end project was supposed to have a new turret and different chassis (object 195 chassis).

The ZU-23-4 is a quad-barrel self-prop AA gun, it's still in service. The Tunguska and Pantsyr are self-prop twin barrel gun/missile systems. They're in service with Russian army, and others around the world. the BMP-3 and BMD-4 carries the Bakcha-U firing complex which has two barrels, one 30mm, one 100mm, but the two don't fire simultaneously. It's really more of a coaxial weapon then a twin-barrel design.

 

[Jack Johnson]

It's real, but it is a self-propelled howitzer, not a tank.

It's called Koalitsija-SV, comes from Russia and so far is nothing but a prototype.

Ah thank you. Hm but no idea why the twin-barrel-design is so rare?
Btw.: I said in my post stuff like artillery platforms also counts.

Or this german "hunting tank"-prototype: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_3_vt_2_augustdorf-1315.jpg

This swedish (?) APC: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/AMOS.jpg

 

[Falstaff]

Ah thank you. Hm but no idea why the twin-barrel-design is so rare?
Btw.: I said in my post stuff like artillery platforms also counts.

Or this german "hunting tank"-prototype: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_3_vt_2_augustdorf-1315.jpg

This swedish (?) APC: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/AMOS.jpg

Well I guess that one reason simply is weigth and bulkyness of a twin-barrel arrangement. Secondly, you have to ask yourself, what would you need a higher rate of fire for, would it be an advantage and would it be worth the weight penalty?

 

[Feanor]

Generally that RoF is unnecessary for MBTs, hence why only AA and arty designs have used it. Co-axial arrangements are slightly different in that they use the same FCS for multi-caliber weaponry, rather then actual twin-linked weapons.

 

[Falstaff]

Generally that RoF is unnecessary for MBTs, hence why only AA and arty designs have used it. Co-axial arrangements are slightly different in that they use the same FCS for multi-caliber weaponry, rather then actual twin-linked weapons.

The only advantage I can think of is that you would be able to fire the first two rounds in quick succession; however, when you think about it, wrt MBT's and their ever soaring combat weights... A quick google told me that the Leo 2 L44 weapon system comes in at almost 4 tons with the barrel alone accounting for 1200 kg.

So when I think twin-barreled MBT I think you would definitely need a bigger and heavier turret so you have room for two barrels including the mounts, breaches and so on. Then of course you'd have to severely change the autoloader so it can handle two barrels, a human loader () wouldn't be able to handle a higher RoF anyway. And so on-

The more I think about it, the less a good idea it seems to me...

 

[storywolf]

Well I guess that one reason simply is weigth and bulkyness of a twin-barrel arrangement. Secondly, you have to ask yourself, what would you need a higher rate of fire for, would it be an advantage and would it be worth the weight penalty?

I don't think you will find large barrel twin barrel arrangment practical. Like you say, weight and bulkness is issue.

Next also the recoil and heat also issue.The first barrel recoil - will affect the 2nd barrel round accuracy.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

M50 ontos. Operational and retired.

Multi-barrels were used only wrt rate of fire.

It doesn't make sense if only 1 human loader cos the rate of fire would be the same whether 2 or 1 barrels. Having 2 human loaders would be cramp. However, if loader is automatic, then it makes more sense.

Having said that, if rate of fire was that important, then there's already multiple tube artillery and that's called the MLRS or MRLS.

There's one other vessel that used to have multi-barrel guns ie battleship turrets. One of the reason for turret design was greater protection.

 

[Feanor]

Well the idea behind the Coalition-SV was that movement and fire meant very limited time for self-prop arty to fire, before having to change positions to avoid counter-battery fire. The twin barrels would let it put more rounds downrange in that limited time. Additionally

It's interesting to note that multi-barrel designs are suprisingly effective direct fire support. The Ontos was apparently widely praised by the Marines in Vietnam. The ZSU-23-4, (and it's smaller cousin, ZU-23-2) were widely used as direct fire support in Afghan, and the Chechen campaigns, where they were highly effective (so effective that the whole BMPT concept was originally based on the experience of ZSU-23-4 use). One has to wonder if the multi-barrely designs have been underestimated and under-rated in that role.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

If one looks at the success of the multi-barrelled gatling gun (eg vulcan/phalanx/centurion), I don't think it has been under-estimated.

The M-61 is still the standard aircraft gun for most USAF a/c. Even the GAU-8 of the A-10 uses the gatling multi-barrel concept.

With C-RAM as a mission driver, I think such multi-barrelled guns will play a significant role on the ground but maybe less in the large barrelled category.

 

[DavidDCM]

In regards to twin-barrelled artillery / indirect fire: There's also the perception that the most lethal phase of an artillery strike are the first few seconds. Most casualties occur when the first rounds hit, after that (a little oversimplified) everyone in the strike zone heads for cover and the subsequent rounds cause fewer casualties. Thus one way to increase the effectiveness and lethality of artillery is to simply increase the number of rounds in that very first phase.
Or said in another way: If you fire 10 rounds with an arty tube these rounds will with a certain probability cause more damage if they strike within a 30 seconds time frame than if they will strike within a 1 minute time frame.

Thus designs like the Koalitsija-SV or the AMOS.

 

[Feanor]

In regards to twin-barrelled artillery / indirect fire: There's also the perception that the most lethal phase of an artillery strike are the first few seconds. Most casualties occur when the first rounds hit, after that (a little oversimplified) everyone in the strike zone heads for cover and the subsequent rounds cause fewer casualties. Thus one way to increase the effectiveness and lethality of artillery is to simply increase the number of rounds in that very first phase.
Or said in another way: If you fire 10 rounds with an arty tube these rounds will with a certain probability cause more damage if they strike within a 30 seconds time frame than if they will strike within a 1 minute time frame.

Thus designs like the Koalitsija-SV or the AMOS.

Or the MLRS concept. It's also why larger concentrations of artillery fire over short time achieve greater effect the smaller concentrations of artillery over a longer time.

 

[Marc 1]

In regards to twin-barrelled artillery / indirect fire: There's also the perception that the most lethal phase of an artillery strike are the first few seconds. Most casualties occur when the first rounds hit, after that (a little oversimplified) everyone in the strike zone heads for cover and the subsequent rounds cause fewer casualties. Thus one way to increase the effectiveness and lethality of artillery is to simply increase the number of rounds in that very first phase.
Or said in another way: If you fire 10 rounds with an arty tube these rounds will with a certain probability cause more damage if they strike within a 30 seconds time frame than if they will strike within a 1 minute time frame.

Thus designs like the Koalitsija-SV or the AMOS.

Modern Arty achieve a very similar idea using a single tube. Something like the Pzh2000 or K9 can fire 3 rounds on dirrering trajectories (thus the rounds have different times of flight) timing it so all three rounds impact at the same time. A battery of 6 guns would then be able to have 18 rounds land nearly similtaneously. With auto loaders the next two salvos would be within the next 30 seconds too.

 

[DavidDCM]

Yes there are many ways to increase the rate of fire. Computerized fire control and autoloaders are also part of this. The "synchronized impact" method that you mentioned can also be done with twin-barrel designs, but potentially with even more rounds.

 

[eckherl]

I don't think you will find large barrel twin barrel arrangment practical. Like you say, weight and bulkness is issue.

Next also the recoil and heat also issue.The first barrel recoil - will affect the 2nd barrel round accuracy.

Thus some of the reasons why the Russians will most likely not field the proto type that they have been working on. Also the loading system is rather complicated.

 

[Locarnus]

What about the possibility to engage multiple targets, like the first tanks?

Although I dont see this possibility for real tanks, it could be a feature for IFVs or mortar carrying vehicles. The turrets would be remotely controlled. This would be more difficult in the IFV case with direct fire, because it would call for one turret with independent mounts on different levels, increasing the height, to give both mounts full arcs.
But in the indirect fire mortar case with very high elevations 2 small (because remotely controlled) turrets would be fine.

 

[eckherl]

What about the possibility to engage multiple targets, like the first tanks?

Although I dont see this possibility for real tanks, it could be a feature for IFVs or mortar carrying vehicles. The turrets would be remotely controlled. This would be more difficult in the IFV case with direct fire, because it would call for one turret with independent mounts on different levels, increasing the height, to give both mounts full arcs.
But in the indirect fire mortar case with very high elevations 2 small (because remotely controlled) turrets would be fine.

I think that you may find that sub munition type projectiles would be your better choice when utilizing indirect fire against armor, indirect fire used against armor in offensive posture is tricky business already due to speed of vehicles, they can get out of the kill sac rather quickly. Having multiple barrel arty isn't warranted with modern fire controls, autoloaders and projectiles. The same rule would also apply to advanced mortar systems.

 

[Locarnus]

Sorry for the unclear formulation. With first tanks I meant the WW I tanks having multiple barrels.

The proposed IFV would imho bring an advantage in urban scenarios for eg tracked IFVs (because of the additional weight tracked ones). To engage a target on a high elevation to the right side (eg building upper floor) while simultaneously engaging one to the left at lower elevation, but both with beyond .50 weapons (eg 30mm or so). Or when at an unsecured junction to have one aiming to the right, one to the left (the front would be observable before reaching the junction), thus lowering the reaction time.

Especially in confined environments, where only one vehicle can be at the front, this would be useful. And with the trend to higher protection (US) and thus maybe more weight without weapon systems and thus possibly lower numbers of vehicles deployed and used for a mission, this could give an edge.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

Could someting like the Ontos that was developed in the 1950s be useful today, maybe as a rov with a slightly lower profile and perhaps some type of autoloader? Maybe make it as an export vehicle, it was pretty small so moving between trees would be easier than a full scale tank. The wiki on it says it had an effective range of just under 3km which seems pretty close range to me but that might be acceptable distance in anti tank warefare, maybe up the caliber from 105 to 120.
Some questions for questions sake.
Acceptable as Remote operable vehicle?

Acceptable as an export model to countries that would like armor but dont have the budget for the newest mbts?

Recoiless rifle vs main tank gun vs missiles (main armaments for tracked vehicles atm) cost, range, RoF, other limitations?

Ground pressure vs mbts?

P.S. Ontos just looks cool with the 6 barrels.