Twin barrel tanks?

[c4isr]

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.

Hello everyone, I'm another new person!

In response to the above, the biggest issues with Remotely Operated vehicles is, as has been previously mentioned, the issues with reloading. Having an auto-reload function for 120mm shells is incredibly complex, and is an additional expense for the purchaser.

It's interesting you mentioned missiles, as a number of APC manufacturers (specifically APC & not IFVs) are utilising various types of missiles (i.e. Javelin / Hellfire) to provide an anti-armour capability. Usually these are stuck on the side of a Remote Weapon Station. I think that any requirement for increased firepower without increased weight would be serviced by this in the future, instead of an additional barrel. However, it is noticable that no MBTs I know of have these installed (though I may be wrong).

 

[Waylander]

@EXSSBN2005
A new version of the Ontos would hardly add any capabilities to the current inventory of the US (Or most other countries out there) current IFVs with autocannons and ATGMs in concert with MBTs are fully able to do perform the role of the Ontos as a HE thrower to break up enemy ambushes or reduce enemy fortifications/firing positions.

And remote controlled vehicles are still some time away of being usefull for frontline usage. The complexicity of ground movements and engagements prevents the use of UGVs in such a role.

@C4isr
There are also several IFVs in service which use ATGMs (BMP family, Marder, Bradley, Puma,...).

Some tanks have the ability to use tube launched ATGMs for long range sniping or, as the Lahat, for use with external target designators.

120mm autoloaders are available and not overly complex. For example the Japanese Type-90 and the French Leclerc feature one. The costs of procuring them are small compared to the costs of a 4th crewman (operational advantages and disadvantages aside).

 

[Firn]

@EXSSBN2005
A new version of the Ontos would hardly add any capabilities to the current inventory of the US (Or most other countries out there) current IFVs with autocannons and ATGMs in concert with MBTs are fully able to do perform the role of the Ontos as a HE thrower to break up enemy ambushes or reduce enemy fortifications/firing positions.

And remote controlled vehicles are still some time away of being usefull for frontline usage. The complexicity of ground movements and engagements prevents the use of UGVs in such a role.

@C4isr
There are also several IFVs in service which use ATGMs (BMP family, Marder, Bradley, Puma,...).

Some tanks have the ability to use tube launched ATGMs for long range sniping or, as the Lahat, for use with external target designators.

120mm autoloaders are available and not overly complex. For example the Japanese Type-90 and the French Leclerc feature one. The costs of procuring them are small compared to the costs of a 4th crewman (operational advantages and disadvantages aside).

The key feature of an AFV like the Ontos was that it was often there when needed. Small enough and light enough (and untank-like enough!) to directly support the infantry with a surprising amount of firepower. The Wiesel would be possibly the most similar modern platform.

The choice to mount six recoilless rifles was propably due to the need of having a sufficiently large calibre warhead with sufficient range to defeat an MBT of the era. A gun with such qualities would have torn the chassis apart, thus the choice to go recoilless. To increase the ROF and to increase hit probability - guided systems were not yet fielded in large numbers - a good number of tubes were bolted to the carrier. The high signature of the blast would have made shoot-a-salvo-and-scoot also a pretty likely tactic.

Firn

 

[Go229]

As with alot of novel ideas on the internet... the russians have beat us to it and discovered it's not worth it.

Meet the T-35. I wonder if something similar could be done today, with Remote weapon stations instead of manned turrets. Also the T-35 as a tank was very flawed and unreliable, but modern tank design can design something viable.

 

[Jack Johnson]

As with alot of novel ideas on the internet... the russians have beat us to it and discovered it's not worth it.

Meet the T-35. I wonder if something similar could be done today, with Remote weapon stations instead of manned turrets. Also the T-35 as a tank was very flawed and unreliable, but modern tank design can design something viable.

Well I talked about twin barrels and not multiples turrets, however now that you brought the topic up: I think multiple turrets are gonna be featured again at some point, because they actually provide some advantages in scenarios where Battle Tanks venture into urban environments.

The Isrealis may be the first to do it, many of their armored vehicles are very unique due to their focus on fighting in and around citys, look at the Merkava with its integrated troop compartment and additonal mortar launcher.

 

[SinSumerek]

Well I talked about twin barrels and not multiples turrets, however now that you brought the topic up: I think multiple turrets are gonna be featured again at some point, because they actually provide some advantages in scenarios where Battle Tanks venture into urban environments.

The Isrealis may be the first to do it, many of their armored vehicles are very unique due to their focus on fighting in and around citys, look at the Merkava with its integrated troop compartment and additonal mortar launcher.

Don't forget that for every turret you must have amunition and gunman or AI that will control it(SF). So it's need more space and weight. If additinal to this it's must carry some troops, overall weight might be too much.
So practically it will be some specialized combat machine for infantry support like russian BMPT.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Don't forget that for every turret you must have amunition and gunman or AI that will control it(SF). So it's need more space and weight. If additinal to this it's must carry some troops, overall weight might be too much.
So practically it will be some specialized combat machine for infantry support like russian BMPT.

Yeah I think too in the future the lines between Battle Tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles will blur. Again, the Isrealis, with its Merkava, or usage of older tank chassis to create heavy APCs like the Achzari that features four machine-gun stations. Now replace those four machine guns with robot-guns like the SGR-A1, and I think you get something we might see in ~10-20 years.

 

[Sangfroid]

Dual Barrel Use Drivers

I suspect that the real purpose for the dual barrel configuration is the Russian desire to use thermobaric shells which are further enhanced by reinforcement of simultaneous hits.

 

[Raven22]

How do you zero a tank that has two barrels?

 

[Feanor]

I suppose you would zero one barrel, and make the other one affixed. I.e. you zero a single barrel, and the other is permanently offset at a certain distance.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I suppose you would zero one barrel, and make the other one affixed. I.e. you zero a single barrel, and the other is permanently offset at a certain distance.

are they locked on the same elevator?

independance of arc would increase bracketing, creeping shot speed

I'm out of my depth here, but I'd assume independance of arc so that you could increase CEP and mix and match shells

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You could just have two selectable projected sight reticules and zero sight image one for barrel one and sight image two for barrel two. The gunner just needs to make sure he has the right sight reticule selected for the barrel about to be fired.

 

[Raven22]

I suppose you would zero one barrel, and make the other one affixed. I.e. you zero a single barrel, and the other is permanently offset at a certain distance.

The chance of two barrels installed in the turret pointing in the exact same direction is nil. Even getting two barrels in a double barreled rifle of the kind used to hunt dangerous game to point in the same direction takes a skilled gunsmith dozens of man hours, thousands of dollars and hundreds of rounds of ammo to get right. You can get away with barrels not pointing in exactly the same direction with multi-barrel anti-aircraft guns and the like (and double barrel shotguns for that matter), but for a tank gun expected to get first round hits at 4000m, even the slightest deviation would cause a round to miss, making the whole exercise pointless.

Come to think of it though, with modern electronic sights it wouldn't be impossible to zero both guns. You'd just need a setting in the sight for each barrel and zero them independently. When you switch barrels you switch the settings in the sight, which would adjust the sights for the new barrel. You couldn't do anything about fixed day sights though.

Double barrel tanks are still pointless though.

 

[Raven22]

Jinxll

 

[Feanor]

are they locked on the same elevator?

independance of arc would increase bracketing, creeping shot speed

I'm out of my depth here, but I'd assume independance of arc so that you could increase CEP and mix and match shells

What I was envisaging would involve adjusting the position of the barrels themselves to zero the tank, rather then adjusting the sight settings.

 

[SASWanabe]

im not sure if this has been mentioned before but wouldnt zeroing be easier if you just put the barrels beside eachother?

 

[Raven22]

What I was envisaging would involve adjusting the position of the barrels themselves to zero the tank, rather then adjusting the sight settings.

What do you think is the easier option, adjusting a bit of software in a sight so that the reticle is presented in a very slightly different position, or adjusting the position of a couple of gun tubes weighing a ton or so each?

No matter whether you're zeroing a rifle or a tank gun, you always zero the sights to the barrel not the other way around.

 

[Feanor]

What do you think is the easier option, adjusting a bit of software in a sight so that the reticle is presented in a very slightly different position, or adjusting the position of a couple of gun tubes weighing a ton or so each?

No matter whether you're zeroing a rifle or a tank gun, you always zero the sights to the barrel not the other way around.

Obviously. Hence my original suggestion was to have them perfectly parallel with the sights set to one of the barrels. That's the one you zero. Then the other will always hit X m to the right or left.

 

[Raven22]

Obviously. Hence my original suggestion was to have them perfectly parallel with the sights set to one of the barrels. That's the one you zero. Then the other will always hit X m to the right or left.

And as I said, the chance of having two barrels perfectly parallel is nil. Not to mention the effects of barrel wear, droop, jump and a few other gunnery considerations that would affect the accuracy of parallel barrels. As I said, you'd have to zero the guns independently.

 

[gf0012-aust]

just to add,

even if both barrels are always fired and have similar counts, they will wear differently. one will always require re-sleeving earlier

even if they're from the same production run, there's no guarantee on identical wear.