Why weren't double (or more) barreled tanks a thing?

Onlooker

Banned
We've had double barreled, triple, and quadruple barreled guns, even more barreled pistols, double, triple and quadruple naval gun turrets, but I don't think I've ever seen a double barreled tank (both barrels in same turret), while it has apeared numerous times in fantasy works, most prominently C&C's Mammoth tank.

My question is what exactly prevented it from happening and what makes it bad? Question inspired by recent Darth Vader as Wilhelm II thread



 
The mechanics behind multiple guns in a single turret would make the turret far too large too be put upon a normal tank chassis. I think one of the german late WW2 tanks was designed to be a landship with double-barreled turret. Of course, it is far too impractical to build a single tank with two barrels, when you can just make two tanks with each a single barrel.
 

Onlooker

Banned
Based on this Quora thread,
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-double-barrelled-tanks-not-common
one big problem is the extra weight. Also, while you can fire more shells at a time, it means twice as much time to reload. And tanks are already cramped inside as it is, another barrel makes it worse.
Double barrels don't double reload times, you only need one to fire it, so you could theoretically fire one, and by that time other one should be reloaded or close to it.
 
Two guns will have much less penetration and explosive power than one of the same total mass. Multiple barrels are needed when you have a poor chance of hitting wit any given shot, like with anti-aircraft guns or battleship guns. Anti-aircraft tanks have multiple barrels. (Wirbelwind for Germany, and the half-track with 4 .50 machineguns for the USA.)
 
double barrels also require extra crew, extra ammo and storage for it, etc. And you can't split them up to fire at two different targets at the same time.
 
Double barrels also strain turrets pretty badly due to the torque from the recoil, and may throw off the accuracy of the other gun as well whenever they fire.
 
The double barrels that were done were different calibres, like the 75mm and 37mm guns in the M6.

 
The double barrels that were done were different calibres, like the 75mm and 37mm guns in the M6.
That's more of a coaxial deal, for target not worth a main gun round, or later in the '50s when the US and UK were used for rangefinding
 
When weight and size are a constraint (i.e. not on ships) one bigger gun has more penetration and deals more damage than two smaller guns
 
The Soviets tried this; a KV-1 with a casemate instead of a turret with a center-mounted 76mm cannon and a 45mm cannon on either side. I don't see how the loaders could do their job without getting in each others way.

Better one big gun that can be easily handled, aimed and fired...
 
Double barrels don't double reload times, you only need one to fire it, so you could theoretically fire one, and by that time other one should be reloaded or close to it.
Tank guns aren't used to create a beaten zone that enemy tanks can't get through however - they are used to precisely fire single aimed shots at enemy tanks or other strongpoints. That only requires a very modest rate of fire under anything but exceptional circumstances - so the additional value given by an extra gun barrel will be trivial compared to the additional cost.
 
Because the extra weight would be colossal with major implications for speed, maneuverability, fuel use, etc. It would take up a great deal of space inside the turret, limiting ammo storage and crew comfort. Huge number of drawbacks, absolutely no benefits.
 
Honestly IMO, with our current technology (or at least in the near future), double barreled tanks would serve as nothing more than fire support SPGs with more than one barrels and not for engaging tanks or anything, given what others have said about the drawbacks of such designs.
 
Australian Sentinel test version:

That double-barrelled Sentinel was a one-off test bed.
Since the Australians were planning to mount a 17-pounder anti-tank gun in their projected AC-4 tank, they simulated 17-pounder recoil by firing a pair of 25-pounders simultaneously.

Shortly afterwards (1943) Australia quit building tanks because so many tanks roared off American production lines.
 
Top