Of course.Swedish would-be-tank with 140m gun was supposed to take 29 rounds - but it had coaxial 40mm with 200 rounds,too.
Well, it's from one of the original Real Time Tactics games and it's basically a T-14 on steroids much like its smaller cousin, the Wolf.Double-barrel tanks don't actually make sense for numerous reasons, but one does have to concede that they look very, very cool.
Also, if you look at real-life tanks, you find that in the near totality of cases, the turret basket is not a completely enclosed cylinder like that; rather, it's a partial basket in order to provide access to equipment and/or space in the fixed hull.
Double-barrel tanks don't actually make sense for numerous reasons, but one does have to concede that they look very, very cool.
And were replaced as fast as it was possible by the more practical M4.The M3 Lee and Grant were technically double barreled
That is a fancy feature that might work on a scout tank, but is a terrible idea on a super-heavy like that one because that is a lot of ground pressure.The T-600 Titan from Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, It has the ability to walk over obstacles.
That is a fancy feature that might work on a scout tank, but is a terrible idea on a super-heavy like that one because that is a lot of ground pressure.
I think it would make more sense to have a active suspension system on the front of the tracks that lets you raise them over obstacles.
It wasn't that badAnd were replaced as fast as it was possible by the more practical M4.
To be fair the Grant and Lee did serve well enough against the japanese. But the fact is that they were intended from the start as provisional models, and as soon as the M4 logistics were ready the priority was to replace it with its successor instead of modernizing it for support roles like the germans did with the Panzer IV after the Panthers and Tigers were made available as frontline units.It wasn't that bad
Still better then a lot of other tanks in the warTo be fair the Grant and Lee did serve well enough against the japanese. But the fact is that they were intended from the start as provisional models, and as soon as the M4 logistics were ready the priority was to replace it with its successor instead of modernizing it for support roles like the germans did with the Panzer IV after the Panthers and Tigers were made available as frontline units.
Hello EMAC, I suppose. Whether rail or coil or whatever the fuck Weird Shit is still sitting in a shelf from the Cold War, virtually all of them have issues with heat buildup dramatically reducing the efficiency of repeated fire, so you have to considerably overbuild one way or another to sustain fire in any meaningful way.or have some sort of exotic high performance gun technology with such a high thermal or metallurgical demand on barrels that the second barrel is needed just to let the tank fight long enough between barrel changes or cooling by dividing shots between the barrels.
I was just talking the barrel itself, not the full firing apparatus. And my concern was more the thermal load lowering conductivity, as that has a bunch of knock-on effects which can actually screw up firing sequences if a battle runs long enough. The longer you expect to run, the worse the problem gets, until it either fails outright or reaches thermal equilibrium. It's much more a consideration for autocannon implementations that have power supply be a more likely bounding factor than for full-size tanks, but it is a technical constraint that can crop up to demand a second barrel where it normally wouldn't come up.If you suffer from barrel ablation, it would still probably be more weight efficient to have both barrels, and possible a third, emplaced on a central rotary mount rather than duplicating so much autoloader.