[bizzybody]

How about a mecha replacement for the SHEVA tanks in the Posleen book series? They're the size of a small hill and pack a 16" gun derived from the ones used in the Iowa class battleships. Instead of separate shells and powder bags the gun design is modified to use really large cartridges. Think of a .50 Barret sniper rifle* scaled up to 16 caliber.

Their purpose is to take out Posleen landers (which are the size and shape of a middling sized skyscraper) before they land.

Would have to be big mech to stand up under the recoil from such a gun.

*I want one of the 1" versions of the Barret. Why? Just because, and it fires a bigger projectile than a Solothurn.

[General Battuta]

How about a mecha replacement for the SHEVA tanks in the Posleen book series? They're the size of a small hill and pack a 16" gun derived from the ones used in the Iowa class battleships. Instead of separate shells and powder bags the gun design is modified to use really large cartridges. Think of a .50 Barret sniper rifle* scaled up to 16 caliber.

Their purpose is to take out Posleen landers (which are the size and shape of a middling sized skyscraper) before they land.

Would have to be big mech to stand up under the recoil from such a gun.

*I want one of the 1" versions of the Barret. Why? Just because, and it fires a bigger projectile than a Solothurn.

Those only work if, like Ringo did, you go way out of your way to remove airpower from the equation. But they were pretty cool.

[Stormkeeper]

I might be a Gundam fanboy, but for now, I don't think mechs are feasable. That double barreled tank from 08th MS team, however, is a different story.

[TrashMan]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/tank%20motivational/Teh_MCP/Motivational/CrusaderTank.jpg

http://jaysolomon.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/flying-tank1.jpg

[MR_T3D]

i think if they eve make mechs, it will be like AT-AT or ST's
imagine one of them with some marines painted on sides.
and 1/2 leg lenght.

[Mongoose]

The same AT-STs that managed to get tripped up by a few rolling logs?

[Stormkeeper]

Doesn't matter how short their leg is. The knees of any walker will always be its weak point.

[Flaser]

I might be a Gundam fanboy, but for now, I don't think mechs are feasable. That double barreled tank from 08th MS team, however, is a different story.

That's another thing that really-really annoys me. Double barrels are stupid. Damn stupid.

You only use multiple barrels on repeating weapons when that's the only way to achieve a hit, like old Anti-Air Guns. You simply spit more lead (or airburst shells) into the air in hope of achieving a kill since back then they didn't have radar to match and lead targets.

If I could put two guns on a tank, then I would instead go for a bigger gun or a faster (and therefore bigger or heavier) autoloader. There nothing that two guns can do that a single gun can't do just as well.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomeButImpractical

"Double Barrel Tanks are the mecha of Tanks, seen as cool but yet as impractical.

• The Soviet T-35 heavy tank deserves special mention here; it looked impossibly cool, had 5 turrets and 6 machine guns, weighed 45 tons and took 11 crew members to operate. It was also slow, incredibly expensive, and far too mechanically complex for the rigors of war. Only 61 were built, and most of those were lost due to mechanical failure rather then German Panzers. The T-34 was half as big, and only had one turret. This tank won World War II, and 84,000 T-34s were eventually built.
• Same with any heavy tank, but especially hard hit were the Germans. They had some kick ass tanks including the Tiger II. Great firepower, awesome armor, but it probably used 2400 liters per hundred kilometers and by the time it was fielded, their fuel supply was next to none."

[Thaeris]

<Thaeris cites the M3 Lee, which had a limited traverse 75mm, a turreted 37mm, and a turret on top of that with a .50cal>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee

The T-35 was doomed to fail regardless. The tank, according to my sources, had a maximum armor thickness of 30mm. For a tank of WWII, that's basically saying, "if 'ya shoot (with your average tank-based artillery), I'm gonna die!"

Multi-turreted tanks were actually very common in the early days. Most WWI tanks had multiple turrets, actually. And you're right again with the AA vehicles being the only vehicles which actually might need multiple guns. That concept, however, is not obsolete. The Germans currently field an AA tank with two barrels. The vehicle is mounted on the Leopard I MBT chassis, and is known as the Gepard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer_Gepard

...Thing's pretty cool looking, actually...

[NGTM-1R]

*snip*

T-35 never actually saw combat in WW2 according to fairly reliable accountings, only the Winter War with Finland.

It also had multiple turrets, which makes the conception of having multiple guns not crazy.

A successful multiturreted tank would be the LVT-A1 and LVT-A2. The M3 with its hull-mounted 75mm and turreted 37mm was also fairly successful in action.

[Thaeris]

Of course... it had an ungodly shilouhette...

My resources indicate that the T-35 saw some service during the winter of '41 outside of Moscow, thus augmenting the myth the Germans held that suggested the Russians were miserably backward.

[Akalabeth Angel]

*snip*

T-35 never actually saw combat in WW2 according to fairly reliable accountings, only the Winter War with Finland.

It also had multiple turrets, which makes the conception of having multiple guns not crazy.

Yeah but the thing is the original concept for tanks was a land battleship. British WW2 tanks were even called "Cruisers", the WW1 tanks were manned by navy personnel not army personnel.

But both of these concepts pretty much didn't go anywhere. They were abandoned.

Besides, while multiple-turreted tanks have existed. Or tanks with both turrets and sponsons, there has never to my knowledge been a tank with multiple guns in the same turret. Maybe that crazy German thing with the battleship turret on it but that wasn't built anyway and the turret was so massive in the first place.

Multiple guns is certainly impractical for most turrets. Most WW2 tanks had 3 man turrets. Commander, Gunner and Loader. Nowadays you can throw an autoloader in there and move the commander and gunner to the hull and use optics instead (like some new Russian tanks are doing) but anyway. But without that automation you'll have one very cramped turret.

I mean why have two guns in one turret when you can have one gun with a bigger calibre?

[Thaeris]

Cruiser tanks were designed to be fast, mobile vehicles. The description has nothing to do with ships. The British also employed infantry tanks like the Churchill, which were designed to be slow, tough-to-put-down vehicles that could cross difficult terrain. Those vehicles were designed to keep up with troops in a charge.

...As you can see, without practical, up-to-date tactics, British tanks were quite outplaced by the Germans in terms of armor design.

Multiple guns is an old idea/concept, but is not neccessarily dead. More guns means you need more space to house them. WWII tanks had different guns for different purposes... if they had multiple turrets. At one point, it made sense to have a big gun shooting a low-velocity round to hit an installation while a smaller gun shooting a high-velocity projectile could take on vehicles. Later on, technology outplaced this concept.

Today, cannons are powerful enough and have enough round types that this is mostly unnecessary. But you never know... perhaps there will someday be a need for a tank with a 150mm field gun for use as fire support... but that 30mm Bushmaster is needed for self-defense.

[NGTM-1R]

The French Leclerc, IIRC, has a coaxial 20mm cannon to go with its main gun...

[Flaser]

Actually the Russian once again made history IMHO:



This is the BMPT a dedicated urban fighter to support infantry. It's not meant to engage tanks, so it has a really unique set of weapons. It's built on the T-72 chassis just like the T-90 series and has the following mounted by default:

• two 30 mm 2A42 dual-feed cannon
• two AGS-17D 30 mm grenade launchers
• 9M120 Ataka-V ATGM system (4 launchers)
• one 7.62mm machine gun

   

Just as with AA this makes sense as this 'vehicle' (it's not an IFV or MBT) is meant to engage a wide variety of threats (which it's bound to find in an urban environment).

[Akalabeth Angel]

Cruiser tanks were designed to be fast, mobile vehicles. The description has nothing to do with ships. The British also employed infantry tanks like the Churchill, which were designed to be slow, tough-to-put-down vehicles that could cross difficult terrain. Those vehicles were designed to keep up with troops in a charge.

The initial british ideas of tank combat involved close quarters swirling gun battles, the "Cruiser" designation is based upon more than speed. I believe they also have more even armour coverage than most tanks. That and some of the Cruisers weren't fast at all. One of the early model tanks, the A13 maybe was very underpowered.

And yes they did also have the slow I-Tanks like the Valentine, Matilda and Churchill.



The only two-gun tank I'm aware of to say any significant combat in ww2 was the M3 Grant (or Lee with the US-preferred sponson). But it had a hull mounted 75mm and a turret mounted 32mm and was more of a stopgap tank to fill the role until the M4 Sherman came out. It was also a pretty lousy tank in some respects since the hull mounted main gun made it impossible to go hull down with it (that combined with a high profile compared to many tanks).

[Stormkeeper]

*snip*

My sargeant saw the BMPT was amused, then realised it was Russian and went, "Oh it's Russian. Of course."

[BengalTiger]

Actually the Russian once again made history...
...

Actually the Ontos was earlier, with 6 recoilless rifles and an MG on the turret:

[General Battuta]

It was an anti-tank vehicle, not an urban warfare platform.

[BengalTiger]

It was used as a direct fire support vehicle mostly, so in practice it was an urban warfare platform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0t-0l0Zv0I&feature=related