HOME | DD
MSgtHaas β Dual Rail Gun Tank
Published: 2011-12-20 06:19:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 17018; Favourites: 206; Downloads: 655
Redirect to original
Description
Dual Rail Gun TankMain battle Tank Rail gun [link]
Main battle Heavy tank Render [link]
Main Battle Tank UN Render [link]
Related content
Comments: 37
Wow, very cool. Β I like how you have one barrel on top of the other instead of side by side. Β It gives it that extra emotional edge (however functional it might be).
π: 0 β©: 0
Not to be a grammar nazi, but I think this is important enough to point out: the title says Dual rail RUN tank. Just figured I'd bring it to the light
π: 0 β©: 0
awsome stuff, ammo consumption must be high
π: 0 β©: 0
should have put on 3 railguns for ultra death
π: 0 β©: 1
quads or nothing.
π: 0 β©: 0
I am so so so sorry I am late been busy love your art work and most of all u welcome man
i have over 50 to reply sorry if I sent this twice man
π: 0 β©: 0
whats the bore is it say 120mm?
π: 0 β©: 1
no its 80mm but the Main battle Tank Rail gun [link] is a 120mm.
π: 0 β©: 1
Normally I like your art because it has a realistic feel to it. But this isn't one of those times. Dual main guns on a tank is just ridiculous. Could you perhaps take one railgun away? Also, I notice you always seem to put a large 25mm? gun on the tank, this too is a bit much. You could carry far more ammo with a heavy machine gun and/or two general purpose machine guns.
π: 0 β©: 2
Dude, its a futuristic tank. It could have dual rail guns because it was cheaper and more effective than having a single stronger rail gun. The more guns the better. hahha
π: 0 β©: 1
It would be cheaper and less complex to have just one main gun. It would also take up less space internally, the loading mechanism which is already bulky itself would be less complex. You could also carry far more ammunition for one main gun then you could for two because more space would be freed up inside the tank.
π: 0 β©: 1
But but but... ITS A FUCKING TANK WITH TWO GUNS. IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU?
π: 0 β©: 1
But but but... IT'S FUCKING STUPID!
π: 0 β©: 1
Ever thought if you missed one shot, you had another round to use instantly.
HUH? YEAH THAT'S RIGHT
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah cause you know, the military never thought of that right? Do you have any idea how fast a human can actually load a shell? A well trained loader can load a shell faster then most auto-loaders. And with a railgun, there is no need for a heavy brass casing or propellent, so a human could load even faster. There is absolutely no fucking need whatsoever for dual main guns. PERIOD!
As for auto-loaders, they are bulky and complex. Now imagine how much more bulky and complex they would be in order to feed dual main guns.
Dual main guns on a tank like plasma weapons and star fighters may be cool, but cool isn't always practical. I promise you that you'll never see a main battle tank with dual main guns now or in the future.
π: 0 β©: 1
But i can guarantee we will see quad guns
π: 0 β©: 2
Quad-guns are low-caliber, high velocity kinetic-kill anti-aircraft weapons.Β You see them mounted in Flak batteries, not on MBTs.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not on a main battle tank you won't. The only "tanks" with dual or quad guns are self-propelled AA guns, and they are largely obsolete. AA guns in general are obsolete. An AA missile can do the job far better.
Back to dual gun tanks, here are more reasons why they don't exist and why they are fucking stupid:
1. Recoil and how it will effect the tank. A barrel is centered and the recoil is taken on the center. If you have a double barreled tank, the recoil is not centered and its going to take the turret off target. Once you fire the first gun, the second one is going to go off target.
2. The only reason for two or more guns is an increase in volume of fire. Again as I said in an earlier comment, this is unnecessary for a modern tank. A well trained human loader can load a rather heavy round in the breech in about 4 seconds. Auto-loaders still can't compete with that speed because they are complex and prone to breaking down. Countries that use auto-loaders do so to decrease the size of the tank overall and shave off a crewman.
3. The main gun of a tank is NOT the same as an autocannon. It's much larger, more powerful and rather bulky relative to the size of their turrets. To fit a tank with dual or quad guns, you'd have to decrease the size of the caliber drastically and that means cutting their destructive power against another tank drastically too. Then your back to autocannons and now what you have is a SPAAG, not a MBT.
4. Because you have two main guns, your going to have to shave off a lot of armor.
5. As I've said before, two main guns would require double gunners and loaders, so the size of the tank would have to be drastically increased, thereby making it a bigger target. And if you used an auto-loader, well it would be far more complex and bulky then they already are.
I said it once, I'll say it again and again, dual guns on a tank ARE FUCKING STUPID!
π: 0 β©: 0
PS - Not to mention that with the way the 25mm cannon is mounted, it doesn't look like it can engage infantry well.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, there are plenty of double barreled tanks. Tungaska, Skink... almost all SPAAG's in general. Perhaps this is the 2142 equivalent to those. Capable of killing tanks and aircraft. Sure, you would deplete your ammo quickly, but you'd bring a lot of kill to the game.
π: 0 β©: 1
You also make it more cramped in the tank. You will find that such vehicles are the exception and they use much smaller calibers then a MBT. There are several very good reason why no nation makes dual main gun MBTs.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, you could have an automated turret... 2/3 man crew in the hull.
And it's fun. Most sci-fi's at some point feature a double barreled tank. So, why not roll with it?
π: 0 β©: 0
