Why did tank design move away from sponson or multi turreted systems to engage multiple hostile a at the same time?
>>29325924
the right side of that stick phases through the railing
>>29325939
holy fuck
that dog is a wizard
>>29325939
WHAT THE FUCKKK???
>>29325957
He's a a fucking mathmagician
>>29325939
Dude I never noticed that.
What the flaming Fuck?
>>29325924
Those features require more crewmen, and that requires a huge tank to fit them all.
>>29325939
>>29325957
>>29327435
>>29327467
>>29327832
Lost frames frome being a gif.
>>29325924
More difficult to effectively command. Big and unwieldy. Les armour than a single turreted version with same weight.
Because then the tank with the one big gun blows the fucking shit out of you from twice the distance away of your largest turret
>>29327910
You must be fun at parties.
You will see tanks with 4 sets of tracks before you see tanks with multiple turrets for engaging multiple enemy targets.
>>29330285
Not true.
We've already seen tanks with multiple turrets.
To my knowledge, we haven't seen a tank with four tracks.
![xx-20-3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SwyxHfI.jpg "xx-20-3[1].jpg")
>>29330789
this thing is sort of what you are asking for, but it was intended as a TD
>>29325924
The M60 has two, and it wasn't too bad.
>>29330285
>>29330789
In example the American m3 lee. That tank was horrible.
>>29327467
>>29330789
>>29331446
I misspoke, I meant you will see modern tanks move to 4 tracks before they gain multiple offensive turrets.
>>29325924
Having a single larger gun is generally more important than having multiple guns.
One 155mm gun will pierce armor much better than two 75mm guns would.
>>29325924
See the difference in weight (And thus armor) between a tank with a three person crew and a tank with four. Now think of a modern tank with seven crewmen and the armor necessary to protect them all. Now you have to buy an engine powerful enough. Can you maintain it without a dedicated facility? How much fuel does it use?
The downsides of multiple turrets were obvious decades ago, hence why we haven't used them since.
>>29331440
A capoula isn't a second turret, it just looks like one.
>>29331446
The M3 beat the crap out of pz3s and early 4s.
Smartest dog ever
>>29325957
>>29325939
>>29327435
>>29327832
>>29327910
No dumbasses the stick is bent on the right side.
>>29325924
More Men.
More Material.
Less Armored.
More Weight.
>>29325924
There was actually a short little naval theory that applies here. In tanks that stuff the carries over would be (I believe)
-More units tend to offer more advantages then fewer larger units
-The advantage offered by multiple guns of less power and range is usually marginal if not negated by slightly fewer but more powerful guns.
-Additional armor puts smaller guns on the back burner because they lose even more effectiveness.
-Speed and maneuverability to dictate the engagement is always the better position.
So assuming that there's a general upper limit to how heavy you want to make a tank, your best best is more tanks, with larger guns, and additional armor as opposed to spending that weight and space on less armor, and more plentiful, but less effective guns. There's obviously more to it than just paper numbers games such as doctrine, available tech, etc. but in pretty much all aspects putting all of your eggs into less baskets tends to be the less optimal choice.
>>29332828
bullshit
Make a tank with three 40mm cannons on turrents, add a VLS of 12 ATGM's for anti-tank. Would be excellent.
>>29336894
i thought there was something about 2 tanks having 4 times the power of one tanks or something,forgot it's name
>>29336894
Granted though technology drives a lot of that two. If a rail gun system could be doubled up on an existing chassis with less weight and therefore and increase in speed and/or armor there'd be a stronger case for it.
>>29337107
I believe you are thinking of the same thing I was, N-Squared Law was it?
