Are there any tanks with multiple turrets? I've seen secondary guns but what about secondary full turrets?
There are! And they range from "bad" to "An abominable deathtrap"
Here's a list of some of the greats:
A polish 7TP with a twin-turreted design
A T-26 with twin turrets:
For that matter, most of the Vickers 6-ton derivatives have a twin-turreted version, including the original:
Additionally, many superheavy tanks had two or more turrets, the most notable being the Soviet T-35 (pictured below), though other notable examples include the French FCM-F1 and several other soviet and japanese projects:
Additionally, many early tanks had multiple turrets, including the US M2 and M3, the German Neubaufahrzeug, as well as the UK's Medium Mk. III (clockwise, from top left):
Hope that answers your question, and thanks for the ask!
What's this? It looks American, but that gun doesn't...
Modified M10 Wolverine, Taiwanese SPG, 1943
That's the chassis of an American M10 tank destroyer, mounted with the Type 91 105mm howitzer. Bit of a rare ad hoc modification, but still a neat example of Chinese civil war-era armor.
Thoughts on best ww2 tank and why? (Can pick separately for Early/Mid/Late War etc if no breakout contender) (Pic unrelated)
Hm. Well, that's definitely a question. I will break it down by period of the war, just to pad the post and give myself the chance to prattle on like a pretentious ass for a little bit longer.
Early war, I'm going to say that the best tank was the Czech (but co-opted by the Germans) ČKD LT vz. 38, which is more commonly known by its name in German service, the Pz.Kpfw 38(t). It's a fantastically capable light tank, and can outperform other early war tanks in nearly every metric. Its' only real competition is the German Panzer III, and the Czech design is simply much less complex and far more reliable than the panzer.
Late war, I'm going to say the British Centurion, and it's a fairly easy pick. For 1945, the Centurion was revolutionary, widely recognized today as the first MBT, and would sit at the forefront of nearly a century of armor design and implementation.
Mid-war is where it might get controversial. To me, the best tank of the mid-war is the Sherman, and it's not even close. Every other tank is fighting for second place. It's too easy to work on, too easily mass-produced, too survivable, too tactically flexible, and too generally capable of a medium tank for it to be anything else.
Hope that answers all your questions, but if not, feel free to converse in the notes, I love to discuss!
Okay. So, last night I was scrolling through my news feed and I came across an article with one of the most dogshit takes I've ever had the misery of reading with my own two eyes.
The article in question? From 'The National Interest', "The M60 Patton could never be built today."
The M60 Patton Main Battle Tank, unveiled during the height of the Cold War in 1960, stands as a testament to American ingenuity and the exi
So, come with me as we absolutely rip the fuck out of this dogshit article. (Now is your chance to read it.)
So, first, let me say, that I don't dislike the m60. It's a venerable tank, extremely capable for its time, and the fact that it still sees some use more than 60 years after it's creation says a great deal as to its capabilities.
However, I take great issue with some of this article's claims.
First, the idea that the M60 was some revolutionary miracle tank, developed out of the blue, and rushed to the field before it was ready. To be frank, that's a bold-faced lie. The M60 is the result of a long lineage of medium tanks and MBTs, stretching back to the final days of ww2. A fairly common piece of cold-war tank trivia is that the M60 was never formally called the "Patton", it just looked so much like the m48 "Patton", that the tankers never saw fit to call it anything different. (Below is a comparison of the vehicles: from the front, the tanks can be distinguished by the m48s concave frontal armor, while the m60 has a flat wedge.)
M60:
M48:
The m48, itself, was a development of the m46, which was itself an upgrade of the m26 Pershing, the American medium tank used in the last days of the European theater. So, the idea that the m60 was flawed because of its "revolutionary design" not being given time to be tested is, quite frankly, horseshit.
Next up on the chopping block is the claims that the M60 is still in use by nations today. The article states that, throughout the Middle East, you can find nations that use the m60 and its modernization still today, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia. However, you'll notice that none of these nations are exactly military powerhouses, with Egypt not having won a war that wasn't against starving partisan rebels since the British packed up their shit and went home, and Saudi Arabia quickly transferring to the M1, and offloading as many of their Pattons on other nations as quickly as they can manage. And let's be honest, when's the last time you even thought about the Iranian military?
Next, I'm going to directly quote this line, because it's peak comedy. "in 1991, the United States Marine Corps, one of the most innovative branches in the US military, deployed the M60 in battle against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army." Ah, yes, the Marine Corps, famous for it's innovation and openness to change...
The Marines wouldn't know innovation if it grabbed the crayon out of their mouths. They hate change more than H.P. Lovecraft hated penguins and Irish people. So to come out and say that something is amazing because the Marines are still using it instead of a newer thing? It's peak comedy.
Then, the author goes into his highly-political diatribe about how, because the m60 was so "rushed" and "untested", it's head-and-shoulders above any US defense project since, because it still sees some use by tin-pot dictators, outdated militias, and the Marines in Iraq. However, what he fails to mention is that the m60 was the ultimate result of the 2nd generation of MBT technology, building on a lineage of tanks going back to 1945. The idea that the m60 is special in any way other than being the culmination of a generation or armored vehicle technology is ludicrous, and I sincerely hope that not too many are suckered in by this ex-congressional staffer's bullshit.
Not only is that a submarine tank, that is a *flying* submarine tank. Patented in June 1918, the vehicle was a true nightmare in every sense. Boasting a minimum crew of 5, a woefully underpowered all-electric drive system, and more contradictory than an honest politician, this thing is every different kind of screwed up.
If you're in for a laugh, I would seriously recommend checking out the Tank Encyclopedia article for this thing, they throw a delightful amount of shade at it.
