Be sure to check out the Tank Encyclopedia magazine on Payhip: payhip.com/TankEncyclopedia Sorry if you notice any audio differences in the video I had to make some changes after a mistake was noticed in the script and some additional info was added. Hope you enjoy regardless.
Did u know little willy (the prototype of the mk1) was originally going to have a rotating turret in the centre but was switched to make it easier to cross trenches and unditch the tank
Add all the insane T-100 variant of which only SU-100Y was built. Like single turreted variant with armaments ranging from 76mm , 130mm , 152mm , 203mm
Sad but the only successful multi-turreted tanks are... those in video games, like the Mamoth tank from the Command & Conquer series. But damn is it cool and imposing !
One correction - soviets DIDN'T get plans for Independent. They saw it, but it was too pricy and Medium III wasn't ready yet so they bought different tanks. T-28 and T-35 are indeed based on Independent design schematics, but not because soviets stole them. Kama tank school! Rheinmetall and Krupp Grosstractor prototypes were tested there and they are copied from Independent. Soviets had gotten the plans to those by virtue of guarding it(the irony is here, but mostly guarding the secret of its existence) and helping to maintain it. So when Weimar Republic caught an aneurism called fascism, all military cooperation was cancelled and tanks were hastily returned to Germany. Soviets didn't like the deal breaking and their engineers were good enough to basically copy the design in a few last weeks it was there. You can see it clearly in suspension system design as it has some features of Grosstractor that Independent hadn't or had in different fashion. And after that soviets had the plans and we're basically left with the question "what next?". Well, some blokes were to Britain a few years back and saw this cool tank. Why don't we make one like that with Grosstractor plans? And they did. Ironically going back to the original bloodline of "german" vehicle. Myth that soviets stole British plans is mostly propagated by wehraboos, who 1)don't like people mentioning that Grosstractor and thus Neubahfarzeug and by extent PzKw.IV have british roots; 2)want to claim that soviets were morally worse at every turn(despite this being the only true success of german intelligence service and you undermine it by such claims. Maybe because it was an example of Weimar Republic success); 3)simply don't know that soviets officially showed up and were buying tanks and licenses left and right in UK. If timeline was a bit different, they would have just bought Independent(or rather Medium Mk.III).
*a Russian tank crew member, deep within the labyrinthine Soviet innards, after an hour of much zigzagging and backtracking, finds a possible exit hatch, pops his head up, and finds himself...eye to eye with FDR in the Oval Office, emerging from a trap door built into the President's desktop. One pregnant pause later, and...* "Ah, bohze moi, I knew I should have taken that left turn at Vladivostok."
"Ah, so you're the new starboard gunner? Nice to meet you, I'll show you around!" "Where's the rest of the crew?" "Oh, them? They're having a party down at the pool on deck 14"
i heard they built a single turret version of these monsters just as an experiment, using freed weight to increase armor and it turned out to be the most practical design of all three later becoming KV-1 and starting the entire bloodline of soviet heavys
>SMK >Actually does pretty well, withstanding multiple hits and leading the offensive >One turret gets knocked out, no problem because there's a second one >Finally disabled after intensive fire and a mine, which would knock out any other tank >"This doesn't work, tovarish"
Howdy all, Devil’s advocate here. SMK was already fairly slow and heavy, and was only gonna get more obsolete. 2nd turret was meant to function as support, not backup, and its cons overall outweighed the pros. Strong and capable sometimes maybe, but still got knocked out by the Finns. You know, those guys from the small backwoods agricultural nation whose main anti-tank weapon was a glass bottle filled with petrol that had a couple matches strapped to it.
It was doing well, but not well enough it seems. Though cute the full crew managed to survive so it wasn't a death box. Though they would have surely failed against the Axis....such a large target with armor that quickly becomes weak...yeah, problematic.
@@fusososososo3507 Yeah. Had the KV-1 prototype not been there in time for testing, we might've seen one of those go on to be produced at least in limited numbers. But if you have one tank that is A-grade (for its time and context) and one that is B-grade, why wouldn't you shelve the B-grade one? Especially when it's probably cheaper to build the A-grade anyway. But I disagree with the conclusion of this video. The SMK was evidently very successful, as its chassis went on to be used for the KV-1 which itself was later again extensively modified to support the IS-1 to -3. Same as how you can't really call the LT vz. 38/Pz 38(t) "failed" because it ended up serving a dozen different, much more useful roles.
The Finns have many photographs of the SMK in war archives and there was an attempt of salvaging the SMK fromm its stuck position. However, as one can easily deduce, Finns had practically zero experience with land vehicles as heavy as this one and there were no capable vehicles to tow SMK, as horses just wouldn't do. Finns did take notes on the SMK, apparently misidentifying it as a possibly modified T-35, which is no surprise as who would send a classified prototype to the front? Germans later bought Finnish intel on Soviet equipment and combat capability and the mistaken identity of T-35 lived on in early 1941 Soviet tank identification infogramsof Germany.
That second paragraph is so funny lol, like "There's no way they sent sikrit weapons to our strongest stronghold with little to no backup, it must be just T-35 with engineers being creative in field modifications"
If the m3 lee is a multi turret tank is a weird guestion. Obivously the 75mm is a hull mounted gun, meaning it dosnt count as a turret. This leaves the 37mm gun and the commanders machinegun. You could count the machine gun as a turret, however you could also count it as a commanders machinegun which most often isnt counted as a turret in most mbt. You propably wouldnt call the m60 a multiturreted tank, or the amx-30/amx-40. Tbh i would say m3 lee isnt really a multiturret tank, as the mg is more of a cupola machinegun.
Werent those both destroyed by Finns in the winter war? Theres an interview of a finnish veteran in youtube and in that he said a tank as large as a house came at him, all he could do was to take cover in his foxhole... The tank stopped right on top of him and he could hear the crew inside laughing... "only had a rifle sso what on earth can you do?" "Nauroovat perkele!!!"
For one thing, especially at that point, just about any tank would have seemed massive to a soldier on the battlefield. The Soviets also tested a number of tanks like the KV-2 in Finland so that description is a but vague and could have applied to any of them even a T-28
Actually the British did consider adding a turret to its tanks in WW1 but it was decided against doing such as it meant the tank would not be able to use an unditching beam if it got stuck in the mud. The unditching beam was carried on two rails which ran across the top of the tank from front to back, one on either side of the tank. If the tank became stuck a hatch could be opened and the beam attached to the tracks on either side. Once attached the tank would be driven forward and the tracks would drag the beam underneath the tank and free free it from the mud. It was considered more important for a tank to do this then have a turret on the top blocking the unditching beam. The sponsons on either side of the tank could do most of what a turret could do and carried a much heavier calibre gun then the French tank.
Indeed, the original design for 'Little Willie' did include a turret; I think it was dispensed with in part because of the increased overall height making the vehicle more conspicuous. Our later 'Mediums', Mark's A, B and C had what could be regarded as a fixed turret carrying the armament; the Medium B also had sponsons in the hull sides.
Wow. I've read about these two tanks for years but you have the most complete story yet. Great research . The French and early Russian tanks get beat up by historians but they were the only countries to produce numbers of these huge tanks. One wonders if metallurgy and engine/mechanical technology was at a more advanced level at the time , could these tanks have fared better.? I suggest you do a video about the T220 that was refitted with a KV1 turret and fought at Leningrad. It is mythic but real . ( the original turret was supposedly used as a casement to protect the Leningrad tank factory)
Because cylinders are the best form to withstand pressure through equal destribution of force over it's surface. And a cylinder is way more hydrodynamic, generating less drag while traveling through water
@@atfyoutubedivision955 how isn't it? In a lot of these case the extra turrets are machine gun turrets, both for modern and older tanks. Which shows that the principal was sound and is still being followed today.
Do we consider the remote weapons station on modern tanks a separate turret? If so the multi turret design in a way got its principles vindicated. I could easily see armies equipping their tanks with a second CROWS for the loader to man, giving you effectively three turrets
The tank encyclopedia is far more charitable to the SMK. It was well armed and armored and liked by it's crew. All in all it was a fine vehicle, but it did suffer from the issues inherent to all multi-turreted tanks. I would argue that tanks with multiple guns, such as the Char B1 Bis and the M3 Lee, come with the exact same issues. Those beeing size, weight and difficulty for the commander to coordinate and make full use of all weapons. Despite beeing a fine vehicle the SMK would never be adopted because Kirov Works were well aware of these issues and developed it's replacement in tandem with it. The design itself does not become a disaster because the prototype got stranded in no man's land by an anti tank mine during it's combat trial. If that is how we judge tank designs why not just dispense with the combat trial and judge tank designs by coin flips? That would save time.
The design was the main factor in it's eventual cancellation though. Clearly between the T-100 and SMK the issues of weight and size became clear to the designers of the tank. The crew may have liked it since it was well armored for the battles it was in but the fact is that the KV-1 was cheaper and more effective while also being more reliable. Realistically speaking the additional turret gives the SMK only a small firepower increase for the sheer logistical burden it becomes
It would have been interesting to see a true land battleship like the Ratthe would have looked like though. Armor so thick not even a 155mm can pierce, cannons to blow bunkers and tanks alike, machineguns to hold back a whole battalion...
But multi turret designs are better. Well if its a small MG turret on top of the main turret. Provides more options for self defense with a minimum weight penalty.
One correction - soviets DIDN'T get plans for Independent. They saw it, but it was too pricy and Medium III wasn't ready yet so they bought different tanks. T-28 and T-35 are indeed based on Independent design schematics, but not because soviets stole them. Kama tank school! Rheinmetall and Krupp Grosstractor prototypes were tested there and they are copied from Independent. Soviets had gotten the plans to those by virtue of guarding it(the irony is here, but mostly guarding the secret of its existence) and helping to maintain it. So when Weimar Republic caught an aneurism called fascism, all military cooperation was cancelled and tanks were hastily returned to Germany. Soviets didn't like the deal breaking and their engineers were good enough to basically copy the design in a few last weeks it was there. You can see it clearly in suspension system design as it has some features of Grosstractor that Independent hadn't or had in different fashion. And after that soviets had the plans and we're basically left with the question "what next?". Well, some blokes were to Britain a few years back and saw this cool tank. Why don't we make one like that with Grosstractor plans? And they did. Ironically going back to the original bloodline of "german" vehicle. Myth that soviets stole British plans is mostly propagated by wehraboos, who 1)don't like people mentioning that Grosstractor and thus Neubahfarzeug and by extent PzKw.IV have british roots; 2)want to claim that soviets were morally worse at every turn(despite this being the only true success of german intelligence service and you undermine it by such claims. Maybe because it was an example of Weimar Republic success); 3)simply don't know that soviets officially showed up and were buying tanks and licenses left and right in UK. If timeline was a bit different, they would have just bought Independent(or rather Medium Mk.III).
@@lordcaptainteapot6143 1:56 "...specifically Germany and Soviet Union". And as I've said, it wasn't. Soviets didn't like Independent when they had a chance to buy it so it wasn't "sought after".
@@TheArklyte I wrote the video, so I should be aware of what the video entails. I did not say at any point that the Soviet Union stole it, I merely stated that the plans for the Independent were sought after by Germany and the USSR. In addition, it was a design sought after by the USSR by their very interest in it in the beginning.
Why couldn't this work on a modern battlefield though?Couldn't we just fully mechanize all turrets with autoloaders. Give each turret control to another dude, all sitting together in a room listening to their commander who designates targets using allround camera and drone feeds. They can all communicate sitting in their little room remote controlling the tank. Well I guess that this point you could just give each of them their own little tank that's faster and Independent.....
The term more turret and guns means better was never true but Russians didn't get that Take a look at the British A9 and crusader cruiser tanks, their turrets were dropped in next models why it was 1 cramped and hot as an oven 2 obvious target for AT gunners 3 you can't get out of the tank brews up yikes!
I have to wonder if the eventual introduction of fully automated vehicles and AI fire-directors if multi-turrets might make a comeback in future vehicles. If it's down to communication and cooperation issues, AI wouldn't have any such issues and could track and engage many separate targets with ease. I don't imagine multiple main guns, but things like PD machineguns that can independently engage infantry and missiles seem plausible.
@@Poop-qz9yn I imagine if you could ditch the whole crew (perhaps minus one who's just there in case connection to command is lost to provide orders) you could fit a whole lot more weaponry into even the smaller tanks around too. Doubly so if you toss armour no longer needed to protect a 3-4 man crew. If you wanted to get really weird with your automated weapons, you could make the auto-CIWS not part of the tank, but it's own detachable automatons. Then you'd get the same benefit as a live crew that can disembark if necessary. I doubt AT teams hiding in structures would want to deal with something like DARPA's 'spot' carrying an LMG with an IR sensor that picks out human targets and automatically shoots them after crawling out of it's mount-point on some drone tank.
Not sure more crazy designs will, but I could see a main gun turret with a lighter autocannon coax and then a CIWS style turret ontop of that to deal with self defense. For really close defense reactive armor with self detonation ability seems more sensible than providing more holes in the hull to stick guns out of. Fixed grenade launcers are currently popular too and would make sense in the future too.
Would a multi turreted tank work with modern elecctronics? The automated turrets would be able to coordinate fire with each other, and if tanks become fully robotic I think multi turrets might make a comeback.
It could but not in the same way. One turret already possess enough firepower. 2 would be unwieldy The way multi turrets would come back is probably on the machine guns or other secondaries. Being able to attack infantry or other threat independent of the main turret on a whim. Also these would probably end up as a mini turret on top of the main turret like in 1950(?) onwards.
a tank which becomes the focus point for enemy fire, but can survive it, does have a tactical usage: it effectively acts as armour for the other tanks in the brigade, even if its own guns are useless
These failed designs are always interesting. Though some times the tanks failed for no reason of their own. Some times a better weapon was developed making their armor pointless. Or in a lot of cases wars ended before final production and it was out dated before a new war sprung up.
I have a captured m39 from the winter war that actually saw combat in the defense of Finland its amazing to own a peice of history like that. I would love to go see the su100y the SAP ammunition must be massive for that thing
I came up for a multi-turreted tank design for a game world i am planning, and it partially gets around the issue of command and communication by having someone who is a designated commander in each turret, and so the main commander only needs to tell them to hold thier fire or let loose and the each turrets crew takes care of itself, it's still not perfect, but it is a massive behemoth even compared to these multi-turret tanks, but i like it.
@@reform-revolution I don't follow? All I mean is multiple turrets concept are making a comeback to some extent. Having a secondary weapon that can rotate and aim independently without exposing the user sound pretty handy.
@@jerdasaurusrex557 i thought you were referring to the ability to have multi turrets now that we can communicate and use them without needed a million men in a single vehicle and the ability to talk remotely
@@jerdasaurusrex557 it would be larger and being heavier then an MBT meaning slow and ungainly in the field ........most bombs and missiles while not as inaccurate as WW2 munitions still arent accurate enough to hit a tank dead on at speed or while in cover while something large enough to have several turrets would be slow immobile and hard to quickly change course until we develop a way to stop missiles, rockets and bombs that can be placed on a tank without hindering it larger tanks like that arent very useful and given the current state of wars (small scale and fairly low intensity) not really a need for these landships which is kinda lame cause landships are awesome looking and awe inspiring in every media they appear in (seriously look up the Big Tray battleship its a beast)
i wish i could say that about T-35 (my experience) but i still do 6-9 kills in it. probably because it has a lot of crew and (imo) 2 fantastic guns at its br(the 47mm guns)
Now that we can turn tanks and armored vehicles into drones, I believe making a multi-turret tank that is a drone would remove most of the issues, mainly the communication between crew members as there would be no crew, it's either be remote control by one person or fully autonomous.
Many random guy's girlfriends: "Why isn't he texting back, wtf is he doing?" He's probably watching endless videos about 20th century military vehicles
@@JefeInquisidorGOW but this tank being as slow as it is. Isnt going to get a chance to avoid any enemy tank or gun fire. So it needs to be priperly armored to be nigh immune to it. Not have just barely enough armor to prote t from the rounds of the day.
If private companies in the West work on different designs for the same specifications it is called competition, if state controlled design bureau’s do the same it is called convoluted….sure makes sense.
