I am pretty sure a 800mm HEAT-FS round would penetrate basically any defensive structure ever built by mankind.
Big WW2 German guns shoot down and destroy everything
- Thread starter Destroyer500
- Start date
It actually would not. A shaped charge is by nature soft-tipped and contact-detonating, so while it is excellent at searing through steel armor, it is innately incapable of deep, multi-layer penetration. WWII era shaped charges could penetrate a maximum of about twice their diameter in armor thickness, so an 800 mm HEAT round would burn through up to 1600 mm of armor plate -- enough to sear through even a battleship's main belt, but it would *only* go through a single armored layer and not punch through multiple layers.
In other words, you could delete a small bunker from the face of the earth, but it wouldn't actually be effective against the sort of huge mega-fortifications that Gustav actually targeted.
Edit: And the thing is, a regular HE round is better at both of those jobs, base-fused or 'utterly delete small fortification' and delay-fuzed for deep penetration into mega-fortifications. Which is exactly what the Germans did in fact use, the best round for the job as opposed to "But I think this would be SO COOL!!!"
Last edited:
I mean lets check each target Gustave was fired at.
Coastal guns: HEAT-FS still explodes and could be given a fragmentation liner so it works just fine here.
Fort Stalin (small kinda sad looking Russian defences): Gonna blow that up too
Fort Molotov: Still more than sufficient for something of this size
White Cliff: Yeah HEAT-FS isn't going to be able to work on this target, it's amazing how the Germans fired at a SUBMERGED AMMO DUMP and took it out lmao.
an outlying fortification: Still doesn't need literal 800mm APHE to break something this puny
Maxim Gorky Fortresses: 800mm HEAT-FS will take out battleship turrets, they dont' have multiple layers like the hull of a battleship after all.
Also, I did specify it'd just be a spectacle to see 800mm HEAT-FS. Not that it'd be especially effective.
For starters -FS projectiles are not as accurate as spin stabilized ones, which is kinda bad idea for long range artillery. It's why we don't use 105/155mm smoothbores for arty.
Destroyer500
Member
Finaly i have some time
1,3)The amount of resources required to run my 400mm guns will not really be anything out of the ordinary.Germany fielded multitudes of coastal artillery guns in the Atlantic wall.I will be defending most major German cities and industrial areas.Major German cities,those with 200k population and more according to open AI chat are 16
Add to that lets say 10 major industrial areas of all kinds and we have 26 ... lets make it 30 major locations for these AA guns to be placed.Im talking strictly about the 400mm guns im proposing.I would put 2 of these guns on each one of these important locations,so 60 in total,but truth be told there aint really that many needed on every single place.There is also no way they could not make a few 400mm guns.There was a ton of smaller calibers on the atlantic wall so theres no excuse for some bigger ones not being there
Hundreds and im talking about tens of 400mm ones.Theyre not really longer or anything they just fire advanced shells.So barrel life would not be huge or anything really like what the Paris Gun faced.
The hardest part of all this is elevating and firing the gun which will add complexity but i doubt its impossible
If this thing,that isnt even stationary,can elevate and fire on almost 90 degrees im sure we can do better with something stationary especially if its half the size.
When it comes to the 800mm guns i talked about or to a 1000mm one i believe that they would serve as excellent arty more than AA if we could make the ramjet thing more accurate.After all shooting 700 or 1000+kg of explosives is close to shooting a V2 at them for WW2 standards.When it comes to reaction times,since these gun emplacements are going to look like space observatories,a big spherical dome with a gun peeping from a hatch,we could make a system where theres some sort of ring attached to the gun that is peeping from the dome at some point that is attached to some sort of weights inside the ground,via steel wire or something,that move up and down along with the entire mechanism of the thing,just like they do on an elevator system,to move it up and down faster and help the multitudes of sprokets inside the thing.A similar system could be used for the rotation on the X plane.It wont move blisteringly fast but it will be fast enough.After all bombers are not missiles.This is only to react to a turn though since the guns are probably going to be facing the direction of the bombers long before theyre seen and will have ample of time to turn towards their new direction.After all bombers do not appear magically.The challenge would be to reload with an autoloader at high angles.I havent thought of something but where theres a need theres a way to fulfill it.We could just use giant clips or something since i doubt that in the 30 minutes a bombing campaign is going to last over an average 20km city is going to be enough for more than 5 shells to be fired.Its not impossible to make an autoloader either but i dont know how id do it
2)I never said they would move.The ramjets shells would have the range to support ground troops,all thats needed is a way to make em accurate enough
4)Yea that was more of a thought than something realistic
The same problem persists though,accuracy for the ramjet shell.As you mention guidance was a latter idea and it came a lot afterwards but there could be other ways.After all we can fire the shell and achieve the range all we need is knowing its not going to miss a whole postal code not that its going to hit a specific building.Guidance may not even be needed we could maybe find other more "mechanical" in a sense ways to make it accurate but i dont know of any currently.For the AA shell we could just make the shell tracer like and give it remote detonation ability via controller if contact fuse is not an option.But contact fuse would become an option if Germany cared more for it.Usualy projects with higher priority developed faster.Latter in the war they developed their own version so with more research far earlier they could make something workable.We also have the plus that a 400mm shell (or an 800mm one hahha) has a lot more space than an 88 or 128 one and i say this both for the contact fuse and the possible if any guidance for the ramjet.
Again, remember that the Dora can only fire one shot every thirty to forty-five minutes. Firing less effective ammo *does* cost you in practical terms.
Well yeah, but given it's actual targets were a fraction the strength of it's intended role that doesn't matter too much. It's like using a sledgehammer to crush a bug, you can make the hammer out of wood and it'll still work just fine.
I wouldn't use such shells against the maginot line because that thing was massive and as you say, layered.
The hardest part of all this is elevating and firing the gun which will add complexity but i doubt its impossible
If this thing,that isnt even stationary,can elevate and fire on almost 90 degrees im sure we can do better with something stationary especially if its half the size.
That's not "almost 90 degrees"; that's about fifty or sixty degrees, which is the maximum elevation typical for a railway gun. Railway guns are actually easier than stationary guns in terms of recoil handling, because the longitudinal recoil is often absorbed by kicking the entire carriage a substantial distance down the track. That's part of why the rate of fire is so slow for a railway mounting compared to a battleship mounting of similar caliber. A stationary mounting that can't move with the recoil can't be "half the size"; it actually has to be much, much bigger.
Second, you'll notice that the railway mount can't traverse at all. There did exist something called a Drehscheibe, which was a rotating track platform for railway cannon, but this was only usable for relatively short-recoiling railway guns of up to 300 tons. Being far too large for such an arrangement, Dora was aimed by having the double-track it rode on have curved sections at the firing site so that it could be pointed by moving it forwards and backwards on the track.
Neither method works for an anti-aircraft gun which needs to be rapidly and accurately traversed to engage aircraft.
Last edited:
Except this is not true at all -- even with the shells which were actually used, the Dora was of limited effect and it's not clear that it actually succeeded in destroying several of the targets it was fired at. The idea of using less effective shells for...no reason at all except you think they're cool. . . . just doesn't fly.
Consider that the entire heavy artillery bombardment of Maxim Gorky by both the Schwerer Gustav and Karl Gerat siege mortars resulted in *one* direct hit (unknown which type) which disabled one gun turret and damaged the other, but the fortress remained operational and was not actually knocked out of action until infantry assault engineers were brought in, and possibly not even then. You'll notice that even with the fortress still in action, the Gustav was not tasked with firing upon it again, because it wasn't very effective -- so why should it be made less effective by firing unsuitable shells?
For the spectacle of comically huge smoothbore gun firing huge shells. ;D
Destroyer500
Member
Thats lower than what you said which is underwhelming
Even if the mechanism has to be far bigger i dont think it really matters when youre stationary.Since we wont move it anywhere we could also find ways to make the elevation higher but we dont have to go all the way to 90 degrees if that isnt necessary 
Cost doesnt matter since they were already making them for ships.Power is irrelevant and can be found or produced.Elevation and reliability are the main problems.
*be able to create is the correct way to write it but i was copy pasting the previous answer so yea
Although the answer doesnt say much it sais one important thing priorities and time and im sure that if this was a big project it would be no1 priority and thus have more people over it and more time spent carrying and developing it.
We have to concentrate on the purpose of these things though.Theyre not going to be there for one purpose and one purpose only.Even with 0 advanced shells they serve as AA and as guardians of the cities-places theyre located because they can shoot at ground targets as well.With rocket propelled shells,not even ramjet ones,from 400 all the way up to the 800-1000mm guns,these things could achieve 100+ km ranges and strike the enemy before they can even see you.Going with rocket propelled shells could also be a way to fix the issue of the "the electronics cant handle the acceleration" which i personally dont consider it impossible in ww2.Proximity fuses became a thing at the time with the Americans doing it first just like you said my friend
Proximity fuze - Wikipedia
And this shell is a miniature compared to what im proposing.I asked my robot battler one more question
Size will not be a problem when were firing something 3 times larger than the 128 and maybe even 6-7 times larger.Mercury though is another story.
So if all these nations can insert electronics into shells that small and have them do all this is it really such a crazy idea to say that on a far larger shell some radio receiver of some sort can be inserted that will also help to,in a very crude manner and with conjuction to some ground radar system, guide the thing ?
The problem after all is just the midflight not the entire journey.If the thing doesnt lose its target midflight then its just rotating and falling (which yes could also lead to a target loss but were aiming for a 2-5km margin of error in the hudreds of kilometers range).It aims to be a weapon system to do it all.With low yield nukes we could literally blast and entire bomber squadron and their friends from the sky.The Americans thought of doing it with the Nike missile why cant we do it with a more crude weapon ? Those low yield nukes could also of course target cities and armies and due to boom missing even by a lot more than what i proposed wont matter much.
Before we go on with this i would like to thank you for taking the time to write all the big replies.Were here to have a discussion after all and learn new things
My ideas are not perfect but ill certainly defend themA proximity fuse *is* a very crude radio receiver, all it does is trigger at a preset distance. An actual guidance system is vastly more complex.
Your source is also incorrect in claiming that the Germans were able to produce proximity fuses; this is not true. Germany had somewhere between thirty and fifty different projects for proximity fuzes underway during the war, but none of them was able to produce a fuse fuse suitable for operational production. It never happened.
The closest Germany got to an operational proximity fuse of any type was Rheinmetall-Borsig's "Kranich" electro-mechanical acoustic fuse, but this was so fragile that it could not even theoretically be used on an artillery piece; it was intended for the various advanced guided missile projects that Germany had, but never reached usable state even then. The missiles were ultimately produced with space set aside for the fuses to be added when available, but they were never available.
The Germans also absolutely did not have nuclear warheads, much less nuclear warheads that were both compact enough and robust enough to fit in even an oversized artillery piece.
Your source is also incorrect in claiming that the Germans were able to produce proximity fuses; this is not true. Germany had somewhere between thirty and fifty different projects for proximity fuzes underway during the war, but none of them was able to produce a fuse fuse suitable for operational production. It never happened.
The closest Germany got to an operational proximity fuse of any type was Rheinmetall-Borsig's "Kranich" electro-mechanical acoustic fuse, but this was so fragile that it could not even theoretically be used on an artillery piece; it was intended for the various advanced guided missile projects that Germany had, but never reached usable state even then. The missiles were ultimately produced with space set aside for the fuses to be added when available, but they were never available.
The Germans also absolutely did not have nuclear warheads, much less nuclear warheads that were both compact enough and robust enough to fit in even an oversized artillery piece.
Last edited:
The Japanese had some proximity fuzes that were discovered by the Americans, but they seemingly either never used them or the Americans never noticed them in action.
Destroyer500
Member
I have heard from other places as well that Germany got a proxy fuse but it was stated it got there really late due to low priority and or not enough time and or inability to make one earlier.Im sure though that i found it and im sure that it saw combat.Now if i remember wrongly then ok but i will have to search a bit again and ask some people for help.
Even with no contact fuse a tracer on the shell and some remote detonation switch by one of the people manning the guns would work just fine for the most part.
They may not have had nukes but i wanted to demonstrate the capabilities such a gun carries M65 atomic cannon - Wikipedia This one wasnt even 400 or more mms and could fire a nuke
A guidance system is of course more complex but we dont want full guidance.I dont want problems though i want solutions.Lets say you are hired and asked to make the shell not lose its path as much as possible and you have the tech of the era to do it.With no hindsight of course of future techs.Could we use some sort of beacon and have it change its course according to the strength of it ? Im thinking though that would require a very strong beacon-emitter.Could we guide it via radio waves ? Via sonar or something ? All of these being external of course.If you cant do it without hindsight use some but only on the amount that makes sense.Could we use Xrays or something else
?The Japanese had a photoelectric eye based proximity fuse in very limited use for bombs only (probably never actually used in combat, given their policy of reserving all limited production tech for the final defense of the home islands). They never developed one that was durable enough to be workable for artillery shells or even "just" rockets/missiles.
Could we use some sort of beacon and have it change its course according to the strength of it ? Im thinking though that would require a very strong beacon-emitter.Could we guide it via radio waves ? Via sonar or something ? All of these being external of course.If you cant do it without hindsight use some but only on the amount that makes sense.Could we use Xrays or something else
A ground-transmitted guidance beacon is exactly the system that was used for midcourse guidance improvement in later versions of the V-2 rocket. The problem is the system they successfully developed was too fragile to be put in an artillery shell; even in the modern day, putting sophisticated guidance measures in an artillery shell is extremely difficult because of the combination of high miniaturization needed to fit in the shell while still leaving room for a useful explosive or submunition payload *and* the ruggedness needed to actually survive being fired.
Any such developmental effort by the Nazis is realistically going to end up exactly where most Nazi technology ended up: "Either still working on it at the time the war ended, or cancelled because a rival project got the Fuhrer's ever-mercurial ear."
Destroyer500
Member
Hahahaha ever mercurial ear.That was a nice one
Ok so that means that it may have been somewhat possible.We could reduce the possibility of the thing breaking apart when the shell is fired by using a rocket propelled shell that then goes on to hypersonic speeds via the ramjet.That way the shell wont go from 0-800-900m/s in an instant and then jump to hypersonic.It will start picking up speed and once "ignitable" the ramjet takes effect for the midflight part.
But does it have to be made smaller ? The answer as we can see from the picture bellow is no
It only takes a small amount of space and can definitely fit on a 800-1000mm shell (maybe even on a 400 one ? I dont think so) since the V2 is 1600mms thicκ on the thickest part and that thing is way smaller.
But then again why cant we put the thing on a shell ? If the Yankees can make a contact fuse that can fit so small shells why cant the Germans put a goddamn crude guidance system on huge shells when its their No1 priority on this field ?
1. Keep in mind that artillery shells by their fundamental nature have substantially less internal space than a rocket of the same dimensions because they have to have thick, sturdy walls. On top of that, an 800mm shell is going to have *at most* about a twelfth the total volume of a V-2 rocket, being half the diameter and perhaps a third the length at most.
2. Also keep in mind that ramjets are in fact bulkier than rockets, and a ramjet-boosted artillery shell isn't even possible with WWII tech. In fact, it's not even yet possible with modern tech; in the modern day it's cutting edge developmental stuff.
3. American engineering, especially in WWII, was vastly better in every way than German engineering. Better educated scientists, vastly larger numbers of them working with vastly superior material and technological resources while not being bombed, far less micromanaging by petty bureaucrats, less industrial politics BS, etc. . . The fact that only the Americans managed to create a practical cannon VT fuze is exactly why the Germans couldn't. And again, a full up guidance system is asking vastly more than a VT fuze.
4. If you made it the #1 priority, the German approach would still be to have 10-12 competing programs constantly falling over each other, outright sabotaging each other, politically backstabbing each other, then overgrown fanboy Hitler picks the most impressive seeming one, the German High Command undermines his choice as soon as he forgets about it, repeat in circles. Then if you finally get something semi-working, the Allies bomb it into oblivion.
2. Also keep in mind that ramjets are in fact bulkier than rockets, and a ramjet-boosted artillery shell isn't even possible with WWII tech. In fact, it's not even yet possible with modern tech; in the modern day it's cutting edge developmental stuff.
3. American engineering, especially in WWII, was vastly better in every way than German engineering. Better educated scientists, vastly larger numbers of them working with vastly superior material and technological resources while not being bombed, far less micromanaging by petty bureaucrats, less industrial politics BS, etc. . . The fact that only the Americans managed to create a practical cannon VT fuze is exactly why the Germans couldn't. And again, a full up guidance system is asking vastly more than a VT fuze.
4. If you made it the #1 priority, the German approach would still be to have 10-12 competing programs constantly falling over each other, outright sabotaging each other, politically backstabbing each other, then overgrown fanboy Hitler picks the most impressive seeming one, the German High Command undermines his choice as soon as he forgets about it, repeat in circles. Then if you finally get something semi-working, the Allies bomb it into oblivion.
I've heard reports that some were found for use in AA shells. Not sure if I can re-find the documents though.
As I understand it, there was around 10 thousand shells produced in total...Or maybe it was 1000, not enough to actually make a dent in the war.
Destroyer500
Member
1)I did some research on this and it turns you are correct but it doesnt really make my idea obsolete.Ramjet shells are going to be less thick than an an average artillery shell.
Things take an interesting turn though
And i also asked it the ratio multiple times until i got at least a theoretical one
That means that the internal space has substantially been increased and thus we dont have the previous problems to such an extend
Apart from that even modern ramjets shells may have some rocket assistance so theres even that as an option
2)Its possible if people care to make it so.Its a jet engine that takes the igniter from outside in a way strapped to a shell or a missile or anything.V2 and other missile-rocket systems were extremely advanced for their time too yet with enough resources they made it happen.Ramjets will be half the hustle of making a working V2
3)American engineering was good in certain aspects and bad on others.No western country was perfect when it came to tech.The US had material advantage and the fact that they didnt need to stress themselfs to win a war.Apart from that the US didnt undergo a major party change like Germany did.Going from the shithole that Weimar was to the Third Reich was not easy and everyone on the military industrial complex wanted a slice from the pie after helping the regime rise to power
4)Theres certainly ways to reduce the chaos that was German R&D.The Allies aint gonna bomb anything into oblivion.Apart from the guns which aim at creating unsustainable casualties when it comes to bombers in the sky the Luftwaffe will in general play more defensively and use its planes in a non wasteful way.Also in this scenario there is no Battle of Britain since its a waste of time
Last edited:
Destroyer500
Member
The calculations the AI made when it comes to the internal space are wrong.Its a lot smaller but a lot of things apart from the internal space will be different.The thickness of the side walls of a shell are not actually as thick as i was told here.They were at best 40mms thick on the side of the Gustavs shell and 200-250mms thick on the base.Now i will keep the same thickness for the side walls of the ramjet shell that the Gustavs shells had,since by design ramjets are thinner but due to size increase they have to be thicker.I dont know if that made sense but you may get it.They base could be 50mms thinner though.The material ill use to make the thing light and strong will be titanium.With some calculations the internal volume of the shell will be 5.3 cubic meters and the volume of the shell will be 0.96.Thats with the shell being 8 meters tall,being 1000mm in bore diameter and having 40mm thick side walls.A copy paste from another forum will follow but this is basically what i want to know if anyone is able to do it.Here it is
I want to know the mass and the volume of a ramjet engine that can be built with ww2 tech required to move a 6.3 ton artillery shell,which includes its 2 ton payload,at a distance of 1000kms.The material well use is titanium and the fuel is going to be kerosene since i cant think of anything better,but if you can then feel free to say it.A hypothetical impulse per second for the ramjet would be 1700 and a hypothetical efficiency would be 22.5%.If the principle of lifting body can be used on lower altitudes and can be implemented along with the ramjet so that it saves fuel then tell me how it can be done.The shell will be fired at a speed of 900m/s at best with an average of 870-890m/s.I say this because ive heard that ramjets need to be mach 3 to start working but ive also heard that they can work on lower speeds as well with some changes on the intake
I want to know the mass and the volume of a ramjet engine that can be built with ww2 tech required to move a 6.3 ton artillery shell,which includes its 2 ton payload,at a distance of 1000kms.The material well use is titanium and the fuel is going to be kerosene since i cant think of anything better,but if you can then feel free to say it.A hypothetical impulse per second for the ramjet would be 1700 and a hypothetical efficiency would be 22.5%.If the principle of lifting body can be used on lower altitudes and can be implemented along with the ramjet so that it saves fuel then tell me how it can be done.The shell will be fired at a speed of 900m/s at best with an average of 870-890m/s.I say this because ive heard that ramjets need to be mach 3 to start working but ive also heard that they can work on lower speeds as well with some changes on the intake