Big guns in rail turrets.

Could guns transported by rail have become a bigger thing than historically?


  • Total voters
    41

Redbeard

Banned
If trying to imagine a point of view from early 20th century, when you had to face strong fortifications like Verdun, Maginot, Siegfried or Stalin Line, I could sure see why they wanted some very heavy guns - and there really wasn't any alternative than rail to transport heavy things over land.

If it had been necessary to assault say the Maginot Line those very heavy and very expensive monsters might have come to good use. But you would also have years in advance to lay track lines and lots of them.

Forget about turrets for guns larger than 6-8" - the recoil simply is too powerful, and having a 50-100 ton barrel point sideways of the track will seriously risk having the mount tip in a breeze.

Next forget about having heavy rail guns be of use relative to their cost in anything resembling moving war, the rail lines are probably not in the right place anyway and will be needed for logistics.

But if we recognise the need of a weapon system to take out very heavy fortification you might meet on your advance I would rather consider a very heavy mortar. Have it mounted on a heavy tracked vehicle (heavy tank size) and before firing you "tip" it down on a baseplate on the ground and with the vehicle functioning as the bipods of a traditional field mortar. The recoil would be taken by the ground but could be supplemented by recoil dampeners. I guess it would be possible to have calibres of at least 12 " perhaps much bigger.

Such a weapon would not range very far, less than 10 km, but could get into and out of firing position very fast and so be less vulnerable to counter battery fire and air attack. The shell would hit at a very steep angle and so be ideal for penetrating deep. I imagine it being loaded in the hiding position, then move forward and fire and back again to reload. With a team to provide data on weather and position I think it would be possible to hit very precisely in first shot at such a limited range.

If an air force guy I would suggest a wire guided bomb. Imagine a bomber with half its payload being a bomb and the other half a huge cable drum. I have no idea how much strong enough cable you can get for a ton, but the idea is to fly over the target, drop a bomb with controllable fins and drawing a cable after it through which you send steering commands. Also put a flare in the tail of the bomb, so the aimer can see it. With a little practice I guess you could be very precise with such a gadget and it would be very difficult to "jam". In OTL the allies relatively fast found out how to jam the German radio controlled anti-ship bombs.

If Japanese I would mount a saddle and some harness on the bomb and connect it to steerable fins and put an advert in Tokyo Daily: "Cowboy type needed for glorious job!" (with due inspiration from Dr. Strangelove).
 
I don't see the point in large turreted rail artillery. Too impractical and little to no areas of use. Point of the giant fixed railway guns was as siege guns where the tactical picture allows for them. Better to just use deployable guns that are infinitly more flexible.

Also why do people make polls on this site?
 
But if we recognise the need of a weapon system to take out very heavy fortification you might meet on your advance I would rather consider a very heavy mortar. Have it mounted on a heavy tracked vehicle (heavy tank size) and before firing you "tip" it down on a baseplate on the ground and with the vehicle functioning as the bipods of a traditional field mortar. The recoil would be taken by the ground but could be supplemented by recoil dampeners. I guess it would be possible to have calibres of at least 12 " perhaps much bigger.

Such a weapon would not range very far, less than 10 km, but could get into and out of firing position very fast and so be less vulnerable to counter battery fire and air attack. The shell would hit at a very steep angle and so be ideal for penetrating deep.

...

Fine, save that you sound as if you were writing this as an ATL idea. You are actually describing the Russian Tyulpan 240mm mortar.

If an air force guy I would suggest a wire guided bomb. Imagine a bomber with half its payload being a bomb and the other half a huge cable drum. I have no idea how much strong enough cable you can get for a ton, but the idea is to fly over the target, drop a bomb with controllable fins and drawing a cable after it through which you send steering commands. Also put a flare in the tail of the bomb, so the aimer can see it. With a little practice I guess you could be very precise with such a gadget and it would be very difficult to "jam". In OTL the allies relatively fast found out how to jam the German radio controlled anti-ship bombs.

Again, this existed during WWII itself at least as a prototype, developed exactly to prevent radio jamming. It was the Hs 293B.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Fine, save that you sound as if you were writing this as an ATL idea. You are actually describing the Russian Tyulpan 240mm mortar.



Again, this existed during WWII itself at least as a prototype, developed exactly to prevent radio jamming. It was the Hs 293B.


Very interesting. I knew from my army time that the Soviets had a 240mm mortar, but not that it also came in a selfpropelled version - out of my fantasies :). Found some clips on Youtube of it firing - the recoil is very controlled even if the carrier vehicle appear to be relatively light. Would appear like a much heavier weapon is viable. Data (or ideas) on the CEP of the Tyulpan would be very nice.

Also haven't heard that a wire guided version of the HS 293 was under way, but of course a logical answer to the jamming. My inspiration was the TOW missiles we used, worked surprisingly well. Don't recall we ever had a broken wire. The wire after all was several km long, and didn't take up much space or weight. But I guess WWII technology would require a much heavier wire.
 
Also haven't heard that a wire guided version of the HS 293 was under way, but of course a logical answer to the jamming. My inspiration was the TOW missiles we used, worked surprisingly well. Don't recall we ever had a broken wire. The wire after all was several km long, and didn't take up much space or weight. But I guess WWII technology would require a much heavier wire.

The reel could be on the mother aircraft or vehicle. The limitation, I think, is practical line of sight, more than wire length.
 
The reason RR guns had their day was that roads in Europe were not the highways of today. Getting heavy caliber guns moved by road, also given the motive power of horses or relatively low powered motor vehicles, was difficult so to move heavy you needed railroads. The USA by WWII/Korea had 8" guns that moved by road quite readily, and btw the Atomic Annie could move just fine on roads with specialized prime movers - the issue was width of road and turn radius.

On the repair issue its not the rails, its not the rails, its not the rails. To move very heavy loads like the proposed turret gun and accompanying personnel and support cars as well as a heavy locomotive means a very solid roadbed. Even relatively "small" artillery shell like a 105 or 155 can make a hash of roadbed, as could a 250 or 500 lb aerial bomb. Each and every chunk taken out of the roadbed requires significant effort to fix and has to be done right or it gives way under the train which is now lying on its side next to the track. While there are now systems that automatically take up old ties, lay some new ballast and then new ties and rails (search you tube ytou's see them in action, these REQUIRE that the basic supporting roadbed is intact.
 
The drawback is, rail guns are limited to rail. The very idea of laying two (or more:eek:) tracks for a single artillery piece beggars the imagination, when just keeping existing lines up & running was such a task.
 
Top