That is absolutely true. But even more modest air raids were more effective than these monster guns, in proportion to the resources expended on them. The disruption of the Sevastopol communications systems, achieved by mere Ju 87s, was more damaging to the Soviet forces than the big explosions effected by Gustav and Thor.
Paris Gun attacks, the original.
- Thread starter Gawdzilla Sama
- Start date
-
- Tags
- guns world war i history
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
I just yesterday finished a historical novel in which the Dardanelles gun plays a part. In 1807! And that's not fiction, they actually used it then. Rate of fire is, of course, abysmal. Note that it's effectively a muzzle loader -- the barrel screws onto the breach.
The Paris gun, meanwhile is quite reminiscent of the air cannons used in punkin chunkin!
There's another one of the same date, similar sort of weapon, in Edinburgh Castle. Mons Meg. It too was fired much later.
It burst because even when it it was used merely to fire a salute, it was loaded with a large stone ball.
Soldiers were paid to find and retrieve the projectile. Now, can someone tell me why they would load it with ball in this role?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The RAF sank a German battleship, the Tirpitz, with Tallboy bombs?
Amongst other things, yes.
Looking at Wiki, only Thor's heaviest shell was heavier than the heaviest bomb routinely carried by Mosquito bombers
Some of the Nazi weapons were a brilliant waste of resources.
The Ratte and the Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster would have been gifts to Allied aircraft, always assuming that they managed to move anywhere - Gawdzilla might have stats for the estimated. mechanical attrition rate per 100km for normal tanks in WWII (I seem to recall that for a normal tank battalion it was about 30%) but such large vehicles would be significantly worse, and of course a single event would immobilise the entire force rather than just one tank (because the force would *be* just one tank...
And destroyed various other high-value targets without having to get within 40km on land of them
In a static situation, like WWI, yes. They would have been pretty poor in defence, 14-shells a day is not going to halt an attack and in a fluid situation would probably lag the advance, or the retreat.
To elaborate on your point:
It would provide a high value target for any aircraft. You probably would need air supremacy (not just superiority) to use it, when you wouldn't need to.
ETA: At least one can see the rationale behind something like the Yamato (with a 27kt speed and a lot of secondary armament which one might consider would provide some protection against aircraft. In shore bombardment under air supremacy, battleships were important for shore bombardment and probably did have something to offer that aircraft didn't.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,686
Battleships can 'loiter' for as long as you need them and can fire all day and night. They can put a lot of tonnage in to a very small area.With a good observer they were probably more accurate than bombers.
After D-Day RN Battleships and Cruisers gave massive fire support to the beachheads acting as heavy artillery. Look at the history of HMS Warspite for example. By D-Day she had more battle honours than any other RN ship and barely survived sinking when she was hit by a Fritz X guided missile that left a 20ft hone in her bottom and put a boiler room and X turret out of action permanently. After a repair back in the UK using Concrete to patch the holes she was the first ship to open fire on D-Day from a range of 26,000 yards and fired until her magazines were empty. Then after re-arming she continued to shoot until her guns were worn out. New barrels were fitted in Rosyth and she went back to France again. Her 15" guns fired 2000lb shells to a range of 37,870 yards.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Both von Rundstedt and Rommel noted the power of naval gunfire, especially the heavies, when discussing their lack of mobility. (Rommel said nothing about this after the war, however.
) The ground troops on Okinawa credited the OBBs' fire for helping to break the Shuri Line.
anglolawyer
Banned
Great stuff!
Did Paris not come under fire from German guns in 1871?
ETA Prussian guns.
Did Paris not come under fire from German guns in 1871?
ETA Prussian guns.
Indeed, the loitering was part of what I was thinking. And with, say eight guns firing these shells at 2-rounds a minute, plus the six-inch guns as well, that is a different matter to firing once every 45 minutes.
Yes they did. Late in the siege.
This optimistic view is contradicted later in the same article.
It was pure terror bombing worthy of Churchill and Harris, or Hitler in Warsaw or Belgrade. To Bismarck falls the honour of inaugurating such methods of warfare in modern times.
Up to now we've been discussing the effect of super heavy artillery in siege warfare as such. This was the use of heavy weapons to slaughter unprotected civilians indiscriminately. That heavy guns can do that is not in doubt. Does that win wars? Not easy to determine. By the time the bombardment started the Parisians were already very short of food, and were eating dogs and rats. The bombardment may have been the last straw, because attempts to break the German lines and relieve the city had already definitively failed.
A more conventional use of very heavy siege guns was the German deployment of such weapons to reduce the fortresses round Liège in 1914.
The design of the forts, as regards facilities such as ventilation, food provision and waste disposal, was quite unbelievably poor. Nonetheless, that they held out as long as they did disrupted the German advance timetable long enough to have been a major factor in ensuring the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, and the survival of France.
So was this a victory for Big Bertha and her ugly sisters? Hard to say.
ETA Note also that even in the effective absence of aerial attack, these guns were very vulnerable to long range conventional calibre enemy artillery fire. Here's Big Bertha and her sisters later in their career.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Both von Rundstedt and Rommel noted the power of naval gunfire, especially the heavies, when discussing their lack of mobility. (Rommel said nothing about this after the war, however.
The ground troops on Okinawa credited the OBBs' fire for helping to break the Shuri Line.
The US Marine Corps fought against the retirement of the Iowa Class Battleships in the 1990's.
I understand,though they are now Museums,that they are actually maintained in such a way that they could be brought back into service....
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Both von Rundstedt and Rommel noted the power of naval gunfire, especially the heavies, when discussing their lack of mobility. (Rommel said nothing about this after the war, however.
The ground troops on Okinawa credited the OBBs' fire for helping to break the Shuri Line.
Naval Fire played a major role in Normandy in breaking the Fortresses protecting Cherbourg.
They also.in Patton's opinion saved the day at Sicily when is looked as though the German Panzers would be able to throw the American Gela Beachead into the sea.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
That's my understanding, that the same maintenance they had post-WWII would continue.
Let them be careful with the maintenance or other precautions.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Overramming is a chronic problem with sailors.
</Churchill>
[url="http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1433,00.html]Over-rumming[/url] as well as over-ramming too, if Winston is to be believed. (Leaving aside over-lashing.)
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
We would want to get caught over LashLing, now would we?