German mega defense

[Takao]

Wow man i never talked about thousands of them.Max i could think of would be 60-80 and some 200-300 20cm-40cm naval guns for all kinds of forts.I never said replace all AA with Gustavs.
Germany in our timeline had the Atlantic wall that made the Maginot Line funny,of course were not talking about the same Germany as mine.

The problem with 60-80 is that the bombers can be diverted around them. As historically, Allied bombers were diverted around heavy Flak concentration points. This negates the usefulness of the big guns as flFlak.

The biggest problem to any project is resources and not if it can be engineered.Engineers can built anything with enough resources and time and the biggest problem to my defense line is cost and what is needed for it to be built when it comes to raw materials.We should be mostly discussing that.Ive already asked some times before in this thread that but got only short answers.
I will properly reply latter on and on your previous answer to my question as well,because its getting really late here.

1933-1939 peacetime Germany is not 1940-45 wartime Germany.

[Destroyer500]

Because, no Navy in the world could get a 20.3 cm gun to do that effectively. If they cannot get a 20.3cm gun to elevate to 90 degrees, you are not about to get a 50cm gun(the length of Schwere Gustav to do it. Let alone a battleship-sized 50cm gun.

Then there is the auto-loading. How do you autoload a large caliber gun at high angles? As opposed to loading a gun at 5 degrees, raising it up to 86 degrees, firing, and dropping the gun back down to 5 degrees.

The gun won't raise high enough and fire fast enough to fire more than a few shells at LOW flying aircraft. High flying bombers, you won't even come close to their altitude - with battleship sized guns.



I am thinking you are underestimating just how god damned huge the Langer Gustav would've been. Yet alone a hypothetical AA variant.

Not as big as the big boy 80cm version, sure. But we're talking about a 43 meter long barrel (the 80cm was 'only' 32 meters), with a mass of around 1000 tons or more, depending on the mount.

The thing would obviously be a stationary target unless you design some sort of double-width rail AA mount for it, which would increase the weight further (1500-2000 tons?).

For that tonnage you could get roughly 75 dual-barreled 128mm flak guns for a total of 150 barrels of the most deadly AA gun of the war.

If we go down in size a bit more, you could get 250+ of the excellent Flak 41 88mm gun instead for the weight (and they would be far more mobile and thus harder to hit).

Guys if i had known it was that big i would never even recommend it.Although i may like it as uber artillery the size is too much for AA.I thought it would be closer to some 40cm naval guns just with a rocket propelled shell,sort of like a giant sturmtiger.This means change of plans,i would have 30 of these built somewhere behind forts as counter artillery and discard the AA role completely.
I propose naval guns like 40cm ones to take the place of my big flak idea but with rocket propelled shells and a new barrel to be able to do that.If they think and try long enough an autoloader system can be made a 1 rpm i believe can be achieved.
Those extra 100-200 flak are gonna be so expensive to use with those numbers that i saw of the average required shells to kill something that building something big with a bigger boom will be cheaper.
Landing from the Baltic will be the main option for allied invasions but i havent given enough thought as to how these areas are gonna be defended.I guess forts,defences fo all sorts and some missile gustavs ? Of course this is not pure bunkers,some heavy,not like the maus but more like a tiger 2 panther hybrid,will be there to close gaps and of course theres gonna be a strong airforce.
I have 2 thoughts and 2 possible changes to make to this Germanys borders and to my scenraio scenario 1)just like it happened historically capture half of Poland with the Ruskies take Norway and play deff by building forts along these borders 2)Forget completely Poland and just take Norway.I think that for this defense to work Norway has to be taken either way because the steel from Sweden is very important but taking Poland brings Britain to the war that is not ideal.The war though on Britain was not very popular initially and if Germany doesnt bomb them for longer than 3 months,or doesnt bomb them at all,then there is a chance for it becoming so unpopular that they sign some sort of treaty.

The problem with 60-80 is that the bombers can be diverted around them. As historically, Allied bombers were diverted around heavy Flak concentration points.This negates the usefulness of the big guns as flak.


1933-1939 peacetime Germany is not 1940-45 wartime Germany.

Well yes they were diverted but they cant afford to avoid the most important industrial areas or military installations completely and since in this scenario were playing def were gonna have more area covered with flak of big and small size.Avoidance wont be entirely possible.These guns would of course have ample air support since again were aiming on having a more numerous and possibly more advanced airforce earlier.

Where on earth did you find info on the long gustav ? That thing is nowhere to be found.

[Takao]

Well yes they were diverted but they cant afford to avoid the most important industrial areas or military installations completely and since in this scenario were playing def were gonna have more area covered with flak of big and small size.Avoidance wont be entirely possible.These guns would of course have ample air support since again were aiming on having a more numerous and possibly more advanced airforce earlier.

Where on earth did you find info on the long gustav ? That thing is nowhere to be found.

Well, after further looking, the bombers will not have to divert. All they will have to do, is fly above 25,000 feet. As the maximum altitude reached by US 16-inch guns was about 19,000-21,000 feet at firing angles between 30-45 degrees. I padded the figure, since the German land mounts had 55 degrees as maximum elevation.

As to the Langer Gustav...Practice your Google-Fu. Everything I found was through Google. Also helps to use quotes.

[Takao]

Dl Schwerer Gustav (Heavy Gustav): calibre 800mm, rifled, with an explosive shell of five tons at 48km range, and an armour-piercing shell of seven tons at 39km range.
D2 Schwerer Langer Gustav (Heavy Long Gustav): calibre 520mm with smooth-bore attachment, with a finned, explosive shell of three tons and 135km range.
D3 Langer Gustav (Long Gustav): calibre 520mm with smoothbore attachment and a rocket-assisted shell of two tons and a range of over 150km.

Guns D2 and D3 used the 800mm barrel of the Dl as a sleeve for a 520mm barrel insert. The Peenemünde arrow shell and the Rochling rocket-assisted shell were among the projectiles to be tested.
http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol124lw.html

[Takao]

http://www.worldwar2facts.org/gustav-gun.html

[Carl Schwamberger]

Youre not even taking me half seriously.Germany playing def,making an x10 maginot and using big AA guns is not the same as saying that i want 50000 tigers or 100000 panzer 3s.

You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Given Germany Uber weapons & building an Uber wall equates to giving German 50,000 Tigers or 100,000 Panzer IIIs.

Tell that to the people that thought of making the maginot line

The Maginot Line, or more specifically the CORF project works were all of 145 km long. Less than 30% of the Franco/German border. Compartive estimates from French defense ministry sources and later calculations by historians suggest the cost in 1930s Francs could have funded increasing the air forces by over 50%, paid for building up to twelve armored divisions, or modern artillery for the entire French Army of 1940.

[T. A. Gardner]

The Maginot Line, or more specifically the CORF project works were all of 145 km long. Less than 30% of the Franco/German border. Compartive estimates from French defense ministry sources and later calculations by historians suggest the cost in 1930s Francs could have funded increasing the air forces by over 50%, paid for building up to twelve armored divisions, or modern artillery for the entire French Army of 1940.

And, the primary reason the French chose the Maginot Line was their military was totally invested in the doctrine of Methodical Battle. That made the Maginot Line a perfect fit with their existing military doctrine. So, that's what they built.

[Destroyer500]

Well, after further looking, the bombers will not have to divert. All they will have to do, is fly above 25,000 feet. As the maximum altitude reached by US 16-inch guns was about 19,000-21,000 feet at firing angles between 30-45 degrees. I padded the figure, since the German land mounts had 55 degrees as maximum elevation.

As to the Langer Gustav...Practice your Google-Fu. Everything I found was through Google. Also helps to use quotes.

This of course implies that we dont use some rocket propelled shell to reach far bigger ranges,because even before we had this brief conversation i knew they would be inadequate.It also implies that some mechanism that can load and elevate this size of a gun is not going be created-pioneered.I personally believe it can be done and even if at worst the gun has to be lowered to be reloaded then i believe that its general traverse can be fast enough to make it shoot 1 round per 10 minutes.Would it be possible for a gun this size to use some sort of magazine type feed system ?

As to the Langer Gustav...Practice your Google-Fu. Everything I found was through Google. Also helps to use quotes.


Dl Schwerer Gustav (Heavy Gustav): calibre 800mm, rifled, with an explosive shell of five tons at 48km range, and an armour-piercing shell of seven tons at 39km range.
D2 Schwerer Langer Gustav (Heavy Long Gustav): calibre 520mm with smooth-bore attachment, with a finned, explosive shell of three tons and 135km range.
D3 Langer Gustav (Long Gustav): calibre 520mm with smoothbore attachment and a rocket-assisted shell of two tons and a range of over 150km.

Guns D2 and D3 used the 800mm barrel of the Dl as a sleeve for a 520mm barrel insert. The Peenemünde arrow shell and the Rochling rocket-assisted shell were among the projectiles to be tested.
http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol124lw.html

NICE FINDS and im not jocking.I did some research but everywhere i searched i saw only the "standard" big Gustav being mentioned.

[Destroyer500]

Youre not even taking me half seriously.Germany playing def,making an x10 maginot and using big AA guns is not the same as saying that i want 50000 tigers or 100000 panzer 3s.

You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Given Germany Uber weapons & building an Uber wall equates to giving German 50,000 Tigers or 100,000 Panzer IIIs.

Tell that to the people that thought of making the maginot line

The Maginot Line, or more specifically the CORF project works were all of 145 km long. Less than 30% of the Franco/German border. Compartive estimates from French defense ministry sources and later calculations by historians suggest the cost in 1930s Francs could have funded increasing the air forces by over 50%, paid for building up to twelve armored divisions, or modern artillery for the entire French Army of 1940.

Still France didnt have the manpower to effectively fight Germany on its own and if Leopold the III had not chickened out in 1936 then Germany may have either lost,taken too much to push through and Britain has arrived with fresh armies or lost so many men than Barbarosas and other campaigns are out of the question.Because Belgium could in no universe hope to hold Germany back but with French military having their back and holding their forts things would be different.Anyway im getting of topic.
Well they may have built a more mobile army but they chose to play def and thats the thought process this thread somewhat tries to entertain

The Maginot Line, or more specifically the CORF project works were all of 145 km long. Less than 30% of the Franco/German border. Compartive estimates from French defense ministry sources and later calculations by historians suggest the cost in 1930s Francs could have funded increasing the air forces by over 50%, paid for building up to twelve armored divisions, or modern artillery for the entire French Army of 1940.

And, the primary reason the French chose the Maginot Line was their military was totally invested in the doctrine of Methodical Battle. That made the Maginot Line a perfect fit with their existing military doctrine. So, that's what they built.

Thats true and if i remember correctly i must have said some time ago in this thread that a different Germany doctrinally would have to exist for any of this to happen

[Richard Anderson]

This of course implies that we dont use some rocket propelled shell to reach far bigger ranges,because even before we had this brief conversation i knew they would be inadequate.It also implies that some mechanism that can load and elevate this size of a gun is not going be created-pioneered.I personally believe it can be done and even if at worst the gun has to be lowered to be reloaded then i believe that its general traverse can be fast enough to make it shoot 1 round per 10 minutes.Would it be possible for a gun this size to use some sort of magazine type feed system ?

You might keep in mind that the late 19th and early 20th century was the era of mechanical geniuses, especially with regards to weapons design. Thus you might expect that if a 40cm automatic cannon capable of 90 degrees elevation and all-angle loading was practical then it would have been built.

You might also think about the sizes and weights involved. The high capacity projectile for the American 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 weighed 862 kilos, so nearly a ton. If it is loading at a 45 degree angle you need a mechanism that can lift that weight into the chamber and get it to seat in the barrel without gravity making it slide back out or even simply move back a fractional amount, which could be enough to affect range and accuracy. THEN you have to have the same mechanism load 269 kilos of propellant into the chamber with the same requirement - it cannot be allowed to fall out. And it has the additional problem that if it does fall out it likely would impact the black powder initiator at the base of the propellant charge, which has a strong chance of going BOOM! That is what is known in the ordnance trade as a "bad thing".

Then if you want it to fire from a "magazine" you still have to have a mechanism that can routinely move such masses without jamming...or again setting off the propellant and causing a "bad thing" to happen. (As a side note "over-ramming" a propellant charge was the probable cause for at least two peacetime USN disasters IIRC?)

[ThatZenoGuy]

The Gustav had a sliding breech, so theoretically you could use a cartridge with it.

Although I feel as though extracting said cartridge would be a nightmare.

[Destroyer500]

You might keep in mind that the late 19th and early 20th century was the era of mechanical geniuses, especially with regards to weapons design. Thus you might expect that if a 40cm automatic cannon capable of 90 degrees elevation and all-angle loading was practical then it would have been built.

You might also think about the sizes and weights involved. The high capacity projectile for the American 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 weighed 862 kilos, so nearly a ton. If it is loading at a 45 degree angle you need a mechanism that can lift that weight into the chamber and get it to seat in the barrel without gravity making it slide back out or even simply move back a fractional amount, which could be enough to affect range and accuracy. THEN you have to have the same mechanism load 269 kilos of propellant into the chamber with the same requirement - it cannot be allowed to fall out. And it has the additional problem that if it does fall out it likely would impact the black powder initiator at the base of the propellant charge, which has a strong chance of going BOOM! That is what is known in the ordnance trade as a "bad thing".

Then if you want it to fire from a "magazine" you still have to have a mechanism that can routinely move such masses without jamming...or again setting off the propellant and causing a "bad thing" to happen. (As a side note "over-ramming" a propellant charge was the probable cause for at least two peacetime USN disasters IIRC?)

While there were surely plenty of great minds around i think none of them got asked to turn guns this size to fire on aerial targets.Size and weight are surely big concers though regarding the whole thing but i think it can managed.
I found an instersting gif that shows big gun autoloaders

Animated_gun_turret.gif (305.39 KiB) Viewed 257 times

For a 90° firing angle i would propose;1)a breach located to the side of the gun with the shell being assempled,rotated with some sort of mechanism to a 90° (or whatever degree the gunners want) and then being inserted 2)the same rotation and preassenbly i deshribed but with a standard butt breach and some giant pin or sheet inserted from the side of the gun to hold the assembled shell in place till the breach closes3)the breach and it only can be detached rotated,vericaly loaded like it would on a "standart" scenario then be reroted and reattached4)a vertical reload like on other big guns but a with faster elevating mechanism so that reaiming doesnt happen when the bombing run is over.
A magazine mechanism like that on the Swerdish spg Archer could propably do the job but again not 100% sure.Also the archer can reach max 70° from what i read in a quick search.

[Destroyer500]

The Gustav had a sliding breech, so theoretically you could use a cartridge with it.

Although I feel as though extracting said cartridge would be a nightmare.

It would be a nightmare indeed but the Gustav sized rocket gun is gonna be used as just artilery with a "standard" and not fancy autoloader.Unless somehow it can be effectively loaded even at very high angles with the mechanisms i deshribed.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I found an instersting gif that shows big gun autoloaders Animated_gun_turret.gif

Nitpick but that's a battleship turret which, while heavily automated, required much manual labor and only had elevations of around 45 degrees tops.

The largest autoloader was the 8 inch American late war cannons, which actually had a suitable ROF for AA use, but still lacked elevation (although its possible you could've made it work to be honest) and weighed a LOT.

[Carl Schwamberger]

While there were surely plenty of great minds around i think none of them got asked to turn guns this size to fire on aerial targets

Actually they were. Dig deep enough Ito the records of the US Coastal Artillery there was consideration of the problem. The Japanese went as far as including a purpose designed AA projectile for the battleship big guns, including the Yamamotos 18" cannon. The Germans initiated a 15cm FLAK gun project in 1938, which was terminated in 1943 with the prototypes not yet at practical level of service.