Best Artillery of WWII

[Miss Nimitz]

Thanks for that Mark lV , Thats amazing in 1918 having a cannon that could shoot 131 kilometres, its a shame the Germans or who ever didnt put more resources into that type of warfare. I doubt the accuracy on those guns though, probably aimed at Paris and hit Nice. hehehe

[Mark V]

its a shame the Germans or who ever didnt put more resources into that type of warfare.

Actually, it's shame that Germans put even that amount of resources into that kind of warfare...

[Miss Nimitz]

When I say more resources, I mean to make them more efficient, more accurate and shoot even further..a good cannon can replace a whole squadron of bombers...has same effect..

[Mike K.]

Yeah, those resources should have been applied elsewhere. Germany had a tendancy to put faith in "wonder weapons" that would turn the tide of the war, such as super artillery or their first chemical weapons.

[Mark V]

When I say more resources, I mean to make them more efficient, more accurate and shoot even further..a good cannon can replace a whole squadron of bombers...has same effect..

Sorry. Nope.

Any gun wouldn't have the range and flexibility of bomber. Very long range guns like Paris gun, K12 or V3 were exceedingly expensive to manufacture and use - and same time very vulnerable (at least in WW2). Also their effective payload to the target is only a small fraction of strategic bomber, so no match here.

IMO Upper limit for valuable gun during WW2 was 28cm K5 - anything over that in calibre or range was waste of resources.

[Miss Nimitz]

Well i was thinking if you had 500 BIG guns on the white Cliffs of dover and you were pounding the Germans in France day and night with it, then D-Day could of been easier. And with out risking one aircraft/pilot.

[Lord Styphon]

From Dover to Normandy?

It was easier to blast the Germans with battleships.

[Galahad]

One other problem with the Paris gun was its lack of accuracy at extended ranges. It NEEDED a target like Paris in order to hit anything. In that respect, it was just like the V1 and V2 of WW II, but with a much smaller payload.

Like I said, it used too many resources for the results obtainable. It was basically just a very expensive terror weapon, and a not very good one. One Gotha bomber dropping bombs in the night would have gotten better overall terror results, and caused more damage, for a lot less in the way of resource investment.

[Galahad]

Both the British and the Germans had battleship-caliber guns covering the Dover Strait during WW II, but they didn't accomplish very much, except to make ships moving through the area play dodgeball. There simply weren't many targets worth firing at, especially for the investment a many-gun battery like you conceive would require. The British 15" gun was the best piece of heavy artillery made in WW I, and required a huge investment of capital and resources--but counting spares, the British only made around 200 of them.

Besides, a fixed position gun is a sitting duck for a moving gun platform, as was proved repeatedly in WW II.

[Miss Nimitz]

Lord, what I was getting at was if you pummel the French coast with BIG GUNS from Dover to the closet part of France, then D-Day didnt have to be at Normandy and 3000 Americans didnt have to die on the first day..

[Lord Styphon]

The Pas-de-Calais, where the Germans had built the Atlantic Wall to its strongest? Where the Germans were EXPECTING the invasion to be?

You've shown yourself to know next to nothing about military history; don't even think about trying to lecture the rest of us on military strategy.

[Galahad]

It's about 20 miles from Britain to France at the Dover Strait. At extended range with a max powder charge, a 16" gun could have fired perhaps 25 miles.

What happens if the Germans build their positions 25.5 miles from your super-battery? THEIR guns would cover the beaches and Channel, but would be untouchable by yours.

[Juha Tompuri]

Galahad,

Were your examples of coastal artillery versus ship(s) at WWII, on equal base? I mean same number of AF at the scene as well as equal number of equal caliber guns.
The ship has "some" disadvantages over the stationery placed artillery if they have a duel at equal terms:

PLATFORM STABILITY: Ship - CA(coastal artillery). CA wins 6-0

FIRE CONTROL / ACCURACY: Ship had about 10m class range finder and perhaps observation ac`s CA could use a system of a chain of fixed coastal based observation posts that measured the direction of the enemy. Fire control centre according to the received messages, simply draw lines from the posts to the enemy, and so the position of enemy was directly where the lines crossed. A 10000m base "range finder " versus 10m base of the ship = more accurate fire.
The CA also could use "pre calculated/shot targets"

VULNERABILITY: The ship is/was a much larger, single target which can be damaged severely by a single hit. CA can/could be "placed widely", turrets even kilometres apart and from coastline, so that the ship had no visual contact at the guns firing at it. All the vital elements of CA were dug deep into granite and concrete. CA had better overall protection.


regards, Juha

[Miss Nimitz]

Galahad, in 1918 the German could fire shells 31 kilometres...whats this 25.5 kilometres your talking about in ww2..

[Mark V]

Juha is exactly right in his comparison on advantages/disadvantages in ship versus coastal arty battle.

During WW2 western allied used heavy surface units (battleships, cruisers) very effectively to support ground operations - but they carefully avoided (by placing of invasion and using airpower instead) direct duels with modern coastal arty batteries with comparable gun calibre and number of guns to their ships armament - just because they were well aware of points that Juha posted.