Strategic, long-range cannon.

Yokel

LE
There was a similar thread a few years ago about Saddam's Supergun - I started it.

Saddam's Supergun

We concluded that the output of Project Babylon was unlikely to be useful as a weapon in an age of radar and air power, and was largely there to get Gerald Bull to go to Iraq and help him modify his Scuds.

I wonder of parts of the barrel are still in MOD storage?
 

tiv

War Hero
These you mean Dover in the Crosshairs – Hitler’s Four-Year Artillery Bombardment of Southern England - MilitaryHistoryNow.com
snip


German gun emplacements like this hurled hundreds of shells across the English Channel during World War Two. (Image source: German Federal Archive)

German gun emplacements like this hurled hundreds of shells across the English Channel during World War Two. (Image source: German Federal Archive)




One of the many high-calibre guns near Calais. (Image source: WikiCommons)

"Between 1940 and 1944, some of the heaviest artillery in the Axis arsenal hurled salvo after salvo of high explosive shells at England’s southeastern coast. Britain responded in kind. The ensuing long-range duel raged intermittently for more than four years, killing hundreds. Yet to this day, the fight for control of the English Channel remains one of the lesser-known chapters of World War Two."
"The guns ranged in size from comparatively “light” 8-inch cannons capable of lobbing explosives up to 33 kilometres, to massive 16-inch radar-controlled weapons, which could hurl one-ton projectiles more than 50 kilometres."
Think he means this V-3 cannon - Wikipedia
 
Then compare it with the cost of a missile, cruise or ballistic. Oops.
I have, cruise missiles - you need some method of getting it close to the target before launch. ICBMs are not cheap, nor are they reusable.
 
Can we build a guidance system that will stand the stress of firing.
Yes, we have been putting things like radars into artillery shells for well over 30 years.
 
Last edited:
I ask the same question, why is it necessary to build one. Where are they building the launch site, even a 1,000 mile range is fairly limited, sited in the states they target Mexico & a bit of Canada, will any country in Europe allow it to be sited there with it's limited arc of fire to the East? As Gluteus said earlier it would be easily targeted for a retalliation bombardment using proper missiles.
I think a lot of people are misconceiving its role.

For a start it would have the capability of dropping a shell anywhere in the world thanks to modern technology. Hell the thing doesn't even need to point at the enemy!

Secondary, it's not a war winning weapon, it will be useless against a country with the capability of landing a ICBN or airstrike in your own back yard.

However, as a weapon to spank surgical strike some middle/ far Eastern or African country without putting your own troops in jeopardy it has its merits. For example hitting the ammo dumps and chemical factories in Syria etc.

But as technology has moved on, it will be soon replaced with drones with the capability to loiter for years in the polar regions in permanent sunlight and then when required to fly down and attack targets anywhere.
 
I think a lot of people are misconceiving its role.

For a start it would have the capability of dropping a shell anywhere in the world thanks to modern technology. Hell the thing doesn't even need to point at the enemy!

Secondary, it's not a war winning weapon, it will be useless against a country with the capability of landing a ICBN or airstrike in your own back yard.

However, as a weapon to spank surgical strike some middle/ far Eastern or African country without putting your own troops in jeopardy it has its merits. For example hitting the ammo dumps and chemical factories in Syria etc.

But as technology has moved on, it will be soon replaced with drones with the capability to loiter for years in the polar regions in permanent sunlight and then when required to fly down and attack targets anywhere.
So it's a pretty toy of limited usefulness and limited service life. It's only attraction is to the people making money out of the project and the arm of service who want to generate a few more jobs by operating it.
 

Yokel

LE
So it's a pretty toy of limited usefulness and limited service life. It's only attraction is to the people making money out of the project and the arm of service who want to generate a few more jobs by operating it.
Unless you could use it in peacetime to launch reconnaissance payloads into a high altitude parabola, for example firing them from the Scottish highlands and islands (Shetlands maybe?) to get a quick peek into the Murmansk area. How you recover it, or transit the information back, is another issue.
 
So it's a pretty toy of limited usefulness and limited service life. It's only attraction is to the people making money out of the project and the arm of service who want to generate a few more jobs by operating it.
And perhaps expanding the ability of the service operating it to conduct operations without having to involve other branches of the services to get a particular job done.
 

Blogg

LE
Suggests that proposed upgrades to existing systems may result in something currently "mobile" ending up classed as "moveable".

Ah right.
 
So it's a pretty toy of limited usefulness and limited service life. It's only attraction is to the people making money out of the project and the arm of service who want to generate a few more jobs by operating it.
pretty much, It's a cheap solution for which the technology is known and readily available today.

However, the advances that Boeing are making with the polar drones means that it will soon be overtaken. The drones can stay indefinitely over the poles (in summer), but the batteries are limited to the number of times they can be recharged once it starts flying day and night. There is a very good chance that these drones will replace satellites in the very near future.

The only advantage it will have over the drones is the time taken from pushing the button to impact at the target. Unless you had already committed the drone over the target.
 
And perhaps expanding the ability of the service operating it to conduct operations without having to involve other branches of the services to get a particular job done.
AKA allowing the artillery/army to stick their unnecessary noses into what are usually airforce operations. Bet the British version would need at least a one star to command the one gun battery.
 
These you mean Dover in the Crosshairs – Hitler’s Four-Year Artillery Bombardment of Southern England - MilitaryHistoryNow.com
snip


German gun emplacements like this hurled hundreds of shells across the English Channel during World War Two. (Image source: German Federal Archive)

German gun emplacements like this hurled hundreds of shells across the English Channel during World War Two. (Image source: German Federal Archive)




One of the many high-calibre guns near Calais. (Image source: WikiCommons)

"Between 1940 and 1944, some of the heaviest artillery in the Axis arsenal hurled salvo after salvo of high explosive shells at England’s southeastern coast. Britain responded in kind. The ensuing long-range duel raged intermittently for more than four years, killing hundreds. Yet to this day, the fight for control of the English Channel remains one of the lesser-known chapters of World War Two."
"The guns ranged in size from comparatively “light” 8-inch cannons capable of lobbing explosives up to 33 kilometres, to massive 16-inch radar-controlled weapons, which could hurl one-ton projectiles more than 50 kilometres."
Whilst on a hunt for people smugglers operating on the French Coast my 'security adviser' and I spent a week or so visiting German Coastal defences. We came across this:
UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_98b.jpg
 
Bet the British version would need at least a one star to command the one gun battery
And that's what, a Major General (OF7) in the role of a Bombardier or in the US, a Gun Captain? I'd have thought there were better uses for a man of such abilities?
 
And that's what, a Major General (OF7) in the role of a Bombardier or in the US, a Gun Captain? I'd have thought there were better uses for a man of such abilities?
You misunderstand, since the purpose of the army is to provide jobs for senior officers then the creation of a new role will require the creation of a new senior post to control it.
 
Yes, we have been putting things like radars into artillery shells for well over 30 years.
Since 1944.

One other failing would be barrel life. With the load of conventional or rocket propellent needed per shot the barrel might last all of twelve rounds.
 
...One other failing would be barrel life. With the load of conventional or rocket propellent needed per shot the barrel might last all of twelve rounds.
I'm afraid you are referring to very old technology when using a single charge. The problem with barrel wear is relieved by staging the propellent along the length of the barrel and using a sabot.
 
I think a lot of people are misconceiving its role.

For a start it would have the capability of dropping a shell anywhere in the world thanks to modern technology. Hell the thing doesn't even need to point at the enemy!

Secondary, it's not a war winning weapon, it will be useless against a country with the capability of landing a ICBN or airstrike in your own back yard.

However, as a weapon to spank surgical strike some middle/ far Eastern or African country without putting your own troops in jeopardy it has its merits. For example hitting the ammo dumps and chemical factories in Syria etc.

But as technology has moved on, it will be soon replaced with drones with the capability to loiter for years in the polar regions in permanent sunlight and then when required to fly down and attack targets anywhere.
I like your thinking
 
I'm afraid you are referring to very old technology when using a single charge. The problem with barrel wear is relieved by staging the propellent along the length of the barrel and using a sabot.
As in the V3. But that makes a very large mounting even larger and more vulnerable. And using a sabot reduses the effective diameter of the projectile.
 
I think a lot of people are misconceiving its role.

For a start it would have the capability of dropping a shell anywhere in the world thanks to modern technology. Hell the thing doesn't even need to point at the enemy!

Secondary, it's not a war winning weapon, it will be useless against a country with the capability of landing a ICBN or airstrike in your own back yard.

However, as a weapon to spank surgical strike some middle/ far Eastern or African country without putting your own troops in jeopardy it has its merits. For example hitting the ammo dumps and chemical factories in Syria etc.

But as technology has moved on, it will be soon replaced with drones with the capability to loiter for years in the polar regions in permanent sunlight and then when required to fly down and attack targets anywhere.
I think many of our forum members are forgetting, that this weapon will also be purely conventional. In the coming years the US could use the Minuteman 3’s as a conventional global strike weapon. However that would cause to many people to change pants, when one of those puppies is launched.
 

Top