German mega defense

[Takao]

Doesn't matter. Rockets can be produced at a fraction of the cost, and are much more survivable in a combat environment.

Thats really relative.Early icbms werent even that movable and were of giant sizes.If a gun in the 150-200 caliber in the US was in modern times being developed to fire at 1000km then a much bigger gun may be able to reach or even surpass ICBM ranges due to the ramjet shell having more fuel in it.Will the accuracy be the same ? Propably no.Will the gun be more mobile ? Certainly cannot be loaded in a multi wheeled,8x8,truck and be thrown from anywhere but i never said replace missiles completely.At the same time its not like missile bunkers move that much either and if the US version that is that small a caliber could probably reach 1000km then why couldnt a railway mounted K5 do the same or surpass it ? Again not as mobile as a truck but still mobile.

It's not relative as I'm not talking about ICBMs...That have ranges far in excess of even the most super of guns. I'm talking about tactical nuclear missiles(range 310-1,340 miles) that had been banned under the 1988 INF Treaty - this is the only reason for the stupid gun, it's nuclear shells would not fall under that ban.

Guess what? Now, that the US has pulled out of the treaty...No more gun - The project was essentially shut down, with only a budget of some $72 million for research purposes.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... et-slashed

[Destroyer500]

I can put a ramjet on a cruise missile and do better. A round fired from a cannon has to withstand the stresses of firing, whereas a missile undergoes less stress in firing so more of it can be put to fuel and payload. Also, with guidance, it is far more accurate than a shell.

For instance, an early tactical SSM was the US Lacrosse missile. This was a tactical missile designed to hit a bunker-sized target out to about 12 miles. It was initially a derivative of the USN Lark missile that started development in late 1944. One missile, one hit, done. It could be carried and launched from a 5 ton truck.

The US Talos SAM was turned into an ARM (homes on enemy radar) that could accurately take out a radar site at up to about 80 miles from the launcher. Another was using the nuclear armed variant as an SSM. So, now you have a SAM that is also an SSM and can be used and operated by the same launch and guidance systems. Far cheaper and more flexible than a huge cannon.

Ramjets are supposedly gonna be the next evolutionaly step of ICBMs (and in general missiles) because they allow the shell to change direction through its flight.Also due to the speed targets can be hit even faster and theres no mid flight interception possibility.Hypersonic ramjet ICBMs unfortunately have overheating issues and in the end from some valid arguments presented in a discussion i saw they pretty much are currently on par with other rocket ICBMs.
Standart missiles with that tech are also of course gonna be built and due to the nature of them they can carry bigger payloads and less fuel-other chemicals.I dont think though that theyll have the maneuverability to be used as AA.
The big cannons are going to be there (in my supposed Mega Defense) in far smaller numbers than the rockets and i never said replace one system with the other.The biggest plus i see in a gun-projectile (small or big) weapon compared to a rocket is the fact that one cannot be jammed or intercepted by some aps system,it does not relly on its "smartness" to say it that way.On the other hand missiles have a lot going for them too and versatility,when it comes to moving the thing is the biggest one i can think of.The other plus of the gun is that with a proper projectile and a very good firing-radar system it can do everything.The money saved on complexity of the gun goes to the money required to move it,talking about more standart artilery-guns,while the money saved on a rockets versatility goes to its complexity.

[Destroyer500]

It's not relative as I'm not talking about ICBMs...That have ranges far in excess of even the most super of guns. I'm talking about tactical nuclear missiles(range 310-1,340 miles) that had been banned under the 1988 INF Treaty - this is the only reason for the stupid gun, it's nuclear shells would not fall under that ban.

I have to admire how much you managed to stay in this thread.I know i get crazy with my ideas and theyre certainly not for people wanting more conventional-normal sollutions.
I think the max range for ICBMs was 18000kms and it was a Russian one pulling that of.ONLY with a ramjet i guess a big gun can go 10000-12000 km but 18000 is just too much,at least thats what seems logical to me.Of course i didnt intend to bring ICBMs at all to this topic.At first the rocket propeled version was what i mainly had in mind for big and small guns but ramjets just opened a pandoras box for me.

Guess what? Now, that the US has pulled out of the treaty...No more gun - The project was essentially shut down, with only a budget of some $72 million for research purposes.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... et-slashed

Yea i read that too and i personaly consider it a stupid decision.At least they could give these shells and guns to ships and have them bombard shores or deep into enemy territory.The US has in general canceled many more revolutionary or exotic projects,good or bad,weather theyre tanks,planes,weapons because from my point of view they dont currently need them and because theyll cost a lot till theyre standardized.They put them in a selve and wait for the right time.

[Takao]

Yea i read that too and i personaly consider it a stupid decision.At least they could give these shells and guns to ships and have them bombard shores or deep into enemy territory.The US has in general canceled many more revolutionary or exotic projects,good or bad,weather theyre tanks,planes,weapons because from my point of view they dont currently need them and because theyll cost a lot till theyre standardized.They put them in a selve and wait for the right time.

Why? Gun heavy ships are manpower intensive. They cost to much to crew - That's why the Iowas went bye-bye, and were replaced by cruise missiles(which accomplish the same task for a fraction of the cost). You can automate much of the gun, but if anything breaks, it's a mission kill because it probably can't be fixed at sea. If cell#1 breaks aboard ship, you fire cell #2, cell #3, cell #4, etc.

[Destroyer500]

Why? Gun heavy ships are manpower intensive. They cost to much to crew - That's why the Iowas went bye-bye, and were replaced by cruise missiles(which accomplish the same task for a fraction of the cost). You can automate much of the gun, but if anything breaks, it's a mission kill because it probably can't be fixed at sea. If cell#1 breaks aboard ship, you fire cell #2, cell #3, cell #4, etc.

Well said.This size of a gun though is small enough to allow for plenty more ammunition than missiles to be on board,or am i wrong in this one ?

[Takao]

The missile has a far greater payload than the shell.

Which makes the bigger BOOM...The missiles 1,000 pound warhead or the shell's 150 pound warhead?

[T. A. Gardner]

Why? Gun heavy ships are manpower intensive. They cost to much to crew - That's why the Iowas went bye-bye, and were replaced by cruise missiles(which accomplish the same task for a fraction of the cost). You can automate much of the gun, but if anything breaks, it's a mission kill because it probably can't be fixed at sea. If cell#1 breaks aboard ship, you fire cell #2, cell #3, cell #4, etc.

Well said.This size of a gun though is small enough to allow for plenty more ammunition than missiles to be on board,or am i wrong in this one ?

Well, it's a bit more complex than you suggest. Ammunition for guns is weight limited. Shells and powder are heavy by comparison with missiles. Missiles are volume limited because of their size. Weight isn't an issue. Since missiles are far more accurate and each one can do far more damage, you need fewer than you would shells.

A comparison might be a 1960's -70's US missile cruiser would need just 2 to 4 missiles to cripple an opposing ship, while a traditional battleship like an Iowa would fire in excess of 100 shells or more to accomplish the same mission.

[Takao]

It also does not make sense to invest the large sums of money in a stupid gun that only puts 150 pounds of explosive on target at 1,000 miles range.

It makes no sense unless the shell payload is nuclear, and where such similar missiles are outlawed.

[Destroyer500]

Well, it's a bit more complex than you suggest. Ammunition for guns is weight limited. Shells and powder are heavy by comparison with missiles. Missiles are volume limited because of their size. Weight isn't an issue. Since missiles are far more accurate and each one can do far more damage, you need fewer than you would shells.

A comparison might be a 1960's -70's US missile cruiser would need just 2 to 4 missiles to cripple an opposing ship, while a traditional battleship like an Iowa would fire in excess of 100 shells or more to accomplish the same mission.

If the enemy ship had proper missile defense would those numbers be the same ?

The missile has a far greater payload than the shell.

Which makes the bigger BOOM...The missiles 1,000 pound warhead or the shell's 150 pound warhead?

Yea the payload advantage will get bigger with ramjet missiles since they wont require that much fuel and that dead space can be filled with a bigger warhead.

It also does not make sense to invest the large sums of money in a stupid gun that only puts 150 pounds of explosive on target at 1,000 miles range.

It makes no sense unless the shell payload is nuclear, and where such similar missiles are outlawed.

What would be the payload per caliber ? How much ordnance would a 20cm,30cm,40cm naval guns shell carry ?

[Takao]

Proper defenses are always a guessing game.

How much ordnance was carried varied, but was roughly 100-150 rounds per main gun for battleships.

[Destroyer500]

This whole thing about offense and defense is one ive been thinking a lot and was the basis of this post.Both have their possitives and negatives but the biggest advantage the attackers have is the ability to decide for the first move and the ability to react,avoid,change direction due to them having mobility.The defenders,in an as static way as i propose,can only react and cannot avoid whats coming.Although i propose multiple ways the defenders can deal with whats coming their way theyre still immobile and thats a big minus.I personaly dont believe thats theres something thats impossible but life has certain rules that no matter what cannot be changed,for example you cant eat only junk food and expect to have a lean well looking body,no matter what.Im trying to mostly find if theres a simmilar rule for warfare,is mobility the only way forward or has a big strong defense with every possible counter to an attackers attack a saying too ? Especially energy directed weapons in a defensive manner can easily make rockets,the biggest menace to a defense and other projectiles obsolete but cant the same be said for an attacker using EDW on a defender then ? Apart from that doing something like what i propose is a huge commitment and if it fails youre seriously fucked,but would it fail ? How much impregnable can a defense be if someone fully commits to it ? Many of these things have already been answered but i want a final opinion.What do you people think ?

Edit;a defense also has the positive of not provoking anyone but also forces a nation to become isolationist just like the ancient city of Sparta

[Peter89]

This whole thing about offense and defense is one ive been thinking a lot and was the basis of this post.Both have their possitives and negatives but the biggest advantage the attackers have is the ability to decide for the first move and the ability to react,avoid,change direction due to them having mobility.The defenders,in an as static way as i propose,can only react and cannot avoid whats coming.Although i propose multiple ways the defenders can deal with whats coming their way theyre still immobile and thats a big minus.I personaly dont believe thats theres something thats impossible but life has certain rules that no matter what cannot be changed,for example you cant eat only junk food and expect to have a lean well looking body,no matter what.Im trying to mostly find if theres a simmilar rule for warfare,is mobility the only way forward or has a big strong defense with every possible counter to an attackers attack a saying too ? Especially energy directed weapons in a defensive manner can easily make rockets,the biggest menace to a defense and other projectiles obsolete but cant the same be said for an attacker using EDW on a defender then ? Apart from that doing something like what i propose is a huge commitment and if it fails youre seriously fucked,but would it fail ? How much impregnable can a defense be if someone fully commits to it ? Many of these things have already been answered but i want a final opinion.What do you people think ?

Edit;a defense also has the positive of not provoking anyone but also forces a nation to become isolationist just like the ancient city of Sparta

If you don't imagine defense as a thin "wall" but rather as a series of natural obstacles (including distance, climate, bodies of water, mountains, ravines, etc) paired with a series of manmade fortifications manned by the armed defenders, then yes, defense was a perfectly good way to wage war.

[Destroyer500]

If you don't imagine defense as a thin "wall" but rather as a series of natural obstacles (including distance, climate, bodies of water, mountains, ravines, etc) paired with a series of manmade fortifications manned by the armed defenders, then yes, defense was a perfectly good way to wage war.

I never imagined it as purely a line but how is that gonna be implemented on a Germany,the natural obstacles part,that is almost totally flat ?

[MarkF617]

Hello,

I thought rhis was supposed to be complete by 1943? Why ate we talking about nuclear tipped ICBMs and energy beams? Also rhe big German tanks were designed to beat the big Soviet tanks so if no war then you are still looking at panzers 3 and 4 (which is what Germany had in 1943 any way). Also 10 years is a long time, a lot of the weapons emplaced in 1933 will need updating/replacing by the time you are finished.

To be honest the cost and the resources are too much for Germany and nothing would be gained.

Just a thought what are you doing eith the Danzig corridor? Is East Prussia going to be a seperate fortress?

Just a few thoughts for now.

Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

Hello again,

Since we are completely in ASB mode the best mega defence for Germany was for the Nazis to be nice to other countries and their own people. That will mean that France and Britain can be friends with Germany as could Poland. If, as you say (without evidence) the Soviets do invade west then a coalition could be formed from these countries and the Soviets stopped.

Lets face it that's likely as Adolf totally going defensive and blowing the entire economy on a mega defence.

Not going to happen.

Thanks

Mark.