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.Destroyer500 wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022 16:14Thats 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.Doesn't matter. Rockets can be produced at a fraction of the cost, and are much more survivable in a combat environment.
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