Back to rail guns...

[Thomas Goetz]

Although the discussion of the merits of machine guns that the rail gun thread mutated into is interesting, I thought I'd offer some thoughts about the original topic.

While rail guns could be modeled along the lines of the naval guns in CMBO, there are a few differences between the two types of weapons that are relevent to game play on a tactical level. The single most important difference between naval guns and rail guns is the gun mount. This may sound rather obvious, but bear with me. Large naval guns are universally mounted in powered revolving turrets, and are part of a ship with sophisticated range finding techniques. More importantly, because of the turret mounts, naval guns are capable of rapid movement. These features would allow naval guns, up to the main guns of battleships, to be used on a battlefield in a tactical sense - because the guns can be adjusted rapidly enough to respond to tactical conditions.

Rail guns, on the other hand, have only the rail car mount to work with. While they are adjustable (wouldn't be of much use if they weren't) they lack the rapid traverse and elevation features of warship guns, as well as taking considerably longer to reload than naval guns of comparable caliber. This means that although rail guns are capable of great precision when fully sighted in, their ability to acquire tactical targets is essentially nil. Rail guns can be devastating against large fixed fortifications (which is what the Germans used them for in Russia, if I remember), but would be completely ineffective on a tactical battlefield.

Further, because rail guns were intended primarily to destroy fortifications, much of their ammuntion was designed to punch through large amounts of concrete and steel - similar to the AP rounds of a battleship. Such rounds would be worthless agains "soft" targets, as they would mostly bury themselves in the ground without exploding.

I suppose if you really wanted to include the excitement of rail guns in your game, assuming the game allowed you to do it, you could have the computer randomly select a time and target on the map, and then watch it blow to pieces. The radius and amount of collateral damage would then depend on the size of the round - a 28 cm round is not that much bigger than the US Army's 8" howitzer, while the 80 cm Dora could really do some damage. But there is no way that a rail gun would be "on call" at the scale of the battlefield portrayed in CM.

The rail gun most associated with battlefield (as opposed to seige) combat during WWII was probably Anzio Annie, which was, I believe, a 28cm weapon. Even Annie, if I recall, did not function as "on call" artillery, but rather would pop out of her railway tunnel and lob a shell in the general direction of the Allied beachead, and then quickly retreat back into the tunnel to avoid Allied aircraft. This fire was not necessarily trying to hit a specific target, but simply executing very large scale harassment fire. So on the scale of CM, such effects would be outside the control of the player, much like CAS is in CMBO.

Just my thoughts on the topic.

[Michael Emrys]

Not to dispute the general thrust of your argument, which I consider to be sound, but I have a thought about the following:

Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:

Rail guns, on the other hand, have only the rail car mount to work with. While they are adjustable (wouldn't be of much use if they weren't) they lack the rapid traverse and elevation features of warship guns, as well as taking considerably longer to reload than naval guns of comparable caliber. This means that although rail guns are capable of great precision when fully sighted in, their ability to acquire tactical targets is essentially nil. Rail guns can be devastating against large fixed fortifications (which is what the Germans used them for in Russia, if I remember), but would be completely ineffective on a tactical battlefield.

During the First World War, rail guns were much more common at the front and one of the ways the armies came up with to allow them rapid acquisition in azimuth was to lay down spurs of curved track. Thus, by moving forwards or back along this track, large adjustments in azimuth could be made fairly quickly.

I don't know that this was ever done during WW II, certainly it was not widely done, which supports your contention that such guns tended not to be used in a tactical context. But the possibility existed if the time and materials were available to construct the necessary track.

Michael

[ July 17, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Thomas Goetz]

You're right about the curved track, and I suspect that was used in a couple of places where German forces were in one spot long enough to do it - Leningrad and Sevestapol come to mind. But it is still a cumbersome and time consuming method compared to the rapid traverse of a power turret, and I doubt would be useful in a tactical sense. Even the smaller guns, like the 28 cm, would still take some time to shift on a track, but imagine trying to move that monster Dora! That would be a project that could take hours - Dora actually used two parallel rail cars, and was several stories tall.

[Doug Beman]

We must remember that the rail guns are firing from a nearly-fixed location, whereas naval guns are aboard ships that may be moving, etc. Therefor, rail guns should have an edge, no?

Further, because rail guns were intended primarily to destroy fortifications, much of their ammuntion was designed to punch through large amounts of concrete and steel - similar to the AP rounds of a battleship. Such rounds would be worthless agains "soft" targets, as they would mostly bury themselves in the ground without exploding.

True; I've read an account of a German rail gun at Sevastopol (or was it Odessa?) firing a shell that arced up, plunged down through a few dozen fathoms of water, and then through several dozen feet of seabed, and then into a Russian ammo dump.

The radius and amount of collateral damage would then depend on the size of the round - a 28 cm round is not that much bigger than the US Army's 8" howitzer, while the 80 cm Dora could really do some damage. But there is no way that a rail gun would be "on call" at the scale of the battlefield portrayed in CM.

What's your data source? 28cm=280mm, while 8"=20cm=200cm. Very large difference in shell size.

I'm not sure that naval guns of this category (ie bigger than the 9" guns of US heavy cruisers) were used in a "tactical" sense; didn't the Allies reserve big naval artillery for planned bombardments, either of fortifications or enemy staging areas (ie just like big rail guns, they weren't at the beck and call of Joe Schmo battalion commander)

DjB

[mike the wino2]

Originally posted by Thomas Goetz

Although the discussion of the merits of machine guns that the rail gun thread mutated into is interesting

Heretic!!!

What you have said has nothing to do with the signifigance of the MG42 as the greatest weapon of all time and the bestest SMG is....oh, wrong thread.

I thought the general consensus was that rail guns were too big for scale of CMBB before the thread degenerated. What was the ROF? 2-3 per hour for Dora and like 4000 troops to man if on map?

[Thomas Goetz]

Some astute questions and comments so far - I will attempt to respond to them. As for the fact that naval guns may be moving - ie; the ship may be under way, or if the seas are heavy, have extra motion - all very true. However, navies had been attempting to deal with those very issues for over half a century in order to allow warships to succeed in their primary mission - hitting other warships, which were also moving. The ability of moving warships to hit other moving warships (think Bisamrk vs. Hood) seems to argue that the problem has at least compensated for. No question a stationary ship was a better gun platform (and I think many of the ships off the Normandy beaches were relatively motionless - it's not like they had to worry about the Kriegsmarine). But even ships in motion are capable of executing very precise gunfire, depending on the training of their crew.

As for rail guns being accurate, I do not dispute that. But that accuracy is obtained at the expense of a good deal of time and effort. There is no way to "correct" rail gun fire except in a time frame of many minutes, even hours, which makes them useless on a tactical level. Not to mention a considerable waste of resources, when smaller conventional artillery could do the job just as well or, in most cases, considerably better.

Although my references on the subject are in storage and unavailable, a rate of fire of 2-3 rounds per hour seems way to high for Dora, at any rate. The smaller weapons, like the 28 cm, perhaps, but between the size of Dora's projectile (nearly 3 feet across, 6 feet high, and that's just the projectile, never mind the propellant) and the immense amount of work required to move that monster to make any aiming corrections, I'd be surpised if they could get off one round an hour - maybe a bit higher once a target is "locked" in and doesn't require any real adjustments.

[Thomas Goetz]

One other comment regarding Dora's crew - that figure, 4,000, seems accurate for the total assigned personnel, but that is not the gun's crew. The gun was so damn big that most of those troops were there simply to protect it from any and all threats. There were flak troops, regular infantry, even a dog unit to patrol at night to detect infiltrators. I believe they even had the use of "on call" Luftwaffe aircraft when they used the gun at Sevestapol. The actual gun crew was probably "only" several hundred men. But yes, the gun is way, way too big to be represented on map - for that matter, it had a fairly significant minimum range, like a mortar, only this one was measured in km, not meters.

[Gaylord Focker]

I agree they were a waste except in prime conditions, but is'nt it true that without these heavy rail guns, the Black Sea port of Sevastapol more then likely would have held against the Axis attack, being more heavily fortified and defended then Stalingrad?

[ July 17, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Thomas Goetz]

There is no question that heavy railroad artillery could be very useful in combating powerful fortifications. The German guns were originally intended to hammer the Maginot Line, but most, including the ultra heavy Dora, were not ready before the invasion of France. Dora did prove to be of considerable assistance at Sevestapol, although whether the results justified the enormous expense of resources needed to produce them is another question entirely. Few fortifications could withstand the kind of pounding those big guns could deliver, but they required a relatively stable front in order to be effective. Their mobility was almost entirely strategic, and if brought under serious attack, they were almost certainly doomed. But yes, they were very useful for certain specific purposes. Unfortunately, those purposes have little relation to the type of combat simulated by CMBB.

[Stalin's Organ]

Naval gunnery computers weer amazing machines by WW2 - they weer primarily mechanical, with some electrics (but no electronics).

The guns were mechanilly or electrically actuated to account for the roll and pitch of the ship - I think the systems weer based around mechanical gyroscopes buried deep in the bowels of hte mechanical computers.

Awesome stuff really, and a lost science now (big mchanical computers that is).

[Stalin's Organ]

I found a link describing the functin of hte USA's Ford Mk 1 fire control computer from the 1930's - it makes a very interesting read:

Ford fire control computer.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

I'm not sure that naval guns of this category (ie bigger than the 9" guns of US heavy cruisers)...

Nitpick: The largest guns on American heavy cruisers was 8" in caliber. This was a pretty standard caliber for heavy cruisers worldwide at this time, although the US did have a class of CAs with 6" guns.

Michael

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug Beman:

I'm not sure that naval guns of this category (ie bigger than the 9" guns of US heavy cruisers)...

Nitpick: The largest guns on American heavy cruisers was 8" in caliber. This was a pretty standard caliber for heavy cruisers worldwide at this time, although the US did have a class of CAs with 6" guns.

Michael</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

What size rockets were fired off the decks of the U.S naval warships. Slightly off topic but i'm just wondering.

If you mean the ones used for shore bombardment, 5" usually.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

...snip...Nitpick: The largest guns on American heavy cruisers was 8" in caliber. This was a pretty standard caliber for heavy cruisers worldwide at this time, although the US did have a class of CAs with 6" guns.

Michael[/QB]

Michael,

Care to tell us which class of US CA "heavy" carried 6" ordnance? You can't be speaking of the pre-war classes with 5 triple 6" turrets? Those are universally regarded as light cruisers by armament, armor and fleet doctrine of the day.

By definition, WW2 era US Cruisers were classified Light with 6" guns, Heavy with 8" and Very Heavy with 12" ordnance (e.g. the so called "battle cruisers" Alaska and Guam).

One odd exception was the anti-aircraft cruisers (CLAA) with 5" DP batteries, which were an anomaly that happened to come in handy at the time, though they did not figure prominently in early pre-war doctrine or planning and some foreign sources later regarded them as a sort of super-destroyer or destroyer leader type of vessel.

I think you're way off base on this one, which is to say an unusual position for you I might add .

On the topic of rail artillery and CMBO/CMBB, nothing could bore me worse than a scenario where a railway piece would be lobbing one round every three minutes somewhere on the battlefield ... whether it was mine to use or not. This particular artillery was quite uncommonly seen in our scale of engagement. Yes, I know it was used at Anzio and at Sevastopol, but these were exceptional situations. I hope BTS doesn't waste any time on the subject, because I'd much rather see their resources go towards depicting the more relevant and decisive weaponry of the war.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Care to tell us which class of US CA "heavy" carried 6" ordnance? You can't be speaking of the pre-war classes with 5 triple 6" turrets?

Yep, them's the ones. USS Phoenix prominent among them.

Those are universally regarded as light cruisers by armament, armor and fleet doctrine of the day.

News to me. All my sources have called them heavies. Doesn't mean they're right, of course. Do you happen to know what Jane's says on the matter? I don't know where my copy is at the moment, but I thought they called it a heavy also. Of course, Jane's isn't right all the time either.

I think you're way off base on this one, which is to say an unusual position for you I might add .

I'll take that as a compliment.

Michael

[edit] I just went to this site, which I regard as reliable, and it agrees with you that the Brooklyn class, which is what I think we talking abut here, is indeed one of light cruisers (CLs). So you win this one.

The ironic thing is that I always thought it was funny that 6" gun ships should be called heavies, but I had it explained to me that because it carried so many guns, the weight of its salvo was more or less equal to an 8" cruiser. Go figure.

Michael

[ July 18, 2002, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Tero]

A few remarks:

- the gauge of the German and Soviet rail systems were different. Anybody know if they converted the tracks so the guns could move around or did they convert the gun undercarriage to suit the existing system ? Or if they built extra tracks ?

- "regular" armoured trains. A bit obsolete but still used as fire support platforms, both in direct and indirect mode.

- naval guns were mentioned. Coastal artillery (anti-shipping) installations were equally effective and accurate.

Rail guns can be devastating against large fixed fortifications (which is what the Germans used them for in Russia, if I remember), but would be completely ineffective on a tactical battlefield.

Imagine them in preplanned arty preparation commencing in the first round. IIRC they worked in pairs. For XXX(X) pts you get the Dora and Karl lobbing one big arsed round every 1,5 minute.

Further, because rail guns were intended primarily to destroy fortifications, much of their ammuntion was designed to punch through large amounts of concrete and steel - similar to the AP rounds of a battleship. Such rounds would be worthless agains "soft" targets, as they would mostly bury themselves in the ground without exploding.

You are forgetting the concussion effect. I would not say a projectile weighing several tons would sink into hard ground and have no effect on people and materiel standing near the impact point. Also, the dirt the round is displacing is be enough to bury dug outs and bunkers/billboxes even if it is only a "near miss".

IIRC there were also delayed impact fuse HE rounds. That means they would bury down deep and then explode. This I have to check though.

[gunnergoz]

Michael,

My favorite referece is Friedman's engineering history series (US Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, Small Combatants, Submarines.) They are pricey and hard to find, but they are the best in-depth analysis I know of regarding fleet unit design, evolution and combat analysis.

As to Brooklyn and other 6" prewar cruisers of that generation, their battery throw weight and volume of fire was phenomenal (as you point out) but was intended to disrupt enemy destroyer attacks against the main battle line, and was not meant to tangle with 8" armed heavies, which could shred a Brooklyn's light armor without too much trouble. The wartime-built Clevelands were mass-production cruisers, badly overweight and apparently were never considered overly successful designs. The wartime heavies (Baltimores) were a bit better regarded, having more built-in reserve to allow for the growth of all those late-war AA batteries that mushroomed on US ships, especially after the Kamikazies came into play.

Needless to say, this is one of my "other" favorite topics. Thanks for your comments, I always enjoy your own posts.

[tabpub]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Michael,

...

As to Brooklyn and other 6" prewar cruisers of that generation, their battery throw weight and volume of fire was phenomenal (as you point out) but was intended to disrupt enemy destroyer attacks against the main battle line, and was not meant to tangle with 8" armed heavies, which could shred a Brooklyn's light armor without too much trouble. ...

Needless to say, this is one of my "other" favorite topics. Thanks for your comments, I always enjoy your own posts.

But, when the Brooklyn class ships were utilized in the Solomons, they certainly held their own against the Japanese. And I seem to recall from using them in simulations that they had more armor than most of the heavy cruisers of their generation, either American or Japanese. With 3-5" of Belt armor and up to 6" of turret protection, they were at least as well protected as most of the American Heavy Cruisers of that period, if not better.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:

[snip]if brought under serious attack, they were almost certainly doomed.

In 'The South Albertas' Graves recounts the tale of Sgt. Halkyard and his mates from the Recce Troop taking out a German railway gun near the Dutch/Belgian border with their Stuarts, and no infantry support. Stuarts, the true Ubertanks in North-West Europe

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

My favorite referece is Friedman's engineering history series (US Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, Small Combatants, Submarines.) They are pricey and hard to find, but they are the best in-depth analysis I know of regarding fleet unit design, evolution and combat analysis.

I've heard of Friedman many times (it is apparently something of a bible on sci.military.naval) but never laid eyes on a copy. So I guess your are definitely right about it being hard to find.

Michael