Is there still a market for huge artillery guns? Say a 1000mm

If you uninvent airplanes and need to launch a frontal assault on the maginot line

Already in WWII those things were pretty useless.

File: 1381261350487.jpg (222KB, 896x455px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 896x455px

>>28450157
>too slow to reload
>slow to move
>cumbersome in general
>hit by counter-artillery after its first barrage

>>28450157
If you revived Gerald Bell and gave him the blueprints to make those superguns that shoot across half the planet and launch satellites into space.

Wish the Israelis didn't Mossad him.

>>28450157
>1000mm
these meme calibers

900mm kills bunkers equally dead and has better capacity, less recoil and ammo isn't expensive as fuck.

File: 1449677214928.jpg (131KB, 541x288px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 541x288px

>>28450253

>>28450190
>"Counter-artillery" for a gun that can fire like twice or thrice the range

>>28450279
>What are hidden firebases

File: 155_K_98_Lippujuhlan_päivä_2014_3.jpg (1MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1728px

>>28450279
This lovely piece of field gun fires rounds up to 40km. The Russian 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV has a claimed maximum range of 70 kilometres. You're going to have to increase your 1000mm gun's range for your scenario.

File: BM-30_Smerch.jpg (263KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1600x1067px

>>28450279
>Rocket artillery has a range of 90km

File: 1451305774490.jpg (641KB, 3532x1987px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 3532x1987px

>>28450279
>>28450326
>>28450351

This got me thinking. Are there plans for a land based rail gun system?

The estimates for the USN rail gun systems have ranges up to 400KM. Is there just no way to get the rail gun system small enough to make it mobile for land based artillery?

>>28450374
Weight of the power generation and capacitors and such isn't as big of a problem as the fact that the barrels get utterly destroyed after every shot.

I think the railgun program is really just BAE milking the cow. The tech just isn't there yet.

>>28450450
>the barrels get utterly destroyed after every shot.

Welcome to 2003

>>28450475
Welcome to my balls

>>28450157
The need still exists, but short range ballistic missiles do the job more effectively.

>>28450157
Short answer: no.
Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I mean, I guess one benefit is that when you miss, the explosion is so big that it still destroys it with a bad shot, as well as, you know, the rest of the city block and a few ships in the nearby port.

The problem with super-heavy or long range guns is that the barrel life is EXTREMELY poor. Many of these super-guns used sequentially sized ammo, upbored for erosion after each shot.

Combine that with extreme weight of the gun itself, and you can see why missile systems, ballistic and cruise, already excel in the roles super-heavy arty was designed for.

>>28453899
Doubtful, the HE shell of the Schwere Gustav contained 700kg of explosives, its a lot, but not that much.
A 10 ton HE shell is going to have less than two tons of HE in it.

File: 1422819166868.jpg (26KB, 432x288px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 432x288px

>>28450157
not unless it can shoot into space to bombard the aliums back to the information age so we can actually fight them