Gladiator WW2 Railgun

[jjb1970]

From the world renowned and completely reliable and accurate Wikipedia.....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System

[The Stationmaster]

And let us not forget that the larger calibre railway guns of WWI (and no doubt of WWII) used naval guns as their basis and would therefore have probably used what amounted to a 'handling room' in rear of the breech area to deal with the separate shells and propellant charges.

[JSpencer]

And let us not forget that the larger calibre railway guns of WWI (and no doubt of WWII) used naval guns as their basis and would therefore have probably used what amounted to a 'handling room' in rear of the breech area to deal with the separate shells and propellant charges.

 

There would probably be variations too. Some breaches opened to the left, others to the right (each RN twin turret had one of each), and any US guns, opened above.

 

In general everything 6 inches and above would have used powdered bags (1 for smaller guns, up to 6 for larger guns). Below that, they were QF (quick firing) brass cases.

 

RN guns had at least 3 types of shell, High Explosive, semi-armoured piercing, armoured piercing (by WWII there were just 2 types) but railway guns would have been mostly High Explosive - unless used against a fort where High Explosive would not be very effective. There they would use armoured piercing, and concrete has no chance of resisting it (a shell designed to go through 12 inchs of cemented armour steel plate, will go through several yards of concrete easily - this is why adding wood, sandbags, concrete even mild steel on WWII tanks was a pointless exercise).   

[gardenwall]

There would probably be variations too. Some breaches opened to the left, others to the right (each RN twin turret had one of each), and any US guns, opened above.

 

In general everything 6 inches and above would have used powdered bags (1 for smaller guns, up to 6 for larger guns). Below that, they were QF (quick firing) brass cases.

 

RN guns had at least 3 types of shell, High Explosive, semi-armoured piercing, armoured piercing (by WWII there were just 2 types) but railway guns would have been mostly High Explosive - unless used against a fort where High Explosive would not be very effective. There they would use armoured piercing, and concrete has no chance of resisting it (a shell designed to go through 12 inchs of cemented armour steel plate, will go through several yards of concrete easily - this is why adding wood, sandbags, concrete even mild steel on WWII tanks was a pointless exercise).   

 

One of the reasons for adding wood, sandbags and so forth to armoured vehicles was to disrupt shaped charge projectiles, if they do not detonate at the correct distance their power is seriously undermined.   Mine blast was another reason, so, no, not a pointless exercise at all, just dealing with a different problem.

[JSpencer]

One of the reasons for adding wood, sandbags and so forth to armoured vehicles was to disrupt shaped charge projectiles, if they do not detonate at the correct distance their power is seriously undermined.   Mine blast was another reason, so, no, not a pointless exercise at all, just dealing with a different problem.

 

Going OT - It was a nice try but the only way to stop those shaped charges was deform them. Triggering the jet before it hits the armour would more likely increase the effectiveness of the charge than decreasing it at the several inches stand off distances that these measures would provide. Today they fit bar slots on the side with the flat section facing up and the thin sections facing out, the purpose of which is to deform the head and prevent a jet from forming except areas covered by the main armour which is purposely designed to resist any weapon it is expected to face.

 

US generals and doctrine was against these measures and with good reason. Additional weight drinks feul, and poor weight distribution makes the tank less mobile for no gain. Only thicker armour worked against all weapons or widely spaced sheets against these rounds. The best protection against bazooka's etc, was to make sure the infantry were fully trained to co-ordinate with tanks. A lot were not and expected the tank to go into harms way alone.

[exet1095]

Going OT - It was a nice try but the only way to stop those shaped charges was deform them. Triggering the jet before it hits the armour would more likely increase the effectiveness of the charge than decreasing it at the several inches stand off distances that these measures would provide. Today they fit bar slots on the side with the flat section facing up and the thin sections facing out, the purpose of which is to deform the head and prevent a jet from forming except areas covered by the main armour which is purposely designed to resist any weapon it is expected to face.

 

US generals and doctrine was against these measures and with good reason. Additional weight drinks feul, and poor weight distribution makes the tank less mobile for no gain. Only thicker armour worked against all weapons or widely spaced sheets against these rounds. The best protection against bazooka's etc, was to make sure the infantry were fully trained to co-ordinate with tanks. A lot were not and expected the tank to go into harms way alone.

Not quite. Bar armour causes early detonation of HEAT weapons like RPGs, which use very small shaped charges. The molten jet doesn’t go through if it isn’t formed in direct contact with the armour plate. You just get a bang, and time to return fire.

 

HESH rounds squash up on the armour before they detonate, and the shock wave is designed to detach lumps of it into the inside of the tank. Again, sandbags etc can mitigate the effects of this.

 

Anyway, bar armour is used in counter insurgency operations. Peer enemies are probably firing kinetic energy anti-tank rounds at you, or dropping guided missiles through the top of your turret. If you are Russian or Israeli, you use explosive reactive armour, as you are not worried about causing civilian casualties around your wagons.

Going OT - It was a nice try but the only way to stop those shaped charges was deform them. Triggering the jet before it hits the armour would more likely increase the effectiveness of the charge than decreasing it at the several inches stand off distances that these measures would provide. Today they fit bar slots on the side with the flat section facing up and the thin sections facing out, the purpose of which is to deform the head and prevent a jet from forming except areas covered by the main armour which is purposely designed to resist any weapon it is expected to face.

 

US generals and doctrine was against these measures and with good reason. Additional weight drinks feul, and poor weight distribution makes the tank less mobile for no gain. Only thicker armour worked against all weapons or widely spaced sheets against these rounds. The best protection against bazooka's etc, was to make sure the infantry were fully trained to co-ordinate with tanks. A lot were not and expected the tank to go into harms way alone.

Not quite. Bar armour causes early detonation of HEAT weapons like RPGs, which use very small shaped charges. The molten jet doesn’t go through if it isn’t formed in direct contact with the armour plate. You just get a bang, and time to return fire.

 

HESH rounds squash up on the armour before they detonate, and the shock wave is designed to detach lumps of it into the inside of the tank. Again, sandbags etc can mitigate the effects of this.

 

Anyway, bar armour is used in counter insurgency operations. Peer enemies are probably firing kinetic energy anti-tank rounds at you, or dropping guided missiles through the top of your turret. If you are Russian or Israeli, you use explosive reactive armour, as you are not worried about causing civilian casualties around your wagons.

[bigherb]

The Ivans found out sprung bed matresses where quite effective against Panzerfaust.

[jjb1970]

The German's found that mesh was just as effective as the armoured skirts they added to their tanks to counter these projectiles and a lot lighter but it was quicker and easier to produce plate armour for the skirts and additional armour.

[steve W]

These are fascinating prototypes and I can see quite a few selling, but if the price is a put-off there is a good thread here on RMweb covering the scratch building of a 4mm Boche Buster (and a couple of other very large railway vehicles) mostly in plasticard.:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/108108-tim4948s-workbench-building-a-giant-of-the-railway/&do=findComment&comment=2204008

[JSpencer]

Not quite. Bar armour causes early detonation of HEAT weapons like RPGs, which use very small shaped charges. The molten jet doesn’t go through if it isn’t formed in direct contact with the armour plate. You just get a bang, and time to return fire.

 

HESH rounds squash up on the armour before they detonate, and the shock wave is designed to detach lumps of it into the inside of the tank. Again, sandbags etc can mitigate the effects of this.

 

Anyway, bar armour is used in counter insurgency operations. Peer enemies are probably firing kinetic energy anti-tank rounds at you, or dropping guided missiles through the top of your turret. If you are Russian or Israeli, you use explosive reactive armour, as you are not worried about causing civilian casualties around your wagons.

 

Still OT - Check the BAR armour on this Challenger tank. You will see the thinnest part faces out and the wide flat part of each bar is facing up. It triggers the explosion early but more importantly, the round (the front normally soft copper) gets deformed like the blade of a sword hitting it. Once the shape is changed, it can explode but won't be fit to produce a jet.

 

https://harveyblackauthor.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cold-war-6-059.jpg

 

Jets on modern heat rounds are huge. This 1970's test sent a jet that entered one side of turret (which is thicker than parts of tank protected by Bar armour) and out the other side. Deforming the round is critical to defeating it - which is what reactive armour does (though dangerous for your own troops if nearby too!).

 

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/HESH-testfiring-vs-tanks.tankammo.html

 

I am not sure how effective sandbags will be against HESH, the thing will come in at least twice the speed of sound, fuse setting will be critical, too sensitive it will probably work but otherwise the wind shield of the shell will probably push the sand out of the way leaving the HESH part to go splat then boom. Shock waves were greatly underestimated and misunderstood in military designs until well after post WWII (despite being documented in the late 1800s - all nations make no mention of shock in design details even that of armour!).

Edited March 23, 2018 by JSpencer

[exet1095]

Still OT - Check the BAR armour on this Challenger tank. You will see the thinnest part faces out and the wide flat part of each bar is facing up. It triggers the explosion early but more importantly, the round (the front normally soft copper) gets deformed like a sword hitting it. Once the shape is changed, it can explode but won't be fit to produce a jet.

 

https://harveyblackauthor.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cold-war-6-059.jpg

 

Jets on modern heat rounds are huge. This 1970's test sent a jet that entered one side of turret (which is thicker than parts of tank protected by Bar armour) and out the other side. Deforming the round is critical to defeating it - which is what reactive armour does (though dangerous for your own troops if nearby too!).

 

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/HESH-testfiring-vs-tanks.tankammo.html

I’ve been in a vehicle when the bar armour was hit by RPGs. It’s not a huge jet. That comes from larger warheads like that in the old Swingfire missile. Mind you, if that hit you it would probably roll the vehicle if it failed to explode!

[1ngram]

What we need now are WW1 gunners to  crew the railgun, officers standing around etc. as per tghe pictures in Aves etc., maybe even soldiers sitting astride the barrel.

[1ngram]

What we need now are WW1 gunners to  crew the railgun, officers standing around etc. as per tghe pictures in Aves etc., maybe even soldiers sitting astride the barrel.

Gazumped again!  It seems they already exist: http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=1873

[stephennicholson]

No one sitting aside barrels but W^D Models have a good range of figures in 1/76

http://www.wdmodels.com/userimages/procart12.htm

[Seanem44]

The easiest way to remember it is that HE explodes on contact, whereas AP buries in and detonates.

 

Ships rarely used HE in ship to ship combat.  If they did, it was by mistake, like when the Japanese were caught by surprise near Guadalcanal.  I forget which battleship it was, maybe Hiei, went with HE because it was what was loaded in when the USN attacked her.

 

HE was extremely devastating against ground troops, and that's what it was primarily used for: Shore bombardment.  While a direct hit would likely render sand bags pointless, that wasn't really what sandbags were there for.  It was an extra line of protection against shrapnel.  Sand bags are really no match for a 14 inch AP shell.  Few things are.  However, AP was not really favored for shore bombardments because of its tendency to over penetrate and punch straight through. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Seanem44

[ovbulleid]

Would this vehicle be suitable to work in conjunction with Gladiator? HO scale but would struggle less with loading gauge and look effectively the same.

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=MPW98665&style=&strType=&Mcode=Model+Power+98665

[Mark Saunders]

I believe that a number of the early WWll 45 ton design of Warflat (same as WWl Parrot but updated) were modified to carry shells for these!

 

Soon to be available from Bachmann.

 

Mark Saunders

[Seanem44]

Would this vehicle be suitable to work in conjunction with Gladiator? HO scale but would struggle less with loading gauge and look effectively the same.

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=MPW98665&style=&strType=&Mcode=Model+Power+98665

I want to say I recall seeing an image of Siphons (or very similar looking vans) running next to a Railgun.  It might have been a SR utility van.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Seanem44

[PaulRhB]

Would this vehicle be suitable to work in conjunction with Gladiator? HO scale but would struggle less with loading gauge and look effectively the same.

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=MPW98665&style=&strType=&Mcode=Model+Power+98665

No that's an American style and even the US stock that made it to Europe was a different design.

[PhilJ W]

I want to say I recall seeing an image of Siphons (or very similar looking vans) running next to a Railgun.  It might have been a SR utility van.

They did use some French ferry vans trapped on this side of the Channel after the fall of France.

[phil gollin]

.

 

Here is an operations suggestion from Spike Milligan ;

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gl4sz#play

 

 

Try from 02:24 through to 03:20

 

.

Edited May 27, 2018 by phil gollin

[autocoach]

Is there a Russell Crowe tie in?

[dibber25]

I've been sent the following information with regard to the transport and storage of the shells for these big guns:

The shells were transported and stored in the special 12 WHEEL AMMUNITION WAGONS which can be seen in many pictures. These wagons held 96 Shells and had a central ganway with an overheard conveyer girder which lined the shells up with the breech of the gun when depressed fully so that shells could be moved directly into the loading position  from the van onto the gun deck with the minimum of effort.  The bags of propellant charge were probably kept in other vans and would certainly not have been stored on the ground.   The shells were originally arranged in stacks 2 wide by 4 high and there were 6 stacks either side of the gangway.  The van could be used either way round and weighed the best part of 100 tons.  The shells were arranged with the pointy end correctly positioned so that they did not have to be turned and it is not clear if that was possible anyway.

    The IWM has GA drawings of the gun and wagon but it is assumed that the wagons remained concealed in the tunnels all, or most of the time, along with the gun itself in WW2. The wagons were built in WW1 just as were the guns although Boche Buster in WW2 was technically more a Howitzer than a gun.  All the others were guns, both being 14" in WW1 and then the 3 in WW2 being 13.5" and only Boche Buster being 18*.   It may well be that the charges were also loaded right through the shell wagon when two wagons were coupled together.  The 14" shells were approximately 5' 5" long but the 13.5" and 18" would have differed as did the dimensions of the 3 different sizes of barrel.  Boche Buster's 18" barrel was quite a lot different to the original 14" version fitted to it and Scene Shifter in WW1 but the 13.5" barrel was quite similar dimensionally  on Piece Maker, Gladiator and Scene Shifter in WW2. 

[WD1995]

This link has a pretty good video that shows the gun and wagons being moved by a SR diesel, you get a very good view of the 12 wheel ammunition wagon and the other support wagons. It starts at about 11.45 and is well worth a watch, if anyone could identify the other wagons being used I would be very grateful.

 

Here's the link - 

 

Also to anyone looking forward to the warflats there is a clip at 11.23 which shows a whole train load of them fully loaded. 

[PhilJ W]

This link has a pretty good video that shows the gun and wagons being moved by a SR diesel, you get a very good view of the 12 wheel ammunition wagon and the other support wagons. It starts at about 11.45 and is well worth a watch, if anyone could identify the other wagons being used I would be very grateful.

 

Here's the link - 

 

Also to anyone looking forward to the warflats there is a clip at 11.23 which shows a whole train load of them fully loaded. 

The van between the ammunition wagon and the locomotive looks continental, possibly one of the French ferry vehicles trapped on this side of the channel and taken over by the military.