NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an out-of-character debate as to the feasibility and uses of weapons mounted on railcars, not linear accelerators. I’m afraid you will have to start your own thread to debate those.

For those of you not in the know, railguns are basically just artillery pieces mounted on standard rail cars, or if they are particularly large, custom-built cars. The size of the guns ranged from light field artillery (seen during the American civil war) to the Paris Gun of WWI, which could lob 210lb shells over 80 miles. Usually, the larger the gun, the bigger the car needed to hold it. Some giants, such as the Shwerer Gustav and its sister cannon, Dora, needed multiple perpendicular rail lines to support their massive size and weight.

The widespread use of very long-ranged missiles and aircraft has relegated railguns to the history books for the time being. However, I hold that, using such technological advances as rocket-propelled shells, the railway gun could rise again. If the tracks were, say, 2-3 times as wide and strong as they are today, the size of the guns could increase exponentially. Plus, if the tracks were laid in a mountain range or with large sections underground, at least some protection from aerial attack could be achieved.

And who’s to say that guns are the only things that can be mounted on rail cars? Variable launch Systems (VLS) and Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS) could be mounted to create an easily deployable defense to enemy incursion. Even nuclear-armed missiles could be used, as a form of mutually assured destruction. Trains could even be armored and act like tanks. This would be especially useful for defending rail hubs.

So, any thoughts?

My largest piece, currently deployed in Zarbia, a 1.2m [120cm or 1,200mm] artillery piece mounted on a Morrigan chassis - the Morrigan being an ultra heavy battle tank. I opted for a self-propelled piece of this size over something mounted over a railway given the lack of tracks where I want to go. For example, if I wanted to deploy it to Ruska there is enough railroads to transport it there, but I might not be able to get it [i]exactly where I wanted - so I mounted it on a Morrigan chassis, which is driven by a nuclear engine. :) So, that's the largest fault of railguns in relation to their history in the Empire of the Golden Throne [The Macabees] - simply, I don't have railroads that go everywhere where I need my artillery deploy, despite its range of over 170kms with rocket assist. :) Did I mention that the barrel has to be replaced every dozen or so shots from the stresses on the long construction? Oh man, I love unreliable equipment and high maintenance armaments!


Trains could even be armored and act like tanks.


Unfortunately, they can't. Tanks are designed to be mobile armoured weapon platforms that can manuever tactically to gain advantage over its enemies. A train can't do this - it is confined to the tracks. Therefore, it's a sitting target. And as a supportive artillery piece during the defense of the city [rail hub] I much rather use mechanized and mobile 155mm self-propelled howitzers or artillery pieces, given the fact taht they can move[!] and therefore do not present themselves as such an easy target to counter battery fire or close air support.

If you like technology arguments may I suggest the NS Draftroom (http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?act=idx)?

My largest piece, currently deployed in Zarbia, a 1.2m [120cm or 1,200mm] artillery piece mounted on a Morrigan chassis - the Morrigan being an ultra heavy battle tank. I opted for a self-propelled piece of this size over something mounted over a railway given the lack of tracks where I want to go. For example, if I wanted to deploy it to Ruska [in the south] there is enough railroads to transport it there, but I might not be able to get it exactly where I wanted - so I mounted it on a Morrigan chassis, which is driven by a nuclear engine. So, that's the largest fault of railguns in relation to their history in the Empire of the Golden Throne [The Macabees] - simply, I don't have railroads that go everywhere where I need my artillery deploy, despite its range of over 170kms with rocket assist. Did I mention that the barrel has to be replaced every dozen or so shots from the stresses on the long construction? Oh man, I love unreliable equipment and high maintenance armaments!

Surely laying down track is less expensive than hacking up a Morrigan! Even if you had to lay hundreds of miles of track (with a range of 170km, you shouldn’t have to build overly much), it should still cost less than mutilating a SHBT. And I think unreliability and inefficiency define technology. After all, it’s the little flaws in life that you notice.

Unfortunately, they can't. Tanks are designed to be mobile armoured weapon platforms that can manuever tactically to gain advantage over its enemies. A train can't do this - it is confined to the tracks. Therefore, it's a sitting target. And as a supportive artillery piece during the defense of the city [rail hub] I much rather use mechanized and mobile 155mm self-propelled howitzers or artillery pieces, given the fact taht they can move[!] and therefore do not present themselves as such an easy target to counter battery fire or close air support.

Hand’t thought of that. Still, I hold that if you could keep the guns hidden underground until you need them, they could be feasible.

If you like technology arguments may I suggest the NS Draftroom?

I’m on the NSDR. Try and guess who my alt is ^^

What about, say, a train that could (to a degree), lay its own track?

Surely laying down track is less expensive than hacking up a Morrigan! Even if you had to lay hundreds of miles of track (with a range of 170km, you shouldn’t have to build overly much), it should still cost less than mutilating a SHBT.


Well, it may be cheaper [compared to the Morrigan], but you can't really lay down track fast enough to meet the pace of tactical, and even strategic developements. By the time I lay track close enough to the battle so that I can use my larger guns the battle would be over! AFAIK, these large guns have always been built for the psychological impact as opposed to for their effeciency, and that's why the A'nat was built [the 1.2m gun]. If I were going for effeciency in combat I would much rather have ten 155mm SPHs than my single A'nat, no matter the calibre difference. IIRC, the Paris Gun received no, or very little, accurate hits in Paris, and the Dora managed some impressive deeds through luck [for example, the ammunition dump it destroyed by penetrating into the bay and then through the rock and dirt and finally into the ammunition dump under the bay(!)]. Either psychology or for the storyline effect. Tactical effeciency is not something that is in the dictionary of large railway guns.


Still, I hold that if you could keep the guns hidden underground until you need them, they could be feasible.


Both the Paris Gun and the Dora required hours for assembly.


I’m on the NSDR. Try and guess who my alt is ^^


Oh paw'sha, I'm not good at guessing. :( Southeast Asia?

What about, say, a train that could (to a degree), lay its own track?

I don't think that would work. The terrain would have to be smoothed, leveled, and reinforced before the track could be laid. I guess it could have a small engineering car at the fore of the line, ahead of the engines.

Well, it may be cheaper [compared to the Morrigan], but you can't really lay down track fast enough to meet the pace of tactical, and even strategic developements. By the time I lay track close enough to the battle so that I can use my larger guns the battle would be over! AFAIK, these large guns have always been built for the psychological impact as opposed to for their effeciency, and that's why the A'nat was built [the 1.2m gun]. If I were going for effeciency in combat I would much rather have ten 155mm SPHs than my single A'nat, no matter the calibre difference. IIRC, the Paris Gun received no, or very little, accurate hits in Paris, and the Dora managed some impressive deeds through luck [for example, the ammunition dump it destroyed by penetrating into the bay and then through the rock and dirt and finally into the ammunition dump under the bay(!)]. Either psychology or for the storyline effect. Tactical effeciency is not something that is in the dictionary of large railway guns.

Good point. If you are going for psychological effect (which, really, all railguns up to this period have), a modified SHBT would be best. But I'm talking about tactical usage. Railguns could be used as defensive emplacements quite easily.


Both the Paris Gun and the Dora required hours for assembly.

My idea is to assemble the weapon at a strategic position (a base somewhere) and then drive it into the tunnels. It could be moved anywhere, and as long as it stays underground, it's relatively safe. Once it comes out of the tunnels, it could aim and fire. Of course, a bunker-buster could destroy the tracks, but if they were deep enough and defended, perhaps they have a chance.

Oh paw'sha, I'm not good at guessing. :( Southeast Asia?

You flatter me, but no.

Railguns could be used as defensive emplacements quite easily.


What would be the advantage of a fixed railgun, as opposed to a smaller, more mobile self-propelled howitzer?


My idea is to assemble the weapon at a strategic position (a base somewhere) and then drive it into the tunnels. It could be moved anywhere, and as long as it stays underground, it's relatively safe. Once it comes out of the tunnels, it could aim and fire. Of course, a bunker-buster could destroy the tracks, but if they were deep enough and defended, perhaps they have a chance.


Well, if you were to build that you would be assuming that $_random_city will soon be under siege, thus quantifying your decision to build an expensive underground metroesque railgun defense system. Otherwise you have a very expensive subterranean defense going on without a purpose. And then, the question still remains is this superior in any way to mobile artillery operating in a city?

The railgun only really becomes viable when the front line is static and air superiority belongs to either your side, or you can contest it heavily, to the point of securing a zone above the weapon.

If I recall correctly, most rail-guns cannot be moved while assembled.

The only real use of a railgun I can think of is to service targets that are well protected from air attack. Ammunition dumps come to mind, fuel storage sites, command posts, and the like. Although, if you have sufficient forces in proximity, standard "Time on Target" barrages or even simple barrages of HE-FRAG would do the job on any of those three targets.

Rail-Guns seem to be a weapon of psychological impact more than anything else. Defensively they may be useful. A fairly long-ranged weapon with a smaller bore than is usual... say the equivalent of a 10" naval gun perhaps, with more powder behind it to hurl that shell further, combined with adaquete reconnaissance and other intelligence-gathering efforts would perhaps allow you to kill some of their centralized logistics structures, IF your own rail lines are sufficiently set up.

Another problem with employment is that the railgun effectively shuts down the line it is firing from. Trains don't usually move within visual range of one another, and a rail-gun is just as vulnerable to counterbattery fire as any other asset is. More so, actually, as its mobility is worse than that of a decent towed gun.

Given the advent of extended range munitions, rocket artillery (BM-30 SMERCH has a nice range to 'er), and the like... any large caliber artillery piece is mostly a psychological weapon.

Edit:

I forgot to address "Combat Trains." Armoured trains have been used repeatedly in the past, WWII most notably, especially on the Eastern Front. The thing is, the Russians and the Germans both wanted to maintain the rail-lines for logistical reasons, whereas the Western Allies didn't give a shit and bombed the rail-lines and rail-heads to Hell, which actually slowed their advance in the long run... but that's not the point.

It is very easily to stop an armoured train by blasting the tracks. Less than a kilogram of C-4 will effectively prevent an armoured train from bringing itself to the combat area. It then remains a primarily stationary target, and with modern tank gunnery and anti-tank gunnery being what it is, it would not last particularly long.

Against a technologically inferior foe, it could be a useful defensive / escort (For other supply trains) weapon.

Considering the above, it seems like the only advantage railguns have over other artillery is the "cool factor," which they possess in massive quantities. However, what about omni-directional VLS or other such systems? They could be stuck on a train car disguised as a commercial line. If the car was bulky enough, the rockets could fire on the move.

That's why we have multiple rocket launch systems!

Because Russkya has such a highly developed rail network, I have armoured cars that look like boxcars that are attached to military trains. They are armed with a variety of systems. AAA, SAMs, and yes, MLRS. I also have a few that are tank turrets on box-cars, should a train encounter roving enemy armour in the Northern Steppes. Though that's more of a last-ditch desperation thing.

Any large-caliber artillery piece, even those fitted to ships, are essentially useless. There is a point where you plateau your artillery. For SPHs, that tends to be the M-109 or the PzH-2000 or the Gvozdika or whatever the Hell. 155mm / 152mm tends to be that plataeu. Heavier guns are typically superceded by rocket artillery, and super-heavy guns, even those on battleships and dreadnoughts, tend to be about as useful as tits on a broomstick when you take them off the vessel, as that is the only way they're getting semi-decent mobility.

Well, there are highly mobile armies with larger artillery pieces. Spain, for example, imported 12 U.S. M-107s and exchanged the 175mm cannon with an indegenous 203mm cannon. Heavy fire support is useful in a limited tactical sense - I use 254mm mortars tactically, for example. The majority of my artillery is 155mm, but I do have some heavy artillery for different situations; normally I use the 155mm since I can carry more rounds, but I wouldn't mind exchanging my main calibre for something like a 203mm howitzer. It's no less mobile, and if long enough can have even greater range and a greater effect, although I admit that it shares no advantage when it comes to those newer submunition rounds fired by modern artillery.

I don't use railroad weapons simply because they lack the ability to manuever, and therefore are suceptible to close air support attacks, counterbattery fire, and in the case of an encounter with a main battle tank, the tank can probably outmanuever out of the arc of fire of the train's turret before that turret can turn fast enough - in the mean time, it can put a round in the car and simply collapse the turret support.

Or having heavy artillery does not negate an army's mobility, simply means that those batteries / brigades / regiments move more slowly than their lighter counterparts.

I've never really seen the point of super-heavy artillery, anymore. There is something to be said for obliterating your opponent with 203mm or larger, but I tend to opt for thermobarics in situations that require that kind of firepower. If I need to do some landscaping, I put sustained fire on it with my "Grozom" system.

If I could get my hands on a decent set of heavy artillery, I'd probably use it, though I'm not entirely sure on what. 152 or 155mm tends to excavate enough earth to rip any trench system completely asunder, and the heavier rounds are more for completely obliterating point targets like bunkers, I suppose.

Something like the German "Karl" Heavy Mortar, perhaps, for those targets. I'll do some thinking on it. Damn you, Macabees, and your thought provoking posts.

I currently don't have any heavy howitzers and what not, although I did plan to put a 203mm self-propelled howitzer into service, along with a 407mm self-propelled howitzer. They don't necessarilly need to be slower. A 60 tonne M1A1 does not necessarilly move any slower than its 56 tonne Soviet/Russian counterpart, for example. It would probably have to be maintained more, but meh. And I would use them for exactly what you said - knock out heavy bunkers, trenchlines, et cetera.

... oh this is gonna be fun. I shall tag this for edumacational purposes, but I just wanna say, I have a feeling this is going to get locked soon enough.

... oh this is gonna be fun. I shall tag this for edumacational purposes, but I just wanna say, I have a feeling this is going to get locked soon enough.

Why?

The Karl Gustav 600mm Heavy Mortar was a god-send for German troops. Those things could stall an entire infantry advance, provided it was used right. Hell, it could even divert a tank advance, provided the Germans had thought to use it like that.

Why?

Because Mac, eventually every OOC tech in NS falls to flaming. Sad but true. But good luck!

I'd just like to point out that the "Karl" had to be moved with two railcars, so technically, one could call it a railgun.

The Karl Gustav 600mm Heavy Mortar was a god-send for German troops. Those things could stall an entire infantry advance, provided it was used right. Hell, it could even divert a tank advance, provided the Germans had thought to use it like that.

Not trying to argue with you about the effectivity of 600mm mortars during the Second World War, which I think was non-existant, given the lack of extent of usage of this mortar, or heavy mortars throughout any army that was in the Second World War...but irregardless... that's why we have MRLS now! :)

Nice point.

The only experiance I have with the Karl superheavy "Fuck your Reinforced Bunker and everyone inside" mortar is in Blitzkrieg, the RTS game, where it moved on a tracked chassis. So I have no idea if it'd qualify as a railgun or not, although I would be hugely surprised if there wasn't one on a rail car, given the German's apparent fetish with putting giant guns on the rail system.


I currently don't have any heavy howitzers and what not, although I did plan to put a 203mm self-propelled howitzer into service, along with a 407mm self-propelled howitzer. They don't necessarilly need to be slower. A 60 tonne M1A1 does not necessarilly move any slower than its 56 tonne Soviet/Russian counterpart, for example. It would probably have to be maintained more, but meh. And I would use them for exactly what you said - knock out heavy bunkers, trenchlines, et cetera.


The thing is, it's overkill on any trench system. Slit trenches protect against all except a direct hit, really, and once you get that direct hit, a 60mm is more than enough to do the job. So for screwing bunkers over completely, I can understand the heavy guns a bit more. Though I think 300mm artillery rockets might do the same job. All the same, something that needs to be researched.

And good point on it not having to move more slowly, though I suspect its cassions would have to; trucks loaded down with the heavy shells or whatever you're using. I might consider something like a 305mm gun, which would be about double the bore of what I already use. Indigenously designed, of course.

As I said before, Mac, damn you and your thought provoking posts. Now for one of the very rare times I ever use an emoticon: :p

Right. Perhaps I'll have some kind of revelation over supper.

MLRS is boring, though. Sure, you get the flashy contrails and whatnot, but nothing to beat a 2-ton shell smashing into the ground. 600mm might be a little excessive, but with modern technology I'm certain a heavy mortar like good 'ol Karl could be made.

EDIT: Wikipedia article on Karl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6rser_Karl), where I drew the information about it being towed around by rail.

Not trying to argue with you about the effectivity of 600mm mortars during the Second World War, which I think was non-existant, given the lack of extent of usage of this mortar, or heavy mortars throughout any army that was in the Second World War...but irregardless... that's why we have MRLS now! :)

Well, yeah, I quite agree. I use them extensively throughout my FT nation, especially with my modified designs. My prototype RX-78GP-03DOK Dendrobium Orchis Kai has a 216-tube micro-smart-missile launcher with an assisting 6-tube heavy smart-missile launcher that I have laid out Ork Kill Kroozers with in a single volley (the DOK is capable of three volleys with them).

My leading ground artillery is the Destroid Monster from Macross, and it uses four Viggers 40cm cannons and two Raitheon LSSN-20G 3-barrel SSMLs.

Russkya, insofar I don't really have a MRLS system in service, except the Praetorian upgrade, which I never made a write-up for, which is basically the same truck my Praetorian II SAM system uses, only mounted with a launch box meant for heavy rockets. Normally, however, I simply launch rocket assisted rounds from my artiller, so for me a 203mm howitzer makes sense since I could simply use that, as opposed to a few 203mm howitzers for a specific reason and then a 300mm MRLS for another reason - for example, now I can simply fire 203mm rounds filled with EFP submuntions for anti-tank work, and have a much more tactical and cheaper weapon than a MRLS - as opposed to something meant to annihalate everything in a surface area of 1.5km².

Hitler also inquired about the possibility of a self-propelled 80cm Dora gun, mind you.

Kargucagstan, having one system turn 1.5km² into a flaming ruin isn't fun? Hee...

Hitler also wanted a 1,000 ton tank. And I'm not saying that rockets aren't totally unamusing (boom! heh), but there's just something about giant shells, you know?

Russkya, insofar I don't really have a MRLS system in service, except the Praetorian upgrade, which I never made a write-up for, which is basically the same truck my Praetorian II SAM system uses, only mounted with a launch box meant for heavy rockets. Normally, however, I simply launch rocket assisted rounds from my artiller, so for me a 203mm howitzer makes sense since I could simply use that, as opposed to a few 203mm howitzers for a specific reason and then a 300mm MRLS for another reason - for example, now I can simply fire 203mm rounds filled with EFP submuntions for anti-tank work, and have a much more tactical and cheaper weapon than a MRLS - as opposed to something meant to annihalate everything in a surface area of 1.5km².

Hitler also inquired about the possibility of a self-propelled 80cm Dora gun, mind you.

Kargucagstan, having one system turn 1.5km² into a flaming ruin isn't fun? Hee...

That's what my 40cm cannons do for my Monsters. At about five hundred feet from impact, the shells pop open and deploy bomblets, which effectively puts the enemy's plans on hold indefinitely.

Of course, that's my most common round type. My best one is the bunker buster shell. Levels buildings in a 1000-foot radius from the impact of the shell.

Russkya, insofar I don't really have a MRLS system in service, except the Praetorian upgrade, which I never made a write-up for, which is basically the same truck my Praetorian II SAM system uses, only mounted with a launch box meant for heavy rockets. Normally, however, I simply launch rocket assisted rounds from my artiller, so for me a 203mm howitzer makes sense since I could simply use that, as opposed to a few 203mm howitzers for a specific reason and then a 300mm MRLS for another reason - for example, now I can simply fire 203mm rounds filled with EFP submuntions for anti-tank work, and have a much more tactical and cheaper weapon than a MRLS - as opposed to something meant to annihalate everything in a surface area of 1.5km².


I went with the MLRS because at the time I knew more about the heavy artillery rockets than I did the big shells on the big howitzers. I assumed (incorrectly, as barrel size matters a whole lot here and I now know more about barrel dynamics than I did yesterday) that with larger shells, one was mandated to far lesser range.

Your example fulfils the same role that my MLRS would. Grozom however doesn't quite have the same "Bury shell in ground, create massive crater" effect - the rocket doesn't bury itself as deeply as a 203 would. As such I may have to bring some heavy artillery into play myself, but equip it with shells such as yours to give it a true multipurpose functionality.

Another advantage with the larger shells is that you can fit more submunitions into them, creating a truly versatile weapon.

Mac, I hope that you and I never go to war. It would be brutal.

Of course, that's my most common round type. My best one is the bunker buster shell. Levels buildings in a 1000-foot radius from the impact of the shell.

How on earth does a cannon shell create a shockwave like that? Not even the Tallboy earthquake bombs from WWII did that.

How on earth does a cannon shell create a shockwave like that? Not even the Tallboy earthquake bombs from WWII did that.

I'm an FT nation, but if you want an explanation, I'll tell you.

The 40cm Bunker Buster shell uses a sub-munition that, upon the shell burying itself into the ground about thirty feet, fires out of the side of the shell. The drill through the earth, concrete, and even sewer and gas lines. After they have completed their job (which takes about two minutes, the shell explodes with the power of a fourty kiloton explosive, causing the eroded soil below the buildings to turn to sand and sink down towards the hole the explosion causes.