WesWorld

I agree, non of this footage shows Gustav firing.

A somewhat smaller weapon that's a possibility for the heavy coast defence role is a 45cm design, firing a 1500 kg shell at 850 m/s, that Krupp has also looked at during the coast defence study. The 53cm weapon, to match up with WW German/Krupp patterns, should probably be firing a 2650-2700 kg shell at about 850 m/s, vs the 2200 kg shell at 820 m/s the historical weapon used.

In any event, the large weapons are likely to be supported by new 28.3 cm and 15cm (or possibly 17 cm, if that weapon proves more interesting) weapons, along with either 10.5 cm or 8.8 cm AA and 3.7cm automatic AA cannon.

A proposal for the 28.3cm batteries.

28.3cm Gerat 31, Germany shore battery laid down 1937

Displacement:
437 t light; 437 t standard; 437 t normal; 437 t full load

Armament:
3 - 11.14" / 283 mm guns (1x3 guns), 727.53lbs / 330.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward
Weight of broadside 2,183 lbs / 990 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.6" / 320 mm 5.91" / 150 mm 9.45" / 240 mm

Machinery:
Immobile shore battery

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 259 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 178 tons, 0.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 178 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: -620 tons, 0.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 182 tons, 0.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Triple 283/54.5 actually weigh 750tons though.

If we're using SS for ships (and we are) then it makes rather more sense to use it for shore batteries as well than to switch back and forth (especially when only a small number of the weapons used here are historical and have good data to use).

But Springsharp gives such obviously wrong results. Its reasonably easy to extrapolate from existing weapons to give an estimate of weights for non-historical ones.

If we do that for shore batteries, though, why don't we do it for ships as well? At least if we use SS for shore batteries, we get consistent (consistently wrong, agreed, but consistent) results, if we mix and match then we end up with a system where turrets on land weigh (for example) 750 tons, but aboard ship weight 437.

The turrets weigh the same on the ship its just that SS accounts for the weights differently with portions being in armament, armour and equipment sections.

That's the other one that I said appeared to show some movement, though I didn't notice (in my previous viewing) the carriage moving. This time, though, focusing on it, yes, the carriage DOES appear to move (perhaps explaining why it took 15 minutes between rounds, the gun has to be relaid on the target after each shot). Ah, well, it doesn't shatter my ego to be wrong once in a while. <shrug>

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The turrets weigh the same on the ship its just that SS accounts for the weights differently with portions being in armament, armour and equipment sections.

Well, the French have been building single turrets for their 42cm Russian guns for years (starting Q4/1929) at 400 tons per turret. A quick run through SS shows this as a possible base for that number:

42cm coastal, France shore battery laid down 1929

Displacement:
-314 t light; 0 t standard; 0 t normal; 0 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
0.00 ft / 0.00 ft x 0.00 ft x 0.00 ft (normal load)
0.00 m / 0.00 m x 0.00 m x 0.00 m

Armament:
1 - 16.54" / 420 mm guns in single mounts, 2,260.56lbs / 1,025.37kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading gun in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward
Weight of broadside 2,261 lbs / 1,025 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 4.72" / 120 mm 9.45" / 240 mm

Machinery:
Immobile floating battery

Complement:
0 - 0

Cost:
£0.905 million / $3.622 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 283 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 117 tons, 0.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 117 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: -713 tons, 0.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 314 tons, 0.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
0 lbs / 0 Kg = 0.0 x 16.5 " / 420 mm shells or NaN torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): NaN
Metacentric height NaN ft / NaN m
Roll period: NaN seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): NaN %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): NaN
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): NaN

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 0.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 0.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 0 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Stern: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Average freeboard: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): Infinity
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): NaN
Waterplane Area: 0 Square feet or 0 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 0 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: -Infinity lbs/sq ft or -Infinity Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: NaN
- Longitudinal: NaN
- Overall: NaN
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is extremely poor
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor


Now, one thing that doesn't fit is that the French were also paying for the guns separately to the Russians, at 135t per gun. Hmmmm. So, perhaps the SS number for turret weight should be added to the gun weight?

I made some noises in the past with regards to the weight of the Russian/French coastal turrets. Given that we don't pay for armies or air forces the case for including or not including these in costs is fairly academic. It becomes more so as we base things from tonnage and not cost.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I agree, non of this footage shows Gustav firing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDEj0-5Jbws&feature=related

1:23 to 2:35

You are wrong, sir.

H.

That´s not the video I comment on as I can´t open it. Youtube says "This video is not available in your country" (in German: Dieses Video is in Deinem Land nicht verfügbar.). I could only open the other one which shows Gustav moving and loading but not firing.

You may also note that I was agreeing to Hrolfs comment whos answer revealed the clips you offered included no footage of Gustav firing as Hrolf referred to a different, third video he saw on youtube which actually showed Gustav firing. So I rely on Hrolf when he says "the gun we see recoiling so dramatically in the second clip isn't Gustav" - and the third clip is the one I can´t open.

Well, you now quote Hrolfs post two days later related to a different link.

Your original two links labelled "800mm Gustav/Dora" (56secs long) and "Battle for Sevastopol" (44secs) below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISwyMoautxw&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUf7LFrL7LQ&feature=related

show loading and moving of Dora but not firing. That´s what Hrolf said and what I commented on.

The link provided later

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDEj0-5Jbws&feature=related

may show footage of Dora firing but that is neither a link I could open nor one I commented on.

So I don´t see were I was wrong and actually you´re comparing apples and oranges when putting this piece here into relation to the discussion about the Siebel aircrafts on the other board.

Btw, I never said you don´t "know the difference between a giant howitzer, a naval long rifle, and a heavy mortar." Me wonders what you´re trying to say with such a comment?

I had the same problems with that video as you Hooman, but after several refreshing attepts it suddenly worked.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
Why do you continue this discussion? We've settled that the Gustav recoils along the rails as its truck rolls, as well as in its cradle.

H.

This is not about recoil. This is because you said I´m wrong which I actually wasn´t.

But I agree with you: this is fruitless. Let´s stop it.