Saddam's super gun

[Emultra]

The 1000mm super mortar, or something, that was never finished, was supposed to fire shells into orbit and then drop them where desired.

First of all, given the caliber of the gun, how much explosive force would be needed to propel the shell into orbit? How could the explosive force be directed and focused sufficiently?

And secondly, how would the gun itself survive the blast?


Also, if I suppose that the shell cannot "go left or right" in orbit, you would have to aim the gun upon firing, so as to line the shot up with the coordinate on Earth that you would like to strike.

Thus: given a distance of [the opposite side of the globe], how much space would there be between the spots you can actually hit?
Because being able to calibrate an aim of a gun so precisely so as to be able to hit any spot on Earth seems impossible to me.

 

[qbackin]

pm sent.

 

[Emultra]

There.

 

[sundev]

Care to share with the rest of us?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Yeah, really. My Supergun didn't come with directions, so hook me up

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Emultra
The 1000mm super mortar, or something, that was never finished, was supposed to fire shells into orbit and then drop them where desired.

First of all, given the caliber of the gun, how much explosive force would be needed to propel the shell into orbit? How could the explosive force be directed and focused sufficiently?

And secondly, how would the gun itself survive the blast?

Noone can answer those questions, as the 1000mm refers to the width of the shell and doesn't tell you the most important part for calculating any of that - how heavy it is.

Also, if I suppose that the shell cannot "go left or right" in orbit, you would have to aim the gun upon firing, so as to line the shot up with the coordinate on Earth that you would like to strike.

Thus: given a distance of [the opposite side of the globe], how much space would there be between the spots you can actually hit?
Because being able to calibrate an aim of a gun so precisely so as to be able to hit any spot on Earth seems impossible to me.

Given powered craft need complex navigational aids to get to specific locations, I would think that your assumption is a pretty safe bet.

 

[Calin]

Guns (American guns, the 16 inches from WW2 battleships) were used to launch rockets (small rockets). So, the possibility exists to use a cannon to launch things to orbit (but only as a first stage launch, other stages will be needed).
Now, cannons are limited at about 1 km/s velocity at the barrel's end for reasons of barrel's wear. This speed can be increased using projectiles that have lower width than the diameter of the barrel (subcalibre I think they are called).
The supercannon would be built on the side of a hill, to be able to support its entire length (which length would be much greater than the length of any other gun). They would then use shells that would have some wings so they will be able to change their trajectory in some measure (they would be like some high-flying airplanes). How much could they change the direction of the shell? I assume they could hit anything in a large area, but the cannon would be very hard to aim (because small changes in movement are at the mercy of the shell's capacity to orientate, and large changes are difficult as the entire cannon must be moved/rotated/something

 

[maluckey]

Gerald Bull, the creator of the Babylon Gun, was successful at most all of his ventures in large-bore guns. He devised a formula (I can't find it at the moment) that was simple, to calculate the optimal length/bore for any gun.

the HARP project in Barbados was one of his early attempts to show that high altitude research could be done with a gun. his record of 180 Km altitude set in 1966 stood for 25 years.

As far as the barrel withstanding the blast...not an issue. The force on the satellite itself is quite another story. The G forces are high to say the least.

He was murdered shortly before the Gulf War. Canadian reporters claimed it was the Israelis, but it was a messy murder with plenty of witnesses, which is VERY unlike the Mossad. More likely to have been Iraqi agents silencing Bull forever about his work on the Babylon gun, of which only one was completed before the war. It was never fired.

 

[Calin]

I remember something about 16,000g for the 16 inch/45 caliber gun (barrel length 45*16inch, or 720 inch, or 18.30 meters).
However, the record was obtained with an elongated barrel (double the length, if I remember correctly) and a rocket instead of a shell.

 

[krcat1]

The gun was suppose to be able to shoot shells into Israel or Saudi Arabia.

I don't think it was made to launch things into orbit.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Gerald Bull, the creator of the Babylon Gun, was successful at most all of his ventures in large-bore guns. He devised a formula (I can't find it at the moment) that was simple, to calculate the optimal length/bore for any gun.

the HARP project in Barbados was one of his early attempts to show that high altitude research could be done with a gun. his record of 180 Km altitude set in 1966 stood for 25 years.

As far as the barrel withstanding the blast...not an issue. The force on the satellite itself is quite another story. The G forces are high to say the least.

He was murdered shortly before the Gulf War. Canadian reporters claimed it was the Israelis, but it was a messy murder with plenty of witnesses, which is VERY unlike the Mossad. More likely to have been Iraqi agents silencing Bull forever about his work on the Babylon gun, of which only one was completed before the war. It was never fired.

Yeah... I saw the movie, too!

 

[maluckey]

krcat1

Makes you wonder about thie possibility of nukes, when you consider that the gun would have to be disassembled/reassembled to aim it at different targets. A nuke wouldn't need to be pinpoint accurate to stop an oncoming advance. Within a couple of miles in the desert is close enough.

 

[Emultra]

Not if you're using neutron bombs.

 

[Farmer]

Calin:

I think the correct term is sabot, or FSDS (Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). AFAIK, subcalibre refers to pistol cartridges.

Originally posted by: maluckey
krcat1

Makes you wonder about thie possibility of nukes, when you consider that the gun would have to be disassembled/reassembled to aim it at different targets. A nuke wouldn't need to be pinpoint accurate to stop an oncoming advance. Within a couple of miles in the desert is close enough.

Didnt the US army try that idea out?:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m65.htm

Maybe with a railgun, or some sort of maglev launched space vehicle. Dont think chemical weapons can take you that far that precisely. Of course, I'm just assuming; I know very little about this.

 

[krcat1]

Originally posted by: maluckey
krcat1

Makes you wonder about thie possibility of nukes, when you consider that the gun would have to be disassembled/reassembled to aim it at different targets. A nuke wouldn't need to be pinpoint accurate to stop an oncoming advance. Within a couple of miles in the desert is close enough.

Link to FAS article

I would have thought that it would be easier to place a WMD on a Scud.

I wonder if a rail gun could be used by the Chinese to launch something that could blind US satellites.

 

[russell2002]

---- My claim to fame.

I best mate works for the company that built it, Summers Forge....

The director went to prison for a short time.

Fantastic.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Farmer
Calin:

I think the correct term is sabot, or FSDS (Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). AFAIK, subcalibre refers to pistol cartridges.

Originally posted by: maluckey
krcat1

Makes you wonder about thie possibility of nukes, when you consider that the gun would have to be disassembled/reassembled to aim it at different targets. A nuke wouldn't need to be pinpoint accurate to stop an oncoming advance. Within a couple of miles in the desert is close enough.

Didnt the US army try that idea out?:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m65.htm

Maybe with a railgun, or some sort of maglev launched space vehicle. Dont think chemical weapons can take you that far that precisely. Of course, I'm just assuming; I know very little about this.

An maglev or railgun won't be a bit more precise. However, the big guns have a rather short lifespan of their barrels until reworking/replacing is needed (the rifling inside the barrel is eaten away by the shells).
However, for very long range ballistics (like over 20 miles or even more), self-guiding projectiles are a must. Especially considering that self-guiding projectiles (high speed gliding ones, let's call them) can greatly increase the range a payload can be delivered (double the range I think for non-powered projectiles). Using small rockets the payload delivered to the target is smaller, but the range can be increased even more.

 

[maluckey]

The anti satelllite sticky gun is bizarre!!

 

[Genx87]

Big Arty guns are sooo 1930s. Typical of Saddam to be several generations behind.

 

[Calin]

Iraqi ports were bombarded with artillery from battleship Missouri - no later than 1990 something. Artillery how big? Not the biggest ever built, but the biggest ever built by US (16" guns).
For your information, biggest built artillery was some Skoda mortar built for the first World War (I think). It had a railway carriage only to carry the mortar, and other carriages for the shells. Its internal diameter was some 420mm, or 16.5 inches.
Looking at the caliber in inches, I think the biggest guns were those on japanese WW2 battleships Yamato and Musashi (18.3 inches I think)

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Calin
Iraqi ports were bombarded with artillery from battleship Missouri - no later than 1990 something. Artillery how big? Not the biggest ever built, but the biggest ever built by US (16" guns).
For your information, biggest built artillery was some Skoda mortar built for the first World War (I think). It had a railway carriage only to carry the mortar, and other carriages for the shells. Its internal diameter was some 420mm, or 16.5 inches.
Looking at the caliber in inches, I think the biggest guns were those on japanese WW2 battleships Yamato and Musashi (18.3 inches I think)

I believe Bull got his ideas for the Iraqi gun from a German project (V3?) during WWII. I will soon read material on the German guns, which were destroyed by British bombings before they were completed, so I will know more about them then.

Meanwhile I believe biggest gun ever completed and used is the also German WW2 "Schwere Gustav". 800mm caliber or 31½ inch. 40 cal long barrel. Each shell weighed 7 tons and required 2 tons of gunpowder to hurl some 47 Km. It completely destroyed some four or five Soviet fortresses with only a few rounds each.

Edit: Yes, "V3" 150mm?. I got lucky and found a link:

http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/visit/visit-2caps-mimoyec-v3.htm

 

[earthman]

I think Bull's gun used staggered charges fired in sequence to accelerate the projectile. Its the same theory put forward for some "railgun" desingns. The trick is getting the timing right and not destroying your projectile. In theory you can accelerate a projectile to almost any speed, but friction and air ablation would seem to be a limiting factor. Ultimately, these weapons have not proven efficient. In WWII it was cheaper to build a bomber than a big gun like the Gustav, and planes could do more cumulative damage more quickly.

 

[Calin]

For a static front line (like it was in the first world war) a supergun was much better - as nothing would be able to stop the shells from reaching their target. If the gun was protected from bad weather, it could have fired all day long. However, the planes can not take off or land in bad weather (now some of them can, but not all of them). Also, it is easy to protect yourself with AA artillery, so a plane attacking would have had a much lower chance of surviving enough to reach the target.
However, modern war (when air launched rockets have ranges exceeding those of artillery), when there are cruise missiles able to attack targets at great distances (farther than the typical attack airplane is capable to fly), no matter how long range the artillery is, it is in enemy range

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: krcat1

Originally posted by: maluckey
krcat1

Makes you wonder about thie possibility of nukes, when you consider that the gun would have to be disassembled/reassembled to aim it at different targets. A nuke wouldn't need to be pinpoint accurate to stop an oncoming advance. Within a couple of miles in the desert is close enough.

Link to FAS article

I would have thought that it would be easier to place a WMD on a Scud.

I wonder if a rail gun could be used by the Chinese to launch something that could blind US satellites.

Scud missiles can be shot down by: AA artillery; AA rockets; antirocket rockets (like Patriot); air-to-air missiles (launched from chasing aircrafts); and maybe even by gunfire from aircrafts.
However, a projectile launched from a gun is almost unstopable (even projectiles launched from mortars and trench mortars, that fly slower, can not be stopped - and mortar fire was the biggest danger to US forces in the last years - especially in Afghanistan

 

[Era]

This is just a sidenote.

I read some time ago about the Babylon Gun. It's projectiles were not meant to be rockets or missiles, but plain "bullets", those would have propellant merely to eliminate the huge drag that a 1000mm supersonic projectile would have right after it leaves the barrel on it's way thinner air.