>800mm round
>Can blast through 8 meters of concrete.
Holy fuck
800mm round
Dylan Foster
Luis Hall
This thing could level a fucking a skyscraper
John Lee
I never understood how they aimed this thing.
If it was on rails (I assume they built the rails) couldn't they not really adjust trajectory laterally?
I am assuming it couldn't move side to side due to potentially derailing and/or destroying the rails.
Camden Wright
They had to build a special section of curved track, then the windage was adjusted by moving it along the curve.
Joshua Gutierrez
They built curved tracks so they could aim laterally by moving it up or down the curve.
Kayden Jenkins
Thats almost double in diameter what Yamato had.
Levi Kelly
Imagine, being a jerry grunt, and this
drives by.
I´d feel kinda sorry for Ivan.
Brayden Lewis
I can understand the logic when they started building it and they needed a way to break through the Maginot line. What I don't understand is why they kept building it after France had already surrendered.
Joseph Miller
Please...
Luke Diaz
It's an utterly retarded design all around.
The Karl-Gerats made a lot more sense and were a lot more successful. Why they wasted resources on that thing are beyond me.
Jayden Campbell
They probably started building it and France collapsed quickly so they just finished the project.
Joshua Roberts
It was Hitler's pet project, or one of them.
So... it kept on trucking.
Jaxson Nguyen
They used one of the two in the bombardment of St. Petersburg if I remember correctly. So it was useful for bombarding cities, I would've imagined they used it for some other missions too
Charles Howard
>Can blast through 8 meters of concrete.
They rarely if ever specify how tough or how reinforced the concrete is when that makes a huge difference in it's performance, It's why the Belgian forts in WW1 evaporated while the French forts at Verdun still exist.
I read a US military paper which discussed modern permanent fortifications, It concluded that the only conventional weapon effective against a modern fortification was siege artillery the type not seen since WW2.
Jace Nelson
So basically only the Gustav would be effective?
Josiah Martinez
As far as I can tell railguns are probably going to be the modern version of siege artillery in terms of function, use, and effect.
Justin Cook
holy fuck who made this
lmao
Lucas Barnes
so thats essentially a gun powered by a manmade volcano
Tyler Turner
*shoots you from 120km away*
KRUPP STRONK
Asher Young
drop a molotov down the main barrel and it blows up like the death star
Jace James
that's the kind of shit Ferdinand Porsche and Hitler would come up with
Alexander Adams
>It concluded that the only conventional weapon effective against a modern fortification was siege artillery the type not seen since WW2.
What about bunker busters? What about thermobarics?
Lucas Cooper
But it ahouldnt matter since its easier to bypass defenses like that than in ww2 and that is exaclty what the Germans did
Nicholas Sanchez
What else would they use to destroy the alien landing ships?
Lincoln Johnson
>What about bunker busters? What about thermobarics?
What about them? Just compartmentalize, disperse, and respond with your assets.
It's not like you're sitting back letting your enemy attack.
It's pretty easy to bypass a defensive line that's both unmanned and incomplete, Just like its easy to sink a fleet of ships that won't fight.
Easton Morris
NORAD is hardened to the point only a subterranean nuclear detonation can really hurt it
and the heavily fortified zone around kursk proved its worth as the defence in depth rapidly sapped the German thrust of all its momentum