MOTHERFUCKING RAILWAY GUNS

Yeah airpower kind of ended the day of the massive railway gun.

>can't hide it
>can't move it

It's dead Jim.

I would like to add that the stresses for shooting the shells were so high that part often needed replacement

>Were they practical?
No
>How many were made?
Like other guns, just bigger
>Why do I have a massive erection when I look at them?
Because you are a boring faggot that thinks guns are so cewl. likely your homeboard is /k/, you are of normal or slightly below average intelligence, white, male, early 20s, closet homo fantasies, and guns give you a feeling of power. you'd know jackshit about the Weimar republic, but you could identify 5 different German camouflage patterns. In other words, you are cancer and should fuck back off to

>were so high that part often needed replacement
Nah, they got around this by creating specific shells to be fired in a specific order because of the wear on the parts. If they were fired out of order however... Well... bad shit would happen and let's just leave it at that.

>Were they practical?
No
The enemy could just sabotafe the railway and the gun is done. Not to mention, they were so hard to produce and complicated that even a minor detail breaking would result in the cannono becoming useless.

Wow there big boi whats with the hostility?
Looks like someone needs to get laid

How much money was invested into this shit? Couldn't anybody see how impractical this was?

Hitler liked big guns

Is that why he stuck one in his mouth?!

Hitler was pretty dumb.

He's right, discussion about weaponry should fuck off back to /k/.

>guy wants to know about historical weapons
>no fuck you let's have more humanitarian threads instead

Humanitaries was a mistake. This board is for all things historical, including weapons. Germany was hardly the only country to develop railway based artillery, although they were the only ones to do so in such grand fashion. Although, I'm quite sure there was a reason nobody bothered to create such a large weapon except for the Germans. The Germans made them to deal with the Maginot Line, I think other countries would have just done the same thing they did in WW1 for fuckhuge guns instead of putting it on a train though.

How did those shells differ?

Bigger/smaller charges/shells/cartridges to compensate for wear.

Can anyone be assed to guess how much fuel dragging a railway gun costs, and how many tanks or planes could be run with that instead?

Come home to /k/, brother.

These humanities faggots here can't get it up except for this shit, as several people in this thread have already said.

My guess is this board is full of european haplophobics and some genuine autists who'll just screech at anything that isn't their favourite humanities topic.

Any actual historians in here would just discuss the railway guns as they were historically, but we can all see there's few of them around.

Also here's some more info on it.

>The shells were propelled at such a high velocity that each successive shot wore away a considerable amount of steel from the rifled bore. Each shell was sequentially numbered according to its increasing diameter, and had to be fired in numeric order, lest the projectile lodge in the bore, and the gun explode. Also, when the shell was rammed into the gun, the chamber was precisely measured to determine the difference in its length: a few inches off would cause a great variance in the velocity, and with it, the range. Then, with the variance determined, the additional quantity of propellant was calculated, and its measure taken from a special car and added to the regular charge. After 65 rounds had been fired, each of progressively larger caliber to allow for wear, the barrel was sent back to Krupp and rebored to a caliber of 238 mm (9.4 in) with a new set of shells.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun#Projectiles

They just didn't think big enough.

>Can anyone be assed to guess how much fuel dragging a railway gun costs, and how many tanks or planes could be run with that instead?
Well, they ran around with steam engines I believe, being supplanted with diseal engines by WW2 I'd wager. You'd have to calculate mass, efficiency of the engine, and average mph.

>Were they practical?
If you have to ask about any WW2 weaponry, try to think if it was something exclusively used by Germans, if yes, this means no, it wasnt practical.

Ah, you're right. Too complicated, not really worth it for curiosity's sake alone.