Superweapons real or imagined

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This reminded me of the insane gun the Nazis installed in my Norwegian home town:





"The 38 cm calibre gun is one of the largest in the world; the barrel alone weighs 110 tons, measures almost 20 m in length and has a range of up to 55 km (34 miles)."

The Kristiansand Kanonmuseum was always a super fun place to go visit with the kids.

While that's big, the main gun on the 1500 Monster had over twice the size with an 80 cm shell. Crazy!

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just to add on, ....

Thanks for the analysis. I had never realised how delicate the balance of military power was between NATO and Russia, in the past and in the present.

How do you think it is that a country that has a relatively unimpressive GDP and lacks a strong history of advanced military technology is now coming out with such high grade tech to compete with even the U.S., a country that puts tonnes of money into military tech r&d? Do you think they're benefiting from espionage, or are they benefiting more from digital tech as an equalizing influence through being able to produce smarter weapons? Something else?

[CaptainCrunch]

A combination of both.


But its also in the case of Russia just a refocus of how they spend money.


When you have a country that built massive a massive military with a doctrine of overwhelming zerg rush and you run out of money you have to create a professional military. That means less soldiers that can kill more guys. So instead of 3000 tanks you get 500 advanced tanks. Instead of 1000 fighter bombers, you get away with 100 really advanced planes.


Sure the whole espionage is important, but Russia and China was eventually going to catch up in terms of computer aided design, metallurgy and precision manufacturing, things that they and china really lacked until the last generation, and that's why you're seeing serious leaps forward by the Chinese and Americans.


If you use an example like Canada and the fighter jet replacement. What works better in terms of spending.


Buying 150 fourth generation fighters at about 60 million each, or 80 advanced 5th generation fighters at 100 million each, it becomes easier to buy them, man them and maintain them and cheaper in the long run.


For the Russians building lets say 500 PAK-57 and SU-35's instead of lets say 1000 Mig 29's (Bad example but I know).


Also the other thing that's changing is that the Russian's are focusing more on training them they ever did before. During the Cold War the Russians' had mass conscription and 2 year terms, they also instantly made Sergeants who were picked from their conscript pool and sent to a special school based on intelligence, toughness and political awareness. Now the Russians' still have conscription, its a one year service, but they tend to get more people staying on due to better food, training and equipment, also they don't make the insta sarges anymore.

[troutman]

Could biological weapons be part of the discussion? Small pox decimated native Americans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...eapon_01.shtml

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, Biological and chemical weapons are absolutely up there as super weapons. Small Pox and anthrax are depopulation weapons.


Mustard Gas was pretty much the first modern super weapon and it changed the WW1 landscape.


At some point I'll probably touch on them in a blanket way.

[CaptainCrunch]

Helepolis (305 BC)

Normally an army attacking a fortified city or fortress had a severe disadvantage due to height. We've all heard Ben Kenobi telling Anakin that he had the high ground, and in the case of a siege it was true. City walls allowed for height which allowed archers to fire down into an attacking army, and there was the whole, how do we get over the wall. Usually a city siege would take months or years, take thousands of soldiers and the strategy was to starve the defenders out.

So enter the siege engine and the Helepolis was a monster. At more then 130 feet tall and weighing more then 160 tons, the Helepolis was a mobile fortress designed to be pushed up to a city wall and allow troops to pour over the wall. It was also heavily armed featuring 16 catapults of various sizes and 4 long dart throwers.

for mobility purposes the Helepolis was mounted on 8 15 foot wheels and castors which allowed side to side movement.

In terms of protection the front side was armored with steel.

It was manned by a total crew of 3400 men who acted as the main engine in terms of pushing it, there was a primitive steering system that allowed the commander to steer the siege engine towards the enemy wall.

In terms of use, the idea was to push the Helepolis towards the city wall while the catapults were used to barrage the enemy defenses at the siege point. once it was pushed against the wall the soldiers would pour out over the wall to cut down enemy defenses.

Unfortunately this awesome and intimidating machine had a major example of krytonite, and that weakness was the terrain that it had to travel over.

This monster was used for the siege of Rhodes and unfortunately it was a failure. In one story during the siege some of the metal armor plates were dislodged and the commander Demetrius ordered it withdrawn from the battle to protect it. The Helepolis was abandoned as were other seige engines and captured by the citizens of Rhodes who then sold its weapons and melted down it's steel armor to build the Colossus of Rhodes.

Another story is that the defenders knew that this attack was coming and channeled large amounts of mud and water into the path of the mighty siege ending swamping it and leaving it to be captured.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In a naval battle right now in the Ocean, I would still say if the American's are involved, the Russians just don't have the true ability to project power at sea.

Well, the Russians (and the Soviets before them) don't prioritize projecting their power overseas with their Navy. The primary role of the Navy is to defend Russia. Thus, the Russians do not have any interest in building (and sustaining) an armada that can take on the US Navy on the open sea. The simple reason is they do not need to.



On 7 Oct 2015, Russia launched six 3M14 Kalibr cruise missiles in intervals of five seconds from their small missile ships in the Caspian Sea, aimed at Daesh targets in Syria. The USS Theodore Roosevelt and its carrier battle group immediately understood the message – quickly exiting the Persian Gulf.



The Russians have amplified their message since then: the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Russian Navy’s Pacific zones of responsibility are becoming completely closed zones for the US Navy.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

How do you think it is that a country that has a relatively unimpressive GDP and lacks a strong history of advanced military technology is now coming out with such high grade tech to compete with even the U.S., a country that puts tonnes of money into military tech r&d? Something else?

I recommend Andrei Martyanov's book, Losing Military Supremacy, as an excellent starting point on this topic. He argues that Russia, all through the first decade of the millennium, spent enough time “defining herself in terms of enclosed technological cycles, localization and manufacturing.”


By contrast, Germany - even with a large, developed economy - cannot design and build from scratch a state-of-the-art fighter jet while Russia can. Germany doesn’t have a space industry, but Russia does.


I would hazard a guess that 80% of Russia's military expenditures are dictated by real threats. Russian weapons are designed to kill; American weapons are designed to give excellent returns to their investors.



Defence budgets are not reliable metrics on judging one's military. Nineteen years later, where is the USA now in Afghanistan? Negotiating with the Taliban for a face-saving exit, that's where. How did the so-called technological might of the USA help here?


The USA is an adult that likes to show up to the sand box and beat up children and then pretends that it can fight adults.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

I recommend Andrei Martyanov's book, Losing Military Supremacy, as an excellent starting point on this topic. He argues that Russia, all through the first decade of the millennium, spent enough time “defining herself in terms of enclosed technological cycles, localization and manufacturing.”

Read this last night, good recommendation - although I'm dubious about some of the claims he makes, it's still a good critique of America's (and the rest of the West's) obsession with shiny, over-intricate, and insanely expensive fantasy weapons over practical hardware designed to kill things directly and cheaply.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jammies

Read this last night, good recommendation - although I'm dubious about some of the claims he makes, it's still a good critique of America's (and the rest of the West's) obsession with shiny, over-intricate, and insanely expensive fantasy weapons over practical hardware designed to kill things directly and cheaply.

I've been to the bar with you and your beer-farts have been declared a weapon of mass destruction and simultaneously a crime against humanity.

[CaptainCrunch]

War has always been calculus by insanity. The more you invest in training, and in research and development and of manufacturing quality of a weapon the higher your kill ratio. If you achieve a high enough kill ratio in theory you need less, and if that works out less, then equals more.


During the cold war, the American's had to live under the doctrine that my training and my equipment means that I can kill 5 of your guys, planes, tanks whatever to every one of my guys that gets killed. With the Soviets who really didn't have the training and the advanced manufacturing and design, they would need to throw 5 units at your 1 to win.


With countries with smaller populations and smaller defense budgets they need to really rely on the doctrine of less equipment that's technologically advanced and lavishly trained men to use them. That's just the way it is.


Eventually if your that big country with a massive but poorly paid army and your fighting against that smaller country with better equipment and training and your not advancing, that kill ration against you goes from 5 to 6 to 7 etc etc.


Look at what the Chinese are doing. They're spending lavishly on more advanced equipment and they're spending more money and time on training. At some point that will allow them to have a smaller professional military instead of a big zerg rush.


If you look at Star Wars (Cause I just have to).


The Rebels had ships with shields and heavy weapons, and ejection seats, and advanced targeting computers. And they fought an empire where the men were disposable and had to fly ships with no shields and two lasers instead of four, and no pilot safety systems. And for a long time the Empire probably won because of sheer weight of numbers. But eventually in that last battle you really saw the shift in technology as a much smaller force, took out a lot of tie fighters, star destroyers command ships and a death star.

[CaptainCrunch]

Chemical Weapons (WW1)


"Home by Christmas" they said, "Give Jerry a nose and then home". WW1 was a war by accident, traditional and non traditional allies were dragged into a European war that to this day literally had no purpose. They really weren't fighting for freedom, or the end of oppression, this was the war where crumbling empires desperately tried to hang onto their relevance and failed. At the same time, war was still seen as a glamorous thing, the honor of sending your sons into battle to dip their sabres into blood before coming home to their jobs and and homes and kids.


Unfortunately war had changed. Gone were the days of the cavalry charge, the clash of sabres, replacing it was the disappearance of mobility. The Trench War and the butchery of no mans land.



WW1 bought in many technical advances. The tank, the airplane, the water cooled machine gun, more accurate rifles. But at its heart this was sage warfare and enemies would send thousands of boys to die to capture a few feet of territory.



Desperate to stage breakouts, the German's first used chemical weapons to mass effects in 1915 when they used massive amounts of teargas on Russian Troops, but the attack failed due to cold weather.



The first use of a killing agent was in 1915 when the German's deployed Chlorine gas, including a failed attack against the 1st Canadian Division at Ypres, The German's tried again and hit the Canadians with Chlorine gas during the second battle of Ypres, 90 Canadians died.


Fortunately for the Canadian Troops Chlorine gas just wasn't an effective killer. It was heavy so troops could stand above the gas, it could also be countered by putting a wet cloth over your mouth. So while Chlorine was the first, it was what you would call effective as Chlorine failed to really clear the way for German offenses.


What made Chemical Weapons in WW1? It was the speed of development to more deadly forms of gas. Chlorine gave was to Phosgene which was a lighter gas, but also colorless and had a odor like rotten hay, so troops often didn't recognize it until it was too late, the problem with Phosgene though, was that it acted too slow, sometimes the gas wouldn't kill you for a day, and you could continue to fight. However the first use of this gas was in 1915 against British Troops at Ypres and resulted in 1000 casualties and 70 deaths. Phosgene was never as notorious as the next gas that came out, however it was actually the most effective gas killing over 80% of the 90,000 deaths caused by gas in WW1.


The most notorious gas of WW1, was not the most effective gas in terms of killing, but was the most gruesome gas as the German's introduced Mustard Gas. Unlike Phosgene or other gases that required the victim to breath in the gas, Mustard Gas was the first real blister agent in that it caused blisters to exposed skin and eyes, also if you did breath it in it caused internal blistering. In terms of being a pure killing agent it wasn't that effective, however it did work effectively in terms of removing the ability for troops to fight, especially the more poorly equip WW1 front line infantry.



Chemical Weapons were never as effective as stories of WW1 lead us to believe, mainly because the inhaling variety could be countered by covering your mouth with a cloth, or later doning a gas mask. Early blister agents got around that counter and lead to chemical weapons suits, however Mustard gas wasn't a effective killer, but was effective in its ability to cause debilitating injures.


Even though after the war the use of chemical weapons was repudiated, and was rarely used in other wars, countries continued to develop the super weapon versions of these gases including nerve agents that could kill you with less then a droplet on exposed skin, and persistent chemicals that could not only depopulate entire areas but stay around for days and weeks.


Realistically chemical weapons were considered to be the first true weapon of mass destruction, mainly because it was far more controllable then early attempts at biological weapons, and man had not yet conquered the atom.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you look at Star Wars (Cause I just have to).

No, you really didn't. Although making analogies to scenarios not at all grounded in reality is a feature of American tactics and strategy, so I guess it's either delusional, or a path to success as a highly paid consultant to the Pentagon.

[CaptainCrunch]

Bump this one, just because its been a while


So what's the definition of a Super Weapon. We seem to think at times that its a mass killer, or a piece of technology that's far more effective, efficient and deadly then its predecessors.


Sometimes a Super Weapon isn't anything more then a step above what came before.


For most of our modern early 20th century and late19th century, Battleships were the king of the sea.



It could be argued that the arrival of the British Battleship HMS Dreadnought started the Battleship Era in 1906. A monstrous ship at the time it displaced 18,000 tonnes, and carried 12 inch guns, and featured a 11 inch thick armor belt. For its weight and its size it was relatively quick at 21 knots under steam. Its guns were capable of firing a 850 pound round 20,000 yards down range.


the Dreadnought ushered in the beginning of the BattleShip age and the start of the naval races as each nation developed their own larger and larger battleships.







Because of the sheer size and fire power of a Battleship most naval commanders chose to retire from the field instead of staring down these beasts. Ironically in WW1, it was this fear of battleships that caused them to be severely under utilized. At the start of WW1, the larger British Navy managed to bottle up and blockade the smaller German Navy's main Battleships and for the most part keep them out of the war with the exception of the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Outside of that the German's were oppossed to getting into fleet battles with the British. Other then some small skrimishes such as Russian Navy action, for the most part the British were content to keep the German's bottled up, and the German's content to avoid direct confrontation.


After the War ended, The German's were forbidden from building Battleships, and most other nations were limited in what they could build for battleships under agreed upon international limitation. However the biggest limiter in terms of Battleship development was economics. Frankly Battleships hadn't really been the game breaker that they were expected to be in WW1, also in terms of the sheer cost of building these monsters, most nations were recovering from shattered economy and a naval strategy build around Destroyers and cruisers and even Submarines was considered to be more prudent. There was also a philosophical argument the use of Air Power being the future of Naval Forces due to their ability to project power and gather intelligence far better then a Battle Ship.


Because of the above factors there was very little in the way of new battleship construction with the British, Amercians and Japanese being content with upgrading their existing WW1 Battleships. In Germany they embarked on the Aggressive Plan Z to rebuild their navy, it would have featured the Construction of 10 Battleships and 4 aircraft carriers and a number of other ships, but it was shelved in favor of a massive Submarine Construction plan and only 4 Battleships were ever completed, These Battleship were based around the H-Class heavy Battleship, in the end the only battleships of note build by the German's were the Bismark and Tripitz.


At the Start of WW2, the first shots of the conflict were fired by the German Battleship Shleswig-Holden which bombarded a Polish Garrison. Unlike WW1, WW2 was the height of the Battleship and by height, I mean that the Battleships actually had very little strategic importance in the War. In the Atlantic Submarines and Destroyers and Convoy Escorts carried the Day. In the Pacific while Battleships were involved we saw the rise of the Air Craft Carrier as the key strategic asset in use. The Battleships in the end just couldn't project power and weren't fast enough to keep up with fleets built around fast Carriers.



In fact the most notable Battleship action was at Pearl Harbor where the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyed 5 Battleships and damaged three others. The British Battleship Prince of Whales was destroyed by Japanese Aviation, as was the Repulse. In fact that last battle that involved Battleship on Battleship violence was the Battle of Surigao where an American Battleship force defeated a smaller Japanese Force with direct fire.


WW2 was really the death knell of these super weapon ships with the exception of the United States which recommissioned four of their Iowa class fast battleships for use in the Korean War as shore bombardment ships, and the USS New Jersey fired 6000 shots in anger during the Vietnam War. The Iowa Class boats were then recommissioned in the 1980's in response the the Soviet build Kirov Nuclear Powered Battle Cruiser and refitted to fire Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and Sea Sparrow Air Defense Systems. The Iowa's would go on in one final burst of glory to act as Fleet Flag Ships and Missouri and Wisconsin took part in the Gulf War firing Cruise Missiles in the open days of the action.


While Battle Ships like the Iowa Class, Yamoto Class and the theoretically huge German H Class were certainly designed to be super weapons and great fleet balances, they suffered from serious Flaws in design due to the rapid advancement of Carrier Aviation. They weren't quick enough to keep up with faster fleet weapons, they really couldn't project power like a Carrier Task Force, and they couldn't defend themselves against weapons that went around their thick armor belts like Torpedoe's and Airplanes. But for all that they are still viewed romantically by Naval Historians due to their overwhelming fire power and their intimidating and powerful appearance.


Yamoto Class Mega Battleship





Iowa Class





H-Class Battleship