Talk:V-3 cannon

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in France or Germany may be able to help!

It is requested that a diagram or diagrams of a weapon be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Wow quite a bit of interest for a newly created page :-) I created it because Wikipedia lacked any article regarding those "heavy weapons". I understand moving the words "megalomania" and "monstruosity", that's OK. I'm not sure about the "Karl Geraet"'s caliber however. There were two versions, if not more, I think, ranging from 580 to 650 mm, but only one was finally used (?). I also forgot that it was tracked, thanks for the correction. EpiVictor 11:43 30 Apr 2004 11:43 (GMT+2)

Either absolute astronomy copied off Wikipedia, or the author of this page copied off absolute astronomy, but the two pages are exactly the same, even in references, while AA did not reference Wikipedia, which makes me wonder... plagarism anybody? <font color=green>Jon</font><font color=blue>Catalan</font> 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being one of the most prominent bombers of WWII, the B-17 "Flying Fortress" was not remarkable for its punch, carrying a bombload of 2.7 tons standard, 5.8 tons maximum. The B-29, for example, carried 9 tons. Anyway, it doesn't matter much which bomber types were flown by the allies, at least not in the scope of this article IMHO.DevSolar 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The B-29 could do 9 tons or so at short range and low alitude, for long range high altitude it was more like 2.5 tons. GraemeLeggett 11:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many guns were there? 5, 25 or 50? 300 shells every hour? With how many guns? 1100 m/c muzzle velocity and 90 km range is while testing? I think London is futher than this. Which guns were destroyed by British? Those in Geramny or in France? I'm trying to translate this article for polish Wikipedia.

Good call on the unclarity of the text. The complex contained five hidden batteries, each containing a single buried super-howitzer. So that answers your first question, there were five guns in all. [T]he whole complex was designed to be capable of shooting 300 shells every hour[.] Ergo, 5 x 60 shells per hour. The range and muzzle velocity was apparently wrong and has been changed. The guns destroyed by the British were in Mimoyecques.--Sus scrofa 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I don't know how many guns were in Mimoyecques as this page states that there were 25 of them: [1]. Oh, well.--Sus scrofa 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the [french site] my girlfriend found (I don't know French) that there were 25 guns but in group of 5. So we get 5 multi-barrel guns. This comlpex was created to fire 300 shells every hour. Germans planned the second similar complex nearby but never biult it.

The last link on site refers to "enigma", not V-3. I couldn't find article about V-3 in database of museum.

What did you want to say in sentance: "The resources available to the German V-rocket project were unable to compete with the devastating impact of the heavy bombers, though, and clearly show the serious problems faced by the Luftwaffe during the last years of the war."? Though or and?

Yeah, seems like there were 25 guns in all. The V-3 related material in this link: [2] is at the bottom of the page but it is mostly about the two guns aimed at Luxembourg. I'm unsure about the range and muzzle velocity too. Maybe 165 km was the planned range but they never got to that stage before the place was bombed?--Sus scrofa 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't find it at first. I think you can be right about the range and muzzle velocity.

The article states that the 5-gun sites planned on firing 300 rounds an hour. That's one round per gun per minute. This strikes me as extremely unlikely. The guns consisted of a large number of "mini-chambers" located up the gun that had to be re-loaded. I simply see no way that this could have happened, even if there was a separate crew for each one. Remember, these all had to be unloaded, reloaded, and then attached electrically to the central firing system. In 60 seconds? I don't think so. Maury 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. The text is wrong on that point as the (projected) rate of fire of 300 shells an hour is for 25 guns and not five. Each of the five shafts had five guns (5x5=25). I'll edit the article accordingly. --Sus scrofa 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One every five minutes? Ok, maybe, but it still sounds a bit funky to me! Maury 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've attempted to stress in the text, 300 r/h was a projected or planned rate of fire and it is not certain that that rate would ever have been achieved.--Sus scrofa 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

150mm? Hard to conceive that this would have made any impact on Churchill... --Syzygy 09:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

140 kg shells x 300 shots an hour would've destroyed considerable parts of London I would think, that is if the complex would've worked as intended. In any case, 150 mm caliber is what the sources say: [3][4]. --Sus scrofa 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. At 8kg explosives/shell, that would amount to the bombload of a single B-17 every hour... not too impressive. (140kg is the weight of the whole projectile, IIUC.) But admittedly, having a constant barrage of shells coming down in 15 sec intervals would certainly have had a psychological effect. --Syzygy 07:26, 28 August 2007

(UTC)

Well if each shell contained 8 kg of explosives and they'd kept up a bombardment of 300 shots/hour for a year, that would be 21 024 tonnes - that is more than the 18 291 tons listed as dropped on London in the blitz. And of course there would be no protection other than evacuation as the bombardment would be continuous. You could not seek protection in an air raid shelter unless you planned to stay there indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By chance could anyone find an image? It would really help out.

I noticed some skepticism about the use of rocket boosters as secondary propellant - see the footnote in the main article. Although the article is unclear, my impression is that the rockets were not actually placed in the barrel (since loading them into the barrel as the shell passed would be wildly impractical, to say the least), but rather were clamped to the barrel (like millipede legs) and arranged such that their high-pressure exhaust would vent directly into the barrel.

Perhaps some rephrasing of the main article might be helpful.

165.21.155.114 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC) I suspect that someone has suggested the projectile itself had rocket assistance, the projectile was unlike conventional 'shells' and resembled small missiles similar to armour piercing 'sabot' rounds. No rocket assist existed. Also further to the comment above about Churchill not being too concerned about the size of the rounds and their minor destructive capabilities, this is indeed why the whole project was treated in a fairly casual way by the Nazis as more of an experimental project. However Churchill found the idea of an arguably ineffectual weapon pointed immovably at London distasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.160.63 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why this article is in the category of "History of Philadelphia, PA"? I chose not to remove it, but there is no mention of Philadelphia in the article. --Walt (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered what this sentence really means?

"The Paris Gun... could bombard Paris from German lines over a distance of no less than 125 kilometres (78 mi)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:A52B:2769:B459:12D3 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The museum site doesn't show «remains of the guns». What is to see in shaft IV is the replica of a four-element section of a gun type only tested at Hillersleben proving ground (see here). The type intended to be installed at Mimoyecques was with rectangular additional propellant charges as later in action in a shortened version at Lampaden. --Хрюша 10:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriusha (talk • contribs)

The mentioned rate of fire was projected for the Mimoyecques site if all 50 cannons would have come in action! Intended was a rate of about 10 projectiles per cannon per hour. Concerns also Fortress of Mimoyecques. --Хрюша 18:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriusha (talk • contribs)