Railway artillery

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

What are the chances for rail-carried big guns, like the ones the Germans used in WWI, to be developed and used in the later half of the 19th century? And just how useful are these weapons?

I included them in my TL, but I think I should first check to see if they're both possible and practical.

 

[Smuz]

Generally not- they're harder to hide against air attack and less mobile (i.e. need track).

On the other hand, they may be easier to keep supplied as they can only operate where there's a rail line.

If you mean supergunnish grade weapons, then I'd point out that you can check Wikipedia and find out how ineffective they were.

In the 19th century, the lack of roads/efficient trucks/petrol engines might give them an advantage, particularly in larger calibres. Although a system for targetting might be necessary- better communications, maps and trajectory tables being necessary.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I had an (American) Civil War book growing up showing rail-mounted mortars. They looked like cannon, but they were short-barreled and fired like mortars.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Generally not- they're harder to hide against air attack and less mobile (i.e. need track).

Well it's the late 19th century, you don't need to worry about that. As for the mobility, I was thinking that they'd be used against specific targets otherwise unreachable (cities, really), while the weapons themselves are unreachable. The fact that they're rail-based means that they can be moved regulary, both to follow the frontline and to avoid having their location identified (in this TL commando units appear in Western armies much earlier).

They'd be primarily used to demoralize the civilian population.

 

[carlton_bach]

Well, I think in a major conflict in western Europe between 1870 and 1900, they would have been used extensively. The problem is, before around 1870, there isn't enough track on the ground to reliably use, and after 1910, motor vehicles and metalled roads are already ubiquitous. Without these, railroad guns still played a role in the Russian Civil War.

They aren't battlefield weapons and wouldn't work as those, but a heavy gun mounted on a railcar that can be either dismounted at a position along the track or simply fired from the car will be a valuable siege gun. Fortresses and fortified cities still played a role in strategic planning at that time. Heavy metal to pound them into submission would be useful. Railcar guns could also serve to secure rail lines from attack, though that really makes more sense in colonial settings.

 

[CalBear]

There would be a couple of major obstacles to successfully use of WWI style railway guns in the 1850-1880’s. The first is metallurgy; the techniques needed to cast long steel weapons barrels had not been invented yet. Cannon were still brass & cast iron during the US Civil war (and attempts to make them more powerful were, at best, a bit spotty). A second problem is the propellant that could provide sufficient pressure to drive a shell a long distance had also not been developed (this is, in itself, a bit of the chicken & egg argument, as someone needed to create the one to spur creation of the other.)

Another issue is the mindset of the time. Bombarding civilians was not considered to be overly honorable (even during the early parts of WWI) and it an open question if such a weapon would have been used by most combatants of the era.

BTW: As an aside, it is very likely that Generals Harris, LeMay, and their fellows would have been tried as war criminals had the other side won WW II. It was (and frankly is) difficult to fit mass bombardment of civilian populations under the umbrella of the various Geneva Conventions. This not to say that the tactic was wrong to use, or that is wasn’t effective, just that if you use you had better be bloody sure that you win.

 

[Straha]

why not have this in a steampunk world?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

why not have this in a steampunk world?

I think a steampunk world would have the aircraft technology that will make these guns obsolete.

I'm aiming for them to be in use since cca 1890, ready for a 1905-1912 Great War. As for the civilian casualties, let's just say the Union has reached the point where it doesn't care much for Southern lives. A lot of innovative ideas have been introduced into the military of the USA as part of "East Point" thinking, some better than others; one of these ideas is total war. The Nazi parallels were unintended.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Another issue is the mindset of the time. Bombarding civilians was not considered to be overly honorable (even during the early parts of WWI) and it an open question if such a weapon would have been used by most combatants of the era.

Not directly relevant to railway guns but did not Britain bombard Alexandria in the 1880s

 

[CalBear]

Not directly relevant to railway guns but did not Britain bombard Alexandria in the 1880s

True, but it was not quite the same thing. A bit of "wog bashing" (to use the charming terminolgy of the era) is a good deal different than the organized bombardment of other WHITES. Beating the snot out of "savages" was accepted, since it was all part of civilizing them (i.e. stealing them blind). Doing it to social equals...

However, I do agree that if you can gain enough of an advantage, anything goes (see Paris, London, Liverpool, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, et. al.)

As I said before: Just be sure you win. That lets you write the history books. ( BTW: I am deeply grateful that Harris, LeMay & Co. did what was necessary to defeat Hitler & Tojo. Facts are, nevertheless, facts.)

 

[Weapon M]

There were rail guns used in WW2. A buddy of mine at work let me borrow a book about them. I will have to borrow it again.