Talk:Schwerer Gustav

message: From the German article it seems that Dora only needed the tracks for moving during fiering. Otherwise it seems that it was not rail based.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.165.236 (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: it WAS designated Eisenbahngeschütz (which means Railway Gun), it was "manned" by the Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Abteilung 672 (Railway Artillerie Bataillion 672) and the only means of transporting it (eg from Rügenwalde to Sewastopol) was by...RAIL! The carriages used for transporting it were specially desigend to tranport individual parts of the gun, these carriages were not of standard design! 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Not really railway

message: Gustav, Schwerer Gustav, Karl and Dora are all mixed up in this article.
Robert and Leopold, together known as Anzio Annie, have slipped in some of their data too.
Gustav, Robert and Leopold (and many others!)  had a calibre of 28 cm. One is at the Batterie Todt Museum, one at Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum. These and their type all rode on a single track of railway.
Dora had a calibre of 80 cm and traveled on two railway tracks; she seems to be the one in the picture. As already stated below, there are many good pictures on the net.  And fair use permits one to link to there!
Schwerer Gustav was quite something else:  a very short-barreled mortar on tracks of the tank / caterpillar type, not on railway gauge.
In other words, the title is very misleading and the info a hodgepodge. 
Check the Karl-Gerät article in Wikipedia for a better start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Gerät
The Railway gun article helps too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_gun
And then there is http://home.att.net/~berliner-Ultrasonics/ordnanc2.html, rather thorough, mostly correct and full of pics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VNCCC (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is very wrong here!

message: : "... while the concrete piercing projectile proved capable of penetrating nearly 90 meters of reinforced concrete before exploding."
That must be 9 metres, unless the Germans were planning on bisecting the Hoover Dam from top to bottom. —Michael Z.
:: I pasted this from one of the external links,by translating feets into meters,and the original wrote about 300 feet...besides,concrete is not steel. However, there is another (less "incredible") version which says that it could pierce 10 or meters of reinforced concrete AFTER crossing 30 meters of sea bottom/dirt. This mustn't surprise anybody, there are modern-day anti-bunker missiles designed to "pierce" several meters of reinforced concrete AND soil,if necessary. A projectyle over 2 tons would surely behave in the same manner... EpiVictor 14:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 9 metres is plausible--barely. 90 m is not. (The 30 m of dirt doesn't add nearly as much as the concrete, because it's plastic). Compare this to the Tallboy bomb, noting that the work to penetrate that layer goes roughly as the square of the thickness. Better optimisation of the nose design for particular targets will get you some improvement, but not orders of magnitude. Now with a diameter of 95 cm, mass of 5.4 t and terminal velocity around 1100 m/s, for 4.6 GJ/m2, Tallboy penetrated around 5 m of reinforced concrete (and the modern "bunker busters" you refer to penetrate only about 3.5 m of concrete), or up to 40 m of soil. The Gustav concrete penetrator had a diameter of 80cm, a mass of 7.5 t and an initial velocity of 720 m/s, for 3.9 GJ/m2 at the muzzle. It is just plausible that it would penetrate 9 m of concrete--some 4.5 times the work we expect--if it had a nose very cleverly optimised for concrete. 90 m of concrete is not at all believable. Even 90 m of soil is barely plausible. Furthermore, it is clear that of the 48 operational rounds Gustav fired, none were at targets with anything remotely resembling 300 feet of concrete (indeed, as Michael Z. points out, there are hardly any such targets in the world.) I wonder if this confusion is caused by someone misreading "260 feet of earth followed by 10 feet of concrete" as "260 feet of conrete". Securiger 15:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it 260 feet of concrete seems unlikely. I think it's most likely someone has mistranslated 264 inches (6.7 meters) or 26' 4" (8.0 meters almost exactly). Given that the information was almost certainly originally in german and therefore metric - it's most probable that someone wrote 26'4" and then forget the inches and feet when they put it on the web / in a book. Does anyone have a definitive source for the penetration depth ? Megapixie 08:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually reading carefully through the sources confirms that it could only penetrate 7m concrete + 1m of armour. And even then only with the barrel "near vertical" uses a special load of propellent.  Megapixie 12:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: concrete penetration

message: The term "Schwere Gustav" is gramatically wrong.
This is a tricky thing in the german language. The title of this article is called "Schwere Gustav" which is no encyclopedia-like item. It is gramatically wrong if it would be in a German lexicon.
Because there's no "Artikel" (maybe you have heard of "der/die/das" in German) in the title of this wikipedia-article, the correct subject should be "Schwerer Gustav". If there *was* an Artikel, like in a sentence or something like that, "Der Schwere Gustav" (without the trailing r I'm talking about) would be correct. We Germans call that Declination.
I guess this mistake came from picking this term out of German military literature (which uses whole sentences.. "Der Schwere Gustav.. this.. und der Schwere Gustav that...").
In short: In my opinion this article's title should be renamed to "Schwerer Gustav" because this is the correct form if no Artikel is given.
:: Done. Pilatus 03:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Schwere Gustav" gramatically wrong 

message: I actually spent a couple of days working on a dupe (which I've now converted to a redirect to this article) - I've merged in the content, and I think the results are good. I've tried to keep everything that I thought was good in the previous article. Megapixie 12:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking of the article 

message: The General Characteristics section lists maximum elevation as 48 degrees. However, the image from its Rügenwald trials at the top of the article includes text referring to "its maximum elevation of just over 65 degrees", and the image certainly looks like it's more than 48 degrees. I'm guessing the discrepancy comes from a change in carriages, but maybe this could be clarified? --Calair 04:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are very thin on the ground for the weapon. It's not even 100% clear if there were one or two of the weapons deployed. Ian Hogg in German Artillery of World War Two gives the elevation as 65 degrees. Megapixie 10:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: 1. Operation Felix
"In 1934 the German High Command (OKH) gave to the firm of Krupp of Essen, Germany the problem of designing a gun to destroy the fortresses of the French Maginot Line which was then nearing completion, as well as taking part in Operation Felix against Gibraltar."
The Germans had absolutely no operational plans for attacking Gibraltar in 1934. Operation Felix was not planned until after the Germans defeated France in 1940 (and Felix was completely infeasible until that occurred).
2. Operation Barbarossa
"As part of the planning for Operation Barbarossa in October 1939, Hitler initiated orders for the production of three 80-cm guns."
Operation Barbarossa was the German invasion of the USSR in 1941. The decision to invade the USSR and all planning for the operation occurred only after the defeat of France in 1940.
Further, the guns were ordered earlier than Oct. 1939. All these errors appear to have been copied from http://www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com/railgun/Content/Railwayguns/German/80cm.htm.
Instead, the guns were ordered in 1937. See the more accurate http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1167/dora.html (this is in German).
3. I suspect there are several other errors in the article along these lines, but I don't have time to check. Someone should thoroughly go over this article.
John M. Astell
*Thanks John, I intend to. Guinnog 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some tweaks to the article - based on Hoggs' German Artillery of World War 2.  However there are many differences between sources. The most telling of which is the total number of guns - some claim that there was only a single gun (Dora being a pet name for the gun), and that the remains of Gustav were found twice. What the article really needs is someone who reads German who has time to go and talk to the people at Krupp - I'm sure they have an official history that would shed a definitive light on the matter. Megapixie 01:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Inaccuracies 

message: The Little David also makes an apprearance in the Leon Uris book "Exodus" as the weapon that saved the town of Safed, not knowing what it was the antagonists were facing, they fled when the weapon was employed against them. QUESTION - Was this part of this book in any way accurate, Was "Little David" used in Safed, Palestine in Spring of 1948? Or is it pure fiction. (Yes its a fictional book but does use some historical fact in it.Squad'nLeedah 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uris was probably referring to Davidka. On wikipedia you can get an answer 16 years later. Ferritecore (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Little David" Trivia 

message: Here is an article from the 1974 edition of Field Artillery MAgazine.  Perhaps an interested editor might find something of use.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Magazine 

message: The article claims: "In the history of artillery, only the American 36-inch Little David and the German V-3 cannon have had a larger caliber." However, the article on Little David and the article on mortars contradict this claim. Burschik 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to resolve it. The V-3 was only 6-inch (I'm not sure when that crept in). Little David, Mallet, and Monster fired puny two ton (or less) shells. Thanks for pointing it out. Megapixie 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The trivia section should be removed or incorporated into the article in accordance with the style manual. WP:AVTRIV Thought I'd post this here to let somebody a little more familiar with the article make the changes. Scope2776 07:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: I'm just wondering, how do you reload a gun with a shell that weighs 7 tons? Wouldn't the Germans need something like an extra train with a loading mechanism just to carry the rounds in one by one? Someone please respond, I'm very eager to find out how they managed to pull this off. Bogdan 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some descriptions and plans in the reference web link articles.  Yes, you brought more ammo in on freight cars, and there was a large crane at the back of the Dora gun to lift the shells up to the gun from the freight cars.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: "when its ruins were discovered in a forest 15 km (9 miles) north of Auerbach about 50 km (31 miles) southwest of Chemnitz."
I checked Google Earth: Chemnitz lies exactly 15 km north of Auerbach. Something went wrong here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.144.106 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the remnants 

message: can't something be dug out from archives? --Obrez (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of good photographs of the gun in various books, however the images are most likely still protected by copyright and unusable under terms of fair use. I can recommend a Japanese book "German Railway Guns and Armored Trains of World War II" ISBN 978-4-7698-1372 as having the most complete set of photographs of the gun, while the English language "German Railroad Guns in action"  has a good set of photographs and an excellent technical painting by Don Greer. Megapixie (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, copyright sucks. 84.215.84.226 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is there no good images of the cannon 

message: I'll be cleaning up the notes and references, as well as intending to move the article to the Cite.php method of referencing. There are also a number of references to a page no longer existing, so I'll add some better references from some books on the subject. I'm intending to also Webcite any currently working external pages so the data is not lost, as the pages are on places like geocities, etc. Lantrix ::Talk::Contrib:: 04:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up references and Notes 

message: The article mentions that the train taking Gustav to Sevastopol was 1.5 kilometers long, but consisted of only 25 cars. By my calculations, this would mean an average length of car of almost 180 feet. Even today, railroad cars in the US rarely exceed 90 feet, so I'm thinking that one of those two figures is off. Kalmbach (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Train Length

message: The lead of this article states that "Schwerer Gustav and Dora" are the names of "two German 80 cm K (E) ultra-heavy railway guns". However, today when I was reading in the book of "Artillery, Missiles & Military Transport" by Christopher Chant I found the following:
Does anyone knows something about this? --aad_Dira (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two of them. Ironically, this english article here confuses both. It was "Dora", which fired in anger at Sewastopol, not Gustav. "Gustav" stayed in Rügenwalde, where it was dismantled in 1943. A third one, named "langer Gustav" (long Gustay) was in production, but never completed. American Troopers found parts of it in Krupps factory in Essen after the war. 46.114.8.112 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable, independent source to that would be very welcome since most sources seem to contradict each other. Would you be able to supply one? Richard 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two guns vs. one 

message: I just saw an impressive picture here; not sure about the copyright situation. — Sebastian 07:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Dear wikipedians, this article needs verifiable sources and citations to those. I tagged article and sections aaccordingly. Regards,  DPdH (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources please 

message: The sources I found about this turret state that Dora was so inaccurate it never damaged Maxim Gorky I, while the heavy mortars (Karl Gerät) damaged it without putting it out of use; thus the infantry gets the kill... The label "Maxim Gorky I, a fort knocked out of action by five 800 mm shells on 17 June 1942." on picture therefore looks VERY dubious. Falez (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxim Gorky I 

message: This is a well-known image, usually credited as being 1941 and with Hitler second from right and (not always, but often) Albert Speer at the right. The presumption has always been that this is 1941, when the gun was first demonstrated to Hitler at .
A change today  and at Commons  has changed this to 1943 with the summary, 
Can anyone verify this? The book cited  is German language only and is too hard / expensive to find for me to justify it in a language I can't read.
Is this WP:OR?  Or does the book specifically date the image, not merely imply Speer's insignia?
 
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating the Hitler image? 

message: It would seem that the crater dimensions described in section 4 must be incorrect because it is not physically possible for a crater to  be as deep as it is wide. (9.1m x 9.1m)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.196.206.50 (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it would be impossible, but I think crater size (and form) would depend on several factors: the surface material (sand, mud, rock, concrete, ...), maybe how deep the projectile penetrates before it explodes (also dependent on the surface material) and so on. For now, I'll ask for a citation. Richard 09:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crater dimensions 

message: "The train carrying the gun was of 25 cars, a total length of 1.5 kilometres (0.9 mi)." - this is incorrect! Source "Gerhard Taube: Eisenbahngeschütz DORA. Das größte Geschütz aller Zeiten. Motorbuch-Verlag, Stuttgart 1979, ISBN 3-87943-648-7." gives a dagram showing FIVE trains to transport the complete gun from Rügenwalde to Sewastopol. In the same source there is also a PRECISE LISTING of the function of each carriage, its length AND weight! 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still regarding the train(s) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Brits fled like rabbits too. This place stinks. 2001:B07:646B:4D36:3108:8B3:EF3B:92A2 (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... the French to flee in panic and surrender 

message: The “Dora” row of the table in the Landkreuzer section is null. It needs to be completed with its own data or merged to the Gustav line above it if they are identical. 75.193.74.1 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dora data correction 

message: an undersea ammunition magazine - that would be a very strange design. Most likely, "underground". Викидим (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undersea ammunition magazine