Yer... But there not that clear...
Effective range 40 km
From the test firing....
"The armor-piercing shells were almost seventeen feet long and weighed over seven tons. It took a ton of propellant to fire the shell from the one hundred and five-foot barrel of the giant gun. The shell could penetrate eighty yards of earth. A high explosive shell was also made for this gun. When test-fired, the shell formed a crater nearly ninety feet across and thirty feet deep."
check out the sites...
http://palpatine.chez-alice.fr/Page13/page13.htm
http://user.mc.net/~hawk/biggun.htm
"The armor-piercing shells were almost seventeen feet long and weighed over seven tons. It took a ton of propellant to fire the shell from the one hundred and five-foot barrel of the giant gun. The shell could penetrate eighty yards of earth. A high explosive shell was also made for this gun. When test-fired, the shell formed a crater nearly ninety feet across and thirty feet deep."
THAT tears a ship in quarters !
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Yer... But there not that clear...Effective range 40 km
From the test firing....check out the sites...
http://palpatine.chez-alice.fr/Page13/page13.htm
http://user.mc.net/~hawk/biggun.htm
Why use a tactical nuclear strike when we can fire one of these babies. the plans can't be that hard to duplicate.....
It all depends on what you want to do... You want to fight someone at a very close range... Like 3-1 meters a sword is probably better... You want to blow up half of a town...A gun is probaby better... If you matched a swords man up agains my big gun at a range of anything less that 5 miles the crew probably wouldn't even be able to load the round in time before he got under the guns minimum firing range and boarded the gun, promply hacking up everyone... and no the gun can't fire directly up and kill itself and the guy with the sword...
That is probably the legendary 'Big Bertha' which was for real indeed. But as said, they only made 2 before the tremendous costs and man-power required to maintain them hit the Germans back in the face.
They did solve that by coming up with the V1 & V2 ballastic missiles.
Still a most impressive weapon, probably THE baddest ever in artillery.
But back to the topic of this, in comparing guns to swords you'll need to calculate mobility and 1 man operation in it. This is about injury aflicted in close quarters by eighter a sword or a gun.
Have to say, guns beat all melee weapons in gruesome effect now-a days. But I do believe that in a fight between a man with a blade and a man with a gun as the are in close quarters, the man with the sword will win. In close range the sword will do far more damage then a gun in the same situation, and it can be put to use in more varied manners.
But eventually, we haven't dropped the swords in wars and picked up guns for nothing.
If range is unspecified in this, the last 200 years of firearm development will put every sword fighter underground. It isn't the same ballgame. Hell, it isn't the same sport anymore.
The odds have to be fair a bit at least, making the talent of the weapons' wielder a noticeable influence in the fight.
Hences my close quarters example. If else, crap: imagine yourselves a expert swordsman with ages of experience, and then some uneducated army rookie aims this at you, tech distorts the odds:
Originally posted by soleran30
Yup all that movie stuff has let people think swords are the BOMB! Yeah give me a gun and a silencer and its ALOT quiter then most swords and axes cutting through someone🙂50 caliber is overkill🙂 You take 3-4 9mm rounds and that can drop you one 45 round etc etc and its safer for the shooter................
Hell give me a pellet or a bb gun..I bet I could do more damage with those than I could with a sword.