Lets be frank, we all know the real reason Germany makes all these crazy machines of war was to make playing tabletop and other forms of wargames waaaay more interesting in the post war period.
For the Imperium of man would never have gotten medusa nor earthshakers without the 88mm, vulcan and nova canons would also have a very different look without the tiger tank a lot of later armored vehivles would have taken decades before they where reality, but for the tabletop id say death korps of krieg may have lost most without the germans
"No! You know how much I hate that word!" Scary music plays- "You know what an expert studies?" "Dont say-" "Logistics, logistics, logistics. Dont leave home without it."
As a Dora Guy, who tried to gather all possible intel about the gun, I'd like to make some additions: 1. The Size of Schwere Artillerie Abteilung (E) 672 - the Unit directly operating the Gun was approximately 500. The Number 5.000 is often quoted to underline the gigantic efforts required not only to operate the gun, but also to protect it (as it was a high valuable target as everyone could imagine). Included in these 5.000 are - apart from the 500 of the swArtAbt (E) 672 - approx 1.000 Hiwis ("Volunteers") to prepare the position, a reinforced AAA Batallion (500), 2 reinforced guard companies (300) and and and... up to (and inlcuding) Fighter Cover by the Luftwaffe. 2. Despite the limited military value, I tend to say that this gun was a masterpiece (with some flaws... but hey, who's perfect ;) ) in engineering. The whole gun for example was rebuild and made ready at Sewastopol in just 54 hours. 3. The second gun was kept in the Reich for Crew training. 4. By the end of the operations in Sewastopol, Dora has fired all available ammunition and the barrel was already worn out (and it was reported that it needs to be replaced). I think that was the main reason preventing the guns use at Leningrad. By the time this was fixed the situation around Leningrad has changed - preventing the use of the gun. Anybody who wants some further reading: "Deutsche Eisenbahn Geschütze - Rohr Artillerie auf Schienen" by Gerhard Taube which contains a very detailed photographic coverage about erecting the gun at sewastopol (and which I just pulled from the shelf to grab the numbers. P.S. I might be a bit biased towards the gun... ;)
she was a beauty and thast is a good read Deutsche Eisenbahn Geschütze - Rohr Artillerie auf Schienen" by Gerhard Taube for more artillery understanding!!
Thank you for completing the info at this point, i mean, hey... 54 hrs to re-arm the eentire gun is great, it wasnt good enough but, it wasnt an entire fiasco btw, i mean, 4 guns like this in ww1 would be made ww2 innecesary
I am sure Krupp said exactly that when the allies were trying to decide if he should be executed for war crimes. The reality is he was probably just a war profiteer and the Americans have great respect for those ;-)
@@grogery1570 Not really. It's just that the Western Allies had already done away with the German socialist regime and were being forced to confront the new aggression of the Russian Left fascists. The Western Allies certainly did not share the same visceral and avaricious hatred of successful hard-working businessmen that Left fascists did, but that had more to do with them not being professional socialist thieves. I don't fault them for it.
@@DrCruel russian left fascists? Never heard of those any where in history. If you mean the Soviet union. Not all of the soviet union was russian and russia was not the soviet union. Bolshevism is not fascism. Both are extremely left wing ideas of socialism. But have very different purposes. One is focused around national resourcing the other is about collectivism for the greater use.
@@Robert53area The Bolsheviks didn't "unify" the soviets. One of their first acts in coming to power was to destroy them, then replace their leadership with Bolshevik toadies. The Bolsheviks were pro-Russian nationalists, just as National Socialists were pro-German nationalists and Maoists are pro-Han Chinese nationalists. All were and are focused around collectivist resourcing for the good of a small senior party elite. All habitually use the most bald-faced lies to obscure what they do in practice, long after it become obvious. Bolsheviks were both socialist and fascists. Fascism came from the Left, is a Leftist ideology, and best characterizes the behavior of socialists once in power. Thus Left fascism is a redundancy, albeit a necessary one.
The English language itself needs to either stick with their root or move with the time. It should either force comparative form into every speakers’ throats, or just “more x” or “most x”.
@@Kyle-gw6qp BMW cars are regarded as driver's delight, meanwhile they are notoriously prone to oil leak. Having issues and being praised can coexist, they just don't cancel each other out. English is terrible in the consistency department, being widely used doesn't change that.
His guest speaks high german so it´s easy to understand, I hope one day he makes a video with a someone from Switzerland, Saxony and Swabia that will be a complete and hilarious shitshow.
200 years ago, Germany as such didn't exist. There were dozens of German principalities speaking their own dialects, sometimes not mutually intelligible. As I understand it, Martin Luther invented standard German for his Bible translation as something that most Germans could understand.
@@teebes2009 the germans (languages) wasent entirely diferent languages, but, they varied widly just like the Indian, the Brithish and the Sudan English... man, there was a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings back then, the court of the HRE emperor was kind of a mess, you may want to check the transcriptions of some of them. (as HRE history entusiastic, i can say that has aa looooot to be with the falling of HRE in hands of Napoleon)
@De Keizer van het Duitse Rijk I agree. I should have been more precise about it - what I meant to say is that Austrian is not derived from today's standard German but is one of the language centers of the German language, as is Swiss German.
@@Reichsritter I guess you are neither a modern linguist nor are you a Norwegian historian. But I accept your opinion and there are a lot of people with the same opinin as yours.
I always heard that the gun wasn’t necessarily a gift to Hitler, but rather that Krupp’s long-standing policy was “First gun’s on the house, you can buy more if you like it.”
It's weird the comparison with Tallboy bomb dropped from heavy bombers. The tallboy was almost the same weight as Dora's shell, hit with the same impact velocity while Tallboy eventually demonstrated far better accuracy than Dora's best theoretical accuracy. But Luftwaffe didn't have much faith in heavy bombers, it was all about that dive bombing (in theory at least). Dora seemed to have been made because Krupp wanted to build a gargantuan gun, not because there was serious thought of how to deliver a bunker-buster weapon. Anzio Annie seemed to have been far more effective because it could be used even when Germany totally lost air supremacy, it could pop out of a railway tunnel, blast away, then as soon as there was counter battery fire or an air-raid then it could reverse back into the railway tunnel and be all but immune. Although ultimately futile, it had substantial strategic effect on the progress of that campaign.
Barnes Wallis' 6 Ton Tallboy "earthquake bomb" shook down bridges, reduced U-Boat bases to rubble, and sank a capital ship. All that was needed was an Avro Lancaster bomber to deliver it with fewer personnel and less fuss than "Gustav" or "Dora." (The "V3 Gun complex' was also destroyed by "an earthquake" before it could fire any rounds at London.)
Technically I agree with you, but one should not forget that to get that one Lancaster to the target required a squadron of Lancasters as well as fighter escorts and many ground crews to prepare all the planes and weapons. You're right that this was still far more effective and efficient than having 5000 guys to operate a weapon that couldn't hit the side of a barn from inside the barn. And could basically fire once an hour. You'd be far better off with like you say aircraft delivered ordnance or even naval guns that had greater accuracy, firing rate and speed and could use materials already available. I know this was also tried at various points and the aircraft solution was still the best.
@@sophiepaterson7444 The 'Earthquake bombs' took a long time to develop, and only came into use in 1944/1945, it was unfortunate that there weren't aircraft able to deliver them either.
Ryan To : As an Armor Captain once told his troops, "The only thing I fear is an Infantryman with a P-38." He was referring to the C-Ration can opener not the plane.
I always found that scene a bit odd, since no mission ever took place involving commandos and thermite to disable railway artillery. Thermite grenades were used to destroy weapons, such as the disabling of a heavy battery in Pointe du Hoc, but those where much smaller 155mm guns.
@@deltoroperdedor3166 At the end of the war, people just wanted to forget the nasty business. The last thing on their minds was putting the biggest gun, up on a pedestal of sorts. Its only now we can admire the cold engineering aspects of the thing without cringing.
@Mialisus that would be how the US makes museums out of ships however we keep them in the harbor and semi operational to boot (at least in the case of the USS midway an aircraft carrier dock at San Diego CA)
And the strength goes up with the square of the scale (vs cube for the weight), from the cross section of a component. You can't just double the proportions of an existing gun and expect it not to break more easily. You have to disproportionally beef up the lower parts, which in turn increases the weight and cost even more. Try breeding a 4m tall man (to be a super soldier or Olympic athlete)... the leg bones would have to be much more than twice the diameter (of a 2m tall man) in order not to break when he ran. Eight times the stress (weight) on four times the strength (four-fold cross section) for 2x simple scaling. You'd have to have something like sqrt(2) times extra diameter to take the stress.
@@podemosurss8316 And and you're going to kill 4 soviet soldiers, that's if you're lucky enough to be that accurate. They said that they sometimes missed by 700 meters, 1 in 5 shells landed whitin 60 meters of a target Then an hour later you can fire the thing again. And you need a whole regiment of men too. Don't even think what happens if a squadron of fighter bombers reaches that thing.
@@daniels_0399 "Don't even think what happens if a squadron of fighter bombers reaches that thing." If those planes are not careful they might be downed when they blow up the Dora.
they really should have put it on the tirpitz; it wouldnt have been usefull in any way, but to stick it to the japanese with their "big" 46cm guns on yamato
Studies were done on mounting the 80cm on ships, to mount just four (a totally inadequate number for any battleship) a 500,000 ton ship was needed, so big that it couldn't safely navigate the North Sea and would be otherwise defenseless even if it could
A single large battleship gun may have been useful to the USN for shelling Japanese island fortresses late in the war, such as at Iwo Jima. The conventional battleship shelling before the Marines landed was not very effective because the Japanese defenders were dug in too deeply. Of course the inaccuracy of the gun would just blow deep craters in random locations on the island, but if you could hit a few underground ammunition dumps that would have saved some American lives vs. all that ammunition being shot later at the Marines. Of course much the same effect could be gained by having modified B-29 bombers dropping Tallboys all over the island before the invasion, and that was possible at least in principle but wasn't done. Apparently the planners assigned a low value to the life of one Marine. It was cheaper to let Marines absorb the Japanese ammunition than to try to destroy it before the landing.
I feel like each AP shell had enough steel to make a regular field gun and the gunpowder to fire it could supply at least a hundred rounds for said gun.
What a lovely bloke! would love to sit and chat with him over a beer. Great work both of you, very informative. There is a lot of information out there on these 'pet project' guns that is sensationalised it's nice to have a calm communicative look at such an impressive feat of manufacturing.
I talked to a fellow at Fort Miles who served there early in WWII. He said he got bored being there with the National Guard so he transferred to the Army and was assigned to our version of Huge big gun because of his experience with the 16 inch guns at FM. By the time he got to where the action was Germany was in full retreat. He said they never actually fired the gun because it took so long to strike it, move it, and set it up again that the Germans had moved out of effective range.
Apparently the price was about 7 million reichsmark. If i remember correctly the price for both one panzer iv and one panther was a little over 100.000 rm.
Gotta say that the Schwerer Gustav is a massive Siege Weapon that was intended to destroy heavy Fortifications. It renders useless when they were up against more Mobile Enemy Forces in an offensive that were more flexible, dispersed and going into smaller Units.
@California Atheist Exactly, the phrasing is a bit archaic; I feel that's how people talked during WWII - at least that's how people in WWII movies talk.
@@1320crusier Sure sure, but this gun was 800 mm. And that's exactly the point, so what if you have a few 800mm guns in a dynamic war. Now if they could have had a bunch of very mobile 800mm guns that would be a very different matter, but not even the powerhouse economy of the USA made anything like that. Engineering is a matter of balancing capabilities and limitations; if you want the capability of "insanely big fuck off gun" then you get the limitations of needing a railroad to move it and a very slow firing rate, etc, etc...
Just imagine being a German soldier in those days assigned to this weapon. Days you are working hard around the clock to lay tracks, build up the gun and get the gun fire ready. The firing command comes from your commander. a big explosion shakes the gun and the shell leaves the barrel. You keep your breath to see if the shell hits the target. euh. 🤬 Yep you learn a lot of new never heard before strong language from all over the reich in a short time 😈
yet another example of how very expensive and singularly powerful (yet quite interesting) engines of war don't scale well compared to more economical and numerous alternatives. others include the IJN Yamato vs the Iowa class battleship, or the Tiger vs the T-34 or Sherman tank
Not this again. The Tiger was a specialized weapon designed for different roles than the medium tanks you're comparing it to, and considering that both the U.S. and the Soviets developed heavy tank programs of their own as the war went on, and eventually developed them into the MBT of the cold war era, the Germans had the right idea in supplementing their medium panzers with a heavier, more expensive tank.
Hearing that Hitler argued against it being used against large targets must have been infuriating for the gunners. You have a weapon capable of taking out ammunition storage and maybe even vehicle depots and you're told to aim at turrets and trenches that you know you can't hit. This really speaks to the absolute worst side of how the war was handled, when a giant weapon like this could have been used fo stop fighting and preserve lives (robbing the enemy of their ammunition) and it was instead used in an attempt to kill.
I really have to ask: how did this thing even come into existence in the first place? how did no one say "this is too big, it just isn't going to work"? I mean, this thing is ridiculous
Waste is one way to put it. I think a better phrase would be "Fighting the wrong war". There's more than a few cases where the Nazis poured large amounts of resources into weapons or equipment that were based on outdated assumptions. Large sections of Plan Z was built around using capital ships for commerce raiding, an idea that had seen the odd success in WW1, but which would have meant defeat in detail for the navy. And perhaps the biggest one, conscripting large sections of your industrial base makes for a large number of warm bodies with rifles. Assuming your campaign is short enough that you don't need to resupply your armed forces. If you do...
@@watchm4ker because they did not expect to beat france so fast so they were just not prepared for it. thats why they we building aircraft carrier and can you blame them? who would expect france would fall so fast anyway. so saying it was wasted resources is quite wrong. its simply ace in sleeve that they never needed at least not for the use they intended to
@@ironstarofmordian7098 you cant destroy fortress like maginot line with light howitzers. and when they were building dora they didnt bypass it yet so again they had no idea they would not need ti so again it was ace they didnt need. with the knowledge they had they did the best.
I'm surprised that the Dora shells didn't have "Drive Bands". With the softer metals in contact with the barrel, surely the wear factor would have been lessened.🤔
i have heard from sources that it was used at Stalingrad. I have read about it a few times online including Mark Felton himself mentions that it was used around Stalingrad in his video about this guns sister gun the Gustav, and in two books about the battle itself they mentioned that it was used in that battle. I highly recommend watching Mark Feltons video on the Gustav, very in sighting and includes Dora.
TL;DW: 1. It took too much effort and too many resources to build. 2. It took too much manpower to operate. 3. It was highly inaccurate. 4. The barrel wore out far too quickly. 5. It was far too difficult to transport to a new location.
Was this gun only used once on the eastern front. The cost of it and the manpower, how many Mark V’s could have been built. The latest historian argument is Germany had affective lost the war by mid to late 1941, has the economy was broken because of the lack of materials. The production of this weapon was madness in the light of that.
All long-term R&D was ended in 1940, and Adolf the Stable Genius refused to put the German economy on a war footing. These decisions were later reversed, but it was too late to save the nation.
Phil Perry yes the total war speech after Stalingrad and Alamein by then, they had lost a big chunk of the original trained troops. The Luftwaffe never recovered from the Battle of Britain.
Any artillery weapon of extreme size requires specially built firing position, making it easy target for aerial and artillery attack. Not mention, brigade of heavy 150mm howitzers can pour more destructive power during week of heavy bombardment, using less manpower.
Honestly, there's simply no need for a shell that big, because there's nothing that needs a shell that big to destroy it. The only thing it could have truly been useful against is large naval ships, but those move, so it would have been impossible to hit them with the technology of the time. Really what they should have done was create a series of dozens or hundreds of smaller shells to blanket an area.
I find it bazar that the biggest gun ever made some thing so huge, and yet we now we only have a few paces of ammunition to show it existed. How can you lose two guns this big. It is a shame there is nothing of the barrels or carage left.
@@Theanimeisforme still think the time wouldve been better spent on boring regular guns. It was only used in one engagement and burned out its barrel. Regular guns wouldve helped the frontline soldiers hold on, but not this propaganda tool.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the ideas behind the large-caliber artillery with longer-range cannons like Project HARP and the Martlet projectiles, which had been developed with the intention of sending satellites into space.
I love that gun despite how stupid it is, only for that 'anecdote' about the munition depot it hit at Sevastopol. It was under water and with several meters of concrete on the roof. The soviets build it that way to be absolutely sure their ammo would be ok in any bombardment scenario from the air or otherwise. One 80cm shell went trough the water depth, trough the concrete roof, and exploded the whole thing in one go.
The Russians claim Dora did score only one hit during Sevastopol, not sure why this man says she never hit anything. It exploded an ammunition dump.. located 15 meters underground.
It's WOW is off the charts, it's an amazing gun to look at, but in effect it just was a German research project. The German K-5 rail guns were effective at Anzio, and were very acurate.
Why not use bombers if this massive artillery piece was so lacking in accuracy? The British RAF designed a bomb called a Tallboy, later an even larger bomb called the a Grand Slam, which could be carried and dropped from the Lancaster bomber. These bombs penetrated deep into the target (earth, mortar or even concrete) then exploded with an earthquake-like blast effect.
People tend to forget this weapon was designed for a singular purpose and the only mistake, if you excude hindsight, wasn't that it was built but that it was continuously funded long after it was clear it wasn't going to be profitable relative to the amount being invested in it. It was a good idea, at least on paper to be used against French bunkers. It makes complete sense for any military to explore every possible avenue to increase their odds of success and survival; One of the German Governments research paths led to the creation of the plan which resulted in the Fall of France. Had they not reseached that, or not gone along with it then the war against France would have taken part at the German-French border and the Schwerer Gustav gun would have been used as it would have been ready by that point.
A single medium to long-range subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $1.5 million... so I'm guessing this Mofo wasn't cheap to fire. Probably cost more to bomb a place than rebuild it.
OFF-Topic, but was mentioned in the video: The Zerstörer (Fighter Plane) Concept has nothing to do with the Extra-Heavy-Artillery thing. It was rather a good solution for its time - the later half of the 30s.
The Tallboy (and the much bigger Grandslam) bombs developed by the brits was way more effective, and much easier to deploy. For example one direct hit on Tirpitz went straight through her and exploded on the sea bottom, and ultimately 3 direct hits in a single attack sunk her completely.
Imagine if they had guided shells similar to that of DARPA's Xacto Bullets that can change trajectory midflight granted with laser guidance. Now that would be something to truly be afraid of.
"Not used" is not the same as "useless", I would argue. It had a use and purpose. Just because Hitler told people "Not you can't use this for something it would be good at" doesn't mean it wouldn't have been good at it. You also cannot discount the morale effect such a massive weapon would have for both sides, though such things are pretty much impossible to quantify.
Yes, but then it wouldn't be able to fulfill its intended role, which was to destroy heavily fortified (underground) bunkers. If you want a lot of smaller explosives, just use normal artillery.
Dresden war museum is really great. I strongly recommend. I am sorry I did not know you were in Dresden. I would invite you to a beer. Maybe next time. :-)
Lets be frank, we all know the real reason Germany makes all these crazy machines of war was to make playing tabletop and other forms of wargames waaaay more interesting in the post war period.
WW2 was just Hitler being mad after someone talks shit about his legion
For the Imperium of man would never have gotten medusa nor earthshakers without the 88mm, vulcan and nova canons would also have a very different look
without the tiger tank a lot of later armored vehivles would have taken decades before they where reality,
but for the tabletop id say death korps of krieg may have lost most without the germans
I guess if they were gonna go out, they were gonna go out guns a blazin
Drive the 800mm closer! I must hit them with my sword!
Ww2 was Germany’s biggest marketing plan. Build weapons of war so that people would want to buy and build model kits of them 50 year later.
Honey, I Shrunk the Historians
You just can't get good caliber historians these days.
Ok, got a good laugh at both of those..
@@benwilson6145 They are good German historians. The cheep Chinese ones are even smaller
LOL!
MHV looks like a goddamn bond villain in this video in his black suit next to a giant artillery shell. 😂
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to have a logistical failure"
"No! You know how much I hate that word!" Scary music plays-
"You know what an expert studies?"
"Dont say-"
"Logistics, logistics, logistics. Dont leave home without it."
@@nomobobby I thought you were going to use that magic word "bibliographical".
“What is it Moneypenny?”
“Since budget cuts hit the agency I have to buy my lipstick wholesale…”
“…”
But it wasn't useless. It kept rail track layers in business!
And it _did_ fire 50 rounds at the defenses of Sevastopol. They all missed, but a few of them almost hit!
@@WG55 Probably caused a few Russians to shit themselves if nothing else.
Rail track layers worked overtime in wartime anyway.
@@Paciat shhhh get on this train it's the showers for you 🚂🚿☠️
Problem is these had no shortage of work on the eastern front..
As a Dora Guy, who tried to gather all possible intel about the gun, I'd like to make some additions:
1. The Size of Schwere Artillerie Abteilung (E) 672 - the Unit directly operating the Gun was approximately 500. The Number 5.000 is often quoted to underline the gigantic efforts required not only to operate the gun, but also to protect it (as it was a high valuable target as everyone could imagine). Included in these 5.000 are - apart from the 500 of the swArtAbt (E) 672 - approx 1.000 Hiwis ("Volunteers") to prepare the position, a reinforced AAA Batallion (500), 2 reinforced guard companies (300) and and and... up to (and inlcuding) Fighter Cover by the Luftwaffe.
2. Despite the limited military value, I tend to say that this gun was a masterpiece (with some flaws... but hey, who's perfect ;) ) in engineering. The whole gun for example was rebuild and made ready at Sewastopol in just 54 hours.
3. The second gun was kept in the Reich for Crew training.
4. By the end of the operations in Sewastopol, Dora has fired all available ammunition and the barrel was already worn out (and it was reported that it needs to be replaced). I think that was the main reason preventing the guns use at Leningrad. By the time this was fixed the situation around Leningrad has changed - preventing the use of the gun.
Anybody who wants some further reading: "Deutsche Eisenbahn Geschütze - Rohr Artillerie auf Schienen" by Gerhard Taube
which contains a very detailed photographic coverage about erecting the gun at sewastopol (and which I just pulled from the shelf to grab the numbers.
P.S. I might be a bit biased towards the gun... ;)
she was a beauty and thast is a good read Deutsche Eisenbahn Geschütze - Rohr Artillerie auf Schienen" by Gerhard Taube for more artillery understanding!!
I thought that the barrel was worn down, never knew it was blown up
Thank you for completing the info at this point, i mean, hey... 54 hrs to re-arm the eentire gun is great, it wasnt good enough but, it wasnt an entire fiasco btw, i mean, 4 guns like this in ww1 would be made ww2 innecesary
I'll stick to Ian Hogg's German Artillery of WWII and I still think this gun is useless.
@@ancientfungi7818 No one sayed it was not useless...
The 57cm version mentioned that could have been built for Channel gun duels would've been fascinating.
I wonder if the british forges would have been able to build an answer to it. I think they would but it would take some time.
@@datadavis I think it would e probably just been a mega bomber target for the whole course of the war
1 dislike? Looks like Hitler made it to Argentina
With 9 of his cronies.
Who are the other eleven? The 1945 German football team?
LOL God one!
53 nazi frogs
I am the 69th dislike.
Giving away a super heavy, slow-firing and ineffective gun that binds one third of a division as a gift sounds like a really clever form of sabotage.
I am sure Krupp said exactly that when the allies were trying to decide if he should be executed for war crimes. The reality is he was probably just a war profiteer and the Americans have great respect for those ;-)
@@grogery1570 Not really. It's just that the Western Allies had already done away with the German socialist regime and were being forced to confront the new aggression of the Russian Left fascists. The Western Allies certainly did not share the same visceral and avaricious hatred of successful hard-working businessmen that Left fascists did, but that had more to do with them not being professional socialist thieves. I don't fault them for it.
@@DrCruel russian left fascists?
Never heard of those any where in history.
If you mean the Soviet union.
Not all of the soviet union was russian and russia was not the soviet union.
Bolshevism is not fascism. Both are extremely left wing ideas of socialism. But have very different purposes. One is focused around national resourcing the other is about collectivism for the greater use.
@@Robert53area The Bolsheviks didn't "unify" the soviets. One of their first acts in coming to power was to destroy them, then replace their leadership with Bolshevik toadies. The Bolsheviks were pro-Russian nationalists, just as National Socialists were pro-German nationalists and Maoists are pro-Han Chinese nationalists. All were and are focused around collectivist resourcing for the good of a small senior party elite. All habitually use the most bald-faced lies to obscure what they do in practice, long after it become obvious.
Bolsheviks were both socialist and fascists. Fascism came from the Left, is a Leftist ideology, and best characterizes the behavior of socialists once in power. Thus Left fascism is a redundancy, albeit a necessary one.
@@Robert53area for greater use? you mean for opression and the "greater" use of everything by a very small circle at the top. Fool
I feel like the guy nailed it with "most huge" instead of saying "biggest"
That profile pic :o
in nazi germany bomb huges you.
The English language itself needs to either stick with their root or move with the time. It should either force comparative form into every speakers’ throats, or just “more x” or “most x”.
@@Nanorisk stop dissing English. It's a fine language, it has its quirks but it's pretty epic.
@@Kyle-gw6qp BMW cars are regarded as driver's delight, meanwhile they are notoriously prone to oil leak. Having issues and being praised can coexist, they just don't cancel each other out. English is terrible in the consistency department, being widely used doesn't change that.
Two different German accents! My head is spinning...
His guest speaks high german so it´s easy to understand, I hope one day he makes a video with a someone from Switzerland, Saxony and Swabia that will be a complete and hilarious shitshow.
200 years ago, Germany as such didn't exist. There were dozens of German principalities speaking their own dialects, sometimes not mutually intelligible.
As I understand it, Martin Luther invented standard German for his Bible translation as something that most Germans could understand.
@@teebes2009 the germans (languages) wasent entirely diferent languages, but, they varied widly just like the Indian, the Brithish and the Sudan English... man, there was a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings back then, the court of the HRE emperor was kind of a mess, you may want to check the transcriptions of some of them. (as HRE history entusiastic, i can say that has aa looooot to be with the falling of HRE in hands of Napoleon)
You may call his dialect just Austrian ;-) Although we have to recognise that German is pluricentric, so 'Austrian' is not a dialect of German German.
@De Keizer van het Duitse Rijk I agree. I should have been more precise about it - what I meant to say is that Austrian is not derived from today's standard German but is one of the language centers of the German language, as is Swiss German.
This looks like the set for a Bond villan.
It was the original Alan Parsons project of Dr. Evil Sr.
Or the remake oh Honey I Think I Shrank The Kids
The german accent is strong in this one
Yes, and also the Austrian one ;-}--
@@Reichsritter It depends on your point of view. Norwegian is considered to be it's own language but it is actually Swedish with little differences.
@@Reichsritter I guess you are neither a modern linguist nor are you a Norwegian historian.
But I accept your opinion and there are a lot of people with the same opinin as yours.
*saxon accent
they did more then they were intended too they did awesome damage to the russian forts !
keep calling it useless, you're gonna eat your words when cthulhu rises out of the ocean and all of the sudden you need a lot of these.
We have rockets these days for such problems.
Iowa class: my mk23(nuke rounds) doubts that
A single tomahawk missle for the price of one tenth of several Doras should do the job
Yeah, and what about Godzilla? You can't keep the big lizard down.
@@johnhardin4358 and that's why we should bring nuclear artillery guns back!
Been to this museum, it's totally worth going, very modern with many artefacts
I always heard that the gun wasn’t necessarily a gift to Hitler, but rather that Krupp’s long-standing policy was “First gun’s on the house, you can buy more if you like it.”
It's weird the comparison with Tallboy bomb dropped from heavy bombers. The tallboy was almost the same weight as Dora's shell, hit with the same impact velocity while Tallboy eventually demonstrated far better accuracy than Dora's best theoretical accuracy. But Luftwaffe didn't have much faith in heavy bombers, it was all about that dive bombing (in theory at least).
Dora seemed to have been made because Krupp wanted to build a gargantuan gun, not because there was serious thought of how to deliver a bunker-buster weapon.
Anzio Annie seemed to have been far more effective because it could be used even when Germany totally lost air supremacy, it could pop out of a railway tunnel, blast away, then as soon as there was counter battery fire or an air-raid then it could reverse back into the railway tunnel and be all but immune. Although ultimately futile, it had substantial strategic effect on the progress of that campaign.
Krupp: Furher, we haz dis 380cm kanon.
Hitler: Nein! Viel größer!!!!
Barnes Wallis' 6 Ton Tallboy "earthquake bomb" shook down bridges, reduced U-Boat bases to rubble, and sank a capital ship. All that was needed was an Avro Lancaster bomber to deliver it with fewer personnel and less fuss than "Gustav" or "Dora." (The "V3 Gun complex' was also destroyed by "an earthquake" before it could fire any rounds at London.)
There was also later the Grand Slam, which was expensive for a bomb but still only needed a Lancaster.
Technically I agree with you, but one should not forget that to get that one Lancaster to the target required a squadron of Lancasters as well as fighter escorts and many ground crews to prepare all the planes and weapons. You're right that this was still far more effective and efficient than having 5000 guys to operate a weapon that couldn't hit the side of a barn from inside the barn. And could basically fire once an hour. You'd be far better off with like you say aircraft delivered ordnance or even naval guns that had greater accuracy, firing rate and speed and could use materials already available. I know this was also tried at various points and the aircraft solution was still the best.
@@sophiepaterson7444 The 'Earthquake bombs' took a long time to develop, and only came into use in 1944/1945, it was unfortunate that there weren't aircraft able to deliver them either.
@@sophiepaterson7444 Definitely more accurate too.
Not to mention certain huge battleship in Norway
As one chef said, "all it takes is a couple of guys with thermite and that thing will become unusable".
Ryan To : As an Armor Captain once told his troops, "The only thing I fear is an Infantryman with a P-38." He was referring to the C-Ration can opener not the plane.
That's true, or at least it worked for me on Medal of Honor for the PSX.
I always found that scene a bit odd, since no mission ever took place involving commandos and thermite to disable railway artillery. Thermite grenades were used to destroy weapons, such as the disabling of a heavy battery in Pointe du Hoc, but those where much smaller 155mm guns.
EndlesNights destroy railgun's ammo lifter, then it is useless.
@@chumccurry1765 Or just hit the ammo instead. Those shells are enormous.
Why did you build such a big gun???? "There was a spider..."
Too bad they blew it up. Just imagine if it had survived the war. It could have gotten its very own museum.
Frederik it could join the Amiens gun at the Australian war memorial in Canberra
@Mial isus that would have made the coolest museum on earth
@@deltoroperdedor3166 At the end of the war, people just wanted to forget the nasty business. The last thing on their minds was putting the biggest gun, up on a pedestal of sorts. Its only now we can admire the cold engineering aspects of the thing without cringing.
@@garywheeler7039 I can understand that, however, in theory, it could have been a large tourist attraction. It's a cool idea and I'm applauding it
@Mialisus that would be how the US makes museums out of ships however we keep them in the harbor and semi operational to boot (at least in the case of the USS midway an aircraft carrier dock at San Diego CA)
Trying to merge Dorah The Expolorer with this but failing. "Dora, Dora the exploda?"
Remember the cube law. If a round is twice the diameter, it's mass is eight times. It's about 25% increases in diameter to get twice the mass.
Yep, thats why you simply can't scale up say insects too, their legs would need to be massive.
And the strength goes up with the square of the scale (vs cube for the weight), from the cross section of a component. You can't just double the proportions of an existing gun and expect it not to break more easily. You have to disproportionally beef up the lower parts, which in turn increases the weight and cost even more. Try breeding a 4m tall man (to be a super soldier or Olympic athlete)... the leg bones would have to be much more than twice the diameter (of a 2m tall man) in order not to break when he ran. Eight times the stress (weight) on four times the strength (four-fold cross section) for 2x simple scaling. You'd have to have something like sqrt(2) times extra diameter to take the stress.
Was this filmed literally inside a death star ?
The gun is too inaccurate.
Dude the thing only needs to land HE shells in the same post code as the intended target.
but it hits 3 postal codes away XD
The earth is very effective of suppressing HE. You need accuracy against entrenched defenses.
@Reagan James If you miss by 30 meters with it you still are gonna damage that bunker heavily.
@@podemosurss8316 And and you're going to kill 4 soviet soldiers, that's if you're lucky enough to be that accurate. They said that they sometimes missed by 700 meters, 1 in 5 shells landed whitin 60 meters of a target
Then an hour later you can fire the thing again.
And you need a whole regiment of men too.
Don't even think what happens if a squadron of fighter bombers reaches that thing.
@@daniels_0399 "Don't even think what happens if a squadron of fighter bombers reaches that thing."
If those planes are not careful they might be downed when they blow up the Dora.
Wait a second. The whole thing only looks like it is 3 feet long. How does a 15-foot shell fit in it?
Asking the real questions.
German engineering
High class sh*tpoasting
What is this? A gun for Ants?!
@CipiRipi00
You've seen Zoolander right? With the center for kids who cant read good? 🤣
they really should have put it on the tirpitz; it wouldnt have been usefull in any way, but to stick it to the japanese with their "big" 46cm guns on yamato
But at least this thing saw more combat then the Yamamoto
@@hauptmanndosman Given that both were only used once.....
Studies were done on mounting the 80cm on ships, to mount just four (a totally inadequate number for any battleship) a 500,000 ton ship was needed, so big that it couldn't safely navigate the North Sea and would be otherwise defenseless even if it could
@@wjlasloThe2nd who is talking about 4 guns? One fixes mounted 80cm gun, just for the LoLs
A single large battleship gun may have been useful to the USN for shelling Japanese island fortresses late in the war, such as at Iwo Jima. The conventional battleship shelling before the Marines landed was not very effective because the Japanese defenders were dug in too deeply. Of course the inaccuracy of the gun would just blow deep craters in random locations on the island, but if you could hit a few underground ammunition dumps that would have saved some American lives vs. all that ammunition being shot later at the Marines. Of course much the same effect could be gained by having modified B-29 bombers dropping Tallboys all over the island before the invasion, and that was possible at least in principle but wasn't done. Apparently the planners assigned a low value to the life of one Marine. It was cheaper to let Marines absorb the Japanese ammunition than to try to destroy it before the landing.
i would really love to hear more of what Jens Wehner has to say about other topics
Just imagine Adolf saying "look at the size of this weapon, and the railway gun is quite large to"😂😂
I feel like each AP shell had enough steel to make a regular field gun and the gunpowder to fire it could supply at least a hundred rounds for said gun.
well, that's probably not exactly true, but you *are* correct in saying that this gun was a massive waste of resources
What a lovely bloke! would love to sit and chat with him over a beer. Great work both of you, very informative. There is a lot of information out there on these 'pet project' guns that is sensationalised it's nice to have a calm communicative look at such an impressive feat of manufacturing.
For every genius breakthrough the Germans seemed to have compensated with some bizarre blunder...
I talked to a fellow at Fort Miles who served there early in WWII. He said he got bored being there with the National Guard so he transferred to the Army and was assigned to our version of Huge big gun because of his experience with the 16 inch guns at FM. By the time he got to where the action was Germany was in full retreat. He said they never actually fired the gun because it took so long to strike it, move it, and set it up again that the Germans had moved out of effective range.
What a waste how many 88s could you have instead of this?
More importantly how many Stug's could you have produced instead?
Apparently the price was about 7 million reichsmark.
If i remember correctly the price for both one panzer iv and one panther was a little over 100.000 rm.
Germany in a nutshell
@@Galland_ Don't forget the cost to ship everything an keep it operational...
@@DagarCoH
Yup, the supply resources and thousands of men it was tying down were huge opportunity costs in economic terms..
Single historian speaking: This is what happened.
Two or more historians speaking: I think this is what happened.
Gotta say that the Schwerer Gustav is a massive Siege Weapon that was intended to destroy heavy Fortifications.
It renders useless when they were up against more Mobile Enemy Forces in an offensive that were more flexible, dispersed and going into smaller Units.
I learned how to say "Krupp" right. Because of this Video! Thanks Bernhard
Lol did you pronounce the "u" like in word up?
Kind of like "Kroop" with a little "u" added before "oo". Definitely not rhyming with "cup".
Proud owner of a full-scale replica of Schwerer Gustav to scare off nasty people.
The USA didn't have the biggest tanks, or the biggest guns, or the biggest battleship, but dang if we didn't have a lot of 'em.
you mean did?
@California Atheist ohhh
I think the US still had 300+mm artillery
@California Atheist Exactly, the phrasing is a bit archaic; I feel that's how people talked during WWII - at least that's how people in WWII movies talk.
@@1320crusier Sure sure, but this gun was 800 mm. And that's exactly the point, so what if you have a few 800mm guns in a dynamic war. Now if they could have had a bunch of very mobile 800mm guns that would be a very different matter, but not even the powerhouse economy of the USA made anything like that.
Engineering is a matter of balancing capabilities and limitations; if you want the capability of "insanely big fuck off gun" then you get the limitations of needing a railroad to move it and a very slow firing rate, etc, etc...
Just wait till you see the baguettewerfer
Your thoughts on the mortar the British built for the Crimean War, that they never fired anyway because the ammunition was too expensive?
Just imagine being a German soldier in those days assigned to this weapon.
Days you are working hard around the clock to lay tracks, build up the gun and get the gun fire ready.
The firing command comes from your commander.
a big explosion shakes the gun and the shell leaves the barrel.
You keep your breath to see if the shell hits the target.
euh. 🤬
Yep you learn a lot of new never heard before strong language from all over the reich in a short time 😈
yet another example of how very expensive and singularly powerful (yet quite interesting) engines of war don't scale well compared to more economical and numerous alternatives. others include the IJN Yamato vs the Iowa class battleship, or the Tiger vs the T-34 or Sherman tank
Not this again. The Tiger was a specialized weapon designed for different roles than the medium tanks you're comparing it to, and considering that both the U.S. and the Soviets developed heavy tank programs of their own as the war went on, and eventually developed them into the MBT of the cold war era, the Germans had the right idea in supplementing their medium panzers with a heavier, more expensive tank.
The Anzio Express as my grandfather called it. Said you could hear it long before it hit. He was part of the Big Red 1. Loved his stories.
Hearing that Hitler argued against it being used against large targets must have been infuriating for the gunners.
You have a weapon capable of taking out ammunition storage and maybe even vehicle depots and you're told to aim at turrets and trenches that you know you can't hit.
This really speaks to the absolute worst side of how the war was handled, when a giant weapon like this could have been used fo stop fighting and preserve lives (robbing the enemy of their ammunition) and it was instead used in an attempt to kill.
I really have to ask: how did this thing even come into existence in the first place? how did no one say "this is too big, it just isn't going to work"? I mean, this thing is ridiculous
Bernhard looking like he's about to sing fly me to the moon in that suit. Looking Sharp.
Also, Dora is a great example of waste for Germany in WW2.
Waste is one way to put it. I think a better phrase would be "Fighting the wrong war". There's more than a few cases where the Nazis poured large amounts of resources into weapons or equipment that were based on outdated assumptions. Large sections of Plan Z was built around using capital ships for commerce raiding, an idea that had seen the odd success in WW1, but which would have meant defeat in detail for the navy. And perhaps the biggest one, conscripting large sections of your industrial base makes for a large number of warm bodies with rifles. Assuming your campaign is short enough that you don't need to resupply your armed forces. If you do...
@@watchm4ker because they did not expect to beat france so fast so they were just not prepared for it. thats why they we building aircraft carrier and can you blame them? who would expect france would fall so fast anyway.
so saying it was wasted resources is quite wrong. its simply ace in sleeve that they never needed at least not for the use they intended to
@@jebise1126 for the same amount of resources I could build batteries of lighter more efficient weapons that could do the job.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 you cant destroy fortress like maginot line with light howitzers. and when they were building dora they didnt bypass it yet so again they had no idea they would not need ti so again it was ace they didnt need. with the knowledge they had they did the best.
I'm surprised that the Dora shells didn't have "Drive Bands". With the softer metals in contact with the barrel, surely the wear factor would have been lessened.🤔
i have heard from sources that it was used at Stalingrad. I have read about it a few times online including Mark Felton himself mentions that it was used around Stalingrad in his video about this guns sister gun the Gustav, and in two books about the battle itself they mentioned that it was used in that battle. I highly recommend watching Mark Feltons video on the Gustav, very in sighting and includes Dora.
I have said it before and I will say it again: they could have made better use of those materials by making tanks, etc.
@@des9544 if they had them they likely would have made the progress needed to secure the oilfields.
I keep looking at the projectile and saying "Someone is compensating for something."
Thats why my favourite gun is the Luger. 😏
So that means every football stadium is feminine.
(Or it's just a worn out argument.)
Hiler was these guys are just saying why Hitlers compensation failed
TL;DW: 1. It took too much effort and too many resources to build. 2. It took too much manpower to operate. 3. It was highly inaccurate. 4. The barrel wore out far too quickly. 5. It was far too difficult to transport to a new location.
Was this gun only used once on the eastern front. The cost of it and the manpower, how many Mark V’s could have been built. The latest historian argument is Germany had affective lost the war by mid to late 1941, has the economy was broken because of the lack of materials. The production of this weapon was madness in the light of that.
All long-term R&D was ended in 1940, and Adolf the Stable Genius refused to put the German economy on a war footing. These decisions were later reversed, but it was too late to save the nation.
Phil Perry yes the total war speech after Stalingrad and Alamein by then, they had lost a big chunk of the original trained troops. The Luftwaffe never recovered from the Battle of Britain.
Any artillery weapon of extreme size requires specially built firing position, making it easy target for aerial and artillery attack. Not mention, brigade of heavy 150mm howitzers can pour more destructive power during week of heavy bombardment, using less manpower.
Honestly, there's simply no need for a shell that big, because there's nothing that needs a shell that big to destroy it. The only thing it could have truly been useful against is large naval ships, but those move, so it would have been impossible to hit them with the technology of the time. Really what they should have done was create a series of dozens or hundreds of smaller shells to blanket an area.
This needs a holster for concealed carry and a bayonet lug.
Inbefore somebody will try and say: "But ... but ... but ... but Sewastopol"
In Sevastopol it did hit a munitionsstorage 30 meters under the ground. So it was useful there.
I find it bazar that the biggest gun ever made some thing so huge, and yet we now we only have a few paces of ammunition to show it existed. How can you lose two guns this big. It is a shame there is nothing of the barrels or carage left.
This gun is basically like the American A 10 Close Air Support Plane. It is BRRRT for the morale.
Nice to see you in Dresden! I also visited several times the military history museum of dresden.
This wonder weapon project went off the tracks from its inception.
All those resources for this
@@Theanimeisforme still think the time wouldve been better spent on boring regular guns. It was only used in one engagement and burned out its barrel. Regular guns wouldve helped the frontline soldiers hold on, but not this propaganda tool.
This Saxon as style of English is Just too funny.
Hey I have a picture standing next to that shell. Its at the Dresden war museum! Best summer of my life...
It at least made a great map in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territories.
They've loaded the ammo on the first tug! Stop the tug from getting to the railgun!
That brings back good memories!
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the ideas behind the large-caliber artillery with longer-range cannons like Project HARP and the Martlet projectiles, which had been developed with the intention of sending satellites into space.
My guess before watching the video, is that after about 10 shots the barrel needed to be relined, and after about 20, they needed a new barrel.
wrong. it fired 50
I love that gun despite how stupid it is, only for that 'anecdote' about the munition depot it hit at Sevastopol. It was under water and with several meters of concrete on the roof. The soviets build it that way to be absolutely sure their ammo would be ok in any bombardment scenario from the air or otherwise. One 80cm shell went trough the water depth, trough the concrete roof, and exploded the whole thing in one go.
The Russians claim Dora did score only one hit during Sevastopol, not sure why this man says she never hit anything. It exploded an ammunition dump.. located 15 meters underground.
It's WOW is off the charts, it's an amazing gun to look at, but in effect it just was a German research project.
The German K-5 rail guns were effective at Anzio, and were very acurate.
Schwerer Gustav : * exists *
Allied air planes : I'm gonna end this man's whole career
Now waiting for 60cm Karl-Gerat
thats some gun to bring to a battle the size of that shell is fucking shocking
Why not use bombers if this massive artillery piece was so lacking in accuracy? The British RAF designed a bomb called a Tallboy, later an even larger bomb called the a Grand Slam, which could be carried and dropped from the Lancaster bomber. These bombs penetrated deep into the target (earth, mortar or even concrete) then exploded with an earthquake-like blast effect.
That gun sounds like the biggest liability of the war... literally.
I need to use "most huge" more in conversation.
didn't it blow up the supposed impregnable underwater magazine munition storehouse in Sevastapol?
you just made me curious about the siege of sevastopol. wanna make a video on it sometime?
The Battlefield documentary series does an excellent at least over 2 hour in-depth analysis of the entire battle.
Kiowhattaisthetruth C awesome thanks
Bernard looking very dapper
Actually this was worse than useless. There were three of them built at a cost which would have paid for 250 Stug IIIs.
This entire video is so much funnyer if you picture "Dora" as just a gigant "dora the explora" with some kind of mortar.
Looks like they were trying to compensate for something...
People tend to forget this weapon was designed for a singular purpose and the only mistake, if you excude hindsight, wasn't that it was built but that it was continuously funded long after it was clear it wasn't going to be profitable relative to the amount being invested in it. It was a good idea, at least on paper to be used against French bunkers. It makes complete sense for any military to explore every possible avenue to increase their odds of success and survival; One of the German Governments research paths led to the creation of the plan which resulted in the Fall of France. Had they not reseached that, or not gone along with it then the war against France would have taken part at the German-French border and the Schwerer Gustav gun would have been used as it would have been ready by that point.
How much conventional heavy artillery could you field using 5000 men and 100 railroad cars?
Tbh I just want to know how big the crater would be
Imagine how big it was if you loaded the shell w/ U235 and Pu240.
So Hitler was thinking about breaking through the Maginot line before 1939?
A single medium to long-range subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $1.5 million... so I'm guessing this Mofo wasn't cheap to fire. Probably cost more to bomb a place than rebuild it.
on a positive note. The Metal Gear Solid series would probably never have been created if it wasn't for the inspiration of the Schwerer Gustav.
OFF-Topic, but was mentioned in the video: The Zerstörer (Fighter Plane) Concept has nothing to do with the Extra-Heavy-Artillery thing. It was rather a good solution for its time - the later half of the 30s.
The Tallboy (and the much bigger Grandslam) bombs developed by the brits was way more effective, and much easier to deploy. For example one direct hit on Tirpitz went straight through her and exploded on the sea bottom, and ultimately 3 direct hits in a single attack sunk her completely.
Two Germans talk about Germans and refer to Germans as "the Germans". Epic sh*t. 10/10
There is no shame in seeing something that works, and trying to see how far you can push it to its extreme.
Hitler was a dictator, so was not fated to last. The history industrial complex owes him a monument.
Imagine if they had guided shells similar to that of DARPA's Xacto Bullets that can change trajectory midflight granted with laser guidance.
Now that would be something to truly be afraid of.
Yes, also funny if the shells had the form of a dick. Huge dick penetrator incoming !!!
Lol you heard the way he said “CRUSH- the magineaux line-“?
Its shocking when you see the Projectile ! Only 50 Kilometers?
"Not used" is not the same as "useless", I would argue. It had a use and purpose. Just because Hitler told people "Not you can't use this for something it would be good at" doesn't mean it wouldn't have been good at it. You also cannot discount the morale effect such a massive weapon would have for both sides, though such things are pretty much impossible to quantify.
But most importantly it filled the pockets of a few industrialists.
@@sirmoke9646 Didn't they say the first one was a gift to the military? And so wasn't paid for?
Would using something like bird shot or grapeshot (of course skilled up) would have worked better at possibly hitting intended targets?
Yes, but then it wouldn't be able to fulfill its intended role, which was to destroy heavily fortified (underground) bunkers. If you want a lot of smaller explosives, just use normal artillery.
Dresden war museum is really great. I strongly recommend.
I am sorry I did not know you were in Dresden. I would invite you to a beer.
Maybe next time. :-)