Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Loved to read it. I have one question: I assume both sides ran into some combination of physics, metallurgy and economics when trying to develop artillery with enough range to hit the artillery of the other side. Or was this a red queen problem?
Mostly the Germans maintained something of a range advantage and the edge in heavy artillery for most of the war. The big issue is that longer ranges mean bigger guns and there are practical limits to how big you can go before the gun is immobile (and thus very vulnerable).
The solution to *that* was railway guns (where the gun is mounted on a specialist railcar) but that both increases costs massively but also limits where you can take the gun. Such large guns also tended to wear out quickly and fire slowly.
The final problem was accuracy - the longer your shell is in the air on those big, vertical trajectories, the more different atmospheric and weather conditions it is going to move through. You can't be measuring that live at every point between you and the target.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
