posted on Sep, 7 2003 @ 03:30 PM
On the surface of it, the Babylon gun would have been of dubious military value, for the reasons already pointed out in this thread.
Although 120mm (although I have heard that it could have gone as large at 400mm) would allow a rather large payload, it would still be restricted to a
few hundred miles, and most importantly, being non-mobile, would have been a very easy target for airstrikes, after counter-battery radar tracked the
shell trajectory back to point of origin. In all reality, if it was built and fired in aggression, likely only 1 round would get in the air, and the
enemy, if properly equipped, would detect it, and likely have a retaliatory strike airborne before the shell hit its target.
However, when you dig a bit deeper, you have some interesting things to look at:
First of all, even the smalled bore diameter mentioned, 120mm, would allow the deployment of a small tactical nuclear warhead, of between 10 and 50
kiloton yield. Also the use of a RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) shell would effectively extend the range to over 1000 miles. This would extend the
range to cover Israel (well, who was it that killed the designer? Guess THEY considered it a threat...), as well as the entire mid-eastern region.
The biggest threat from the Babylon gun, however, was that once the shell was on its way, it could not be stopped. Essentially, if put into operation,
it would only be useful for one round, but if fired, that one round was a guaranteed penetration, possibly with a nuclear warhead (now see why Israel
And before anyone brings it up, yes, the British Sea Cat AA missle DID intercept a 5" naval artillery shell in flight.... however, it DID NOT stop
the shell... Also, the recent tests with the HEL laser taking down a 155mm shell in mid flight was impressive, but who has an HEL laser operationally
deployed in the area?
I could see it, if built, being a decisive nuclear deterrent, or a first strike weapon.