Submarine Deck Guns?

A few dozen light artillery shells aren't going to do much.

Not in terms of physical damage, but do not discount the intense public outcry, panic, and morale damage which it would undoubtedly have caused. If even a single German submarine had managed to surface and bombard New York City, the government and the military would have been utterly castigated in the press and in the general court of public view.

I'm personally shocked the Germans didn't try it.
 
Last edited:

NothingNow

Banned
Guns also increase drag, thus ditching the gun allows faster underwater speeds.

A disappearing mount with a streamlined storage unit would do the same thing without sacrificing the desired flexibility.
That said, at the time Submarines spent most of their time running on the surface anyway, so the increased hydrodynamic drag wasn't that big of a deal.
 
If anyone remembers my Super-Massive Dreadnought, there was an accompanying submersible that had a large deck gun.

It was also attached to the main hull, turning it into a trimaran. :p
 
A disappearing mount with a streamlined storage unit would do the same thing without sacrificing the desired flexibility.
Cutting a big hole in your hull doesn't compromise your flexibility as a a submarine? Also, such a thing would be a maintenance nightmare.
 
The induced drag from a deck gun of nominal dimension isn't a considerable factor on a sub which tops at 9 knots submerged. As speed increases, drag becomes a factor, which is why they put the Tridents into multiple holes in the pressure hull without considering it a maintenance nightmare.
 
Forgive my ignorance but I don't think those trident hatches are opened twice a day are they? Also a round hatch is less compromising to the hull than a rectangular or triangular one, which is the shape you'd need to have for a gun. Plus, there's 3 1/2 to 4 decades between the various wartime subs and Tridents, hells, it wasn't until 15 years after the war that Polaris missiles were deployed, so of course there's going to be a tech gap.
 
general said:
I did read that one US sub actually chose to go into a surface gun engagement with a Japanese escort - and sank it!
I don't recall that IRL. Beach did do it in Dust on the Sea.
DD951 said:
Thanks for that. It's interesting, & useful--& IDK most of it.:eek:
 

NothingNow

Banned
Cutting a big hole in your hull doesn't compromise your flexibility as a a submarine? Also, such a thing would be a maintenance nightmare.
:rolleyes:
Only if you're putting a hole in the pressure hull.
It'd do fuck all to a sub if it only penetrated the light hull, which exists purely for sea-keeping and Hydrodynamic effects.

As for maintenance, it's not a particularly complicated set up. All it'd add to the extant set-up A couple hinged panels, maybe opened with hydraulics for the cover, and a pair of swing arms with a basic hydraulic system to raise and lower the gun.
If you grease it up properly and check the seals every time it's in port and it'll be fine.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't think those trident hatches are opened twice a day are they? Also a round hatch is less compromising to the hull than a rectangular or triangular one, which is the shape you'd need to have for a gun. Plus, there's 3 1/2 to 4 decades between the various wartime subs and Tridents, hells, it wasn't until 15 years after the war that Polaris missiles were deployed, so of course there's going to be a tech gap.
You assume way too much sometimes. Pressure Hull integrity isn't threatened if the pressure hull isn't penetrated to begin with.
 

Sior

Banned
If anyone remembers my Super-Massive Dreadnought, there was an accompanying submersible that had a large deck gun.

It was also attached to the main hull, turning it into a trimaran. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf_(N_N_3)

Type:Submarine
Displacement:3,250 long tons (3,300 t) (surfaced), 4,304 long tons (4,373 t) (submerged), 2,880 long tons (2,930 t) (dead)
Length:110 m (361 ft)
Beam:9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Draft:7.25 m (23 ft 9 in)

Installed power:7,600 hp (5,700 kW) (surfaced) 3,400 hp (2,500 kW) (submerged)
Propulsion:2 × Sulzer diesel engines (surfaced), 2 × electric motors (submerged), 2 × screws

Speed:18.5 knots (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph) (surfaced), 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph) (submerged)

Range:
Surfaced: 18,500 km (10,000 nmi; 11,500 mi) at 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), 12,600 km (6,800 nmi; 7,800 mi) at 13.5 kn (25.0 km/h; 15.5 mph)
Submerged: 130 km (70 nmi; 81 mi) at 4.5 kn (8.3 km/h; 5.2 mph), 110 km (59 nmi; 68 mi) at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph)

Endurance:90 daysTest depth:80 m (260 ft)

Boats & landing craft carried:1 × motorboat in watertight deck well

Capacity:280 long tons (280 t)

Complement:8 officers and 110 men

Armament:
2 × 203 mm (8 in) guns (1x2)
2 × 37 mm (1.46 in) anti-aircraft guns (2x1)
4 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) anti-aircraft machine guns (2x2)
8 × 550 mm (22 in) torpedo tubes (14 torpedoes)
4 × 400 mm (16 in) torpedo tubes (8 torpedoes)

Aircraft carried:
1 × Besson MB.411 floatplane
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to figure out exactly how to start an ATL that has the Royal Navy keep and further develop its X1 submarine cruiser. There is a new book that was just published earlier this year about the design, building and service career of the X1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Submarine_X1

A very interesting concept, which was hampered more by the British cutting corners by reusing German u-boat engines and riveting the hull rather than welding. The X1 was apparently intended to be based out of Singapore with its most likely foe the Japanese.

If successful the following submarines were to carry as many as six 5.2in or 6in guns. It had a periscoping rangefinder that allowed it to acquired the range of a target will submerged, unlike the Surcouf. The X1 did demonstrate that large submarines could be operated successfully - unlik the K class which it had been based upon.

Apparently, while dogged by engine problems that could have been fixed, one of the reasons clearly given by the commander of submarines, Mediterranean, was the hope that with the decommissioning of the X1 the concept of the cruiser submarine would be discredited in the eyes of the American, Japanese and French navies - which built them anyway.
 
Those big gun subs were such an terrible waste of money. At the end of the day the idea of the big gun, light armour combination had been comprehensively demolished at Jutland and making it submersible doesn't help. Against any target against which a big gun is useful no sub captain in his right mind would surface.

The M class were ment to be used against shore targets that the surface monitors would never be able to reach. Still a terrible idea though.
 
A number of good points have been made:

1) In the early days German subs used their deck guns to save torpedoes. Later in the war this proved difficult if not fatal.
2) Any sub commander who wilingly took on a warship in a gun duel was either insane or desparate.
3) A sub is a poor gun platform at the best of times.

Late in the war US subs were running out of targets. Commanders were given the option of having a second deck gun fitted to take out smaller targets. Many commanders did so, coming in close to shore to pick off targets torpedoes couldn't touch.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
IIRC there were two engagements of gunnery duels between Uboat (and in one case Italian submarine) and British surface warship (no small boat), in which the warship was sunk as well because of the damages (the Uboat even escaped).
 
:rolleyes:
Only if you're putting a hole in the pressure hull.
It'd do fuck all to a sub if it only penetrated the light hull, which exists purely for sea-keeping and Hydrodynamic effects.
Would the gap be big enough to take it?

As for maintenance, it's not a particularly complicated set up. All it'd add to the extant set-up A couple hinged panels, maybe opened with hydraulics for the cover, and a pair of swing arms with a basic hydraulic system to raise and lower the gun.
How were you planning on powering the pumps?
 
If I needed a retractable gun, I could copy the method used to house the 3"/23 cal. USN unit, retracting vertically into a cylindrical housing. Personally, I'd much prefer the wet mount 5"/25 caliber, manufactured from the start as a submarine deck gun.
 
The main problem with big-gun subs, as proposed, is they require big damn submarines, which are clumsy & slow to dive...which makes them less desirable for use with guns against any kind of escorted target, let alone one where there are ASW a/c around.

For a big sub, you really want a rocket or guided missile. There's been some debate on this, & some have said udw launch is impractical; OTL, Germany tested it at (IIRC) 6m, or roughly with 'scope shears awash.

AIUI, the Brit M-class was supposed to "pop up" & shoot. I wonder if it was possible to have a mount that penetrated the pressure hull, allowing firing from shallow submergence. In all, the idea seems pretty impractical compared to the other options.
 
Top