Submarine Dissapearing guns ?

Would it be possible to put Disappearing_guns on a large submarine moniter, perhaps within a sort of hold and thus avoid the need for it to be above the surface whilst firing and reloading ? I imagine it would be possible to quickly drain a firing room to reload and it would be quicker than surfacing.
 
Some Japanese subs had collapsible 3xA guns. I suspect the reason it wasn't used with larger calibres was due to the dearth of valuable hull space.
 
I suppose that is true, however what if this - like the M class - has been built supecifically as a moniter and has a reasonably large space of hull devoted to the guns and their macheniery.
 
Almost anything is possible...the question is what's practical.

If you make the submarine large enough, you can fit in a large gun on a disappearing mounting. You now have a fairly substantial submarine, mounting a single large-caliber gun. It's not going to have the range of a similar gun aboard a battleship, since you don't have the high-mounted rangefinders needed for long-range gunnery. It's not going to have the rate of fire either, due to flooding issues. It certainly won't have the speed or range of a conventional big-gun ship, and even more certainly, it won't be able to take enemy fire as well as a more conventional ship.

In short, you have a very large and very expensive ship that can't shoot, move, or survive as well as her more conventional sisters. What, exactly, justifies the cost of her construction and her operation?
 
In short, you have a very large and very expensive ship that can't shoot, move, or survive as well as her more conventional sisters. What, exactly, justifies the cost of her construction and her operation?

None really justifies it, I could just take the OTL reasoning of the governments who created similar creations and say that I was reasoning it might be slightly better than the M class submarines that were actually commisioned. It would also be capable of bombardment without being seen arriving - although you would cartainly know once the shells started firing.
 
The sub would have to surface while firing, it could submerge while reloading and resurface when ready to fire again. IIRC the "M"-class actually fired the 12-inch gun while still awash.

The big problem I see is a _huge_ open area of hull while the gun is elevated. One good wave and you're flooded, likewise one lucky hit and you're screwed; either ammo goes up or damage prevents you from submerging. I don't even want to think about what happens if the recoil mechanism fails and the gun won't retract. And Brother Stormhammer pointed out all the things it can't do, making this a really interesting failure at best...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Almost anything is possible...the question is what's practical.

...

Or necessary.

Submarines were terrible gun platforms, as you note. They also had no need to keep the gun hidden. While the drag and flow noises today would be a real problem, in the 1920s & 30s sonar wasn't up to the task.
 
It would beof no practical benefit. Submarines only surfaced and use their top gun when there were no warships around - they only used it against defenseless merchant ships. That being so, if you want to save on torpedoes by using the gun, why not surface?

Also, WWII subs spent most of their time above the surface anyway. They moved faster above surface and needed to recharge their batteries anyway. WWII subs weren't true submarines (meaning the ship was designed to be indefinitely underwater), only submersibles (meaning they could temporarily submerge). True submarines weren't built until the German Type XXI very late in the war. So you're not risking the sub anymore than usual by having its normal gun mount.
 
Top