The Oregon Texaco a 7,017 ton tanker sunk by gunfire from German Submarine.

[NEON DEON]

It would seem the Germans had good luck in sinking ships by using the deck gun.

"At 11.17 hours on 28 Feb, 1942, the unescorted and unarmed Oregon (Master Ingvald C. Nilsen) was attacked by U-156 (http://uboat.net/find_boat.php3?find_boat=156) with the deck gun about 150 miles northeast of Mona Passage while steaming completely blacked out on a zigzag course at 10 knots. The first shell hit the starboard side in the quarters of the master and the second destroyed the radio shack. After disabling the radio the U-boat circled the tanker and fired shells at point blank range into the waterline during 75 minutes. Fire broke out on the bridge and the stern and a boiler exploded but the cargo never caught fire. The tanker sank by the stern about four hours after the initial attack.
The eight officers and 28 crewmen abandoned ship in one lifeboat and one raft. They abandoned ship on the starboard side while the U-boat fired shells into the port side. The master, two officers and three crewmen died during the attack. The 26 survivors in the lifeboat made landfall near Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic on 4 March. The four survivors on the raft were picked up by the Gulfpenn (http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ship.html?shipID=1645) five and a half days after the attack."

http://www.usmm.org/carib.html#anchor476032

http://www.usmm.org/carib.html#anchor476032

[A Very Super Market]

I almost mistook that for my own patrol log, then I noticed the different boot-number. Must have had a lot of luck to get a deck gun kill.

[tater]

75 minutes of constant shelling at point blank range. Too bad the narrative doesn't tell how many rounds fired.

[NEON DEON]

75 minutes of constant shelling at point blank range. Too bad the narrative doesn't tell how many rounds fired.

Since the cargo did not ignite I am thinking Tankers are not easy to sink as evidenced by U-156's later run in with the 8,042 ton San Eliseo which it could not sink even with 5 torps fired and four hits. The U-156 took about 14 hours to shoot those five torpedoes.

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/1673.html

BTW. Contant shelling? Where did you get that from the post?

[A Very Super Market]

Depends on how high octane the oil is.


Crude oil will be tough to ignite. WWII aviation fuel will light the night up.

But sometimes tankers carry sand or water as ballast. Or nothing. They're supposed to be able to carry a lot of liquid, so torpedoing an empty tanker wouldn't do anything.

[tater]

What, you think they fired 2 rounds, then waited?

Dunno how many, but other narratives there show that to finish off shipping typically took 30-60 hits, and that was after being hit with a torpedo.

[NEON DEON]

Yes he waited giving that within the first two shots the radio shack was taken out and that the U-156 circled the ship firing point blank into the waterline.

Here is a bit of set up to the Oregon attack:

This guy Hartenstein was my kinda guy;)

Despite the barrel of his deck gun being mangled from an earlier attack on an oil refinery Hartenstein Sank two ships by gun fire alone.

" On 26 February, after using up all torpedoes, the commander decided to saw off the ruined portion of the gun barrel and used this shortened gun to sink two more ships."

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/1340.html

Before running into the Oregon the U-156 sank by gunfire alone the 2,498 ton Steam Merchant Macgregor.

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/1383.html

So in two days with a mangled deck gun Hartenstein and the U-156 sinks two ships for 9,515 tons!

Deck guns sink ships:yep:

[Orion2012]

A tanker actually caring oil would be more difficult to sink then one ballasted with water. The oil is more buoyant and not easily displaced by water.

[tater]

How much DG ammo did they carry?

I don't think anyone disputes that DGs can sink ships.

In the PTO, however, they simply were not used on large ships. Only ONE ship was sunk over 2k tons with a DG for sure in the PTO. One.

I think you cannot overlook the cultural factors involved. Many japanese ships were armed at some level. Most had MGs, many had guns that could seriously damage or sink a sub (at least 1/3 so armed, possibly as many as 50-66%).

In addition, unlike the Atlantic where a crew might have a reasonable hope of rescue, the japanese fully expected to die, be left behind, or otherwise left with no choice but fight the sub to the death. So they did. A literally suicidal crew---armed---would have made those 2 sinking far less likely, IMO.

[NEON DEON]

A IX C

110 rounds of 105 mm.

I dont think ordinary japanese civilian merchant marine were fanatical military suicidal maniacs.

Some merchants are armed and some are not. Same can be said of other navies at different points of the war.

Just because the Americans did not pursue it doesnt mean the Germans, Dutch, English or Japanese did not. In fact, I bet I can find a ship over 3,000 tons sunk by gunfire from each navy.

To me the Americans were overly cautious. What was that tactic at the start of the war that they used to shoot torpedoes without the scope? Yikes. Then the skippers themselves early war were being asked to be more aggressive. More torpedoes and less to shoot at might be a factor too.

One tactic the Americans seem to avoid was the combination attack. Torpedo the ship surface and finish her off with the gun. This was used over and over by other sub forces. But not the Americans.

[Rockin Robbins]

How much do you want to bet that none of Hartenstein's victims were armed at all. And I think that you would be very hard put to find someone more fanatical than a scared merchant mariner on a deck gun who believes if he fails he dies. One hit and the sub is down for good. 75 minutes of bombardment at point blank range to sink the surface ship. Put one deck gun on the surface ship and the 75 minute circling attack can't happen. If anything, this attack bolsters the arguments of those who believe a deck gun has no place on a submarine. That's 75 minutes of lollygagging on the surface begging some Lancaster or PBY to wipe you off the face of the planet. All because you don't carry enough torpedoes to battle to get the job done. Such was the plight of the Type VII U-Boat. The word impotent comes to mind.

I think the fact that the German navy took out 1% of the Allied convoys during the war and American submarines sank well over 50% of total Japanese shipping says something about the "over cautiousness" of American sub skippers. I think they were aggressive without being reckless. That's a plus in my book.

[A Very Super Market]

You really can't compare the economies of Britain and the US with Japan. Japan had a smaller fleet of merchants, little ASW craft, limited equipment, and was set their charges completely off-depth until a retard congressmen told everybody.

U-boats aren't made of styrofoam, they can take more than one hit from a small merchant gun. Same goes for US boats. All submarines are terrible gun platforms because they are so low in the water and they bounce around with the tiniest wave. Thats also a strange advantage in that its tougher for them to get shot.

U-boats in the early war operated with the same impunity as the fleet boats did in the later war. Completely different circumstances. The Type-VII was the best U-boot since the Type-IX was a sitting duck for air patrols with its large size and long dive times.

Criticising U-boots after 1941 is kicking a dead horse. The whole situation for Germany as a whole was pretty hopeless. Meanwhile, the allies' technology and industry are only beginning to step up. In the same way, boasting of the operational achievements of fleet boats after 1943 is like an adult demonstrating his fighting abilities by beating a toddler. I'm not doubting the abilities of the US subs, just saying that with torpedoes that actually work, a strong navy to back you up, and a defeated enemy completely unprepared for you, you hold such a huge advantage over the U-boots that isn't completely as a result of your own subs.

In 1942 and later, U-boots were being bombed as they left their harbours, the Luftwaffe (never a huge help even before) was truly impotent, the rest of the navy was confined to the North Sea totally was outnumbered by either Allied fleet, Hunter-killer groups operated in tandem with convoy escorts making it almost impossible to sink almost anything while your shipyards were churning out a new boat each 20 minutes.

[ElAurens]

I'm curious.

If US subs did not make use of the deck gun as some claim, why was the surface armament of US subs constantly increased during the course of the war? Why was the US Navy the last navy to develop a totally new deck gun for submarine use only if they were not using them? (The 5 inch 25 caliber Mk. 40).

[A Very Super Market]

Nothing to care about on the surface, apart from Japanese fishermen with harpoons .:rotfl:

[NEON DEON]

How much do you want to bet that none of Hartenstein's victims were armed at all. And I think that you would be very hard put to find someone more fanatical than a scared merchant mariner on a deck gun who believes if he fails he dies. One hit and the sub is down for good. 75 minutes of bombardment at point blank range to sink the surface ship. Put one deck gun on the surface ship and the 75 minute circling attack can't happen.

Rocky I am not going to take that bet. But as far as one gun scaring U-boats off then I point once again to the Hurley incident.

"Some time thereafter, a tanker traveling alone was attacked at night. Two torpedoes were fired, both of which missed. The vessel was then attacked by gun fire. The submarine took up a position dead ahead of the tanker and subsequently veered off to starboard as the tanker began to overhaul her. When the tanker was still somewhat abaft the U-boat's beam, fire was opened with all three guns. The 10.5 cm. fired H.E., the 3.7 cm. fired incendiary, and the 2cm bridge gun fired A.P. mixed with tracer. The first shell is stated to have hit the bridge, and all subsequent shots were direct hits. The range was estimated at under 300 meters by the survivor. After a short interval, fire was returned from the tanker's after gun and some machine gun fire was also observed. The first shell from the tanker was a miss astern and subsequent shots were all far over the target. No casualties resulted on the submarine."

So I am thinking its a matter of choice as opposed to no it didnt happen.

I believe the situation as it presents itself dictates a WW II Submarine engagement. The idea that you are not going to engage the enemy because you might be shot at is a bit too restrictive from my point of view.

[NEON DEON]

If anything, this attack bolsters the arguments of those who believe a deck gun has no place on a submarine. That's 75 minutes of lollygagging on the surface begging some Lancaster or PBY to wipe you off the face of the planet. All because you don't carry enough torpedoes to battle to get the job done. Such was the plight of the Type VII U-Boat. The word impotent comes to mind.

The boat was a IX C so it had torpedoes.

A deck gun has no place on a submarine?

Why? Because after running out of torpedoes the U-156 instead of turning for home went out and sank almost 10 k of shipping with a deck gun that had a sawed off barrell and half a first string gun crew?

Not to mention the fact that despite not catching the Cargo on fire the U-156 managed to sink a 7,000 ton tanker with shell fire something that 4 torpedoes could not do on the 8,000 ton tanker San Eliso.

So on the entire patrol 5 ships sunk for 22,723 tons and 9,500 of that from the deck gun!

That screams guns should be on WW II subsmarines.:D

There was no one comming to the rescue because on the second shot the radio was knocked out. So im guessing since the day before Hartenstein sunk the 2500 ton merchantmen MacGregor with shell fire his 109* round magazine was a bit depleted. So he circles the ship picking his shots with shells at the waterline.

*109 shells because early on the patrol one shell exploded in the barrell mangeling it when someone forgot to pull the plug before firing.

[tater]

Deck guns were removed from subs after the war.

As for US boats getting more, the shipping was getting smaller and smaller. In many areas, they were reduced to coastal craft---that are sorely lacking from SH4.

There were several classes of small shipping built in large numbers---under 1000 tons. Those were sunk wholesale, and most of the DG targets in the stats (Alden's book lists every single attack) are small ships.

You have to remember that ~1/3 of jap merchant shipping was commandeered by the IJN. Those ships got guns, and actually, the armed ships we see are considerably UNDERarmed for an IJN AK.

http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/%7Eiwashige/hirokawamarumod2.jpg

^^^ 6 deck guns, plus AA.

That's typical for IJN commandeered ships.

Another 1/3 was taken by the IJArmy. Those were not as well armed, and in fact there are images of field artillery pieces on deck as their guns. With wheels. LOL. OTOH, they were freqently
crammed with troops, so the small arms fire they could produce would be non-trivial. Several dozen .30 cal MGs would certainly force a boat to stay back a ways.

Later many, even the 1/3 not taken by the Army or Navy, got AA guns of some sort. From 13mm HMGs, to 25mm type 96 guns.

So while many were unarmed, or quite lightly armed with naught more than MGs, they were still dangerous.

[Rockin Robbins]

*109 shells because early on the patrol one shell exploded in the barrell mangeling it when someone forgot to pull the plug before firing.
Oops...
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/splat.gif

You also have to consider that deck guns caused submarines to make more noise underwater and slowed the already crippled underwater speed of the U-Boat. Just one more knot of underwater speed could have made the difference between life and death for a hundred boats and thousands of men. Is that worth it for a number of sunk targets that you could count on the fingers of both hands? I think not. Dead sailors and sunk U-Boats sink nobody.

[Wilcke]

*109 shells because early on the patrol one shell exploded in the barrell mangeling it when someone forgot to pull the plug before firing.
Oops...
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/splat.gif

You also have to consider that deck guns caused submarines to make more noise underwater and slowed the already crippled underwater speed of the U-Boat. Just one more knot of underwater speed could have made the difference between life and death for a hundred boats and thousands of men. Is that worth it for a number of sunk targets that you could count on the fingers of both hands? I think not. Dead sailors and sunk U-Boats sink nobody.
Can you imagine having to file all the burrs off the lands after cutting that barrel off! I bet you that gun was not firing 1 MOA! What cojones! I will now shut up and continue observing.

So was the San Eliseo incredibly tough or were the torpedoes having issues? That thing took a pounding!

[Sailor Steve]

Deck guns sink ships:yep:
Yes they do. And no they don't. There are also accounts of u-boats being "driven off by gunfire" from a lone merchant. I think the original complaint about deck guns was that in the stock game it was far too easy - 10 rounds for a small merchant, 30 rounds for a large one. Yes, it was done. No, it was never a piece of cake. It should be possible, but it shouldn't be standard operating procedure.

[Aramike]

I agree that there's little point to having a deck gun aboard a submarine. A sub is plainly not designed as a gun platform. A subs success ultimately hinged on stealth ... hence the term "Silent Service". There's nothing stealthy about a deck gun.

More importantly, it should be noted that these instances where the deck gun was used are the rare exception. Most sub skippers in WWII would have fought the war no differently had there have been no gun at all.

Ask yourself, what would most (if not all) sub skippers take: a quieter, faster sub or a deck gun?

[tater]

The problem with the GAME is that the DG is a gyro-stabilized wonder weapon. With the stock game, the only excuse for missing at all after a couple ranging shots is if you, as the player, happen to be too drunk to aim. Given my vast, online flight sim experience, that must be pretty damn drunk ;)

In addition, too few hits result in a kill. RL reports still show 10s of hits 30-60 being typical for sinkings, even for ships already hit with a fish.

USN skippers may well have been less aggressive in needlessly risking the lives of their men in surface attacks, but I personally don't have a problem with that.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, it should be possible but you better check your situation out fully before you try it. The reward should be there for those willing to plug away for 75 minutes, but that random PBY could just ruin your whole day. You can't deny that with the proper peril in the game a surface gunnery action is about the most exciting time you can have.:arrgh!: