SS 166/67/68 deck guns

[NEON DEON]

For all you submarine gun gurus out there (me included), I hope they model the Argonaut, Narwhal, and Nautilis Deck guns.

6"/53 mark 15 naval guns

Some highlights.

ROF: 8.5 to 10 seconds

Range: 20,670 m. Can you see that far? ;)

Penetration: 4" at 7500 m.

Ammo per gun: 360 (thats right 720 rounds!) OMG the exploitation is mind boggeling:lol:

Anyways here is the link for complete specs on the gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-53_mk12.htm

[FAdmiral]

Those 6" guns were developed during the WW1 era.
By the time WW2 came around, these were used instead:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16.htm


JIM

[NEON DEON]

Those 6" guns were developed during the WW1 era.
By the time WW2 came around, these were used instead:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16.htm


JIM

Yes very nice rapid fire big bang for the buck cruiser guns.

But, the gun on the SS 166/167/168 cruiser subs were the 6" 53s.

The guns you speak of were mounted on WWII Light cruisers like Brooklyn and Cleveland classes.

First came across those while playing TF1942. I used to love the Brooklyn class crusiers with 15 6" rapid fire guns mounted in 5 turrets. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Penetration: 4" at 7500 m.

1) AP and HC projectiles were carried by cruisers while common rounds were carried by submarines.

The common round is only going to penetrate about 1" of real armor. No problems with merchants, though.

Those 6" guns were developed during the WW1 era.
By the time WW2 came around, these were used instead:

These guns were used to arm the Brooklyn and Cleveland class light cruisers, the latter being the most numerous class of cruisers ever built.
The submarines still used the older guns.

[NEON DEON]

There are are two penetration charts listed. One for AP and one for common.

This is the chart for common.

Armor Penetration with 105 lbs. (47.6 kg) Common Shell used on Submarines.
RangeSide ArmorDeck Armor8,200 yards (7,500 m)4.0" (102 mm)---12,200 yards (11,160 m)3.0" (76 mm)---17,000 yards (15,540 m)2.0" (51 mm)---19,400 yards (17,740 m)---1.0" (25 mm)22,600 yards (20,670 m)---1.5" (38 mm)Note: These figures are taken from armor penetration curves published in 1942.

[Sailor Steve]

You're absolutely right; usually there is only one. Now for the problem: the common chart has better penetrations thant the AP chart. The standard common rating for all shells is 1/3 of the shell's diameter, at 1000 yards.

I'll take a look in my copy of Naval Weapons Of World War Two tonight, to see what it says. That's the website's primary source.

[NEON DEON]

You're absolutely right; usually there is only one. Now for the problem: the common chart has better penetrations thant the AP chart. The standard common rating for all shells is 1/3 of the shell's diameter, at 1000 yards.

I'll take a look in my copy of Naval Weapons Of World War Two tonight, to see what it says. That's the website's primary source.

Yes thats a bit odd. I don't know if this makes a difference but the common round is a little over 4 inches longer and is equiped with a bursting charge that would appear to add 5 pounds to the overall weight. As to what type of material was used in the charge and how it was designed to go off, I have no idea. Im guessing its a contact charge since the gun is not designed to be dual purporpose.

[Sailor Steve]

I had a look in Naval Weapons and they don't have penetration charts at all, so the info has to have come from one of the cruiser books, and I don't have either one.

So-called common shells have come in a great variety over the years, and with many different names. The British have called them Semi-Armour Piercing and SAP Common, but my favorite of theirs was SAPCBC (Semi-Armor Piercing Capped British Common). According to Fletcher Class Destroyers (don't remember the author as I looked through it in a library), United States HC (High Capacity) was meant for shore bombardment and designed to penetrate up to 10 inches of concrete! How effective that was on a ship's armor I don't know.

I'm just always leery of giving any kind of Armor Piercing capability to any submarine gun since the smallest ships to regularly carry belt armor were light cruisers, and you shouldn't oughta be taking those on with a deck gun!:dead:

[NEON DEON]

I had a look in Naval Weapons and they don't have penetration charts at all, so the info has to have come from one of the cruiser books, and I don't have either one.

So-called common shells have come in a great variety over the years, and with many different names. The British have called them Semi-Armour Piercing and SAP Common, but my favorite of theirs was SAPCBC (Semi-Armor Piercing Capped British Common). According to Fletcher Class Destroyers (don't remember the author as I looked through it in a library), United States HC (High Capacity) was meant for shore bombardment and designed to penetrate up to 10 inches of concrete! How effective that was on a ship's armor I don't know.

I'm just always leery of giving any kind of Armor Piercing capability to any submarine gun since the smallest ships to regularly carry belt armor were light cruisers, and you shouldn't oughta be taking those on with a deck gun!:dead:
Well the 167 and 168 were called cruiser subs. As for taking on a cruiser, That would be pretty much suicide. Not only would you have 6 to 9 large caliber weapons trained on you, but all the secondaries too! Just becuase you have the capablity to damge a cruiser does not mean you would be able to do so.

[NEON DEON]

An interesting take on German vs U.S. deck gun usage.

Other factors played to the seemingly easy destruction of Japan's merchant marine, including the easily inflammable East Indian oil, which often required only a few shells from the US subs' deckguns. Actually, Japanese convoy escorts were sometimes small enough to warrant a surface engagement instead of valuable torpedoes, and USS Narwhal actually sank two patrol boats that hunted her with her guns. So frequent was the use of guns and so weak the Japanese response mostly that US submarine skippers were asking for more and heavier guns while their German counterparts, facing high-technology and excellent radar, soon gave up their guns in favor for a smaller silhouette and lighter boat.


www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/submarines (http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/submarines)

[Sailor Steve]

It's true, I guess. I've been going over the Japanese convoy records, and escort was, well, interesting. Sometimes one or two ships would have a heavy escort, because a small task force would be going in the same direction for awhile. Another time eight or ten ships would be escorted by one or two auxiliary harbor vessels with guns and depth charges. Sometimes there would be one or two merchants with depth charges assigned to escort other merchants.

On interesting note: on many occassions a sub would fire torpedoes and miss, and the merchant, if lucky enough to dodge them, would counter-attack! Apparently most marus were fitted with depth-charge racks, even if they had no way to detect a submerged submarine. They would drop them where they hoped the sub might be and then run.

[Drebbel]

Just a litle interesting fact on deck guns from a book that I am currently reading

On Sculpin's 7th Patrol (May-July 1943) she used 103 3-inch rounds to sink 2 fishing patrol boats (called sampans in other sources). They opened up fire with the 20-mm at 500 yards and at 50 yards they started using the .50 machine guns. It took them 30 minutes before she started to sink.

It took them 40 minutes to sink a second vessel.

machine guns, 20-mm guns and 103 3-ich rounds. A lot of fire power. A lot more than I would have guessed one needs for 2 sampans ?!?

[NEON DEON]

Just a litle interesting fact on deck guns from a book that I am currently reading

On Sculpin's 7th Patrol (May-July 1943) she used 103 3-inch rounds to sink 2 fishing patrol boats (called sampans in other sources). They opened up fire with the 20-mm at 500 yards and at 50 yards they started using the .50 machine guns. It took them 30 minutes before she started to sink.

It took them 40 minutes to sink a second vessel.

machine guns, 20-mm guns and 103 3-ich rounds. A lot of fire power. A lot more than I would have guessed one needs for 2 sampans ?!?

Thanks Drebbel. That fits in nicely with why U S skippers wanted bigger guns.:D

I was wondering if they qualified the deck gun usage a bit more in the book you are reading. IE: How many of the 103 3” shells actually hit the two targets and at what range did they open fire with the 3 inch deck gun?

This probably is not a factor given U S subs usually did not carry AP but, did they list what type of round was being fired at the target? What was the target constructed of wood?

[Drebbel]

I already tried to find that yesterday, but that data was not listed. They did state that on the second target they opened up deck gun fire at 400 yards.

[NEON DEON]

Argh Matey!:arrgh!:

Now ears a true pirate ship for yee landlubbers!

USS COD SS 224

Gato class equiped with a 5"/25 deck gun and 2 40 mm AA Bofors.

After refitting at Guam between 29 May and 26 June
1945, COD put out for the Gulf of Siam and the coast of
Indo-China on her seventh war patrol. On 9 and 10 July, she
went to the rescue of a grounded Dutch submarine, taking its
crew on board and destroying the submarine when it could not
be gotten off the reef. Between 21 July and 1 August, COD
made 20 gunfire attacks on the junks, motor sampans, and
barges which were all that remained to supply the Japanese
at Singapore. After inspecting each contact to rescue
friendly natives, COD sank it by gunfire, sending a total of
23 to the bottom. On 1 August, an enemy plane strafed COD,
forcing her to dive leaving one of her boarding parties
behind. These men were rescued 2 days later by another
submarine.




I wonder after boarding all those boats if they made any of em walk da plank!:rotfl:

I am thinking they could include boarding parties? Maybee you could have some of the crew carry cutlasses and of course the skipper would have to have an eye patch and a parrot!:roll: :roll: :roll:

BTW: It took 2 torpedoes and 16 5 inch shells to sink the O 19 not to mention the placed charges. Of course, that might have been because the Dutch sub was lodged on a reef. There is a film somerwhere around documenting the incident. Anyone know where I could find that?

[Drebbel]

I Assume the un-readable text is about some deck gun action ? ;)


BTW: It took 2 torpedoes and 16 5 inch shells to sink the O 19 not to mention the placed charges. Of course, that might have been because the Dutch sub was lodged on a reef. There is a film somerwhere around documenting the incident. Anyone know where I could find that?


Actually just the transfer of the crew is filmed mainly. Also the submarine was never sunk, I have a 1952 movie that shows her still sitting on the reef with minimal visible damage !

[NEON DEON]

I Assume the un-readable text is about some deck gun action ? ;)


BTW: It took 2 torpedoes and 16 5 inch shells to sink the O 19 not to mention the placed charges. Of course, that might have been because the Dutch sub was lodged on a reef. There is a film somerwhere around documenting the incident. Anyone know where I could find that?


Actually just the transfer of the crew is filmed mainly. Also the submarine was never sunk, I have a 1952 movie that shows her still sitting on the reef with minimal visible damage !

Low tide? I am guessing here. charges blew holes toward the bottom. cant see em. Torpedoes hit the reef close into sub but not sub. as for the 16 5 inch shells, theres got be some holes somewhere. High tide when action took place and the sub settled down a bit. Low tide you can see it. Unless of course the skipper of the COD filed an erroneous after action report.

PS. You cant see the letters of my last post from a grey a backround?

Addendum:

The dutch have almost the same story but more detail on what happened to the sub.

10 July 1945: The attempt to pull O 19 free is repeated but without success once more, so the USS Cod takes O 19's crew on board and demolition charges are set on board the disabled submarine. The extremely secret radar and sonar is also destroyed. Two torpedoes are fired and destroy the aft, 16 shells of the 5-inch deck gun finishing off the job of denying her usefulness to the enemy. The USS Cod takes the crew to Subic Bay in the Philippines.

Link to web dutch web site:

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/boats/boat_o19.htm

[Drebbel]

Addendum:

The dutch have almost the same story but more detail on what happened to the sub.

10 July 1945: The attempt to pull O 19 free is repeated but without success once more, so the USS Cod takes O 19's crew on board and demolition charges are set on board the disabled submarine. The extremely secret radar and sonar is also destroyed. Two torpedoes are fired and destroy the aft, 16 shells of the 5-inch deck gun finishing off the job of denying her usefulness to the enemy. The USS Cod takes the crew to Subic Bay in the Philippines.


You see, it was never sunk, it was stuck on a reef. They tried pulling it off, no go. They they destroyed the sub. Trying to sink something that is stuck on the bottom is simply impossible :D


PS. You cant see the letters of my last post from a grey a backround?


Just select a different skin the the bottom-left corner of this page. That way you can see it yourself. I simply very annoying to read :-(

[NEON DEON]

Addendum:

The dutch have almost the same story but more detail on what happened to the sub.

10 July 1945: The attempt to pull O 19 free is repeated but without success once more, so the USS Cod takes O 19's crew on board and demolition charges are set on board the disabled submarine. The extremely secret radar and sonar is also destroyed. Two torpedoes are fired and destroy the aft, 16 shells of the 5-inch deck gun finishing off the job of denying her usefulness to the enemy. The USS Cod takes the crew to Subic Bay in the Philippines.


You see, it was never sunk, it was stuck on a reef. They tried pulling it off, no go. They they destroyed the sub. Trying to sink something that is stuck on the bottom is simply impossible :D


PS. You cant see the letters of my last post from a grey a backround?


Just select a different skin the the bottom-left corner of this page. That way you can see it yourself. I simply very annoying to read :-(

OH &^%(*& THAT IS UGLY!:oops:

I changed it to white. (even tho the Blue or Yellow is much purdier with a gray background selected) ;) Hurry up and read it becuse an hour from now I am going to change it to Yellow;)

The U S Navy says it is sunk. The dutch qualify it as sunk/scuttled.:o

But then again, the Navy does not recognize that Japanase merchantmen were sunk when they ran themselves into the beach, never to be used again, in the Solomons. Of course then we could go further and say the Arizona was not sunk because part of the ship was sticking out of the water. :roll: :roll: :roll:

The O 19 was just a BTW. My post was mainly about the 23 junks/sampans the USS COD boarded then sunk with gun fire in less than 2 weeks! :arrgh!:

[Drebbel]

The U S Navy says it is sunk. The dutch qualify it as sunk/scuttled.

I doubt that very much. Even the original logs from the USS Cod do not say it was sunk. It is scientifically impossible to sink something that is on the bottom but still sticking out of the water :D


Of course then we could go further and say the Arizona was not sunk because part of the ship was sticking out of the water.


The Arizona was floating, lost het buoyancy, and then moved towards the bottom where she stopped moving. I call that sinking.

The Dutch sub was sailing and then ran onto the "land" (a reef) where she stopped moving. Like driving your boat onto the beach after a day of sailing. She was just stuck, never lost her buoyancy, so she did not sink.

Now tell me which navy calls that sunk ? Maybe the Swiss navy, but definately not the US or Dutch navy :-)

Then they tried to pull her off the reef, they even fired fish to loose weight and use the recoil forces, no go. So then finally they demolisched all important equipment, shelled her, and torpedoed her in order to deny her usefulness to the enemy.

:arrgh!:

[NEON DEON]

If the O 19 was still floating after the COD left, then sure she was just grounded. But that wasnt the case. The COD fired two fish into her and she settled by the stern. THAT BOAT DONT FLOAT!;)


Now, as for it is impossible to sink something that rests on the bottom:


If you ground your boat in the Bay of Fundy during low tide, when the tide comes back in, it is still possible for you to sail off because your boat can float. However, if at low tide, I come along and blow your stern off your boat cant float and when the tide comes in, water covers the boat. IE: I sunk it! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Drebbel]

Blowing stern of on purpose in this case is scutling mate. You better get your terminology right ! :p

Why is this so hard for you. You not willing to admit that the USN could not even sink a target that is sitting still ? :lol:

Also: In WWII it was common practise (if possible) for merchants to beach their boat when they had a hole in the hull. This would make it much more easier to repair the vessel and safe it. According to you those should be listed as sinkings too. But dang, they never sunk, ah, who cares, we still call it sinkings :D

But I guess you are right about the O 19, she sunk, that is why 10 years later she was still on the reef sticking out of the water during high and low tide. :arrgh!:

[NEON DEON]

Blowing stern of on purpose in this case is scutling mate. You better get your terminology right ! :p

Why is this so hard for you. You not willing to admit that the USN could not even sink a target that is sitting still ? :lol:

Also: In WWII it was common practise (if possible) for merchants to beach their boat when they had a hole in the hull. This would make it much more easier to repair the vessel and safe it. According to you those should be listed as sinkings too. But dang, they never sunk, ah, who cares, we still call it sinkings :D

But I guess you are right about the O 19, she sunk, that is why 10 years later she was still on the reef sticking out of the water during high and low tide. :arrgh!:

The stern is not out of the water and scutling a boat sinks it. Thats the whole point of scutling it in the first place.

Whether you call the O19 grounded, scuttled, sunk, beached, or destroyed. The bottom line remains the same for the O 19. It was put of action.

[Drebbel]

Whether you call the O19 grounded, scuttled, sunk, beached, or destroyed. The bottom line remains the same for the O 19. It was put of action.

Ah, I can do that too

Whether you call the O19 put of action or not. The bottom line remains the same for the O 19. She did not sink.

:smug:

[NEON DEON]

Whether you call the O19 grounded, scuttled, sunk, beached, or destroyed. The bottom line remains the same for the O 19. It was put of action.

Ah, I can do that too

Whether you call the O19 put of action or not. The bottom line remains the same for the O 19. She did not sink.

:smug:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Sure she did. She can't float. She sits on the bottom. Part of her is submerged.

She sunk. :D

[Drebbel]

I suggest you contact all the hsrory writers AND the United States Navy and ask them to change all the history books.

[NEON DEON]

I suggest you contact all the hsrory writers AND the United States Navy and ask them to change all the history books.

Good idea! :D

I wonder if you could be so kind as to give me a list of the ones that need changing? ;)

DRAT!

I think I hijacked my own thread!;)

[Drebbel]

I wonder if you could be so kind as to give me a list of the ones that need changing? ;)

Yes, NONE. They are all correct !

[NEON DEON]

I wonder if you could be so kind as to give me a list of the ones that need changing? ;)

Yes, NONE. They are all correct !

I was wondering if you know who runs dutchsubmarines.com

Maybee you could get them to change the wording on this part of their site.

22 Oct 1952: The U.S. Navy has taken some aerial photos / film footage showing the O 19 still on the Ladd Reef with only minimal visible changes noticeable.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/boats/boat_o19.htm

[Drebbel]

22 Oct 1952: The U.S. Navy has taken some aerial photos / film footage showing the O 19 still on the Ladd Reef with only minimal visible changes noticeable.

That is what I meant, they are all correct. And no, I am not gonna change it :p

[NEON DEON]

22 Oct 1952: The U.S. Navy has taken some aerial photos / film footage showing the O 19 still on the Ladd Reef with only minimal visible changes noticeable.

That is what I meant, they are all correct. And no, I am not gonna change it :p

Why not. You said earlier their was only minimal visible damage. The site says minimal visible changes.

They dont mean the same. :nope: :nope: :nope:


Besides the web site changed the fate of the O19 from sunk/scuttled to run aground just a few days ago. I figured they could change that too. ;)

[Drebbel]

Why not. You said earlier their was only minimal visible damage. The site says minimal visible changes.

The comment on the movie is the official USN comment, afterall it was a USN movie

They dont mean the same. :nope: :nope: :nope:

Go complain with the commander in Chief :p


Besides the web site changed the fate of the O19 from sunk/scuttled to run aground just a few days ago. I figured they could change that too. ;)

No, it was not changed at all. Has been like this for years. I think you are having to much sun skipper :D

[NEON DEON]

If you ground your boat in the Bay of Fundy during low tide, when the tide comes back in, it is still possible for you to sail off because your boat can float. However, if at low tide, I come along and blow your stern off your boat cant float and when the tide comes in, water covers the boat. IE: I sunk it!


Blowing stern of on purpose in this case is scutling mate. You better get your terminology right ! :p



This is from:

WORLD WAR II NAVAL GLOSSARY and TERMINOLOGY
http://www.valoratsea.com/glossary.htm#S



Scuttle - The act of deliberately SINKING a vessel.



This is Webster's Dictionary:

Scuttle - 1. to cut a hole in a ship's hull in order to SINK.

I am sorry. Who has their terminology wrong?

BTW. I know exactly what I saw on the website a few days ago.

O 19 sunk/scuttled

[Drebbel]

BTW. I know exactly what I saw on the website a few days ago.



O 19 sunk/scuttled




I am sorry, of course you are right, how could I know what you saw at that website a few days ago ! :p

Drebbel

[NEON DEON]

Mini invasion brought to you by the Nautilus SS 168.

I doubt if SH IV will be able to pull this one off. Nautilus lands troops on a Pacific Atol then provides naval artillary support to the troops she landed.

The following happened in November of 1943 in support of the Tarawa Invasion some 95 miles away:

"She returned to Tarawa 18 November to obtain last minute information on weather and surf conditions, landing hazards and the results of recent bombardments. At 2159, 19 November, mistaking her as an enemy, Ringgold fired at Nautilus, sending a five inch shell through the conning tower damaging the main induction drain. Diving as soon as the topography permitted, the boat was rigged for depth charges and the damage control party went to work. Within two hours repairs were sufficient to allow Nautilus to continue with her primary mission: landing a 78 man scouting party, composed of 5th Amphibious Reconnaissance Co. marines and an Australian scout, on Abemama.

At midnight, 20–21 November, Nautilus lay to 3000 yards off Kenna to discharge her passengers. By 1500 all were safely ashore. On the afternoon of the 22nd Nautilus was called on for, and provided, gunfire support against the minute, 25 man, but game enemy garrison. Rather than sacrifice marines in bringing the Japanese out of their bunkers, naval gunfire had been requested. The gunfire proved accurate, killing 14; the remainder committed suicide. Thus, by the time the main assault force arrived on the 26th, Abemama had been secured and preparations to turn it into an air base for the Marshalls’ campaign had begun"

Friendly fire, landing an invasion force, and shore bombardment.

Anways, I think it would be great if they could work a mission like that into SH IV.