Prefered Deckgun
Hi Comm, your opiniton is asked :know:
German 10,5cm deckgun vs. US Navy Model Mark17 I have always been satisfied with the standard 10,5-cm SK C/32 deckgun of the Typ XXI boat, but now i am being offered a 12,7-cm (5 Inch) Mark17 deckgun. Which would/do you prefer? (Sorry for the german in screenie) http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/t...enviroment.jpg 12,7cm (5 inch) from the side: ________________________ 10,5cm from the side: http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/t...ark17_side.jpg http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/t...105cm_side.jpg 12,7cm (5 inch) full view: http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/t...7_fullview.jpg 10,5cm full view: http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/t...m_fullview.jpg cheers morph |
I am good with any deck gun as long as it is on the front of my boat :D
|
Prefered Deckgun
A higher calibre is never bad, but according to the pictures the 10,5 is more accurate due to the in relation to the calibre longer barrel.
But the 12,7 has AA capabilities... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're right. The Typ XXI only had two AA-Guns... |
Polls of American WWII skippers favored the removal of deck guns to quiet the boat underwater and because they were entirely worthless.
|
Quote:
With the nearly non existing japanese ASW they were very useful to sink targets which are not worth a torpedo. |
Actually they weren't valuable for sinking anything bigger than a sampan. Your normal 1500 ton freighter took between 150 and 200 shots to sink and no gun action during the war shot faster than one shot every 20 seconds. You do the math. It's just a completely unjustifiable risk to boat and crew to sit up there for that long plugging little holes in a freighter. That's why it didn't happen in the war.
The most common outcome of manning the deck gun was cleaning the gun crew's guts off the deck. As a matter of fact our first casualty of the war was a deck gun crewman that got splattered. Actually, pointing your finger at the enemy and saying "bang, bang" was slightly more efficient than using the deck gun. Deck guns were, however, very good for drying laundry. |
The Germans made pretty good use of their deck guns early in the war. Most of the time it was for finishing off damaged freighters but I believe that some were sunk with the gun on its own. As long as the hits are made below the waterline, it shouldn't take that many hits to sink a target. Although it's not historical to mount an American gun on a U-boat, the 127mm would be superior to the 105mm because of its larger caliber and more explosive filler.
|
I don't understand all this irrational romanticism about a failed weapon. Germans used deck guns because they couldn't carry enough torpedoes to get the job done. The deck gun was an admission that the war was already lost without a better U-boat, one that wasn't coming. Had the Type XXI ever seen battle it would have done so without a useless deck gun.
Also, very early in the war, armed merchies were non-existent and U-Boats were going to black holes where warships wouldn't oppose them. That didn't last long as, the British reasoned the equation out. Hundreds of hits from the submarine to sink a merchie. One hit from just about anything bigger than a popgun to the sub's pressure hull and they're an artificial reef with fish food. German submarines, being unable to carry enough torpedoes to make a difference, were forced to use deck guns in really dangerous situations. The much better designed American submarines came loaded for bear with torpedoes and did the math to see that deck guns were more of a danger to their user than their target. |
I'm reading a book on Google Books called Surface and Destroy: The Submarine Gun War in the Pacific. After reading quite a bit of it I didn't see a single report of damaging a freighter and finishing it off with a deck gun.
The book is concerned primarily with attacks on fishing trawlers and smaller craft. Thinking I was hitting the mother lode, I picked up a little fools gold at best. |
Quote:
The american subs were poorly designed. A sub need to have a quick dive time and what did the americans have? 1 Minute? 55 Seconds? In the Atlantic they were sunk during their first rendevouz with an enemy... And second: They were build so high to have the guys protected from the water (german submariners were laughing about that needless luxury) that you can see them from great distances, even in the night in which german subs are invisible... And third: They have so much needless luxury which cunsumes space that could be used much more efficient! |
Quote:
Quote:
Unless you're referring to the encounter between the S-33 and U-571...:har: Quote:
Quote:
I think you need to sit down and read Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945: An Illustrated Design History or John D Alden's The Fleet Submarine in the United States Navy to get a better idea about why these submarines were designed the way they were. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Where did you hear that the first encounter between a Fleet boat and a German warship ended with the American submarine being sunk? |
He means if the germans had used fleet boats instead of u-boats the fleet boats would have been sunk.
Which is funny since the fleet boats had much better radar and far superior fire control. Not to mention more weapons. |
I really don't like this conflicts and debates, it' s like The Yamato vs Iowa duel, everyone has it's own strong points, The american subs can Store more torpedoes, they are faster and they had good surface and air radar since 1942
On the other hand german subs could dive in a short time, and they could reach deeper depths, if I recall correctly the fleet boat that dove the deepest was the USS Pampanito with about 600 fts. While the German subs could dive up to 750 fts. Or more (about 228 mts.) I'm sure they have a lot of other qualities but anyways I don't like your aggressiveness padi, it almost seemed insulting to me.. |
Quote:
People who are right don't need to taunt. U-Boats had no meaningful impact on the shipping between the new world and the old world because there weren't enough of them, they were too slow, they didn't carry enough firepower to make them effective, they chatted on the radio like a bunch of schoolgirls with cell phones. The Type VII was a coastal defense boat designed in WWI, not updated, and then pressed into ocean duty for which it was totally unsuited. The American boat had twice as many motors, had a much better diesel/electric system, actual food preservation and preparation, valving systems that made sense and worked much better than the German systems, they were quieter, they were faster both on the surface and submerged, they carred enough armament that it made sense to send them the distances they had to go to do battle, there were no jokes like externally stored torpedoes that could help any depth charges sent their way, the crews had much higher morale and resolve (there was not a single case of an American submarine unhurt and surfacing to surrender like dozens of U-Boats did), great enough range to cover their assigned territory and a design newer than 1915! Padi that is a very incomplete list of the absolute superiority of the American Submarine over the German U-Boat. No, the Germans could not have won the war with American submarines. Submarines were not appropriate for German war ends and the type of submarine that lost the war was an irrelevant detail. Daniel Gallery would just have had to draw a bigger circle to kill them. But the American submarine was absolutely necessary for victory in the Pacific. German U-Boats would have been as useless as a screen door in a submarine. The American S-boats proved that beyond any shred of doubt. They shared some of the defects of U-boats while beating the U-boat in underwater speed. |
Quote:
In contrast, the Germans had NO ASW capacity at all! Zero. Zilch. Nada. No way to hunt and destroy submarines. Their only defense was to hightail it out of there fast enough that the submarines couldn't catch them. So it's another baseless statement there by padi. The German U-boat campaign was the best Allied attack of the war. It alone was sufficient to ensure the defeat of Germany. Every man in a U-boat was wasted precious manpower that would have worked for Germany instead of against, had they been employed on land. Every worker who built and repaired U-boats, every ounce of steel, fuel, ordinance was one that would not contribute to German war aims. They were all working for the Allies and a fine job they did. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.