Historical Question: Deckgun - Bow vs Stern
 

Howdy all,

My friend and I were discussing the difference between the subs of SH3 and SH4. We eventualy talked about deckguns, and pointed out that germans mounted it on the bow of their subs and we did too with our early S class subs. Why over the course of the war did the Germans keep the guns on the bow and the United States keep the guns aft of the conning tower? Was there some theoretical doctrine to why the gun should be mounted aft?

Just wondering :ping:

Maybe for the same reason the Germans removed their deck guns? IE Hydrodynamics.

I would think something mounted aft of the tower would be in it's slipstream, and cause less drag in the water.

Of course I could be wrong and it's something totally different.

THat seems a logical explanation Hyena. I'd agree with that.

The US didn't keep the deck gun aft of the sail. Placement of the deck gun was left to the captain of the submarine. Unlike the German U-Boats, US submarines(from the P-Class on) were fitted with two hard points for deck guns. One was forward of the sail, and one aft of the sail. This is why you are allowed to select placement of the deck gun either fore or aft.

Pretty nice having it aft when ya get a destroyer on your tail (too easy to take them out with the deckgun).

Oh I understand that we were given the choice of putting forward or aft, but why did most commanders put it aft? I'd agree with the hydrodynamics aspect.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the Germans removed their deck guns more because they had become essentially useless (because of the increased danger/futility of trying to take on armed merchants with air cover through surface gun battles as the war progressed) than for reasons of hydrodynamics.

I'm not sure exactly what the American reasoning might have been, but if it had been up to me I would have put the deck gun aft of the tower for a couple of reasons - (1) I would think that the tower would provide something of a breakwater effect that would allow a deck gun behind the tower to be safely manned in at least somewhat heavier seas than if it were located in front of the tower and therefore more exposed to the seas crashing over the bow, and (2) I would rather be able to engage the enemy ships with my gun while pointing away from them (and thus be ready to high-tail it out of there if they started firing back or chasing me) rather than only while pointing toward them (making it much harder to turn around and get out of there if necessary).

"The thinking was that a deck gun was most needed when a boat was running for deep water and a gun mounted forward of the conning tower could not be trained aft!" That was taken from a submarine veteran's website.

Here is another quote from valoratsea.com:

Initially, deck guns were considered by many to be an extraneous and dangerous piece of hardware for submarines at the beginning of the war. Principally, the reasoning was that a submarine is basically a poor platform for a deck gun. Owing to the fact that the vast majority of the sub fleet's war patrols within 500 miles of Japanese bases were conducted submerged, the value of the deck gun was severely questioned. Additionally, it was reasoned that a submarine in a head to head gun battle with an enemy in possession of equal (or greater) firepower was at serious risk. Any enemy hits on the submarine which could impede or prevent her ability to submerge was justification enough to avoid a surface gun action. That's not to say that submariners didn't take advantage of some welcomed target practice when the opportunity arose. US Submarines that were scouting the Japanese Empire waters frequently came upon sampans, which were often suspected of being naval lookouts or anti-submarine pickets. By April of 1942, submarine skippers decided to start thinning out the sampan fleet and a periscope contact often resulted in the order of "Battle Surface". The results of a piboat going up against a lightly armed, floating bundle of wood one would think could be easily determined, however sinking these pesky little vessels was not a simple as first thought. Theodore Roscoe, in his book US SUBMARINE OPERATIONS IN WW II, states: "They could be riddled with .30 and .50 caliber machine gun bullets and holed several times by 3 or 5 inch shells and remain afloat like a box of Swiss cheese". More often than not, a submarine's deck gun was of greater value for overall morale than it was for combat effectiveness. A submerged boat that was damaged by an enemy surface vessel could, as a last ditch effort to survive, surface and engage in a gun battle, although with the odds generally stacked heavily against it. The deck gun was the ultimate weapon of last resort and it has been suggested that the 3, 4 or 5 inch guns (used for both anti-aircraft and surface actions and typically located abaft of the the conning tower), was therefore justified.

I recall having read in O'Kane's "Clear the Bridge" how much he had to discuss with the bureau of material to be allowed to change his deck gun from aft to fore. Apparently, the reasoning behind the stock design of mounting deck guns aft in fleet boats was that they were for defensive purposes, when the boat was unable to dive and had to escape. That way they could shoot at the pursuer while running in the opposite direction.

But O'Kane wanted just the opposite: To be able to chase smaller and faster vessels -not worth a torpedo- while shooting at them.

In german U-boots, deck guns were mounted to finish off crippled targets or taking on smaller vessels not worth a torpedo, and for that offensive purpose they were mounted normally forward. As war progressed and the merchants were equipped with guns, and aircraft represented a real threat, guns were abandoned in benefit of higher underwater speed and less noise (turbulences from a submerged deck gun are noisy).

bow bow bow bow!

I have the gun mounted aft so i can defend myself when trying to get away from destroyers when i'm on the surface...

Those quotes that I had posted earlier seem to sum it up. At first they were thought to be useless, until they realized that a damaged submarine trying to escape or at least trying to make to deep water in order to be able to submerge would be better served by being able to fire at a pursuing escort. People like "Mush" Morton and Dick O'Kane would probably have wanted them forward in order to hunt. I personally like mine in the stern, but it does make it difficult to chase down a surface vessel and sink it that way.

LOL, yup, guess where he put it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Wahoo_SS-238.jpg

I was tempted to move the deckgun forward to what I was used to in SH3, and because I tend to use it offensively and not running away, but I've stuck with the aft mount and it makes for some different sailing decisions.

I do notice the deck guns are accurate at longer ranges, but alternatively will miss a lot when you are inside 500 yards. The optimal range seems to be between 1000-2000 yards when I'm having the crew fire it.

And you can also man it in much heavier seas now.

Since there are 2 hardpoints, did they ever mount 2 deck guns? Fore and Aft?

That would be a neat feature in SH4. (goto deck gun) command could cycle. once for fore, and a second time for aft.

hmmm. :hmm: