Prefered Deckgun

[Morpheus]

Hi Comm, your opiniton is asked

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)




12,7cm (5 inch) from the side: ________________________ 10,5cm from the side:



12,7cm (5 inch) full view:



10,5cm full view:



cheers morph

[FrontierAL]

I am good with any deck gun as long as it is on the front of my boat

[padi]

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...

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

standard 10,5-cm SK C/32 deckgun of the Typ XXI boat,

Both are cool I use the gun in all my games-saves eels. Did u mean type IX? I don't think XXI's had deckguns...but I could be mistaken.

[padi]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Both are cool I use the gun in all my games-saves eels. Did u mean type IX? I don't think XXI's had deckguns...but I could be mistaken.

You're right.
The Typ XXI only had two AA-Guns...

[Rockin Robbins]

Polls of American WWII skippers favored the removal of deck guns to quiet the boat underwater and because they were entirely worthless.

[padi]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Polls of American WWII skippers favored the removal of deck guns to quiet the boat underwater and because they were entirely worthless.

With the nearly non existing japanese ASW they were very useful to sink targets which are not worth a torpedo.

[Rockin Robbins]

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.

[U505995]

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.

[Rockin Robbins]

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.

[Rockin Robbins]

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.

[padi]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

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.

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!

[Subnuts]

Originally Posted by padi

The american subs were ****ty designed. A sub need to have a quick dive time and what did the americans have? 1 Minute? 55 Seconds?

A submarine doesn't "need" to have a quick diving time to be effective. The American submarines had to be larger in order to make it from Pearl Harbor to the Western Pacific, and therefore, they couldn't dive as fast as a U-boat. They had a 21 knot maximum surface speed, and a faster submarine needs to be longer to reduce the amount of power needed to propel it through the water. A Type VII or Type IX would barely have enough fuel to make to make the journey from Pearl Harbor, to Japan and back. The fact that they had a fairly effective air search radar from the beginning of the war, and by the end of the war were able to crash dive in 35 to 40 seconds due to improved training.

In the Atlantic they were sunk during their first rendevouz with an enemy...

Only two American submarines were lost in the Atlantic during World War II. The R-12 sank during a training exercise on June 12, 1943. The Dorado was lost off Panama in October, 1943, presumably after having ran into a mine.

Unless you're referring to the encounter between the S-33 and U-571...

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...

Where did you read that German submariners were laughing about the high freeboard of American submarines? Again, American submarines were larger because they had much longer ranges and greater surface speeds. The conning towers of American submarines were substantially cut down after the first few months of the war. Far from being visible "from great distances," fleet boats were becoming tremendously effective in night surface attacks by the end of 1944. Finally despite being "invisible" at night, many U-boats were actually spotted and attacked at night. "Invisibility" didn't mean much by the time the Allies were employing effective radar on most of their escorts.

And third: They have so much needless luxury which cunsumes space that could be used much more efficient!

What exactly on the Fleet boats was needlessly luxurious? People keep referring to them as "luxury yachts," but I've actually been aboard the Lionfish and it seemed awfully spartan. The air conditioning wasn't terribly effective, and was basically there to remove enough moisture from the air to keep electronics from shorting out. There were enough bunks for the entire crew, but that doesn't seem like a huge "luxury" to me.

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.

[padi]

Only two American submarines were lost in the Atlantic during World War II. The R-12 sank during a training exercise on June 12, 1943. The Dorado was lost off Panama in October, 1943, presumably after having ran into a mine.

Unless you're referring to the encounter between the S-33 and U-571...

If the american subs have changed place with the germans they were sunk on their first battle...

[Subnuts]

Originally Posted by padi

If the american subs have changed place with the germans they were sunk on their first battle...

American and German submarines never successfully attacked each other during the war, so I'm not sure what the argument is.

Where did you hear that the first encounter between a Fleet boat and a German warship ended with the American submarine being sunk?