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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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!

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by 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!

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?!?

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

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!

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!

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?