SS 166/67/68 deck 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.