SS 166/67/68 deck guns

06-14-06, 11:07 AM

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 · 06-18-06, 01:35 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-02-06, 03:21 PM

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

07-02-06, 03:47 PM

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 · 07-02-06, 04:35 PM

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 · 07-02-06, 07:46 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-03-06, 12:24 AM

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.

07-02-06, 03:21 PM	#3
NEON DEON Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,207 Downloads: 39 Uploads: 5	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 Last edited by NEON DEON; 07-05-06 at 03:59 AM.

07-02-06, 04:35 PM	#5
Drebbel Dutch Sea Lord Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Almost at periscope death ! Posts: 1,665 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	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 ?!? Last edited by Drebbel; 07-02-06 at 05:06 PM.

06-14-06, 11:07 AM	#1
Sailor Steve Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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!

07-02-06, 03:47 PM	#4
Sailor Steve Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.

07-03-06, 12:24 AM	#7
Drebbel Dutch Sea Lord Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Almost at periscope death ! Posts: 1,665 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	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.