the power of weapons

greyrider · 08-04-07, 06:55 AM

everybody knows what bullets and big gun shells can do to flesh and blood, thats a no brainer,
but last night as i was lain in bed, an old memory can back to me from 1971.
it was the year i joined the army, and just completed basic , then i headed to fort polk louiseanna for advanced infantry training.
this was where i got my hands on all the infantry weapons used by the army, from the 45 cal pistal, to the 12 gauge shotgun, MG'S 50 CAL ,and 60
and everything in between.
this story is about the m-60 MG, and a 55 gallon industrial drum, made of steel and used as a target on an m-60 MG range.
the m-60 MG, fires a standard NATO round, 7.62mm.
i thought this would be a great comparison to shooting at a ship with a deck gun, so im going to tell the story, and leave it up to you guys to think about it,
and see if the comparison has any validity.
im comparing a 7.62mm bullet and its effects on a 55 gallon steel drum, verses the shell of a 3, 4 , or 5 inch submarine deck gun to a 10k ton freighter.
during the training with the MG, i was part of a 3 man MG crew, lying on the ground in a prone position. we were shooting at plastic targets in the shape of a man,
and this steel drum was about 5 or 6 hundred meters down range.
we followed thier orders, and shot at what they told us to shoot at, targets at short range, then shooting at long ranges.
we started to shoot at the steel drum, way out there, i could see we were hitting from the tracers in the belt.
i shot at it, and my buddys shot at it, when it was our turns, and we shot at other targets too. as the time progressed, we started to notice that the 55 gallon drum
was starting to deform, it started to collapse, falling into itself, looking like a V, turned 90 degrees to the left,
and we started to pour it on, nailing that barrel even more.
now it was starting to smoke, blue smoke was coming from the barrel, we had turned that barrel into molten metal, that now was just feeding off itself, it was burning,
i never saw metal burn like that before or since.
that thing deformed so bad, and they would have to get a new barrell, if they wanted to have a target at that range, which served the lifers right as far as i was concerned.

by the time we left the range, that barrell was unable to be recognized as a barrel, me and my friends destroyed that barrel with a MG.
so now, i leave it up to you, to decide if my comparison is valid.
still, i am not going to be satisfied until i talk with someone in the know about submarine deck guns, i hope to do that today.

tater · 08-04-07, 08:08 AM

The number of ship sinkings claimed sunk by US submarine deck guns is tiny. Ships, that is, not sampans, sea trucks, fishing boats, etc. The number of confirmed sinkings (JANAC plus extra research by Alden) is almost zero. 1 confirmed large ship, and a few confirmed sunk, but they were considerably smaller that the claimed tonnage (like ~1000 tons instead of the 3-4000 claimed).

tater

greyrider · 08-04-07, 10:37 PM

i know, deck guns were not the primary weapons of the sub, if they could have used every round they had , like we do, plus thier torps, they would be out for months.
that wont and didnt happen, no one would want to stay at war any longer than they had too, no sane person anyways.
the morale of the command must always be considered.
the sub was just to vulerable on the surface, to fight as a surface vessel, accept maybe the yellow sea, and it wasnt the subs mission anyway.
aircraft was the submarines true tormentors, the u-boats found that out, and thats what defeated the u-boat. it defeated the battleship too, made it an obsolete weapon.
aircraft performed excately like billy mitchell said they would.
aircraft was the number one concern of submarine defense, and the best defense was not to be seen, but merchants were armed too, most of them, after awhile. just one lucky shot from an armed merchant
is all it would take to prevent the sub from diving, an so it would be exposed to enemy aircraft.
if i could, i'd take the gun off my sub. but im just not going to use it, accept to finish a ship i torpedoed first, and bring tonnage more closer to the real scores.
but what do you think, if a 7.62mm bullet can destroy a barrle many, many times its size, dont you feel that a 3,4, or 5 inch shell could take down a large freighter, many many times its size?
i think i proved the point, myself.
when i use the gun, i fire at the waterline, and then work up, cutting her open like a can opener,same spot, right under the stacks, until she destablizes, or mostly in sh4, she blows up.
but as i said, i am done with the deck gun.
when playing this game, in the pacifac, i want to replace the gun, with aaa, because i dont dive for aircraft, i fight them. i would rather have another anti aircraft weapon, than a
deck gun.

CaptainHaplo · 08-05-07, 10:44 AM

Historically - the 3 inch wouldnt do a whole lot against a freighter. Yes, it would put holes in it, but it would take a lot of holes to sink one. (How many rounds of 7.62 did that barrel need to "melt" it?) However, as the size of the shell got larger, so did the damage inflicted (obviously). There are many references historically where warships such as CL's and DD's were considered "eggshells" when it came to armor. A single 5" hit could ruin any small escort or warship's day. The reason that the deck gun wasn't often used by submarines was not that it wasn't an effective weapon. There were two main reasons it wasn't used often.

1. A submarine is not an effective gun platform in reality (SH4 fails to model the instability of a pitching sub deck).
2. Using a deck gun denied the submarine its most potent protection - stealth.

Speaking from a realism standpoint, the deck gun shells in SH4 are too weak. (Yes this has been argued back and forth, but I stand with the battle reports showing what damage a shell can do!) However, because there is no way to simulate the rolling and pitching of a deck gun, the shells are set weaker as a tradeoff. However, if you ever let your crew do the deck gun firing - they seem to simulate its inaccuracy rather well - only about 1 in 6 shells hit the target as desired. If you do the shooting - its stabilized and you can land every shot. So for balance sake I can understand the weak shells.

Sailor Steve · 08-05-07, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There were two main reasons it wasn't used often.

1. A submarine is not an effective gun platform in reality (SH4 fails to model the instability of a pitching sub deck).
2. Using a deck gun denied the submarine its most potent protection - stealth.

Actually, the main reason the deck gun is a bad weapon against other armed ships is that they are designed to float, whereas the sub is designed to sink. One hole in the wrong place and you're not a submarine anymore.

Quote:

However, if you ever let your crew do the deck gun firing - they seem to simulate its inaccuracy rather well - only about 1 in 6 shells hit the target as desired. If you do the shooting - its stabilized and you can land every shot. So for balance sake I can understand the weak shells.

That's good to hear - it's the same way in SH3; which is why most players do the shooting themselves, even though it's totally unrealistic. I always let my crew do the shooting.

CaptainHaplo · 08-05-07, 03:31 PM

Ha steve - ok make it 3 main reasons then!

greyrider · 08-05-07, 10:57 PM

i agree with you captain and steve.

it would be hard to tell how many bullets hit the barrel, i could see the tracers hitting it, but between tracers, there are a few regular ball rounds , that wont glow,

the MG shoots a cone of fire, some will land and some will not.

but between the 3 of us, we may have had about 500 bullets, and most were used at targets starting at 50 meters, working out to the longer ranges in increments of 50 meters or 100 meters, cant remember.

i was thinking and you have to consider the incentary effects of the tracers to.

me, being a mischivous one, started a range fire in CANADA once, i put together a belt of MG ammo , composed of nothing but tracers, and shot about 75 rounds before i sparked up the range and a cease fire was called.

the canadians were running the range, and the fire index was high, but they said go ahead and shoot, so we did.

they had given us those water tanks that you strap on your back, to fight forest fires with, shovels, and picks. there was a nice brush fire going, and we had to go put it out.

so the tracers may have had something to do with it, altho any bullet will transfer heat to the object it hits, big shells that explode also do that.

08-04-07, 06:55 AM	#1
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	the power of weapons everybody knows what bullets and big gun shells can do to flesh and blood, thats a no brainer, but last night as i was lain in bed, an old memory can back to me from 1971. it was the year i joined the army, and just completed basic , then i headed to fort polk louiseanna for advanced infantry training. this was where i got my hands on all the infantry weapons used by the army, from the 45 cal pistal, to the 12 gauge shotgun, MG'S 50 CAL ,and 60 and everything in between. this story is about the m-60 MG, and a 55 gallon industrial drum, made of steel and used as a target on an m-60 MG range. the m-60 MG, fires a standard NATO round, 7.62mm. i thought this would be a great comparison to shooting at a ship with a deck gun, so im going to tell the story, and leave it up to you guys to think about it, and see if the comparison has any validity. im comparing a 7.62mm bullet and its effects on a 55 gallon steel drum, verses the shell of a 3, 4 , or 5 inch submarine deck gun to a 10k ton freighter. during the training with the MG, i was part of a 3 man MG crew, lying on the ground in a prone position. we were shooting at plastic targets in the shape of a man, and this steel drum was about 5 or 6 hundred meters down range. we followed thier orders, and shot at what they told us to shoot at, targets at short range, then shooting at long ranges. we started to shoot at the steel drum, way out there, i could see we were hitting from the tracers in the belt. i shot at it, and my buddys shot at it, when it was our turns, and we shot at other targets too. as the time progressed, we started to notice that the 55 gallon drum was starting to deform, it started to collapse, falling into itself, looking like a V, turned 90 degrees to the left, and we started to pour it on, nailing that barrel even more. now it was starting to smoke, blue smoke was coming from the barrel, we had turned that barrel into molten metal, that now was just feeding off itself, it was burning, i never saw metal burn like that before or since. that thing deformed so bad, and they would have to get a new barrell, if they wanted to have a target at that range, which served the lifers right as far as i was concerned. by the time we left the range, that barrell was unable to be recognized as a barrel, me and my friends destroyed that barrel with a MG. so now, i leave it up to you, to decide if my comparison is valid. still, i am not going to be satisfied until i talk with someone in the know about submarine deck guns, i hope to do that today.

08-05-07, 10:44 AM	#4
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Historically - the 3 inch wouldnt do a whole lot against a freighter. Yes, it would put holes in it, but it would take a lot of holes to sink one. (How many rounds of 7.62 did that barrel need to "melt" it?) However, as the size of the shell got larger, so did the damage inflicted (obviously). There are many references historically where warships such as CL's and DD's were considered "eggshells" when it came to armor. A single 5" hit could ruin any small escort or warship's day. The reason that the deck gun wasn't often used by submarines was not that it wasn't an effective weapon. There were two main reasons it wasn't used often. 1. A submarine is not an effective gun platform in reality (SH4 fails to model the instability of a pitching sub deck). 2. Using a deck gun denied the submarine its most potent protection - stealth. Speaking from a realism standpoint, the deck gun shells in SH4 are too weak. (Yes this has been argued back and forth, but I stand with the battle reports showing what damage a shell can do!) However, because there is no way to simulate the rolling and pitching of a deck gun, the shells are set weaker as a tradeoff. However, if you ever let your crew do the deck gun firing - they seem to simulate its inaccuracy rather well - only about 1 in 6 shells hit the target as desired. If you do the shooting - its stabilized and you can land every shot. So for balance sake I can understand the weak shells. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

08-05-07, 03:31 PM	#6
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Ha steve - ok make it 3 main reasons then! __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

08-04-07, 08:08 AM	#2
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	The number of ship sinkings claimed sunk by US submarine deck guns is tiny. Ships, that is, not sampans, sea trucks, fishing boats, etc. The number of confirmed sinkings (JANAC plus extra research by Alden) is almost zero. 1 confirmed large ship, and a few confirmed sunk, but they were considerably smaller that the claimed tonnage (like ~1000 tons instead of the 3-4000 claimed). tater

08-04-07, 10:37 PM	#3
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	i know, deck guns were not the primary weapons of the sub, if they could have used every round they had , like we do, plus thier torps, they would be out for months. that wont and didnt happen, no one would want to stay at war any longer than they had too, no sane person anyways. the morale of the command must always be considered. the sub was just to vulerable on the surface, to fight as a surface vessel, accept maybe the yellow sea, and it wasnt the subs mission anyway. aircraft was the submarines true tormentors, the u-boats found that out, and thats what defeated the u-boat. it defeated the battleship too, made it an obsolete weapon. aircraft performed excately like billy mitchell said they would. aircraft was the number one concern of submarine defense, and the best defense was not to be seen, but merchants were armed too, most of them, after awhile. just one lucky shot from an armed merchant is all it would take to prevent the sub from diving, an so it would be exposed to enemy aircraft. if i could, i'd take the gun off my sub. but im just not going to use it, accept to finish a ship i torpedoed first, and bring tonnage more closer to the real scores. but what do you think, if a 7.62mm bullet can destroy a barrle many, many times its size, dont you feel that a 3,4, or 5 inch shell could take down a large freighter, many many times its size? i think i proved the point, myself. when i use the gun, i fire at the waterline, and then work up, cutting her open like a can opener,same spot, right under the stacks, until she destablizes, or mostly in sh4, she blows up. but as i said, i am done with the deck gun. when playing this game, in the pacifac, i want to replace the gun, with aaa, because i dont dive for aircraft, i fight them. i would rather have another anti aircraft weapon, than a deck gun.

08-05-07, 10:57 PM	#7
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	i agree with you captain and steve. it would be hard to tell how many bullets hit the barrel, i could see the tracers hitting it, but between tracers, there are a few regular ball rounds , that wont glow, the MG shoots a cone of fire, some will land and some will not. but between the 3 of us, we may have had about 500 bullets, and most were used at targets starting at 50 meters, working out to the longer ranges in increments of 50 meters or 100 meters, cant remember. i was thinking and you have to consider the incentary effects of the tracers to. me, being a mischivous one, started a range fire in CANADA once, i put together a belt of MG ammo , composed of nothing but tracers, and shot about 75 rounds before i sparked up the range and a cease fire was called. the canadians were running the range, and the fire index was high, but they said go ahead and shoot, so we did. they had given us those water tanks that you strap on your back, to fight forest fires with, shovels, and picks. there was a nice brush fire going, and we had to go put it out. so the tracers may have had something to do with it, altho any bullet will transfer heat to the object it hits, big shells that explode also do that.