General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Surcouf: a good gun platform?
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: August 08, 2001 09:08PM
<HTML>There is an exception in every crowd, but the (nearly) universal experience is that subs are lousy surface gun platforms. Being long and narrow, they wallow easily, especially in rough seas. In the days before stabilized gun platforms, this meant that aiming was substandard to even small surface ships.
Maybe this fellow used his gun on very smooth waters at close ranges against relatively undefended targets.
Add to this the fact that a sub is really quite delicate - even the sightest hole in the pressure hull can make it unable to submerge - and render it a sitting duck.
While surface gun actions were rare in the Atlantic, they were common in the Pacific. While a surface gun was nice for blasting trawlers and small fishing boats, this was done at close range. It would be impossible to use, say, the Nautilus\'s 6in deck guns to attack a destroyer by staying outside of it\'s 5 in gun range - you wouldn\'t even be able to see the target, let alone hit it.
There were a handful of surface gun engagements between US subs and IJN destroyers. In the cases where the sub did not get away, the more accurate firepower of the destroyer quickly won the day.
Slogging it out with heavy guns is the exact opposite of the very heart of a sub\'s strength: stealth, the ability to sneak in close undetected and deliver deadly blows below the waterline. Remember, a torpedo packed more explosive wallop than a 16in shell, and below the waterline to boot.. The long list of capital ships sunk by subs shows that they had no need for heavy surface guns. The Surcoff was a bad idea, and a sidestep in sub evolution.</HTML>
Maybe this fellow used his gun on very smooth waters at close ranges against relatively undefended targets.
Add to this the fact that a sub is really quite delicate - even the sightest hole in the pressure hull can make it unable to submerge - and render it a sitting duck.
While surface gun actions were rare in the Atlantic, they were common in the Pacific. While a surface gun was nice for blasting trawlers and small fishing boats, this was done at close range. It would be impossible to use, say, the Nautilus\'s 6in deck guns to attack a destroyer by staying outside of it\'s 5 in gun range - you wouldn\'t even be able to see the target, let alone hit it.
There were a handful of surface gun engagements between US subs and IJN destroyers. In the cases where the sub did not get away, the more accurate firepower of the destroyer quickly won the day.
Slogging it out with heavy guns is the exact opposite of the very heart of a sub\'s strength: stealth, the ability to sneak in close undetected and deliver deadly blows below the waterline. Remember, a torpedo packed more explosive wallop than a 16in shell, and below the waterline to boot.. The long list of capital ships sunk by subs shows that they had no need for heavy surface guns. The Surcoff was a bad idea, and a sidestep in sub evolution.</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
Nonny | 08/08/2001 09:48AM |
|
RE: Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
walter M | 08/08/2001 12:40PM |
|
RE: Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
J.T. McDaniel | 08/08/2001 01:25PM |
|
RE: Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
MCE | 08/08/2001 04:29PM |
|
RE: Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
Visje | 08/09/2001 06:17AM |
|
RE: Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
Vin | 08/09/2001 03:29AM |
|
RE: Surcouf versus Axis ships
|
Michael Lowrey | 08/08/2001 02:08PM |
|
Surcouf: a good gun platform?
|
Capt Kurt | 08/08/2001 08:29PM |
|
RE: Surcouf: a good gun platform?
|
kurt | 08/08/2001 09:08PM |
|
RE: Surcouf: a good gun platform?
|
Torlef | 08/09/2001 05:55AM |
|
Surcouf\'s guns effective with its spotter plane
|
Henneman | 08/09/2001 06:26AM |
|
gun conflicts in the atlantic
|
kurt | 08/09/2001 03:35PM |