Technology and Operations
This forum is for discussing technological & operational matters pertaining to U-boats.
RE: Bullet Penetration
Posted by:
Ragnar J. Ragnarsson
()
Date: December 14, 2000 09:09AM
Frank,
I had some correspondence with Prof. Dr. Juergen Rohwer years ago as to whether a 0.50 cal. bullet could penetrate the U-boat\'s bridge. He told me that, prior to the introduction of armor plating, a 0.50 cal. bullet might penetrate the bridge plating provided it hit at right angles.
VP-84 (PBY Catalinas) experimented with both 0.30 and 0.50 cal. fixed bow guns in the spring of 1943 after the U-boats started fighting back aircraft (they also tried out a 20 mm cannon which jammed the only time it was fired at a U-boat). The squadron wanted the 0.50 cal. guns, but Capt Daniel V. Gallery (later of U 505 fame), who was C.O. of the Fleet Air Detachment in Iceland, opted for the 0.30 cal. and the planes were so fitted. His argument was that the 0.50 cal. had little chance of inflicting any damage on the U-boat and that the .30 cal. was a better anti-personnel gun because of its higher rate of fire. Rohwer\'s reply to me appears to support that argument.
Ragnar
I had some correspondence with Prof. Dr. Juergen Rohwer years ago as to whether a 0.50 cal. bullet could penetrate the U-boat\'s bridge. He told me that, prior to the introduction of armor plating, a 0.50 cal. bullet might penetrate the bridge plating provided it hit at right angles.
VP-84 (PBY Catalinas) experimented with both 0.30 and 0.50 cal. fixed bow guns in the spring of 1943 after the U-boats started fighting back aircraft (they also tried out a 20 mm cannon which jammed the only time it was fired at a U-boat). The squadron wanted the 0.50 cal. guns, but Capt Daniel V. Gallery (later of U 505 fame), who was C.O. of the Fleet Air Detachment in Iceland, opted for the 0.30 cal. and the planes were so fitted. His argument was that the 0.50 cal. had little chance of inflicting any damage on the U-boat and that the .30 cal. was a better anti-personnel gun because of its higher rate of fire. Rohwer\'s reply to me appears to support that argument.
Ragnar
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
Bullet Penetration | Frank B. | 12/07/2000 02:19PM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | Don Baker | 12/07/2000 03:42PM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | Rainer Bruns | 12/07/2000 03:43PM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | Frank B. | 12/08/2000 02:56AM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | Frank B. | 12/08/2000 02:57AM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | John R. | 12/08/2000 02:32PM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | mark | 12/29/2000 01:49PM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | Ragnar J. Ragnarsson | 12/14/2000 09:09AM |
RE: Bullet Penetration | bulldog | 12/20/2000 10:20PM |