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 versus Axis ships
Posted by:
Michael Lowrey
()
Date: August 08, 2001 02:08PM
<HTML>Nonny,
Surcouf was designed to sink merchant ships, not warships. I would not have liked her chances against a destroyer or \"torpedo boat\" (as the term is used in Conway\'s for 600 ton+ escorts/torpedo attack craft). She might have been able to overpower more mundane escort vessels, but if I were her captain I doubt I would have risked it. One hit from an 8-incher is not necessarily fatal to a warship of any size; one 4-inch or 5-inch shell hit on a submarine can be. Armed merchant cruisers also would have been a bad choice for Surcouf to attack - there\'s often way too much fire power on such a ship.
Submarines are bad gun platforms. Because they are narrow, the ocean\'s motion affects them more than other ships. The result is inaccurate fire. To make matters worse, in the days before radar, accuracy depended heavily on spotting shell splashes. With only two relatively slow firing guns, this would be a problem at longer ranges. The small rangefinder also reduced the guns effective range to only 13,000 yards - which is what a destroyer or escort\'s 4 inch plus guns could certainly fire out to. To make matters worse, it took about 2 1/2 minutes after surfacing to open fire with the big guns. As was proven quite often in WWI, such a time lag in and of itself be fatal.
Best wishes,
Michael
</HTML>
Surcouf was designed to sink merchant ships, not warships. I would not have liked her chances against a destroyer or \"torpedo boat\" (as the term is used in Conway\'s for 600 ton+ escorts/torpedo attack craft). She might have been able to overpower more mundane escort vessels, but if I were her captain I doubt I would have risked it. One hit from an 8-incher is not necessarily fatal to a warship of any size; one 4-inch or 5-inch shell hit on a submarine can be. Armed merchant cruisers also would have been a bad choice for Surcouf to attack - there\'s often way too much fire power on such a ship.
Submarines are bad gun platforms. Because they are narrow, the ocean\'s motion affects them more than other ships. The result is inaccurate fire. To make matters worse, in the days before radar, accuracy depended heavily on spotting shell splashes. With only two relatively slow firing guns, this would be a problem at longer ranges. The small rangefinder also reduced the guns effective range to only 13,000 yards - which is what a destroyer or escort\'s 4 inch plus guns could certainly fire out to. To make matters worse, it took about 2 1/2 minutes after surfacing to open fire with the big guns. As was proven quite often in WWI, such a time lag in and of itself be fatal.
Best wishes,
Michael
</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 |