Posted: 4/27/2003 11:25:18 AM EDT
|
This question came up yesterday in conversation. On the WW2 era subs, how did they make/what did they do different with the deck mounted guns to make them submersible but still able to fire? I assume their were stainless, but were they just looser tolerance to account for the fact that they might be fired wet? Were they single shot? Any info or links would be most helpful. Thanks crew! |
|
They had plugs in the bore, and they had to do alot of maintenance. That's about the bottom line. They weren't made out of special materials, like stainless, nor were they designed any different than other Naval weapons. I've heard it explained that salt-spray/air is worse for the guns than being submerged because oxidation (i.e. rust) takes place faster in open air than underwater where there is no free oxygen. The sub guys just had to maintain the heck out of their gear. Probably had some special steps in lubrication, etc, but there isn't any specific difference between a 5" gun and a sub and one on a Destroyer. edited to add that the 5" and 3" guns were single shot. The 40mm and 20mm were automatics, same as their surface born couterparts. Machine guns were brought up from the inside and placed on mounts in various places when needed. Ross |
|
Back in '39 when I found myself shanghaiied into the Kriegsmarine, they put me on an Untersee bot. The good ol' U-2. I was a part of the road crew, and set up equipment at our gigs. My job, when we were on the surface, was to keep the damned 88 oiled and free of salt air damage. It was a lot of work. I later jumped ship, and found myself on the Uss Tuskaloosa, 40 decks deep and a straw bottom to feed the sea horses, but that's another story. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: WWII subs spent most of their time on the surface. Yup, but in that enviroment there is no difference than a surface mount gun. My thought exactly. I was looking for a photo, but I could have sworn I saw a documentary or movie where the crew was removed a rubberized canvas "boot" that covered the gun. |
|
Back in '39 when I found myself shanghaiied into the Kriegsmarine, they put me on an Untersee bot. The good ol' U-2. I was a part of the road crew, and set up equipment at our gigs. My job, when we were on the surface, was to keep the damned 88 oiled and free of salt air damage. It was a lot of work. I later jumped ship, and found myself on the Uss Tuskaloosa, 40 decks deep and a straw bottom to feed the sea horses, but that's another story. Funny guy. |
|
They would prefer to use the deck guns on targets that couldnt fight back. Early on they would give ship time to abandon ship before they started shooting. It was a lot cheaper then torpedos. Not to mention we had the suckiest torpedos in WWII. Over 50% failed to detonate or ran erratic courses. The guns ahd plugs and when they surfaced the gun crew would come on deck removed the plug and the breech to drain all the water. Other guys would be opening the deck plates to get the shells out. But with air and Q ships, torpedos became more advisible. |
|
Quoted: They would prefer to use the deck guns on targets that couldnt fight back. Early on they would give ship time to abandon ship before they started shooting. It was a lot cheaper then torpedos. Not to mention we had the suckiest torpedos in WWII. Over 50% failed to detonate or ran erratic courses. The guns ahd plugs and when they surfaced the gun crew would come on deck removed the plug and the breech to drain all the water. Other guys would be opening the deck plates to get the shells out. But with air and Q ships, torpedos became more advisible. The Germans had similar problems with thier torpedoes that the US had, at least early on. Later they also had a real problem with torpedoes that would circle around and get the U-boat. The British also had problems with some of their torpedoes. When the Swordfish went to attack the Bismark, the magnetic detonators would explode on impact, with the water. Only the Japanese seemed to have perfected topredoes prior to WW-II. |