Register here

Author Topic: Big Gun submarines  (Read 22988 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2127
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2015, 01:03:21 pm »
submarines with battleship guns ?  :o wouldn't the submarine recoil in the water when firing ?
or capsize when firing laterally ?
or better, I can imagine turning 360 degree, above water, spinning on its long axis  :o   A bit like Marcel Pagnol Le Pitalugue, a boat than spun around a propeller that was too big for it.  :P
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7933
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2015, 09:25:22 am »
submarines with battleship guns ?  :o

Weren't the British M-class submarines exactly that ? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2015, 06:33:03 pm »
submarines with battleship guns ?  :o

Weren't the British M-class submarines exactly that ? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine
Yes and no, the M-class used the gun in a very different manner from a Battleship.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2015, 06:50:57 pm »
submarines with battleship guns ?  :o wouldn't the submarine recoil in the water when firing ?
or capsize when firing laterally ?
or better, I can imagine turning 360 degree, above water, spinning on its long axis  :o   A bit like Marcel Pagnol Le Pitalugue, a boat than spun around a propeller that was too big for it.  :P


On the M1 class the gun was only to be fired directly ahead and was to be used to sink ships in place of a torpedo. The idea was the submarine could approach the target from periscope depth and then breach so the muzzle was above the water and whack the target with a 12 inch shell. From memory I think they could even fire the gun submerged and the shell would still hit the target (above or below water?). But the gun had to be reloaded while the submarine was surfaced.


Since the gun could only train 15 degrees to either side there was no issue with capsizing. And since the 12 inch gun was a low velocity weapon (<800 mps) and the firing platform was 2,000 tons moving forward at 15 kph in a viscous fluid (sea water) the issue of recoil would not challenge ship stability or forward movement (recoil force would be about 3-4% of the force of the submarine's movement alone).
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Online covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2015, 01:55:59 am »
The impressive I-400 class also had a large gun for a sub.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2015, 02:24:13 pm »

Model at Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Gosport, UK
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline eltf177

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2015, 09:49:10 am »
The impressive I-400 class also had a large gun for a sub.

Actually no, just one standard 5.5-inch gun. One sub that went to Germany was fitted with a second 5.5-inch gun however...

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2015, 04:48:37 pm »

Model at Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Gosport, UK


Thanks for posting this image. Attached to the forum here in case the hot link does down.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline shaba

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 124
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2017, 12:38:45 pm »
there was a pre m class proposal to mount a quarter to ten howitzer in the bow of a submarine with a limited traverse bail mount at the muzzle ,it would be aimed by trimming the submarine to get the proper elevation. the problem was that area they planed to use it was shallow and would not allow the elevation to give a useable range.i saw a sketch of the installation in a old octopus book presumably drawn by john batchlor but i haven't seen anything on the net.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2017, 07:31:09 pm »
there was a pre m class proposal to mount a quarter to ten howitzer in the bow of a submarine with a limited traverse bail mount at the muzzle ,it would be aimed by trimming the submarine to get the proper elevation. the problem was that area they planed to use it was shallow and would not allow the elevation to give a useable range.i saw a sketch of the installation in a old octopus book presumably drawn by john batchlor but i haven't seen anything on the net.

Quarter to ten?

Offline shaba

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 124
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2017, 10:32:59 pm »
9.45 inch howitzer

Online covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2017, 10:56:45 pm »
so basically instead of a torpedo tube? Fire with the bow sticking out of the water?

Interesting  ;D
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Würger

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 836
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2017, 10:00:37 am »
How is your mastery of the beatiful italian language? Please read:

http://www.marina.difesa.it/conosciamoci/editoria/marivista/Documents/2011/12_dicembre/breve_storia_del_sommergibile_cannoniere.pdf

Any appreciation of artillery submarines would be extremely incomplete if the german examples (and there are plenty) weren`t mentioned. Mind especially pages 53 to 58, with a proposed U-Kreuzer (more than 7000 tons) with two single turrets, each with a 210mm cannon. It stemmed from Professor Oswald Flamm who, besides submarines, designed torpedos. It was to have a trilobed hull, a simplification of it (lazy 8) being present in the japanese I-400.






Offline iverson

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2017, 07:28:34 pm »
so basically instead of a torpedo tube? Fire with the bow sticking out of the water?

Interesting  ;D
As I understand it, the M-class started as a concept for a monitor submarine to take on the shore bombardment role that surface monitors performed off the coast of Flanders in WWI. By 1918, the conventional monitors were becoming too vulnerable to coast defense guns, aircraft, and small surface craft. Their main defense was a low silhouette. So the submarine was meant to take this to an extreme: the M-class submarine would fire with only the muzzle exposed above the water. But this proved impractical. Fire control would have been poor, and it was difficult to keep the muzzle clear of the water in a swell. In the worst case, it was feared that the boat might flood and sink if a wave went over the muzzle with the breach open.

So the role was changed to commerce raider. It was argued that the shell of an obsolete, surplus 12-in gun would be much cheaper than a torpedo and just as effective against merchant vessels.

Wikipedia has a summary and illustrations.

Offline Hano

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2017, 10:56:28 am »
On a related note I've just been reading Antony Wells's book 'A Tale Of Two Navies: Geopolitics, Technology, and Strategy in the United States Navy and the Royal Navy, 1960-2015.' For something written by a long serving former RN officer it has a lot of significant flaws. Not least this assertion regarding RN SSNs during the Falklands War. For him the weaknesses of the RN's SSNs lay
"in the lack of two alternative weapons... [Tomahawk and moreover] the lack of a fifty plus nautical mile range precision gun system."
I take his point on Tomahawk, but as far as I'm aware, no one gave serious thought to fitting long range gun systems on RN SSNs so they could act as NGS vessels. Unless I'm missing something here, I'm assuming this is the talk of an armchair admiral?
( the book can be found here for those of you interested: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tale-Two-Navies-Geopolitics-Technology-ebook/dp/B01N1RW96O/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1498240558&sr=1-1 )