• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Japanese Submersible Coastal Gun/Submarine

Abingdon

ACCESS: Restricted
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
49
Reaction score
60
I posted this over in Army Projects yesterday but got no response, and it may belong more properly over here.

I was wondering if anybody has ever seen any pictures of drawings of the Japanese "Submersible Guns" developed by the 10th Military Experimental Station in Murotsu in 1945 for coastal defense. These are covered in the US Naval Technical Mission report (S-93(N) but there are no illustrations.

The 10th Military Experimental Station at Murotsu was assigned to study a variety of new beach defense tactics including the idea of submersible guns that could remain hidden underwater near the beach, and then pop up and destroying incoming American landing craft.

The Submersible Gun Mount Model 1 was a pressure-tight steel chamber anchored to the sea-floor that could rise or submerge underwater using ballast tanks. It was armed with either a 20mm Type 98 automatic cannon and 200 rounds of ammunition, or a 37mm Type 4 ship gun and 60 rounds. The crew consisted of two frogmen who could live aboard the submerged weapon up to 48 hours. The idea was that a belt of these would be emplaced and submerge at the first sign of invasion. As the American landing craft approached the beach, they would suddenly emerge from the sea and begin firing on the landing craft. It is unclear if this design was ever built, but it was followed in May 1945 by the Type 2 which used a cylindrical, submersible hull as well as a small 15 hp powerplant to power the compressors and water pumps to enable the device to surface and submerge, and to charge the 10 hp electric motor. The submersible gun was a cross between an underwater tank and a coastal submarine and was armed with a 7.5cm small craft gun. It had a crew of two or three and a maximum speed of 3 knots on the surface and 2 knots underwater. A prototype was constructed by the Mitsui Shipbuilding Co. in Tamano in July 1944 but initial trials disclosed numerous problems. These had been satisfactorily resolved as demonstrated during trials off Katsurajima on August 8 and the weapon was ready for production.

This weapon would be supported by the Submersible Pillbox Model 3. This similar to the Type 2 submersible weapon except that it was primarily intended to support the submersible gun positions by replenishing them with supplies. It also contained a mine rack for dispensing anti-craft mines. A prototype was completed by Mitsubishi in Nagasaki in mid-July 1945 and tested in the harbor through August 9, 1945
 

Abingdon

ACCESS: Restricted
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
49
Reaction score
60
I was able to get some data on the IJA submersible gun projects this past week from friends in Japan.

In the end, I had a photo of the Type 3 submersible pillbox in the MHI shipyard in Nagasaki, I just didn't know what it was.

I did up a computer image of the Type 1 submersible gun based on a drawing of the design.
 

Attachments

  • X Type 1.jpg
    X Type 1.jpg
    407.4 KB · Views: 340
  • X Type 3.jpg
    X Type 3.jpg
    301.9 KB · Views: 337

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
674
Reaction score
12
With that submersible bunker, they might as well put torpodoes and an engine on it and make it a mini-sub.
 

moin1900

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
456
Reaction score
20
Hi Searay

Thanks for the pictures ! Very interesting ! Maybe you can show us these drawings ?
Do you know a drawing of the TYPE-2 ?
Here more data
www.fischer-tropsch.org/
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200I-0788-0819%20Report%20S-93%20N.pdf.
Thanks a lot
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
2,097
With the strategic and logistical situation the way it was, I'm surprised that they didn't put the Submersible Gun Mount Model 1 straight into production.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
2,097
Abraham Gubler said:
Being underwater provides the advantage of stealth against visual surveillance and water protects against projectiles (bullets, fragments, etc). But water also provides stealth for attacking forces like UDT divers who could just add demolition charges to these underwater bunkers as they are doing the same to underwater obstacles. Water also magnifies the impact of blast through underwater explosions. Before landings the surf zone and beach were shelled to destroy obstacles and mines which would also destroy underwater bunkers.

Not necessarily, Abraham. Leaving aside the fact that the Type 2 was mobile, finding the submerged Type 1s, even with liberal use of photo-reconnaissance flights, wouldn't be that easy. You usually have to know something is there in order to destroy it. Not to mention UDT divers would already have a lot on their plate. Just like D-Day, there wouldn't be enough trained personnel available to deal with all the threats, not to mention that mining a manned defensive position in advance is a bit tricker than with an inert, or even boobytrapped, obstacle. Also D-Day showed that naval gunfire (with notable exceptions such as Battleships/Battlecruisers) wasn't always that effective at dealing with beach defences, off-shore or otherwise. Airstrikes had an even worse track record.


The additional cost of the underwater weapons to build and deploy would be better spent on deeper inland defences that are far cheaper and more survivable. Any submersible production capability would be better kept on mini submarines which offer a lot more flexibility and the potential for high payoff success like sinking a supply vessel.

The Type 1 could well be classified as a very cost-effective use of resources in a economy starved of same. It wouldn't require the material that even the smallest of subs requires, e.g. engines and the fuel to run them. As well as that, based on what we know of the design, it could have, in theory, been built in relatively simple facilities, e.g. civilian boiler workshops. And finally, don't forget the Type1/2/3's were intended to help reduce the number of enemy forces that the shore based defenses would have to face head on, not to mention complicate the enemy's plans. Sink enough amphibious armor and LST's and the situation ashore would quickly swing in favor of the defenders.
 

Similar threads

Top