I bet Donitz wished he had a few of these..

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
In the spirit of our now-passed member Dennifloss (who, as I, was am naval buff) I thought I'd post this interesting French WW2 Sub the Surcouf, the largest sub at the time (until the Japanese came up with the I-400 class) she boasted 2 "8 main guns with 20+ mile range, 14 torpedo tubes and an enclosed float-plane + 2 small motor boats. This thing could have sat off-shore of NY and lobbed shells right into down-town then motor off and submerge and sit on the bottom all day in around 100-150 ft depth, anyway here she is, wiki link describing her included, link.
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,706
161
106
That fixed turret just seems stupid to me. :hmm:

It is kind of cool looking though.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,414
1,574
126
hm

Fate[edit]
Surcouf may have been sunk on 18 February 1942 about 80 mi (70 nmi; 130 km) north of Cristóbal, Colón, while en route for Tahiti via the Panama Canal. The American freighter Thompson Lykes, steaming alone from Guantanamo Bay on what was a very dark night, reported hitting and running down a partially submerged object which scraped along her side and keel. Her lookouts heard people in the water but the freighter carried on its course without stopping, as they thought that they had struck a German U-boat, though cries for help were heard in English. A signal was sent to Panama describing the incident.[8][9] The loss of Surcouf was announced by the Free French Headquarters in London on 18 April 1942.[10]

Inquiries into the incident were haphazard and late, while a later French inquiry supported the idea that the sinking had been due to "friendly fire"; this conclusion was supported by Rear Admiral Auphan in his book The French Navy in World War II[11] in which he states: "for reasons which appear to have been primarily political, she was rammed at night in the Caribbean by an American freighter." Charles de Gaulle stated in his memoirs[12] that Surcouf "had sunk with all hands".

As no one has officially dived or verified the wreck of Surcouf, its location is unknown. If one assumes the Thompson Lykes incident was indeed the event of Surcouf's sinking, then the wreck would lie 3,000 m (9,800 ft) deep at 10°40′N 79°32′WCoordinates: 10°40′N 79°32′W.[2]

There is a memorial to Surcouf in Cherbourg harbor.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
quite the stories surrounding that boat.

Yes indeed, if Donitz had a few he could have shelled the oil refineries in Port Author TX or anywhere else along the eastern seaboard. Like I said fire 30-40 shells, scoot out to about 200ft water depth and lay on the bottom. Hard to detect a sub in WW2 if was sitting on the bottom with the motors off and everyone being quite. As it was between January-july 1942 a handful of type VI U-boats (they had longer range than the type VII) destroyed dozens of tankers off the US coast, most of them loaded with aviation gasoline only a single torpedo was needed.
 

tynopik

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2004
5,245
500
126
i tend to think if you fired the guns sideways, you'd roll the whole sub over
 

tynopik

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2004
5,245
500
126
Yes indeed, if Donitz had a few he could have shelled the oil refineries in Port Author TX or anywhere else along the eastern seaboard. Like I said fire 30-40 shells, scoot out to about 200ft water depth and lay on the bottom.

He could have done that with his existing u-boats if he wanted
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,659
136
He could have done that with his existing u-boats if he wanted

Trouble is, none of those boats had TWO 8" main guns with 20+ mile range, FOURTEEN torpedo tubes and an enclosed float-plane + 2 small motor boats.

So there's that.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,885
34,849
136
Yes indeed, if Donitz had a few he could have shelled the oil refineries in Port Author TX or anywhere else along the eastern seaboard. Like I said fire 30-40 shells, scoot out to about 200ft water depth and lay on the bottom. Hard to detect a sub in WW2 if was sitting on the bottom with the motors off and everyone being quite. As it was between January-july 1942 a handful of type VI U-boats (they had longer range than the type VII) destroyed dozens of tankers off the US coast, most of them loaded with aviation gasoline only a single torpedo was needed.

she took over two minutes to dive to a depth of 12 m (39 ft)

That plus muzzle flashes announcing exactly where you are = dead men.

It was an off the wall concept but wildly impractical.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
He could have done that with his existing u-boats if he wanted

Yes, in theory, but to get in range of the standard U-boat deck gun would leave it in perilously shallow water. The last thing a sub skipper wants to see is a destroyer bearing down on him with 50 feet of water under his keel. Also he was having so much success sinking boats at an astounding rate why risk a big type 9 boat for a few shots that would not inflict anything but anger and fear.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
That plus muzzle flashes announcing exactly where you are = dead men.

It was an off the wall concept but wildly impractical.

I'm thinking that had to be due to the amount of water that had to taken into the ballast tanks to get such a large sub to go under. The dive time for a standard type 7 U-boat was 30 seconds, our "Gato" class subs eventually got to a 35 second dive time with modifications which is impressive given it was a large design meant for extended patrols. If you think about it this armament arrangement would give the Captain a choice to stay on the surface and slug it out vs a single destroyer or corvette because he could inflict more damage and fire long before a typical destroyer's "5 main battery could be within range. Of course accuracy counts for a lot as well and if it's not able to hit what it's shooting at the larger gun size is meaningless.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
That plus muzzle flashes announcing exactly where you are = dead men.

It was an off the wall concept but wildly impractical.

What's going to get to you that quickly on the water, though?

Firing at night...unless there's a destroyer pretty nearby, you can fire for awhile without being bothered, then submerge.

Not like anything gets anywhere in a hurry on the water.

Now, in daylight when planes can come after you? Different story.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
I highly doubt the thing could rotate the turret (or would even want to) - it sounds like the thing was already unstable at the surface, making it unwise to fire it at an angle, it'd be better to make it more or less a punt gun. Also, it seems to have had an incredibly slow dive time and with two large guns on the deck, I cannot imagine it was very fast.

I think Donitz would have rather had the ability to fire V-1s off the decks of subs?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,885
34,849
136
I'm thinking that had to be due to the amount of water that had to taken into the ballast tanks to get such a large sub to go under. The dive time for a standard type 7 U-boat was 30 seconds, our "Gato" class subs eventually got to a 35 second dive time with modifications which is impressive given it was a large design meant for extended patrols. If you think about it this armament arrangement would give the Captain a choice to stay on the surface and slug it out vs a single destroyer or corvette because he could inflict more damage and fire long before a typical destroyer's "5 main battery could be within range. Of course accuracy counts for a lot as well and if it's not able to hit what it's shooting at the larger gun size is meaningless.

With likely major advantages in speed, maneuverability, and rate of fire (even from smaller caliber guns), and diversity fo weapons systems I'd rather be the destroyer captain any day of the week.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,885
34,849
136
What's going to get to you that quickly on the water, though?

Firing at night...unless there's a destroyer pretty nearby, you can fire for awhile without being bothered, then submerge.

Not like anything gets anywhere in a hurry on the water.

Now, in daylight when planes can come after you? Different story.

Planes fly at night. After the first night or two you can bet your ass there will be an air patrol and probably at least light surface patrol ships present. While the sub may have part of a cruiser's armament it most defiantly doesn't have it's armor.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |