British Sub with 12-inch gun??

Saw an episode years ago on a British Submarine which mounted a "12-inch" gun. It was very top-heavy and unstabled and ungainy, not something you want in a submarine.
Eventually it collided with another vessels when the oversized turret/gun struck the bottom of that ship.

 

By the way, there was no bayonet attached to the 12-inch gun. :smok: :lol:

 

I almost would have asked... :lol:

 

Well if it has no bayonet then ...... 8)

 

There were several attempts during the interwar years to build large submarines with cruiser size guns. None were really successful.

 

There was an entire class of these monitor submarines: M.1-4, completed c1918 (except M.4 which was canceled prior to completion then sold for scrap). The design made use of old Mk IX guns, which the navy had in large numbers as reserves for pre-dreadnoughts. Strange as the idea sounds, apparently the boats were practical, as indicated by trials. We have to rely on the trials because the delay in getting these radical boats in service meant that they had no chance to do anything significant before war's end.
M.1 was lost in 1925 when the Swedish merchant ship Vidar struck the sub and ruptured its pressure hull. The incident was noteworthy as it led to reforms in manning procedures; M.1's crew came from a common pool of men, and the Admiralty had no precise record of who was on board when she went down.
M.2 converted from a monitor to a seaplane carrier. She foundered in 1932, probably while preparing to fly off her aircraft, but no details have been confirmed.
M.3 converted to a minelayer and ended her career in peaceable fashion.

 

The M Class were effectively an off shoot from the steam powered K class. They used the same basic hull but reverted to a traditional diesel / electric propulsion system. The big problem for the M class is that they were vessels that lacked a clear role.

They weren't however the only gun subs. The British had another expermental sub armed with four 4.7"s in two turrets. Naval treaties baned subs from carrying guns bigger than 8" (20cm). By WW2 the only big gun sub I think of was French with a pair of 8" guns. She was sunk when accidently rammed by a merchant ship.

 

The RN's only post-WWI submarine design to leave service pre-WWII was X.1, a large boat (2425 tons standard) armed with four 5.2in guns in twin turrets. It appears an attempt to allow the sub to engage a destroyer on the surface, an idea which in layman's terms is often referred to as "dumb." Her machinery caused all sorts of problems, so there was no incentive to keep her around.
Surcouf was the big French sub with the 8in twin mount. The circumstances of her loss are very well documented--she was run down at night by the steamer Thompson Lykes--but because of her novelty she became subject to all sorts of conspiracy theories about Vichyite treason blah-blah-blah.
The USN had several subs armed with 6in guns, none of which accomplished much of anything in their intended "cruiser sub" role.
I'm pretty sure I have some drawings somewhere around here for an armored submarine with big ol' guns, but I can't remember where.
The Soviets played with some designs for submarine transports. I don't mean like the converted boats used for freighter duty by various navies in WWII; I'm talking about giant troop- and tank-carrying transports.

 

Was it 5.2s I must admit I was working from memory. The other problem I read about in relation to X1 was that she leaked oil like a sieve making possible to track her submerged movements with the naked eye!

 

The leaks developed 2-3 weeks after she emerged from the yard. I don't know what the cause was. The boat was actually pretty good in terms of handling, though diving was slow--what a surprise.
The 5.2in caliber is another example of Britain's unrestrained gun policy. I don't recall any other RN ship carrying this weapon. The RN would have greatly simplified its life in WWII if it had standardized its guns; look at Campbell's book to see the dozens of DD-caliber weapons they had in service.

 

The story of SURCOUF is a sad one. Imagine getting a complete refit and overhaul, then get sunk by a merchie on your way to the Pacific...talk about adding insult to injury! BTW, did any of the sub's crew survive?

 

No, Surcouf had no survivors, nor has the wreck been found--though there are stories that Jacques Cousteau himself did find it.

 

Maybe we need to send Bob Ballard to look for her...

 

Or Clive Cussler... :smok:

 

Have never read his books, but the critics of his works were great. Is he an adventurer in real life as well?

 

Well, some of his books are quite entertaining, just like fictional books should be, especially older ones.
About Cussler himself, he uses quite a lot of money to his wreckhunting expeditions.
http://www.numa.net/

 

And finding the H.L. HUNLEY was quite a feat.

 

Vow, quite a historical find, too bad he probably didn't get rich from finding a 150 year old sub.

 

The discovery of the Hunley was actually more interesting than most. It had originally been thought that the Hunley was dragged down by its victim. When the wreak was found however it was some way from the site of the attack and facing back towards shore. Theories on what caused it to sink include flooding due to portholes being shot out by small arms fire or Hunley was knocked off kilter water flowed out of the open topped ballast tanks into the main body.


Back on the original topic. The concept of the big gun sub might ( I do stress the word might ) have been workable during WW1 when air patrols were much less of a factor. But by WW2 a sub hanging around on the surface any more than it had to was asking for trouble.

 

One more thing about finding Hunley. Cussler's team actually found it during summer 1981 but thought it was a buoy of similar dimensions. This misconception rised when they didnt find any rivetings in it, therefore they thought it was newer that 1860's.