What does /k/ think of this sub?
I'd make the turret able to 360 rotate and rise above the water line to fire along with a separate scope.
You may see a battleship gun firing at you but you won't see the actual ship.
>>29343436
>You may see a battleship gun firing at you but you won't see the actual ship.
I don't know many who conduct ASW by looking at the water.
>>29343460
To be fair, I'm sure its happen before.
If it can happen. it will happen, its only a matter of time.
>>29343436
>>29343436 (OP)
>able to 360 rotate
broadside would cause it to capsize
>rise above the water line to fire
it would capsize if it surfaced
Were your parents siblings? I have no other explanation for such retardedness.
>>29343436
This is why we don't let the French build cars or airplanes.
The turret can rotate, not 360, but close to 90° on each side
>>29344052
>first airplane to cross the English Channel was french
>Airbus
>>29343524
Exactly.
Battleship guns have recoil. LOTS of recoil. A battleship is a BIG ship with LOTS of weight ABOVE the waterline, and they still list considerably when firing their guns.
Doing this with a sub you would have a lot of work just to be able to submerge without flooding the guns, and then the moment you fired, the ship would list heavily and flood them anyway.
You could make a really huge submarine and put a lot of ballast in the keel to try and make it more stable but even with a sub the size and weight of a battleship it would probably still not work very well without coming further out of the water and exposing the hull to fire.
Plus this thing would just be destroyed by planes anyway. Heavy guns are no good against planes.
Really horrible idea practically but I'm actually not gonna rag on OP for it. At least it was something somewhat creative, not the same old trolls and shitposts the get posted every day here.
>>29344991
>get on my level, bitch
>>29344991
simple fysics says your wrong
water line acts as fulcrum
sub is close to water line, recoil won't move the ship, which as acting as a lever, very much, especially with most of the ship underwater, too much resistance from the water itself on movemnt
>>29343436
>What does /k/ think of this sub?
It wanted to be a cruiser more than a sub. It's design was massively compromised, which is why it was so unsuccessful.
>>29345087
Wait, the axis of rotation would be the fulcrum, and the ship would have the least resistance just spinning like a turd in place. Or a log with a comedy duo on top desperately treadmilling it to stay above water. The water's main resistance to this wouldn't be shear mass resisting momentum, as if the water is being pushed. The water would just providing friction on the exterior of the sub as it rolls in place.
Unless you could brake the gun in a way very special way and have it set just perfectly feng sui, the force of the recoil is always going to want to make it spin (again, with the same axis of rotation as a log rolling down a hill).
Now all that being said, it would take a hell of alot of recoil to make the mass of a submarine move that much, likely a larger gun than could be feasibly (for other reasons, like shear hydrodynamics and balance) mounted anyway.
tl;dr Don't fucking bitch at me if you didn't read it in the entirety.
The height of inter-war design retardation and probably still full of Vichy-fascist French, wherever it is
>>29345507
>>29345087
>>29344991
im just waiting for someone to go "look at the broadside firing making the BB move sideways"-thingy that always sneaks up in these treads, but this is actually an interesting discussion
>>29345087
OK you aren't really wrong you're just seeing part of it though. A battleship has a lot of draft - ~10 metres, a submarine half that, ~5 metres. (Both of those figures are probably to big for WWII but the proportions were similar, if anything I expect the subs were relatively smaller than today while Battleships reached their peak about that time.)
On top of that the battleship has a lot of mass above water as well. Now if you have shot for long you probably noticed that all other things being equal, the heavier gun kicks less. The battleship is a LOT heavier than the sub, so the same gun mounted on the sub is going to kick a LOT more.
And that greater kick will meet less resistance, as the sub also has less displacement below the waterline.
>>29343436
Sweet idea man! Honestly I don't know why we retired battleships in the first place but desu I think this would be more strategically tactical. It's so small you could probably even dodge incoming shells by firing broadsides in one direction or another!
>>29346652
Oh and forgot the most important part.
With a sub and a turret just barely up above the waterline, that gun only has to barely move the sub in order to flood.
With the Battleship, of course, it would have to keep very, very far to get anywhere close to submerging the turret.
A sub is much better used to launch missiles than to mount heavy guns.
>>29344991
>list considerably when firing their guns.
Bullshit.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm
>>29344514
Well, I am happy now.
>>29344991
That's not a problem because what the fuck could happen to the sub, sink? Lol it's a goddamn submarine.
>>29348079
>http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm
Eh, that's a good link, and thought provoking, but we aren't talking about the same thing. They are saying it will not move sideway by any appreciable degree - and on that I fully agree. That won't happen, never said it would.
What I think does happen on Battleships, and would happen to a greatly magnified degree if you fired the same guns from a smaller ship like a submarine, is that the boat itself *lists* or *tilts* slightly on it's axis, not that the axis itself is actually shifted significantly.
With a turret mounted close to the waterline only a small tilt will result in water entering through the turret. You can seal the turret up to permit submersion but you cannot conceivably fire it without unsealing it, and once you do that you cannot afford to let it take on water.
Pic related
>>29343436
That's a cool battlesub.
>>29343524
Come on, anon. Let's be realistic.
>Broadside
>Capsize
>Broadside underwater
>Uncapsize
>>29343436
guns are dumb, we have SSGNs
>>29349856
He's got a point. Massive amount of water holding you in place.
>>29347625
>Oh and forgot the most important part.
The most important part is that a ship so lightly constructed as to list noticeably when it fires is probably going to be subjected to huge amounts of structural fatigue even if it doesn't capsize. Surcouf carried two 8" guns and reportedly suffered from terrible stability on the surface.
This is to say nothing of the fact that a ship as small as a submarine doesn't have the space to store enough ammunition for a gun battle with the levels of accuracy that WW2-era ships had.
