View Full Version : How many hits to sink a sub?

01-26-2005, 03:28 AM
I mean, in real life, in overall, how many depth charges were needed to sink a sub?

How many hits from a deck gun to sink a sub?
Could someone realy stats a specific number of hits from a specific artillery caliber?

Bullets... Was it possible to sink / inflict serious damage on sub by small caliber weapons? Like airplane machine guns? .30 .40 or .50 caliber?


01-26-2005, 03:29 AM
4.6 depth charges.
13.6 hits from a deck gun
200 .50 cal bullets

Hope that helps!

01-26-2005, 05:33 AM
200 bullets of an .50 caliber?

I mean, how many rounds can you fire in a minute with a .50? 120? So, a sub could be destroyed in 2 minutes?


01-26-2005, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFileTahi:
200 bullets of an .50 caliber?

I mean, how many rounds can you fire in a minute with a .50? 120? So, a sub could be destroyed in 2 minutes?

...wow... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, the .50 caliber M2's rate of fire was 750 rounds per minute.

And a destroyer might drop 100 depth charges and not sink the sub, but it only takes one, if it's close enough.

Likewise, one hit from a 3", 4" or 5" deck gun might not sink a sub, but one 3" hole in the pressure will make it no longer a sub, just toast.

There is no such thing as a precise number of hits to sink a submarine (or any ship), just as there is no precise number of hits to shoot down an airplane-just probabilities.

01-26-2005, 05:19 PM
As a uboat, once the pressure hull is breached you might as well be sunk. Unless you are very lucky you will have no way to escape as the wolves close in on you from all size.

I would think a 50 cal could turn a pressure hull into swiss cheese pretty quickly. But I have a great fondness for the Ma Deuce, so I'm pretty biased.

01-26-2005, 09:07 PM
Dec. 7 1941, Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanesse Midget subs attempted to enter the harbor.....a US destroyer saw one of the subs and engaged it. With one luck shell from a 5 incher (I think) punchured a hole in the conning tower sinkng the sub....

01-27-2005, 10:06 AM
Ok, thanks for the posts... realy interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

01-28-2005, 08:59 AM
Wether its true or not there is a story came out of WWII where tank ace wittman and another tank ace tried to sink a sub with their tigers,
The sub dived before they could land any hits.

An 88 definately would be effective against a sub.

01-28-2005, 09:25 AM
The gun on witmans tank is the same as the one you will have on your sub. It was a wicked gun design they used in lots of situations from static batteries to anti aircraft guns (the anti aircraft ones could be turned to attack incoming troops and tanks also!)

01-28-2005, 09:44 AM
Rumors...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
There was an encounter during Barbarossa in Crimea involving a Russian sub and a german self propelled gun Stug lV.
At that time there were no 88mm guns mounted on tanks, let alone Tigers.

01-28-2005, 04:13 PM
The Naval 8.8cm Gun on the Type VII, was not the same gun as the famous 88mm.

01-28-2005, 04:27 PM
Heibges is right of course, the naval 8.8 cm gun wasn't same weapon as the well known 88mm anti-tank / anti-aircraft gun.

01-29-2005, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
Yes, he's right, but how about having mounted it in subs? What a difference in AA weapon's load!
And also you could use it to sunk ships...
I personally think that to use the deck gun against "their ships" is only usefull with the 105mm of the IX type. The increase in power will make the difference, but of course I'm no seaman of WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

01-29-2005, 08:35 AM
The AA Flak (flug abwehr cannone) was too powerfull to be used on a sub. Even though it had a tremendes recoil to eliminate stress on the mounting, it was just too cumbersome.