Submarine Guns

[JohnDLittlefield]

Attached in a copy of Scientific American from June 1864- rather late in the ACW. The cover article talks about submarine guns, their use, and a proposed boat to accommodate them. The boat is rather antiquated, even at that time, as the article says it was to have masts and sails in addition to dual steam locomotion. The author also says the submarine gun was patented in the U.S. in May 1862, as well as abroad, and had been well-proven to be effective.

"The use of submarine guns on this plan has now been so often tried in this country and England and proved effective, that nothing more need be said on that subject. It is now well known that a shell fired horizontally from one of these submarine guns say 8 or 10 feet under water, at any vessel now afloat, at a distance of 100 feet or more, would tear so large a hole in her side or bottom as to sink her in a few minutes..."

Does anyone know if one (or more) of these vessels was ever actually produced prior to the end of the war? What about abroad?

 

[jgoodguy]

There would be lots of problems sealing the breach of the gun against flooding the ship between shots, from blowing up because of back pressure in the barrel from all the water in the barrel-water not being compressible like air to get out of the way of the shot, the propellant not getting wet and the shot would only go a few feet when the friction of the water would slow it down to zero. No way it would make 100 feet.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The Western riverine monitor Ozark was intended to mount a 'submarine gun', but I frankly don't know if that idea made it off the drawing board.

 

[jgoodguy]

The Western riverine monitor Ozark was intended to mount a 'submarine gun', but I frankly don't know if that idea made it off the drawing board.

Going to be some serious problems with that. There is a reason screw driven torpedoes got invented.

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

I recall reading that one of the torpedo boats had been designed for a single underwater cannon, although I do not remember which right now.

 

[5fish]

Here is some info on the history of Submarine guns on page 792 its brief... link...

https://books.google.com/books?id=f...ge&q=Woodbury submarine gun civil war&f=false

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

There would be lots of problems sealing the breach of the gun against flooding the ship between shots, from blowing up because of back pressure in the barrel from all the water in the barrel-water not being compressible like air to get out of the way of the shot, the propellant not getting wet and the shot would only go a few feet when the friction of the water would slow it down to zero. No way it would make 100 feet.

That would be my thought as well, but the author seems to believe the idea so well tested that it didn't even warrant discussion. Maybe we need some experimental archaeology... who wants to donate a Parrot rifle????

 

[jgoodguy]

What about aiming the gun?

 

[jgoodguy]

Ericsson's Destroyer and Submarine Gun:

Submarine Warfare, Offensive and Defensive:

 

[Ironclader]

In his autobiography (page 286 of Personal Reminiscences), China trader and nautical innovator Robert Bennet Forbes tells this tale:

In April, 1862, I made experiments in firing guns at a target, the muzzle five feet below the surface of the water, and the body of the gun in a dock at East Boston. The gun was a twelve-pound rifle, carrying a Shenkle-elongated shot weighing seventeen pounds; charge, three pounds. Passing through twelve feet of water, the shot went into the target of hard wood about two feet; the recoil of the gun, nine feet. The success of this experiment induced me to plan a gunboat, to be armed with a submarine gun. I made a contract with the Navy Department to build one of iron; but, before commencing, materials had advanced so rapidly, that I begged off, and thus saved myself from considerable loss. Changes in armor and projectiles were effected so rapidly, that my gunboat, when done, would have been little better than a wooden shell.

Because of the coincidence in time and place, I suspect that Bennet Forbes was the funding behind Joseph Page Woodbury's work and May 1862 patent.

 

[Ironclader]

I guess the Navy waited out innovation until it tried the dynamite gun in USS Vesuvius...

 

[Ironclader]

Here's another coincidence, or maybe the reason Forbes ever dabbled in submarine gun research:

In an 1854 issue of Greenough's American Polytechnic Journal, patent No. 11,217 (Robert Bennet Forbes, of Boston, Mass.—Improvements in Lightning Rods for Vessels. Dated July 4, 1854), appears directly above patent
No. 11,218. Joseph Frey & D. B. Burnham, of Battle Creek, Mich.— Submarine Battery. Dated July 4, 1854.
"We claim our arrangement of guns in the hull of a boat under water, with port-holes and gates in such a manner as the guns may be loaded and fired at pleasure."

So if Forbes read the patent journals in 1854 to verify his latest filing, and saw the Frey/Burnham submarine battery patent, and then in 1862 ..... (?)

 

[Dilandu]

Thank you for the data! Was interested about underwater artillery for quite a long time, but very few data is avaliable - and even less of this data is reliable.

There would be lots of problems sealing the breach of the gun against flooding the ship between shots, from blowing up because of back pressure in the barrel from all the water in the barrel-water not being compressible like air to get out of the way of the shot, the propellant not getting wet and the shot would only go a few feet when the friction of the water would slow it down to zero. No way it would make 100 feet.

It seems that they have some sort of valve on the outer hull. I.e. the gun would be retracted after shot, and gunhole would probably be sealed.

About range... look at the lenght of the gun bore. Much more than any cotemporary naval gun. The inventor probably hoped that the lenght of gun would work for itself (as well as conical shell), and he even may be right... in theory. On practice, I really doubt that those guns would not burst on the avaliable technology level.

 

[jgoodguy]

Thank you for the data! Was interested about underwater artillery for quite a long time, but very few data is avaliable - and even less of this data is reliable.



It seems that they have some sort of valve on the outer hull. I.e. the gun would be retracted after shot, and gunhole would probably be sealed.

About range... look at the lenght of the gun bore. Much more than any cotemporary naval gun. The inventor probably hoped that the lenght of gun would work for itself (as well as conical shell), and he even may be right... in theory. On practice, I really doubt that those guns would not burst on the avaliable technology level.

A lot would depend on nineteenth century sealing abilities. One malfunction and it is a bad day with water pouring into the ship.

My doubts on range come from bullet tests
http://www.yog-sothoth.com/topic/8388-how-far-can-bullets-travel-when-fired-into-water/

Accuracy seems to be an issue too.

 

[Dilandu]

Accuracy seems to be an issue too.

Well, on the distances on which this weapon would supposedly be used - the accuracy hardly would be a problem. Basically, those guns may be useful in case"if we missed with the ram attack", or "if our ship is too small and slow to actually ram". So, the situations of firing outside the direct skin-to-skin contact would be pretty rare, IMHO.

A lot would depend on nineteenth century sealing abilities. One malfunction and it is a bad day with water pouring into the ship.

Yes, of course. But, after all, the "Spuyten Duyvil" has even more ungainly solution for her spar torpedo system... But it actually worked, and the ship itself, as I recall, never were actually flooded. So, if those underwater gun system were placed right - the risk of ship being flooded through the closed gunport would be relatively small.

 

[jgoodguy]

Well, on the distances on which this weapon would supposedly be used - the accuracy hardly would be a problem. Basically, those guns may be useful in case"if we missed with the ram attack", or "if our ship is too small and slow to actually ram". So, the situations of firing outside the direct skin-to-skin contact would be pretty rare, IMHO.



Yes, of course. But, after all, the "Spuyten Duyvil" has even more ungainly solution for her spar torpedo system... But it actually worked, and the ship itself, as I recall, never were actually flooded. So, if those underwater gun system were placed right - the risk of ship being flooded through the closed gunport would be relatively small.

Torpedo placement machinery

Operation and reloading sequence
When firing a torpedo, the two flaps forming the lower part of the bow would be opened, the sluice raised, and the tube projected by means of the chain leading from the inner end to the hauling-out drum. The torpedo would then be thrust from the case at the end of the tube by means of the tubular rod to which the holding fingers are fixed, and, the torpedo being detached, the main tube would be withdrawn by means of the hauling-in chain. In order to place another torpedo in the case at the end of the tube the sluice has to be closed, and the tank having been emptied of water by the centrifugal pump already mentioned, the manhole at the top of the tank can be opened and access thus obtained to the torpedo holder. The emptying of the tank can be effected by the centrifugal pump in about four seconds, and the whole of the operations which we have described can be performed at such a rate that a torpedo can be discharged every three minutes if required.

The pumping out procedures seems to me incomparable with artillery. The sealing seems to be effective, but I think the shock of artillery would compromise it.

 

[Dilandu]

The pumping out procedures seems to me incomparable with artillery. The sealing seems to be effective, but I think the shock of artillery would compromise it.

Yes, this may represent a problem. But again, some sort of cofferdam could be used to limit a leak. And such guns hardly were supposed to be fired rapidly: probably they were not supposed to be reloaded at all during battle.

P.S. The interesting evolution of the idea was the Ericsson torpedo gun, fitted on the "Destroyer":

Basically the last attempt of underwater artillery.

 

[jgoodguy]

Yes, this may represent a problem. But again, some sort of cofferdam could be used to limit a leak. And such guns hardly were supposed to be fired rapidly: probably they were not supposed to be reloaded at all during battle.

P.S. The interesting evolution of the idea was the Ericsson torpedo gun, fitted on the "Destroyer":

Basically the last attempt of underwater artillery.

I can see a single shot version.

 

[Dilandu]

I can see a single shot version.

Probably this was the only really possible use for such weapons. Load them before battle, use once in battle and reload after battle. Not perfect, of course, but... well, have some advantages over the ramming and over the spar torpedoes.

 

[jgoodguy]

Probably this was the only really possible use for such weapons. Load them before battle, use once in battle and reload after battle. Not perfect, of course, but... well, have some advantages over the ramming and over the spar torpedoes.

Looking at Spar torpedo.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...XvCHQj2PmvV21T2MQ&sig2=aTvKwfa0ymyeNnmZJruHHw
The Union fleet sunk a single CSA vessel. The CSA sunk a single vessel and lost the Hunley. The USS Spuyten Duyvil cleared wreckage. The Russian navy sunk one. I did not see how many ships were sunk trying to use a spar torpedoes. Not a very effective record.