Re: WWII Depth Charge Effectiveness

andrew.fabbro@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

After reading the Wikipedia article on depth charges...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_charge

...I have to wonder how any U-Boats were sunk in WWII at all. The
depth charge seems to be a very ineffective weapon. Destroying a
U-Boat would require a depth charge detonation within 5 meters of the
hull, which would be the wildest stroke of luck. So other than
harrassing submerged subs, what is the point?

Were most subs actually sunk by depth charges? Or were U-Boats spotted
and then followed until they had to come up for air, at which point
they were outclassed surface combatants?

I guess I'm just surprised that a weapon that is apparently so
ineffective was so widely used.

What weapon would you propose, given the technology of the day? Very
early on it became obvious that a forward throwing weapon was
necessary but even then the Hedgehog and Squid were still to all
intents and purposes a "depth charge" delivered in a slightly
different way.

During WW2 about 158 U-boats were sunk by British/Canadian warships
using only depth charges - for an expenditure of around 200000 depth
charges.

I don't have the exact total for American ships but it was fairly low
- around 40, IIRC.

Hedgehog claimed a further 50 and Squid around 18.

This excludes the number of submarines sunk by aircraft dropped depth
charges - which was around 200+ mark from all the forces in the
Atlantic.

Add to that another 40 or so Italian submarines sunk the same way and
around 70 Japanese submarines. I do not have exact figures/breakdowns
for these last two nations.

I do not have any idea how many mines the RN laid during WW2 - but
they only claimed about 32 U-boats. If you are looking at cost
effectiveness.

Of course some of these depth cahrges do not follow the pattern of the
traditional ash-can as the aerial ones were shaped for better
aerodynamic flow but they were still a large charge with a fuse. A
"dumb" underwater bomb if you will.

Today we expect to kill submarines almost exclusively with guided
weapons - and the ash can is probably not in operational use in any
serious way anywhere.

Eugene L Griessel

Throughout human evolution it is those species who lived by their wits
and not their weapons who evolved. The weapon users became extinct.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WWII Depth Charge Effectiveness
    ... ...I have to wonder how any U-Boats were sunk in WWII at all. ... depth charge seems to be a very ineffective weapon. ... U-Boat would require a depth charge detonation within 5 meters of the ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • WWII Depth Charge Effectiveness
    ... ....I have to wonder how any U-Boats were sunk in WWII at all. ... U-Boat would require a depth charge detonation within 5 meters of the ... harrassing submerged subs, what is the point? ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: WWII Depth Charge Effectiveness
    ... ...I have to wonder how any U-Boats were sunk in WWII at all. ... U-Boat would require a depth charge detonation within 5 meters of the ... some hit sometimes the ... miss of depth charges became apparent. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: WWII Depth Charge Effectiveness
    ... ...I have to wonder how any U-Boats were sunk in WWII at all. ... depth charge seems to be a very ineffective weapon. ... U-Boat would require a depth charge detonation within 5 meters of the ... some hit sometimes the ...
    (sci.military.naval)