WW2 Anti-Submarine Weaponry Question

Because having thin-skinned explosive shells take up valuable magazine space while also being impossible to quickly jettison is fucking stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_%28weapon%29

>>31015166

And how would this be better than a depth charge?

>>31015166
the shells would explode on contact with the water .

The guns would not be able to quickly target areas.

And sending a capital ship to sub hunt is like sending your unaccompanied kids over to visit the registered sex offender.

>>31015476
Why didn't battleships have underwater turrets against submarines?

File: 220px-HMS_Ceylon_depth_charge.jpg (10KB, 220x237px)

10KB, 220x237px

>>31015460
>And how would this be better than a depth charge?
Range. Classical depth charges require the engaging surface ship to literally drive over the top of the targeted submarine.

Obviously launching your depth charges is better than dropping them, otherwise the thing another anon posted >>31015445
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_%28weapon%29
Wouldn't have been invented. The #1 problem I see with OP's version of this idea is that he wants to use main gun ammunition to do the job. The relatively small capacity of main gun rounds, even 16"ers, means they'd be pretty shit at doing the job of a proper depth charge.

Have some modern equivalents for comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBU-6000
>also works as a hard-kill anti-torpedo countermeasure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV5q_mlhaiM
>retired, but a VLS-launched derivative carrying a guided torpedo is still current

>>31015476
>the shells would explode on contact with the water .
Underage get the fuck out.

>>31015166
Hedgehog anti-submarine mortar. Used by USS England to destroy Jap subs. Go forth, and google.

>>31017844
Part of the need to get so close is the lack of accuracy in hydrophone and sonar equipment of the time. They had to get that close to pinpoint where the sub was.

Later in the war sonar improved enough where they started using mortars and even air-launched depth charges.

>>31015166

Might be worth noting that the idea is not unheard. Imperial Russia developed 122-mm and 152-mm anti-submarine howitzers for coastal artillery before and during World War 1. The concept did not work and anti-submarine projectiles manufactured for them proved to have serious stability issues with shells turning sideways mid-air or even exploding mid-air.

File: submarine net.png (11KB, 981x402px)

11KB, 981x402px

Why didn't destroyers have submarine nets to simply swoop them up out of the sea?

Surface tension is a bitch. A shell moving slowly enough to maintain a trigger mechanism upon contact with the water has either been fired unreasonably far, giving time to decelerate, or under loaded to the point of being useless compared to a conventional depth charge.