View Full Version : about the real fleet boat mod...
Crawlerz
06-05-07, 04:00 PM
u know i installed it just for kicks. and what...
the deck gun reload time is what threw me into involintary projectile vomiting almost immideately. wtf is up with that?
i mean all the other thing... for example: does it include the True Ship Dimention fix? i didnt catch that...
tchaaa, u know wha.. t? i think i'll go back to the original SH4 teaming with mods of different styles. probably better.
What was wrong with the reload time? You do realize ammo had to be passed up to the gun, right?
The ROF is reasonably historical for a submarine deck gun, and because the SH4 deck gun is a gyrostabilized wonder like the gun on an Abrams tank, anythign to reduce the absurd effectiveness is a good thing, IMO.
Sailor Steve
06-05-07, 04:16 PM
the deck gun reload time is what threw me into involintary projectile vomiting almost immideately. wtf is up with that?
:rotfl:
Nothing like kicking the door open and looking for a fight.
The deck gun rate-of-fire has been an argument ever since Beery's Real U-Boat mod two years ago. The problems are many, and the overall rate of fire is accurate, whether you puke on yourself or not.
Go to this thread, start with post #403 and prepare for a LOT of reading.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111770&page=21
SteamWake
06-05-07, 04:18 PM
Nothing like kicking the door open and looking for a fight.
In the wrong forum no less.
:rotfl:
Nothing like kicking the door open and looking for a fight.
Exactly my thoughts, lol.
That was awesome...in a way. :rotfl:
IMO too many people involved in simulations (programmers/game designers included) get overly attached to specific technical numbers, and not outcomes.
There is a camp of people in WW2OL, for example, who are not fond of a statistical approach to artillery fire. One of the active forum members actually models HE effects for the military. He simulates what they wish to see as his day job, and he can test his models with real guns. He uses a statistical approach. The gamers want to have every fragment tracked through the air—nevermind that the DM of the troops is so abysmal—you get the idea, missing the forest for the trees.
If the deck gun moved with the deck (like the TBT) so you had to pick when to fire on the roll and pitch, I'd be for an increase in ROF. But only a little faster unless the game could also adjust ROF for sea state. The skipper can fire the gun with the deck awash, and since the ammo was passed from below, every time the deck is awash the compartment below is getting seriusly drenched. In some of the seas I have used the deck gun messing around, there is no question that the boat should have been down at the stern after a few shots, even with all the pumps running just from the fact the hatch was underwater for so bloody long.
shoot-kill-win
06-05-07, 05:09 PM
Not trying to start an argument, but on some fleet boats wasn't the ammo stored in sealed containers on the outside of the bridge for the deck gun?
Yeah, they kept some ready ammo there. But in game, it all gets reloaded at the same rate, plus you can fire in conditions where it would not have been done, plus the gun is gyro-stabilized, etc. The gun simulation isn't very complicated, so picking an average figure for ROF seems pretty reasonable to me.
Nightmare
06-05-07, 06:33 PM
Not trying to start an argument, but on some fleet boats wasn't the ammo stored in sealed containers on the outside of the bridge for the deck gun?
Yes, but only 10 or so rounds could be stored. Since SH4 only has one variable for ROF, you can't model the first 10 rounds with quick reload times then the 30-60 seconds reload times as the next round has to be passed up the hatch from below.
As far as damage (another source of gripe for some people using RFB, and I'm sure the topic will come up), I think Beery is spot on as well. Using "Wahoo" by O'Kane as a reference, on one occasion they pumped 90 rounds into a small freighter before it sank. On another, they shot 80 rounds into another freighter after it took the initial torpedo hit. Morton didn't feel the freighter was worth another torpedo.
Blasting the crap out of a convoy with the deck gun or sinking a medium freighter with 7 rounds below the waterline never seemed very realistic to me.
perisher
06-05-07, 06:54 PM
I tried, very hard, to prove Beery wrong and failed. Initial high ROFs were achieved for only the first 3 or 4 minutes of a gun action and then they slowed down considerably. If any kind of sea is running the deck hatch cannot be used and the ammunition has to go up through the conning tower and down again. Even the Royal Navy, which was much more gun orientated with boats that were designed with gun actions in mind, having better ammunition supply and weather protection for the guns' crew, could only average 4 rounds per minute. (See Submarines at War by R. Compton-Hall)
shoot-kill-win
06-05-07, 07:31 PM
Sorry I wasnt talking about ROF I was talking about the water going down the hatch, Im fine with the rate of fire.
No, shoot-kill-win, you were right, they did indeed carry some ready ammo, but as nightmare said, only a small number of rounds. So if they did a rushed battle surface, they could get a feew rounds out before the bucket brigade started delivering rounds topside.
The big isssue is the seas, otherwise the ammo needs to come out through the conning tower.
shoot-kill-win
06-05-07, 07:50 PM
Ok I wasnt sure how many rounds they carried in there.
Someone tell these guys to quit shooting so fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmWdwwdQX3g
:o even being an edited propaganda video, yes, those guy are FAST
I'm not sure I saw 2 shots in a row without a cut. I also never saw if it was actual combat shooting, or an exercise, no target was visible.
If it was so close they didn't need to wait to correct the fire, then balls out fire fore effect could indeed be fast. SH4 doesn't model but 1 ROF, though. I can fire (and land) more shots in any kind of sea than any IJN DD in SH4. That should speak volumes.
Monica Lewinsky
06-05-07, 09:06 PM
I love it. Shut up.:D
perisher
06-05-07, 09:09 PM
In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.
nattydread
06-05-07, 09:11 PM
IMO too many people involved in simulations (programmers/game designers included) get overly attached to specific technical numbers, and not outcomes.
There is a camp of people in WW2OL, for example, who are not fond of a statistical approach to artillery fire. One of the active forum members actually models HE effects for the military. He simulates what they wish to see as his day job, and he can test his models with real guns. He uses a statistical approach. The gamers want to have every fragment tracked through the air—nevermind that the DM of the troops is so abysmal—you get the idea, missing the forest for the trees.
If the deck gun moved with the deck (like the TBT) so you had to pick when to fire on the roll and pitch, I'd be for an increase in ROF. But only a little faster unless the game could also adjust ROF for sea state. The skipper can fire the gun with the deck awash, and since the ammo was passed from below, every time the deck is awash the compartment below is getting seriusly drenched. In some of the seas I have used the deck gun messing around, there is no question that the boat should have been down at the stern after a few shots, even with all the pumps running just from the fact the hatch was underwater for so bloody long.
When will that statiscal HE model be added in WWIIOnline? Is it just for frags, bombs, tanks rounds?
Sorry for the hijacking...Arrr!:arrgh!:
TripleDaddy
06-06-07, 07:25 AM
I love it. Shut up.:D
What he said. :up:
AVGWarhawk
06-06-07, 07:45 AM
u know i installed it just for kicks. and what...
the deck gun reload time is what threw me into involintary projectile vomiting almost immideately. wtf is up with that?
i mean all the other thing... for example: does it include the True Ship Dimention fix? i didnt catch that...
tchaaa, u know wha.. t? i think i'll go back to the original SH4 teaming with mods of different styles. probably better.
The great part about this game is you can uninstall things you do not like. If for any particular reason you do not like something about a mod, take it to the creater of the mod and inquire. I'm certainly sorry you wretched on the floor and you do not care for Berry's interpretation of ROF/load times but when you come up with a better solution, let us know. Until then, lets give Beery a break here, any attempt to make a game better certainly does not deserve a flame of what crap it is. Go find another mod or play vanilla. BTW, you get a full refund for the mod.....oh, never mind it was free:roll:
SteamWake
06-06-07, 12:46 PM
Where can I get this Dimention fix ?
I could use a good dose of that.
Nightmare
06-06-07, 06:56 PM
Where can I get this Dimention fix ?
I could use a good dose of that.
I believe RFB already has the fix in place. However if you aren't running RFB it can be downloaded from: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109953
Last night I raided a Japanese harbor and tp'ed two boats but one did not go down. So I made sure it was safe and moved to within about 300 meters or so and opened a can on the survivor using the deck gun and the .50 cal. After about 60-70 rounds aimed at the water line she finally went down right there in the dock! Naturally it was about 0400 hrs so I could remain largely unseen. Oh yea, one more neat part of the encounter....Im running RFB 1.28! Nice work as always, Beery!
How could I have missed this thread?
Regarding the German propaganda film, they show a deck gun firing two rounds in succession in about 5 seconds. Sorry to disappoint but this proves nothing other than that a boat with two rounds at the gun could fire those rounds in 5 seconds. We already know that, but that doesn't refute RFB's deck gun rate of fire.
Sure there was a ready-use ammo container and sure, rounds could be fired at a fast pace from this store. BUT it only contained 5-10% of the boat's deck gun ammo. The other thing is, this is a propaganda film - they're going to show a high rate of fire because that is effective cinema, but showing a gun firing at a fast rate does not prove anything more than that a gun COULD be fired at a fast rate. We already know that. The film doesn't show that the gun was being aimed at anything - it only shows it being fired fast and the film is cut together to give the impression that there's a target out there and to give the impression that that high rate of fire could be sustained.
What we need to know is how fast the deck gun could be fired under combat conditions where the crew has to supply the gun beyond the limits of the ready-use ammo store and where the gun has to be aimed at something, where rangefinding and adjustments in aim have to take place while the boat is pitching and rolling. This propaganda film does what propaganda films are meant to do - convince us by trickery that the fantasy they're showing us is factual.
The only evidence we can rely on is evidence from logbooks that were written at the time which timed engagements and listed the number of shells expended. If anyone who disputes RFB's rate of fire has such evidence they should present it and further the debate. If not they should shut up.
Anyone can say RFB's rate of fire is wrong. Hell, they can say the moon is made of pink blancmange. But we need proof, not opinion. We need a timed engagement where 40+ shells were fired from a WW2 sub's single deck gun with a start and end time for the engagement. We need at least 40 shells because we need to counteract the effect of the ready-use ammo container - because SH4 doesn't permit two separate reload rates for the two ammo stores. Anything less than a timed engagement in which 40+ shells were fired is a waste of everyone's time.
The best info I have right now from a US sub is an engagement from USS Nautilus's logbook. It doesn't quite meet the criteria I've set (it involves too great a proportion of ready-use ammo) but I think it is useful:
"0703 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on Ukiangong Point area on
Makin Island. Covered area by shifting sights in range and deflection.
0711 M Checked fire.
0716 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on ship anchorage area of
Makin Island. Radio spotting circuit was jammed or ineffective. Covered
area as thoroughly as possible by shifting sights in range and deflection
as necessary.
0723 M Checked fire, a total of 65 rounds of ammunition
having been expended."
That's 65 rounds in 15 minutes from two guns. That's 28 seconds per round per gun where the gun was not being aimed properly and where rangefinding and proper adjustments in aim could not be done. Around 40 of those rounds (20 per gun and nearly 2/3rds of the ammo fired) would have come from the ready-use ammo stores by the guns, so a longer engagement would have resulted in a slower rate of fire. Also, the rate of fire stated here does not take into account preparing the gun to fire. Still, the rate of fire in this engagement confirms RFB's rate of fire. Nautilus' crewmen reload their guns three seconds slower than RFB crewmen reload their 5" gun. Far from showing that RFB's reload rate is too slow this indicates that RFB's reload rate is TOO FAST.
We need more info to get RFB even more accurate. I imagine that further data will result in reducing the RFB deck gun's rate of fire to about 40 seconds per round.
GTHammer
06-20-07, 12:50 PM
What i want to know is how/why after my install of RFB via JSGME did my deck gun's rate of fire remain the same as stock? Its possible that the destructive power of each shell has been reduced by the rate seems unaffected...anyone else have this or am I just a moron who messed up something in the install?
sqk7744
06-20-07, 01:58 PM
u know i installed it just for kicks. and what...
the deck gun reload time is what threw me into involintary projectile vomiting almost immideately. wtf is up with that?
i mean all the other thing... for example: does it include the True Ship Dimention fix? i didnt catch that...
tchaaa, u know wha.. t? i think i'll go back to the original SH4 teaming with mods of different styles. probably better.
http://www.compuglobalhypermeganet.tv/images/sh4/littlebilly.jpg
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=112293&highlight=billy
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=112293&highlight=billy)
The line for the Quake 3 Experience forms to the left. What part of REAL Fleet Boat mod did you not get?
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=112293&highlight=billy)
sqk7744
06-20-07, 02:00 PM
What i want to know is how/why after my install of RFB via JSGME did my deck gun's rate of fire remain the same as stock? Its possible that the destructive power of each shell has been reduced by the rate seems unaffected...anyone else have this or am I just a moron who messed up something in the install?
---
Try starting a new career (or from port between patrols) as a test and see how the deck gun responds.
SteamWake
06-20-07, 02:17 PM
they can say the moon is made of pink blancmange.
Oh yea ! Prove otherwise ! :p
http://www.compuglobalhypermeganet.tv/images/sh4/littlebilly.jpg
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=112293&highlight=billy
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=112293&highlight=billy)
The line for the Quake 3 Experience forms to the left. What part of REAL Fleet Boat mod did you not get?
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=112293&highlight=billy)
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: :rock:
Torpex752
06-21-07, 06:07 AM
The ONLY glitch in using the Nautilus is the weight of those 6" shells, and the gun's breech operation. The 6" gun has a slow operating screw style breech locking mechanism, and shells that weighed nearly triple what the 4' shells did. The guns are located 25 miles from me and we operated the breech once and its a bugger..plus the height of the breech is alot higher than the 3,4 or 5" gun.
ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT FLAMING HERE! (I know how sensitive some are) Just food for thought. Taking all this into consideration still wouldnt rate giving a 4" gun a ROF of 10 shells a min.
Frank
:cool:
THE_MASK
06-21-07, 06:21 AM
I like RFB and it does what it is suppose to . Fixes some 1.2 bugs while making the game feel more realistic :up: .
JudgeDredd
06-21-07, 07:16 AM
Someone tell these guys to quit shooting so fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmWdwwdQX3g
How in gods name could that be labelled a "propaganda" movie!! It wouldn't get me to sign up!
The 6" shell is not so different when comparing it with the game's 5" shell. The Nautilus ROF was 3 seconds slower than RFB's. We're not comparing 6" shells with 3" or 4" shells, we're comparing 6" with 5". Anyway, considering that the 5" shell is supposedly faster to load than the 3" or 4" shell, weight of shells is not a great issue - a person can carry a 50lb shell as fast as a 25lb shell - it's not so much a matter of weight as of inertia.
But we can argue back and forth about weight of shells, distance from ammo stores to gun, the position of breeches and other such details all day, but the minutiae of the loading process is irrelevant when there's info out there detailing precise start and end times for gunnery engagements. This data is the only data I'll consider for RFB because it's the only data that represents direct and incontrovertible evidence of guns in action in a combat situation. I already have enough data on which I've based RFB's ROF but more is always good. Find such data and I'll include it in my calculations. Find other data about the minutiae of how a gun is loaded and I'll happily ignore it because it doesn't give us a definite answer - timed engagements do.
It's all well and good to criticize data and pick it apart, and to cherry pick data based on our personal preferences, but until we have more convincing evidence we don't need the data we do have to be picked apart and we don't need details that make us vaguely suspect that one particular detail of the loading process was faster for one type of gun than for another - those things can only cloud the issue and they won't get us closer to reality. After all, RFB's deck gun reload time is shorter than RUb's, due in large part to the data collected from the Nautilus info - prior to seeing it I was seriously considering going back to RUb's 50 second reload time based on evidence I'd found from a 3" US deck gun that took one minute to reload - personally, knowing that the Nautilus data exists I think that discounting it would be a retrograde step.
What we need is constructive discussion and more hard evidence. We don't need the evidence we already have to be ignored based on our preferences for a faster ROF. That's not how an investigation should work.
As I've said before, if anyone can find reliable info on which to base a change in the ROF I'll consider it. So far all I have to go on are the data I've seen and not a single example shows a submarine deck gun of any kind with a sustained combat rate of fire faster than 1 shell every 50 seconds. Nautilus is faster but at 33 rounds per gun it's hardly sustained beyond the influence of the ready-use ammo.
What we need are data showing a WW2 submarine firing a deck gun of a similar type to those in the game with at least 40 rounds fired and with start and end times for the engagement. If anyone provides that data I'll factor it in. So far I only have about seven to ten examples that I've posted in other deck gun discussions, but only two for US deck guns. At this point we need more data in order to refine the loading times. Personally I think RFB's ROF is about ten seconds too fast, but more data is needed to confirm that.
Someone tell these guys to quit shooting so fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmWdwwdQX3g
How in gods name could that be labelled a "propaganda" movie!! It wouldn't get me to sign up!
It's not meant to get anyone to sign up. It's meant to convey the idea that the German submarines were well-oiled fighting machines that were winning the war.
As I've said before, if anyone can find reliable info on which to base a change in the ROF I'll consider it. So far all I have to go on are the data I've seen and not a single example shows a submarine deck gun of any kind with a sustained combat rate of fire faster than 1 shell every 50 seconds. Nautilus is faster but at 33 rounds per gun it's hardly sustained beyond the influence of the ready-use ammo.
Per the USS Wahoo's 4th patrol report:
0444H; (FIRST GUN ATTACK). Battle surfaced. First 4
inch shot it target in after deck house at 3,800 yards range. Closed
in on target and raked him with 20mm. and holed him with almost 90
rounds of 4 inch. Target caught fire in several places. Her life
boat was dangling from the forward davit. Passed about twelve
survivors in the water all sort'a chattering. The crew yelled to the
survivors, "So Solly, Please".
0510H; (SECOND GUN ATTACK). Lookout reported ship on
the horizon. Proceeded at flank speed to investigate, leaving first
freighter on fire and listing. Upon closing found target to be a neat
little diesel driven freighter quite similar to HADACHI MARU, 1000
tons, but definitely a cargo ship.
0535H; Commenced firing on second freighter with 20mm.
and 4 inch. He caught fire several times, but the fire was
extinguished by her crew or it went out on its own accord. She
speeded up to about 13 knots and appeared to be trying to ram the
WAHOO. We had no trouble in keeping clear. A member of her crew was
in the foretop waving his arms - maybe he was conning ship. A few
20mm. hits in his vicinity caused him to slide down a guy wire like a
monkey.
0614H; After expending 170 rounds of 4 inch and about
2,000 rounds of 20mm. on these two freighters, proceeded on our course
for our patrol point off O TO Light
By my calculations:
1st gun attack = 90 rounds in 26 minutes (possible from ammo storage on deck)
2nd gun attack = 110 rounds in 40 minutes. No way they could have reloaded the deck storage in this amount of time.
That equates out to:
on deck storage ROF = 1 round ~20 seconds
Below deck storage ROF = 1 round ~30 seconds.
Unless my math is off, which is possible cause I'm dumb.
Chuck
Edit- Added the next entry in the log as this states definitively 170 rounds.
SteamWake
06-21-07, 10:29 AM
almost 90 rounds of 4 inch.
While your math may be solid there is that pesky little word 'almost' doest that mean 80 rounds ? 85 ?
Is it possible he may have 'exagerated' a bit ?
Only thing I know for sure is that took a hellua lotta shells in real life. No matter the rate of fire.
SteamWake
06-21-07, 10:34 AM
Someone tell these guys to quit shooting so fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmWdwwdQX3g
How in gods name could that be labelled a "propaganda" movie!! It wouldn't get me to sign up!
It's not meant to get anyone to sign up. It's meant to convey the idea that the German submarines were well-oiled fighting machines that were winning the war.
Which they actually were early in the war. Fortunatly bad management of their fleet and technological advances caught up with them.
Im sure your familiar with Churchils qoute about the U-Boat being the most frightning thread of the war.
Monica Lewinsky
06-21-07, 10:46 AM
Is it possible he may have 'exaggerated' a bit?
Nah, the mere thought of that happening is unthinkable. :p
:damn:
http://www.atourhouse.net/sh4/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
So that's 90 rounds with an average ROF of 17.3 seconds. Twenty of these would definitely have been ready-use ammo.
The second engagement gives an average ROF of 29.25 seconds per round.
This is great info. Just what we've been looking for.
Now the question is, should we reduce the rate of fire to about 20 seconds per round to match the first rate of fire that includes ready-use ammo? I'm not sure. While smaller ships would take less than 90 shells to sink, medium ships would require more. It seems from this info that 30 seconds per round is about right after the ready-use ammo is used up, but the rate of fire must decrease quickly due to fatigue or something because firing the 70 non-ready-use ammo rounds at the later rate of 30 seconds per round would take longer than the 26 minutes in which Wahoo shot her first 90 rounds.
The whole engagement (deducting the time taken to change position) took 66 minutes and 170 shells were fired - so that's a ROF of a round per 23 seconds. Maybe this should be the figure we use, as it covers 170 rounds which is nearly all that a sub carries.
Actually I'm going to assume that fatigue is an issue and I'll add in a bit to cover preparing the gun to fire. 25 seconds per round sounds good to me. I'll adjust the smaller guns to match the 25 second ROF of the 5" gun and I'll leave the 5" alone based on the info from Nautilus.
This info was great! If we can get more details like this we can really zoom in on a ROF that's pretty darn close to reality (or as close as we can get given the limits of the sim - I'm still annoyed that ready-use ammo isn't modelled).
almost 90 rounds of 4 inch.
While your math may be solid there is that pesky little word 'almost' doest that mean 80 rounds ? 85 ?
Is it possible he may have 'exagerated' a bit ?
Only thing I know for sure is that took a hellua lotta shells in real life. No matter the rate of fire.
I have the logbook for Wahoo and it's clear that according to their report they shot 90 shells in that time. In the summary of attacks they claim to have hit with 60 shots so I guess that's where the 'almost' comes from. The interesting thing from our perspective is that (according to the confirmation of this sinking) this was apparently a ship of only 827 tons - it took 60 hits to sink a 827 ton ship - that's probably quite a bit more than it takes in RFB, so that just about puts paid to the complaints that RFB shells are too weak.
I have the logbook for Wahoo and it's clear that according to their report they shot 90 shells in that time. In the summary of attacks they claim to have hit with 60 shots so I guess that's where the 'almost' comes from. The interesting thing from our perspective is that (according to the confirmation of this sinking) this was apparently a ship of only 827 tons - it took 60 hits to sink a 827 ton ship - that's probably quite a bit more than it takes in RFB, so that just about puts paid to the complaints that RFB shells are too weak.
That is in addition to the 2000 rounds of 20mm also.
@Beery,
I would like to say that I really enjoy the RFB mod and I appreciate all the effort you put into making it as real as possible.
Chuck
Stew U-582
06-21-07, 05:15 PM
you can allways remove the gun filesfrom the mod and stick to stock sh4 guns.
or there is plenty of gun mods out there you could install one over rfb.
I allso found the gun mod in RFB not to my taste , though its good that I could try out historically correct loading times.
I congratulate the poeple who did all the research but I dont think it adds to the games playability.
if you start going down that road you have to make a decision where to split.
if you know what I mean. its like removing the time compression because its unrealistic but that wouldnt make for a verry interesting game. would it
I congratulate the poeple who did all the research but I dont think it adds to the games playability.
if you start going down that road you have to make a decision where to split.
if you know what I mean. its like removing the time compression because its unrealistic but that wouldnt make for a verry interesting game. would it
Playability is only a goal in RFB as long as it doesn't impede realism. So far I haven't experienced any playability issues since for me the most realistic experience is by nature the most playable. I find it hard to play simulations that give an arcade style experience.
As for time compression, the idea that time compression is unrealistic is a fallacy. It's not unrealistic because all of the crew and every other part of the simulation experiences time at 1:1 no matter what level of compression is used. The player gains no special abilities by using TC - he has the exact same ability as a commander has. If it has any effect at all it's an adverse effect on the player in that it hinders a player's ability to respond quickly to emergencies, but even then, this simulates a commander responding slowly due to being woken from sleep. In short, the integrity of the simulation is completely unaffected by time compression.
Games that place playability above realism are more fun (at least superficially) because they're usually fantasy or arcade-style. Basically, if players have as much fun playing RFB as they would playing an arcade game I'm doing something wrong. RFB is not meant to be a game - it's a tool for learning what WW2 submarining was all about and it's an interactive tribute to WW2 submariners. People who use RFB are not looking to be entertained in the same way that arcade games entertain - they are looking to get an experience similar to watching a good documentary. People looking for a playable 'game' are not the target audience for RFB - they won't get anything from it because RFB is not meant to entertain in that way.
mookiemookie
06-21-07, 07:48 PM
That's exactly what I'm looking for out of a sub SIMULATOR. I want to be placed in the exact same situations that the WW2 skippers were, and have the same abilities and limitations they did. That's funner than any arcade shoot em up for me. I want a simulator, and not a game.
Thank you Beery for your unrelenting quest for realism!
That's exactly what I'm looking for out of a sub SIMULATOR. I want to be placed in the exact same situations that the WW2 skippers were, and have the same abilities and limitations they did. That's funner than any arcade shoot em up for me. I want a simulator, and not a game.
Thank you Beery for your unrelenting quest for realism!
Thanks. Hehe I'm just glad I'm not alone in my singleminded quest for realism. The support I get from RFB's fans spurs me to go the extra mile to pursue absolute uncompromising realism.
Much of the reason for my mods has to do with honouring the people who worked in the dangerous jobs that these games portray. I always felt that games often failed to give them their proper due: a game in which it seems easy to outscore the highest-scoring ace (as stock SH4 does) runs the risk of minimizing the achievements of the real people and giving a false impression to players. Those people did the best anyone could and in my opinion a simulation should find what it was that limited their success and implement realistic features in order to make it almost impossible to do better.
My goal of paying tribute to real submariners is illustrated by the additions I've made to the game credits which now start with a list of the US subs on eternal patrol.
I'll chime in and say I love the mod, just like I loved your real u-boat mod! It is a bit of a shock to shoot the deck gun the first time and see the new reload time, but I always figured you had it set to a realistic figure. Seeing the patrol logs quoted above drives home just how hard it was to use a deck gun for sinking ships! That's a LOT of time sitting on the surface firing shell after shell. I get impatient after 5 minutes of doing that, feeling so exposed! Turns out that wouldn't have even sunk the smallest ship in reality. Everyone who complains about the realistic gun changes you created needs to see said logs :know:
I believe that most people who complain about the gun are simply used to cruising on the surface wreaking havoc - which never occured in reality - and cannot adjust to the change quickly. Subs were never supposed to be submersible cruisers with big guns, except for one or two oddities :)
Thank you as well, Beery for the comments on time compression and realism. I agree entirely and have always struggled to explain why more realism increases my enjoyment. You put it much better than I ever could - we are involved with an interactive documentary, rather than an arcade game. It drove me crazy to consistently beat the TOP u-boat and US sub aces with stock silent hunter games. I can't flatter myself into thinking that somehow I'm a better sub captain than they are :oops: I also struggled to defend to myself the use of time compression, but again you have defended the use more eloquently than I could imagine.
Beery,
The math looks good and yes realism is the key, or goal, or what have you! Regardless of ROF, how about those seas even with a little swell you still have to allow the gun to come on target and squeeze off the shot at the appropriate time to get the shell into the waterline.
It's not a shotgun!
Keep up the good work!
Wilcke
Laffertytig
06-22-07, 01:51 PM
i havent bought SH4 yet but ive read so many posts from people who get really irate about the reload times with this mod. the thing i cant get my head round is that if they cant stand the reload times that much then just dont install the mod, or even better mod it themselves. but no they mostly choose to come on and whine!
every forum has these types of people
Sailor Steve
06-22-07, 05:04 PM
Oh, just write a simple program that fires at full speed, and then takes into account ammo handling, crew fatigue, sea state and relative speeds and distance, and it's all fixed.:rotfl:
Well, it's what should have been done in the first place.:dead:
(Whiner's line forms on the left, behind me)
Torpex752
06-22-07, 06:35 PM
i havent bought SH4 yet but ive read so many posts from people who get really irate about the reload times with this mod. the thing i cant get my head round is that if they cant stand the reload times that much then just dont install the mod, or even better mod it themselves. but no they mostly choose to come on and whine!
every forum has these types of people
They install the MOD because they like 99% of it and look to change that 1% to suit their style. Its normal for people to find that 1% they want changed, its what makes them REAL. And as long as they ask politely, their desire to find an alternate 1% shouldnt draw fire.
I agree 100% that RFB is an excellent MOD, for as best as can be done with the limitations of game itself. I was the first person to create a sound mod for SH1 so I know how much time it takes for a MOD to be put together, its almost as involved as building a house from the ground up to it being finished & painted. Unfortunately the days of excellent detailed "simulators" seems to be passing into the wind. :( One sad part I've seen over the last 10 years seems to be the reliance on the internet to provide accurate detailed information. Slowly but surely its errors are finding its way into games & MODs here and there. As far as I'm concerned the only way to get accurate information is to see the actual documents for themselves or read the books in the bindings. Not easy I know, but I know for fact that inaccuracies are finding their way in the transition from ink to bits. Too big a monster for me alone to fix! LOL
Frank
:cool:
Stew U-582
06-22-07, 08:00 PM
I congratulate the poeple who did all the research but I dont think it adds to the games playability.
if you start going down that road you have to make a decision where to split.
if you know what I mean. its like removing the time compression because its unrealistic but that wouldnt make for a verry interesting game. would it
Playability is only a goal in RFB as long as it doesn't impede realism. So far I haven't experienced any playability issues since for me the most realistic experience is by nature the most playable. I find it hard to play simulations that give an arcade style experience.
As for time compression, the idea that time compression is unrealistic is a fallacy. It's not unrealistic because all of the crew and every other part of the simulation experiences time at 1:1 no matter what level of compression is used. The player gains no special abilities by using TC - he has the exact same ability as a commander has. If it has any effect at all it's an adverse effect on the player in that it hinders a player's ability to respond quickly to emergencies, but even then, this simulates a commander responding slowly due to being woken from sleep. In short, the integrity of the simulation is completely unaffected by time compression.
Games that place playability above realism are more fun (at least superficially) because they're usually fantasy or arcade-style. Basically, if players have as much fun playing RFB as they would playing an arcade game I'm doing something wrong. RFB is not meant to be a game - it's a tool for learning what WW2 submarining was all about and it's an interactive tribute to WW2 submariners. People who use RFB are not looking to be entertained in the same way that arcade games entertain - they are looking to get an experience similar to watching a good documentary. People looking for a playable 'game' are not the target audience for RFB - they won't get anything from it because RFB is not meant to entertain in that way.
sorry I think ive been misundrestood I didnt mean that the research afected playabilty. or was a waste of time. I was solely refering to the deck gun loading time. I wasnt trying to bag rfb in any way. I was just trying to address the problem of the original post about crawlerz opinion on the deck gun loading times and how he could go about changing the game to his preferance.
Again I congratulate the people who did research and modified files to make the game more realistic but no matter what you do it will allways remain a game. Games are for the purpose of entertainment.
I disagree with your opinion about TC not being unrealistic. for one you are completley removing the factor of fatigue on the player. Surley you cannot deny that these factors woulld affect the judgement of a captain that has been at sea for an extended period of time.
Laffertytig
06-22-07, 08:51 PM
hey torpex dunno if u missed the part where i said why dont they mod the reload times themselves! your right, there are people who just wanna query how they do that which is cool its the ones who just whine about why they think the mod is wrong who wind me up.
beery has researched his mod to death and it is his mod after all so all you moaners stop moaning. and that includes me:know:
Torpex752
06-22-07, 09:31 PM
hey torpex dunno if u missed the part where i said why dont they mod the reload times themselves! your right, there are people who just wanna query how they do that which is cool its the ones who just whine about why they think the mod is wrong who wind me up.
beery has researched his mod to death and it is his mod after all so all you moaners stop moaning. and that includes me:know:
Sorry laff, I was not really brow beating what you said, more just just trying to make a point on both sides of the matter using what you said. My point is...
1- You cant make something thats equivilant to "artwork" and be so thin skinned that you cant take criticism of it in the 1-2% catagory. Expect criticism.
2- If you do criticize be willing to correct it for yourself and not expect someone to alter their work to cater to each persons own liking. Be willing to fix your own dislikes.
Frank
:cool:
I disagree with your opinion about TC not being unrealistic. for one you are completley removing the factor of fatigue on the player. Surley you cannot deny that these factors woulld affect the judgement of a captain that has been at sea for an extended period of time.
Time compression has no bearing on that because it can be simulated by playing when one is tired - as many of us do. Many of us play when we should be getting some much needed sleep - often that's the only time we CAN play, so fatigue is probably just as much a part of running an RFB simulation as it is of commanding a real WW2 sub. Besides, a real sub captain at sea has officers who are well-rested doing his job when he's getting his rest. We don't have that option, but we can simulate all those things whether TC is used or not.
Anyway, in reality a good captain would ensure that he was well rested even after long periods at sea - that is part of his job. It's not as if US sub crews had no bunks or showers. It's a poor navy indeed that doesn't ensure that its crew (including its commanders) are trained in ways that allow them to work at peak efficiency. But the reality of the issue is that some commanders were always well-rested while others rarely were - the reality is varied and so our ability to simulate it is not affected all that much. But for the times when a commander would be operating when tired we have the ability to simulate that - even when using time compression. One way to do it is to play while we're actually fatigued (I'm an insomniac and I often play until 4am and spend days or weeks getting 4 hours sleep per night, so to suggest my use of TC makes me unable to simulate fatigue is somewhat ironic - personally I probably have the opposite problem); another way to simulate excess fatigue or excess impetuosity is to play after consuming a beer or two, which cuts down reaction times and affects judgment. In my opinion it's a mistake to suggest we're incapable of doing these things due to using time compression. The average simulation enthusiast is intelligent enough to realise that his mental and physical state affects the validity of the simulation and a lot of discussions about simulation gaming revolve around the best ways to accurately simulate the situations the simulations portray.
Time compression, as I said before, has no bearing on realism because:
1. the crew always experiences time at 1:1.
2. How the player simulates the activities of a captain is up to the player - time compression has no influence at all on how realistically the player chooses to roleplay his character.
In short, your criticism has no validity because it's predicated on the notion that we don't know how to use our own situation to aid in enhancing a good simulation. Users of simulations aren't newbies at this simulation business - in 20+ years of simulation gaming many of us have turned simulation gaming into an art form - often we have a lot of experience in timing our simulation sessions to take advantage of our mental and physical state and thus creating a more realistic simulation. When we ought to be fresh and alert we play on weekend mornings (that's when I start a new career); when we need to be tired we play after the rest of the family has gone to bed and we push into the small hours.
LW_lcarp
06-23-07, 12:48 PM
Now what i dont get out of all the realism nuts out there is there is more then 1 person on these boats. That means there are more then 2 people on the gun when its firing. The have a thing called a bucket brigade (a long of people passing one bucket to the next person). So slowing down the deck gun cant really add to the realism that much if at all.
Now if the realism nuts out there really want to brag about realism then in there words they never use time compression, sit on watch at all times, manually set up torp shots, watch the radar and other instuments, and what ever else they deem as realism. Now I fly in full simulated mode when I fly and have no clue how to manually TDC my torps so I let the crew do it. The life at sea is not a 1 man operation its a combination of an entire crew. So if ya want to talk real then use the crew.
Sailor Steve
06-23-07, 05:50 PM
I think you need to go back and reread the posts showing actual combat reload times and problems firing in any kind of a sea at all. The maximum rate of fire is only ever obtained under ideal conditions, and there's no such thing as as an ideal condition except when the gun is being tested at the range. The "bucket brigade" has been discussed several times in this very thread, and it is definitely slower than direct access of the ready-use ammo. Use whatever times suit you, but don't say that combat times of 4 seconds are realistic, because they aren't.
Torpex752
06-24-07, 09:46 AM
"Now what i dont get out of all the realism nuts out there is there is more then 1 person on these boats. That means there are more then 2 people on the gun when its firing. The have a thing called a bucket brigade (a long of people passing one bucket to the next person). So slowing down the deck gun cant really add to the realism that much if at all. "
LW,
The problem with the ROF that SH4 allows any changes to is that it only allows us one ROF. Back then there were many variables; Training, Crew quality, the CO's interest in using it, sea state, time of day, mis-fires, tatical situation, and type of Gun, target size & distance. If SH4 took all those into consideration and varied the ROF for the best and worst of those conditions you would see different times. Given the absolute best conditions the ROF in a flat calm sea with an expert crew they could pump out and hit (depending again on a variable called distance & size of target) 4-6 rounds a minute. Now take that same crew and move the target out to 2 miles, and give it a sea state 1 and they may keep the same ROF but only hit 50% of the time. So in a game where you can establish only one ROF, its kinda unfair to critize whatever they chose. It is a MOD afterall and you can install the stock file back in if you like.
Frank
:cool:
Mush Martin
06-24-07, 09:49 AM
Oh, just write a simple program that fires at full speed, and then takes into account ammo handling, crew fatigue, sea state and relative speeds and distance, and it's all fixed.:rotfl:
Well, it's what should have been done in the first place.:dead:
(Whiner's line forms on the left, behind me)
Jeez steve you forgot barrel wear.:o
Now what i dont get out of all the realism nuts out there is there is more then 1 person on these boats. That means there are more then 2 people on the gun when its firing. The have a thing called a bucket brigade (a long of people passing one bucket to the next person). So slowing down the deck gun cant really add to the realism that much if at all...
Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine. Deck gun crews were limited by regulations that strictly denoted who was allowed to handle shells and by regulations limiting the number of people on deck so that a sub could prepare to dive as fast as possible. Sure, it seems quite reasonable to the average guy who doesn't think about such things very much that you could pass a 50lb weight around quite fast if you had 20 people on deck to do it, but you can't just go around crewing subs and assigning work with the mentality of a simple-minded horse. Even though they may weigh the same, a 4" shell is quite a bit more dangerous than a large sack of potatoes, and a surfaced submarine is always in mortal danger from air attack, so unless you have a death wish you don't let untrained men toss around ammunition willy-nilly and you don't risk 50 lives by placing so many men on the deck that it becomes impossible to submerge in time to evade an air attack - you just don't.
Like I've said, deck gun reload times are taken from real world engagements where the rate of fire has been timed by naval personnel. If players don't like it they should take it up with the US Navy - ask US navy gunners from USS Wahoo (if there are any who weren't killed when Wahoo was sunk) or from USS Nautilus why they were so slow. Personally I'm not sure I'd want to put such a question to old navy folks, but the way other folks choose to go about getting themselves beaten up by ex-military personnel is not my business.
As for RFB's ROF, it's always going to be based on real world data. The fact that some players don't like that will never influence me to choose fantasy over reality. If players want a deck gun that's based on fantasy, SH4 (unmodded) is there for them.
A huge factor completely missing from SH4 would put beery's ROF mod in proper perspective.
Right now, regardless of realism setting, the deck gun is always visually "stabilized." If the deck gun moved like the destabilized TBT, you'd find your own ROF drastically lower, regardless of the time the progress bar takes to ram a new round in the breech.
Why? Because you'd have to wait for your sight to be even with the horizon to shoot and have the round land at the distance set by the gun elevation. Picking this point would be non-trivial in anything but a flat calm in an unmoving boat.
It would give you some sense of why in RL, there were simply not as many shots fired per unit time as stock SH4. And that doesn't even consider the fact that the guys loading the rounds were also trying to do their jobs on a possibly wave-swept, pitching, rolling deck. Subs were just not good gun platforms.
...It would give you some sense of why in RL, there were simply not as many shots fired per unit time as stock SH4...
What Tater says in the previous post is precisely the reason why I only use timed engagements from real life combat rather than trying to calculate based on the minutiae of feeding a gun. The only way to get ROF results that simulate the real world is to use data from the real world that's timed. Doing so doesn't leave anything open to interpretation or errors in calculation.
John Channing
06-24-07, 01:04 PM
With no interest in taking sides here is an excerpt that may be of interest...
THE FIRST PATROL OF
THE SCORPION (SS-278)
By Gail L. Diamond, TMC U.S. Navy Retired
Published in Polaris June 1996
The specific details of this patrol were taken From Gail Diamond's concise hand written daily diary written half a century ago. With his help and explanation, Marion L. Shinn (RT 2/C USNR, U. S. S. Guavina) compiled them into this narrative.
"The three-inch gun crew included the trainer, pointer, sight setter, first loader, hot shell man, second loader, and several ammunition passers. My battle station was trainer and my responsibility was to train the gun horizontally. Mack was the pointer; he moved the gun vertically and fired the gun with a foot lever when given the word by the sight setter. I was a little scared. The gun crew had fired the three-inch gun many times in practice, but this was the first time at a live target. We had never been in a situation where someone might shoot back at us.
We surfaced at 0050 and manned all guns. In addition to the three-inch we had the 20-mm, the 30 calibers, and two Tommy guns. The first shell in the 3 inch was a misfire; what an awful time for that to happen. The target was about 1000 yards away and we were heading straight for it.
While we moved toward the target the 20-mm gunner was firing at will. When our gun was clear and re-loaded, Mack and I trained on the target and the sight setter gave the word to fire. The first shell went through the wheelhouse; the second hit below the deck and ripped a big hole. The 20's were raking the vessel from bow to stern. The next 3-inch shell hit the engine and exploded as fire broke out amidships. Our soundman picked up the noise of a set of screws; we left the area in a hurry."
JCC
"The three-inch gun crew included the trainer, pointer, sight setter, first loader, hot shell man, second loader, and several ammunition passers...
As I've said before, the minutiae of the operation is unhelpful and potentially very misleading indeed. What we need is an average number of seconds it took from loading one shell to loading the next while a sub crew was loading a gun in actual combat, and we need data measured over a long enough period so that we can be sure that the ready-use ammo locker is not an issue. WE ALREADY HAVE SUCH DATA and that data is what RFB's ROF is based on. I don't know why it is so controversial or difficult to understand that RFB's deck gun ROF is based PURELY on real world gunnery engagements measured TO THE MINUTE (from opening fire to checking fire) by real world WW2 sub crews. A ROF measured in that way cannot be wrong - it's not open to false interpretation and is not called into question by details about the minutiae of loading a gun. It is a true combat ROF, period.
We know actual average reload speeds for some WW2 crews in combat (e.g. Nautilus - 28 seconds, Wahoo - 23 seconds, U-552 - 50 seconds). More data is always helpful but it must be data that gets us a range of accurate figures. Details of crew numbers, heights of breeches, distances from ammo stores to the breech, time required between placing shells into the breech and firing, what finger a man uses to scratch his nose between handing one shell off to the next man and collecting another from the previous man - all of these things are irrelevant because the information they impart cannot possibly be used to give us a reliable or accurate ROF.
Look, it's as simple as this. If I want to find out how long it takes for me to shower in the morning I don't need to know the volume of water that my shower head outputs, I don't need to know how long it takes for the water to get hot after turning on the tap. I don't need to know how long it takes me to pour out the shampoo onto my hand, how much shampoo I use or how long it takes to massage it into my hair. I don't need to know how far the soap is away from me or how far my right hand moves during the entire process of showering. All I need to do is take a watch and note the time I turn on the tap and note the time I finish towelling myself off. The difference in time is the time it takes to shower. It's a similar method when it comes to combat rates of fire - all we need to know is the start and end time and how many rounds were fired.
Stew U-582
06-24-07, 08:01 PM
I disagree with your opinion about TC not being unrealistic. for one you are completley removing the factor of fatigue on the player. Surley you cannot deny that these factors woulld affect the judgement of a captain that has been at sea for an extended period of time.
Time compression has no bearing on that because it can be simulated by playing when one is tired - as many of us do. Many of us play when we should be getting some much needed sleep - often that's the only time we CAN play, so fatigue is probably just as much a part of running an RFB simulation as it is of commanding a real WW2 sub. Besides, a real sub captain at sea has officers who are well-rested doing his job when he's getting his rest. We don't have that option, but we can simulate all those things whether TC is used or not.
Anyway, in reality a good captain would ensure that he was well rested even after long periods at sea - that is part of his job. It's not as if US sub crews had no bunks or showers. It's a poor navy indeed that doesn't ensure that its crew (including its commanders) are trained in ways that allow them to work at peak efficiency. But the reality of the issue is that some commanders were always well-rested while others rarely were - the reality is varied and so our ability to simulate it is not affected all that much. But for the times when a commander would be operating when tired we have the ability to simulate that - even when using time compression. One way to do it is to play while we're actually fatigued (I'm an insomniac and I often play until 4am and spend days or weeks getting 4 hours sleep per night, so to suggest my use of TC makes me unable to simulate fatigue is somewhat ironic - personally I probably have the opposite problem); another way to simulate excess fatigue or excess impetuosity is to play after consuming a beer or two, which cuts down reaction times and affects judgment. In my opinion it's a mistake to suggest we're incapable of doing these things due to using time compression. The average simulation enthusiast is intelligent enough to realise that his mental and physical state affects the validity of the simulation and a lot of discussions about simulation gaming revolve around the best ways to accurately simulate the situations the simulations portray.
Time compression, as I said before, has no bearing on realism because:
1. the crew always experiences time at 1:1.
2. How the player simulates the activities of a captain is up to the player - time compression has no influence at all on how realistically the player chooses to roleplay his character.
In short, your criticism has no validity because it's predicated on the notion that we don't know how to use our own situation to aid in enhancing a good simulation. Users of simulations aren't newbies at this simulation business - in 20+ years of simulation gaming many of us have turned simulation gaming into an art form - often we have a lot of experience in timing our simulation sessions to take advantage of our mental and physical state and thus creating a more realistic simulation. When we ought to be fresh and alert we play on weekend mornings (that's when I start a new career); when we need to be tired we play after the rest of the family has gone to bed and we push into the small hours.
Ok I submit. your logic is outstanding.
I bet youve never had any trouble with the police , I reckon you could talk your way out of a murder even if you got caught leaning over a body with a bloody knife in your hand.
Anyway I say again I wasnt trying say your times were wrong I was just trying to give crawlerz an option. as in his original post I allso didnt voice my opinion verry well.
Thanks Beery, for all your attention to detail , its good to know there is a mod that accuratly simulates historical accuracy. to tell the truth I have several installs of SH4 and RFB is one that gets played often , with your deck gun load times , unchanged ,as you have modified them.
Stewart
CaptainHaplo
06-24-07, 10:35 PM
Ok I cant help but jump in here. First off - Beery - thank you for RFB and the HOURS of work that have gone into it - not only by you but by the others that allowed you to use their mods as well. They get my thanks as well.
My second point is this - RFB has a heck of a readme to it. If you are one of the "1%" crowd that like or dont like certain aspects of the mod - Beery took the time to let you know exactly what file changed what. This lets you get rid of any specific aspect of the mod you don't like - including going back to stock ROF and/or damage. I admit - I took RFB and made a my own change to it - I like the "stevens" stopwatch - so the one included with RFB went by the wayside. Twas easy as the change was documented.
Instead of anyone beating up on hard working modders - take the time to read a bit about what their mod does, and either apply it as is or make the necessary changes to it to suit you.
There are not many modders out there who will tell you that your not allowed to further change their stuff - especially if your not re-releasing the mod under your name. That is because we release stuff so that people can enjoy it! So take what you dl and appreciate it - modify it as you want - and enjoy - but dont get upset because some small portion isnt how you would have done it. Easier to just change it to fit your style and be glad someone else did alot of work so you could.
Von Tonner
06-25-07, 05:37 AM
With all due respect Beery, I think Channing was simply giving evidence that your reply to a fellow poster that:
" Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine." Beery
is patently incorrect.
Oh, and the time you take in the shower - you can cut the time down by having someone hand you the soap when needed.:D
Hi!
I am SO glad you folks don't have anything pressing in the real world so you can spend all this time on "SH4 Trivial Pursuit"
:rotfl:
Pablo
Torpex752
06-25-07, 06:18 AM
While I agree that it requires more intellect than a standard Bucket Brigade, I must assure you that there was designated and trained crewmen on the WQSB who's job it was to form a line to the gun. Its been noted in the books such as "Thunder Below", "War in the boats", and "Silent Running" to name a few.
Frank
:cool:
PepsiCan
06-25-07, 06:41 AM
1) Beery has managed to come up with a fab, well researched mod
2) People who do not like aspects of that mod, can freely delete them
3) Whatever the true rate of fire for the deckgun is, the stock SH4 game does not model it well with its magic gyro stabilisation and a rate of fire that is clearly higher than what was achieved in real life.
4) Let's all have fun with this now :-)
While I agree that it requires more intellect than a standard Bucket Brigade, I must assure you that there was designated and trained crewmen on the WQSB who's job it was to form a line to the gun.
Did anyone here ever say there wasn't?
My point was that it doesn't matter if there are ten such men. Calculating ROF doesn't require us to figure out how many men were handing shells off to the gunners. All we need is to use the timed gunnery engagements. It's not as if the submarine crews would lie about how long they spent firing their guns or how many shells they shot. Why would the crew of the Wahoo lie - especially when their average ROF seems so slow?
The fact is, no one knows how many men passed ammo to the gunners, but however many it was doesn't matter when we have figures that allow us to very easily calculate the rate of fire without delving into the minutiae of the guns' operation. I mean the entire crew of 50+ men could be up there forming a human chain from the ammo store to the gun - it still wouldn't change the fact that Wahoo's gun's average rate of fire was 23 seconds per round. It still wouldn't change the fact that Nautilus's ROF was 28 seconds per round. These are hard and fast numbers that we have from the crews themselves, recorded on the day the action took place by someone who had a watch and who recorded precisely the duration and the number of shells expended.
I mean to me at least it seems so incredibly simple and clear, at least to anyone who can look at the evidence objectively.
With all due respect Beery, I think Channing was simply giving evidence that your reply to a fellow poster that:
" Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine." Beery
is patently incorrect.
Taken out of context. My post stated that there was no UNTRAINED bucket brigade. The term 'bucket brigade' itself refers specifically to UNTRAINED men lined up to pass buckets. My post goes on to say:
...Deck gun crews were limited by regulations that strictly denoted who was allowed to handle shells and by regulations limiting the number of people on deck so that a sub could prepare to dive as fast as possible. Sure, it seems quite reasonable to the average guy who doesn't think about such things very much that you could pass a 50lb weight around quite fast if you had 20 people on deck to do it, but you can't just go around crewing subs and assigning work with the mentality of a simple-minded horse. Even though they may weigh the same, a 4" shell is quite a bit more dangerous than a large sack of potatoes, and a surfaced submarine is always in mortal danger from air attack, so unless you have a death wish you don't let untrained men toss around ammunition willy-nilly...
Clearly my point is NOT that there were not trained crewmen handing off rounds. My point was that there wasn't a line of untrained men between the ammo and the gun.
But let's assume the worst of me for a second - let's assume that I'm lying about everything (after all I'm sure we could find a good few people on the forums willing to voice their opinion that I'm an accomplished liar, a blackguard and arrogant to boot). But even if I was lying and trying to cover up for making a false statement, it still wouldn't change the fact that the number of men passing ammo makes no difference to the times we already have for gunnery engagements. The timed engagements already take the number of ammo-passers into account. Plus, the rates of fire we have found are not made up by me, so assuming I'm a liar doesn't make them any less valid. The info is readily available in the book entitled 'USS Wahoo (SS-238)' in the series 'American Submarine War Patrol Reports' (readily available from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/U-S-S-Wahoo-SS-238-American-Submarine/dp/1932606076/ref=sr_1_3/102-3998789-2156936?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182787879&sr=8-3))on pages 75 and 85. Anyone can look up this info, so it's not subject to my nefarious lies.
Your post is a great example of the main problem that the critics of RFB's deck gun have - they take things out of context and make assumptions about the info that doesn't bear scrutiny. This is the case with the '10 rounds per minute' info that's taken out of context from textbooks - the critics wed themselves to this number and they simply won't budge no matter how much contrary evidence is stacked up against it. I mean in this thread and others I've shown beyond any reasonable doubt that real subs in combat fired only between two and three rounds per minute, yet the critics are still saying "Oh, but they had lots of men passing the ammo" as if that proves that the folks on the Wahoo who reported firing at an average rate of one round per 23 seconds were somehow lying or mistaken. I mean it's REALLY simple - you just take the duration of the action from the order to open fire until the order to check fire and you divide the number of rounds into it. It's not a difficult calculation that's prone to error - even the average pre-teen can do it successfully.
Instead of anyone beating up on hard working modders - take the time to read a bit about what their mod does, and either apply it as is or make the necessary changes to it to suit you...
The thing is, it seems that's not enough for some folks. The problem seems to be that they want me to sign off on their changes as if I'm some kind of final authority on realism, or they want to pull me down a peg or two because they've decided that they don't like the fact that they've set me up as an authority and they get annoyed that I choose to defend my calculations in a spirited manner (I guess the notion is that if I sincerely think my calculations are valid I should not defend them - pretty weird). As for me being an authority on anything, heck, my personal principles are based on the idea that authority is distasteful - I've never claimed any kind of authority - no one will ever see me state that I'm the 'leader' of the RFB mod team - I just assemble the mod and publish it. It's not even based purely on my version of what's realistic - many people have input and I rely on their judgment a lot (i.e. CCIP's torpedo mod - I don't know a thing about torpedoes but I know that CCIP is fully committed to realism so I know I can trust him to produce as realistic a mod as possible) and if an issue is unclear the whole subsim community can start discussing it at will. To assume that I exert some kind of authority is to assume that I'd accept a leadership role and I would not. Sure, I have the final say on what gets included in RFB, but that's the same with any mod's publisher, and everyone is free to publish mods.
I think that the false idea that I represent some kind of arbiter of what's realistic is where a lot of these arguments come from. I mean if it was as simple as just the need to change the gun ROF they would surely do it as you've suggested. But I think they feel a need to have their desires vindicated by demolishing the rate of fire that I've calculated and they just get more and more frustrated when they can't do it.
All I do is make calculations based on what I read and what other folks tell me, then I make a mod based on the best knowledge I have. Then I defend the changes I make using the best arguments I can muster. If I'm wrong the argument will fall apart, as it did when I was arguing the 30 seconds per round issue and Kikn79 came along proving that subs in combat could fire 180 rounds at 23 seconds per round. But even though I do change my opinion when it's shown to be wrong, the act of making a spirited defence often seems to make others feel that I'm arrogant - it also seems to make them think I'm exerting some sort of authority. But all I'm doing is what everyone should do when they believe something to be factual - defending it as strongly as possible. In my view anyone who doesn't do that doesn't deserve to have an opinion.
Sailor Steve
06-25-07, 10:18 AM
My second point is this - RFB has a heck of a readme to it. If you are one of the "1%" crowd that like or dont like certain aspects of the mod - Beery took the time to let you know exactly what file changed what. This lets you get rid of any specific aspect of the mod you don't like - including going back to stock ROF and/or damage. I admit - I took RFB and made a my own change to it - I like the "stevens" stopwatch - so the one included with RFB went by the wayside. Twas easy as the change was documented.
That is exactly why I have always praised the original RUB for SHIII so highly; I used select parts of it, which was easy to do as every single change was precisely documented, telling exactly which file was changed for each mod. I wish every large mod came with such exacting directions.
Sailor Steve
06-25-07, 10:29 AM
While I agree that it requires more intellect than a standard Bucket Brigade, I must assure you that there was designated and trained crewmen on the WQSB who's job it was to form a line to the gun. Its been noted in the books such as "Thunder Below", "War in the boats", and "Silent Running" to name a few.
Frank
:cool:
Part of my research working on my own tabletop WWI ship game (still unfinished after more than a decade) included an article on HMS Bulwark in Warship International magazine. In it the author cited the differences in rate of fire for the 12"/35 Mk VIII gun: one round in 40 seconds using ready-use ammo, and one round in 70 seconds after it was gone. Granted, this was 1895 and using rounds weighing 850 pounds each, but it was also a semi-automated system using a highly trained crew. He also specified the same categories for the 7"/40 Mk III using a 100-pound shell: 7 RPM ready-use and 4 RPM after; and finally for the 12pdr/45 Mk I (3"), with a 13-pound shell: 20 RPM ready-use and 12 RPM after. Again, this was with a crew whose sole job aboard was to pass ammo, and in ideal conditions.
Torpex752
06-25-07, 04:44 PM
While I agree that it requires more intellect than a standard Bucket Brigade, I must assure you that there was designated and trained crewmen on the WQSB who's job it was to form a line to the gun. Its been noted in the books such as "Thunder Below", "War in the boats", and "Silent Running" to name a few.
Frank
:cool:
Part of my research working on my own tabletop WWI ship game (still unfinished after more than a decade) included an article on HMS Bulwark in Warship International magazine. In it the author cited the differences in rate of fire for the 12"/35 Mk VIII gun: one round in 40 seconds using ready-use ammo, and one round in 70 seconds after it was gone. Granted, this was 1895 and using rounds weighing 850 pounds each, but it was also a semi-automated system using a highly trained crew. He also specified the same categories for the 7"/40 Mk III using a 100-pound shell: 7 RPM ready-use and 4 RPM after; and finally for the 12pdr/45 Mk I (3"), with a 13-pound shell: 20 RPM ready-use and 12 RPM after. Again, this was with a crew whose sole job aboard was to pass ammo, and in ideal conditions.
Dont get me wrong, I completely agree that the stock Deck Gun ROF if a tad bit off, putting it mildly. But for different reasons. I simply disagree "In a spirited manner" like Beery, because my research of 20+ years combining reading the actual reports, interviewing the men who fired the guns and the CO's who ordered "Battle Surface" has taught me over and over that the ROF varied from bad to great to ok.
I completely agree that The Wahoo & Nautilus reports are good sources of information. But my submarining mind makes me question why a 6" gun with shells that weigh over 140lbs has a higher ROF than a gun that has shells that weigh about 80 lbs. Those are the points that I look at because if you've ever seen the footage of those 6" guns firing there's 2 men per shell. So I do believe that different elements make a difference and that who's to say the Wahoo wasnt having a bad day, or something else that was slowing them down? Dont know about you, but I'd be embarrassed if my 4" gun couldnt shoot faster than that bohemoth 6 incher! LOL
Designation 6"/53 (15.2 cm)
Gun Weight 10.11 tons (10.27 mt)
Gun Length oa 325.0 in (8.255 m)
Bore Length 318.0 in (8.077 m)
Rifling Length 265.3 in (6.713 m)
Twist Uniform RH 1 in 35
Chamber Volume 2,100 in3 (34.4 dm3)
Rate Of Fire 6 - 7 rounds per minute
.
Ammunition
Type Bag
Projectile Types and Weights Common Mark 24 - 105 lbs. (47.6 kg)
Bursting Charge Common - 5.75 lbs. (2.6 kg)
Projectile Length Common - 27 in (68.6 cm)
Propellant Charge 44 lbs. (20 kg)
Muzzle Velocity AP - 3,000 fps (914 mps)
HC - 2,400 fps (732 mps)
The 4”/50 Mark 12
The 4” gun came in two types, the 4”50 Mark 12 Mod 6 and the 4”/50 Mark 12 Mod 44. The main difference was the method of maintaining the bore watertight. These could fire a 33 pound projectile to a max range of over 16,000 yards. These guns were installed on S-class boats forward of the fairwater. The superstructure was widened to provide a working surface for the gun crew. The gun was not installed on the after deck due to the lack of under deck space for the gun foundation. When these boats were retired from active patrolling and assigned to a training role the 4”/50 was replaced by a 3”/50 and the larger weapon sent to be installed on fleet submarines in the Pacific. The gun was initally to be standard equpment on The V-7 design and later but was vetoed by SecNav who insisted on the boats being equipped with the 3”/50. Also, the 4”/50 was too heavy for some of the older fleet boats due to weight margin restrictions.
Gun Characteristics
Gun Weight 2.725 tons (2.769 mt)
Gun Length oa 206.5 in (5.2496 m)
Bore Length 200.0 in (5.080 m)
Rifling Length 165.0 in (4.190 m)
Twist Most Marks and Mods: Increasing RH 0 to 1 in 31.17
Chamber Volume 654.5 in3 (10.73 dm3)
Rate Of Fire 8 - 9 rounds per minute
.
Ammunition
.
Type Fixed
Weight of Complete Round 62.4 - 64.75 lbs. (28.3 - 29.4 kg)
Projectile Types and Weights AP - 33 lbs. (14.97 kg)
HC - N/A
Bursting Charge N/A
Projectile Length N/A
Propellant Charge 14.5 lbs. (6.58 kg)
Cartridge - 31 lbs. (14 kg)
Muzzle Velocity 2,900 fps (884 mps)
Working Pressure 17 tons/in2 (2,680 kg/cm2)
Range
20 degrees 15,920 yards (14,560 m)
Single Mounting
Modified Mark 12
Weight Mark 12: 4.53 - 5.63 tons (4.60 - 5.71 mt)
Elevation -15 / +20 degrees
Elevation Rate Manual operation, only
Train about +150 / -150 degrees
Train Rate Manual operation, only
So my (real) gripe is that we have a WWII sub "sim" that didnt have single submariner giving technical guidance, and I'm sorry for any land lubber who doesnt like my submarining background, but I just want the best for everyone. The information I present is not intended to flame anyone, its me sharing what I have collected over the last 20+ years of my life around the world about WWII subs. I did it in person or on foot.
So I will comment on something that I know to be "different". If you dont want it, thats fine, you dont disappoint me as far as I am concerned, you diappoint the men who gave me the information to share.
Frank
:cool:
As I said above, there is a problem with trying to be strictly accurate regarding ROFs. Sure, say a gun can fire for effect at 8-9 RPM. The problem is that the game engine models the deck guns to be closer to an Abrams tank main gun. The subs in SH4 are perfect gun platforms.
As a result, if you applied a strictly accurate ROF you'd see those 8-9 RPM heading down range and hitting every target (assuming a player gunner). There is no waiting for the next roll of the boat, for example. 9 RPM is 6.6 seconds per shot. What kind of frequency for pitch and roll of a ship would be typical/possible? It wouldn't take much it seems to even halve this ROF.
I'm not defending any particular "operational" ROF, just saying from a game/sim POV, it's complicated.
So my (real) gripe is that we have a WWII sub "sim" that didnt have single submariner giving technical guidance...
RFB's rate of fire is taken directly from the reports of submariners made on the day of a gun engagement, listing data that can be used to directly calculate a rate of fire that cannot be anything but 100% accurate. These are submariners giving the most accurate technical guidance that it's possible to give. How could it even be possible to get better technical guidance? We have the guys telling us the ROF at the time the gunnery was taking place. To suggest they're either wrong or lying is ludicrous.
Another factor that I believe slowed down the ROF on the deck guns is the fact that there were very rarely, if ever, more than two sailors with the rate of Gunner's Mate on board any submarine. Any other sailor on board helping to load and pass rounds is someone who is likely to have received basic ammo handling training but lacks the skill and speed of those who have been specifically trained to handle large-caliber weapons, hence another reason for the low rate of fire.
Torpex752
06-25-07, 08:28 PM
As I said above, there is a problem with trying to be strictly accurate regarding ROFs. Sure, say a gun can fire for effect at 8-9 RPM. The problem is that the game engine models the deck guns to be closer to an Abrams tank main gun. The subs in SH4 are perfect gun platforms.
As a result, if you applied a strictly accurate ROF you'd see those 8-9 RPM heading down range and hitting every target (assuming a player gunner). There is no waiting for the next roll of the boat, for example. 9 RPM is 6.6 seconds per shot. What kind of frequency for pitch and roll of a ship would be typical/possible? It wouldn't take much it seems to even halve this ROF.
I'm not defending any particular "operational" ROF, just saying from a game/sim POV, it's complicated.
Absolutely! I agree 100%, and in the same light on a flat calm sea the hit to miss ratio would probably be higher. It is a shame the game doesnt take these things into consideration of the ROF.
Its a shame that the big wigs dont give the dev team enough to program these variables into the sim, I think you would see more torpedo's miss instead of the perfectly straight line eels we have now.
Frank
:cool:
Use the hardcore torpedo mod CCIP did and you will be happy (erm, unhappy) with your Mk14s!
As for the guns, outcomes are what matters since the specifics are so totally FUBAR. If the deck gun is a consistantly good weapon vs merchantsvs torpedos, you've gone too far, lol. If they had been that useful, they would have sunk more ships with them. That they didn't is telling.
Honestly, the only place in game where a lower ROF would hurt you in a possibly unrealistic way would be some emergency battle surface situation, and I'm unsure if any happened and/or came out well in RL. Ie: a sub forced to blow tanks and fight it out. I have trouble believing it would ever end well for the sub. BTW, if the ROF is low for the subs, it's far far too low for the escorts. They've got a more stable 9and dry) platform, easier access to ammo (and more ready ammo). Many of the guns are supposed to be DP, so they must have decent ROFs. In stock SH4 I can put more rounds downrange than a DD---even a DD with multiple 2 gun turrets. This would be true on armed merchants as well. ROFs for those weapons need to be universally better (assuming same crew quality) as a sub, just for having a grossly more stable platform. If that was done, gunfights at any ROF would be a bad idea.
Beery's numbers certainly make you think two or three times before surfacing to sink anything you haven't established as unarmed via periscope—which is entirely realistic, IMO.
tater
Torpex752
06-25-07, 08:48 PM
So my (real) gripe is that we have a WWII sub "sim" that didnt have single submariner giving technical guidance...
RFB's rate of fire is taken directly from the reports of submariners made on the day of a gun engagement, listing data that can be used to directly calculate a rate of fire that cannot be anything but 100% accurate. These are submariners giving the most accurate technical guidance that it's possible to give. How could it even be possible to get better technical guidance? We have the guys telling us the ROF at the time the gunnery was taking place. To suggest they're either wrong or lying is ludicrous.
What they say is absolutely correct for those conditions I'm not disputing those numbers for those instances at all. Nor would I ever call my brothers "lyers" or "wrong", I dont even see where that comes from! However, I'm also not afraid to qualify those times compared to other equally accurate data. Being good submariners they wouldnt mind either.
I know when I took over the torpedoroom on the USS Pasadena I had never served on a VLs boat before, and so I was not inhibited by "standard' VLS mentality. The end result was a superbly trained crew that knew their job in a way that placed them at the top of their rivals of the other Pacfleet boats. We were even commended by CONSUBPAC, stating that we set a new standard in weapons handling and technical competence.
So its my opinion that those reports are good reference to go from and use for the RFB MOD, but they are by no means the exact ROF I would recommend. In fact after all this discussion its clear to me that considering the limitations of the SH4 Game that a low ROF is good for RFB game play.
In any event the TDC & damage control model in SH4 is more of an issue IMHO. :yep:
Frank
:cool:
RFB's rate of fire is taken directly from the reports of submariners made on the day of a gun engagement, listing data that can be used to directly calculate a rate of fire that cannot be anything but 100% accurate. These are submariners giving the most accurate technical guidance that it's possible to give. How could it even be possible to get better technical guidance? We have the guys telling us the ROF at the time the gunnery was taking place. To suggest they're either wrong or lying is ludicrous.
What they say is absolutely correct for those conditions I'm not disputing those numbers for those instances at all. Nor would I ever call my brothers "lyers" or "wrong", I dont even see where that comes from!
It comes from the notion, which has been much in evidence in this thread and others, that a rate of fire slower than 3 rounds per minute is slow beyond belief. RFB has been described in an email I received today from Lord Mark (known here as Palidian) as "very broken, the gun is weak and the rate of fire is outrageously slow". If it's slow beyond belief - 'outrageously slow' then the folks on board USS Wahoo are either wrong or they're lying. I don't see that there's any other possibility, other than that the rate of fire they report is reasonable. I choose to believe that it is indeed reasonable because I've seen no other data that makes me believe otherwise.
Also, in the case of Wahoo's reported ROF something we need to factor in is the fact that Wahoo had one of the best trained crews in the US submarine service. These guys are probably firing their guns faster than almost any other submarine in the fleet.
SteamWake
06-26-07, 11:10 AM
There is also a host of variables that cannot be 'programmed' in.
Silly things like ... I dont know, slipping and almost dropping a shell, shoe laces comming untied, gun breach not getting closed correctly, having to sneeze, etc etc etc.
Its not as easy as waiting on a bar to fill up and pressing fire.
Of course with any after action report from RL, you are obviously looking at the average ROF over the entire engagement. A ship might fire 6 RPM, pause for 2 minutes, while they maneuver, then fire another 6 RPM. The average there would be 3 RPM, though the guns were only actually in use for 2 minutes of the 4 firing at twice the average ROF.
That said, I think an average figure is fine unless 1.3 or some mod brings us the blessing of deck guns that are not gyro-stabilized. IF the guns were more accurately modelled in that way, I might be inclined to split the difference between the average ROFs from combat reports and the published specs for the weapon. Of course that would depend on how it "felt" with such a fix.
Gun battles were rare enough for PTO subs that it's kind of a tempest in a tea cup, if you ask me.
<S>
tater
There is also a host of variables that cannot be 'programmed' in.
Silly things like ... I dont know, slipping and almost dropping a shell, shoe laces comming untied, gun breach not getting closed correctly, having to sneeze, etc etc etc...
Right.
There's also the issue of the gun needing to be prepared and crewed before a gun action and the fact that a gun has to be made watertight and the crew have to get below after an action. Since SH4 doesn't model those activities with any sort of realism (from the order to crew the gun until the first shot takes something ridiculous like 10 seconds) RFB has to factor these activities into the ROF in order to get something like a reasonably realistic deck gun.
Why so much drama for what was an auxilary weapon at best??? Subs were torpedo platforms above all....even the AA guns were more useful, when you could not dive...or ran into those little junks or tugs not worth a torpedo and difficult to hit with the deck gun.
SteamWake
06-26-07, 02:33 PM
Why so much drama for what was an auxilary weapon at best??? Subs were torpedo platforms above all....even the AA guns were more useful, when you could not dive...or ran into those little junks or tugs not worth a torpedo and difficult to hit with the deck gun.
I dont know if drama is the right word more like discussion.
Beer Is just trying to find a happy medium as to what might be considered 'realistic reload rate'. He is doing a good job of it in my opinion.
Indeed the deck gun was a secondary weapon and was used no where near as often as it is in this game but thats another discussion.
The deck gun was also not a rapid fire, gyro stabilized, spitter of death either.
Then again we dont have the chance of slipping and falling off the deck to a near certain death as well.
NEON DEON
06-26-07, 04:10 PM
Why so much drama for what was an auxilary weapon at best??? Subs were torpedo platforms above all....even the AA guns were more useful, when you could not dive...or ran into those little junks or tugs not worth a torpedo and difficult to hit with the deck gun.
I dont know if drama is the right word more like discussion.
Beer Is just trying to find a happy medium as to what might be considered 'realistic reload rate'. He is doing a good job of it in my opinion.
Indeed the deck gun was a secondary weapon and was used no where near as often as it is in this game but thats another discussion.
The deck gun was also not a rapid fire, gyro stabilized, spitter of death either.
Then again we dont have the chance of slipping and falling off the deck to a near certain death as well.
If the gun is gyro stabilized in SH IV, then why is it when I open fire at 5,000 yards with my gun after ranging the target the shell goes flying over the target or splashes way short?
PepsiCan
06-26-07, 04:35 PM
If the gun is gyro stabilized in SH IV, then why is it when I open fire at 5,000 yards with my gun after ranging the target the shell goes flying over the target or splashes way short?
Uhm...because the deckgun measures everything in meters, even when you play with Imperial settings? So, if you are, convert your range from yards into meters. And also take into consideration that targets move so you need to lead or lag your shot depending on how your target moves. At 5000 yards, the shell will take time to travel.
I think we're wasting Beery's time unless anyone has a better source for the actual numbers involved in gun RoF. Speculations on training aside (I would -hope- that the crew on the Wahoo was above average, at least... just as I'd hope that a really top notch crew could indeed cut down reload times) nobody has offered anything resembling hard numbers beyond the two patrol logs. We could talk and talk and talk but it won't get us anywhere without seeing real numbers.
NEON DEON, I've noticed slightly odd behavior with the gun on the S-Boat... aimed forward, the range seems accurate. However, when the gun is aimed anywhere near aft, the shells hit the water much closer to the sub than they should, based on the alleged firing range of the gun. Anyone else notice this?
Beery, in my mind I had granted you some power as an 'authority', realism wise, simply because you do discuss and defend your changes with facts. Please keep that up :up:
SteamWake
06-27-07, 01:39 PM
If the gun is gyro stabilized in SH IV, then why is it when I open fire at 5,000 yards with my gun after ranging the target the shell goes flying over the target or splashes way short?
Because 5,000 yards is a long ways. I wouldent even consider opening fire till Im within 3,000 yards otherwise Im wasiting ammo.
Its simple.. the further away the target, the harder it is to hit (shrug).
But this adds nothing to the discussion at hand so .....
NEON DEON
06-27-07, 02:50 PM
If the gun is gyro stabilized in SH IV, then why is it when I open fire at 5,000 yards with my gun after ranging the target the shell goes flying over the target or splashes way short?
Because 5,000 yards is a long ways. I wouldent even consider opening fire till Im within 3,000 yards otherwise Im wasiting ammo.
Its simple.. the further away the target, the harder it is to hit (shrug).
But this adds nothing to the discussion at hand so .....
Well now that you bring that up it does have bearing.
If I open up at 5,000 meters (I will now use meters) then there is a reason. The merchant is armed with a deck gun and I have no torps left. Different situation, different firing procedures. If the merchant has 20 mm AA guns, I close the range to 2,100 meters. If the the merchant has no guns at all, 500 meters or less. In all cases I am abreast of the target matching its speed and course.
After verifying range, I fire one shot. Observe it. I have to wait for the shell to travel to the target (not going to wait around for that inside 500 meters firing at an unarmed target) and adjust the gun elevation if I miss. If I manage to hit the target after bracketing it I will fire another to verify if it hits. If it does then I step up the firing pace. It is during this phase I get misses. That should not happen when firing at a slow merchant if the gun was gyro stabilized like people are claiming.
Back to ROF.
I control my ROF by the situation. I do not think I have ever fired the gun in an entire engagement at the stated ROF for the gun. However. I have fired four or five at close range. If you average the the ROF, it aint realistic.
It is like when I drive home from work in L A.
It takes me 20 minutes to get home. My home is 7 miles away. 21 MPH is my average speed. BUT I DO NOT GO 21 MPH THE ENTIRE WAY HOME!
So lets make a sim out of my drive home and mod it so I can only go 21 mph and see how realistic it is.
I get in my car which is in the office parking lot and start the engine. Here come my co-workers. I put my car into gear and poof! I am at 21 mph in the parking lot. oops! just ran over the guys from work oh well. Oh no here comes the side street I will have to make a 90 degree in less than 30 feet at 21 mph! Phew no cars parked on the street made the turn no problems. Now I am going to the side street at 21 mph. No problem the Speed limit is 25 not too bad. Oh Cra$! Here comes 5th street and a stop sign with another 90 degree turn. No problems with the turn but I ran the stop sign and brushed a pedestrian crossing the street.
Its passed four so thank god the parking lanes are open for rush hour traffic. I pass the first traffic light without a problem because it turned green just in time and the left lane was clear. Halfway up the next block everyone passes me by becuase the speed limit is 35 and I am still at 21 mph.
Omg here comes Broadway intersection and the light is red! The left left lane is clear so I manage to pass the cars that passed me earlier without out a problem.
I am now in the intersection running the red light at 21 MPH and here comes the MTA's Big Red Rapid double bus! This aint going to be purdy!
I get T-boned and it is game over. :dead: :damn: :dead:
21 mph all the time s#@k$.:rotfl:
Torpex752
06-27-07, 04:18 PM
I think we're wasting Beery's time unless anyone has a better source for the actual numbers involved in gun RoF. Speculations on training aside (I would -hope- that the crew on the Wahoo was above average, at least... just as I'd hope that a really top notch crew could indeed cut down reload times) nobody has offered anything resembling hard numbers beyond the two patrol logs. We could talk and talk and talk but it won't get us anywhere without seeing real numbers.
Where do we get "real" numbers? I cant offer anything but 200+ interviews with WWII sub vets that say anything different, I've been told that thats not good enough. Their memory isnt accurate.
When I spoke to Ned Beach in Groton before he passed away, he assured me that the minimum rate of fire in combat that any CO decided was acceptable was 4-5 rounds a minute, fully respecting that 1 out of 5 was a missed shot.
In Thunder Below Gene Fluckey mentioned one incident with his Gun crew, and from the time they hit the deck (gun secured) to recoil from the first shot was 20 seconds.
There are hundreds of patrol reports written and I understand that the national Archives havent turned all into electronic copies yet, in fact only two are actually copied/scanned. Neither is the Wahoo or Nautilus. So not being argumentative, just giving another thought here, the absence of evidence to disprove Ned Beach, and the other vet's I know doesnt exist either as far as I can see. So that puts us in betwen what someone wrote and put on the internet (not a scanned patrol report) and books written by WWII sub vets and the interviews I have conducted myself.
I personally trust what they wrote and what they said. (No different than JANAC) So dive into the books, and you will find things different. Talk to the men and you will hear something more along the lines of what I wrote. Understand something, I am not an expert, I have been involved in subsims for a long time, so gathering information to use was one reason I asked certain specific questions of the vets. I am nothing more than a collector and 'passer-on' of information. I will say that there was only one vet I ever spoke to that said something totally different then even his shipmates, and he was an engineman on the Crevalle (MO) who rarely left the enginerooms. (he loved his diesels) lol
Frank:cool:
Where do we get "real" numbers? I cant offer anything but 200+ interviews with WWII sub vets that say anything different, I've been told that thats not good enough. Their memory isnt accurate.
Anyone who knows anything about memory knows that it is extremely unreliable. Notes taken at the time are very reliable. When you have either contemporary notes or memory it's best to go with the notes.
When I spoke to Ned Beach in Groton before he passed away, he assured me that the minimum rate of fire in combat that any CO decided was acceptable was 4-5 rounds a minute, fully respecting that 1 out of 5 was a missed shot.
Look, if every CO decided that 4 - 5 rounds per minute was acceptable the evidence indicates that no CO can ever have been satisfied with his guns' rate of fire. That may be the case. But it doesn't change the fact that Wahoo's 4th patrol featured a gun engagement that had an average rate of fire of one shell per 23 seconds. This is the fastest sustained rate of fire I've seen in a combat report. Wahoo was one of the US Navy's best subs and on its 4th patrol it was crewed by arguably the best crew in the navy and its 4th patrol was the most effective patrol of its career. To suggest that its deck gun performance was below what 'any CO decided was acceptable' is simply not believable. Like I said, memory is unreliable.
But either way, I will never change RFB's rate of fire based on memory, gut feeling or opinion. If you want me to change RFB's rate of fire based on any of those things I assure you Antarctica is more likely to become a rainforest and the blue sky is more likely to turn pink before it happens. I've stated quite clearly the criteria I will accept. To be honest I don't care if you choose to believe sailor's memories over notes made by sailors at the time. The important thing is that I don't and I will only resort to sailors' memories if no more reliable evidence exists.
How anyone can argue that 50 year old memories are more reliable than notes made on the day is incredible to me. I mean if I make a note of my actions on a particular day just two weeks ago I know for a fact that my memory will be less reliable than the notes. The same is true for events years ago, except that the memory will be far less reliable.
Torpex752
06-27-07, 08:15 PM
"How anyone can argue that 50 year old memories are more reliable than notes made on the day is incredible to me. I mean if I make a note of my actions on a particular day just two weeks ago I know for a fact that my memory will be less reliable than the notes. The same is true for events years ago, except that the memory will be far less reliable."
I cannot argue with that statement, I know myself that in order for me to remember certain details I have to take notes, or write it down somewhere. I can understand your logic, but for me, over the last 25 years there have been too many (I'll even qualify them as sober) discussions and note taking events with sub vets. I dont know why the author of a book is not a valid source. You didnt comment on Gene Fluckey's statement about how long it took. Why is that? Isnt it probable that he kept his own notes? Have you ever read The book Thunder Below? It is written like a patrol report in many places, or doesnt his word count?
I guess I dont care if you change your MOD or not, its a MOD to a game (arguably one of the finest IMHO). It just seems odd to me that the only valid source you claim is a transcripted patrol report from the internet and thats where the buck stops. For a game its ok I guess, but anything beyond that deserves a bit more IMHO. I know that no historian would ever consider the internet the bottom line in deciding facts. I actually met one of the guys from the history channel and he explained to me (with his degree in history in tow) what great pains he must take place in order to contradict an existing published "historical" fact. Quite impressive, yet he was upset because he stated how obviously "suspect'" the methods were someone used to establish certain facts and how much work he had to do to disprove it. So, for someone like me who has lived & been involved in WWII submarine history, people, technology and how it all works for 20+ years, I get into the details, because thats where the truth lies, in the details.
Frank
:cool:
Well, at this point I'd say the burden of proof is OFF of Beery. As a modmaker there's only so much we can ask him.
If anyone really cares, I think evidence surpassing Beery's in terms of data (shots fired, time elapsed during combat) would provide further discussion but nothing else barring that is worth talking about. Saying there might be another realistic number out there is far different from documenting it. One of us cannot say "Beery, I don't like your evidence, so it's YOUR JOB to find better."
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 03:03 AM
Well, at this point I'd say the burden of proof is OFF of Beery. As a modmaker there's only so much we can ask him.
If anyone really cares, I think evidence surpassing Beery's in terms of data (shots fired, time elapsed during combat) would provide further discussion but nothing else barring that is worth talking about. Saying there might be another realistic number out there is far different from documenting it. One of us cannot say "Beery, I don't like your evidence, so it's YOUR JOB to find better."
What evidence can you provide for making the average rate of fire for an entire gun engagement the maximum ROF of a gun. Fuzzy math is not real.
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 03:28 AM
Now what i dont get out of all the realism nuts out there is there is more then 1 person on these boats. That means there are more then 2 people on the gun when its firing. The have a thing called a bucket brigade (a long of people passing one bucket to the next person). So slowing down the deck gun cant really add to the realism that much if at all...
Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine. Deck gun crews were limited by regulations that strictly denoted who was allowed to handle shells and by regulations limiting the number of people on deck so that a sub could prepare to dive as fast as possible. Sure, it seems quite reasonable to the average guy who doesn't think about such things very much that you could pass a 50lb weight around quite fast if you had 20 people on deck to do it, but you can't just go around crewing subs and assigning work with the mentality of a simple-minded horse. Even though they may weigh the same, a 4" shell is quite a bit more dangerous than a large sack of potatoes, and a surfaced submarine is always in mortal danger from air attack, so unless you have a death wish you don't let untrained men toss around ammunition willy-nilly and you don't risk 50 lives by placing so many men on the deck that it becomes impossible to submerge in time to evade an air attack - you just don't.
I am sorry but you must think the ammo supply is located across the Pacific.
It is not.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8391/ammoscuttlebashawss241ln3.jpg
The circle to the left of the ladder on the conning tower is the ammo scuttle.
That looks to be about 12 feet from the gun.
So the idea of 10,20,30,40 or 50 men passing ammo on deck to the gun is pretty much not going to happen.
Even in rough weather when you supposedly could not use the scuttle the gun is is still not far from the conn.
According to the Pampinito web site the ammo locker is located under the mess.
The scuttle goes thru the pressure hull into the mess. No need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub either.
The ammo ready locker provides shells instantly. By the time the ready locker is emptied the supply chain is set and ready to go.
So adding to the rate of fire time by deducting the number of shells in the ready locker does not appear to make any sense.
What also is not true is some preceived notion that you have to take alot of prep time to make the gun ready. Heck the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun does not even need a plug in the barrell.
Von Tonner
06-28-07, 04:56 AM
In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.
Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.
Good pic Neon Deon.
Torpex752
06-28-07, 06:46 AM
In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.
Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.
Good pic Neon Deon.
I agree, Beery's MOD is a suberb result of "eletronic craftsmanship" to create a "new phrase". I absolutely respect the work that a mod maker does, and tip my hat to acknowledge that kind of dedication.
I think this thread started out on a bad note, but has turned out to be very potentially productive. Its really been a life's labor of love to persue the details that a patrol report leaves out, or an author forgot to write down. Hell I was on 3 US subs and I can assure you that the guy who took the notes in the log book was human, and on a few ocassions made errors in what time certain events took place. So I look in that "grey area" because the past 20 years have taught me that 2 people saying one thing, and 198 saying another speaks for itself.
My only hope really is that I spark enough interest to make people want to read the books, or do their own investigations. I was fortunate enough to situate myself to do this type of varied research, so I was in a better place than most to ask questions and dig through old boxes. So I hope Beery doesnt get me wrong, or take this all in a bad way. I was hoping to see some mutual respect.
Frank
:cool:
In terms of simulating outcomes, you need to look at the number of HITS per unit time. I can dial in the deck gun in SH4 pretty quickly, then simply never miss, almost regardless of sea state. I'm not talking about close aboard a freighter, I'm talking about a sampan at over 1000 yards.
If a player hit % at a given range is 90% (seems about right to me from my shooting), and a real deck gun had a hit % at the same range of 45%, the ROF would need to be halved to have a realistic outcome (unless someone manages to fix the gyro-gun). That's 4-4.5 rpm for a 4" 50 according to the stats torpex posted.
Beery is looking at 2.6 rpm right now (23 seconds). With an ROF of 8-9, you'd need to only hit 26-29% of the shots to equal my 90% shooting at 2.6 rpm.
Does anyone here think they'd miss 75% of their shots at a sampan at 1000 yards in game?
What about RL, what % of shots would hit a sampan at 1000 yards in RL? I bet 25%-50% would be pretty good.
IMO, the only place that you'd suffer with the RFB ROF vs reality (assuming the factory ROF was actually maintained in combat---odd they have one figure, I'm used to seeing a max ROF, and a sustained ROF) would be at very short range where a large % of shots would hit in RL. Unfortunately the limiting factor on simulating realistic outcomes is the ease of use of the gun in game, IMO.
Any comparisons with RL guns should not be made at the muzzle, but at the target.
The outcome model works both ways, however. Beery, there is a big problem with that Wahoo log. It says they HOLED him 90 times at 3800 yards in 26 minutes. Do you really think they hit 100% of the time? At 3800 yards, I think even with the gyro guns I'd not hit 100% of the time. Easy enough to check, set up a sampan at 3800 yards and fire away. If you manage to hit 75% of the time, it goes from 90 rounds in 26 minutes to 120 rounds in 26 minutes---4.6 rpm, or 13 seconds per round.
<EDIT> in another Wahoo log posted, they hit 50/80 shots at a 1000 ton target (no range shown). That's 62.5% hits.
Looks like the real number is 90 shots, 60 hits. The hit % is pretty consistant, however.
tater
PepsiCan
06-28-07, 09:22 AM
In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.
Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.
Good pic Neon Deon.
Ok, I need to be careful here as I am going to maybe put words in Beery's mouth he does not agree with. So forgive me, please.
Yes, the ROF is an open question, and Beery has always said he considers it that way.
BUT
the answer needs to be found in facts. And although Beery bases ROF calc on only a few cases, these cases are the best factual evidence that has been found so far on ROF under combat conditions. No-one has come up factual evidence that refutes Beery's ROF calculation. Any evidence I have seen posted so far refers to
1) training & exercises
2) propaganda material that has been edited
3) results recorded under totally artificial conditions
4) evidence without quoting the source (e.g. you mention that over 200 war vets say that the ROF was higher? Fine, where is it mentioned (so, a reference to a book/writer is required here) and what do these sources state as being the ROF under combat conditions?)
All Beery wants is to have an official reference & solid research, not just someone saying "The ROF was higher". It doesn't help.
And so far it seems that the logs of Wahoo offer us the most important source of information.
What evidence can you provide for making the average rate of fire for an entire gun engagement the maximum ROF of a gun. Fuzzy math is not real.
The maximum ROF for that gun on that day averaged 1 round per 23 seconds. As I've said before, we have to go with a sustainable number and the maximum speed on that day was 17 seconds or higher, but this number can't be sustained throughout the day's engagements because it includes ready-use ammo and it doesn't factor in fatigue. RFB has to use an average because we don't have the option of simulating ready-use ammo or the effect of fatigue - SH4 doesn't allow us to do that.
If we went with the maximum, in this case 17 seconds, we'd be simulating a ROF that can only be sustained through 90 rounds. If players were restricted to firing only 90 shells per day that would work fine, but that would be extremely unrealistic and anyway it's not the case.
Sorry, but RFB will never use the maximum ROF when ready-use ammo is in the equation because such a ROF cannot possibly be sustained throughout a long engagement. This leads to unrealistic results as I explain in post #110 (below).
I am sorry but you must think the ammo supply is located across the Pacific.
It is not.
The circle to the left of the ladder on the conning tower is the ammo scuttle.
That looks to be about 12 feet from the gun.
So the idea of 10,20,30,40 or 50 men passing ammo on deck to the gun is pretty much not going to happen.
Even in rough weather when you supposedly could not use the scuttle the gun is is still not far from the conn.
According to the Pampinito web site the ammo locker is located under the mess.
The scuttle goes thru the pressure hull into the mess. No need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub either.
The ammo ready locker provides shells instantly. By the time the ready locker is emptied the supply chain is set and ready to go.
So adding to the rate of fire time by deducting the number of shells in the ready locker does not appear to make any sense.
What also is not true is some preceived notion that you have to take alot of prep time to make the gun ready. Heck the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun does not even need a plug in the barrell.
None of that matters. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It doesn't matter because we use values taken directly from a combat situation that shows a rate of fire that is not subject to possibilities about how the gun was served. I still don't understand why that is so difficult for some folks to grasp.
Over a long engagement, would the difference between ready ammo and ammo below really change the ROF much?
If the 17 seconds was used, and there were what, 10-20 ready rounds? Say 10. That's 170 seconds of shooting, just shy of 3 minutes. During 3 minutes, how many rounds are brought up on deck? If they can get 10 on deck in 3 minutes, the ROF would not be ammo supply limited.
That's ~3.5 rounds per minute, and they'd apparently get ~62-66% hits. 2.3 hits per minute. which given the gyro guns and a ~20-something second reload is about what RFB does.
In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.
Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign
Wrong. Firstly, it's not 'one recorded ROF by Whahoo' [sic]. It's the result of two years collecting data from numerous engagements in WW2. Wahoo is the boat with the fastest combat ROF that I've EVER found for any submarine. It's not like I'm cherry-picking data here, and to suggest I'm doing so is disingenuous in the extreme, especially given the reasons I've posted in the course of this discussion and the one in the RFB thread. I use the evidence from Wahoo because it is the fastest combat ROF we've found, it's the only evidence of an elite-crewed US sub of the type we use a lot in the game and it is unique in its details - we have the number of rounds, we have times. Plus, what we need is a fast ROF from an elite boat - precisely what Wahoo gives us.
ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans.
If it was real evidence I would not belittle it. But anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable. That's the case if it comes from you, me, from decorated war heroes or from the President of the United States. As for the other so-called 'evidence' we've seen, none of it relates to subs in combat in WW2. That is the ONLY reason why it has not been taken into account. If someone finds me evidence of subs in combat I'll use it - as I did when the Wahoo evidence was submitted. After all, I didn't come up with that evidence - it was presented and it tore apart my argument for using a slower rate of fire. So it's not as if I don't countenance any new evidence when it doesn't suit my preconceptions.
Anyway, if there is belittling of evidence going on here it's being directed at the crew of the Wahoo. They wrote down their evidence at the time the engagement happened. Yet their evidence is being ignored by all of RFB's critics here. If it's not okay to ignore anecdotal evidence why is it okay to ignore the evidence submitted by crew of the Wahoo? Somehow I sense a bit of hypocrisy going on here. You're trying to paint me as a person who belittles the evidence of veterans (an ad hominem attack by the way) yet you choose to count only the evidence of veterans whose opinion matches yours. It's very convenient that the veterans only spoke their opinion - if any of them had written it down that would carry more weight, but even so it's still anecdotal. The crew of the USS Wahoo documented their experience on the day it happened. They didn't wait to tell it 50 years later over breakfast. That's why I rely on the crew of the Wahoo - they wrote down their evidence when it was as fresh as can be.
Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break.
You have 200 veterans all telling you about a deck gun's rate of fire? Two hundred? That's amazing! You should write a book. I mean there are writers renowned in their fields who don't interview that many people for ten books. How far did you travel to get all these deck gun reminiscences? Two hundred guys giving you a rate of fire value for the subs they worked on - amazing! I mean I was a picture framer for five years in the 1990s (just ten years ago) but I can't remember for the life of me how long it took me to cut a mat - I can guess, but I'm sure I'd be way off. But these guys' memories were so sharp on details that took place over 50 years ago - incredible! Almost unbelievable in fact.
I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it.
I DO. The Wahoo evidence is proof that I extend that courtesy to people who bring up new evidence - as long as it is evidence that relates to the subject. Remember, I never saw the Wahoo evidence until Kikn79 posted it last week (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=572377&postcount=36), so it's not 'my' evidence that I've cynically put forward to advance my 'slow ROF agenda'. The problem here is not that I have an agenda. The problem is that there IS INDEED an agenda that some people are forwarding here and these folks bring flimsy evidence that fits that agenda even if it doesn't relate to US subs in WW2. Then they get upset when I don't change everything to suit what they want.
Of course the ROF is an open question, but that doesn't mean we should leave our brains at the door and be willing to accept any flimsy evidence that comes along. Nor does it mean that we should have a preferred ROF value in mind and only accept evidence that fits what we want.
Yes, the ROF is an open question, and Beery has always said he considers it that way.
BUT
the answer needs to be found in facts. And although Beery bases ROF calc on only a few cases, these cases are the best factual evidence that has been found so far on ROF under combat conditions. No-one has come up factual evidence that refutes Beery's ROF calculation. Any evidence I have seen posted so far refers to
1) training & exercises
2) propaganda material that has been edited
3) results recorded under totally artificial conditions
4) evidence without quoting the source (e.g. you mention that over 200 war vets say that the ROF was higher? Fine, where is it mentioned (so, a reference to a book/writer is required here) and what do these sources state as being the ROF under combat conditions?)
All Beery wants is to have an official reference & solid research, not just someone saying "The ROF was higher". It doesn't help.
And so far it seems that the logs of Wahoo offer us the most important source of information.
Exactly! Said more succinctly than I've ever been able to.
Over a long engagement, would the difference between ready ammo and ammo below really change the ROF much?
Wahoo's 4th patrol tells us a lot about the ROF over time. Aside from telling us what the ROF was it also tells us that it changes quite a bit over time. The first engagement has a ROF of 17 seconds per shell fired while the second engagement has a ROF of 30 seconds per shell fired. The ROF for the first engagement is nearly twice as fast as that of the second. Something is happening there that is making ROF drop significantly for the second engagement. Whether it's the effect of the ready-use ammo container or whether it's just fatigue is unclear, but whatever it is, it's definitely there. For our purposes we don't need to know exactly what it is - we only need to know that it's a factor. I'm choosing to factor it in by using an average of both engagements in order to get what I call a sustainable ROF - i.e. a ROF that generally applies to all lengthy engagements.
The reason I choose to model RFB on a lengthy engagement is that short engagements are by their nature short, so the player will be inconvenienced by a slower rate of fire for a shorter period and the likelihood of air attack coming out of a short engagement is very small indeed - the sub will be done and submerged by the time the engagement is over no matter whether the sub fires 40 shells in twenty minutes or 40 shells in ten minutes. Time wasted in RFB = ten minutes - not even time to fuel a plane to investigate a distress call. The alternative is to make the mod conform to short engagements, which would mean that longer engagements were unrealistically short, and since it's a long engagement that's a lot of time that's saved that wouldn't be saved in a real battle. That represents time where the enemy is calling for help and maybe getting it in the form of an air attack. If a sub spends an hour pummelling a ship with 120 shells that sub is more at risk from air attack than a sub that spends only 30 minutes firing those 120 shells. Time saved in a mod that uses a ROF based on ready-use ammo and no fatigue = 30 minutes - more than enough time for the Japanese to get off a distress call, fuel a plane and send it to investigate. In RFB you're in real danger from that plane, but if the mod used the ready-use ammo ROF you'd avoid that danger and get an unrealistically safe use of the deck gun.
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 10:54 AM
I am sorry but you must think the ammo supply is located across the Pacific.
It is not.
The circle to the left of the ladder on the conning tower is the ammo scuttle.
That looks to be about 12 feet from the gun.
So the idea of 10,20,30,40 or 50 men passing ammo on deck to the gun is pretty much not going to happen.
Even in rough weather when you supposedly could not use the scuttle the gun is is still not far from the conn.
According to the Pampinito web site the ammo locker is located under the mess.
The scuttle goes thru the pressure hull into the mess. No need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub either.
The ammo ready locker provides shells instantly. By the time the ready locker is emptied the supply chain is set and ready to go.
So adding to the rate of fire time by deducting the number of shells in the ready locker does not appear to make any sense.
What also is not true is some preceived notion that you have to take alot of prep time to make the gun ready. Heck the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun does not even need a plug in the barrell.
None of that matters. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It doesn't matter because we use values taken directly from a combat situation that shows a rate of fire that is not subject to possibilities about how the gun was served. I still don't understand why that is so difficult for some folks to grasp.
LOL!
IT SURE DOES MATTER!
AVERAGE IS NOT MAXIMUM ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT.
And for you to say in one post that I am not using it because of the ammo locker and to say in this post that it does not matter scoffing off what you stated in the last just defies reality again.
Besides all that. If you impose an averge as maximum you will almost never get the average you imposed making it FUBAR.
FUZZY MATH.
Now thats all said.
I support your modifications as you see them because it is your choice to do so.
I don't support your mathmatics however.
SteamWake
06-28-07, 10:59 AM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The problem with a longer engagement, or even making assumptions on the second part of a single engagement is that there is so much data we lack. Perhaps they fired while lying to in the first, moving in the second. Or perhaps they only fired lying to, and in the second they spent most of the gunnery period moving to a new position relative to the target (and not shooting). In the second the actua period of shooting could have been less with a far higher ROF. Who knows.
I actually think short engagements are the best numbers, because the chances for confounding factors added in is reduced. At least to determine actual combat ROFs.
The fact that the game lacks complexity in gunnery, and that the real combat ROF might need to be tweaked to get realistic results is separate from determining the actual combat ROF, IMO.
We could all come to the conclusion with some new data that the ROF should be 5 rpm to be realistic in terms of counting rounds coming out of the gun, but then determine that for a realistic simulation of said gunnery in SH4, we need to drop it to 3 rpm, otherwise the ease of gunning results in too many hits.
The two issues are obviously related, but they are indeed separate. Knowing the actual best ROF is useful just to know it, particularly if the guns ever get fixed to be more realistic.
<S>
tater
I am sorry but you must think the ammo supply is located across the Pacific.
It is not.
The circle to the left of the ladder on the conning tower is the ammo scuttle.
That looks to be about 12 feet from the gun.
So the idea of 10,20,30,40 or 50 men passing ammo on deck to the gun is pretty much not going to happen.
Even in rough weather when you supposedly could not use the scuttle the gun is is still not far from the conn.
According to the Pampinito web site the ammo locker is located under the mess.
The scuttle goes thru the pressure hull into the mess. No need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub either.
The ammo ready locker provides shells instantly. By the time the ready locker is emptied the supply chain is set and ready to go.
So adding to the rate of fire time by deducting the number of shells in the ready locker does not appear to make any sense.
What also is not true is some preceived notion that you have to take alot of prep time to make the gun ready. Heck the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun does not even need a plug in the barrell.
None of that matters. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It doesn't matter because we use values taken directly from a combat situation that shows a rate of fire that is not subject to possibilities about how the gun was served. I still don't understand why that is so difficult for some folks to grasp.
LOL!
IT SURE DOES MATTER!
AVERAGE IS NOT MAXIMUM ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT.
Then you need to go back to school. You can have an average maximum ROF and that's what RFB's deck gun is based on. The average comes from Wahoo's engagements on her 4th patrol. The maximum comes from the fact that Wahoo is the maximum ROF of any sub I've ever seen evidence for.
As for fuzzy math, if RFB is using fuzzy math I'd rather go with fuzzy math than no math at all - and that's what you're suggesting when you talk about the distance from the ammo store to the gun being 12ft, the gun "not being far" from the conn, the ammo locker being located under the mess, the scuttle going thru the pressure hull into the mess, the fact that there's no need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub, the so-called 'fact' that the ammo ready locker provides shells instantly (I suppose the ammo moves at the speed of light from the locker to the gun - somehow WW2 US subs had ammunition designed to overcome Albert Einstein's equations - perhaps using his idea of 'spooky action at a distance' to dematerialise shells in the ready-use locker and rematerialise them in the breech) or the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun not needing a plug in the barrell. Those 'values' don't give us a mathematical equation. In fact nothing you've posted gives us a mathematical equation that we can use to arrive at a ROF value. As I said, I'll go with my 'fuzzy' math over your nonexistent math any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 11:27 AM
I am sorry but you must think the ammo supply is located across the Pacific.
It is not.
The circle to the left of the ladder on the conning tower is the ammo scuttle.
That looks to be about 12 feet from the gun.
So the idea of 10,20,30,40 or 50 men passing ammo on deck to the gun is pretty much not going to happen.
Even in rough weather when you supposedly could not use the scuttle the gun is is still not far from the conn.
According to the Pampinito web site the ammo locker is located under the mess.
The scuttle goes thru the pressure hull into the mess. No need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub either.
The ammo ready locker provides shells instantly. By the time the ready locker is emptied the supply chain is set and ready to go.
So adding to the rate of fire time by deducting the number of shells in the ready locker does not appear to make any sense.
What also is not true is some preceived notion that you have to take alot of prep time to make the gun ready. Heck the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun does not even need a plug in the barrell.
None of that matters. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It doesn't matter because we use values taken directly from a combat situation that shows a rate of fire that is not subject to possibilities about how the gun was served. I still don't understand why that is so difficult for some folks to grasp.
LOL!
IT SURE DOES MATTER!
AVERAGE IS NOT MAXIMUM ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT.
Then you need to go back to school. You can have an average maximum ROF and that's what RFB's deck gun is based on. The average comes from Wahoo's engagements on her 4th patrol. The maximum comes from the fact that Wahoo is the maximum ROF of any sub I've ever seen evidence for.
As for fuzzy math, if RFB is using fuzzy math I'd rather go with fuzzy math than no math at all - and that's what you're suggesting when you talk about the distance from the ammo store to the gun being 12ft. That doesn't give us a mathematical equation. In fact nothing you've posted gives us a mathematical equation that we can use to arrive at a ROF value. As I said, I'll go with my 'fuzzy' math over your nonexistent math any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Nope it is you that needs some schooling. Stop provoking and I will do the same.
It is not. It is based on average rate of number of shells fired over an entire gun egagement and forces you into that rate all the time for each shell fired.
FUBAR.
Nope it is you that needs some schooling. Stop provoking and I will do the same.
How about you show us your equations. I mean I see a lot of criticism here but I don't see any calculations or any rationale behind any alternate ROF. Anyone can say "Oh that's BS!" but saying it and proving it are two very different things.
So put up or shut up.
Whereas if you use a "spec" max ROF (say 8-9 rpm) that will virtually always be the ROF in SH4. There will be no log of a long SH4 engagement where the real, instantaneous ROF is 9 rpm, but the average is 2.5. Won't happen. If it takes 27 shots to sink a given ship, the engagement will last 3 minutes with 27 shells expended, virtually every time (maybe a couple slop to get the range).
A shortish engagement at a high (for logged battles) ROF is the best way to go, IMO. For SH4 simulation purposes, an average figure is certainly best compared to a "spec" figure, and having it a little on the high side makes sense since crew quality can drop it.
The guys at BuOrd who made the spec ROF figures also said the Mk14 didn't run deep, and the Mk6 exploder worked just fine ;)
tater
It is based on average rate of number of shells fired over an entire gun egagement and forces you into that rate all the time for each shell fired.
FUBAR.
So what would you do? If you have the answer I'd like to see it. How would you use a maximum ROF without compromising the realism in longer engagements where it clearly wasn't possible to sustain the maximum ROF? How would you use a maximum ROF and still subject the sub to the danger of air attack in an engagement that used more than 90 shells when the maximum ROF allows a sub to break off an attack long before a real sub could possibly have done so?
The answer is that you can't. You see there are no easy answers in simulation building. There are only compromises. But some compromises give more overall realism while some give less, and the most obvious answer isn't always the most realistic. We can't use maximum ROF because although it seems that it would be realistic on its surface, it gives very unrealistic results if we look deeper into the problem. As I said before:
The reason I choose to model RFB on a lengthy engagement is that short engagements are by their nature short, so the player will be inconvenienced by a slower rate of fire for a shorter period and the likelihood of air attack coming out of a short engagement is very small indeed - the sub will be done and submerged by the time the engagement is over no matter whether the sub fires 40 shells in twenty minutes or 40 shells in ten minutes. Time wasted in RFB = ten minutes - not even time to fuel a plane to investigate a distress call. The alternative is to make the mod conform to short engagements, which would mean that longer engagements were unrealistically short, and since it's a long engagement that's a lot of time that's saved that wouldn't be saved in a real battle. That represents time where the enemy is calling for help and maybe getting it in the form of an air attack. If a sub spends an hour pummelling a ship with 120 shells that sub is more at risk from air attack than a sub that spends only 30 minutes firing those 120 shells. Time saved in a mod that uses a ROF based on ready-use ammo and no fatigue = 30 minutes - more than enough time for the Japanese to get off a distress call, fuel a plane and send it to investigate. In RFB you're in real danger from that plane, but if the mod used the ready-use ammo ROF you'd avoid that danger and get an unrealistically safe use of the deck gun.
But let's see your solution to this dilemma. Clearly you think you have the solution whereby a fast ROF can give realistic results in all situations. Let's see how you make a sub with a maximum ROF sub stick around on the surface for a half hour waiting for that air attack after it has finished firing 120 shells.
Oh and in case you're thinking that the game is not that complex - that ships don't call for help and aircraft don't respond, not so. They do.
SteamWake
06-28-07, 11:58 AM
Nope it is you that needs some schooling. Stop provoking and I will do the same.
How about you show us your equations. I mean I see a lot of criticism here but I don't see any calculations or any rationale behind any alternate ROF. Anyone can say "Oh that's BS!" but saying it and proving it are two very different things.
So put up or shut up.
I take it back...
Such drama :doh:
Hey, guys, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...
Unless anyone has actual numbers to perform math on, let's NOT attack Beery and let's not get into heated arguments.
NEON, 'fuzzy' or not, Beery's math is the only math shown in this thread so far. Please please please provide numbers relating to time spent and shots fired, or else let's all give it a rest. Calling it fuzzy without giving concrete examples is not very helpful.
The existance of an ammo locker is not news, and as Beery's said several times, the sim doesn't let you set a variable RoF. It's just one number.
Is anyone familiar with how science is done in the real world? It doesn't get done by scientists sitting around quibbling, it only progresses when numbers (data) are collected and then the math done on them is documented carefully. Once the method is shown, as Beery has done, and conclusions drawn from said method and data, it is up to any other scientists to raise objections in a serious manner. This initially consists of people criticizing the method and the data, but in order to actually make a serious point, the criticizers must go get more data and then proceed to perform math on them in a carefully documented manner. (edit) That often takes hard work. Humans I think are much more prone to armchair argument rather than going out and hunting down dusty patrol records :)
It doesn't help to say "Oh your method is flawed" over and over without providing more data.
Torpex, you stated that there were patrol records available at certain libraries/repositories, but none that you knew of available online. It seems to me that without valid patrol records, we have nothing more to discuss! :damn:
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 12:25 PM
Nope it is you that needs some schooling. Stop provoking and I will do the same.
How about you show us your equations. I mean I see a lot of criticism here but I don't see any calculations or any rationale behind any alternate ROF. Anyone can say "Oh that's BS!" but saying it and proving it are two very different things.
So put up or shut up.
I take it back...
Such drama :doh:
Oh good point.
My bad. Sorry.
:/\\k:
Torpex752
06-28-07, 12:54 PM
Torpex, you stated that there were patrol records available at certain libraries/repositories, but none that you knew of available online. It seems to me that without valid patrol records, we have nothing more to discuss! :damn:
Thats correct, then the Reports used (Wahoo & Nautilus) maybe shouldnt be included either because they are transcribed, not actual scans.
Actually the 200+ vets I've taken notes on, I do plan on writing a collection someday, the main reason I did what I did was to gather information. Like I said its been the collective work of 20+ years as I lived in the submarine community.
I'm off on vacation, so take it easy all I'll be back on the 4th. :)
Frank
:cool:
Thats correct, then the Reports used (Wahoo & Nautilus) maybe shouldnt be included either because they are transcribed, not actual scans.
Blimey! I'm amazed at the ways people choose to rationalize away the facts that don't fit their agenda. What next - will we be discounting evidence because it was written in blue ink and not black? I mean how far beyond ridiculous does this need to get?
I'm just gonna put a couple of these guys on my ignore list. That will save me some time and if they post anything substantial I'm sure one of the RFB users will let me know.
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 12:59 PM
Hey, guys, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...
Unless anyone has actual numbers to perform math on, let's NOT attack Beery and let's not get into heated arguments.
NEON, 'fuzzy' or not, Beery's math is the only math shown in this thread so far. Please please please provide numbers relating to time spent and shots fired, or else give it a rest. Calling it fuzzy without giving concrete examples is not very helpful.
The existance of an ammo locker is not news, and as Beery's said several times, the sim doesn't let you set a variable RoF. It's just one number.
Is anyone familiar with how science is done in the real world? It doesn't get done by scientists sitting around quibbling, it only progresses when numbers (data) are collected and then the math done on them is documented carefully. Once the method is shown, as Beery has done, and conclusions drawn from said method and data, it is up to any other scientists to raise objections in a serious manner. This initially consists of people criticizing the method and the data, but in order to actually make a serious point, the criticizers must go get more data and then proceed to perform math on them in a carefully documented manner.
It doesn't HELP to say "Oh your method is flawed" over and over without providing more data!
Torpex, you stated that there were patrol records available at certain libraries/repositories, but none that you knew of available online. It seems to me that without valid patrol records, we have nothing more to discuss! :damn:
Nope.
Provide me with data to make a resonable analysis.
Bad math is not a solution and can not be equated as being better than no math.
PS.
Beery,
I will give you my opinion on a possible solution to the deck gun dilema(will take a bit of time).
What I am not going to do is provide you with a formula based on the data at hand. It is just not enough to do so in a way that would work.
However, if I was forced to do so, ;) then I would half your average reasoning that some shots would be fired longer and some shorter based on the situation at hand and that would not limit you to firing at a derived mandatory average. Not accurate. Sure. Any less accurate than your method. Nope. This way you have a reasonable chance of making the reported average ROF for a gun engagement.
Not my actual solution tho.:D
SteamWake
06-28-07, 01:22 PM
Thats it !
Im downloading the rapid fire mod tonight ! :p
It's important to recognize the goal of RFB wrt the deck gun. The goal is not that instantaneously it is spot on, but that the end result of the engagement is as close as SH4 will do. (assuming I read Beery right, my apologies if I'm wrong)
You must consider:
1. the ease of use of the deck gun.
2. the DM of the target ships (can be modded, but is extremely complicated compared to ROF)
3. the damage done by the gun (can also me modded)
The end result should be that if you wrote out a combat report, you could have an engagement that looked like it was real. If every log of a battle surface looks like:
8:45 battle surface. Engaged 1700 ton maru at 3400 yards.
8:50 Cease fire, maru burning and going down by the stern. 30 rounds expended, 27 rounds hit.
something is wrong with the simulation whenthe best RL reports take 6 times longer to sink a boat half the size with 3 times the rounds fired.
That said, I'd tend to go with ROF figures slightly higher than an average to allow for some slop.
YMMV.
tater
if I was forced to do so, ;) then I would half your average reasoning that some shots would be fired longer and some shorter based on the situation at hand and that would not limit you to firing at a derived mandatory average. Not accurate. Sure. Any less accurate than your method. Nope.
Based on what evidence? This is surely just a figure pulled out of your hat. Half the average I'm putting into effect for RFB 1.29 is 11.5 seconds per shell. What sub in combat can be shown to have ever shot at that ROF? I've spent two years looking at submarine data for SH3 and SH4 and I've never seen any evidence that any sub's deck gun could fire anywhere near that fast. I have a number of timed engagements and the fastest is Wahoo with a maximum (not average) ROF of 17 seconds per shell - that ROF could not be sustained beyond 90 rounds. What evidence makes you think a sub in combat could fire faster even for a short period beyond the effect of the ready-use ammo?
This discussion is not about what's possible. It's about what can be proven. A lot of things are possible, but in terms of RFB we need to know what can be shown to have actually happened. Taking a number and saying 'I prefer this' is fine for playing a game, but if we're looking for realism we need to know what actually happened and try to make the simulation model a whole lot of real life occurrences. That means that when we write a combat report it falls in line with what we'd see in a real combat report. 11.5 seconds per round has never (as far as I know) been seen in any combat report - it's outside the range of what's been recorded. If I make deck guns fire at 11.5 seconds per round I'll be making a deck gun that fires faster than any sub ever recorded - a simulation that doesn't fall within the range of what actually can be shown to have happened is no simulation.
With RFB's deck gun set at 23 seconds per round we have a simulated deck gun that falls squarely within reported ROFs for real deck guns. Variances in crew quality even makes it possible to fire slower to match other combat reports giving us a range of ROF based on crew quality. RFB gives a range that is 100% within what was possible. If a mod gives a ROF that is below 17 seconds per round it is likely to be a fantasy ROF because it does not fit within the evidence that we see in real combat reports. Sure, it may be possible that it's right, but it's only possible that it's right in certain very unusual circumstances and only for a very elite crew indeed - one that never recorded its ROF - as such it is not suitable to use in a mod for a simulation where EVERY SINGLE SUB ever played is going to have a ROF faster than any recorded instance. Even when poor crew quality is factored in the ROF is faster than any recorded instance. That's no basis on which to build an accurate deck gun mod.
BTW, I'm pretty confident the time it took to RELOAD the weapon was far shorter that RFB has. OTOH, I'm also pretty confident that the ROF was not reloading-speed limited.
ROF is limited by the totality of combat with the gun. Endurance of the crew, conditions on deck, visibility, stability of the gun platform, etc.
I'll be very interested to see if the destabilized gun mod WIP is successful. If it is, I'd be inclined to test it at a "spec" (or close) ROF and see what the ROF looks like with a rolling, pitching deck. If that's true the reload time can be short, and the ROF will not change all that much from RFB.
mookiemookie
06-28-07, 02:20 PM
BTW, I'm pretty confident the time it took to RELOAD the weapon was far shorter that RFB has. OTOH, I'm also pretty confident that the ROF was not reloading-speed limited.
ROF is limited by the totality of combat with the gun. Endurance of the crew, conditions on deck, visibility, stability of the gun platform, etc.
I'll be very interested to see if the destabilized gun mod WIP is successful. If it is, I'd be inclined to test it at a "spec" (or close) ROF and see what the ROF looks like with a rolling, pitching deck. If that's true the reload time can be short, and the ROF will not change all that much from RFB.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The reload times were probably pretty good based on all the evidence that we've seen (ammo store proximity, "bucket brigades,etc) but once the gun was loaded, I have to imagine it'd take some time to range and target the gun on a rolling and pitching deck. I seriously doubt they were ready to fire as soon as the breech was closed, and I would bet that's what plays into the ROF times being slower than a pure reload and instantly fire situation would have been.
The problem with gun specs is not only that they don't take into account the stability of the gun platform. Specifications for a gun don't take into account a whole bunch of issues (including the gun stability issue that the destabilized gun mod addresses), so if the destabilized gun mod is successful the only factor to be removed will be the pitching and rolling of the deck, which should allow an increase in ROF by a couple of seconds. However there will still be the issues of getting the shells from the store to the gun, the slipperiness of the deck, ranging, spotting where rounds hit, giving orders, adjusting fire and crew fatigue to take into account. ROF Spec on these guns is something between 6 and 10rpm and the difference between that and 3rpm is pretty big - there's seven seconds per round difference between the slowest spec ROF and the fastest recorded ROF for a sub in actual combat. Don't get me wrong, the destabilization mod would help, but it won't get us all the way to the gun specifications.
On a related subject I just happened to go into the standard game and look at the unmodded ROF for the game's deck guns. 4 seconds per round for the 3" and 4" guns and 2.5 seconds for the 5"? What were the developers smoking? Those figures aren't even close to the official gun specs.
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 02:54 PM
if I was forced to do so, ;) then I would half your average reasoning that some shots would be fired longer and some shorter based on the situation at hand and that would not limit you to firing at a derived mandatory average. Not accurate. Sure. Any less accurate than your method. Nope.
Based on what evidence? This is surely just a figure pulled out of your hat. Half the average I'm putting into effect for RFB 1.29 is 11.5 seconds per shell. What sub in combat can be shown to have ever shot at that ROF? I've spent two years looking at submarine data for SH3 and SH4 and I've never seen any evidence that any sub's deck gun could fire anywhere near that fast. I have a number of timed engagements and the fastest is Wahoo with a maximum (not average) ROF of 17 seconds per shell - that ROF could not be sustained beyond 90 rounds. What evidence makes you think a sub in combat could fire faster even for a short period beyond the effect of the ready-use ammo?
.
This discussion is not about what's possible. It's about what can be proven. Anything is possible, but in terms of RFB we need to know what did actually happen. Taking a number and saying 'I prefer this' is fine for playing a game, but if we're looking for realism we need to know what actually happened and make it happen in the sim.
No its not maximum. It is the rate of fire for the entire engagement.
If you want to come up with any semblance of maximun then locate a log that states this:
Commenced rapid fire on target at 0700.
Ceased rapid fire at 0705.
Expended 13 rounds.
Now that would be proof of maximum rate of fire .
You have not shown that at all. You have shown AVERAGE.
Go back and look at the picture I posted and tell me where it would take a large amount of men to feed that gun from the scuttle. The locker is there to provide ammo to the gun as soon as possible. There is enough ammo there to supply the gun untill the chain is formed.
It is the situation that determines the ROF over the entire egagement.
The maximum rate of fire for the guns are recorded.
3 inch Wahoo gun 20 rounds a minute.
4 inch gun 9 rounds a minute.
6 inch gun 7 rounds a minute.
Thats the recorded maximum ROF of the guns.
What you give as evidence shows nothing of maximum rate.
Beery it is still fuzzy and it aint maximum no way no shape no form.
You entirely missed his point regarding "maximum."
He said it was the maximum ROF he's seen actually quoted in a RL log file. He never said it was the max ROF possible with the gun in any condition, just that it was the max ROF he's seem in u-boat and fleet boat logs. The figure is of course an average. So would a rapid fire excercise, actually. the only "pure" number would be the time between the lanyard being pulled and the next round firing.
So it's both an average, and a maximum because it's the highest recorded ROF available (so far to us) in a RL combat log.
I'm not wed to any particular value, but that seems pretty obvious to me.
That "maximum speed" of 17 seconds per round average over an engagement, is almost certainly a few rounds closer together in time, then a time interval, then another cluster of rounds fired. So what.
The test is simple. Mod the ROF yourself (it's easy enough to do), and within RFB (for consistancy) get in surface engagements. Log things like a real log. Do it a bunch of times, and don't slack off shooting, shoot the best you possibly can given the ROF you set. If the in-game logs exceed Wahoos (since that has some of the shorter times between rounds on average) by some great margin, you've made the ROF too fast.
Don't miss the forest for the trees.
I modded plane bomb loads. I have started a rework of various air groups. It is possible to make them pretty historical, but that would NOT be accurate given the game engine. CV airgroups need to be dumped from semi-realistic numbers that they are in game to zero, or maybe 2-3 planes TOTAL. Why? Because while the CVs carried many more than 2-3 planes, very very few were airborne at any given moment except for strike missions---at which point ALL would be in the air, and heading for a real target, not the player's sub. So the "forest" is for it to be generally realistic for the sub. People might concentrate on the "trees" and say that "Zuikaku should really carry 24 A6M, 18 Vals, and 18 Kates during that time period." They'd be specifically right, but in game, they'd be wrong.
tater
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 03:59 PM
I have seen no logs that show maximum rate of fire and if there is one that really lists max rate, I would like to see em. No log I have seen makes it clear they are firing rapid as fast as possible.
It is the situation that dictates the rate of fire in an entire gun engagement not the average rate of fire of that engagement. If, during the course of the engagement, you zero in on the target, then you would commence rapid fire because you are on target. If you lose the target then you have to adjust your fire and you are not firing at the maximum for the gun.
However, if you use that average as the maximum for EVERY SHELL you fire during the engagement then you will never make that average unless you just hold down the fire button. Therefore you almost never achieve what you set out to do in the first place!
I am not saying change the mod. It is your choice to use or not use it.
The Wahoo engagement sure is nice. but no where does it state a begining and an end to rapid fire and the number of shells consumed during that period of time.
BTW.
The entire 3 inch shell is but 24 lBS!!!!!
No, because they likely didn't fire that way from a rolling, pitching submarine deck.
"Rapid fire" is a relative thing. Since both the sub and target are potentially moving, the fire must be constantly corrected unless they are steaming parallel. That means waiting for the shell to splash (or hit). At some of the longer ranges, the flight time is comparable to the best ROF (spec) time to ready the gun for the next round. If a sub was firing at extreme range, observing the shot could dominate the ROF.
What the logs show is a start time, a stop time, number of rounds fired/hit. Again, do a few experiments. Heck, use the stock guns and time yourself to whatever you think a realistic ROF is.
If it doesn't take you 20-30 minutes to sink a small frieghter (maybe a tug or somethign similarly "coastal frieghter" in size --- ~1000 tons), then something is wrong.
SteamWake
06-28-07, 04:59 PM
On a related subject I just happened to go into the standard game and look at the unmodded ROF for the game's deck guns. 4 seconds per round for the 3" and 4" guns and 2.5 seconds for the 5"? What were the developers smoking? Those figures aren't even close to the official gun specs.
They were probably thinking... Damn if we only had a little more time ;)
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 06:12 PM
No, because they likely didn't fire that way from a rolling, pitching submarine deck.
"Rapid fire" is a relative thing. Since both the sub and target are potentially moving, the fire must be constantly corrected unless they are steaming parallel. That means waiting for the shell to splash (or hit). At some of the longer ranges, the flight time is comparable to the best ROF (spec) time to ready the gun for the next round. If a sub was firing at extreme range, observing the shot could dominate the ROF.
What the logs show is a start time, a stop time, number of rounds fired/hit. Again, do a few experiments. Heck, use the stock guns and time yourself to whatever you think a realistic ROF is.
If it doesn't take you 20-30 minutes to sink a small frieghter (maybe a tug or somethign similarly "coastal frieghter" in size --- ~1000 tons), then something is wrong.
Sounds like a plan.
Maybee it should be recorded to see what you are dealing with exactly.
Might be worth waiting on kv29's possible destabilization of the gun.
:D
tater
kiwi_2005
06-28-07, 08:31 PM
I got rid of the deck gun. To me its just another waste of time. Use up my torpedoes and head home.
NEON DEON
06-28-07, 11:54 PM
In regards to the damage amount of the 3 inch 50 deck gun, here is an link showing the miserable performance of the weapon when used against ships.
What a pop gun.:D
http://www.de220.com/Armament/3%20Inch/3Inch50.htm
Notice that is was also plagued by firing when the breech was closed. If the gun was fired without the deck being level, the range would be totally off. This means taht for all but point blank range, some % of the rounds in RL (not in SH4) would be wasted (dropping the effective ROF).
NEON DEON
06-29-07, 01:26 AM
Notice that is was also plagued by firing when the breech was closed. If the gun was fired without the deck being level, the range would be totally off. This means taht for all but point blank range, some % of the rounds in RL (not in SH4) would be wasted (dropping the effective ROF).
Better be pointed in the right direction when closing the breech!:D
Geez if You gave me a choice I would pull it and replace it with a twin 40 mm!
If I could not find a 5 incher, that is.
Sailor Steve
06-29-07, 10:23 AM
Notice that is was also plagued by firing when the breech was closed. If the gun was fired without the deck being level, the range would be totally off. This means taht for all but point blank range, some % of the rounds in RL (not in SH4) would be wasted (dropping the effective ROF).
The only problem I see with that idea (counting missed shots against ROF) is that you would also have to lower the amount of ammo available.
Nope.
Provide me with data to make a resonable analysis.
Bad math is not a solution and can not be equated as being better than no math.
Neon, you didn't read my post did you? It's not my job to provide you with data to disprove Beery, it's your job. Later you quote 'maximum rate of fire' and also refer to the ammo locker on deck.
Where do you get the maximum rate of fire you quote?
Did you read the parts of the thread where Beery clearly states that there is a ready-ammo locker and then clearly states that we can't model the existance of such?
Finally, it's easy enough to fire at a "maximum average rate" in SH4 since you SEE when the shell is reloading and can fire immediately. I sure don't fire below the rate SH4 gives me (or Beery gives me..) without deliberate intent.
I have seen no logs that show maximum rate of fire and if there is one that really lists max rate, I would like to see em. No log I have seen makes it clear they are firing rapid as fast as possible.
NEON, think about it. Do you really think the WAHOO in the logs Beery posted was firing slower than (quick edit) a sustainable maximum? What skipper in their right mind would wish a surface artillery duel to go on longer than the shortest possible time? What, were they taking cigarette breaks in between shots??
(edit) Also, as we're all saying here (you included I believe) maximum rate of fire sitting at a target range in Pearl is a lot different than maximum rate of fire under combat conditions.
Rockin Robbins
06-29-07, 04:12 PM
Well, I just had a "what threw me into involintary projectile vomiting almost immideately (sic)" experience of my own! I had been running RFB for awhile and chose to temporarily unload it as part of my process of learning to shoot torpedoes on full manual. That way I can monitor my aiming process and analyse mistakes easier than a real captain could do.
In other words I can cheat and learn faster that any real person could do in WW II. I surfaced to use the deck gun and about barfed. What is this stupid thing, a machine gun??????? The game developers missed the target by a huge margin of ignorance!
Beery, perfect or not, RFB is my choice for nearest to reality. Stick to your guns! (as if you needed any encouragement there!) Don't change until you have solid documentation to the standards you have established. You "maximum rate of fire" people pointedly are ignoring the fact that average rate is the only rate available in SH4. Beery explained that at the beginning.
So, everybody else, the line for Ratchet and Clank forms to the right. I play to experience the challenges and frustrations experienced by the heroes who served in WW II. I'm not seeking entertainment, but I'm finding it in SH3, SH4 and in this thread!
NEON DEON
06-29-07, 06:18 PM
LOL :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If you guys want to believe that a gun designed to be an AA weapon too has a slower rate of fire than a 58 caliber civil war musket, then be my guest.
Rockin Robbins
06-29-07, 07:00 PM
I believe the evidence sir, and the only admissable, non-hearsay evidence on the table says an average of 29 seconds per shot under combat conditions. Order in the court! Bailiff, fine that man 20 clams. lol Great quote from Fluckey's book by the way. I have a signed copy and it's worth as much as my wife. Well... maybe not.
I gotta kill the magenta on the signature. Anybody else getting to hate it as much as I am?
mookiemookie
06-29-07, 08:01 PM
I gotta kill the magenta on the signature. Anybody else getting to hate it as much as I am?
It will look just FABOO with your soon-to-come "Navy Dude" avatar :up:
I watched a Canadian army news broadcast regarding the M777 (155mm light howitzer) last weekend. There was a quiz in it about the firing rate which is actually considerably faster than the technical specifications of the gun. Given the wide variation over myriad equipment and capabilities of the crews, the specs can't be relied upon to determine the "real" firing rate.
My experience using the deck gun is, as someone has pointed out earlier, akin to firing the main gun on an Abrams. We know this technology was not used on WW2 fleet subs.
Given the software and the limits to which our friends can modify it, certain compromises are going to have to be made. I've read Beery's numerous posts on the topic and his logic and reasoning on why he has modelled the deck gun they way he has and it is very sound. He's done some research and has stats to back his conclusions. Essentially, he is taking the end results versus individual shots. Is it perfect? No, but given the limitations of the current version of the game, it's probably as close as we're going to get.
Now if they dropped the gyrostabilizer....:hmm:
mookiemookie
06-29-07, 08:50 PM
Is it perfect? No, but given the limitations of the current version of the game, it's probably as close as we're going to get.
Now if they dropped the gyrostabilizer....:hmm:
I agree with you. Since there's only one rate of fire allowed by the game mechanics, its always going to be slower than the ROF for gun action with the shells stored in the ammo locker on deck, and faster than the ROF for gun action with shells stored below decks and passed up through the hatch. A happy medium between the two would be best, and if it comes down to a matter of a few seconds difference, then I think we have it pinned down good enough for our purposes.
I still believe, common sense wise, that the major limiting factor would have to be targeting the gun in the midst of a pitching and rolling sea, and not necessarily how fast a shell could be loaded in the breech. You can't very well fire when you're on top of a wave swell, or in a trough.
kv29 has a destabilized mod out for testing :)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117430&page=4
If the gun starts acting like it's on a submarine deck, and not like it's part of Enterprise (not CVN-65, I mean NCC-1701!), then maybe the reload time can be reduced since the limiting factor could well become aiming the bloody thing.
Note that my personal feeling is that the "spec" ROF will always be too fast and I'd never personally use it, I'd use a slightly lower ROF to cover the totality of gun handling issues not modeled that would affect ROF (deck conditions, clearing misfires, ready vs ammo below, fatigue, etc).
The gun being destabilized will go a long way, I hope.
Palidian
06-29-07, 10:18 PM
The fact of the mater is the US Navy manual on the gun states the rate of fire is 8-10 rounds per minute. It is there gun, its there boat, they should know how it works. There are other factors that may lower actual rate of fire, as weather, range, fatigue, assessing damage to target, ect. Take them into account individually. However a 40-45 second reload time for a trained crew is outrageous. In addition RFB shell damage is a bit weak. It takes 150 4” hits plus five torpedo hits to sink a DD and 200 4” rounds to sink a 1000 ton transport.
RFB torpedo mod treated the mark 10 and 14 as the same torpedo, and I question the mods actual effect of the ineffectiveness of the mark 14. These torpedoes has there scandal, however they did work, boats did sink ships with them.
It is not the only mod out there.
I am currently of the opinion however to wait until 1.3 comes out and see what happens with that.
Palidian
06-29-07, 10:44 PM
The US Navy says the rate of fire is 8-10 rounds per minute.
They Wahoo may of been waiting for damage assessment, or other ranging calculations. Since it dose not state we do not know. Crew fatigue is also a factor, it takes longer to load a round then it dose to hand up a round from below deck, this would be done from crew members not actually manning the gun. An engagement taking that long fatigue would be a real factor, however a blanket 40 second rate of fire is not the answer.
Nope.
Provide me with data to make a resonable analysis.
Bad math is not a solution and can not be equated as being better than no math.
Neon, you didn't read my post did you? It's not my job to provide you with data to disprove Beery, it's your job. Later you quote 'maximum rate of fire' and also refer to the ammo locker on deck.
Where do you get the maximum rate of fire you quote?
Did you read the parts of the thread where Beery clearly states that there is a ready-ammo locker and then clearly states that we can't model the existance of such?
Finally, it's easy enough to fire at a "maximum average rate" in SH4 since you SEE when the shell is reloading and can fire immediately. I sure don't fire below the rate SH4 gives me (or Beery gives me..) without deliberate intent.
I have seen no logs that show maximum rate of fire and if there is one that really lists max rate, I would like to see em. No log I have seen makes it clear they are firing rapid as fast as possible.
NEON, think about it. Do you really think the WAHOO in the logs Beery posted was firing slower than (quick edit) a sustainable maximum? What skipper in their right mind would wish a surface artillery duel to go on longer than the shortest possible time? What, were they taking cigarette breaks in between shots??
(edit) Also, as we're all saying here (you included I believe) maximum rate of fire sitting at a target range in Pearl is a lot different than maximum rate of fire under combat conditions.
The gun destabilization mod looks great from my couple tries with a pig boat. It make shooting past 1000 yards pretty hard. Enough that my ROF was maybe 4 rpm with the standard games 4 second reload time (which needs to be doubled just to meet the spec figures of 8-9 rpm). Ring up flank and it gets pretty ugly, too.
This mod will allow for more realism in gunnery than is possible modding straight ROF.
Palidian, can you give a reference for that number? That's higher than anything else anybody has cited, even numbers people claim come from USN. Ideally something we could see online... especially if you honestly want to contribute rather than troll.
Also, you have more faith in the US Navy testing than is warranted under the circumstances. Given the torpedo situation and everything else... what's in 'the manual' might not be accurate. I am reluctant to even address your comments regarding the torpedo accuracy, but I think you need to look at the historical record and not just assume that because ships were sunk, the torpedoes worked decently. I've seen references to 3 torpedoes out of 16 actually functioning properly in the early parts of the war. No citation or anything, I'm not qualified to argue this point.
I've said before and others have as well that at sea is different than anchored at a firing range in Pearl. A benchmark test is probably done under absolutely ideal conditions with surplus crew a skipper at sea doesn't have. Who knows, maybe the gun is dismounted and bolted into some concrete on a ground-based firing range for the test, with a highly trained team of ammo loaders all with shells in hand ready to go. I'm just supposing as two thirds of the posters have been doing. :p
Finally, as has been said many times before, there's only one rate of fire variable that a modder can set. It's set to real world data. Palidian, your questions and comments aren't new, nor do they provide any answers or data. If anyone has evidence Wahoo would voluntarily be firing slowly, or has any better evidence than Beery's, please post it. Until then I will not be posting any more in this thread. All I'm doing is rehashing the same points to different posters who seemingly haven't read through the thread. :down: Entirely counterproductive by all of us.
NEON DEON
06-30-07, 02:10 AM
Here.
3" 50 gun 15-20 rpm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk10-22.htm
4" 50 gun 8-9 rpm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4-50_mk9.htm
5" 25 gun 15-20 rpm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-25_mk10.htm
6" 53 gun 6-7 rpm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-53_mk12.htm
The 3 and 5 inch guns were DP guns and had semi automatic breeches.
Thank you, NEON, for the links.
After re-reading the whole thread I see we've been completely flogging the horse found dead on page 2, for 3 days.
At this point I'll just state that the ROF linked is for that gun class, regardless of what ship it was mounted on, the mounting details, the crewing details, the ammo details, or anything. I honestly imagine they sat the gun down (all 2.75 tons for that 4" wow!), bolted it into the concrete, set up optimal conditions with a huge groundcrew, and generated said ROF.
Now, Beery's original post here covers most everything else.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=571539&postcount=25
MMmmm, pass that dead horse found on page 2!!
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=572418&postcount=40
NEON, you manually control your ROF to a level you feel realistic, something I did not read the first time around. That makes your stance against Beery's ROF more understandable. I prefer to have the game limit my rate of fire to Beery's maximum, given the unrealistic gun platform, I enjoy that the most.
So we all seem to disagree, the mod is optional, end of story. Boy, let's do this a few more times! :damn: :damn: :damn: :doh: :lol:
Check out the destabilization thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117430&page=5
some pics of what shooting looks like with 8m/s wind seas.
Sailor Steve
06-30-07, 10:24 AM
LOL :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If you guys want to believe that a gun designed to be an AA weapon too has a slower rate of fire than a 58 caliber civil war musket, then be my guest.
In the movie Glory there is a wonderful scene in which several soldiers are praising one of their fellow on his ability to load and fire that very weapon quickly and accurately. His commander then has him do it again, except this time said Colonel pulls his revolver and starts firing it right by the poor guy's ear. With dropped bullets and constant fumbling, his firing time goes way down. I've shot a bolt-for-bolt replica of that .58 cap-and-ball weapon myself. I can do it in about 20 seconds. With people shooting back, and having to account for combat nervousness, I doubt it.
Absolute load-and-fire rates and real-world combat fire rates are two different things entirely. You're "I know better than you" put-downs and links to sites we all know are less than useful.
If you really want to contribute something worthwhile, I'm still waiting for your calculations on how far battleships move when they fire. If not, then try adhering to the old adage: "Lead, follow, or stay out of the way".
sqk7744
06-30-07, 11:47 AM
LOL :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If you guys want to believe that a gun designed to be an AA weapon too has a slower rate of fire than a 58 caliber civil war musket, then be my guest. In the movie Glory there is a wonderful scene in which several soldiers are praising one of their fellow on his ability to load and fire that very weapon quickly and accurately. His commander then has him do it again, except this time said Colonel pulls his revolver and starts firing it right by the poor guy's ear. With dropped bullets and constant fumbling, his firing time goes way down. I've shot a bolt-for-bolt replica of that .58 cap-and-ball weapon myself. I can do it in about 20 seconds. With people shooting back, and having to account for combat nervousness, I doubt it.
Absolute load-and-fire rates and real-world combat fire rates are two different things entirely. You're "I know better than you" put-downs and links to sites we all know are less than useful.
If you really want to contribute something worthwhile, I'm still waiting for your calculations on how far battleships move when they fire. If not, then try adhering to the old adage: "Lead, follow, or stay out of the way".
---
AMEN CHIEF! :|\\
NEON DEON
06-30-07, 02:04 PM
LOL :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If you guys want to believe that a gun designed to be an AA weapon too has a slower rate of fire than a 58 caliber civil war musket, then be my guest.
In the movie Glory there is a wonderful scene in which several soldiers are praising one of their fellow on his ability to load and fire that very weapon quickly and accurately. His commander then has him do it again, except this time said Colonel pulls his revolver and starts firing it right by the poor guy's ear. With dropped bullets and constant fumbling, his firing time goes way down. I've shot a bolt-for-bolt replica of that .58 cap-and-ball weapon myself. I can do it in about 20 seconds. With people shooting back, and having to account for combat nervousness, I doubt it.
So are you saying you can fire a musket faster than a trained member of the Iron Brigade could in combat?
You're "I know better than you" put-downs and links to sites we all know are less than useful.
Oh I see that you think Navweaps.com is a less than useful site and you speak for everyone.
Sailor Steve
06-30-07, 02:27 PM
So are you saying you can fire a musket faster than a trained member of the Iron Brigade could in combat?
Not at all, but 20 seconds is about the fastest time recorded for anyone to load and fire one, and combat situations tend to change everything. The Civil War is full of stories of soldiers loading and firing for some time, only to find the first one misfired and they didn't even notice the lack of recoil, which lead to checking the gun later and finding five or six charges and balls in the barrel, all unfired. On a different note, combat firing times from units firing in ranks were also slower, because the commander didn't order "Fire!" until the slowest man had loaded and presented.
Oh I see that you think Navweaps.com is a less than useful site and you speak for everyone.
Me? I think Navweaps is a fantastically useful site. Some of the numbers even come from my favorite source, John Campbell's Naval Weapons Of World War Two. The problem is that absolute maximum reload times are derived in 'perfect world' situations, and as I said above, combat changes everything, and always for the worse.
And I'm still waiting for your calculations showing what combat reload times should be, since you seem to think Morton's actual combat report for Wahoo is unreliable.
NEON DEON
06-30-07, 04:14 PM
Nope.
It gives a hands on numbers account of AVERAGE rate of fire in a 4 inch gun engagement.
The navweapons site gives ROF of the gun.
My point is the same it has not changed.
You can not take the average and make it the maximum.
I can only state what I have said in an earlier post when it comes to a formula:
Show me a log that states something like this;
Commenced rapid fire on target at 0700.
Ceased rapid fire at 0705.
Expended 13 rounds.
Then I will give you proof of maximum rate of fire in that combat situation.
The best info I have right now from a US sub is an engagement from USS Nautilus's logbook. It doesn't quite meet the criteria I've set (it involves too great a proportion of ready-use ammo) but I think it is useful:
"0703 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on Ukiangong Point area on
Makin Island. Covered area by shifting sights in range and deflection.
0711 M Checked fire.
0716 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on ship anchorage area of
Makin Island. Radio spotting circuit was jammed or ineffective. Covered
area as thoroughly as possible by shifting sights in range and deflection
as necessary.
0723 M Checked fire, a total of 65 rounds of ammunition
having been expended."
That's 65 rounds in 15 minutes from two guns. That's 28 seconds per round per gun where the gun was not being aimed properly and where rangefinding and proper adjustments in aim could not be done. Around 40 of those rounds (20 per gun and nearly 2/3rds of the ammo fired) would have come from the ready-use ammo stores by the guns, so a longer engagement would have resulted in a slower rate of fire. Also, the rate of fire stated here does not take into account preparing the gun to fire. Still, the rate of fire in this engagement confirms RFB's rate of fire. Nautilus' crewmen reload their guns three seconds slower than RFB crewmen reload their 5" gun. Far from showing that RFB's reload rate is too slow this indicates that RFB's reload rate is TOO FAST.
There you go.
And if you're looking for the phrase "rapid fire", you aren't going to find it in a patrol log, I'd wager. Much more likely to find something indicating the crew was taking SLOWER than normal to fire, as I'm sure a skipper wanted the gun crew to fire as fast as possible by default, without being instructed.
Sailor Steve
06-30-07, 04:35 PM
My point is the same it has not changed.
You can not take the average and make it the maximum.
But we also know that the maximum is almost never achieved in real-life situations. There is indeed a reasonable chance that several rounds were fired, then a pause, and then more rounds, meaning that they were actually firing faster than the average. But, as been said innumerable times, the game doesn't take into account any adverse conditions, and what Beery is trying to do is model that. You seem to want the cannon to be a machine gun, firing at the same speed no matter what the outside effects. Unfortunately the game doesn't allow for that. The solution is simple: it's a mod - if you don't like the result, don't use it.
I can only state what I have said in an earlier post when it comes to a formula:
Show me a log that states something like this;
Commenced rapid fire on target at 0700.
Ceased rapid fire at 0705.
Expended 13 rounds.
Then I will give you proof of maximum rate of fire in that combat situation.
Unfortunately that's not real likely. Meanwhile you don't help when you use phrases like "fuzzy math". Which reminds me, when am I going to see your calculations on the other subject?
PULSEOX
06-30-07, 04:44 PM
I think everyone's tired of this "debate."
If you like the mod like I do-then use it-if you don't like it Don't use it!
Are we arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
In stock SH4, the max ROF will ALWAYS be the average. Set the gun to fire as an autocannon, and people will mash down the trigger til the taregt sinks.
If it's 8rpm, they will shoot (and likely hit) with 8 rounds per minute.
Your arguement works both ways. So yes, the average is an AVERAGE combat ROF. Not the max ROF bolted to concrete at the range next to the factory (which is what the spec value is).
Even if the gun could fire 6 rpm at sea on a sub if they were unconcerned with aiming, had no jams or misfires, etc, ad nasuem, we cannot set the value in game to 6 rpm because the guns are so easy to shoot (and hit with).
So again, take some engagement from RL that took 30 minutes. Make a mission that copies it as best you can. Get the tweaker out and mod the ROF to the right spec value (or whatever you like). Play the mission a few times.
Does yours take 30 minutes expending 90 rounds and hitting with 60 (or whatever it was in RL?). No, I'd wager you'd sink the target in 3 minutes, and be safe underwater before any help could arrive for the target.
No one is arguing that the actual ROF is equal to the average, people are arguing that such a figure results in realistic outcomes.
You are arguing about the exact color of the bark on a single tree without seeming to notice the discussion is about the forest.
BTW, it's moot since kv29's mod will mkae shooting so much harder ROFs will drop anyway.
tater
NEON DEON
06-30-07, 05:28 PM
The best info I have right now from a US sub is an engagement from USS Nautilus's logbook. It doesn't quite meet the criteria I've set (it involves too great a proportion of ready-use ammo) but I think it is useful:
"0703 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on Ukiangong Point area on
Makin Island. Covered area by shifting sights in range and deflection.
0711 M Checked fire.
0716 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on ship anchorage area of
Makin Island. Radio spotting circuit was jammed or ineffective. Covered
area as thoroughly as possible by shifting sights in range and deflection
as necessary.
0723 M Checked fire, a total of 65 rounds of ammunition
having been expended."
That's 65 rounds in 15 minutes from two guns. That's 28 seconds per round per gun where the gun was not being aimed properly and where rangefinding and proper adjustments in aim could not be done. Around 40 of those rounds (20 per gun and nearly 2/3rds of the ammo fired) would have come from the ready-use ammo stores by the guns, so a longer engagement would have resulted in a slower rate of fire. Also, the rate of fire stated here does not take into account preparing the gun to fire. Still, the rate of fire in this engagement confirms RFB's rate of fire. Nautilus' crewmen reload their guns three seconds slower than RFB crewmen reload their 5" gun. Far from showing that RFB's reload rate is too slow this indicates that RFB's reload rate is TOO FAST.
There you go.
And if you're looking for the phrase "rapid fire", you aren't going to find it in a patrol log, I'd wager. Much more likely to find something indicating the crew was taking SLOWER than normal to fire, as I'm sure a skipper wanted the gun crew to fire as fast as possible by default, without being instructed.
X,
Nautilus 6 inch gun fires semi fixed ammo. It comes in two pieces
105 lbs projectile and 44 lbs charge.
THe 5 inch mark 17 sub mounted weapon fires semi fixed ammo too. But it comes in much smaller pieces. Totalling the both pieces together would be only 80 lbs. The 5 inch has a semi auto breech and was an AA gun. Posted rate of fire from navweaps.
6 to 7 for the 6"
and
15 t0 20 for the 5"
The 6 inch should be slower. Alot slower.
So if that is the case then no such order of rapid fire would be needed.
Here ya go.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/nautilus3.htm
The nautilus' whacky encounter with a convoy and a 9,000 ton merchant.
"2352 K Ordered gun one to commence firing. Hit continuously after first shot and ordered rapid fire."
So they fires with a 6 inch deck gun for an hour and 9 minutes to no effect?
Actually, that is a useful lesson in reality. The gun was capable for some rate of "rapid fire" in theory. In practice, the hoist breaks, and they have to bucket brigade the ammo up (and the 2d gun didn't even try to fire because of a broken hoist), dropping the ROF such that they fire for over an hour to get the target burning (1 hour, 18 minutes after they started according to the log).
As for the DP role of the gun, that's on a surface combatant. A single 5" gun, even with the very good VT fused shells would be utterly ineffective as an AA weapon.
NEON DEON
06-30-07, 11:42 PM
So they fires with a 6 inch deck gun for an hour and 9 minutes to no effect?
Actually, that is a useful lesson in reality. The gun was capable for some rate of "rapid fire" in theory. In practice, the hoist breaks, and they have to bucket brigade the ammo up (and the 2d gun didn't even try to fire because of a broken hoist), dropping the ROF such that they fire for over an hour to get the target burning (1 hour, 18 minutes after they started according to the log).
What report did you read?:confused:
No effect?:huh:
The ship was set on fire forced to try and ram presenting a perfect shot under 500 yards and one added torpedo hit sent a 9,000 ton ship to the bottom.
That was 18 minutes Tater not 1 hour and 18 minutes.
"2352 K Ordered gun one to commence firing. Hit continuously after first
shot and ordered rapid fire. After ten shots forward ammunition hoist
became inoperative. Ordered ammunition up through gun access hatch and ordered tubes reloaded. By 0001 K had once again obtained good firing
position and tried to fire number 4 tube - misfire.
0003 K Fired number 2 tube - misfire.
0005 K Tried with no luck to fire number 4 tube. At this point target
speeded up, turned toward us and tried to ram, causing NAUTILUS to back
emergency, cleared by about two hundred yards. She then showed us a port angle on the bow and while firing and hitting with six inch gun at 0007
fired number two tube which torpedo hit.
0010 K Target was observed to be going down by the stern, streaming oil
and on fire amidships and aft. Also they had abandoned ship, two of
their life boats were within 50 yards of us."
As for the DP role of the gun, that's on a surface combatant. A single 5" gun, even with the very good VT fused shells would be utterly ineffective as an AA weapon.
Tater you missed the point. The point is the weapon was 5 inch DP and designed as an AA weapon too. AA weapons are designed for speed. Right???:yep:
Mea culpa on the time. I misread.
How many rounds were expended in 18 minutes?
That would be some useful data. Seems like the torpedo did her in. At 6-7 rpm, you'd expect they put all but the first shot (assuming I read that right) into her. so 18*6=108 rounds, 107 hits? The upper limit would be 125 hits. How many rounds did she carry? Was a torpedo reall required after over 100 hits with a 6 inch gun at point blank range?
Do you understand how 5" DP guns were used in the AA role? Barrage fire. They were only effective (really the 5"/38s) because of the VT fuse (radar fused shells).
Yes, on a surface combatant they might be capable of sustained high rates of fire. Submarines are not surface combatants. They are abysmal gun platforms, and the gun was not intended to be used in an AA role on a submarine.
For barrage fire, the gun needn't be aimed very carefully, they were to blanket an area with shells. This means shovelling rounds in. AIMED fire is a very very different thing and would substantially alter the ROF. Subs were awful gun platforms.
As Beery has pointed out, it's not like a sub would take its time in a surface engagement, they 'd fire as many rounds as quickly as possible under the circumstances. You'd think if they actually fired 15-20 rpm on a 5" gun there'd be SOME log showing shells used that is even in the ballpark of 10 instead of none that show anything more than maybe 3 rpm.
I fully expect that actual ROFs were on the order of 4-5 rpm for many of these guns. In combat, aside from such point-blank engagements there would be periods where the gun didn't fire at all, which results in an average of more like 2-3 rpm over a gunnery engagement in a log entry.
Not a single person has argued that the ROF of the guns was equal to the average in the logs. no one. The point is that the logs are, well, the logs. We know how many rounds were expending in some period of time. Sure, the gun may not have been firing for half, or even more than half of the minutes in the log. Who knows. It;s telling that none of the logs show a count of rounds fired that even approaches the spec ROF for the gun. Find one, I'm willing to be convinced, I have no idea what the actual combat ROF was. No idea.
We know the boundry values of this problem. The upper limit is the factory max ROF, the lower limit is the worst log entry we have. Reality is someplace in between.
Regardless, the OUTCOME in RL was X rounds fired over a period of time resulting in a sinking or not. The time periods are always longer than ANYTHING we'd see in SH4 for the same engagement. That's what matters here. How many times did a handful of HE rounds sink a jap DD, for excample? Why did they waste torpedos on DDs in RL when they are so ridiculously easy to kill with the deck gun?
So again, the forest here is the outcome of gunnery engagements in SH4. If the guns in your version of what ROF should be can take on DDs on the surface and win, your version is WRONG. Doesn't matter if the ROF is right or not, the result is 100% wrong. If guns are useful enough to be used routinely on more than sampans... then they don't match RL where the vast majority of encounters never involved the use of deck guns. The largest vessel attributed as sunk by deck gun fire was not the large transport in you example, it was only like 3000 tons (look how many patrol tonnages got gutted after the war checking jap records, credits for 10,000 ton tankers reduced to 1000 ton coasters, etc).
Anyway, it's all moot. The gun destabilization mod seems to work. That will add a whole new moddable factor into the gunnery issue since range/aim/sea conditions will actually have some bearing on the hits per unit time, which they didn't just a day ago. So point blank shots with slow or unmoving boats will be "rapid fire" excercises, and harder taregts will be FAR harder to even hit, and you'll be waiting a roll or two of the hull every shot if you try and aim well.
I tested with the 4"50 and even with the ROF (really reload timing) set to 15 rpm (4 secnd reload like stock SH4), I was lucky to shoot at 7 rpm with the deck and gun actually moving.
NEON DEON
07-01-07, 01:54 AM
I do not disagree with your AA capability assessment of the 5 inch gun. Never did. Never once wanted it to fire it as an AA weapon. The speed is what I refer to on the 5 inch 25.
Earlier in the same patrol. The Nautilus engaged a 1,000 ton Patrol craft in high seas at 5,000 yards and sank her with gunfire in 13 minutes. Yet ----------
I hear it should take much longer to do that and no way can you fire from a sub and sink a ship from that distance in high seas.
The Nautilus attacks a 9,000 ton ship with gunfire and one torpedo and sinks her in 18 minutes. Yet ----------------------
I hear from the anti gun patrol that a sub would not attack a ship that big on the surface with gunfire.
Tater in almost every post I have made I have said the situation dictates the ROF.
A sub did not fire as fast it could all the time in a gun engagement, if that was the case otherwise, then there would be no reason for a RAPID FIRE order. I have shown you just a few posts ago the rapid fire order does indeed exsist.
You cant put aside a point blank engagement. That goes to combat situation.
Yes Tater people have argued the average issue. DId you not see the earlier posts?
The outcome of a gun engagement and its correspondance to RL is not clear for all situations. The guns are different the situations are different and the ship conditions are different.
I point once again to the Nautilus sinking the PC in 13 minutes in high seas from 5,000 yards.
I was very clear that it was a combined attack and yes the 9000 ton ship was credited to the Nautilus and so was the PC. In fact, the letter from sub Squadron leader to the Pacific sub commander he points out how pleased he was in reference to the use of the guns to sink enemy shipping.
Guess its time to give my opinion on changes in the deck gun.
Yes I believe a stability mod would make a much better choice Than a overinflated rate of fire because it gives you back choice to at least try. ;)
Combine that with a smaller increase in ROF and subtract some damage from the projectiles in accordance with their size plus increase merchant and escort AI in gun battles and arm almost every thing with deck guns faster.
That should put a crimp on the number of close in engagements and make it real hard to beat a destroyer if not impossible. And, since the close in engagemnents would be much harder you have to fire at a longer distance which means you would need to get a little lucky to hit the ship at the waterline.
And with a lot more armed merchants running around with better AI ratting it would make people who play dead is dead think twice about engaging in a gun battle.
Rockin Robbins
07-01-07, 05:58 AM
Holy cow Neon, you're using a ship sunk by a torpedo as evidence for effectiveness of a gun. You've sunk your own boat there. Discussion over. It's Miller time!
Palidian
07-01-07, 07:34 AM
This is where training or experience comes in, the French old guard could fire their flint lock muskets at 6 rounds a minute, under fire. The great and powerful Beery, in his mod states the *best* anyone can do is one round every 30 seconds, for a gun that loads in 6 seconds.
Keep in mind he advertised a “real fleet boat”, and the best outcome, trained crew, moored up in dry dock would be 8 rounds a minute, this is not possible in Beery's mod, the best is two rounds. This makes his mod not quite as *real* as he lets on to believe. This is not an accurate simulation, and not actually *real*
Some would call it fraud.
Oh and by the way I have a Remingtion 1858 and a Colt Walker, you load kinda fast.
LOL :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If you guys want to believe that a gun designed to be an AA weapon too has a slower rate of fire than a 58 caliber civil war musket, then be my guest. In the movie Glory there is a wonderful scene in which several soldiers are praising one of their fellow on his ability to load and fire that very weapon quickly and accurately. His commander then has him do it again, except this time said Colonel pulls his revolver and starts firing it right by the poor guy's ear. With dropped bullets and constant fumbling, his firing time goes way down. I've shot a bolt-for-bolt replica of that .58 cap-and-ball weapon myself. I can do it in about 20 seconds. With people shooting back, and having to account for combat nervousness, I doubt it.
Absolute load-and-fire rates and real-world combat fire rates are two different things entirely. You're "I know better than you" put-downs and links to sites we all know are less than useful.
If you really want to contribute something worthwhile, I'm still waiting for your calculations on how far battleships move when they fire. If not, then try adhering to the old adage: "Lead, follow, or stay out of the way".
Palidian
07-01-07, 07:40 AM
If you would like I have a Brown Bess and an Enfield three band, if you want to come out to Arizona land, I can show you how to fire 6 rounds a minute.
You are correct however the rate of fire if 8 per minute, is perfect world, that number is not even possable is Beery's mod, its not even close.
So are you saying you can fire a musket faster than a trained member of the Iron Brigade could in combat? Not at all, but 20 seconds is about the fastest time recorded for anyone to load and fire one, and combat situations tend to change everything. The Civil War is full of stories of soldiers loading and firing for some time, only to find the first one misfired and they didn't even notice the lack of recoil, which lead to checking the gun later and finding five or six charges and balls in the barrel, all unfired. On a different note, combat firing times from units firing in ranks were also slower, because the commander didn't order "Fire!" until the slowest man had loaded and presented.
Oh I see that you think Navweaps.com is a less than useful site and you speak for everyone. Me? I think Navweaps is a fantastically useful site. Some of the numbers even come from my favorite source, John Campbell's Naval Weapons Of World War Two. The problem is that absolute maximum reload times are derived in 'perfect world' situations, and as I said above, combat changes everything, and always for the worse.
And I'm still waiting for your calculations showing what combat reload times should be, since you seem to think Morton's actual combat report for Wahoo is unreliable.
Palidian
07-01-07, 08:00 AM
However Berry makes some assumptions... that both guns were firing, and both guns were able to fire at all times. This pesty conning tower gets in the way. He also makes the assumption that they were orderd to fire as fast as possable. Beery like making assumptions.
However the 6" gun is much different then the 4" and 5" guns. The 6" gun had a rate of fire of 6 RPM, this is would bring the 4" and 5" guns in that engagement to 21 seconds. This is still 2/3s of Beery's *real* boat mod.
The best info I have right now from a US sub is an engagement from USS Nautilus's logbook. It doesn't quite meet the criteria I've set (it involves too great a proportion of ready-use ammo) but I think it is useful:
"0703 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on Ukiangong Point area on
Makin Island. Covered area by shifting sights in range and deflection.
0711 M Checked fire.
0716 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on ship anchorage area of
Makin Island. Radio spotting circuit was jammed or ineffective. Covered
area as thoroughly as possible by shifting sights in range and deflection
as necessary.
0723 M Checked fire, a total of 65 rounds of ammunition
having been expended."
That's 65 rounds in 15 minutes from two guns. That's 28 seconds per round per gun where the gun was not being aimed properly and where rangefinding and proper adjustments in aim could not be done. Around 40 of those rounds (20 per gun and nearly 2/3rds of the ammo fired) would have come from the ready-use ammo stores by the guns, so a longer engagement would have resulted in a slower rate of fire. Also, the rate of fire stated here does not take into account preparing the gun to fire. Still, the rate of fire in this engagement confirms RFB's rate of fire. Nautilus' crewmen reload their guns three seconds slower than RFB crewmen reload their 5" gun. Far from showing that RFB's reload rate is too slow this indicates that RFB's reload rate is TOO FAST.
There you go.
And if you're looking for the phrase "rapid fire", you aren't going to find it in a patrol log, I'd wager. Much more likely to find something indicating the crew was taking SLOWER than normal to fire, as I'm sure a skipper wanted the gun crew to fire as fast as possible by default, without being instructed.
Palidian
07-01-07, 08:05 AM
Funny that is not how I read his post.....
Holy cow Neon, you're using a ship sunk by a torpedo as evidence for effectiveness of a gun. You've sunk your own boat there. Discussion over. It's Miller time!
Sailor Steve
07-01-07, 04:39 PM
Earlier in the same patrol. The Nautilus engaged a 1,000 ton Patrol craft in high seas at 5,000 yards and sank her with gunfire in 13 minutes. Yet ----------
I hear it should take much longer to do that and no way can you fire from a sub and sink a ship from that distance in high seas.
Where does it say he sank it, and in 13 minutes?
Attack No. 1 40-41 N 146-36 E
Sighted 1000 ton vessel at 0753 K on September 24, 1942 and dived. Made
battle surface after closing range to 8000 yards. Enemy vessel immediately turned toward submarine upon sighting us. Appeared to be a
patrol vessel so fire was opened at 4700 yards. Target kept closing for
first eight salvos, and then turned away and zigged wildly. Several hits
definitely observed by flying debris. At 0848 K sighted enemy patrol
plane and made quick dive leaving guns partially secured.
All it says is that they attacked and had trouble hitting, and dived almost an hour later when attacked by a plane. How many shots did they fire? Also, the attack started at 5000 yards, and closed.
The Nautilus attacks a 9,000 ton ship with gunfire and one torpedo and sinks her in 18 minutes. Yet ----------------------
I hear from the anti gun patrol that a sub would not attack a ship that big on the surface with gunfire.
Who says that? All anyone has said is that it takes a lot of shells to sink a ship that size. Most subs didn't have 6" guns.
"Anti-gun patrol"? You do like using insulting terms.
I point once again to the Nautilus sinking the PC in 13 minutes in high seas from 5,000 yards.
Again, where is the 13 minutes and where is the sinking?
As to the 9000-tonner, "rapid fire" is an order to fire as fast as possible (obviously). He points out that the range was now 600 yards (point-blank in the summary report), so there was no need to aim the gun-they were'nt likely to miss. That kind of shooting is great, once in a while. The problem, again, is any kind of adverse condition.
The problem has been all along that the gun in the game fires at that rate no matter what the conditions.
@Palidian: disagreeing is nice. Calling people a "fraud", and saying they "like to make assumptions" is not. Please play nice.
NEON DEON
07-01-07, 05:17 PM
Earlier in the same patrol. The Nautilus engaged a 1,000 ton Patrol craft in high seas at 5,000 yards and sank her with gunfire in 13 minutes. Yet ----------
I hear it should take much longer to do that and no way can you fire from a sub and sink a ship from that distance in high seas.
Where does it say he sank it, and in 13 minutes?
Attack No. 1 40-41 N 146-36 E
Sighted 1000 ton vessel at 0753 K on September 24, 1942 and dived. Made
battle surface after closing range to 8000 yards. Enemy vessel immediately turned toward submarine upon sighting us. Appeared to be a
patrol vessel so fire was opened at 4700 yards. Target kept closing for
first eight salvos, and then turned away and zigged wildly. Several hits
definitely observed by flying debris. At 0848 K sighted enemy patrol
plane and made quick dive leaving guns partially secured.
All it says is that they attacked and had trouble hitting, and dived almost an hour later when attacked by a plane. How many shots did they fire? Also, the attack started at 5000 yards, and closed..
You might want to read the whole patrol report Steve.
This is what the log says from it the day it happened:
"0835 K Ship turned and headed for us at a range of about 5000 yards.
Decided he was undoubtedly a patrol vessel and was probably armed.
Opened both hatches and commenced firing both six inch guns (attack #1).
He then turned away and started zigzagging. We had difficulty getting on
at first due to high seas. One man was almost washed overboard on gun 2.
However, by 0845 K we were close making straddles and many hits were
made. Splashes could be seen caused by flying debris.
0848 K Enemy plane sighted distant 4 miles heading for us as we noticed
patrol vessel seemed to be sinking by stern. (Plane contact #1). Radar
showed plane at 3 / miles. Guns were partially secured and at 0850 K
submerged to 100 feet."
13 minutes unless you believe they kept firing while it was sinking then you could say 15.
Yes 5000 yards was the start of the engagement and at 4700 yards the target turned away.
Thanks for pointing that out Steve. Looks like it took 3 minutes to sink it after they had zeroed in!
Liveshot
07-01-07, 09:53 PM
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
ABSOLUTLY GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....:up:
Fearless
07-01-07, 11:22 PM
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
ABSOLUTLY GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....:up:
:rock: And if those guys don't get the meaning then USE TORPS ONLY, PROBLEM SOLVED :arrgh!:
Sailor Steve
07-02-07, 10:36 AM
You might want to read the whole patrol report Steve.
Thank you for that slap in the face. I needed you to make another demeaning remark.
This is what the log says from it the day it happened:
"0835 K Ship turned and headed for us at a range of about 5000 yards.
Decided he was undoubtedly a patrol vessel and was probably armed.
Opened both hatches and commenced firing both six inch guns (attack #1).
He then turned away and started zigzagging. We had difficulty getting on
at first due to high seas. One man was almost washed overboard on gun 2.
However, by 0845 K we were close making straddles and many hits were
made. Splashes could be seen caused by flying debris.
0848 K Enemy plane sighted distant 4 miles heading for us as we noticed
patrol vessel seemed to be sinking by stern. (Plane contact #1). Radar
showed plane at 3 / miles. Guns were partially secured and at 0850 K
submerged to 100 feet."
13 minutes unless you believe they kept firing while it was sinking then you could say 15.
Yes 5000 yards was the start of the engagement and at 4700 yards the target turned away.
Thanks for pointing that out Steve. Looks like it took 3 minutes to sink it after they had zeroed in!
Yep. You're right. A six-inch gun can do a lot of damage. How many shots fired in that time?
How many ships was Nautilus credited with sinking on that day?
According to Subs Against the Rising Sun, none claimed, none credited.
NEON DEON
07-02-07, 08:50 PM
How many ships was Nautilus credited with sinking on that day?
According to Subs Against the Rising Sun, none claimed, none credited.
Sounds like a good book.
Guess logs can be wrong afterall.
I wonder if the order to rapid fire could be wrong too?
Nautilus Claimed 2 deck gun sinkings the 17th of August, 1942 for 1500 and 3500 tons. Her next claim was Sept. 24th, also with the gun for a 1000 ton PC. The 25th she claimed a 200 ton sampan, and on the 26th another. The 27th of Sept. she claimed an 8700 ton APK damaged with torpedos and guns---not a sinking.
All this from Alden's, US Submarine Attacks During World War II (NIP, 1989).
tater
NEON DEON
07-02-07, 10:24 PM
Nautilus Claimed 2 deck gun sinkings the 17th of August, 1942 for 1500 and 3500 tons. Her next claim was Sept. 24th, also with the gun for a 1000 ton PC. The 25th she claimed a 200 ton sampan, and on the 26th another. The 27th of Sept. she claimed an 8700 ton APK damaged with torpedos and guns---not a sinking.
All this from Alden's, US Submarine Attacks During World War II (NIP, 1989).
tater
How would you rate that book to Silent Victory Tater?
Silent Victory you can actually read, lol.
That book is nothing but lists of every single submarine attack. Alden made an effort to actually surpass JANAC and find out information about sinkings that JANAC might have missed. It's useful to have alongside a book like Blair's, but it ain;t something you can read.
Silent Victory is certainly a good book, a favorite and pretty definitive, certainly in the big picture. I think that since it came out there might be more available in terms of japanese information, at least in english. Look at Parshall and Tully's magnificent Shattered Sword as the most recent example.
NEON DEON
07-02-07, 10:45 PM
Silent Victory you can actually read, lol.
That book is nothing but lists of every single submarine attack. Alden made an effort to actually surpass JANAC and find out information about sinkings that JANAC might have missed. It's useful to have alongside a book like Blair's, but it ain;t something you can read.
Silent Victory is certainly a good book, a favorite and pretty definitive, certainly in the big picture. I think that since it came out there might be more available in terms of japanese information, at least in english. Look at Parshall and Tully's magnificent Shattered Sword as the most recent example.
Oh boy! more stats!:up:
Thanks Tater.
BTW, if you have any interest in the Pacific War, Shattered Sword is a must-read.
Another awesome book is Combined Fleet Decoded.
tater
...Her next claim was Sept. 24th, also with the gun for a 1000 ton PC.
But she received no credit for it according to Subs Against the Rising Sun, which presumably means her crew didn't see any evidence of it sinking and no similar vessel went missing in that area on that date.
NEON DEON
07-03-07, 10:11 AM
...Her next claim was Sept. 24th, also with the gun for a 1000 ton PC.
But she received no credit for it according to Subs Against the Rising Sun, which presumably means her crew didn't see any evidence of it sinking and no similar vessel went missing in that area on that date.
Guess so.
One says it did one says it didnt.
The log could be wrong.
The Officers could have also forgotten guns fired at their fastest pace and ordered rapid fire anyway.
The Moon could be made of pink bunny sausage too.
No, one said she claimed it sunk.
It didn't say the sinking was confirmed, it only listed it as claimed.
Anyway, that ship was 1000 tons (or likely less - tonnage in WW2 submarine claims was often exaggerated) and two six inch guns were firing on her for 13 minutes. At a rate of one round per 30 seconds (which is what has been confirmed for Nautilus in combat) that would be 52 shells fired at her, many of which would have hit her.
In RFB I just hit a 2400 ton vessel and sank her after 60 HE shells from a 4" gun. I don't know what the critics are suggesting, but if they're suggesting that RFB shells are too weak their example proves anything but. If anything this suggests that RFB's shells are too strong, since I can destroy a 2500 ton vessel with almost as few 4" shells as it took Nautilus to sink a 1000 ton vessel using 6" shells.
If anyone wants to test this out, simply go to RFB's first sub school artillery mission - sink the 2400 ton ship by aiming at the waterline in the middle of the ship. Use HE shells - it should take exactly 61 shells to sink her.
I also went into the second sub school artillery mission - there's a 500 ton ship in that one. I just sank her with 20 3" HE shells. Given the tendency of sub skippers to exaggerate claims this ship may be about the same size as the one Nautilus sank - even if not the 1000 ton ship is only about twice the size of mine and it may counteract the fact that Nautilus was using 6" shells. Anyway I sank her with 20 3" shells, Nautilus sank her 1000 ton vessel with 'many' hits. Somehow I don't see how this example of Nautilus' firepower proves anything - it certainly doesn't show RFB guns to be underpowered.
If the critics are suggesting that Nautilus' rate of fire was somehow faster, nowhere in the log does it state a rate of fire or the number of shells expended. The only mention of the number of shells is the vague word 'many'. Even in five minutes Nautilus, with her two guns, could fire 'many' shells at the rate of fire we've established for her (2 shells per minute per gun).
Even if Nautilus only started hitting the ship in the last three minutes (which is the most conservative reading possible) that's twelve 6" shells Even so, twelve 6" shells equate to a great many 3" shells, so even allowing the most restrictive possible interpretation, Nautilus' experience in no way invalidates the results that RFB is producing except perhaps to suggest that RFB's shells are too effective.
In short, I don't see how this proves anything, although it does seem to suggest that RFB's guns may be overpowered.
^^^ unless she fired at the low end of the spec ROF, Beery, in which case she put 156 6" rounds downrange at that PC. ;)
tater
^^^ unless she fired at the low end of the spec ROF, Beery, in which case she put 156 6" rounds downrange at that PC. ;)
tater
Hehe yeah, maybe. After all those heavy waves must have made it easier to load those 6" shells, LOL.
But seriously, I can only go by the ROF that has been shown for Nautilus in combat. But either way, it shows that RFB is well within reasonable limits regarding the effectiveness of the shells (i.e. in no way can it be said that I've made RFB's shells too weak). As for ROF it tells us virtually nothing, but then again we already have a very clear combat ROF value for Nautilus - probably the clearest ROF I've seen for any sub in two years of investigating this stuff.
NEON DEON
07-03-07, 01:41 PM
^^^ unless she fired at the low end of the spec ROF, Beery, in which case she put 156 6" rounds downrange at that PC. ;)
tater
Hehe yeah, maybe. After all those heavy waves must have made it easier to load those 6" shells, LOL.
But seriously, I can only go by the ROF that has been shown for Nautilus in combat. But either way, it shows that RFB is well within reasonable limits regarding the effectiveness of the shells (i.e. in no way can it be said that I've made RFB's shells too weak). As for ROF it tells us virtually nothing, but then again we already have a very clear combat ROF value for Nautilus - probably the clearest ROF I've seen for any sub in two years of investigating this stuff.
Nah she didnt stradle untill the last 3 minutes of the engagement from a distance of 4700 to 5000 yards in heavy seas.
Situation governs rate of fire and subs dont fire at a uniform speed thru the entire engagement.
Take the stock game for a ride in heavy seas and see if you can fire and hit 1,000 ton target at that distance all the time holding your finger on the button.
Sailor Steve
07-03-07, 05:06 PM
Guess logs can be wrong afterall.
Or right.
I wonder if the order to rapid fire could be wrong too?
Probably not. Once he got close enough he would likely want to throw everything he could at it. I agree, though, in a discussion like this the more that can be found the better.:sunny:
NEON DEON
07-04-07, 12:49 AM
Absoulute proof that the 4 inch deck gun could only fire at 2 RPM!:D
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/6199/battlesurfacedarterss22fb3.jpg
Beery, you have found lots of good info about the US subs, but have you thought about digging a bit in the submarines that used the deck gun most? I mean the WW1 german U-Boots. I think I have readed somewhere interesting info about that subject regarding WW1 german subs, only I can't remember where right now :hmm: Narwhal was heavily based in the german U-Kreuzers, so the idea sparked in my mind :88)
Palidian
07-04-07, 03:49 PM
Can only go by? Why is it that you select the information? Ill chose to go by this fact, and ought right ignore an other.
What about the training manual for the gun? Printed by the ordnance department, after all it is there gun, they should know what it can and cannot do.
Minds are like books they work best when they are open.
^^^ unless she fired at the low end of the spec ROF, Beery, in which case she put 156 6" rounds downrange at that PC. ;)
tater
Hehe yeah, maybe. After all those heavy waves must have made it easier to load those 6" shells, LOL.
But seriously, I can only go by the ROF that has been shown for Nautilus in combat. But either way, it shows that RFB is well within reasonable limits regarding the effectiveness of the shells (i.e. in no way can it be said that I've made RFB's shells too weak). As for ROF it tells us virtually nothing, but then again we already have a very clear combat ROF value for Nautilus - probably the clearest ROF I've seen for any sub in two years of investigating this stuff.
Torpex752
07-04-07, 08:21 PM
Thats correct, then the Reports used (Wahoo & Nautilus) maybe shouldnt be included either because they are transcribed, not actual scans.
Blimey! I'm amazed at the ways people choose to rationalize away the facts that don't fit their agenda. What next - will we be discounting evidence because it was written in blue ink and not black? I mean how far beyond ridiculous does this need to get?
I'm just gonna put a couple of these guys on my ignore list. That will save me some time and if they post anything substantial I'm sure one of the RFB users will let me know.
So someone "questions" the accuracy of internet research and they are on an ignore list? LOL (that says allot) Far be it from me to question things on the internet, after all everything on the internet is obviously 100% accurate.
Sorry ol man, I guess I spent more time digging through cardboard boxes and actually reading WWII Submarine patrol reports, so I have a natural tendancy to "question" when something is transcribed. I didnt say I didnt believe it. My adjenda for the record is to pass on what I have collected. I have no other adjenda than historical accuracy. (For the record, the actual final Patrol reports stored in archives are usually the second but sometimes the third draft. So I would never imply anyone lied, but I will imply a human error here or there)
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff
Torpex752
07-04-07, 08:30 PM
Pal!
How the heck are you! Long time since we posted in the same thread. Do you remember our first conversation and when? LOL
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff
Beery, you have found lots of good info about the US subs, but have you thought about digging a bit in the submarines that used the deck gun most? I mean the WW1 german U-Boots. I think I have readed somewhere interesting info about that subject regarding WW1 german subs, only I can't remember where right now :hmm: Narwhal was heavily based in the german U-Kreuzers, so the idea sparked in my mind :88)
I haven't considered WW1 subs because the WW1 submarine war was so different. In WW2 air attack was a real threat and subs didn't have time to mess around so they usually sank a ship while the crew was on board, whereas in WW1 sub commanders usually let the merchant crew get off the ship prior to sinking her. This had a huge potential effect on damage control and therefore gunfire effectiveness. As for reload speed I'd be interested in seeing details from WW1 but it wouldn't be useful for RFB as we already have details from WW2 subs, but it would be interesting to see if WW1 subs had a similarly slow ROF. I expect they'd be slower because US subs in WW2 had a lot of attention paid to deck gun placement and ammo supply. Because of this we see a difference in the ROF of US subs compared to German subs (the WW2 German subs reload even slower).
NEON DEON
07-05-07, 03:23 PM
And the beat goes on.
And the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain. :D
Palidian
07-05-07, 03:54 PM
Do you really eat out of that mouth?
Beery, you have found lots of good info about the US subs, but have you thought about digging a bit in the submarines that used the deck gun most? I mean the WW1 german U-Boots. I think I have readed somewhere interesting info about that subject regarding WW1 german subs, only I can't remember where right now :hmm: Narwhal was heavily based in the german U-Kreuzers, so the idea sparked in my mind :88)
I haven't considered WW1 subs because the WW1 submarine war was so different. In WW2 air attack was a real threat and subs didn't have time to mess around so they usually sank a ship while the crew was on board, whereas in WW1 sub commanders usually let the merchant crew get off the ship prior to sinking her. This had a huge potential effect on damage control and therefore gunfire effectiveness. As for reload speed I'd be interested in seeing details from WW1 but it wouldn't be useful for RFB as we already have details from WW2 subs, but it would be interesting to see if WW1 subs had a similarly slow ROF. I expect they'd be slower because US subs in WW2 had a lot of attention paid to deck gun placement and ammo supply. Because of this we see a difference in the ROF of US subs compared to German subs (the WW2 German subs reload even slower).
Bloody H, Paladian you're being rude, and I certainly disagree often enough with Beery. :nope:
NEON DEON
07-05-07, 05:04 PM
Bloody H, Paladian you're being rude, and I certainly disagree often enough with Beery. :nope:
I would comment but my house is not equipped with safety glass.:D
mookiemookie
07-05-07, 06:57 PM
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill... :dead:
Sailor Steve
07-05-07, 07:25 PM
Can only go by? Why is it that you select the information? Ill chose to go by this fact, and ought right ignore an other.
What about the training manual for the gun? Printed by the ordnance department, after all it is there gun, they should know what it can and cannot do.
Minds are like books they work best when they are open.
What about the training manual? What does it say? Does it talk about sea states, or time and distance calculations?
Peter Padfield, in his excellent book Guns At Sea, which is a history of naval gunnery from the earliest days through the development of the gun Director Control Tower (DCT) makes an interesting observation: "Naval gunnery is the equivalent of attempting to shoot at a tennis ball rolling across a mantlepiece with a pistol from the other end of the living room while sitting in a rocking chair being randomly rocked by somebody else."
You should heed your own quote about open minds, and remember all the posts mentioning that the listed rate of fire is the absolute maximum, disregarding all outside factors.
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill... :dead:
On this page, apart from you and Sailor Steve ,all I see (thankfully) is a bunch of ignored names, LOL. So I just get RFB fans and those who contribute thoughtful and constructive criticisms.
The 'ignore' system has to be the best forum feature ever designed.
Fearless
07-06-07, 01:09 AM
Do you really eat out of that mouth?
Can you eat out of yours considering the amount of repeated dribble that comes out of it :arrgh!:
Saintaw
07-06-07, 02:04 AM
I switched from RUB to TM because it fits my playing style better. I just can't put the hours in searching for every contact by myself (or else i would have bought a minisub sim :p)... i did however like a lot of features, but this is what turned me down. No disrespect to Beery of course, he's done a great job if you're aiming for realism and have a lot of time on your hands :)
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill... :dead:
On this page, apart from you and Sailor Steve ,all I see (thankfully) is a bunch of ignored names, LOL. So I just get RFB fans and those who contribute thoughtful and constructive criticisms.
The 'ignore' system has to be the best forum feature ever designed.
Well I've stood up for you on this issue LOL oh well. :lol:
Torpex752
07-06-07, 06:59 AM
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill... :dead:
Actually it went down hill when when one person discredited the men who were there and their integrity over internet information. :-? Oh well.
It is irionic however that in that other thread where information could be discussed, a change is taking place toward historical accuracy.
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff
:cool:
Uber Gruber
07-06-07, 07:57 AM
I'd just like to wish everyone HAPPY CHRISTMAS!!!:up:
Thought i'd get that in early.
Sailor Steve
07-06-07, 12:00 PM
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill... :dead:
Actually it went down hill when when one person discredited the men who were there and their integrity over internet information. :-? Oh well.
It is irionic however that in that other thread where information could be discussed, a change is taking place toward historical accuracy.
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff
:cool:
Frank, I certainly have a lot of respect for you and your dedication. I'm certainly sorry I snapped at you in that one thread, but I only got involved when you posted "For your information..." which to me is always a put-down, and then listed the official rates of fire, which everyone has already discussed, as if they were the final answer and proof that we should shut up.
As for Beery, if he's who you're referring to, I don't recall him discrediting anybody's integrity; he only compared their memory (as cited by you) with what they wrote at the time. How much information concerning actual combat rates of fire did they give you? You haven't actually given us any real information from them.
As to Beery and his mod, I just posted on another thread that no-one who disagrees ever offers helpful solutions - just harsh criticism.
I'd just like to wish everyone HAPPY CHRISTMAS!!!:up:
Thought i'd get that in early.
What did you say something? :lol:
Torpex752
07-06-07, 04:49 PM
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill... :dead:
Actually it went down hill when when one person discredited the men who were there and their integrity over internet information. :-? Oh well.
It is irionic however that in that other thread where information could be discussed, a change is taking place toward historical accuracy.
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff
:cool:
Frank, I certainly have a lot of respect for you and your dedication. I'm certainly sorry I snapped at you in that one thread, but I only got involved when you posted "For your information..." which to me is always a put-down, and then listed the official rates of fire, which everyone has already discussed, as if they were the final answer and proof that we should shut up.
As for Beery, if he's who you're referring to, I don't recall him discrediting anybody's integrity; he only compared their memory (as cited by you) with what they wrote at the time. How much information concerning actual combat rates of fire did they give you? You haven't actually given us any real information from them.
As to Beery and his mod, I just posted on another thread that no-one who disagrees ever offers helpful solutions - just harsh criticism.
Steve,
I agree, looking at it that way I see what you mean, and am sorry as well for snapping back. It certainly doesnt make it right, but when you have been studying & researching WWII submarines (US & German) for my entire adult life (20+ years)and all of my teen years, and then to join the navy with the intentions of being on a submarine...I am definately a hard-core submarine "diggit". So I can be percieved as though my attitude is a "Know-it-all". In reality I know better (I know I dont know it all), but at the same time I do "know allot" about WWII subs, men, and how the two worked. Back when I joined the Subsim staff my intentions were only to pass on and "QA" a subsim's accuracy based on everything I knew. :hmm:
So I dont know how you would like me to pass that information that I collected from the sub vets. In my experience most of their memories were pretty dang good, one engineman who was 71 at the time I spoke to him could tell you the firing order of the GM Winton diesel! Now I dont doubt that some of the guys I spoke to had trouble, but you know Steve, there are certain things you never-EVER forget from when you were in the Service (I'll bet there's some technical specification about something you remember because it was significant). I can to this day, granted its only been 17 years, remember our best time reloading the sub with torpedo's. We started the clock as soon as the shipping harness setteled on the torp, and stopped it when the weapon was secured in the torpedo room. It was 12 minutes. I was damn proud of that, and will not forget it until I die or get alztimers disease. :smug: So for someone to say the memory of every sub vet I ever spoke to is questionable, and they all said pretty much the same thing give or take 3-4 seconds, is disrespectful in my opinion (I may be wrong but thats how I feel about it). I remember sitting in a sub vets club in a circle of about 8 vets getting blasted because I asked if they "were sure they remembered correctly" the diving time . HOLY GOD!:huh: I thought they were gonna kick my butt. They each had a number, 2 or three were the same but they were all under 30 seconds passing 65 feet from fully surfaced. These were the guys AT THE GAGES! How dare I question them LOL. :doh:
I only have what they told me, combined with what I've read and the truth lies somewhere in between. They all agreed that there were allot of variables, many which I have already spoken about but was told they didnt matter, only the bottom line matters. which to me is like saying it doesnt matter how you play only that you win. One Torpedoman told me that he remembers passing shells so fast during one engagement on the Barb that he thought they were tossing the shells over the side and not even shooting. :arrgh!: So after listening over the years, the consensus was anywhere from 10-15 seconds a shot that actually hit, and counting the misses from ejected shell to fire was 7-9 seconds. And if it was too rough, the gun wasnt used unless the direction of seas was favorable (I know Steve you will understand that). Most said they were making sure that that gun was loaded as fast as possible because they knew that the "Japs" might start shooting back any second. :rotfl:
As far as criticism goes, I believe that the internet is an over sensitive place only due to the lack of face to face communication. Its a real art IMO to say something and never have it mis-read/understood. When I made Chief, a Master Chief told me that its real easy to get all pissed off when some young seamen says something at you that you dont like :damn: (dang seamen are right sometimes ya know!). He suggested I just relax and take some of it as "feed-back" and nothing more. Ya know what..it worked. I started relaxing & listening and its amazing how much you can hear when you just look at it differently. :up:
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff.
Sailor Steve
07-06-07, 05:01 PM
I am definately a hard-core submarine "diggit". So I can be percieved as though my attitude is a "Know-it-all". In reality I know better (I know I dont know it all), but at the same time I do "know allot" about WWII subs, men, and how the two worked. Back when I joined the Subsim staff my intentions were only to pass on and "QA" a subsim's accuracy based on everything I knew. :hmm:
I understand that. I once quoted the old adage "The more I know the more I realize I don't know", and a much younger guy said "That doesn't make sense". I replied "That's because you still know everything".
I certainly understand about memory; some things never leave you. On the other hand, a friend of mine who knows aerodynamics inside and out was once priviledged to speak to a P-51 ace, who he says told him "Don't ask me anything technical, kid; I only flew the thing!":rotfl:
I don't know what the answers are either, but when designing/building/modding I know a decision has to be made somewhere. I also know that no developer is ever likely to give us a game that's perfect.
Oh well.
Torpex752
07-06-07, 05:19 PM
I am definately a hard-core submarine "diggit". So I can be percieved as though my attitude is a "Know-it-all". In reality I know better (I know I dont know it all), but at the same time I do "know allot" about WWII subs, men, and how the two worked. Back when I joined the Subsim staff my intentions were only to pass on and "QA" a subsim's accuracy based on everything I knew. :hmm:
I understand that. I once quoted the old adage "The more I know the more I realize I don't know", and a much younger guy said "That doesn't make sense". I replied "That's because you still know everything".
I certainly understand about memory; some things never leave you. On the other hand, a friend of mine who knows aerodynamics inside and out was once priviledged to speak to a P-51 ace, who he says told him "Don't ask me anything technical, kid; I only flew the thing!":rotfl:
I don't know what the answers are either, but when designing/building/modding I know a decision has to be made somewhere. I also know that no developer is ever likely to give us a game that's perfect.
Oh well.
Like I said in the other thread.....Realism is more in how you play than how its made to be played (IMHO). ;)
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff :cool:
10-15 seconds per hit in SH4 (player gunner vs a decent sized target at moderate range) would mean a reload time of 10-15 seconds since it's hard to miss :D
I suppose you could get as many reports (log data) on rounds fired vs rounds hit, and weight it for range and target size (gross size---like sampans, small, medium, large merchant, etc, pretty coarse). Then look at the rough hit % under real conditions.
That would be an interesting way to calibrate any mods to any gun related stuff.
BTW, I don't seriously think (I try not to take anything personally, and I tend not to read stuff that way, either) that anyone has argued that the ROF was actually slower (reload time longer). I think the arguement has been one side arguing the true ROF of the weapon vs others arguing the outcomes of the encounters. If the average ROF for a battle was 3.3 rpm, I think everyone would agree that the actual battle was at a higher ROF, followed by a period of low ROF or no shooting, then more rapid fire, etc. The trick is that in SH4, the gun will likely be shooting every X seconds where X is the reload time. This is true for AI gunners as well as players.
For individual play, it doesn't really matter. Some will elect to use the guns n a realistic way, some won't. The benefit of a consistancy in a mod, for example, would only be for players to compare their patrols assuming anyone bothered to do that.
tater
Palidian
07-06-07, 05:37 PM
Everything in the military has a training manual, it tells you how to use and maintain the item. It states that the ROF for the 4” gun is 8-10 rounds per minute. No it dose not mention sea state. It also dose not state that once this gun has been submerged there are other issues, as personal accounts have mentioned. However as I am sure Torpex will confirm, talking to people who were actually there no one made the comment, I don't know where they got that ROF from we have no way of maintaining that. Keep in mind that gunnery on a sub marine was not a priority and was rarely used, as noted by the lack of data on the subject. In Berry's mod the ROF is 40 to 45 seconds, his his own accounts he can came up with a ROF of one round every 23 seconds, this was shooting at ground targets at range with no really hurry to shoot. The undeniable fact is the gun has a ROF of 8-10 rounds per minute and this is not even close under the best circumstances in Berry's “real” mod. In any case by his own admission his “real” fleet boat mod is not actually real. When it gets pointed out to him he says we are wrong, and he knows better, closes his mind to discussion. Some would call this fraud, and some would call it being rude. I guess you could call me the watch dog that warns people about a bad product. Naturally people who are called out would object. Remember it takes two to tango.
Can only go by? Why is it that you select the information? Ill chose to go by this fact, and ought right ignore an other.
What about the training manual for the gun? Printed by the ordnance department, after all it is there gun, they should know what it can and cannot do.
Minds are like books they work best when they are open. What about the training manual? What does it say? Does it talk about sea states, or time and distance calculations?
Peter Padfield, in his excellent book Guns At Sea, which is a history of naval gunnery from the earliest days through the development of the gun Director Control Tower (DCT) makes an interesting observation: "Naval gunnery is the equivalent of attempting to shoot at a tennis ball rolling across a mantlepiece with a pistol from the other end of the living room while sitting in a rocking chair being randomly rocked by somebody else."
You should heed your own quote about open minds, and remember all the posts mentioning that the listed rate of fire is the absolute maximum, disregarding all outside factors.
You really deeply misunderstand the argument.
THERE ARE NO BEST OR WORST CIRCUMSTANCES IN SH4. GUNNERY IS ALWAYS AT WHATEVER THE ROF IS SET TO, AND HIT %s ARE GROSSLY HIGHER THAN RL. Ahem. Sorry about the shouting.
The best average ROF in a log entry seen was 17 seconds.
I actually see no reason why shelling land installations would be something a sub would do in a sleepy way, actually. Once they had the range, you'd expect a "fire for effect" to produce a decent (if not maximal) ROF.
We have no idea what happened when they switched targets, thoguh. So then they observe rounds, are more careful, the fire for effect again.
Regardless, you are missing the point of the argument wrt RFB. modding the ROF is pretty simple, it's changing 1 number for each of 3 guns, change it to what you like.
But again, if you are sinking more ships with a DG (by some wide margin) than a real skipper would have, something is wrong.
IMO the best we could see (in game) would be an ROF that closely approached the spec ROF firing at a point blank target in dead calm seas from an unmoving sub with a good crew (crew quality affects ROF for guns). The only way for this to ever happen in SH4 is for the gun to be destabilized like the TBT. If that doesn't ever happen, gunnery in SH4 will always be a joke.
Palidian
07-06-07, 06:33 PM
17 seconds? That is almost 3 times faster then Berry's "real" mod.
However there not shooting at a target 100 yards away, and boarded up in dry dock. However the best the gun can do is 8-10 rounds per minute. This is not even possible in Berry's mod. I almost never use the deck gun.
I understand the argument, I find the argument flawed, make the guns realistic, not some artificial that applies to everything ridiculous ROF.
You really deeply misunderstand the argument.
THERE ARE NO BEST OR WORST CIRCUMSTANCES IN SH4. GUNNERY IS ALWAYS AT WHATEVER THE ROF IS SET TO, AND HIT %s ARE GROSSLY HIGHER THAN RL. Ahem. Sorry about the shouting.
The best average ROF in a log entry seen was 17 seconds.
I actually see no reason why shelling land installations would be something a sub would do in a sleepy way, actually. Once they had the range, you'd expect a "fire for effect" to produce a decent (if not maximal) ROF.
We have no idea what happened when they switched targets, thoguh. So then they observe rounds, are more careful, the fire for effect again.
Regardless, you are missing the point of the argument wrt RFB. modding the ROF is pretty simple, it's changing 1 number for each of 3 guns, change it to what you like.
But again, if you are sinking more ships with a DG (by some wide margin) than a real skipper would have, something is wrong.
IMO the best we could see (in game) would be an ROF that closely approached the spec ROF firing at a point blank target in dead calm seas from an unmoving sub with a good crew (crew quality affects ROF for guns). The only way for this to ever happen in SH4 is for the gun to be destabilized like the TBT. If that doesn't ever happen, gunnery in SH4 will always be a joke.
RFB is not set to 45 seconds. Crew quality (which get enomously inflated very quickly in SH4) alters the ROF. Man the gun with decent gunners and it drops. I thought the actual number was 27s or something, it's easy enough to find out, open it and check. It's reload time, and the number is in seconds, nothing complex to read.
As for the argument, what exactly do YOU propose? "Make the guns realistic," you say. I've pointed out that right now ROF, damage per shell, and altering every single ship's DM are the only available options. You want 8-9 rpm, so what of the only 2 remaining choices are you going to change to make things work? (3 if you're able to help kv29 in his quest to figure out the gun stuff for the 3") What are you doing to "make the guns realistic?" Got yer hex editor out, do ya? Post some WIP stuff in the mods forum, it will be eagerly read, I'm sure. If you say "I can't do that stuff," I understand, I can't grok all that hex stuff well enough, either. Beery has never claimed to be one of those technical modders as far as I know. RFB is partially his own creative work, and partially the creative combination of other mods. Give him some tools to mod the guns differently, and you might see different results.
They say "when all you have is a hammer, problems all look like nails." In this case, we've got a hammer and some screws, and we need to build a microwave oven. Where do we start? LOL.
tater
RFB is not set to 45 seconds. Crew quality (which get enomously inflated very quickly in SH4) alters the ROF. Man the gun with decent gunners and it drops. I thought the actual number was 27s or something
RFB is currently set at 30 seconds for the 3" and 4" guns and 25 seconds for the 5" gun. In the next version it's going to be set at 23 seconds for all three guns unless some more info changes that.
Beery has never claimed to be one of those technical modders as far as I know.
Nope. Anyway, the nitty gritty technical details of a system can only lead us astray - as this thread shows quite clearly: we have people arguing as if a gun really shot 6 rounds per minute (as per spec) in combat even though no combat report ever mentions such a ROF and even though technical specs for a gun are not ever meant to be used as a combat ROF. If people look at the minutiae of technical details and try to extrapolate they will screw up big time because doing it that way you simply can't get all the details necessary to get a reliable number. That's why I look at the historical results and calculate what the sim must do to get there - it's the only way to assure that a simulation gives realistic results.
It's not as if a simulation is ever realistic in its details anyway - SH3 has a gun whose crew never tires and who get their ammo from one place for the entire engagement. They are at the gun from the moment the order to fire is given, they instantly prepare the gun for action and they instantly waterproof it for submerging. No gun ever made worked that way. The sim cannot possibly be made realistic in its details (as my detractors seem to be demanding) - it cannot possibly happen because the sim isn't built to accomodate that level of detail - it can only be made realistic in its general results - that's what RFB does.
Palidian
07-07-07, 07:34 AM
We have provided the info, you just choose not to read it.
RFB is not set to 45 seconds. Crew quality (which get enomously inflated very quickly in SH4) alters the ROF. Man the gun with decent gunners and it drops. I thought the actual number was 27s or something
RFB is currently set at 30 seconds for the 3" and 4" guns and 25 seconds for the 5" gun. In the next version it's going to be set at 23 seconds for all three guns unless some more info changes that.
Beery has never claimed to be one of those technical modders as far as I know.
Nope. Anyway, the nitty gritty technical details of a system can only lead us astray - as this thread shows quite clearly: we have people arguing as if a gun really shot 6 rounds per minute (as per spec) in combat even though no combat report ever mentions such a ROF and even though technical specs for a gun are not ever meant to be used as a combat ROF. If people look at the minutiae of technical details and try to extrapolate they will screw up big time because doing it that way you simply can't get all the details necessary to get a reliable number. That's why I look at the historical results and calculate what the sim must do to get there - it's the only way to assure that a simulation gives realistic results.
It's not as if a simulation is ever realistic in its details anyway - SH3 has a gun whose crew never tires and who get their ammo from one place for the entire engagement. They are at the gun from the moment the order to fire is given, they instantly prepare the gun for action and they instantly waterproof it for submerging. No gun ever made worked that way. The sim cannot possibly be made realistic in its details (as my detractors seem to be demanding) - it cannot possibly happen because the sim isn't built to accomodate that level of detail - it can only be made realistic in its general results - that's what RFB does.
Palidian
07-07-07, 07:39 AM
Every time I have timed the deck gun it has been between 40 and 45 seconds. It dose not matter what its claimed to be set at I see a 40 to 45 second ROF.
What would make it realistic? Slow down the slue rate, give some time to ready the gun after surface, make it hard to hit at range, and make the crew vulnerable to machine gun fire at close range. This will make the gun useless as it was historically.
In addition it would be nice not to have a moder that dose not think he knows it all, and anyone who disagrees with him gets put to death.
RFB is not set to 45 seconds. Crew quality (which get enomously inflated very quickly in SH4) alters the ROF. Man the gun with decent gunners and it drops. I thought the actual number was 27s or something, it's easy enough to find out, open it and check. It's reload time, and the number is in seconds, nothing complex to read.
As for the argument, what exactly do YOU propose? "Make the guns realistic," you say. I've pointed out that right now ROF, damage per shell, and altering every single ship's DM are the only available options. You want 8-9 rpm, so what of the only 2 remaining choices are you going to change to make things work? (3 if you're able to help kv29 in his quest to figure out the gun stuff for the 3") What are you doing to "make the guns realistic?" Got yer hex editor out, do ya? Post some WIP stuff in the mods forum, it will be eagerly read, I'm sure. If you say "I can't do that stuff," I understand, I can't grok all that hex stuff well enough, either. Beery has never claimed to be one of those technical modders as far as I know. RFB is partially his own creative work, and partially the creative combination of other mods. Give him some tools to mod the guns differently, and you might see different results.
They say "when all you have is a hammer, problems all look like nails." In this case, we've got a hammer and some screws, and we need to build a microwave oven. Where do we start? LOL.
tater
Sailor Steve
07-07-07, 10:58 AM
In addition it would be nice not to have a moder that dose not think he knows it all, and anyone who disagrees with him gets put to death.
It would also be nice if you would stop making personal attacks. In spite of earlier comments about everybody agreeing with you, you actually seem to be the only one who holds this opinion. Some of your comments are good, and helpful. This kind aren't.
What would make it realistic? Slow down the slue rate, give some time to ready the gun after surface, make it hard to hit at range, and make the crew vulnerable to machine gun fire at close range. This will make the gun useless as it was historically.
These are great ideas. Some are possible (get out the tweaker and try), others (the more useful ones) are not possible, or certainly very very difficult. That's the problem, you complain (with personal attacks) about stuff, and say that X, Y, and Z would be better fixes just now, even when only 1 is possible, and it ain't enough.
Slew rate I think is in the tweaker (probably in degrees per second or minute).
The time to ready the gun is the reload time. There is no other time available. If the reload time is 4 seconds, the gun is ready in 4 seconds.
The crew vulnerability is a great idea, I don't have the slightest idea where to start on that. Of course since the gun crews seem to be "off the boat" that might result in them being killed when you dive, etc. BTW, they'd be just as vulnerable as long as the MG rounds were still effective, unless by short range you mean inside the range where AP rounds would penetrate the splinter shielding.
tater
Sailor Steve
07-07-07, 05:05 PM
Everything in the military has a training manual, it tells you how to use and maintain the item. It states that the ROF for the 4” gun is 8-10 rounds per minute. No it dose not mention sea state. It also dose not state that once this gun has been submerged there are other issues, as personal accounts have mentioned.
Yes, everything in the military has a manual. The one for the .50 cal machine gun gives it a rate-of-fire of 550 RPM. Unfortunately once the belt is empty you have to change it, so the actual sustained rate of fire is around 300 RPM. I only point this out because if a game modeled the gun without belt-changing times, and someone could only fix it by slowing the overall ROF down to 300, I'd be all for it.
However as I am sure Torpex will confirm, talking to people who were actually there no one made the comment, I don't know where they got that ROF from we have no way of maintaining that.
Unfortunately we don't have any of those comments to look at, so you making one up doesn't help. So far the only comment he has related was "firing as fast as we could", which could have meant at close range in good weather, or could mean "as fast as we could given the conditions", which might have meant one every 45 seconds. Until we know more, we don't know at all.
Keep in mind that gunnery on a sub marine was not a priority and was rarely used, as noted by the lack of data on the subject. In Berry's mod the ROF is 40 to 45 seconds, his his own accounts he can came up with a ROF of one round every 23 seconds, this was shooting at ground targets at range with no really hurry to shoot.
Where do you get that from? I was on board a destroyer, and shooting at land targets we usually fired no more than one round per minute. I realized at the time that they could fire a lot faster, so my own personal experience is useless, but there it is.
The undeniable fact is the gun has a ROF of 8-10 rounds per minute and this is not even close under the best circumstances in Berry's “real” mod.
No, the undeniable fact is that the ROF is 8-10 RPM under test conditions.
In any case by his own admission his “real” fleet boat mod is not actually real. When it gets pointed out to him he says we are wrong, and he knows better, closes his mind to discussion.
No, when it gets pointed out to him he explains his reasons for doing what he did. He doesn't argue until the 100th time you fall back on the same "I give you facts and you ignore them" arguments.
Some would call this fraud, and some would call it being rude.
Some could be accused of slander, and some could call what you do being rude as well. You should really stop making personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you.
I guess you could call me the watch dog that warns people about a bad product. Naturally people who are called out would object. Remember it takes two to tango.
I would call you nothing of the kind. Beery is offering a free mod, and just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right. Nor does it mean you're wrong, but you don't discuss, you just state that you know better and call people names.
NEON DEON
07-07-07, 09:04 PM
I am going to post this and then you guys can draw your own conclusions.
The I 60's battle with the Jupiter.
"The submarine is damaged and unable to dive, but Hasegawa attempts to fight the destroyer with his 4.7-inch deck gun. The JUPITER alters course and opens fire with her starboard Oerlikon AA gun. As the I-60's crew emerges from the conning tower to man the deck gun, they are raked by 20-mm fire. As they fall, other crewmen run to take their place. The I-60 manages to get off seven to eight shells a minute, even though the Oerlikon's fire keeps picking off the gun's crewmen."
http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-60.htm
Combat too!
ROF from navweaps lists the 4.7 inch IJN gun's ROF to be about 5 rounds a minute.
Just curious, who was holding the stop watch on that gun crew?
tater
AVGWarhawk
07-07-07, 09:35 PM
Do you really eat out of that mouth?
Beery, you have found lots of good info about the US subs, but have you thought about digging a bit in the submarines that used the deck gun most? I mean the WW1 german U-Boots. I think I have readed somewhere interesting info about that subject regarding WW1 german subs, only I can't remember where right now :hmm: Narwhal was heavily based in the german U-Kreuzers, so the idea sparked in my mind :88)
I haven't considered WW1 subs because the WW1 submarine war was so different. In WW2 air attack was a real threat and subs didn't have time to mess around so they usually sank a ship while the crew was on board, whereas in WW1 sub commanders usually let the merchant crew get off the ship prior to sinking her. This had a huge potential effect on damage control and therefore gunfire effectiveness. As for reload speed I'd be interested in seeing details from WW1 but it wouldn't be useful for RFB as we already have details from WW2 subs, but it would be interesting to see if WW1 subs had a similarly slow ROF. I expect they'd be slower because US subs in WW2 had a lot of attention paid to deck gun placement and ammo supply. Because of this we see a difference in the ROF of US subs compared to German subs (the WW2 German subs reload even slower).
@Palidian,
Lighten up. Seems you are raging a one man war on a free mod provided by Beery. If the pop gun is not fast enough for you, simply delete it and come up with a better solution. This talk of ROF has gone for years and it is still going on in SH3.
If you would like I have a Brown Bess and an Enfield three band, if you want to come out to Arizona land, I can show you how to fire 6 rounds a minute
I do not understand this quote. How does loading a rifle and firing have to do with loading cannon shells and firing on a rolling submarine?
AVGWarhawk
07-07-07, 09:53 PM
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
This is about the best logic I have read yet in this thread concerning ROF.
NEON DEON
07-07-07, 10:09 PM
Just curious, who was holding the stop watch on that gun crew?
tater
I do not know. :hmm:
But, I will take a guess and say it was not Beery.;)
Or.
Maybe it was Palidian. :D
Yeah. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket. It was Palidian. Palidian had the watch.
Well thats my story and I am sticking to it!:D
Torpex752
07-08-07, 12:04 AM
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
This is about the best logic I have read yet in this thread concerning ROF.
When I had my moderator "hat" I would have considered that post just as rude as those discussing the matter even if it is a lil "warm" discussion. Equally rude if you ask me.
So let me get this straight here...as long as you agree with everything a modder does its ok...if you dont then you rate a post like the one from Liveshot? :huh: Ya know, just a thought....Just because its free doesnt make it right, ok, accurate, real or acceptable.
I said it before and in this thread more than once, I respect Beery for his electronic craftsmanship, I only feel his rational for validating his information is slightly flawed.
As far as anyone else who disagreed in this thread..Beery dismissed them (and myself) because..what....we dont agree that using two transcribed patrol reports from the most manipulatible source in the world (internet) is a solid foundation? If thats his attitude, then I am disappointed and know that I would consider his rationale for other matters questionable. Not bad or any other slanderous terms, just makes me wonder. I'll leave it at that.
Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff :cool:
Von Tonner
07-08-07, 06:02 AM
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
This is about the best logic I have read yet in this thread concerning ROF.
Oh, I see, if you cannot actually make a mod yourself you have no right to discuss its pros and cons. And that is logic???? And you are a moderator???
Listen up everyone, there will be no more criticism about any countries government unless you yourself have actually run one. That new car you just bought, so what if the door falls off when you round a bend, if you cannot build one yourself, live with it. And that sports team you follow, how dare you tell the ref he needs glasses, unless you yourself are qualified to referee.
Your remark, "This is about the best logic I have read yet in this thread concerning ROF." is also an insult to all those who have made a meaningful contribution to the discussion on ROF and unbecoming to a moderator on a forum. Where were you when Beery brought into question the memory of over 200 war veterans because he didn't like what they said. It is through men and women like them that we have the privilige today to question freely, and because of that they need to be respected and not just summarily dismissed out of hand.
AVGWarhawk
07-08-07, 07:36 AM
Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.
Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).
Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....
So here is my suggestion:
Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS. :roll:
We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.
When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.
Thank you guys for your hard work... :rock:
LS
This is about the best logic I have read yet in this thread concerning ROF.
Oh, I see, if you cannot actually make a mod yourself you have no right to discuss its pros and cons. And that is logic???? And you are a moderator???
Listen up everyone, there will be no more criticism about any countries government unless you yourself have actually run one. That new car you just bought, so what if the door falls off when you round a bend, if you cannot build one yourself, live with it. And that sports team you follow, how dare you tell the ref he needs glasses, unless you yourself are qualified to referee.
Your remark, "This is about the best logic I have read yet in this thread concerning ROF." is also an insult to all those who have made a meaningful contribution to the discussion on ROF and unbecoming to a moderator on a forum. Where were you when Beery brought into question the memory of over 200 war veterans because he didn't like what they said. It is through men and women like them that we have the privilige today to question freely, and because of that they need to be respected and not just summarily dismissed out of hand.
Constructive criticism is always welcome. A few have turned into an argument(not a constructive conversation) and looks to me has become a hunt in making this mod worthless over ROF of a cannon when many factors that are missing in the game limit any modders ability for realism concerning the cannon and ROF. Please read through the posts and see that other members feel this thread is heading in the wrong direction. When I start to see several wondering and posting why the thread has taken a turn for the worst it is time to step in. This is what moderating is about. When a member banters others and starts a battle that is looking to become personal in nature, this is UNBECOMING a community member.
For example:
the deck gun reload time is what threw me into involintary projectile vomiting almost immideately.
Nothing like kicking the door open and looking for a fight.
Some would call it fraud.
Do you really eat out of that mouth?
When it gets pointed out to him he says we are wrong, and he knows better, closes his mind to discussion. Some would call this fraud, and some would call it being rude. I guess you could call me the watch dog that warns people about a bad product. Naturally people who are called out would object. Remember it takes two to tango.
These remarks are not constructive criticism nor productive in nature. These are just inflamatory. It is not a wonder that the person who these are directed to become defensive and fire back. These are the type remarks that start the flame wars and the battle of keyboards.
Normally when I see two member pipe up over how a thread is going I step in. Please read below posts by others who a looking for good constructive debate but have seen the thread is going in the wrong direction. When other members chime in it is time to interject and put it on the right track.
For Example:
Thank you for that slap in the face. I needed you to make another demeaning remark.
I think everyone's tired of this "debate."
If you like the mod like I do-then use it-if you don't like it Don't use it!
Are we arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
i havent bought SH4 yet but ive read so many posts from people who get really irate about the reload times with this mod. the thing i cant get my head round is that if they cant stand the reload times that much then just dont install the mod, or even better mod it themselves. but no they mostly choose to come on and whine!
every forum has these types of people
They install the MOD because they like 99% of it and look to change that 1% to suit their style. Its normal for people to find that 1% they want changed, its what makes them REAL. And as long as they ask politely, their desire to find an alternate 1% shouldnt draw fire.
beery has researched his mod to death and it is his mod after all so all you moaners stop moaning. and that includes me
If you do criticize be willing to correct it for yourself and not expect someone to alter their work to cater to each persons own liking. Be willing to fix your own dislikes.
If anyone really cares, I think evidence surpassing Beery's in terms of data (shots fired, time elapsed during combat) would provide further discussion but nothing else barring that is worth talking about. Saying there might be another realistic number out there is far different from documenting it. One of us cannot say "Beery, I don't like your evidence, so it's YOUR JOB to find better."
Hey, guys, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...
Unless anyone has actual numbers to perform math on, let's NOT attack Beery and let's not get into heated arguments.
Bloody H, Paladian you're being rude, and I certainly disagree often enough with Beery.
I would comment but my house is not equipped with safety glass.
Well this discussion has certainly gone downhill
It would also be nice if you would stop making personal attacks. In spite of earlier comments about everybody agreeing with you, you actually seem to be the only one who holds this opinion. Some of your comments are good, and helpful. This kind aren't.
I would call you nothing of the kind. Beery is offering a free mod, and just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right. Nor does it mean you're wrong, but you don't discuss, you just state that you know better and call people names.
It is comments like this from community members that require action. My apologies if you do not like my response. I did not write it to make you happy. Sorry you feel it is UNBECOMING of a moderator. I thought is was very BECOMING judging by the other members responses on how this thread is going. It has become an a war of wills of who is right. Sorry, but there are to many factors Beery can not model into the game. Beery created what he thought was best for the knowledge he has and the medium he has to work with. Beating the guy to death and taking cheap shots is not the way to go. Sure, all can state that cheap shots were fired back. What would anyone expect? Hours spent creating something for others and it is completely ripped apart and destroyed. That is a fine how do ya do! By no stretch of the imagination would anyone not get a bit defensive over their work.
Where were you when Beery brought into question the memory of over 200 war veterans because he didn't like what they said. It is through men and women like them that we have the privilige today to question freely, and because of that they need to be respected and not just summarily dismissed out of hand.
It is his opinion and he can live with it. The thread has not become questioning freely. It has become a battle of wills of who is right and who is wrong. Again, the ROF created in RFB was done to the best of his ability and what he has to work with. Puting on the thumb screws because one piece of it is not to someones liking is not the way to go. State the case why it is wrong and leave it at that. As stated before, this discussion of ROF has been going on for years. Nothing has become of it other than it is what it is because the game limits it.
AVGWarhawk
07-08-07, 07:42 AM
So let me get this straight here...as long as you agree with everything a modder does its ok...if you dont then you rate a post like the one from Liveshot?
There is point of agreeing and disagreeing. Then there is a point of a witch hunt. This thread in the last 3 pages has become just that. Please read the post above. Other members are a bit unsettled as to where this is going. Liveshot is just another looking for good constructive conversation not belittlement of others work. The point is, keep it civil and do not make it personal.
Palidian
07-08-07, 10:19 AM
Past in this thread it was mentioned that a civil war musket could fire faster then the deck gun, then someone said a musket could fire a round a minute. Then I mentioned about the French old guard, and there 6 rounds a minute. I can demonstrate there technique.
If you would like I have a Brown Bess and an Enfield three band, if you want to come out to Arizona land, I can show you how to fire 6 rounds a minute
I do not understand this quote. How does loading a rifle and firing have to do with loading cannon shells and firing on a rolling submarine?
Yeah, but can you do it standing in the bed of a pickup truck driving over speed bumps? (aimed fire)
tater
PS--smoothbore musket fire wasn't usually aimed as far as I know, it was "ready, LEVEL, fire!" Volley fire.
Palidian
07-08-07, 10:26 AM
True I did not say I would be hitting anything, however it is capeable of that ROF.
Yeah, but can you do it standing in the bed of a pickup truck driving over speed bumps? (aimed fire)
tater
PS--smoothbore musket fire wasn't usually aimed as far as I know, it was "ready, LEVEL, fire!" Volley fire.
That's the difference between a spec ROF, and AIMED ROF.
I can fire all 10 rounds in my SMLE VERY VERY fast. I leave my right hand on the bolt, and pull the trigger with my middle finger. I can fire as fast as I can work the action (I actually pull the trigger as the bolt closes). All in a kind of sight picture (weapon shouldered). It would certainly keep someone's head down, but it's not remotely "aimed fire" and that's with me trying to aim as much as is possible like that.
A DG would ONLY be using aimed fire unless they were lying to so close that they couldn't miss (didn't happen, I just posted my examination of DG sinkings, there was ONE confirmed DG sinking over 1000 tons. One (assuming I didn't miss any, but there could not have been too many).
So yeah, shoveling in the rounds it could probably have been pretty fast. In actual use... almost certainly below the spec ROF, the question is how much lower.
I tend to think it's not all that much lower than the spec ROF in RL.
For SH4... there's the rub. Gunnery is so poorly modeled it needs to have something done to tame it. In RL, US sub skippers simply did not uyse the deck gun on targets over 1000 tons in any statistically significant way.
They were there, and they know a lot we don't know. They didn't battle surface to attack stuff bigger than coasters. A vanishly small number of ships were attacked with torps AND guns, so they didn't even finish off ships with guns often.
Can you all hear me screaming!!!! about this dam deck gun and its ROF!!!!!!!!!:damn:
Palidian
07-08-07, 10:54 AM
Yes true but if that target is 5 feet away, you will hit. Trying to shoot at range, that is different.
Sub guns are ineffective, this is why they did away with them.
The platform is not stable and the crew is vulnerable.
That's the difference between a spec ROF, and AIMED ROF.
I can fire all 10 rounds in my SMLE VERY VERY fast. I leave my right hand on the bolt, and pull the trigger with my middle finger. I can fire as fast as I can work the action (I actually pull the trigger as the bolt closes). All in a kind of sight picture (weapon shouldered). It would certainly keep someone's head down, but it's not remotely "aimed fire" and that's with me trying to aim as much as is possible like that.
A DG would ONLY be using aimed fire unless they were lying to so close that they couldn't miss (didn't happen, I just posted my examination of DG sinkings, there was ONE confirmed DG sinking over 1000 tons. One (assuming I didn't miss any, but there could not have been too many).
So yeah, shoveling in the rounds it could probably have been pretty fast. In actual use... almost certainly below the spec ROF, the question is how much lower.
I tend to think it's not all that much lower than the spec ROF in RL.
For SH4... there's the rub. Gunnery is so poorly modeled it needs to have something done to tame it. In RL, US sub skippers simply did not uyse the deck gun on targets over 1000 tons in any statistically significant way.
They were there, and they know a lot we don't know. They didn't battle surface to attack stuff bigger than coasters. A vanishly small number of ships were attacked with torps AND guns, so they didn't even finish off ships with guns often.
Yeah, I don;t disagree at short range. It just didn't happen with DGs (point blank) is all.
Heck, sub skippers asked for improvements over molatov cocktails since DG attacks on sampans were far less effective than just driving next to it and torching it in many cases.
tater
Von Tonner
07-08-07, 02:05 PM
In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.
Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.
Good pic Neon Deon.
AVGWachawk, seeing as you failed to include my quote in your extensive list of quotes in support of what you feel defines 'logic' and the issue of Berry and his mode, I hope you don't mind if I refresh your memory. For the record, I am not against Berry and his mod. I take umbrage at some of his replies to those that simply question his rationale on the historical use of the deck gun without becoming abusive. It is of interest to note that after 12 odd pages on this thread, and, I might say, a lot of interesting information, that even Berry is conceding the fact that his next ROF for all guns will be be quicker. So, we ALL learn in the process of this debate without belittling anyones point of view.
Sailor Steve
07-08-07, 02:38 PM
I am going to post this and then you guys can draw your own conclusions.
The I 60's battle with the Jupiter.
"The submarine is damaged and unable to dive, but Hasegawa attempts to fight the destroyer with his 4.7-inch deck gun. The JUPITER alters course and opens fire with her starboard Oerlikon AA gun. As the I-60's crew emerges from the conning tower to man the deck gun, they are raked by 20-mm fire. As they fall, other crewmen run to take their place. The I-60 manages to get off seven to eight shells a minute, even though the Oerlikon's fire keeps picking off the gun's crewmen."
http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-60.htm
Combat too!
ROF from navweaps lists the 4.7 inch IJN gun's ROF to be about 5 rounds a minute.
I'm impressed, but I still have my same old question: What was the weather? What was the sea state? I won't ask the range, since they say it got as close as 15 feet. From the description given it sounds like the conditions were close to perfect.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.