Deck Gun Rate-of-Fire

[Horst Mikaelis]

I've been poking around the net after trying both the RFB and TM mods to find some info on the rates-of-fire of deckguns. I found some here on the US 5" 25-caliber gun mounted late in the war on the USS Bowfin.
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:R8RscsBZMwYJ:www.bowfin.org/website/bowfin/bowfin_systems/deck/deck.htm+%22deck+gun%22+%22fleet+submarine%22+%22r ate+of+fire%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The stated ROF is ten rounds per minute! For those of you who are math challenged, that's one round every six seconds. So I'd say that TM is closer to reality in that aspect than RFB.

Admittedly, that's probably under optimal conditions.

Horst.

[tater]

Stock SH4 has the reload time set to 4 seconds.

Note that the navweaps site lists the ROF for that weapon as 15-20 rpm. Poor Bowfin didn't read the manual, or they would have fired faster I guess ;)

So 66-100% lower ROF than spec, probably due to the poor platform a submarine is for a gun, ammo issues, and everythign being soaking wet all the time.

I'm actually perfectly happy with ROFs being in the ballpark of what that Bowfin site claims as long as the guns aren't gyro-stabilized death rays. Firing for effect, lying to in a calm sea, that would be fine as long as a boat making flank into a stiff sea can't do the same. Kv29's mod looks like it will absolutely mitigate this problem and allow a more accurate ROF to be in game while preserving historical outcomes.

That said, if the real ROF was 10 (assuming plenty of ready ammo), I'd tend to drop it by some small % to cover problems still not able to be modded in. So maybe 8-9 rpm for a 10rpm gun (jams/misfire clearing, etc).

Not that in my testing of kv29's mod, I was lucky to shoot at ~8 rpm at close range with the reload time set to 4 seconds just because of the roll and pitch of the boat.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, this has been posted in every one of the RFB threads, proving that the gun can be fired that fast in testing. You need to read some of those threads to see some of the problems involved and exactly why Beery uses the rate of fire he does. We've been having this same discussion with these same "proofs" since the creation of RUB two years ago.

[tater]

^^^ that said, kv29 is adding an entirely new capability to make more realistic guns without having to resort to the much lower ROFs required to get historical results with gyro-guns.

The debate will certainly continue, but the ability to solve it in SH4 just got considerably more complex (in a good way).

BTW, Berry has never appeared dogmatic about any particular ROF, just that it provides accurate simulation of RL use. Simulation is not just a count of rpm, but also the results, total times of engagement, etc.

tater

[Von Tonner]

What is sometmes overlooked (and I don't think one could reproduce it in SH4) is that it wouldn't only be the deck gun used in the engagement but all other guns would be brought to bear as well - such as mentioned below. I read somewhere else that this was also standard practice for US subs as well. The AA going off as well keeps the buggers heads down while allowing your own gunners to get on with the job without worrying too much about return fire - which would help them in their ROF.









"Due to the high rolling and pitching, a U-boat makes a poor gun platform. Furthermore, depending on wind and sea conditions, it was not always possible to man the deck guns. The U-boat’s deck gun was also of no use against enemy warships, as enemy destroyers would easily outgun a U-boat anytime.

U-boat crew shells a British tanker after it failed to go down with a torpedo. Although intended primarily as a defensive weapon, the deck gun however could be used against stragglers and unescorted merchants, and some ships, particularly tankers could be sunk at leisure, even in daylight. It was also useful in conserving the limited torpedo supply and to finish off the kill of a ship crippled by a torpedo. Later in the war, merchants were armed with makeshift guns to repel deck gun attacks by U-boats. It was still possible to attack armed merchants however, as these were frequently manned by civilians with little or no training on naval engagements.
When the deck gun was used, the gun crew had to be secured by life lines to prevent them from being washed overboard. A crew of three manned the deck gun, gunner, layer and loader. For the ammunition, a chain of men had to be setup to bring the rounds from below the deck, to the conning tower and onto the gun crew. A small watertight locker stowed near the gun held a few more rounds ready for use, providing an advantage during the first few vital seconds of engagements. This also meant that crash dives took longer than usual, as the gun had to be secured and crew rushed below deck. There were no range finders, so engagements had to be done at close range. With an experienced crew, the rate of fire was between 15 to 18 rounds per minute. Three types of ammunition could be fired; armor piercing, high explosive and star burst (flare).
In a gunnery duel, the best position for the U-boat is to be at the stern of the victim, at a distance not less than 4,000 meters. An advantage is gained from the rear because the port side guns of the victim cannot be used in retaliation and only the stern guns can be fired. Point the boat towards the target. This presents a smaller target to the enemy, and keeping the bow pointed minimizes the effects of roll and pitch which would undermine accuracy.
Lay alternate fire with the U-boat’s other weapons in order suppress return fire. There is a four second interval between rounds, and while the deck gun is reloaded, open fire with a short burst of anti-aircraft rounds. If within range, small arms fire from the MG34 is very effective at suppressing return fire. Suppressive fire from the 20mm and even the 37mm anti-aircraft cannon will not sink the ship, but is used only to prevent the crews from firing back.
An attack could be aimed at the target’s bridge, waterline or weapon systems. Attacking the bridge will hinder the victim’s steering ability, while attacking at the hull’s waterline would quickly sink the ship. Attacks at the bows or stern will sink the ship faster compared to attacks on an even keel. Attacking the weapon’s systems will hinder the victim’s ability to fire back, but it takes just one unlucky shell to penetrate the U-boat’s hull which will make diving impossible. Armor piercing shells are better suited to hull attacks, while high explosive could be used against other targets.
The standard procedure for opening fire is to aim at the bridge and superstructures with ten rounds of incendiary shells, in order to provide a good marking point from the resulting fire, especially during night or low visibility conditions. The 37mm anti-aircraft cannon and MG34 is fired to suppress enemy resistance. The 20mm anti-aircraft cannon is kept in readiness, and fired only on orders from the commander. Typically, it will be used when there is a jam (stoppage) in the 37mm gun or when enemy resistance is too strong.
While it is better and safer to conduct a submerged torpedo attack, sometimes a U-boat may find itself out of position for a torpedo attack. If a merchant sails at 8 knots and above, and since the maximum underwater speed of a Type VII is also 8 knots, a U-boat had to surface to run its powerful diesel engines in order to catch up with its prey. Without the element of surprise, the deck gun makes a viable alternative.
Throughout the entire engagement, the watch crew are prohibited from witnessing the attack sequence. Four watch crews are on deck, with each covering a 90 degrees arc and they had to strictly scan their respective zones for any activity. They are not allowed to watch the attack to prevent the U-boat from being surprised by a lurking enemy."

[SteamWake]

Good lord.

We already had a thread 4 pages deep discussing this.

Another thread with a poll discussing this.

Now we have ANOTHER thread on the topic :oops:

[Von Tonner]

Good lord.

We already had a thread 4 pages deep discussing this.

Another thread with a poll discussing this.

Now we have ANOTHER thread on the topic :oops:

Yes, you are right. but hopefully this thread will remain on the question: "How important was the use of the deck gun in combat?, Was it used often? What was its ROF? etc, etc" without bringing you-know-whose-mod into the equation. Lets leave the hystirics out of this thread and hopefuly the prima donnas wont be encouraged to come on board.

To me this is one of the joys of this type of game, it broadens your knowledge historically if you take the time to read, debate, learn and absorb issues in RL that you are trying to emulate in a game. I know my reading of war patrols of sub crews has an impact on how I play the game.

[SteamWake]

The deck gun was not all that important.

It was not used that often.

The rate of fire was dependant on a whole host of variables.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Von Tonner]

World War II U.S. Submarine
Armament and Firepower
U.S. Navy Weapons and Armament 1941-1945
The Deck Guns
© Valor at Sea.com
Initially, deck guns were considered by many to be an extraneous and dangerous piece of hardware for submarines at the beginning of the war. Principally, the reasoning was that a submarine is basically a poor platform for a deck gun. Owing to the fact that the vast majority of the sub fleet's war patrols within 500 miles of Japanese bases were conducted submerged, the value of the deck gun was severely questioned. Additionally, it was reasoned that a submarine in a head to head gun battle with an enemy in possession of equal (or greater) firepower was at serious risk. Any enemy hits on the submarine which could impede or prevent her ability to submerge was justification enough to avoid a surface gun action. That's not to say that submariners didn't take advantage of some welcomed target practice when the opportunity arose. US Submarines that were scouting the Japanese Empire waters frequently came upon sampans, which were often suspected of being naval lookouts or anti-submarine pickets. By April of 1942, submarine skippers decided to start thinning out the sampan fleet and a periscope contact often resulted in the order of "Battle Surface". The results of a piboat going up against a lightly armed, floating bundle of wood one would think could be easily determined, however sinking these pesky little vessels was not a simple as first thought. Theodore Roscoe, in his book US SUBMARINE OPERATIONS IN WW II, states: "They could be riddled with .30 and .50 caliber machine gun bullets and holed several times by 3 or 5 inch shells and remain afloat like a box of Swiss cheese". More often than not, a submarine's deck gun was of greater value for overall morale than it was for combat effectiveness. A submerged boat that was damaged by an enemy surface vessel could, as a last ditch effort to survive, surface and engage in a gun battle, although with the odds generally stacked heavily against it. The deck gun was the ultimate weapon of last resort and it has been suggested that the 3, 4 or 5 inch guns (used for both anti-aircraft and surface actions and typically located abaft of the the conning tower), was therefore justified.
The 4 inch 50 caliber dual purpose cannon was standard issue to many submarines during World War II. This weapon had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 feet per second, a maximum range of 14,600 yards and was equally effective being utilized against both surface and aerial targets.
The US Navy's largest machine gun, and the one which was frequently found in a submarine's armory, was the Bofars designed 40mm; an automatic, rapid firing anti-aircraft gun, capable of delivering 160 rounds per minute at a maximum range of 2,800 yards - although its most effective range actually depended upon the type of ammunition used. Typically located forward of the conning tower, it often replaced two 20 mm AA guns.
While the single 40mm was air cooled and manually loaded, aimed and fired, both the twin and quad (double and quadruple barreled) guns were water cooled and was capable of firing by either manual, local power or by director power fire control. While not used on submarines, these weapons were designed for the larger warships (destroyers, cruisers etc)
The 20mm Oerlikon is a manually operated weapon and was located either forward or aft of the conning tower on the bridge deck. Fleet submarines often substituted twin 20mm guns for the single mounts for added firepower. Capable of firing 450 rounds per minute, the 20mm had a maximum range of 4,000 yards. The close range Oerlikin was an air cooled automatic anti-aircraft gun which fired an explosive shell - including the "tracer" - which glowed as it traveled towards its target and indicated the direction of fire.


While the submarine was primarily a torpedo platform, there were occasions when alternate weapons were necessary. Rapid submergence with the approach of an enemy aircraft was the best defense against an aerial attack, but when a quick dive was unable to be made, anti-aircraft guns were needed. In addition, attacks against smaller enemy vessels such as sampans or barges was also generally carried out with a sub's deck guns. The largest weapon carried aboard a US submarine was the 5 inch 25 caliber (MK40) cannon. Housed on a moveable mount, submarines located these weapons abaft of the cigarette deck.
This weapon was as efficient in laying down a barrage of anti-aircraft fire as it was in delivering salvos during shore or vessel bombardments. Semi-automatic and rapid firing, it allowed the crew to fire an average of 10 to 15 rounds per minute. This cannon was capable of sending a 54 pound projectile 18,000 yards and possessed a maximum aerial range of six miles.
GUN CREW
Pointer
Trainer
Sight-setter
Gun Captain
Fuse-setter
Hot Shellman
Loaders

[Beery]

...Admittedly, that's probably under optimal conditions.

There's the rub. No sub in combat fired anywhere near optimal conditions. Plus, a ROF for a gun is not the same thing as a ROF for a gun mounted on a sub. The former is for the gun system ONLY, with no accounting for an ammo supply located yards away from the gun or for the stability (or otherwise) of the gun platform. Then there's the issue of the target - guns firing to test the maximum ROF are not firing at a target and there's no necessity of rangefinding or measuring the effect of fire. Actually there's a whole host of issues that make it a big mistake to assume that gun system ROF values apply to combat.

RFB is the only version of SH4 that uses actual in-combat ROF examples rather than examples of gun tests from a firing range.

In theory a gun can be fired very fast indeed, but not in practice. In theory a man can eat a hot dog in about 10 seconds, but in practice people don't eat hot dogs in 'eating tournament mode'. The situations are completely different.

Listed ratings for gun ROF simply don't apply to combat.

[LukeFF]

(yawn)

[kv29]

In theory a gun can be fired very fast indeed, but not in practice. In theory a man can eat a hot dog in about 10 seconds, but in practice people don't eat hot dogs in 'eating tournament mode'. The situations are completely different.
Listed ratings for gun ROF simply don't apply to combat.

Impossible to explain it better.
The main factor for a fast or slow ROF is related to our own human possibilities in a determined enviroment.

I think this has been discussed before, but lets refresh it a bit. Lets imagine the worst scenario: the weather is bad (which is game modeled) and the gun swings a lot (which is NOW modeled) so the guy at the trigger has to wait for the right moment when the sight appears to be on the horizon line, the gun crew cannot bringing more ammo at a fast pace because the deck is wet and moving a lot and is being constantly washed by waves, and to make things even worst the enemy is firing at them with the same or more powerfull explosive shells... :doh: and what about the shells weight? how many 65 lbs shells would they be able to handle until they get really tired slowing everything down?

btw, all the crew seems to be almost immune to gun fire (really bad modeled, can we change that??)

The ROF is an average, just that.

[tater]

That said, kv29, I think that the reload time can be dropped (from RFB average) with the addition of your mod. Not back to 4 seconds, but somewhere between that and the 23 seconds beery has been talking about. My guess is that it could drop to 10 seconds as a fair compromise for factors not modeled in game.

If I were to keep the 15rpm standard used in stock SH4, but with your mod, I'd make the deck gun not allow fire in lighter seas than stock SH4. Pretty much if water came over the deck, start over. That would grossly reduce the ROF, actually.

Anyway, with your mod, I think the reload time can certainly start approaching a much lower value. Note I keep saying reload time. That's because with the gun actually hard to aim, and shooting disallowed when water sweeps over the deck several feet deep, the actual ROF will plunge. In calm seas, lying to at close range, you might then be able to "fire for effect" pretty rapidly, but start moving in any kind of chop, and turn... no way, you'll be down to 2-3 rpm in no time.

That's the future!

tater

[kv29]

After LOTS of testing we´ll be able to achieve a new average. It will not be perfect, either way it will benefit the enemy in calm seas, or to us in rough ones.

[tater]

Hehe, the deck guns that need a massive increase in ROF are those on the decks of SHIPS, IMO.

tater

[Von Tonner]

RFB is the only version of SH4 that uses actual in-combat ROF examples rather than examples of gun tests from a firing range.



Oh heavens, here we go again, no one has mentioned RFB until HE shows up. For heavens sake THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR MOD. Chill out man!!!

[Von Tonner]

In theory a gun can be fired very fast indeed, but not in practice. In theory a man can eat a hot dog in about 10 seconds, but in practice people don't eat hot dogs in 'eating tournament mode'. The situations are completely different.
Listed ratings for gun ROF simply don't apply to combat.
Impossible to explain it better.
The main factor for a fast or slow ROF is related to our own human possibilities in a determined enviroment.

I think this has been discussed before, but lets refresh it a bit. Lets imagine the worst scenario: the weather is bad (which is game modeled) and the gun swings a lot (which is NOW modeled) so the guy at the trigger has to wait for the right moment when the sight appears to be on the horizon line, the gun crew cannot bringing more ammo at a fast pace because the deck is wet and moving a lot and is being constantly washed by waves, and to make things even worst the enemy is firing at them with the same or more powerfull explosive shells... :doh: and what about the shells weight? how many 65 lbs shells would they be able to handle until they get really tired slowing everything down?

btw, all the crew seems to be almost immune to gun fire (really bad modeled, can we change that??)

The ROF is an average, just that.

Ok, if this is the way it is going. If a man's life depended on how fast he ate a hot dog, believe me, we would ALL be eating them in 10 seconds, hell man, this was not a sunday school picnic, your crew, your ship, your own life depended on you getting those shells out pronto. Did you not read my post? "The enemy is firing..." That is why it was standard practice to bring ALL guns to bear, AA as well.

[mookiemookie]

h heavens, here we go again, no one has mentioned RFB until HE shows up. For heavens sake THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR MOD. Chill out man!!!

*ahem*

So I'd say that TM is closer to reality in that aspect than RFB.


:-?

[Von Tonner]

h heavens, here we go again, no one has mentioned RFB until HE shows up. For heavens sake THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR MOD. Chill out man!!!
*ahem*

So I'd say that TM is closer to reality in that aspect than RFB.

:-?

I apologise, I really do wish we could have a discussion on the importance and use of deck guns without bringing in THAT mod as if it was the holy grail on RL.

[tater]

No, but the ROF issue has been entirely in RFB threads. Not to mention it's in the title post of this thread.

I agree that a dispassionate look at ROF is extremely useful. There are 2 things to look at.

One, what the actual ROF was like at sea in a submarine (not at a test range).

Two, for SH4, what should a ROF be to be realistic.

The two are not the same. If a 5"/25 could actually do 15 rpm on a sub's deck in combat, for example (our stock SH4 4 second reload), what should we set it to to be realistic in game, given the limitations of the engine to model gunnery?

It gets pretty complicated, really. If we are dealing with stock SH4 in everything but gunnery, I think you need to grossly lower the ROF. Why? Because:

1. guns are too lethal to ships
2. they are too easy to hit with
3. there are no material casualties (mechanical problems) modeled
4. sea state is only modeled as a can shoot/can't shoot, get below issue.
5. Stock SH4 crews become submarine supermen in no time (adding bonuses to reload, etc).

I think that the reload time can approach RL reload times (regardless of how short that number was in RL) with the following mods made to the stock game:

1. kv29's gun destabilization mod which requires that you fire the gun when the deck is level to hit the aimed range.

2. shell lethality is checked vs:

3. ship DMs (particularly DDs).

4. The shoot/no shoot stuff regarding awash decks is looked at to eliminate gamey shooting from decks mostly under water.

5. the ROF for guns on enemy combatants and armed merchants are checked (they don't shoot enough, IMO)

6. The DM of the submarine vs enemy shells is checked (getting hit by a deck gun such that damage is done should be BAD).

7. AI sensro values need tweaking such that the ships will spot and return fire sooner.

There might be a few more, but those 7 all interact to make surface actions more effective than they were in RL. 1 through 4 will reduce effective ROF, and reduce hits and damage to realistic levels. 5 through 7 make getting into gunfights more dangerous than stock SH4 (which is a joke in that respect).

IMO, if a gun actually reloaded in 4 seconds in combat, I'd likely be happy with it set to 5-6 seconds as long as the other changes were made. The additional couple seconds would be a way to take into account all the factors we can't mess with.

tater

[Von Tonner]

No, but the ROF issue has been entirely in RFB threads. Not to mention it's in the title post of this thread.

I agree that a dispassionate look at ROF is extremely useful. There are 2 things to look at.

One, what the actual ROF was like at sea in a submarine (not at a test range).

Two, for SH4, what should a ROF be to be realistic.

The two are not the same. If a 5"/25 could actually do 15 rpm on a sub's deck in combat, for example (our stock SH4 4 second reload), what should we set it to to be realistic in game, given the limitations of the engine to model gunnery?

It gets pretty complicated, really. If we are dealing with stock SH4 in everything but gunnery, I think you need to grossly lower the ROF. Why? Because:

1. guns are too lethal to ships
2. they are too easy to hit with
3. there are no material casualties (mechanical problems) modeled
4. sea state is only modeled as a can shoot/can't shoot, get below issue.
5. Stock SH4 crews become submarine supermen in no time (adding bonuses to reload, etc).

I think that the reload time can approach RL reload times (regardless of how short that number was in RL) with the following mods made to the stock game:

1. kv29's gun destabilization mod which requires that you fire the gun when the deck is level to hit the aimed range.

2. shell lethality is checked vs:

3. ship DMs (particularly DDs).

4. The shoot/no shoot stuff regarding awash decks is looked at to eliminate gamey shooting from decks mostly under water.

5. the ROF for guns on enemy combatants and armed merchants are checked (they don't shoot enough, IMO)

6. The DM of the submarine vs enemy shells is checked (getting hit by a deck gun such that damage is done should be BAD).

7. AI sensro values need tweaking such that the ships will spot and return fire sooner.

There might be a few more, but those 7 all interact to make surface actions more effective than they were in RL. 1 through 4 will reduce effective ROF, and reduce hits and damage to realistic levels. 5 through 7 make getting into gunfights more dangerous than stock SH4 (which is a joke in that respect).

IMO, if a gun actually reloaded in 4 seconds in combat, I'd likely be happy with it set to 5-6 seconds as long as the other changes were made. The additional couple seconds would be a way to take into account all the factors we can't mess with.

tater
I agree with you 100% with regards to the deck gun in a game environment. Well said.

[Palidian]

I have also seen rate of fire for that gun at 8-10 rounds per minute. Some rate account for the autoloader on that weapon.

Stock SH4 has the reload time set to 4 seconds.

Note that the navweaps site lists the ROF for that weapon as 15-20 rpm. Poor Bowfin didn't read the manual, or they would have fired faster I guess ;)

So 66-100% lower ROF than spec, probably due to the poor platform a submarine is for a gun, ammo issues, and everythign being soaking wet all the time.

I'm actually perfectly happy with ROFs being in the ballpark of what that Bowfin site claims as long as the guns aren't gyro-stabilized death rays. Firing for effect, lying to in a calm sea, that would be fine as long as a boat making flank into a stiff sea can't do the same. Kv29's mod looks like it will absolutely mitigate this problem and allow a more accurate ROF to be in game while preserving historical outcomes.

That said, if the real ROF was 10 (assuming plenty of ready ammo), I'd tend to drop it by some small % to cover problems still not able to be modded in. So maybe 8-9 rpm for a 10rpm gun (jams/misfire clearing, etc).

Not that in my testing of kv29's mod, I was lucky to shoot at ~8 rpm at close range with the reload time set to 4 seconds just because of the roll and pitch of the boat.

[Palidian]

So instead of fixing what is *actually* wrong, put an annoying artificial limit on the ROF, how is this a simulation?

I however do not feel the shell dammage is too powerful in the stock game. To easy to hit? Yes.

No, but the ROF issue has been entirely in RFB threads. Not to mention it's in the title post of this thread.

I agree that a dispassionate look at ROF is extremely useful. There are 2 things to look at.

One, what the actual ROF was like at sea in a submarine (not at a test range).

Two, for SH4, what should a ROF be to be realistic.

The two are not the same. If a 5"/25 could actually do 15 rpm on a sub's deck in combat, for example (our stock SH4 4 second reload), what should we set it to to be realistic in game, given the limitations of the engine to model gunnery?

It gets pretty complicated, really. If we are dealing with stock SH4 in everything but gunnery, I think you need to grossly lower the ROF. Why? Because:

1. guns are too lethal to ships
2. they are too easy to hit with
3. there are no material casualties (mechanical problems) modeled
4. sea state is only modeled as a can shoot/can't shoot, get below issue.
5. Stock SH4 crews become submarine supermen in no time (adding bonuses to reload, etc).

I think that the reload time can approach RL reload times (regardless of how short that number was in RL) with the following mods made to the stock game:

1. kv29's gun destabilization mod which requires that you fire the gun when the deck is level to hit the aimed range.

2. shell lethality is checked vs:

3. ship DMs (particularly DDs).

4. The shoot/no shoot stuff regarding awash decks is looked at to eliminate gamey shooting from decks mostly under water.

5. the ROF for guns on enemy combatants and armed merchants are checked (they don't shoot enough, IMO)

6. The DM of the submarine vs enemy shells is checked (getting hit by a deck gun such that damage is done should be BAD).

7. AI sensro values need tweaking such that the ships will spot and return fire sooner.

There might be a few more, but those 7 all interact to make surface actions more effective than they were in RL. 1 through 4 will reduce effective ROF, and reduce hits and damage to realistic levels. 5 through 7 make getting into gunfights more dangerous than stock SH4 (which is a joke in that respect).

IMO, if a gun actually reloaded in 4 seconds in combat, I'd likely be happy with it set to 5-6 seconds as long as the other changes were made. The additional couple seconds would be a way to take into account all the factors we can't mess with.

tater

[Steeltrap]

As far as RL examples go, I have 2 examples from Dick O'Kane (can't get much more RL than that.....):

1. With respect to power of the gun:
Wahoo expended approximately 80-90 rounds (!!) in sinking a fairly modest sized freighter (only 4,000t or less). In game I've destroyed a large European liner with about 6-10 rounds.... I think the gun is entirely too powerful in the damage it does per shell.

2. Concerning RoF:
In Clear the Bridge (p325) O'Kane recalls attacking, of all things, a yacht armed with heavy mgs and lots of radio antennae.

"With the slow rate of fire, about seven seconds per round (my italics), it was impossible to stay on the yacht for more than one or two hits.....and only 8 sure hits were observed. After 88 rounds.....the enemy still seemed under control...."

So, a definitive statement as to the rate of fire achievable under patrol conditions. The engagement commenced at 7000yds, closing to 4500. After 88 rounds the yacht was still afloat, and O'Kane expresses his doubts it would have sunk.

Conclusion:
* a RoF of 8-10 rounds per minute is entirely reasonable.
* the ease of hitting is excessive as currently simulated in game.
* damage done per hit is massively excessive.

Given this, I'd suggest:
* return RoF to something like 6-10 seconds per round, basedon gunnery skill of crew members and weather conditions.
* make hitting more difficult (although hitting a large target at 500yds shouldn't be very hard if seas are calm).
* reduce damage done OR make it linked very closely to hit location. A few HE rounds in superstructure will make life unpleasant for the crew, but not seriously threaten the ship - unless cargo make fire a major risk. AP hits in engine spaces and at/below waterline are far more likely to achieve critical effects.

Now, I don't know if all that is achievable. I do believe the gun does too much damage and it is too easy to hit (firing manually, at least) at longer ranges. When I was playing I used to make my crew fire, never controlling it myself. If hits were less frequent or more closely linked to sheel type/hit location/ship cargo, a more realistic RoF such as mentioned above would be OK.

Cheers

[tater]

So instead of fixing what is *actually* wrong, put an annoying artificial limit on the ROF, how is this a simulation?

I however do not feel the shell dammage is too powerful in the stock game. To easy to hit? Yes.
Do you have any idea what can, and what cannot be modded? Right now kv29 is pulling his hair out trying to remove the deck gun gyro-stabilization for more than the 4" gun. It's a major PITA, and apparently not consistant between guns in the code. We CAN'T always fix what is ACTUALLY wrong, that's the problem. Only some things are available to be modded.

Before he opened up that can of worms, there were 2 fairly easy things to mod (once other people busted their chops making the tweak files, that is), the ROF, and the damage per round.

So right now, that is it for definitive tools to mod the guns in something like RFB, change the damage done, and change the ROF. Beery's ROF choice is picking a way to make engageents match historical norms with one of the few tools available. Sure, it's a sledgehammer, but there isn't anything else in the toolbox right now.

Go ahead, make a new gun mod that makes the guns entirely realistic. You may only alter damage and ROF. I await the results.

Assuming kv29 can solve the stabilization thing (by no means certain, BTW), you may throw that into the mix, but right now, it only works for the 4" gun.

So those of us arguing in favor of reducing the ROF are doing so from the standpoint of what is currently possible instead of fantasy. I'd love it if there were more tools to make the simulation of guns better, but we don't have many---right now about 2 with a possible 3d if all goes well. There is another tool, and redwine/leovampire are working on it---changing the DMs of every ship. Talk about a major PITA...

tater

[tater]

Steeltrap, that 7 seconds number is a great find!

What gun did Wahoo carry at the time?

It's interesting, because I changed the kv29 mod to have a reload time of 8 seconds. Not sure what crew quality does to the reload time, that would be useful to know.

tater

[Torpex752]

No, but the ROF issue has been entirely in RFB threads. Not to mention it's in the title post of this thread.

I agree that a dispassionate look at ROF is extremely useful. There are 2 things to look at.

One, what the actual ROF was like at sea in a submarine (not at a test range).

Two, for SH4, what should a ROF be to be realistic.

The two are not the same. If a 5"/25 could actually do 15 rpm on a sub's deck in combat, for example (our stock SH4 4 second reload), what should we set it to to be realistic in game, given the limitations of the engine to model gunnery?

It gets pretty complicated, really. If we are dealing with stock SH4 in everything but gunnery, I think you need to grossly lower the ROF. Why? Because:

1. guns are too lethal to ships
2. they are too easy to hit with
3. there are no material casualties (mechanical problems) modeled
4. sea state is only modeled as a can shoot/can't shoot, get below issue.
5. Stock SH4 crews become submarine supermen in no time (adding bonuses to reload, etc).

I think that the reload time can approach RL reload times (regardless of how short that number was in RL) with the following mods made to the stock game:

1. kv29's gun destabilization mod which requires that you fire the gun when the deck is level to hit the aimed range.

2. shell lethality is checked vs:

3. ship DMs (particularly DDs).

4. The shoot/no shoot stuff regarding awash decks is looked at to eliminate gamey shooting from decks mostly under water.

5. the ROF for guns on enemy combatants and armed merchants are checked (they don't shoot enough, IMO)

6. The DM of the submarine vs enemy shells is checked (getting hit by a deck gun such that damage is done should be BAD).

7. AI sensro values need tweaking such that the ships will spot and return fire sooner.

There might be a few more, but those 7 all interact to make surface actions more effective than they were in RL. 1 through 4 will reduce effective ROF, and reduce hits and damage to realistic levels. 5 through 7 make getting into gunfights more dangerous than stock SH4 (which is a joke in that respect).

IMO, if a gun actually reloaded in 4 seconds in combat, I'd likely be happy with it set to 5-6 seconds as long as the other changes were made. The additional couple seconds would be a way to take into account all the factors we can't mess with.

tater

Tater,
I believe you are right in there with this! A subs Deck Gun can have a solid quick ROF, however its the "hit/miss ratio" ROF that will vary considerably due to the variables.

Frank "Torpex" Kulick
:cool:

[EAGLE_01]

Hi..
Don't mean to stick my nose in, but I posted this here before, back when someone else was discussing the ROF subject..

http://www.oldsubsplace.com/Submarine%20Deck%20Guns.htm

Hope it helps.

[NEON DEON]

Von Tonner,

You posted a quote earlier in this thread.

Here is part of the quote:

"Lay alternate fire with the U-boat’s other weapons in order suppress return fire. There is a four second interval between rounds, and while the deck gun is reloaded, open fire with a short burst of anti-aircraft rounds. If within range, small arms fire from the MG34 is very effective at suppressing return fire. Suppressive fire from the 20mm and even the 37mm anti-aircraft cannon will not sink the ship, but is used only to prevent the crews from firing back."

It is about U Boats.

What was your source for the quote.

[Steeltrap]

Steeltrap, that 7 seconds number is a great find!

What gun did Wahoo carry at the time?

It's interesting, because I changed the kv29 mod to have a reload time of 8 seconds. Not sure what crew quality does to the reload time, that would be useful to know.

tater

The quote actually refers to Tang, armed with the 4", 53 calibre forward of the tower (much to O'Kane's irritation - he wanted it aft).

Hope it helps. Decg guns in these sims ALWAYS seem to be somewhat 'death ray' in nature - presumably playing to the casual gamer who expects to sink things with half a dozen rounds!

Gunnery generally has been a problem in these sims IMO. Freighters and DDs etc. seem deadly accurate within seconds - that was my experience in SHII and III. Believe it or not, I've found SHIV to be better in this regard in that I can dive before being hit, and even attack freighters from longish ranges with (seemingly) little risk of being hit.
Now, if we could just make it so receiveing any sort of shell hit of 4" or greater size would have a great chance of rendering it impossible to dive, we'd be on to something.

Cheers!

[Von Tonner]

Von Tonner,

You posted a quote earlier in this thread.

Here is part of the quote:

"Lay alternate fire with the U-boat’s other weapons in order suppress return fire. There is a four second interval between rounds, and while the deck gun is reloaded, open fire with a short burst of anti-aircraft rounds. If within range, small arms fire from the MG34 is very effective at suppressing return fire. Suppressive fire from the 20mm and even the 37mm anti-aircraft cannon will not sink the ship, but is used only to prevent the crews from firing back."

It is about U Boats.


What was your source for the quote.

Here it is. http://www.uboataces.com/tactics-deckgun.shtml

[Uber Gruber]

Personally, i think the deck gun RoF is far to high. Why even in RFB its far too high, i'm hoping that someone will soon correct this and bring us a realistic 1 round every 10 mins....c'mon modders, what are ye waiting for?!!!!

[NEON DEON]

Personally, i think the deck gun RoF is far to high. Why even in RFB its far too high, i'm hoping that someone will soon correct this and bring us a realistic 1 round every 10 mins....c'mon modders, what are ye waiting for?!!!!

:D

Man you must think the gun is a Death Ray. ;)

Once an hour should be about right.:D

[Iron Budokan]

RFB is the only version of SH4 that uses actual in-combat ROF examples rather than examples of gun tests from a firing range.


Oh heavens, here we go again, no one has mentioned RFB until HE shows up. For heavens sake THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR MOD. Chill out man!!!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[tater]

Now, if we could just make it so receiveing any sort of shell hit of 4" or greater size would have a great chance of rendering it impossible to dive, we'd be on to something.

Cheers!

So true.

In general the subs in SH4 seem to be made by General Products, lol. I expect to see that my exec is a Pupeteer.

tater

[Horst Mikaelis]

My way of dealing with the issue is as follows:

Use the higher rate-of-fire of the Trigger Maru Mod
Never control the gun yourself; rely on crew-directed fireHorst

[Von Tonner]

My way of dealing with the issue is as follows:
Use the higher rate-of-fire of the Trigger Maru Mod
Never control the gun yourself; rely on crew-directed fireHorst

You know, you are probably right. 249 U.S. submarines operated in the Pacific Theater. To take a handful of war patrols which are presently available from only 3 or 4 of these boats and then come up with a ROF and claim this as the average for ALL remaining 245 is tenuous at best. Until more evidence comes to light either in supporting or negating, the jury will remain out on this question.

[NEON DEON]

My way of dealing with the issue is as follows:

Use the higher rate-of-fire of the Trigger Maru Mod
Never control the gun yourself; rely on crew-directed fireHorst

You know, you are probably right. 249 U.S. submarines operated in the Pacific Theater. To take a handful of war patrols which are presently available from only 3 or 4 of these boats and then come up with a ROF and claim this as the average for ALL remaining 245 is tenuous at best. Until more evidence comes to light either in supporting or negating, the jury will remain out on this question.

The problem I find is that this is a real time game and the situation changes moment to moment. It is not an abstracted system like pulse moves or turn base that might benefit more from an average. If you wanted to come in line with reality average wise then mod the game so a ship will not sink for you untill you have fired your 12th torpedo. Then everytime you end your patrol you will have sunk two ships a nice form fit realistic average that would fit right in with the number of torpedoes it took the USN sub force to sink a ship.

I am quite sure that method would not be very popular!;)

[Sailor Steve]

"With the slow rate of fire, about seven seconds per round (my italics), it was impossible to stay on the yacht for more than one or two hits.....and only 8 sure hits were observed. After 88 rounds.....the enemy still seemed under control...."
What was the weather?

Von Tonner,

You posted a quote earlier in this thread.

Here is part of the quote:

"Lay alternate fire with the U-boat’s other weapons in order suppress return fire. There is a four second interval between rounds, and while the deck gun is reloaded, open fire with a short burst of anti-aircraft rounds. If within range, small arms fire from the MG34 is very effective at suppressing return fire. Suppressive fire from the 20mm and even the 37mm anti-aircraft cannon will not sink the ship, but is used only to prevent the crews from firing back."

It is about U Boats.

What was your source for the quote.
What was the weather?

People keep pointing out that it was possible to fire the deck gun at a rate of six, or eight, or ten rounds per minute. Everyone agrees that this is true. The game still doesn't take into account any external factors. If you disagree with Beery and want to change the ROF back to anything you feel like, that's great; more power to you. If you want to discuss the problems and help find a good solution, even better. But many of you seem to want to "prove" that Beery (and anyone who agrees with him) is at best wrong, and at worst an idiot. This includes making fun of people every chance you get. Here's an idea - why don't you actually contribute by figuring out how to mod it so it works the way it should; I know I can't.

Man you must think the gun is a Death Ray. ;)

Once an hour should be about right.:D
There you go again.

[tater]

Exactly. There are 2 issues, one is a purely abstract, historical issue, presumably just to know, the other is making gunnery realistic within the context of SH4. The 2 are not the same thing.

A very very simple test for the people who are apparently arguing for the 8-20 rpm (depending on the gun) ROFs. Stock SH4 has a 15rpm ROF.

Use that. Use your deck gun. If you have patrols with consistantly higher tonnages than RL skippers had (claims based on deck gun sinkings) SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH SH4 GUNNERY.

I can save you the trouble, you can get in many a patrol (using nothing but a deck gun) that would have gotten any real skipper a MOH.

OK, so we know the gunnery is FUBAR in the game, now what?

1. We can change the ROF. (easy to tweak thanks to the guys who made the tweak files like nvdrifter)

2. We can change the damage done by each round. (easy to do, see #1)

3. We can change every single ship DM in the game. (stunningly complicated since it must balance with everything else in game)

(4.) make shooting more realistic (kv29 has hit a wall on this, so it's not an effective tool right now, and is certainly not "easy.")

So what's the solution, please?

Remember, the goal is for the deck gun to be historicaly valuable as a weapon. That means that it should be useful in limited circumstances, if it's possible to get grossly higher tonnages with it than RL skippers, it's not "fixed."

Note that ANY solution will involve picking arbitrary numbers. If the game was a good enough simulation of the factors involved in real gunnry, we might not need to use totally arbitrary numbers, but it isn't. Beery made an arbitrary decision to use an average from the best ROFs he saw in logs. Picking the "spec" ROF might be less arbitrary, but produces grossly incorrect outcomes in SH4. So you could change the reload time to 7 seconds, and it might result in accurate gun battles, but the choice would be equally arbitrary to 17 seconds (or 23, etc) once you diverge from the spec value.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, and there's one other thing I would like to add; back when we had this discussion on the SH3 boards, two years ago, I actually disagreed, with Beery. I supported his decision, but I disagreed. He had the reload time for the u-boats set to something like 30 seconds. When SH3 Commander came out, allowing us to set our own, I set the 8.8cm to 15 seconds and the 10.5cm to 20; still slow, but more to my liking. I will probably do something similar if SH4 Skipper lets me.

That's the way I play, but I don't think somebody playing some other way is necessarily wrong.

[SteamWake]

if SH4 Skipper lets me.

Wait, what, where ?

[Torpex752]

Exactly. There are 2 issues, one is a purely abstract, historical issue, presumably just to know, the other is making gunnery realistic within the context of SH4. The 2 are not the same thing.

A very very simple test for the people who are apparently arguing for the 8-20 rpm (depending on the gun) ROFs. Stock SH4 has a 15rpm ROF.

Use that. Use your deck gun. If you have patrols with consistantly higher tonnages than RL skippers had (claims based on deck gun sinkings) SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH SH4 GUNNERY.

I can save you the trouble, you can get in many a patrol (using nothing but a deck gun) that would have gotten any real skipper a MOH.

OK, so we know the gunnery is FUBAR in the game, now what?

1. We can change the ROF. (easy to tweak thanks to the guys who made the tweak files like nvdrifter)

2. We can change the damage done by each round. (easy to do, see #1)

3. We can change every single ship DM in the game. (stunningly complicated since it must balance with everything else in game)

(4.) make shooting more realistic (kv29 has hit a wall on this, so it's not an effective tool right now, and is certainly not "easy.")

So what's the solution, please?

Remember, the goal is for the deck gun to be historicaly valuable as a weapon. That means that it should be useful in limited circumstances, if it's possible to get grossly higher tonnages with it than RL skippers, it's not "fixed."

Note that ANY solution will involve picking arbitrary numbers. If the game was a good enough simulation of the factors involved in real gunnry, we might not need to use totally arbitrary numbers, but it isn't. Beery made an arbitrary decision to use an average from the best ROFs he saw in logs. Picking the "spec" ROF might be less arbitrary, but produces grossly incorrect outcomes in SH4. So you could change the reload time to 7 seconds, and it might result in accurate gun battles, but the choice would be equally arbitrary to 17 seconds (or 23, etc) once you diverge from the spec value.

Good Points.

I cant offer solutions, only other thoughts. Overall everything in SH4 works too good...why is that? (retorical question really) I could remove the deckgun and still get tonnage out the wazooo that would earn me a MOH. Even at 100% realism my tonnages are too high and I rarely use the deck gun on anything but sampans (I want it to work on sampans quickly too)
Years back we argued it in regards to SH1 & SH2..had arguments about how easy it was to kill a DD in SH1 for weeks!

The bottom line is that we will not see "real" realism until someone spends enough money (about a million dollars in my guess work) and puts together a team that can really simulate the ocean, the weather, the food, the mood, the CO's effect, the reports of wins & losses of the allies, FEAR, crew morale, accurate submarine physics, accidents & the human element on both sides to name a few.

OR

The player uses his own imagination & knowledge of WWII submarine operations and regulates how he uses the weapons & the sub in a historically accurate manner. Thats what I do mostly (Mods DO make it easier/better though)
:sunny:

Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff :cool:

[Sailor Steve]

if SH4 Skipper lets me.

Wait, what, where ?
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106888

Discussions have been going on for quite some time. People are working on it. Hopefully it will do all the things Commander does for SH3.

[tater]

Yeah, that is certainly a way to go about it. For a while the simple solution for me was to let my crew man the gun. Honestly, that might be the best solution.

FWIW, in playing with kv29's mod, I have my reload time set to 8 seconds. The stability of the sub is very sensitive to a few cfg changes, so once someone gets them to behave in storms the way they should, it will be interesting to see lighter seas combined with destabilized guns (even if I'm forced to always load a 4" gun so my gun is realistic).

From my experiments so far, I really think that a "spec accurate" ROF is approachable in a game modded like kv29's mod since aiming mitigates the super effectiveness of the guns.

BTW, from my reading it sounds like wooden boats (sampans, luggers, sea trucks, etc) could be surprisingly resistant. Makes sense, AP would tend to over penetrate. I'm not sure about the fusing on APHE, but it could easily fuse after exiting the other side of a wooden target if it was designed for the penetration of splinter shielding, etc.

tater

[Palidian]

I do not see a sub carrying AP rounds, I cannot find anything it however, only HE and star shell. AP involves shooting at armored targets, not a wise choice.






Yeah, that is certainly a way to go about it. For a while the simple solution for me was to let my crew man the gun. Honestly, that might be the best solution.

FWIW, in playing with kv29's mod, I have my reload time set to 8 seconds. The stability of the sub is very sensitive to a few cfg changes, so once someone gets them to behave in storms the way they should, it will be interesting to see lighter seas combined with destabilized guns (even if I'm forced to always load a 4" gun so my gun is realistic).

From my experiments so far, I really think that a "spec accurate" ROF is approachable in a game modded like kv29's mod since aiming mitigates the super effectiveness of the guns.

BTW, from my reading it sounds like wooden boats (sampans, luggers, sea trucks, etc) could be surprisingly resistant. Makes sense, AP would tend to over penetrate. I'm not sure about the fusing on APHE, but it could easily fuse after exiting the other side of a wooden target if it was designed for the penetration of splinter shielding, etc.

tater

[tater]

Something else to mod then, since they carry AP in SH4.

[NEON DEON]

Steve,

Weather is included with SH IV.

What is messed up is that while your crew will refuse to man the deck gun in bad weather you can still do it yourself. That would appear to be a bug. Maybe 1.3 will fix this maybe not. That restriction would stop you cold in the heavy sea cases.
What will also control your rate of fire is range, timing, and type of armament the target has. Close, you pretty much are going to pepper the target even in a medium sea state. You as a skipper should be able to determine what your rate of fire is going to be by the situation at hand.

Range: What I find to be a major problem is that it is too easy to get in close. Because in close is where everything changes. In close you can spot your shots and when you do that you inflict critical damage to the target with a lot less rounds and a lot faster then you can do that at medium or long range. So arm all merchants with 20 mm guns. A larger increase to the number of merchants carrying deck guns should be added too. 3 inch or bigger deck guns would push the range out even farther to where you would expend a large portion of your ammo to attempt to sink one ship to engage that target with the deck gun. Adjust the AI so that the enemy merchants are dangerous but not ultimate killing machines. After all we are talking about gun crews on merchants as opposed to crack IJN gun crews.

Sub damage: If you get hit by more than a 20 mm shell, it should just about ruin your whole day. Increase the damage of enemy shells (can you do that?). This now falls back to range in a gunfight. If you are more than likely to take critical damage yourself then you are going to stay back or not do it at all. But this will only be a deterrent if you play dead is dead. If you are keeping it real, then someone who says it is too easy because I only died twice before I did it, gets knocked out the box.

Target damage: Increase the overall target damages without effecting flooding damage. This way pounding on the superstructure is not going to make the ship explode early which at medium and long ranges your not spot shooting and while you may be getting hits, they are not Annie Oakley specials.

ROF: Here we go the fun subject. How much does the game alter ROF due to crew experience and fatigue? I don’t know maybe that needs to be tested. Four seconds per round on the 4 inch is too fast according to the gun specs. For now I would change it to 7.5 secs a round since that is the low end of the spec rate for that gun and what steeltrap posted about ROF as given by O’Kane.

Other factors: Sinking time, what is the target loaded or not loaded with, equipment failures are also other things to consider too. I believe in order to address these issues and earlier issues that testing the stock game in a controlled way would have to be looked into to better get an understanding of how to address these issues.

Alot of this has been explored here, but since you asked, there you go.

PS.

Steve,

if you have issues with my posts, by all means keep reminding me about when I have stepped over the line. This will help me in the future temper my thoughts as opposed to just going with the flow. Please don't forget, however the other posters in here who light it yet dont get a comment from you. I dont want to feel special. ;)

[tater]

^^^ Excellent points, neon. All of 'em.

[Excalibur Bane]

I let my crew operate the deck gun, that seems to solve the problem. For the most part anyway, I'm gonna have to chew them out when I get back to port, their beginning to actually land half of the shots that they shoot. Tsk, tsk. :nope: :D

I'm in late '42 right now, and I'm running into alot more armed merchants (probably half of them) and they are decent shots. Better then my own crew, anyway. In one engagement against three armed merchants running in a convoy, I actually did have to operate the gun myself or risk getting blown out of the water. :up:

[Palidian]

In addition I would like to add, that the gun has no shield, your crew is very exposed, even to a guy with a rifle, little alone the 20mm machine gun fire. If your within 500 yards and you want to surface, just have crew members suffer random wounds. In addition to getting peppered with 20mm fire. 20 mm can puncture the pressure hull. That being said subs would be rather immune to close range gun fire. Assuming the gun could be depressed far enough at 500 yards, rounds will just ricochet off the water and the pressure hull is below the water, sure the conning tower is above water, but that wont sink the sub.

A deck gun should only be used to finish off a target that the crew has already abandoned.

I do feel the gun damage in the game is underpowered. Some continue to make it less powerful. Guns sink ships, they have for 100s of years, you would think if they were so ineffective that they would not of used them. These merchants are not compartmentalized military ships, nor do they have military crews. They are designed to carry cargo, not to take gunfire.


Steve,

Weather is included with SH IV.

What is messed up is that while your crew will refuse to man the deck gun in bad weather you can still do it yourself. That would appear to be a bug. Maybe 1.3 will fix this maybe not. That restriction would stop you cold in the heavy sea cases.
What will also control your rate of fire is range, timing, and type of armament the target has. Close, you pretty much are going to pepper the target even in a medium sea state. You as a skipper should be able to determine what your rate of fire is going to be by the situation at hand.

Range: What I find to be a major problem is that it is too easy to get in close. Because in close is where everything changes. In close you can spot your shots and when you do that you inflict critical damage to the target with a lot less rounds and a lot faster then you can do that at medium or long range. So arm all merchants with 20 mm guns. A larger increase to the number of merchants carrying deck guns should be added too. 3 inch or bigger deck guns would push the range out even farther to where you would expend a large portion of your ammo to attempt to sink one ship to engage that target with the deck gun. Adjust the AI so that the enemy merchants are dangerous but not ultimate killing machines. After all we are talking about gun crews on merchants as opposed to crack IJN gun crews.

Sub damage: If you get hit by more than a 20 mm shell, it should just about ruin your whole day. Increase the damage of enemy shells (can you do that?). This now falls back to range in a gunfight. If you are more than likely to take critical damage yourself then you are going to stay back or not do it at all. But this will only be a deterrent if you play dead is dead. If you are keeping it real, then someone who says it is too easy because I only died twice before I did it, gets knocked out the box.

Target damage: Increase the overall target damages without effecting flooding damage. This way pounding on the superstructure is not going to make the ship explode early which at medium and long ranges your not spot shooting and while you may be getting hits, they are not Annie Oakley specials.

ROF: Here we go the fun subject. How much does the game alter ROF due to crew experience and fatigue? I don’t know maybe that needs to be tested. Four seconds per round on the 4 inch is too fast according to the gun specs. For now I would change it to 7.5 secs a round since that is the low end of the spec rate for that gun and what steeltrap posted about ROF as given by O’Kane.

Other factors: Sinking time, what is the target loaded or not loaded with, equipment failures are also other things to consider too. I believe in order to address these issues and earlier issues that testing the stock game in a controlled way would have to be looked into to better get an understanding of how to address these issues.

Alot of this has been explored here, but since you asked, there you go.

PS.

Steve,

if you have issues with my posts, by all means keep reminding me about when I have stepped over the line. This will help me in the future temper my thoughts as opposed to just going with the flow. Please don't forget, however the other posters in here who light it yet dont get a comment from you. I dont want to feel special. ;)

[Palidian]

Beery brings this on him self, IMO people who try to discuss this with him get the I am correct and you are wrong attitude, in spite of the actual facts. Then he brags about his ignore list, show he might be wrong and he orders you put to death. He is not at all in finding out the truth, or making a “real” simulation as he claims. It is about Berry and his ego. All the “me too” types out there agreeing with him provide nothing in support don't help ether.

The other mods on this and other boards do not have this drama.


But many of you seem to want to "prove" that Beery (and anyone who agrees with him) is at best wrong, and at worst an idiot.

[tater]

How many large frieghters were sunk by gunfire alone in the pacific, exactly?

The answer is very few, and not very large ships. The number of rounds expended and hits made to do so was high.

Deck guns were simply not effective weapons vs larger ships because if they WERE, they would have been used more.

[tater]

I just checked all the claims/sinkings through the end of 1943. There was ONE confirmed claim with a DG vs a ship of over 1000 tons, it was actualy quite big, over 8000 tons. There were only a handful of DG claims made in those 2 years vs anything bigger than a sampan. Many were flat wrong. A 1500 ton claim, jap records show the ship as 134 tons.

Narwal's famous DG example (we talked about this above someplace) vs the 4000 ton APK? The real ship was Himeno Maru of 834 tons.

2 years, ONE sinking of a ship over 1000 tons with a DG.

Next >1000 claim: Mar. 1044, Gato claims a 2000 tonner with the DG, real ship? 871 tons (Okinoyama Maru)

Haven't got past march.

[Sailor Steve]

I do not see a sub carrying AP rounds, I cannot find anything it however, only HE and star shell. AP involves shooting at armored targets, not a wise choice.
I agree, but I have seen a source indicating they did carry some AP rounds. A while back there was a similar question involving ammo for u-boats (SH3 of course). In that case the best I could find was Naval Weapons Of World War Two, which for both the 8.8cm and 10.5cm said AP and Illuminating (StarShell) as being for "Destroyers and minesweepers". It didn't say only those ships, but it did specifically mention them, so I feel safe in saying not for u-boats.

Most sources only give the ammo carried by the guns in general, and most 5" guns and smaller carried a common, or Semi-Armor-Piercing round, not a true AP. This was the case even for destroyers; the famous 5"/38 is listed as having an AP round, but most books I've seen only list AA and HC as being carried. Navweaps.com doesn't list AP for the 5"/25 or 4"/50, but does list it for the 3"/50. Starshell is listed for all rounds, but the question then becomes: yes, there were rounds made for the guns, but were they carried by submarines. I too fail to see what the use for AP would be on a submarine, and I don't even see the use for starshells.

[Sailor Steve]

PS.

Steve,

if you have issues with my posts, by all means keep reminding me about when I have stepped over the line. This will help me in the future temper my thoughts as opposed to just going with the flow. Please don't forget, however the other posters in here who light it yet dont get a comment from you. I dont want to feel special. ;)
You're absolutely right; I'm still fighting old battles.:oops:

I do comment when I think other people are using low blows, but if you think I'm singling you out I'll be glad to lighten up. One of my favorite sayings is from the French philosopher Josef Joubert: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory". I don't always live by it, but I do try.:sunny:

[tater]

The next confirmed DG sinking of a CLAIM over 1000 tons was August 19th, 1944. there was another claim never confirmed. BTW, the confirmed claim for 2000 tons? An 800 ton ship, not sunk, but she was run aground.

Bowfin claimed a torpedoed 1000 tonner sunk afterwards with a DG in september... the actual ship was 245 tons.

(seeing a pattern? With rare exceptions they aren't ever even attacking anything much over 500 tons with a DG, even if they thought it was 4000 (look at a real ONI manual and it's not surprising, we have it VERY easy in terms of IDing ships, it's a wonder they were as accurate as they were given the non-standardized nature of jap shipping).

OK, scanned through the end of 1944. No more confirmed sinkings of anything over 1000 tons wih a DG. None. So from Dec. 7, 1941, to Dec. 31, 1944 we have ONE confirmed sinking of a ship substantially over 1000 tons with a DG. There are maybe 10-20 claims for ships in the 1-2000 ton range, but from the confirmed examples, they are frequently gorssly wrong in their tonnage estimates.

Yeah, DGs were the wonder weapons of the sub war, they sank a few thousand tons out of how many MILLIONS sunk with torpedos?

[tater]

BTW, I'm not saying anythign about the ROF, I'm honestly not sure what the number should be, though as I have said with a mod like kv29s, I think it could actually approach the "spec" ROFs for the guns, ceertainly on the order of 6 rpm or perhaps even higher.

That said, for outcomes to match reality, DGs cannot be terribly effective, cause they skippers of the period certainly didn't think they were, they were mostly whacking sampans with them.

[NEON DEON]

I do not see a sub carrying AP rounds, I cannot find anything it however, only HE and star shell. AP involves shooting at armored targets, not a wise choice.
I agree, but I have seen a source indicating they did carry some AP rounds. A while back there was a similar question involving ammo for u-boats (SH3 of course). In that case the best I could find was Naval Weapons Of World War Two, which for both the 8.8cm and 10.5cm said AP and Illuminating (StarShell) as being for "Destroyers and minesweepers". It didn't say only those ships, but it did specifically mention them, so I feel safe in saying not for u-boats.

Most sources only give the ammo carried by the guns in general, and most 5" guns and smaller carried a common, or Semi-Armor-Piercing round, not a true AP. This was the case even for destroyers; the famous 5"/38 is listed as having an AP round, but most books I've seen only list AA and HC as being carried. Navweaps.com doesn't list AP for the 5"/25 or 4"/50, but does list it for the 3"/50. Starshell is listed for all rounds, but the question then becomes: yes, there were rounds made for the guns, but were they carried by submarines. I too fail to see what the use for AP would be on a submarine, and I don't even see the use for starshells.

On Fluckey's last patrol in the book Thunder Below he makes this comment:

"We ceased fire when our 5-inch, high-capacity ammunition was down to five shells. At the bottom of the magazine we found three star shells. Someones bright idea. They have no explosive, and the last thing a sub needs is to illuminate herself at night."

Steve,

Fluckey agrees with you.

What Fluckey also mentioned was the need to carry incendiary ammunition.

He must have been a pyro-maniac!;)

[tater]

API (or whatever it is for guns, not MGs) would have been very useful since the vast majority of deck gun attacks (well in excess of 90-95%) were on sampans, trawlers, etc. Many of the small "AKs" attacked with deck guns (based on just looking at the confirmed sinkings) could have also been built of wood.

After 1943, the japanese built huge numbers of small, wooden "sea trucks" in an attempt to replace vulnerable frieghters with a "distributed" system of shipping (you have to sink 10 sea trucks to sink 3000 tons, chances are you'll sink a couple and the rest will get away).

tater

[Sailor Steve]

[On Fluckey's last patrol in the book Thunder Below he makes this comment:

"We ceased fire when our 5-inch, high-capacity ammunition was down to five shells. At the bottom of the magazine we found three star shells. Someones bright idea. They have no explosive, and the last thing a sub needs is to illuminate herself at night."
:rotfl:

What can I say? That's rich!

What Fluckey also mentioned was the need to carry incendiary ammunition.

He must have been a pyro-maniac!;)
Well, an out-of-control fire is a good thing, right? At least when it's on the other guys ship.

[tater]

Looking at 1945. Only a handful of DG claims over 1000 tons with the DG. Most unconfirmed, none more than 2000 tons, most 1000 to 1500 tons. One confirmed 1000 ton ship sunk was actually 200 tons.

Note that there were MANY DG attacks in 1945, more than 1944 looks like. There are ZERO confirmed DG sinkings for ships over 1000 tons in 1945. There are very few claims even made over 1000 tons, and none in '45 over 2000 tons for DG sinkings. Given the tonnage ratio for the confirmed DG sinkings (claimed tonnage vs actual) seems like an average would be to reduce the claim by 5-10 times, lol. 2000 tons? Maybe it was 500. (there were only 2x2000 ton claims anyway)

So, in my look at every single claim by a submarine (US Submarine Attacks During World War II, Alden, NIP), I found ONE confirmed DG sinking over 1000 tons, and it was by Narwhal, armed with 2x6" guns. There were a a fair number of claims over 1000 tons, but very very few were even as high as 2000 tons, and none were confirmed (I'm not saying they weren't sunk, I'm saying the tonnages were almost certainly off considerably based on the claims vs real tonnages for confirmed DG sinkings). Many of the 1000+ ton claims were for targets that were well under 500 tons in reality.

Note that the volume I used also lists attacks for damage. I didn't pay a lot of attention to them, but there were hardly any damages claimed on >1000 ton targets with DGs either. Bottom line is that fleet boat skippers clearly did not think the DG was a good weapon for attacking such targets (>1000 ton merchants) otherwise they would have availed themselves of the weapon.

[Torpex752]

Looking at 1945. Only a handful of DG claims over 1000 tons with the DG. Most unconfirmed, none more than 2000 tons, most 1000 to 1500 tons. One confirmed 1000 ton ship sunk was actually 200 tons.

Note that there were MANY DG attacks in 1945, more than 1944 looks like. There are ZERO confirmed DG sinkings for ships over 1000 tons in 1945. There are very few claims even made over 1000 tons, and none in '45 over 2000 tons for DG sinkings. Given the tonnage ratio for the confirmed DG sinkings (claimed tonnage vs actual) seems like an average would be to reduce the claim by 5-10 times, lol. 2000 tons? Maybe it was 500. (there were only 2x2000 ton claims anyway)

So, in my look at every single claim by a submarine (US Submarine Attacks During World War II, Alden, NIP), I found ONE confirmed DG sinking over 1000 tons, and it was by Narwhal, armed with 2x6" guns. There were a a fair number of claims over 1000 tons, but very very few were even as high as 2000 tons, and none were confirmed (I'm not saying they weren't sunk, I'm saying the tonnages were almost certainly off considerably based on the claims vs real tonnages for confirmed DG sinkings). Many of the 1000+ ton claims were for targets that were well under 500 tons in reality.

Note that the volume I used also lists attacks for damage. I didn't pay a lot of attention to them, but there were hardly any damages claimed on >1000 ton targets with DGs either. Bottom line is that fleet boat skippers clearly did not think the DG was a good weapon for attacking such targets (>1000 ton merchants) otherwise they would have availed themselves of the weapon.

This is off topic...(partially useless).....Ya know what buggs me after talking to a few WWII sub vets? One guy siad that JANAC really ticked him off about the lower tonnages. He basically said that he was irked because the documents they had to ID the Japanese fleet actually came from the Japanese lading records and pre war shipping manifests from many of the ships themselves. He said and I quote; " Theres a hell of a difference between 700 tons and 4000 tons! Ya think after sinking a 4000 ton ship we would think a 700 ton ship was the same size?" He was one of the guys on watch as a look out on the USS FLASHER and he was quite irate at how things changes after the war. (Not saying we need to change anything just dropping a thought on a non related note. :lol: It buggs me because we just won a war and to discredit the guys out there I believe they fudged the records a bit where they could. Just my opinion, and I could very well be wrong.

Frank "Torpex' Kulick
Subsim Staff :cool:

[tater]

Alden started with some of that as a premise, actually. The book I used is not just JANAC, he looked at many other records, and in places corrects JANAC.

In my posts above by "confirmed" I mean an actual RL ship name, lat/long, etc is found for the target.

tater

[Torpex752]

Alden started with some of that as a premise, actually. The book I used is not just JANAC, he looked at many other records, and in places corrects JANAC.

In my posts above by "confirmed" I mean an actual RL ship name, lat/long, etc is found for the target.

tater

I was not disputing your logic at all, just a "random" post....sorry. :oops:

Frank

[tater]

Sorry, I didn't take it that way, actually. Just pointing out that Alden's rationale for writing the book exactly matches your post. He wrote it as a reaction to complaints he'd heard from vets regarding JANAC and sought to do a more exhaustive analysis.

tater

[Torpex752]

Ok, good.

It really made me wonder how JANAC even considered some of the records from the Japanese. One story goes there was one ship that had aparently delivered a shipment of something to Washington pre war. The manifests and all documents were retained as per shipping "rules" back then, noting the ships name and its size. That same ship was sunk by one of our subs, and ID'd by the ONI manual, which contained actual pictures of the ship, and its tonnage. JANAC in review of the sinking claim, actually used the lower tonnage supplied by the Japanese records. When a few key crew members got wind of this years later they did their own research, and presented the pre-war evidence. They were told it didnt matter. So I accept it, but just wonder........

Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim Staff :cool:

[PepsiCan]

I too have some doubts. I'm reading "Silent Victory" at the moment. It's confusing to see that some captains write that they saw the ship they torpedoed explode only to read a few lines further that JANAC did not confirm the sinking...

Has anybody got some information on why the JANAC credits deviate so much from the skippers' claims? Where the Japanese such sloppy bookkeepers that they didn't record all their lost vessels?

[mookiemookie]

I too have some doubts. I'm reading "Silent Victory" at the moment. It's confusing to see that some captains write that they saw the ship they torpedoed explode only to read a few lines further that JANAC did not confirm the sinking...

Has anybody got some information on why the JANAC credits deviate so much from the skippers' claims? Where the Japanese such sloppy bookkeepers that they didn't record all their lost vessels?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember it, part of the problem with the faulty torpedoes was that their fuel tanks would explode, and not the warhead because of faulty the faulty firing pin. This would cause water spray that looked like a hit, but didn't cause any real damage to the ship.

JANAC also didn't count smaller ships (under 1000 or 500 tons) and it didn't count ships that were sunk but later salvaged and refloated.

[tater]

The flask would break just because of the impact, but the contact dud problem was indeed related to the firing pin. The fuse was destroyed before it could trigger an explosion, basically. It worked fine with slower torpedos, but the faster mk14 (almost never used on the slow setting) had this problem.

The smaller targets would certainly be a problem since for many of the confirmed sinkings, the targets were actually small. The japs used a LOT of <1000 shipping. By 1943, they were on a major building program for such shipping.

tater

[Palidian]

The firing pin design was taken from an earlier torpedo, its speed was 33 knots, the faster Mk 14 shattered the pin. Interestingly enough, against a stationary target, those torpedoes worked almost 100% of the time at all angles. But hitting a moving target apparently added a extra force not encountered during pre-war testing (which was all against stationary targets), and that was just enough to disable the torpedo. The firing pin should work good at the slower speed setting.

The magnetic influence would go off at random, mostly due to the difference of magnetic fields threw out the world.

[NEON DEON]

There was a third problem.

The depth guage for the torpedo was positioned badly.

This apparently caused it to register the wrong depth and the torps would run deep.

So if you model the MK 14 to do these things, because that was what was wrong with them, then you play the game, you could turn off the mag exploder, set the torp to run at slow speed, and fire shallow and hardly ever get a dud.

From a historic stand point they would be accurate, but from a game standpoint it sounds like it would be fubar because you know how to make them work in 1941 when it took the real guys about 18 months to figure out.

[Torpex752]

Just like many other aspects of the game that create higher tonnages, there is hardly any way to lower the tonnage in a historically accurate manner. I think (and this is just my thoughts) that we have a clear example of just how psycological war really is. Here behind our screens we are physically safe from any harm, and immune to any repercussions for deviation from years of training and doctrine/policy. So we are free to do as we please with no one to answer to. If there was an ingame "black-box" that recorded our actions, and it would divulge infractions of the rules back in port, tonnages might be lower, or careers would be shorter. Also, if the game would somehow simulate the psycological effects of war on our decision making ability, I think tonnages would be lower. We would also need some means to remove what we know about the war and how things progressed. Combine those effects with some technical mods and you might see results closer to what they got back then.

Frank "Torpex" Kulick
Subsim staff :cool:

[tater]

Oh, agreed. Tonnages in the game will ALWAYS be higher. I actualy would love to see a sub sim or a flight sim that doesn't give "instant success" by telling you and recording when kills are made. I'd rather have a debriefing screen on RTB when I make claims, and they can be checked vs intel, etc and awarded.

But that's aside from "fear of death." Doctrine also plays a role. Early war, we should be making submerged sonar approaches. We should also be setting the run depth on the fish to maybe 10 feet below the keel. Combined with the 11 feet of deep run we'd not sink ANYTHING. Of course that's at 100% real, no watching the fish. In fact, you should fire then pull the plug to act like a real sub of the period (least early war). If you get a timed explosion (or even close) you'll assume hits. Course in game you'll know that the hits didn't sink if you don't see the kill notice.

As for this with the deck guns... the crew isn't as vulnerable as they should be (I never seem to get dead crew unless a few DDs are landing shells on deck), etc, ad nauseum. The RL data is clear though, the number of sinkings of anythign bigger than a coaster with a DG (including coup de grace) is vanishingly small. The number of claims is not much higher, and still insignificant. So even if you take every claim at its word—including the tonnages which are frequently quite a bit off—it still doesn't amount to a drop of water in the sea.

[Palidian]

Yes I was just limiting to detonations. As for running deep, yes. The mk 14 was a $10k torpedo, in the depression the Navy did not want to waste money exploding torpedoes, so they ran them into soft targets and then recovered them. The actual warhead was heaver then the test weights causing the nose to run lower then trip. This not wanting to do live tests caused the weak firing pin, and deep running torps, the magnetic/influence issue varied depending on location. Detonators that worked well in the states did not work well in the south Pacific. Germany did not have issues with the magnetic until they were far north off of Norway.

In the stock game I never have tested the slower speed, however the shattering off the firing pin was lessened at non 90' shots, the game emulates that well.

Hindsight sees 20/20


There was a third problem.

The depth guage for the torpedo was positioned badly.

This apparently caused it to register the wrong depth and the torps would run deep.

So if you model the MK 14 to do these things, because that was what was wrong with them, then you play the game, you could turn off the mag exploder, set the torp to run at slow speed, and fire shallow and hardly ever get a dud.

From a historic stand point they would be accurate, but from a game standpoint it sounds like it would be fubar because you know how to make them work in 1941 when it took the real guys about 18 months to figure out.

[Palidian]

One of the reasons is that your range, speed and directions are 100% accurate. You pop the scope up for 1 second and you know the speed, direction and range to several targets. I think the CCIP mod tries to deal with this, if they are there not accounting for range as toprs will just pass ahead or behind the target reguardless of the range.

The GFX mod for SH3 stacks your bridge and deck gun crew up like cord wood.

Oh, agreed. Tonnages in the game will ALWAYS be higher. I actualy would love to see a sub sim or a flight sim that doesn't give "instant success" by telling you and recording when kills are made. I'd rather have a debriefing screen on RTB when I make claims, and they can be checked vs intel, etc and awarded.

But that's aside from "fear of death." Doctrine also plays a role. Early war, we should be making submerged sonar approaches. We should also be setting the run depth on the fish to maybe 10 feet below the keel. Combined with the 11 feet of deep run we'd not sink ANYTHING. Of course that's at 100% real, no watching the fish. In fact, you should fire then pull the plug to act like a real sub of the period (least early war). If you get a timed explosion (or even close) you'll assume hits. Course in game you'll know that the hits didn't sink if you don't see the kill notice.

As for this with the deck guns... the crew isn't as vulnerable as they should be (I never seem to get dead crew unless a few DDs are landing shells on deck), etc, ad nauseum. The RL data is clear though, the number of sinkings of anythign bigger than a coaster with a DG (including coup de grace) is vanishingly small. The number of claims is not much higher, and still insignificant. So even if you take every claim at its word—including the tonnages which are frequently quite a bit off—it still doesn't amount to a drop of water in the sea.

[John Channing]

Just like many other aspects of the game that create higher tonnages, there is hardly any way to lower the tonnage in a historically accurate manner. I think (and this is just my thoughts) that we have a clear example of just how psycological war really is. Here behind our screens we are physically safe from any harm, and immune to any repercussions for deviation from years of training and doctrine/policy. So we are free to do as we please with no one to answer to. If there was an ingame "black-box" that recorded our actions, and it would divulge infractions of the rules back in port, tonnages might be lower, or careers would be shorter. Also, if the game would somehow simulate the psycological effects of war on our decision making ability, I think tonnages would be lower. We would also need some means to remove what we know about the war and how things progressed. Combine those effects with some technical mods and you might see results closer to what they got back then.



There is an attempt at something like this already built into the game.

The much maligned "retirement bug" is actually intentional. Commanders who go blithely sailing off where ever they please and ignore their objectives will get retired early every time. This is a result of the fact that there are two tracking mechanisms in the program, but only one is generally known... renown. While you do get renown for mass sinkings, if you don't complete your objectives the second hidden tracking mechanism also records this with your CO and will result in early retirement. The intent is that if you have an insertion, intel or lifeguard mission that you don;t complete that it is assumed (but not in fact) that it has an overall negative effect on the war effort and you will be deducted merit points with your CO. Lose enough and out you go... regardless of tonnage.

It doesn't always work (so please spare me the "I completed all my objectives and still got retired" posts) and it isn't perfect by any means but, on the whole, it does and as far as I can remember this is the foirst time anything like this has been implemented into a dynamic campaign.

Oh... and for anyone who has downloaded the "Leaked beta" patch... try out the deck gun. you may be in for a suprise!

JCC

[Palidian]

<<Oh... and for anyone who has downloaded the "Leaked beta" patch... try out the deck gun. you may be in for a suprise!>>

Is it a belt fed Gatling gun?




Just like many other aspects of the game that create higher tonnages, there is hardly any way to lower the tonnage in a historically accurate manner. I think (and this is just my thoughts) that we have a clear example of just how psycological war really is. Here behind our screens we are physically safe from any harm, and immune to any repercussions for deviation from years of training and doctrine/policy. So we are free to do as we please with no one to answer to. If there was an ingame "black-box" that recorded our actions, and it would divulge infractions of the rules back in port, tonnages might be lower, or careers would be shorter. Also, if the game would somehow simulate the psycological effects of war on our decision making ability, I think tonnages would be lower. We would also need some means to remove what we know about the war and how things progressed. Combine those effects with some technical mods and you might see results closer to what they got back then.


There is an attempt at something like this already built into the game.

The much maligned "retirement bug" is actually intentional. Commanders who go blithely sailing off where ever they please and ignore their objectives will get retired early every time. This is a result of the fact that there are two tracking mechanisms in the program, but only one is generally known... renown. While you do get renown for mass sinkings, if you don't complete your objectives the second hidden tracking mechanism also records this with your CO and will result in early retirement. The intent is that if you have an insertion, intel or lifeguard mission that you don;t complete that it is assumed (but not in fact) that it has an overall negative effect on the war effort and you will be deducted merit points with your CO. Lose enough and out you go... regardless of tonnage.

It doesn't always work (so please spare me the "I completed all my objectives and still got retired" posts) and it isn't perfect by any means but, on the whole, it does and as far as I can remember this is the foirst time anything like this has been implemented into a dynamic campaign.

Oh... and for anyone who has downloaded the "Leaked beta" patch... try out the deck gun. you may be in for a suprise!

JCC

[Uber Gruber]

Installing Real Deck Gun on the Beta worked really well.....quite nice in fact.

[Steeltrap]

Steve, to clarify, I posted that info in response to a request (might even have been from Beery) for any RL examples of RoF under combat conditions.

I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong. I fully appreciate that the options available to mod the deck gun are limited, and that lowering RoF was one way of reducing its effectiveness from its current deadly level. I thought I had made that clear in the conclusions of my post.

[Sailor Steve]

Gotcha. My dander was up; as Archie Bunker once said, "I got it misconscrewed".:sunny: