The RUb Deck Gun discussion, since it keeps coming up.

[Beery]

I just want to bump this because there's a lot of talk about the deck gun and I think it would be good for players to see the actual process we went through on deciding this, rather than have some people take comments out of their context to suit their agenda.

[gAiNiAc]

Could you possibly make a kind of torpedo loading system for the deck gun?

Have 20 or so "shell tubes" on deck. Or two "ten shell" tubes. Four "five shell" tubes. Ect.

Then have shell reserves loaded to the "tubes" via the deck gun crew. With 60 second (xhow many shells are in a "banana bunch") load times from reserves to the "tubes."

That way you could shoot fast from the locker and the locker would be slowly (likely using auto-reload, especially if they are handled individually) refilled from reserves to the locker and you could continue firing at a slower rate.

Or a different system where the one "tube" is the chamber, internal reserves are the locker, and external reserves are the in-boat ammo reserves.

Side benefits: Have to refil the locker before next attack. Able to choose your own "mix" of shells in the locker"

Your idea came to me this morning at 4AM as I was finishing up my first patrol with Rub 1.43.

Good to see that someone else has thought of this.

The mechanism is already inplace in the game engine. How would it be adapted for the deck gun.......?

Modders, have you guys thought of or tried the above idea already?

[oRGy]

Don't think the above would be possible, the deck gun and torpedo's are totally different systems ingame, though I suppose I could be wrong.

By the way Beery - deckguns are removed post 1943, right? This action reduced underwater drag, right? Is this modelled ingame - i.e. do the uboats travel any faster underwater without them? If not, could be a neat thing to do via SH3 Commander.

[ICBM]

With the knowledge we have today we know that DG are practically useless in combat and just create extra drag

Could Kaleuns back then decide to remove the DG prior to 43' or was that 'against the rules' or something? (don't know better word)

[oRGy]

Deckguns were used in nearly 10% of attacks and so weren't "useless".

I wonder how much drag they did create though? Anyone with figures?

[Beery]

Deckguns were used in nearly 10% of attacks and so weren't "useless".

Deck guns alone only succeeded in sinking 5% of all ships sunk by U-boats (the figures are at U-boat.net - the figures are there - 2919 ships sunk, 158 by the deck gun, which is 5.41%), and I would imagine that if we could look at tonnage, the deck gun would be even more useless. As I look at it, the deck gun can hardly be said to have been 'useful' when it can only account for 5% of all sinkings. 5% means that you'd expect to sink 19 ships before you sank a single one with the deck gun. Even in RUb, with a severely nerfed deck gun, players can still get about 25% of sinkings with it. In order for the deck gun to be as 'useful' as it was in reality, it would need a further heavy duty nerf.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=42152[url]

Read on. Excellent research by community member Charos regarding deck gun reload times which contradict Beery's stance on the same.

This includes very recent posts with what appears to be new information to the discussion.

[stljeffbb1]

All I know is that I'm NOT changing my gun settings again!

30 second reload and 14 degree max error

This makes it so I have to close very close in near perfect conditions to even have a chance of hitting...

I do find it interesting that all 55 shells in the description missed! :88)

Maybe I need to change my max degree error to 45 or something!!!

I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYMORE!!!! :doh:

-Jeff

[Kpt. Lehmann]

stljeffbb1

All this old artilleryman is saying is there is room for more than one school of thought in the realm of "historical possibility/probability."

Keep your settings and feel good about them. My settings are comparable.

Regarding aim... the above link says it all and matches with my own crew's accuracy lol. They can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.
:rotfl:

[el_Salmon]

30 second reload and 14 degree max error
Well. I think that's a good agreement between "reality" and "gameplay". 60 seconds from RealUboat 1.41 are too long, but 10 seconds from SHIII 1.4 are too short.

[Beery]

30 second reload and 14 degree max error
Well. I think that's a good agreement between "reality" and "gameplay". 60 seconds from RealUboat 1.41 are too long...

Based on what? I keep hearing that from many people, but the only clear real world examples suggest 60 to 80 seconds average reload time per shell. The only contradictory evidence comes from sources that provide incomplete information. I'm not in the business of making realism conform to what people are most comfortable with, or what's as realistic as they can take. I make realism conform to what history tells me is realistic, even when that is unpalatable for some.

30 second reload may be playable, but according to the information I've seen it's not realistic. Realism and playability do agree, but realism and arcade play rarely do. Let's face facts: unless someone can show that a U-boat could fire 200 rounds in 100 minutes, 30 second reloads are tantamount to an arcade mode. It's as simple as that.

[stljeffbb1]

Yeah, maybe I should just suck it up and change it back to 60 secs, and just deal......

However, 30 seconds is MINIMUM time in between shots...this assumes a PERFECT crew.....the way I play, I manually rotate out crew in between every mission (up to half of total crew...historical? I have no idea, but, just like "virtual" torpedos, you do what you gotta do!), so it will be difficult for me to have a perfect crew, if not impossible. Therefore, the time inbetween reloads has typically been about 43 seconds (trust me, I've timed it!)....I am also very intrigued, as mentioned, about ALL of the shells in that account missing their target

the U-boat tried to sink the vessel by gunfire and fired 55 rounds without hitting the ship, which was finally sunk with a coup de grâce at 20.12 hours.

Was this coup a torpedo? The story, along with many others, is rather vague....

I've said it in other threads, the game just doesn't model this very well....I see others have come up with the idea of simulating a storage locker on the top of the boat....interesting....

After reading many many posts, I am now beginning to think that the 60 second time is "realistic".... also, probably shold also consider a higher max angle error, if it is true that the deck gun can't hit the side of a barn.

Is Jurgen Oesten still around? Maybe someone should ask him! I wonder what he thought about the uber gun in the vanilla game?

:hmm:

-Jeff

[oRGy]

Hi!

My previous post was deleted so I think I'll just post someone else:

ridgewayranger in this thread (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=350620&highlight=#350620) explains how the gunnery worked on a WWII era S Class submarine he was stationed on.

I quote:

Incidentally, I was a British submariner for several years and several of my boats sported a gun. We expected to get 10 rounds away within 1 minute of the order for Gun action. Extra ammo was carried in watertight containers around the gun and there was a chain of men bringing up from the magazine. There was no "de-waterproofing".

The firing lock came up with the Gunlayer and that was it. Obviously, no one but a fool would fight it out with a warship, but merchants were disposed of quickly. The gun was an econimical way of disposing of small craft such as Junks (Silent Hunter 1)

And:

To clarify the ammo supply. The chain of men were inside the boat. Magazine, control room, wardroom, guntower, shells then passed through access hatch to member of gun crew on deck, the rate of fire would be the speed of passing a shell from one man to the next.

We arn't talking 15" projies here, 3 & 4" were routinely manhandled , being lighter than their surface ship counterparts by virtue of the smaller propellant charge. Maybe Uboats wern't so sophisticated , I am talking British S class, a mainstay of the war. As for accuracy, a good gunlayer was worth his weight in gold and it was not unknown for a Skipper to keep his gunlayer when he changed boats.

The essential of using the gun was getting in close with the element of surprise. Pop up,fire ten rounds and down again before the merchant could get a shot at you, then move and repeat. The gun hatch was opened before it actually broke surface.

In my opinion this information totally rubbishes the RuB deckgun setting in terms of historical accuracy. Deck guns were removed from U-boats simply because merchants became armed later in the war, began to travel exclusively in convoys, and the threat of air attack and radar detection greatly increased, not because they were 'useless' weapons. The historical data indicates a reload time of about 10seconds, which is what it will be in Improved U-Boat.

PS: Moderators, please ensure Beery does not delete this post, as has happened to several others.

[joea]

Good post, but don't you think the gunners are a bit too accurate and also the gun a bit too powerful?

[joea]

Hi!

My previous post was deleted so I think I'll just post someone else:

ridgewayranger in this thread (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=350620&highlight=#350620) explains how the gunnery worked on a WWII era S Class submarine he was stationed on.

I quote:

Incidentally, I was a British submariner for several years and several of my boats sported a gun. We expected to get 10 rounds away within 1 minute of the order for Gun action. Extra ammo was carried in watertight containers around the gun and there was a chain of men bringing up from the magazine. There was no "de-waterproofing".

The firing lock came up with the Gunlayer and that was it. Obviously, no one but a fool would fight it out with a warship, but merchants were disposed of quickly. The gun was an econimical way of disposing of small craft such as Junks (Silent Hunter 1)

And:

To clarify the ammo supply. The chain of men were inside the boat. Magazine, control room, wardroom, guntower, shells then passed through access hatch to member of gun crew on deck, the rate of fire would be the speed of passing a shell from one man to the next.

We arn't talking 15" projies here, 3 & 4" were routinely manhandled , being lighter than their surface ship counterparts by virtue of the smaller propellant charge. Maybe Uboats wern't so sophisticated , I am talking British S class, a mainstay of the war. As for accuracy, a good gunlayer was worth his weight in gold and it was not unknown for a Skipper to keep his gunlayer when he changed boats.

The essential of using the gun was getting in close with the element of surprise. Pop up,fire ten rounds and down again before the merchant could get a shot at you, then move and repeat. The gun hatch was opened before it actually broke surface.

In my opinion this information totally rubbishes the RuB deckgun setting in terms of historical accuracy. Deck guns were removed from U-boats simply because merchants became armed later in the war, began to travel exclusively in convoys, and the threat of air attack and radar detection greatly increased, not because they were 'useless' weapons. The historical data indicates a reload time of about 10seconds, which is what it will be in Improved U-Boat.

PS: Moderators, please ensure Beery does not delete this post, as has happened to several others.

Oh just a quote to make sure this is seen.

[Beery]

Citing a British post-war sub as evidence of what could be expected on a WW2 German U-boat is just not convincing at all. If we're going to find out about German U-boats we need to find evidence that relates to German U-boats. I've done that. So why is it so difficult for my detractors to do the same?

I mean I've read of field guns, destroyer guns, and now post-war British subs. What next? Shall we hear about Japanese sub deck guns? None of these have any bearing on WW2 German U-boat deck guns because no other guns had the same specific issues that a WW2 German deck gun had. That's why we need to get our info ONLY from WW2 German U-boat data. Anything else is completely irrelevant.

The speed at which a gun crew can fire 10 rounds is completely useless info. It means nothing unless it's a speed that's good for the entire ammo supply, and unless it relates directly to battle conditions. Most speed tests relating to reloads are tests done in better-than-perfect conditions. I simply don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Plus, the British sub crewman says that there was no de-waterproofing. That only proves my point that sub types were very different. A German U-boat crew certainly did have to de-waterproof the gun, and if they forgot (which occasionally happened in the heat of the moment) it could result in crew casualties. This shows that if we want a realistic simulation we can't just ignore such things.

The SH3 Mod Team is never NEVER going to change the deck gun reload time unless compelling evidence is brought to light that shows that DECK GUNS (not field guns) on GERMAN (not English) U-boats routinely reloaded their ENTIRE AMMO SUPPLY OR A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF IT (not just 10 - 20 rounds) in less time than what RUb models. If people don't like that, then they can go elsewhere to find ways to make the game suit their preference. No one ever forces anyone to use the RUb mod.

What some people don't seem to understand is that in order for RUb to retain its clarity of focus it has to have a single vision. So the RUb mod is, in the final analysis, meant to appeal to one person only - me. A lot of people have input into it, and a lot of people give me advice, and I gladly take a lot of it - I sometimes even use mods that I don't really agree with or enjoy if I'm convinced that they are more realistic than the alternative. But the advice has to make sense to me. If I start compromising my own vision for the mod I believe it will become less popular, because no one wants a mod (or anything else) designed by a committee. A big reason for RUb's success is that it is solidly focused on one uncompromising interpretation of realism. Many people like that - they want to be challenged by a game that is as real as it can get without going back in time and joining the Ubootwaffe. Players who don't appreciate that focus and that vision can go elsewhere. Players who don't agree with RUb's interpretation of what's realistic, and who can't present an argument that sways me can do the same.

[oRGy]

Citing a British post-war sub as evidence of what could be expected on a WW2 German U-boat is just not convincing at all.

The S-Class was a WWII sub, comparable to a Type VII and ridgewayranger was onboard in the mid-late 40's. I'm sure he could provide more details and lots more information about all aspects of that era of submarine warfare if asked. Indeed, he should be asked for lots of information and the mod community should be very grateful for it, but this has not happened yet. I ask: Why not?

You can read about the S-class here by the way:
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=52


If we're going to find out about German U-boats we need to find evidence that relates to German U-boats. I've done that. So why is it so difficult for my detractors to do the same?


"We" already have. I could trawl through the thread, if you want. It's you who is selectively ignoring evidence and choosing extreme examples as what is normal. You yourself have admitted that you treat this as an issue that engages your emotions rather than your reason and that you're not interested if the deck gun is portrayed in a strictly way or not. You want me to dig those posts up too, in case you've forgotten?



I mean I've read of field guns, destroyer guns, and now post-war British subs. What next? Shall we hear about Japanese sub deck guns? None of these have any bearing on WW2 German U-boat deck guns because no other guns had the same specific issues that a WW2 German deck gun had.


Like what? I mean, naval guns, even of the type used on a RN WWII submarine, have no bearing on the matter? Are you actually insane?

That's why we need to get our info ONLY from WW2 German U-boat data. Anything else is completely irrelevant.


Completely. Yeah. Whatever. Well, you can ignore first hand sources all you like - I won't.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Do you have any actual "hands-on" artillery experience or training Beery?

I do.

Just as nothing can convince you otherwise... (regarding sustained fire with artillery) my seven years of FIELD ARTILLERY CREWMAN experience demands that I change the settings in my simulator to something more reasonable... approaching the reality that I KNOW. Ergo my 30 second reload.

Don't change RUb... there is facility for us to change it.

To everyone else: Realism and reality are judged in the eyes of the beholder. Research can be interpreted in many ways and can often be looked at as heresay. Change your settings/reload times and don't look back.

[Beery]

Do you have any actual "hands-on" artillery experience or training Beery?...

Did you ever serve a U-boat deck gun in WW2?

If not, your experience means nothing.

I can do math. I've figured out actual times of gunnery from actual WW2 U-boat attacks. That's how I got the 1 minute reload figures. You don't need gunnery experience if you have actual times of gunnery engagements.

I mean how hard can it be to understand that if you time a gunnery engagement you can get the reload rate?

[Beery]

The S-Class was a WWII sub, comparable to a Type VII and ridgewayranger was onboard in the mid-late 40's.

But it wasn't a Type VII or a Type IX. If it's not one of those subs, it doesn't count.

Come back with timed engagement figures where more than 40 rounds were fired, as I used to get my figure. That's all we need. We don't need to 'guesstimate' how long a U-boat deck gun 'might' take to reload based on similar subs. Any such guesstimate will be prone to gross error. A timed engagement from an actual Type VII or IX engagement won't be susceptible to such error.

I simply cannot use any other figures, best guesses, or any numbers based on other sub types - however similar they are to a WW2 German sub, because they are too prone to error.

[Beery]

With the times I've measured, here are the figures I'd expect from a Type VII U-boat with a standard 20 round ready-use ammo container:

The first twenty rounds could probably be fired in 5 minutes (15 seconds per round).

The first 30 rounds could probably be fired in 14 minutes (an average of 28 seconds per round).

The first 40 rounds could probably be fired in 27 minutes (an average of 41 seconds per round).

The first 50 rounds could probably be fired in 40 minutes (an average of 48 seconds per round).

The first 60 rounds could probably be fired in 53 minutes (an average of 53 seconds per round).

The first 70 rounds could probably be fired in 66 minutes (an average of 57 seconds per round).

The first 80 rounds could probably be fired in 79 minutes (an average of 59 seconds per round).

The first 90 rounds could probably be fired in 92 minutes (an average of 61 seconds per round).

The first 100 rounds could probably be fired in 105 minutes (an average of 63 seconds per round).

The first 120 rounds could probably be fired in 131 minutes (an average of 66 seconds per round).

The first 140 rounds could probably be fired in 157 minutes (an average of 67 seconds per round).

The first 160 rounds could probably be fired in 183 minutes (an average of 69 seconds per round).

The first 180 rounds could probably be fired in 209 minutes (an average of 70 seconds per round).

The first 200 rounds could probably be fired in 235 minutes (an average of 71 seconds per round).

These figures are calculated based on the long deck gun attack examples that have been listed earlier in this thread, along with the 15 second per round estimate for reloading when carrying a shell from the ready-use ammo container which was located 12 feet away from the breech - I just can't imagine it being done faster while in combat. The first 24 rounds could have been loaded at this rate (20 ready-use rounds plus 4 rounds brought up while firing the 20 rounds of ready-use ammo. After that, the gun was reloaded based purely on the speed that shells could be brought up from below decks (which must have been around 80 seconds). After the first 40 or 50 rounds the speed goes down to around 60 seconds per reload. This is why RUb models 60 seconds per round as an average reload rate. The game does not allow different reload rates based on which ammo you're using or how little ammo the player uses to sink a ship, so the only fair way is to model the average.

This average can be most easily calculated based on the start of the action, the end of the action, and how many shells were expended. This is how I arrived at the 60 second average, which I made more liberal than the 80 second rate that was measured.

The rate of fire can also be calculated based on the speed of reloading from the ready-use ammo container and the speed of reloading from the magazine. This is how I've arrived at the above calculations.

Calculating based on any other criteria is prone to gross error.

[Beery]

Did you ever serve a U-boat deck gun in WW2?

If not, your experience means nothing.

Respectfully, I must disagree.
It may not be the best, most accurate metric for data, but to say it means nothing is to blithely dismiss all sources which can be used to fill in existing gaps in the historical record.

You can only fill gaps in the historical record if you have something that relates specifically to the matter. Anything else is pure speculation based on potentially flawed data. I'd rather use data that IS available, and there IS data available for this.

How can we call into question data that is clear and unambiguous, by using data that may be very flawed indeed? That is ridiculous. It would not be the scientific method in practice - this is an example of data mining. You have a conclusion that you'd like to reach, and you're willing to use any data - however poor or irrelevant - to support it. There is clear evidence from actual U-boat combat reports that supports my figures. My opponents in this discussion are using anything but real U-boat combat reports. They prefer to dismiss such reports out of hand. In fact they don't even dismiss them - they ignore them completely, because those combat reports don't support their conclusions.

[joea]

Interesting figures. :hmm: How many crew on the gun at a time according to the evidence and records of the u-boats? Was it possible to get a chain going to feed ammo? Has anyone ever read of such a case?

[Beery]

...The available crew for moving rounds to the gun on a uboat were far mor plentiful. I believe that as the deck ammo locker is being emptied other rounds were being readied and brought up... stockpile that I don't believe you accounted for...

I certainly do account for this. Your calculation doesn't take into account the need to restrict access to the deck. The number of crew available for taking a round from the conning tower onto the deck was at most two. There was no chain of men from the ammo store to the gun. The threat of air attack prevented this. There was probably a chain of men inside the sub, but certainly not on deck. This is why the game itself restricts deck access. Deck access was strictly limited, since it was essential that a sub was able to dive as fast as possible.

[oRGy]

Oh, I encourage everyone to read the entire thread as well as others like

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39341

Here, what seems to have happened is that the deck gun unrealism was realised as an issue, changes were proposed, and based on one example you jumped the gun (pardon the pun) so the new figures were as unrealistic as the old - and since then, you've spent enormous effort avoiding any counter-arguments in order not to change your 'vision'.

You asked for a counter-example, I just gave you one in the above post. Read the post again. You also fail to deal with my point that your data is probably skewed for the reasons I mentioned. Perhaps you could answer that instead of complaining about "politicisation"?

Also, to be constructive, what needs to looked into more is:

1) Getting rid of the red crosshair for deck gun aiming
2) Getting rid of the stabilisation
3) Reducing crew ai accuracy

As far as I can gather no serious effort has been made in these areas.

[oRGy]

As a postscript, here are more counter examples culled from the earlier linked thread:



30 Apr 1942 - U-507 sinks US tanker FEDERAL (2,881 grt) using only the deck gun. According to the American report, U-507 surfaced about 450 yards away and began shelling the ship about five miles north of Gibara, Cuba. After approximately 30 rounds at the rate of three to four rounds per minute the crew of eight officers and 25 men abandoned ship in one lifeboat and two rafts. U-507 approached the tanker close to the port side and put more then 100 rounds into her. The wooden bridge was set on fire and three men were killed. FEDERAL settled on even keel, then listed to port, capsized and sank stern first an hour after the first shot was fired.
(Devastating attack, sunk in one hour).
www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/30Apr.txt

23 Apr 1942 - At 1120, the unescorted Reinholt (4,799 grt) was attacked by U-752 with gunfire for about 20 minutes. The U-boat fired about 40 rounds of which 20-25 hit, but had then to break off the on Apr. 23-1942, when on a voyage from Santos to New York with a cargo of hides, having departed Santos on Apr. 6, according to the cattack because two destroyers were spotted. Reinholt had returned fire with 14 rounds from the stern gun without success. The Reinholt had caught fire, which was brought under control by the crew after 20 minutes and reached New York the next day.
Shelled continuously for 20 minutes by U-752 (Schroeter). Reinholt's gunners replied by firing a round every 30 seconds, but while they were defending the ship, it caught on fire after having been hit where the ammunition was stored, so after 14 rounds had been fired they could no longer get to the ammunition.
(40 rounds in about 20 minutes, ship saved-merchantmen replies with a round every 30 seconds!)
http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/23Apr.txt
http://warsailors.com/singleships/reinholt.html

3 Apr 1942 - At 0340, the unescorted and unarmed David H. Atwater was attacked by U-552 about ten miles east of Chincoteague Inlet, Virginia. Topp had followed her underwater, surfaced and began to shell the vessel without warning and never allowing the crew to abandon ship. 93 shots were fired from 600 yards distance, hitting her with about 50 shots and set her on fire. USCGC Legare observed the gunfire and headed for the ship, upon arrival at the scene 45 minutes after the attack, they saw the vessel sinking, leaving two feet of mast above water.
http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/03Apr.txt

[Beery]

30 Apr 1942 - U-507 sinks US tanker FEDERAL (2,881 grt) using only the deck gun. According to the American report, U-507 surfaced about 450 yards away and began shelling the ship about five miles north of Gibara, Cuba. After approximately 30 rounds at the rate of three to four rounds per minute the crew of eight officers and 25 men abandoned ship in one lifeboat and two rafts. U-507 approached the tanker close to the port side and put more then 100 rounds into her. The wooden bridge was set on fire and three men were killed. FEDERAL settled on even keel, then listed to port, capsized and sank stern first an hour after the first shot was fired.
(Devastating attack, sunk in one hour).
www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/30Apr.txt

This is not a counter-example. It's only a bit faster than my rates of fire list I posted above. If anything, this example confirms my figures. 24 rounds would have been fired at a rate of about four rounds per minute on average. Only the last 6 shells would have brought down the average. For the first rounds my figures fit pretty well. For the last, my figures show that a U-boat could put 70 rounds into a target in an hour. Plus, my average figure has to assume that the player is firing a lot of ammo (not just 30 rounds), and there's the fact that U-boat deck guns in the game are far more accurate than real life deck guns.

23 Apr 1942 - At 1120, the unescorted Reinholt (4,799 grt) was attacked by U-752 with gunfire for about 20 minutes. The U-boat fired about 40 rounds of which 20-25 hit, but had then to break off the on Apr. 23-1942, when on a voyage from Santos to New York with a cargo of hides, having departed Santos on Apr. 6, according to the cattack because two destroyers were spotted. Reinholt had returned fire with 14 rounds from the stern gun without success. The Reinholt had caught fire, which was brought under control by the crew after 20 minutes and reached New York the next day.
Shelled continuously for 20 minutes by U-752 (Schroeter). Reinholt's gunners replied by firing a round every 30 seconds, but while they were defending the ship, it caught on fire after having been hit where the ammunition was stored, so after 14 rounds had been fired they could no longer get to the ammunition.
(40 rounds in about 20 minutes, ship saved-merchantmen replies with a round every 30 seconds!)
http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/23Apr.txt
http://warsailors.com/singleships/reinholt.html

My figures (above) account for 40 rounds in 27 minutes. It's just not that far off. Plus, (again) my average figure has to assume that the player is firing a lot of ammo(not just 40 rounds), and there's the fact that U-boat deck guns in the game are far more accurate than real life deck guns. As for the ship's ROF, what does that have to do with it? The ship is not a U-boat.

3 Apr 1942 - At 0340, the unescorted and unarmed David H. Atwater was attacked by U-552 about ten miles east of Chincoteague Inlet, Virginia. Topp had followed her underwater, surfaced and began to shell the vessel without warning and never allowing the crew to abandon ship. 93 shots were fired from 600 yards distance, hitting her with about 50 shots and set her on fire. USCGC Legare observed the gunfire and headed for the ship, upon arrival at the scene 45 minutes after the attack, they saw the vessel sinking, leaving two feet of mast above water.
http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/03Apr.txt


There is no duration for this. '45 minutes after the attack' clearly means 45 minutes after the END of the attack. Anyway, this illustrates my point about accuracy. Topp, one of the best commanders of the war, with a crack crew, could only hit the target with 53% of his shots. In the game, we can get something like 75% with the AI firing, and 99% with the player firing. If anything, this suggests that my model simulates reality quite nicely. Even if this attack had happened in 45 minutes (which I don't believe for a second) my rate of fire is spot on if you take into account the rate of effective fire. In RUb you would get 45 shots into the tanker in 45 minutes, Topp got 50 in. It's just not that different.

We are not merely simulating rate of fire with RUb's gunnery model. It has to counterbalance the uber-accuracy issue too. Otherwise we don't get a realistic simulation. If you have a perfectly accurate rate of fire but you're using a gun that is that much more accurate than a real deck gun was, you don't have a good deck gun simulation. Plus, if the accuracy can't be adjusted you have to look for other ways to counterbalance the accuracy issue - this could be done by reducing the ammo supply and decreasing the rate of fire. All you've shown me here is that perhaps the ammo supply needs reducing by about 50% to simulate the poor accuracy you've illustrated.

[Beery]

Oh, I encourage everyone to read the entire thread as well as others like

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39341

I agree. If players read through that thread they will find the whole argument for the RUb deck gun. I will re-iterate one post:

[quote]Every time we move towards a more realistic deck gun we're going to be making it less effective, and that's because the standard game's deck gun is a great deal more effective than any real life U-boat deck gun. In small part that's because of this reload issue. Extensive use of a real deck gun endangered the boat, especially in 1943-45, because the longer you were surfaced the more likely you were to fall victim to air attack. In the standard game it's not an issue because you can fire off your entire stock of ammo in about 15 minutes -well before any aircraft can find you. In RUb 1.41 you can't get away with that anymore. The realistic average reload time means that players have to play more realistically - using the deck gun only when air attack isn't likely, and only using it on targets that were unlikely to shoot back. In short, it makes the player understand the dangers in using the deck gun, it prevents players from using the deck gun against targets that a U-boat could never have hoped to engage successfully (destroyers, etc.), and it goes a long way towards making the player use the deck gun realistically.

I think the new deck gun is a good balance in terms of simulating a real deck gun: it is annoying; it's not very effective at all; yet it can be used effectively under the right circumstances. It's not quite as useless as the real thing, but it's within an acceptable range now.

[oRGy]

3 Apr 1942 - At 0340, the unescorted and unarmed David H. Atwater was attacked by U-552 about ten miles east of Chincoteague Inlet, Virginia. Topp had followed her underwater, surfaced and began to shell the vessel without warning and never allowing the crew to abandon ship. 93 shots were fired from 600 yards distance, hitting her with about 50 shots and set her on fire. USCGC Legare observed the gunfire and headed for the ship, upon arrival at the scene 45 minutes after the attack, they saw the vessel sinking, leaving two feet of mast above water.
http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/03Apr.txt


There is no duration for this. '45 minutes after the attack' clearly means 45 minutes after the END of the attack.

No, it doesn't. I would take it to mean after the attack was radioed by the ship: at 0340.

We are not merely simulating rate of fire with RUb's gunnery model. It has to counterbalance the uber-accuracy issue too. Otherwise we don't get a realistic simulation. If you have a perfectly accurate rate of fire but you're using a gun that is that much more accurate than a real deck gun was, you don't have a good deck gun simulation.

Quite true, but you've done nothing to mod the deck gun accuracy!

Also, you still haven't answered my point about your data being skewed due to reasons mentioned, i.e. we don't know how often or for how long the uboat ceased firing to observe the ship!

By the way, here's more counter evidence:

The 8.8 deck gun would be ready to fire in roughly 30 seconds, taking this time for removing the nozzle plug and opening the ammunition stores (one in the conning tower base, the other below the grating in type IX boats). The rapid-firing 8.8 U-boat gun was usually manned by three men (and an observing officer on the conning tower, evaluating the hits and giving orders. Apart from the game during firing the conning tower was always manned by a watch crew, and the captain).

One man aimed the gun (with a stereoscopic magnifier and a range/angle scale), while the other two changed tasks rotating the gun into a rough position towards the target before it would be fine-tuned, and then loading it. The empty cases were kept for re-use and had to be counted (shortage of raw materials like brass etc.). The reloading frequency depended on sea state and the time of the gun being in use (building up heat), an experienced crew was able to fire appx. 30 shots per minute (!) in perfect conditions.

Shells would be delivered via an elevator from the interior to the "buckle" in front of the conning tower. The back of the gun was formed like a "U" to place the next shell, which only had to be pushed into the self-opening rear of the gun after firing.

Dr. H. Busch's "That was the U-boat war" (according to catfish in linked thread, though I can't find it on amazon, he also said Erich topp provided this info)

Your approach to the gun is only useful for simulating an attack where all the gun's ammo is used. But as ridgewayranger has stated, the usual attack was to pop up and fire off 10-20 rounds, and the majority of examples are using 20-50 rounds to sink a ship, and this is what the average engagement is. Thus, a reload rate of 4-5 rounds a minute simulates the vast majority of real life and player encounters. The 60 minute reload time, which is of debatable realism and only based on one example, is appropriate (if indeed your one example is correct which I don't believe) only for a tiny minority of situations.

Try fixing the crosshair, ai accuracy and stabilisation, rather than arguing over this issue in a dogmatic fashion. One can of course argue till the cows come home, but the deck gun was quick to fire, and there is mountains of evidence to prove it, all over this thread and others.

PS: Threatening to delete people's posts for 'ad hominem attacks' especially when you've been quite rude to others in the past is slightly hypocritical in my opinion and only serves to intimidate people.

[Beery]

[3 Apr 1942 - At 0340, the unescorted and unarmed David H. Atwater was attacked by U-552 about ten miles east of Chincoteague Inlet, Virginia. Topp had followed her underwater, surfaced and began to shell the vessel without warning and never allowing the crew to abandon ship. 93 shots were fired from 600 yards distance, hitting her with about 50 shots and set her on fire. USCGC Legare observed the gunfire and headed for the ship, upon arrival at the scene 45 minutes after the attack, they saw the vessel sinking, leaving two feet of mast above water.
http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/april/03Apr.txt


There is no duration for this. '45 minutes after the attack' clearly means 45 minutes after the END of the attack.

No, it doesn't. I would take it to mean after the attack was radioed by the ship: at 0340.

It doesn't say that, and we can't just assume that. It could mean anything. But when someone leaves a sentence hanging like that it usually means 'after it was over'. You can interpret it any way you like, and you can model any mod you make based on your own interpretation. In terms of RUb, I assure you, this particular example DOES mean 'after the attack was over'. It means that because that's the way I interpret it, and I assemble the RUb mod.

We are not merely simulating rate of fire with RUb's gunnery model. It has to counterbalance the uber-accuracy issue too. Otherwise we don't get a realistic simulation. If you have a perfectly accurate rate of fire but you're using a gun that is that much more accurate than a real deck gun was, you don't have a good deck gun simulation.

Quite true, but you've done nothing to mod the deck gun accuracy!

The deck gun accuracy can't be adjusted. We can only compensate for the unrealism by adjusting other things like shell effectiveness and reload rate. I'm more than willing to do this, as compensating for non-modelled features is at the heart of good simulation modelling. If we just ignore such things we end up with a very poor model indeed.

Also, you still haven't answered my point about your data being skewed due to reasons mentioned, i.e. we don't know how often or for how long the uboat ceased firing to observe the ship!

It doesn't matter, since in the game we don't need to stop to observe the ship. We know instantly when it's sinking. RUb includes all realistic pauses for observation, gun jams, etc. in the 'reload rate' model because Ubisoft didn't include those facets. That is part of the reason why I chose to model it based on the start and end times for engagements - to do a sort of blanket simulation of the things about the deck gun that are hard to model. It has to be done that way because the deck gun is so overmodelled in terms of effectiveness that it's virtually impossible to nerf it enough. In my view it needs more nerfing, and given enough reason, I'll gladly do it. I've always thought that 60 seconds might be too fast, and 80 seconds is looking even more desirable right now (especially since I saw the Erich Topp attack which showed how horribly inaccurate the deck gun was). We're still getting very much increased tonnage using the deck gun compared to real U-boats. I could also reduce ammo capacity or shell effectiveness, but both of those would be more abstract than the reload time.

The point is to make the deck gun only as effective as it was in reality, and in my opinion it's fine to do this by any means necessary. If realistic restrictions can't help compensate for the areas of the sim that can't be adjusted, then we will turn to less realistic ones, because the deck gun is a minor part of the U-boat war, and if we don't get it under control we are not simulating the overall experience of U-boats in WW2.

[Beery]

I only just noticed this:

...to be constructive, what needs to looked into more is:

1) Getting rid of the red crosshair for deck gun aiming
2) Getting rid of the stabilisation
3) Reducing crew ai accuracy

As far as I can gather no serious effort has been made in these areas.

OH MY GOD! Serious effort HAS been made in these areas! I've done a LOT of work on these areas myself, and it just shows how little you know about it when you have no clue about these things at all.

The red crosshair, as far as I know, is hard-coded. I have looked, line-by-line, through the file that controls crosshairs, and it's not in there. This took me at least 8 hours of solid work, changing the file and testing the results.

Stabilization is, as far as we know, hard-coded. Many hours, days, even weeks have been spent looking into this.

Crew AI accuracy is probably hard coded. This is another area that has been looked into in great detail over many weeks.

If you think these things are easy to find and fix, why the heck don't you stop whining about the efforts of me and others, and go and find and fix them?

It is an insult to the mod community to suggest that these haven't been looked into seriously. Maybe if you tried modding yourself you might have some inkling about how *******ing difficult it is, and you might have a bit more respect for those of us who try to make your game better.

Jeez! I cannot believe I'm arguing this subject with someone who hasn't a clue what we've attempted, and who therefore hasn't any respect at all for what we've accomplished.

Honestly, why do I bother?

[Beery]

Well, thats the best explanation I've seen so far!

However it's very dubious in my opinion as it patronises the player and doesn't simulate the majority of engagements properly, as said. It might 'simulate' the occasional long engagement if you take the engagement VERY abstractly, but ingame it's just absurd.

Clearly you think so. But you didn't make the mod, and you don't like using it. I assembled the mod, I use it, and I like it. It doesn't seem absurd to me, and it works for many other players too. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it absurd. When it comes down to it, I don't care at all if you think the deck gun reload time is absurd. If you think it's absurd, DON'T USE THE MOD!

Regardless, as you've said, you have the right to make your own bad decisions. Just don't get too upset when most people complain, as your mod is not 'personal' but public in character - otherwise you wouldn't have released it.

Most people love RUb and like the changes I've made. RUb is the most popular mod for SH3, and many mods have been made to suit RUb because it is so popular. The people who don't like it are in a minority, so when you say 'most people complain' you are exaggerating your position by a lot. My position has always been that RUb is for a minority. Clearly it's not for the arcade-style player. It demands a lot from players, and it gives a lot back to the players who can handle it. Those who can't handle it shouldn't use it, and they certainly shouldn't spend hours whining about it.

Face facts - you are in a small minority of players who just can't handle the fact that I nerfed the deck gun. There are a handful of you folks, and there are tens, perhaps hundreds who use RUb and who like it. Sometimes I think you folks just can't deal with the fact that a mod you don't like is so successful.

[Sailor Steve]

Since I only get to post a the library these days, all I can contribute is this: RUB is a mod, nothing more. Beery very carefully put every single change into the readme, so it's possible for any player to just not use the firing-rate change. Also, someone else released a quicky mod that lets you have a firing rate of 30 or 40 seconds, instead of either 15 or 60. If this were not so this discussion might have more merit, but everyone is free to play any way they want.

Beery has given his reasons for doing it the way he did, and, agree or disagree, all your arguing is unlikely to persuade him to change it, nor should he. I wish the rate of fire was self-adjusting by time in action and crew fatigue, but it doesn't look like it's ever going to happen.

A re-reading of the entire thread will reveal one important factor-that this discussion has been going on for months, and no one is changing their minds on either side.

My solution is, use the rate of fire you like, and stop this silliness.

[stljeffbb1]

I'll say it again....the game does not model the deck gun terribly well, even though I bet they (Ubisoft) were pleased with the results.....

Probably too much of a task to model the uptop ammo holders, then the ammo train....what some sharp modder should do is model an ammo train just like the repair team box in the crew management screen....the less sailors, the longer the time....

I'm reading Hitler's U-Boat War by Clay Blair, and so far even this books descriptions of deck gun usage is rather vague....

-Jeff

[1shmael]

It seems to me that the RUB Mod, in reducing firing times, has targeted the symptoms of the problem, rather than the problem itself.

The Deck Gun historially, as I understand it, had an optimal firing time of 4 rounds per minute. This is now reduced, I believe, to 1 round per minute, to simulate four misses.

Why is this necessary?

Because the human player can be extremely accurate with the gun while the real sailor, on a pitching submarine deck, could not (conversely, the computer AI can't hit the broad side fo a t3 at point blank range).

So why not just make it harder for the human player to target enemy shipping?

The game already has a mechanism that throws off the aim of the gun: the pitching deck of the submarine. If the human player fires the round while the deck is in motion, the shot goes wild. It is necessary to wait for the gun to stabalize before firing.

Theoretically, it is possible to modify the parameters affecting deck motion -- even eliminate the gun's stabalizer. If the stabalizer is eliminated, the pitch and roll, even in calm weather, should be such that an accurate shot will be easier for the AI than for all-but-the-most-skilled human players. In rough water, hitting a target at anything but long range would likely prove near impossible.

I would also like to see some positive effect gained from training my gun crew. I currently have three qualified gunners manning my 88 and it still seems to reload with the same speed (in RUB) as it does with three regular sailors. I also detect no improvement in their aim. I would love to see a system where the AI can perform better on the gun than I can in some circumstances.

In summary then, I would recomend that someone have a look for the parameters affecting the gun-mount stabalization and affecting the submarine's pitch and roll. Once these are rendered such that the gun becomes challenging to operate effectively for a human, we can see if any changes to the IA-governance will produce increases in the effectiveness of a well-trained crew (increased accuracy and reduced reload time).

[Beery]

Gun historially, as I understand it, had an optimal firing time of 4 rounds per minute. This is now reduced, I believe, to 1 round per minute, to simulate four misses...

This is a common misconception. The RUb reload time doesn't simulate misses. That would be better done by reducing the amount of ammo available. RUb simulates real life reload times. No real U-boat could sustain 4 rounds per minute for more than 5 or 6 minutes - enough to fire 20 or 25 rounds. The rest of the ammo required much longer to load and fire. Since there is no way to simulate the two firing rates, RUb uses an average. The result is not liked by many players, but it is as realistic as we can get it.

As for the gun stabilization issues, over the past 5 months lots of people have been looking for ways to make the gun pitch and roll with the boat, but there has been no real success. If there had been, a mod would be widely available.

[WhiteW0lf]

Orgy is just another forum troll beery, I play 98% realism and love the way that uber deck gun was taken down to more realistic, these complainers are the ones that just traveled on the surface firing away with the deck gun and utilised it as their primary uboat weapon instead of the torpedo.

Dont take the time to respond to these trolls that just want to get your panties into a bunch.

Myself and the majority of the community love your mod and the hard work you have put into, you have definitely made SH3 a five star game for me.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Orgy is just another forum troll beery, I play 98% realism and love the way that uber deck gun was taken down to more realistic, these complainers are the ones that just traveled on the surface firing away with the deck gun and utilised it as their primary uboat weapon instead of the torpedo.

Dont take the time to respond to these trolls that just want to get your panties into a bunch.

Myself and the majority of the community love your mod and the hard work you have put into, you have definitely made SH3 a five star game for me.

Insulting other community members won't get anyone very far here Whitewolf... yourself included.

The title of this thread is "The Deck Gun Discussion." Posts made here were/are in the interest of defining "realism" for the deck gun.
Your insult directed at oRGy is trolling in itself. oRGY is a contributing member just as Beery and all other mod builders here.

This discussion contains more than one point of view or perception of realism and became quite heated. I am equally guilty in that respect. I only disagree with rate of fire. I DO AGREE with reduced damage and a deck gun reload rate of AT LEAST 30 seconds... Even at these settings a player cannot consider the deck gun to be a primary weapon of attack. Inaccuracy of crew and ammo loadout determine this. Beginning in 1942... the time you spend exposed on the surface may cost you your boat. The deck gun is only useful for finishing off 1-2 damaged ships.... COUPE DE GRÂCE.

Your statement regarding the "majority of the community" is not one you can back-up or prove. I think it would be more correct to say that the majority of the community modifies their game to personal taste (or viewpoint on their definition of realism/vs gameplay.)

Furthermore, RUb is a big collection/collation of mods built by many community members. Beery added some of his modifications and compiled RUb. RUb is a mod BUILT BY THE COMMUNITY in essence.

We all have our points of view... insults aren't required. Whether they come from community members, modders, or moderators... it doesn't matter. Such things are a distraction.

Life is short. Lets move on.

[jason210]

I don't agree with the reduced damage or reduced reload times. The only realistic alteration to do would be reduced accuracy.


The only thing that's wrong with the default deck gun is its accuracy, and I really wish modders would leave the other variables alone and tinker with this one more. More misses and everything is ok. It just isn't logical to penalise our use of gun by reducing the explosive / armour peircing power, or ammo, or reload, in an attempot to balance things out. This seems to me to be the wrong approach, because it has the unwanted aforementioned side effects, and in a way these are more unrealistic than having a super-accurate gun. The only thing wrong with the default gun is the person who's firing it! I've always used the gun judiciously...

[Emcon]

3. Getting the reloads to be more realistic

Beery
The first twenty rounds could probably be fired in 5 minutes (15 seconds per round).

The first 30 rounds could probably be fired in 14 minutes (an average of 28 seconds per round).

The first 40 rounds could probably be fired in 27 minutes (an average of 41 seconds per round).

Reload times get longer the longer you use it, this could be simulated when you :ping: add 'fatigue' to the deckgun itself(much like crew fatigue) So you will have both the gun and the crew getting 'tired'.

Which means the longer you use the gun the slower the reloads!

This is how it could work:
-When the crew is manning/(even better when the gun is reloading) the gun will get more fatigued.
-When the boat is surfaced and the gun is unmanned/(even better when the gun is manned but not reloading) the gun will get less fatigued.
-When the boat is submerged the gun fatigue stays at the same level.

It is an idea but I dont know if this could be done, im not a modder...

Realism :rock:

[gouldjg]

3. Getting the reloads to be more realistic

Beery
The first twenty rounds could probably be fired in 5 minutes (15 seconds per round).

The first 30 rounds could probably be fired in 14 minutes (an average of 28 seconds per round).

The first 40 rounds could probably be fired in 27 minutes (an average of 41 seconds per round).

Reload times get longer the longer you use it, this could be simulated when you :ping: add fatigue to the deckgun (much like crew fatigue)

So the longer you use the gun the slower the reloads!

This is how it could work:
-When the crew is manning/(even better when the gun is reloading) the gun will get more fatigued.
-When the boat is surfaced and the gun is unmanned/(even better when the gun is manned but not reloading) the gun will get less fatigued.
-When the boat is submerged the gun fatigue stays at the same level.

It is an idea but I dont know if this could be done, im not a modder...

Realism :rock:

I have a number of realtime mods that are currently doing this by adding extra work to tire men quicker on Deck guns than other compartments. I also added a weather penalty.

There are ways but not all people are prepared to handle micromanagement.

That said, I did set the main cfg to have a 3drender of 512 so should I wish to go long distance without micro managing, I just knock time compression upto 1024 and fatigue will then pause.

At 512 and under the fatigue model kicks in and men tire but it still allows me to warp to areas faster than having to wait a week i.e. lining up a attack or chasing down a convoy.

It is working well at the moment but I am sure it will get better.

Anyway I will post the setting for SH3 commander and people can try it.

[Emcon]

I have a number of realtime mods that are currently doing this by adding extra work to tire men quicker on Deck guns than other compartments.

That's not what I meant. I didn't explain it clearly enough, I guess. I shall edit my post.

[gouldjg]

Ahhh I see your point SRY :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: .

I cannot see any way this could be done within this games limitations.

1. Beerys reduction of firing rate is definetly the best solution as far as the long term fatigue model is concerned.

2. Instant penalties can be added to the deck gun so men get a instant drop to whatever % you wish however this does not work with long term fatigue models.

3. Faster drain rates can be added whilst using the gun but again does not work with long term fatigue models.

4. Weather energy drain can be modded this can work with long term fatigue models buts needs some maths skills and too much testing.

5. Can have it so you need more qualifications.

Most of the above is the only modding options we people know of at the moment so if you are using RUB and want realism then Beery has made the best choice IMHO.

[Emcon]

np gouldjg

At this moment I use beery's fire-rate solution.

I don't use the long term fatigue model, so I could use faster drain rates etc. The problem is that it won't work, I think. Because as soon as your men get fatigued you can replace them and you'll have a fast reloading time again.

[-Dreadnought-]

I am curious, why does it take 3 minutes to reload the deck gun in the Real U-boat Mod? I think about 45 seconds or less wouldbe enough...

[Gizzmoe]

I am curious, why does it take 3 minutes to reload the deck gun in the Real U-boat Mod? I think about 45 seconds or less wouldbe enough...

Make sure that you have a qualified (gunner qualification) deck gun crew (full green bar), then it takes 60 seconds to reload the 88mm. The 105mm takes 70 seconds IIRC.

CCIP has modded the reload times, please read this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39760

[-Dreadnought-]

I am curious, why does it take 3 minutes to reload the deck gun in the Real U-boat Mod? I think about 45 seconds or less wouldbe enough...

Make sure that you have a qualified (gunner qualification) deck gun crew (full green bar), then it takes 60 seconds to reload the 88mm. The 105mm takes 70 seconds IIRC.

CCIP has modded the reload times, please read this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39760

Are we talking about the newest RuB version?

[Gizzmoe]

Are we talking about the newest RuB version?

It´s the same for older RUb version.

[Dievs]

I think that the misunderstandings In this discussion are because you are talking about two completely different things -
situation A - putting 200 rounds in a ship;
situation B - putting 20 rounds in a ship.

it gets the intended realistic results for the situation A,
However, it gets unrealistically slow reload times for situation B, as mentioned by many others, and as agreed by Beery (5 minutes to fire 20 rounds, wasn't it so ? and 15 minutes for 30 rounds.)

This is what I dislike - shouldn't situation B, getting a quick coup-de-grace, be the absolutely most common historically usage of the deck gun, and situation A - just a few acts of desperation ?

I understand that the game hard-codes too much to get a correct simulation in both cases, however, shouldn't the idea be to focus that the usual, common situations would work correctly, instead of the rare cases ? What use is having the exception cases work realistically, while the common usage is unrealistic ?

I am saying that the timing should be adjusted so that the time to fire ~30 rounds is realistically accurate (so a reload time of 30 seconds), even if it disrupts the 200 round issue - since the 200 round situation is an exception, but the 20-30 round situation is the one that must work properly.

[Emcon]

I am saying that the timing should be adjusted so that the time to fire ~30 rounds is realistically accurate (so a reload time of 30 seconds), even if it disrupts the 200 round issue - since the 200 round situation is an exception, but the 20-30 round situation is the one that must work properly.

Good point! :up: I agree with you.

[Beery]

I am saying that the timing should be adjusted so that the time to fire ~30 rounds is realistically accurate (so a reload time of 30 seconds), even if it disrupts the 200 round issue - since the 200 round situation is an exception, but the 20-30 round situation is the one that must work properly.

In reality it often took many more rounds than 20 to sink a ship. The game makes it far too easy to sink ships with the deck gun. In reality the deck gun was used rarely. RUb's deck gun reload rate makes the deck gun almost as hard to use effectively as it was in reality. If anything, RUb's deck gun needs a further nerf, since it is still more effective than real deck guns were. I just can't figure out a way to make it realistically weak.

Why make RUb's deck gun more effective when it is still more effective than real deck guns were?

[Emcon]

Beery:
The first 40 rounds could probably be fired in 27 minutes (an average of 41 seconds per round).

This is probably including aiming time, this means an even lower reloading time than 41 sec.

Personally if I suspect that I have to fire more than 40 rounds, I use a torpedo. But mostly I use the deckgun for sinking fishing ships, which takes less than 20 rounds. Which really justifies a lower reloading time.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

DIE thread DIE! :yep: :yep: :yep:

We don't need you anymore.

[TheCabal]

Hello guys,

this MOD rocks.... but lets get serious now: do we really need to chase a almost sinking ship (looking from behind he was leaning almost 45° to the right for at least 2 hours....... moving in zick-zack too) for hours to get it sleeping with the fishes through the useless deck-gun?

plz tell me if there is something to change in some INF file/whatever.... you know this sucks (especially if you shoot into the water accidently.... you never know)

its a good thing to make a realistic mod, but don't forget that some things just have to be game-style.


greetz,
cab

[ref]

Deck Guns

The deck gun was principally intended as a defensive weapon against small surface vessels, for which the torpedo was not a suitable weapon. During World War I however, it was discovered that deck guns were quite effective when used against stragglers and helped save scarce torpedoes. During World War II, as convoys became better protected, and merchantmen began to be armed with makeshift defensive guns, the deck gun was used less frequently. Eventually, BdU phased them out, though some U-boats still retained the deck guns.

There were two standard deck guns during World War II; the 8.8cm (on Type VII) and the 10.5cm (on Type IX). The U-boat however, was a poor gun platform since it rolled a lot, and ocean waves frequently washed over, making the gun platform slippery and hazardous. To prevent the crews from being washed over, they were fastened with life lines. A further factor was deck guns had no range finders, so engagements had to be done at close range. Depending on sea and weather conditions, it was also not possible man the deck gun at all times. The deck gun also contributed much to hydrodynamic resistance, slowing the underwater speed and increasing crash dive time. Indeed, deck gun engagements made the U-boat very vulnerable; since the gun and ammunition had to be secured and the crew had to get below deck, all of which meant that it took much longer than usual to submerge.

Three men operated the deck gun – gunner, layer and loader, usually under the supervision of the second watch officer. A chain of men were required to bring the ammunition from below the control room floor, then up the conning tower and onto the upper deck. A small watertight locker placed near the gun held a few more rounds ready for use, providing an advantage during the first few vital seconds of engagement. The rate of fire with a good crew was 15 to 18 rounds per minute.

Sorry to bring the subject up again, but I´ve just find this, and I want to know if the data can be acurate, I don't think this rate can be sustained under battle conditions, but I also think that 1 minute to reload a gun is realistic.

the hole article is in:

http://www.uboataces.com/weapon-deck-gun.shtml

Ref.

[Marhkimov]

Speaking about real-life, the deckgun cannot be used as a primary weapon.

If we use our sense of logic, one would understand that a tiny little gun such as the 88 or the 105 will neither do much damage nor be very effective against any type of shipping. And if one understands that much, then one would presumably be less worried about the horrendous load times of the RUb deckgun.


- However -


...for those of us who would like better gameplay rather than super realism, by all means you should change the deckgun reload times. I know I did. :D

[redbrow]

it is likely that the 4 hour attack was something like this:

30 minutes of rapid fire followed by 15 minutes to watching flames and thinking that the ship was about to sink. (Like was pointed out many u-boat captains thought ships were destroyed when in fact they survived.)

Then another 30 minutes of rapid fire followed by another 30 minutes of just watching the new flames - the captain would not want to waste all his ammo so he would allow long pauses to see what the outcome would be.

Likely the last hours were filled with even longer quiet pauses. As for the movement of shells the Captain could station many men below decks to carry the shells to the hatch area for the men on deck.

I think the real problem with the deck gun is that it is simply to powerful. The shell fire rate should be reduced 15 sec. but the power of those shells needs to be greatly reduced in stead.

[redbrow]

also the 4 hour shelling that was mentioned does not report what the weather was like that day. Maybe the weather was really bad - I read of an account someone mentioned here last Spring about a u boat shelling a ship when water was up over the feet of the gun crew.

In all events I agree that the deck gun is simply to uber.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Something else to think about....

When you reduce the damage potential of both the 88mm and the 105mm deck guns to something closer to realistic...

It really makes your reload times unimportant, because it then becomes a question of total damage potential and ammunition supply.

... You shouldn't have enough ammunition to sink more than a couple of ships with your DG.