kv29 has a destabilized mod out for testing :)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=117430&page=4

If the gun starts acting like it's on a submarine deck, and not like it's part of Enterprise (not CVN-65, I mean NCC-1701!), then maybe the reload time can be reduced since the limiting factor could well become aiming the bloody thing.

Note that my personal feeling is that the "spec" ROF will always be too fast and I'd never personally use it, I'd use a slightly lower ROF to cover the totality of gun handling issues not modeled that would affect ROF (deck conditions, clearing misfires, ready vs ammo below, fatigue, etc).

The gun being destabilized will go a long way, I hope.

The fact of the mater is the US Navy manual on the gun states the rate of fire is 8-10 rounds per minute. It is there gun, its there boat, they should know how it works. There are other factors that may lower actual rate of fire, as weather, range, fatigue, assessing damage to target, ect. Take them into account individually. However a 40-45 second reload time for a trained crew is outrageous. In addition RFB shell damage is a bit weak. It takes 150 4” hits plus five torpedo hits to sink a DD and 200 4” rounds to sink a 1000 ton transport.


RFB torpedo mod treated the mark 10 and 14 as the same torpedo, and I question the mods actual effect of the ineffectiveness of the mark 14. These torpedoes has there scandal, however they did work, boats did sink ships with them.


It is not the only mod out there.


I am currently of the opinion however to wait until 1.3 comes out and see what happens with that.

The US Navy says the rate of fire is 8-10 rounds per minute.

They Wahoo may of been waiting for damage assessment, or other ranging calculations. Since it dose not state we do not know. Crew fatigue is also a factor, it takes longer to load a round then it dose to hand up a round from below deck, this would be done from crew members not actually manning the gun. An engagement taking that long fatigue would be a real factor, however a blanket 40 second rate of fire is not the answer.

The gun destabilization mod looks great from my couple tries with a pig boat. It make shooting past 1000 yards pretty hard. Enough that my ROF was maybe 4 rpm with the standard games 4 second reload time (which needs to be doubled just to meet the spec figures of 8-9 rpm). Ring up flank and it gets pretty ugly, too.

This mod will allow for more realism in gunnery than is possible modding straight ROF.

Palidian, can you give a reference for that number? That's higher than anything else anybody has cited, even numbers people claim come from USN. Ideally something we could see online... especially if you honestly want to contribute rather than troll.

Also, you have more faith in the US Navy testing than is warranted under the circumstances. Given the torpedo situation and everything else... what's in 'the manual' might not be accurate. I am reluctant to even address your comments regarding the torpedo accuracy, but I think you need to look at the historical record and not just assume that because ships were sunk, the torpedoes worked decently. I've seen references to 3 torpedoes out of 16 actually functioning properly in the early parts of the war. No citation or anything, I'm not qualified to argue this point.

I've said before and others have as well that at sea is different than anchored at a firing range in Pearl. A benchmark test is probably done under absolutely ideal conditions with surplus crew a skipper at sea doesn't have. Who knows, maybe the gun is dismounted and bolted into some concrete on a ground-based firing range for the test, with a highly trained team of ammo loaders all with shells in hand ready to go. I'm just supposing as two thirds of the posters have been doing. :p

Finally, as has been said many times before, there's only one rate of fire variable that a modder can set. It's set to real world data. Palidian, your questions and comments aren't new, nor do they provide any answers or data. If anyone has evidence Wahoo would voluntarily be firing slowly, or has any better evidence than Beery's, please post it. Until then I will not be posting any more in this thread. All I'm doing is rehashing the same points to different posters who seemingly haven't read through the thread. :down: Entirely counterproductive by all of us.

Here.

3" 50 gun 15-20 rpm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk10-22.htm

4" 50 gun 8-9 rpm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4-50_mk9.htm

5" 25 gun 15-20 rpm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-25_mk10.htm

6" 53 gun 6-7 rpm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-53_mk12.htm

The 3 and 5 inch guns were DP guns and had semi automatic breeches.

Thank you, NEON, for the links.

After re-reading the whole thread I see we've been completely flogging the horse found dead on page 2, for 3 days.

At this point I'll just state that the ROF linked is for that gun class, regardless of what ship it was mounted on, the mounting details, the crewing details, the ammo details, or anything. I honestly imagine they sat the gun down (all 2.75 tons for that 4" wow!), bolted it into the concrete, set up optimal conditions with a huge groundcrew, and generated said ROF.

Now, Beery's original post here covers most everything else.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=25

MMmmm, pass that dead horse found on page 2!!

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...8&postcount=40

NEON, you manually control your ROF to a level you feel realistic, something I did not read the first time around. That makes your stance against Beery's ROF more understandable. I prefer to have the game limit my rate of fire to Beery's maximum, given the unrealistic gun platform, I enjoy that the most.

So we all seem to disagree, the mod is optional, end of story. Boy, let's do this a few more times! :damn: :damn: :damn: :doh: :lol:

Check out the destabilization thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=117430&page=5

some pics of what shooting looks like with 8m/s wind seas.

In the movie Glory there is a wonderful scene in which several soldiers are praising one of their fellow on his ability to load and fire that very weapon quickly and accurately. His commander then has him do it again, except this time said Colonel pulls his revolver and starts firing it right by the poor guy's ear. With dropped bullets and constant fumbling, his firing time goes way down. I've shot a bolt-for-bolt replica of that .58 cap-and-ball weapon myself. I can do it in about 20 seconds. With people shooting back, and having to account for combat nervousness, I doubt it.

Absolute load-and-fire rates and real-world combat fire rates are two different things entirely. You're "I know better than you" put-downs and links to sites we all know are less than useful.

If you really want to contribute something worthwhile, I'm still waiting for your calculations on how far battleships move when they fire. If not, then try adhering to the old adage: "Lead, follow, or stay out of the way".

---
AMEN CHIEF! :|\\

So are you saying you can fire a musket faster than a trained member of the Iron Brigade could in combat?

Oh I see that you think Navweaps.com is a less than useful site and you speak for everyone.

Not at all, but 20 seconds is about the fastest time recorded for anyone to load and fire one, and combat situations tend to change everything. The Civil War is full of stories of soldiers loading and firing for some time, only to find the first one misfired and they didn't even notice the lack of recoil, which lead to checking the gun later and finding five or six charges and balls in the barrel, all unfired. On a different note, combat firing times from units firing in ranks were also slower, because the commander didn't order "Fire!" until the slowest man had loaded and presented.

Me? I think Navweaps is a fantastically useful site. Some of the numbers even come from my favorite source, John Campbell's Naval Weapons Of World War Two. The problem is that absolute maximum reload times are derived in 'perfect world' situations, and as I said above, combat changes everything, and always for the worse.

And I'm still waiting for your calculations showing what combat reload times should be, since you seem to think Morton's actual combat report for Wahoo is unreliable.

Nope.

It gives a hands on numbers account of AVERAGE rate of fire in a 4 inch gun engagement.

The navweapons site gives ROF of the gun.

My point is the same it has not changed.

You can not take the average and make it the maximum.

I can only state what I have said in an earlier post when it comes to a formula:

Show me a log that states something like this;

Commenced rapid fire on target at 0700.
Ceased rapid fire at 0705.
Expended 13 rounds.


Then I will give you proof of maximum rate of fire in that combat situation.

There you go.

And if you're looking for the phrase "rapid fire", you aren't going to find it in a patrol log, I'd wager. Much more likely to find something indicating the crew was taking SLOWER than normal to fire, as I'm sure a skipper wanted the gun crew to fire as fast as possible by default, without being instructed.

But we also know that the maximum is almost never achieved in real-life situations. There is indeed a reasonable chance that several rounds were fired, then a pause, and then more rounds, meaning that they were actually firing faster than the average. But, as been said innumerable times, the game doesn't take into account any adverse conditions, and what Beery is trying to do is model that. You seem to want the cannon to be a machine gun, firing at the same speed no matter what the outside effects. Unfortunately the game doesn't allow for that. The solution is simple: it's a mod - if you don't like the result, don't use it.

Unfortunately that's not real likely. Meanwhile you don't help when you use phrases like "fuzzy math". Which reminds me, when am I going to see your calculations on the other subject?