No problem. I think, about half way down the tutorial there is actually instructions about changing the reload time.;)

Prove it.

As I've said before - NUMEROUS times, the only evidence I've seen for subs firing deck guns in combat conditions shows them firing at between one and two rounds per minute, or even slower. If you have evidence that backs up your assertion (it has to be sustained gunnery - more than 40 rounds to offset the effect of the ready-use ammo - from an actual combat engagement) show it.

Anyone can say that sub deck guns fired faster, but proving it is a different matter. In two years many people have said that RUb's and RFB's deck guns are too slow, but no one has ever come up with evidence showing that subs or U-boats could fire their deck guns faster in combat.

Opinions are easy to post because they can be posted based on nothing at all. Evidence to back up the opinion is harder to come by.

Here's an interesting conversation I had about the deck gun a month or so ago. Here's the complaint:

"I would like to say this about ROF and damage.
If you are firing from long range, you want to range the shot before commiting your ammo supply. You have limited resources in which to fire and caution in regards to return fire when speaking of a gun engagement. Expending 100 rounds on a target at mid to long range does not equate to damage for every shell because most of the shells miss just as ranging your shots before going to rapid fire does not give the true ROF. With that in mind, firing at shorter ranges means the projectile is traveling at a faster rate when hitting the target and carying more force into the target. Firing at short range will also increase the number of shells that hit the target and also allows you to place the shot on or just below the waterline. Firing from a distance will cause less of a chance to damage vital areas of a ship due to not being able to place the shell where you want it and when it does hit the target it will usually hit at less speed then firing in close. Also of note is firing at a fully loaded tanker could take just a few shots if she caught on fire where as an empty tanker could take a whole lot more damage and keep floating.
With that said I have provided the list of guns used on WW II subs with projectile size and ROF given from this web site:
http://www.navweaps.com/
The 6"/53 (SS166/167/168) was a light cruiser gun and could fire a 105 pound projectile at 10 seconds a round.
The 5"/25 that was designed as an Anti air weapon and was much faster firing a 54 pound projectile at 4 seconds a round.
The 4"/50 was an antiship weapon that could fire a 33 pound projectile at 7.5 seconds a round.
The 3"/50. It was a dual purpose gun and could fire a 13 pound projectile every 4 seconds.

One big advantage US boats had over the U boats were a dedicated method of delivery. The US boats had ammo scuttles where as the Uboats had to pass em thru the hatch. US boats also employeed a method called batlle surface where they could go from periscope depth to firing the first round in 45 seconds.
Listed below is a quote from the Nautilus' 2nd patrol log. It gives an account of firing her big 6 inchers into the lagoon for a period of 7 minutes. In those 7 minutes, she fired 65 rounds from her two six inch guns giving a ROF of 13 seconds per round from a gun listing 10 second per round. Thats two 6 inch guns firing 65 105 pound projectiles from a submarine!
" 0711 M Checked fire. Our vision was obscured by trees and indirect fire had to be used. At this time the frequency was jammed and we could not contact our prearranged spotter. However, at 0716 M steadied on course 262 and with bearing of 84 degrees relative, range 14000 yards, opened fire on lagoon. Trying continuously to contact spotter to no avail so used the idea of many changes in range and deflection to make sure entire lagoon was covered, hoping that luck would be with us.
0723 M Ceased firing having expended 65 rounds of ammunition and in as much as we could not observe our fall of shot it seemed to be an unwarranted expenditure of ammunition."
The results:
"Statement made by Walter D Carroll, Sergeant, USMC: "0700 Got into position on right flank near lagoon side. Saw two ships in lagoon. One seemed to be a tanker or transport, the other a gun boat. Both just at edge of lagoon. Both at anchor at that time. Guns started firing and they started running circles in lagoon. Tried to head out towards sea and the tanker was hit near water line and burst into flames a little later. Gun boat sank after being hit in lagoon. There was a white ship in lagoon also which was smaller than others, carried sails and was not hit. Saw tanker sink near island in lagoon entrance."
"Other marines state they saw this action also. Colonel Carlson states that the transport was about 3500 tons. The gun boat about half that size."
Link to Nautilus war patrol log:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/nautilus2.htm

I believe if you adjusted the ROF by 30 percent due to firing from a submarine to be a reasonable adjutment to the gun. One round a minute is a bit much espescially considering if you are firing from a 5 inch 25 calibre gun designed to be DP and fired a projectile half the weight of the Nautilus' ammo. Besides the readied ammunition on deck to fire for a 5 inch gun on a Gato/Balao would be 10 rounds which would be used up in less than a minute. That means after that they would have to rely on the scuttle which did not intefere with the control room or con and had direct pass thru the deck. No carrying it thru the submarine control room and up the hatch. Verticle straight up to the deck then the shell was passed to the gun."

Here's my response:

"Thanks for bringing this example up. No doubt I will be using it as a textbook example proving that RFB's rates of fire are too fast.

Firstly, RFB's rate of fire is not one round per minute. It's one round every 30 seconds for the 3" and 4" guns and 25 seconds per round for the 5" gun.

Regarding navweaps.com's listings - they show how fast a gun COULD be fired given perfect conditions. The speed at which a gun could be fired and the speed at which a gun was fired in combat are two VERY different things.

The scuttle did not go straight to the gun. The round was delivered at the conning tower and had to be manhandled to the gun after the protective jacket was removed. Rounds could ONLY be delivered through the scuttle if the sea state was calm enough to do so. Otherwise they had to be delivered the slow way. I've taken into account all the process of getting rounds to the gun, but the details of the proceedure don't matter because as I've said repeatedly WE HAVE PRECISE DETAILS OF COMBAT DIRECT FROM THE SUB COMBAT REPORTS THAT LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT. These guns fired at a rate of about one round per minute in every single example of a timed engagement that I've seen. The details of moving a shell from the store to the gun are completely irrelevant when we have start and end times for engagements. When we compile a bunch of details based on estimates of how long reloads 'should' take, some stuff can be missed or left out as unimportant. Timed engagements don't leave anything out - they are timed with a start and an end that can be used to divide the shells into. It's the simplest way of determining a realistic reload rate and it's the most accurate.

The issue is very simple, if sub guns fired AIMED ROUNDS at only one round per minute in actual practice, so should simulated sub guns, because what stopped real guns from being reloaded quickly should also be stopping simulated sub guns from firing quickly, EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE DELAY.

However, even though every report I've seen shows a reload rate of one round per minute, RFB's rate of fire is two rounds per minute because most of the reports I've seen are from U-boats and US subs had a better layout and the guns were served more efficiently, so I cut the reload rate in half based on my calculations of how much faster US subs should be able to reload.

As for Nautilus, she was firing UNAIMED fire in the general direction of a lagoon. Of course it's possible to fire rounds faster if you're not aiming and if you have no way to range-find or verify the results of fire.

One more thing. Here's the report of the gunnery that took place (from the website you cited). This is later in the report but it brings to light a significant detail that the earlier part of the report omits:

"0703 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on Ukiangong Point area on Makin Island. Covered area by shifting sights in range and deflection.
0711 M Checked fire.
0716 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on ship anchorage area of Makin Island. Radio spotting circuit was jammed or ineffective. Covered area as thoroughly as possible by shifting sights in range and deflection as necessary.
0723 M Checked fire, a total of 65 rounds of ammunition having been expended."

That is not 65 rounds in 7 minutes from two guns. It's 65 rounds in 15 minutes from two guns. That's 28 seconds per round per gun - UNAIMED fire. Around 40 of those rounds (20 per gun and nearly 2/3rds of the ammo fired) would have come from the ready-use ammo stores by the guns, which would have increased the rate of fire significantly. Also, the rate of fire stated here does not take into account preparing the gun to fire. Even so, RFB's RATE OF FIRE IS ONLY TWO SECONDS SLOWER THAN NAUTILUS'S - NOT (AS YOU SUGGEST) 17 SECONDS SLOWER.

In fact, for RFB's 5" guns (the closest in size to Nautilus's guns), Nautilus is THREE SECONDS SLOWER THAN RFB'S GUN. Far from contradicting my reload rates, your example CONFIRMS RFB's rate of fire and the numbers even suggest that for the 5" gun RFB's rate of fire may be at least 3 seconds too fast.

From this data it seems clear that RFB's reload rate is too fast. This is a sub firing unaimed (or partially aimed) shots using mostly ready-use ammo and the gun only outdoes two of RFB's 3 guns by a couple of seconds per round. RFB's reload rate is an average reload rate based on the time taken from the order to man the deck gun up until the time all the deck gun ammo is expended. Clearly, if Nautilus had kept firing the rate of fire would have dropped very quickly since the ready-use ammo has been expended. It seems to me that 40 seconds per round might be a more realistic figure for RFB's deck guns."

The problem we have with the deck gun is that people's expectations have been bred through 20 years of simulation games with horribly modelled deck guns whose rates of fire were based on text book fantasy, not combat reality. When we look at the reality we find the facts that demolish our preconceptions.

Troll.

I believe this argument went to and fro in the SH3 days? There is no convincing some people, so why try to start an argument?

Interestingly, the open-source subsim, dangerdeep, models the time required to set up the deck gun already, so is improved over sh3/4 in that regard.:up:

You're absolutely right: your original question was perfectly innocent, which is why I didn't respond to it. I only objected to your flat statement "proving" the rate of fire as much faster that RFB has it.

Of course you can use any icon you want, just as I can take exception to your using it to talk down to everyone else.

No, I'm not a modder. On the other hand, I've done a lot of research over the years into the whys and wherefores of naval combat, and I've been involved in a lot of the mods, especially where questions like this come up. Again, I think everyone should play the way that suits them best; my only objction was to your apparent superiority in telling everyone the way it is, while being seemingly unaware of the multitudes of discussions we've had on the subject.

I would suggest that you read that entire section of Beery's thread, in which he does explain his reasons. Even if you disagree, it's quite entertaining.

I must admit I get a bit tired of defending RUb's and RFB's rates of fire. The detractors do one of two things:

1. They criticize RUb/RFB's ROF but they don't bring any evidence to the discussion.

2. They criticize RUb/RFB's ROF and bring evidence, I prove it to be flawed, they disappear.

Hell, at this point it would almost be a relief if they would prove me wrong. At least then I'd just adjust my reload times and we could all live in peace. But since two years have gone by I just don't think anyone is ever going to come to the table with anything substantial that contradicts my research.

The thing is, I can only model deck gun reload rates based on evidence, and the only evidence I've seen shows deck guns being reloaded at a rate of one to two rounds per minute. If I ignore the evidence and instead change it based on someone's opinion or on textbook listings of optimal reload rates the word "Real" in the name "Real Fleet Boat" would be a joke. If opinion and out-of-context textbook statistics were all the evidence we needed there would be no need for a Real Fleet Boat mod - SH4 (unmodded) does a great job of creating a sub sim based on those things.

It's a great mod Beery:up:

Sometimes trying to defend something can be
like _ _ ssing against the wind, not worth it.

Again, good work.

RDP

Yup.

The thing is, I'd love RFB's deck guns to fire faster too. Heck, I dislike waiting 30 seconds between rounds as much as anyone. But I can't change the rate of fire unless someone can find evidence that shows sub deck guns firing faster in combat conditions. How could I change them without being a complete hypocrite? I mean it's called the REAL Fleet Boat mod - the name would be a joke if I ignored the evidence and just changed features based on what most folks would prefer.

People go to the Real Fleet Boat mod because they want uncompromising realism. That's what RFB is tasked with providing and that's what I aim to provide, however unpopular it may be. RFB is not meant to be a game - it's designed as a history lesson in computer game format. That's what its fans expect and that's what I try to deliver, and to do that I have to do deep research beyond what textbooks provide - I have to look at real world data, and the deck gun is a perfect example of the difference between what we can read in a textbook and what we experience in the real world. I mean some of these deck guns can supposedly be reloaded in six seconds based on textbook listings - that's about the speed at which I can reload and perform aimed fire with my Short Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle, and its shells weigh a couple of ounces and it has a magazine to help with reloads. The idea that a deck gun firing a manually loaded shell that weighs the same as a 50lb sack of potatoes could maintain ten rounds a minute in combat conditions is quite simply ludicrous, yet people have ridiculed RFB based on the idea that textbook rates of fire are reasonable.

You can't change it, your mod is what it says it is :yep: Folks want something else they can either mod something themselves or find another mod that suits their style of play.

RDP

I agree with reallydedpoet....

It's fair enough that you don't have to explain and defend it time and time again.

RFB is like that, take it, leave it or change it with TT tools:up:

Beery, you have done all the research you can and came up with what you feel is correct. I'm no expert so I am happy with your work and love it! Also, it's YOUR MOD and if someone doesn't like it, "don't use it". Plain and simple. Thanks, Beery, great MOD!

You know, I think that Frank just wanted to know what value to switch in what file. He did thank the maker(s) of the mod for their hard work. He did also express his appreciation for the mod. Then, someone got [needlessly] rude with Frank. Honestly, the only attacks I saw that started this ugly, ugly thread were directed at him.

Relax. Put the guns away. Call off the cavalry. Set DEFCON Five. Secure from action stations. Turn off the oven. No need to contact your congressman. Hang up with 911. Give up on the no-huddle: Resume regular play calling. Unchain yourselves from the lamp post. End the hunger strike. Let's all just go home.

Thanks folks.

By the way, I'm not saying I can't be wrong. I'm just saying that my detractors need to prove me wrong. I've done research and I'm perfectly willing to believe it's flawed, but only if someone does research and shows me mine is flawed. So far no one has done so, so I have to go with what I know.

I was fine with Frank's original post. My posts started in response to his second post, which was uncompromising in its criticism of RFB's ROF yet absent any evidence to back up the criticism. I don't mind my work being criticized harshly as long as the criticism has some weight behind it.

In fact, Frank was wrong in both of his statements. He wrote:

"Well....lol...........for YOUR information REAL Fleet Boats shot over 5 rounds per minute, not 1 round in FIVE ZERO seconds! :know:"

In combat, real fleet boats fired nowhere near five rounds per minute as far as I've been able to confirm, and RFB shoots a round every 25 to 30 seconds, not every 50 seconds. RFB's ROF is the same as the fastest real world ROF that I've been able to find for a sub engaging in sustained fire in combat conditions. Frank is assuming textbook rates of fire are the same as combat rates of fire. He's also misreading RFB's rate of fire.

Textbook rates of fire measure the time taken by a gun mechanism from the firing of one projectile until the time a second projectile can safely be fired. It is the fastest time that it's humanly possible to do this activity. Such statistics don't take into account aiming, rangefinding, transporting rounds to the gun, or anything else beyond the gun's mechanism. Such statistics are perfect examples of the adage that there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics'. The problem in this case is not that the stats are wrong - it's that they're being used out of context. Textbook rates of fire are not meant to represent combat rates of fire.

Anyway I think I've maintained an even tone in this discussion. I'm long past the time when deck gun discussions frustrated me. Frank is just mistaken - it's an easy mistake to make because those textbook stats are all over the place and they're often cited in books and on websites with no context whatsoever.

He wasn't being critical of your work, Beery. He was responding to a flippant remark by another member. That's what started this.

I realise that, but in responding he did make the criticism, and the criticism is unfair. The bickering back and forth is not my concern until it becomes my concern, and at that point it became so.

Like I said, I've maintained an even tone. This is not something I get upset about anymore. It's just something that I feel needs a response because I think the vast majority of players honestly believe that subs could fire deck gun shells at a fantasy rate. If I respond to such criticisms I feel that some readers may be coaxed back from the dark side and into the light.

Anyway, I guess at this point, the least said, the better.