There is nothing wrong with Berrys numbers. I -never- said there was. They are as good as anyone elses, and seem reasonably founded in fact, albeit with a measure of militant dogma mixed in. Note to self: Berry is fond of his gun numbers.

I simply said that using the average ROF for the entire engagement in the particular quoted occurance discounted the time that there was no firing occuring. In other words, the evidence clearly shows that during perhaps 20% of the time used for the (average) ROF, the sub was hauling butt out of danger and not firing. I was simply pointing this out - not demanding that anyone make any changes, especially not Berry who was not even in the picture.

My observation was not aggressive or accusing or demanding or sniping in ANY way. It was intended to be friendly in tone. There was nothing wrong with what I said, it simply caused an over reaction.

The statement in question dropped the word average and ended up with a definitive ROF of 1.6. Using an average is defensible, even sensible given the scarcity of info in general. Had the term average or sustained ROF been used I would not have even commented.

The capability shown by the cited evidence is a ROF at or in excess of 2 rounds per minute, but this ROF was not able to be sustained because the sub had to keep moving, not because the crew could not achieve 2 RPM. This statement is a valid reading of the cited evidence, and is frankly pretty hard to dispute.

How long this 2 RPM ROF could be sustained had movement not been required is a seperate issue. My guess would be somewhere between 20 and 45 minutes, until the ammo train lag kicked in. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with using an average, just call it average. You can freeze to death at night in a "hot" desert.

Too bad all this caused a defensive over reaction, it wasn't intended as a criticism of settings. The discussion, and more specifically my comments, had nothing to do with settings.

Sailor Steve, your quote tags are a bit off and you have put my words in Berry's mouth above :o :D

Funny thing is, right after Berry told me his settings were ALSO 30 seconds and basically were in agreement with my conclusions (which I missed at first) he started "challenging" me to prove him wrong.

I'm sorry that my post of the Tang's patrol report got things so wound up!

I posted it because I though it a good example of why a high ROF cannot be maintained.

Meanwhile, looking at other patrols, especially the Jack's, I found another variable that further confuses the issue. Some skippers did not use the full standard gun's crew. In the Jack they reduced the crew to a minimum in order to keep the number of men on deck as low as possible. The actual number on the gun was 3, the number of ammunition handlers isn't given and neither is the ROF. The gun-layer's position was taken by the Gunnery Officer himself, who had a headset connection to the radar operator who was spotting fall of shell. They said it worked well.

This opens another question, was the gun directed from the bridge or did the layer fire over open sights? The plot thickens:damn:

Oh, I do know for sure the ROF of the 12 inch gun in the British Sub M1 was two rounds per HOUR.

Too bad you were at work, we could have simply had a nice chat and gone on with things. two rounds per HOUR???? hehe thats a hoot.

And I do sometimes overreact and I am very sensitive when it comes to issues I feel strongly about.

On this particular issue I do feel strongly about it. I wish my critics felt strongly about it too - if they felt as strongly as I do they might research the issue, and if they did they'd certainly find that there is absolutely no evidence for sustained ROF faster than 2 rounds a minute in combat. The problem here is that, rather than do some serious work looking up data, people tend to prefer to rely on their gut feelings and their preference for fast reloads - after all if a player likes a fast reload why make it slower? That attitude is fine for an arcade game or a fantasy game - or even a casual simulation, but it's not good enough for players like me and other RFB users who want full-on hardcore realism. A truly realistic simulation demands research and hard facts, not gut feelings and preferences.

The thing is, this issue always tends to bring out people who are all too willing to accuse my reload times of being 'unrealistic', but when we get into it they haven't the first clue about what is realistic.

I should explain that this debate is being carried on here and at the same time at the official subsim forums, so sometimes I'm carrying over frustration from discussions over there, and it seems U-Bones has caught some of that, for which I apologise. It's also important to understand that when I'm talking in general about 'my critics' in this thread I'm talking in general and not referring specifically to U-bones - I'm often in rant mode on this subject and when I go into rant mode innocent people often feel they're in the crossfire - something that I should also apologise for (not that I can ever stop myself :doh: , but I see that people often feel under attack when I'm on one of my rants).

...been quietly reading this thread...

love a decent verbal exchange by passionate members...

Check this out:

USS Bowfin (SS-287) website

shows deck gun (5"/25) rof = 10 rds/min.

see: http://bowfin.org/website/bowfin/bow.../deck/deck.htm

Not only that, check out

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

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

Both mention a rate of fire of 15 to 20 per minute. But that's probably when it's sitting on a surface ship all crewed up with ammo at the ready.

Firing these guns off a sub would be a whole different animal I would assume with the rolling deck and ammunition train.

Another big frustration for me is when posts like this come up (as they do often and in all seriousness), showing that a lot of people aren't seeing the points I'm trying to make. 10 rounds per minute is the maximum rate of fire possible for the gun mechanism alone when as many external factors as possible are removed from the equation. It has no relationship to actual combat rate of fire because the situation is entirely different. It's like saying "A human being has landed on the moon therefore all humans routinely travel to the moon".

The fact that a gun can be made to fire that quickly does not mean that it will always fire that quickly. In fact the gun is almost certainly incapable of firing anything like that quickly in combat. There is the need to aim at something, there's the need to direct and assess fire, there are restrictions on the numbers of crew serving the gun, restrictions on access to ammo, safety considerations, sub design factors and environmental factors like wind, rain, heavy seas and slippery decks, all of which severely reduce rates of fire. It is essential to understand this.

:D
all ships are surface ships when firing a deck gun.

...seriously, I agree, Ted...hee hee, I was just stirring the pot...:p

Very true.
I think this pot is sufficiently stirred :up:

Accepted. AND understood.
I still think your numbers are decent, albeit a tad dogmatic ;)

I have some small experience with the Royal Navy's Mark 6 4.5 inch gun. The gun is capable of firing 20 rounds per minute, but I never met a gun's crew that could actually load more than 18 rounds per minute, and I never met one that could sustain more than 15 rounds per minute. That is in a power operated turret with the director dealing with stuff like aiming and firing.

The maker's stated ROF is a fantasy.

I though Beery was being too restrictive with the ROF and I tried to find evidence to the contrary, but I can't. I can find plenty of evidence for a high ROF at the start of an action but none for a sustained high ROF beyond a very few minutes of the action starting.


About the M1, the gun could only be fired from periscope depth, or the boat would capsize, but the gun could only be loaded on the surface, so ROF was 2 per hour. - would make a hell of a mess of a sampan though.

But where a weapons locker was present, wouldn't they have been replenishing it and not the gun, so's not to disrupt the ROF?

Not trying to stir the pot...an honest question

Honest general answer:

The presumption is that stocking the locker is slower, else it would not exist. It follows that the if the locker were replenished while being used, its effective capacity would be extended somewhat.

The ability to replenish while using would depend on physical layout of the particular sub. How much interference, if any, would occur ? Would this be counter productive or flat out disruptive ? Does sea state support both operations ? (deck hatch required ?)

Good question.

Even if the crew restock the ready-use locker as it empties (which might itself disrupt the ROF) after about seven minutes of active firing the ready-use locker is still used up. At that time maybe 7% of the sub's ammo has been used - not enough to sink anything bigger than a 140-ton fishing boat. After that the ammo may as well be passed directly to the loader (one less stop on the way to the gun). Anyway, when we factor in the initial crewing of the gun and the de-waterproofing of the gun the rate of fire for ready-use ammo probably drops to about the same rate of fire for the rest of the ammo.

Some speed would be gained by bringing up ammo while the ready-use ammo was being fired, but it still doesn't make any difference to the average rate of fire that has been recorded in combat reports. Reports of gun use that have start and end times (which is what RFB ROF is based on) factor in everything. We don't need to break it down to try to find ways to justify increasing ROF because the combat report ROF already accounts for all speed-ups and slow-downs from the order to fire being given until the order to cease fire was given.

The only way we can justify increasing the ROF is if we find a report of a gun being used in combat where the start and end times for the engagement clearly indicate a faster rate of fire for an engagement that went on long enough to generally counterbalance the ready-use ammo effect.