I checked Miroslaw Skwiot's book today (the most helpful source on German Flak) and can find no reference to the 3 and 4 deg/sec numbers. Unfortunately, my other source seems to have been checked out by someone else. Since those numbers are almost absurdly slow, I think we can treat them as a mistyping, barring further evidence to the contrary. Sorry for the confusion :oops:

One more question: how does the game handle escort sensors? Are there individual radar and asdic models that can be upgraded over the course of the war, similar to how we upgrade our U-boat? I've noticed in the mission editor that there are settings for early, middle, and late equipment, but I wasn't sure how this translated into sensor settings.

When I said 'heavily' perhaps I meant 'Heavily' :D

Nothing.. no changes..

I suspected it :cool: :rotfl2:

Okay, I think I just discovered the source of the 3 and 4 deg/sec mystery. It turns out that is the manual training and elevation speed for the 3.7 cm SK C/30 in the Dopp. C/30 mount:

"The practical rate of fire was determined in practice by the efficiency of the crew, a well-trained section being able to achieve thirty rounds per minute per barrel. The twin Dopp. L C/30 mount was manually trained and elevated. Elevation speed was 3 deg/sec and training speed was 4 deg/sec" (Skwiot, 317)

Note that this is not the typical U-boat installation, which used the Ubts. C/30 or the Ubts. C/39 mounts, although it is the same type of gun. The twin 3.7 cm in Dopp. L C/30 was installed mainly on the Nürnberg class light cruisers and small warships, and Skwiot says that one of its principal problems was a slow speed of traverse (p. 315).

When he specifically discusses the U-boat version (3.7 cm SK C/30 U), he says this: "The early battles with Allied convoys had shown that the gun's rate of fire was insufficient, and also that the rates of training and elevation were too slow. Therefore, the C/30 U was soon replaced by the newer 3.7 cm Flak M42" (Skwiot, 333)

So, the U-boat version had similar problems with traverse speed, although I'm not sure how similar these figures would have been to the twin 3.7 in the Dopp. L C/30 mount. He does not give training or elevation numbers for the U-boat version of the SK C/30 U or the M42, but it's logical to assume from the above quote that the M42 had better numbers than the SK C/30 U.

What do you make of this?


EDIT: Here is the information you requested for the deck guns, again according to Skwiot:

10.5 cm Ubts. L C/32 U - the first version for U-boats
max. training speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
max. elevation speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
training arc = 360 deg
depression/elevation = -10 deg/+35 deg

10.5 cm Ubts. L C/36 U - fitted on later Type IXs and Type Xs
max. training speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
max. elevation speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
training arc = 360 deg
depression/elevation = -10 deg/+30 deg

8.8 cm SK C/35 in Ubts. L C/35 mount - designed for Type VIIs
max. training speed (manual) = 1.5 deg/sec
max. elevation speed (manual) = 1.5 deg/sec
training arc = 360 deg
depression/elevation = -10 deg/+30 deg

The charts for the 10.5 cm guns are on p. 204. The chart for the 8.8 cm can be found on p. 258. It's interesting that the 8.8 cm (2425 kg) has only half the training/elevation speed of the 10.5 cm (4900 kg).

Same gun, different mount (wet single mount vs. double mount) :hmmm:

"The early battles with Allied convoys...", he says. This is curious and leads me to suspect that (due to its slow training speed) the gun was used more in the surface-to-surface role than as an AA gun. :hmm2:

Yes, your conclusions seem convincing to me. We should try to give the SK C/30 trav/elev rates as similar as possible to the ones reported by Skwiot for the dopp mount. By saying "as much as possible" I mean that some adjustments will be probably needed to make the gun not totally useless (see Volodya's remarks on elevation rates and Flaks aiming accuracy).

Talking about the same gun, navweaps.com reports:

"In addition to the normal train and elevation axes, the mounting for this weapon had a third axis which stabilized the the gun carriage when the ship rolled or pitched. This allowed the gun to track an airplane without interference from the motion of the ship. However, problems with this mounting led to its abandonment in subsequent designs for 3.7 cm guns."

I wish we had ways to simulate it in game; it seems that all the guns are stabilized by default, and any attempt we have made so far to destibilize them, has failed. :-?

As for the M42, yes, we will give it better numbers, but how much better? :hmmm:

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for :yeah:

Yes, and the fact that the 10.5 cm guns fitted with minor adjustement aboard Type VIIC U-boats were dating back to the WWI era, makes it even more interesting :06:

yes, each unit got its .sns file where sensors used at various stages of the war are set. The editable settings are: Start/EndDate, NodeName (the exact point of the unit where the sensor gets linked), and LinkName (the name of the sensor).
Sns files are editable in notepad. Sensors featured in game are found in data\Library\AI_Sensors.GR2. Merge the file with its sim file for editing its specs. As with depth charges, I think we can add to the game as many new sensors as we want. :up:

You should have said "much more than heavily" :O: :haha:

:nope:

Maybe I relied too much on those tolerance settings, but I am still convinced that they have to be there for a reason :hmmm:

That is an interesting statement. After some more digging, it seems the 3.7 cm SK C/30 was seen primarily as an anti-aircraft weapon, at least until wartime experience exposed its flaws. Every source I have read always mentions it in the context of improved AA defense. Nevertheless, the following quote indicates that BdU realized it had offensive capability as a surface weapon and considered it as a replacement for the deck gun:

"From 27 April 1943, the removal of the 8.8 cm gun was authorized, because there were very few opportunites to use it and, furthermore, the necessity was borne in mind for balance in the weight-momentum and height-momentum. Only the Mediterranean and Polar boats were allowed to keep these guns, if specially applied for. Some large U-boat retained their 10.5 cm gun, or exchanged it for another 3.7 cm quick-firing C/30U, the position of which, abaft of the bridge, had to make way for the new 'winter garden.'" (Rössler, 188)

Stability would be a nice addition to the game. Let me know if you find a way to implement it, as the pitch angle tolerances for some of these guns are given by Skwiot.

After looking for a way to compare the relative training rate between a single and doubled version of the same gun, I found this:

Single 10.5 cm
training speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
elevation speed (manual = 3 deg/sec

Twin 10.5 cm
training speed (manual) = 1.5 deg/sec
elevation speed (manual) = 1.75 deg/sec

Of course, the 10.5 cm is a much bigger gun than a 3.7 cm, but this at least gives us a metric for comparison: the twin has 50% of the single's training speed and 58.3% of its elevation speed. If we apply these numbers to the single 3.7 cm, we get:

3.7 cm (hypothetical)
elevation speed = 5.15 deg/sec
training speed = 8 deg/sec

Incidentally, these numbers are very close to the the 6-7 deg/sec figures that Volodya reported as being the bare minimum required for AA defense. Since the 3.7 cm was hampered by poor training speeds in real life, this might actually be a realistic way to simulate the gun's shortcomings. I can only guess at the improvements in the M42, but, for the sake of starting a conversation, how about a 25% increase:

M42 (hypothetical)
elevation speed = 6.43 deg/sec
training speed = 10 deg/sec

This is only a rough estimate, but at least it's a place to start. What do you think? @Volodya: in your experience, would these numbers be too slow? I think the trick would be to make the training speeds for the 3.7mm too slow to be really effective (as is historical), but not so slow as to be totally worthless :hmmm:

Glad to be of service :salute:

Awesome! :yeah: I will continue gathering everything I can find about escort radar and asdic.

Well, next time I'll try to report more specifically.. :haha:

Yes, me to.. but by some weird reason they unwilling to work.. :nope:

The best way I have suggested earlier: you and Gabriele are looking for historical data (because very few needed resources in Russian), I have to adapt this data to the realities of the game.. :up:

Further confirmation of our suspects comes from Wikipedia:

"The SK C/30U gun was modified for use by submarines. All mountings were suitable for use against both air and sea targets."

After a second thought, an explaination to this dp usage, uncommon for guns of this caliber, comes from its very high muzzle velocity and fairly long range, respectively 1,000 m/sec and 8,500 m according to both Wikipedia and navalweaps.com. Oddly, there is disaccordance among the two sources about the elevation angle at which the maximum range was obtained; 37.5 deg according to Wikipedia (this figure is also confirmed by your "Historical Specifications" document) and 45 deg according to navalweaps (which is in line with the maximum range elevation angle reported by various sources for most other guns). :hmm2:

Yes please, send them my way. We still don't know how/if the tolerance factors get actually applied in game, but setting them won't harm anyway :up:

Your numbers seem convincing to me. Peraphs I would increase a bit more M42 tracking rates, but in absence of more precise information, I think the final settings will be decided by Volodya on the base of his tests.

Before testing starts, I would like to poit you to another piece of information found again on Wikipedia:

"The Ubts LC/39 submarine mount used the SK C/30U gun. It was a simple pedestal mount with a two-man crew, one of whom trained the gun with the shoulder stirrup; the other used gears to elevate the gun."

Evidently, this is not the handwheel trained mount represented in game (Ubts. LC/30?). Now the point is:

Would the two training methods have made a considerable difference in therms of their speed? If yes, to which of the two mounts Skwiot's remarks do apply? :hmm2:

I agree 100%, as far as the SK C/30 is concerned. Yet, I would make the M42 noticeably more effective (though not infallible, indeed).

Good! :yeah:
By looking AI_Sensors.sim, you will easily notice which sensor properties are moddable, and which not :03:

Game realities vs historical realities :doh:

I hope we can mediate among them, and make them good friends :up:

It's a good plan :up: but I think you might have the harder job. It's time-consuming but not difficult to find historical numbers. It's harder to determine how to make these guns behave in a realistic but fun manner.

To make things even more confusing :03: , Hans Mehl says the maximum range was 8500 m at 35 deg (p. 117). But does the game consider the firing angle when computing range?

Okay, I'll report them when I get a chance.

That sounds fair. Those numbers were just meant to be conversation-starters.

Hmmm :hmmm: I checked the Wikipedia page and the article cites navweaps as the source for that quote. However, I didn't see any information on the navweaps page about manual training with shoulder stirrups. Did I miss something? In Hans Mehl's book, there is a picture of a 3.7 cm C/30 U salvaged from a U-boat, and there are clearly two handwheels visible.

I looked at the sensor controllers for radar and hydrophones last night but didn't experiment with them. I'm running some test with depth charges right now. :D

:up:

I have just finished editing the information shown in the guns selection screen for all of the guns available in game as U-boat upgrades. My updates are reflecting the specs that will be really featured in game.

Keysersoze, can you have a look at them. Please correct any inaccuracy, mistyping or grammar error you will encounter, and feel free to adjust the style or to add any spec/concise information that you think could fit in.

It should feel like a KM engineer was giving us a short breefing on the weapons available in our arsenal, telling us whatever we just need to know before fitting then on our U-boat :03:

Thanks! :salute:

yes, that's true. We got to help Volodya in any way. I think tomorrow my tweaks will be ready (only the deck guns are left). Then, we will arrange a work plan :yep:

:doh:

yes, gun maximum ranges as set as a distance in meters and an angle in deg, just like in books. Nonetheless, I ignore how the game is calculating the range at different angles.

:up:

Well, after all I think I can live with this doubt. Unless we find other evidence, the trav/elev speeds you have suggested are good to me :up:

Make sure that IRAI is enabled during your tests, and don't esisate getting in touch on any doubt, or if you just think that I have found something that is worth discussing :salute:

This looks excellent :up: I read through it carefully and could find almost no issues. Here are a few small suggestions:

• For 2cm FlaK C/30 — "despite its widespread use..."
• For 2cm C/30 Flakzwilling — "this model offers protection to crewmen
• For 3.7mm SK C/30 — "against lightly armored surface vessels"
• For 8.8 cm deck gun — "it is renowned/known as"

I also noticed that you listed the 10.5 cm's rate of fire as 15 rpm. I can't reference Skwiot right now, but I seem to recall that he gives a small number, more like 8 rpm. I will double-check this.

Definitely. I plan to help with testing as much as I can.

I'm impressed the game takes these things into account.

I always play and test with IRAI on; it is really one of the indispensable mods. My testing has not been systematic yet, but I will post any useful findings.

Thanks :)

Do you mean the Flakzwilling C/38 (the twin C/30 have no protection)? :hmmm:

What about: "protection to the manning crew."?

Besides making the corrections suggested by you, I have made some changes/additions to the following notes:

Upack20mmSingle-Notes=This recoil-operated air-cooled automatic gun is one of the most used weapons in the German arsenal. Despite its widespread use, it is prone to jamming and uses a small magazine, which means frequent pauses for reloading. What is more, the low explosive payload of its projectile is unlikely to inflict enough damage to ensure a "kill" with one hit.

Upack20mmTwin-Notes=Due to the volume of fire it can put out, the twin configuration of the FlaK C/30 is a little more capable of bringing down an aircraft than its single mount predecessor. This is obtained at the expenses of an increase in weight, which was however kept as low as possible.

Upack20mmImpTwin-Notes=Compared to the single mount FlaK C/38, the twin configuration ensures a double volume of fire with a limited increase of weight. With some luck, this should give you the chance of downing a small plane with a single, well aimed shot. Moreover, the large 12mm plate fitted on this model will offer protection to the manning crew.

What do you think? Do you have any stylistic suggestion? Please, feel free to make any addition/deletion/phrase rearrangement tha you think would improve the legibility of the texts prepared by me, and make them more immersive :up:

This is the rate of fire reported by navweaps for both the 10.5 cm Ubts L/45 and the later 10.5 cm SK C/32. Let me know if you find any contrasting information in your sources :)

You will notice that on very long shots shell tracers follow a parabolic trajectory :yep:
Among many broken game features, at last shells range seems to work as supposed.

On the contrary I suspect that armor penetrations are not affected by impact angle or target range, or at least I couldn't find any evidence of it. :hmmm:

Oops...yes, I meant the Flakzwilling C/38. Sorry for the mistyping.

:up:

Here are a few suggestions. I will post more if I think of them:

Upack20mmSingle-Notes=This recoil-operated air-cooled automatic gun is one of the most used weapons in the German arsenal. Despite its widespread use, it is prone to jamming, rests on a short mount more suitable for surface engagement than to protection against attacking aircraft, and uses a small magazine, which means frequent pauses for reloading. What is more, the low explosive payload of its projectile is unlikely to inflict enough damage to ensure a "kill" with one hit.

Upack20mmSingleImp-Notes=The first major attempt to improve U-boat anti-aircraft capability, this automatic gun is based on the same design as the FlaK C/30. Compared to the old model, ballistic specifications and accepted ammunition are unchanged. However the improved bolt and the bigger magazine fitted on the C/38, ensure greater reliability and a nearly doubled rate of fire. Moreover, the addition of an overdrive gear has sensibly increased the elevation rate.

Upack20mmVierling-Notes=The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, this is the most effective weapon of its caliber available in the Kriegsmarine arsenal. The increasing threat of airborne attack has forced BdU to order immediate installation of the 20mm Flakvierling C/38 on all U-boats, even before the results of trials aboard U-758 are known. This weapon should prove a potent addition to the U-boat's FlaK suite, at least until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.

Upack37mmSingle-Notes=The result of an urgent anti-aircraft development program ordered in June 1942, this is the wet mount version of the 3.7 cm SK C/30 gun, on duty on every major Kriegmarine warship. Although its main usage is in the AA role, the ballistic characteristics of this gun make it effective against lightly armored surface vessels. The downside is that the gun is only capable of semi-automatic firing, with each shell being individually loaded. This fact, coupled with the fairly slow tracking speed, render it a rather slow-firing and clumsy weapon for anti-aircraft defense.
[/QUOTE]



The more I use the Goblin editor, the more impressed I am with the features that are implemented (or at least possible) in the game. It's too bad impact angle/armor penetration is not modeled, since I sometimes like to create ahistorical single missions to watch the fireworks between two battlefleets :cool: I have an interesting diagram of a US interwar armor penetration study if you want it.

One more question: Does the game include the MG151? It was not widely used, but, if I am understanding my sources correctly, it was used at least as often as the C/30 Flakzwilling.