SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - about the real fleet boat mod...

Page 5 of 17

Last »

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - about the real fleet boat mod... (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116195)

Beery

06-24-07 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LW_lcarp

Now what i dont get out of all the realism nuts out there is there is more then 1 person on these boats. That means there are more then 2 people on the gun when its firing. The have a thing called a bucket brigade (a long of people passing one bucket to the next person). So slowing down the deck gun cant really add to the realism that much if at all...

Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine. Deck gun crews were limited by regulations that strictly denoted who was allowed to handle shells and by regulations limiting the number of people on deck so that a sub could prepare to dive as fast as possible. Sure, it seems quite reasonable to the average guy who doesn't think about such things very much that you could pass a 50lb weight around quite fast if you had 20 people on deck to do it, but you can't just go around crewing subs and assigning work with the mentality of a simple-minded horse. Even though they may weigh the same, a 4" shell is quite a bit more dangerous than a large sack of potatoes, and a surfaced submarine is always in mortal danger from air attack, so unless you have a death wish you don't let untrained men toss around ammunition willy-nilly and you don't risk 50 lives by placing so many men on the deck that it becomes impossible to submerge in time to evade an air attack - you just don't.

Like I've said, deck gun reload times are taken from real world engagements where the rate of fire has been timed by naval personnel. If players don't like it they should take it up with the US Navy - ask US navy gunners from USS Wahoo (if there are any who weren't killed when Wahoo was sunk) or from USS Nautilus why they were so slow. Personally I'm not sure I'd want to put such a question to old navy folks, but the way other folks choose to go about getting themselves beaten up by ex-military personnel is not my business.

As for RFB's ROF, it's always going to be based on real world data. The fact that some players don't like that will never influence me to choose fantasy over reality. If players want a deck gun that's based on fantasy, SH4 (unmodded) is there for them.

tater

06-24-07 12:22 PM

A huge factor completely missing from SH4 would put beery's ROF mod in proper perspective.

Right now, regardless of realism setting, the deck gun is always visually "stabilized." If the deck gun moved like the destabilized TBT, you'd find your own ROF drastically lower, regardless of the time the progress bar takes to ram a new round in the breech.

Why? Because you'd have to wait for your sight to be even with the horizon to shoot and have the round land at the distance set by the gun elevation. Picking this point would be non-trivial in anything but a flat calm in an unmoving boat.

It would give you some sense of why in RL, there were simply not as many shots fired per unit time as stock SH4. And that doesn't even consider the fact that the guys loading the rounds were also trying to do their jobs on a possibly wave-swept, pitching, rolling deck. Subs were just not good gun platforms.

Beery

06-24-07 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

...It would give you some sense of why in RL, there were simply not as many shots fired per unit time as stock SH4...

What Tater says in the previous post is precisely the reason why I only use timed engagements from real life combat rather than trying to calculate based on the minutiae of feeding a gun. The only way to get ROF results that simulate the real world is to use data from the real world that's timed. Doing so doesn't leave anything open to interpretation or errors in calculation.

John Channing

06-24-07 01:04 PM

With no interest in taking sides here is an excerpt that may be of interest...

THE FIRST PATROL OF

THE SCORPION (SS-278)

By Gail L. Diamond, TMC U.S. Navy Retired

Published in Polaris June 1996

The specific details of this patrol were taken From Gail Diamond's concise hand written daily diary written half a century ago. With his help and explanation, Marion L. Shinn (RT 2/C USNR, U. S. S. Guavina) compiled them into this narrative.

Quote:

"The three-inch gun crew included the trainer, pointer, sight setter, first loader, hot shell man, second loader, and several ammunition passers. My battle station was trainer and my responsibility was to train the gun horizontally. Mack was the pointer; he moved the gun vertically and fired the gun with a foot lever when given the word by the sight setter. I was a little scared. The gun crew had fired the three-inch gun many times in practice, but this was the first time at a live target. We had never been in a situation where someone might shoot back at us.

We surfaced at 0050 and manned all guns. In addition to the three-inch we had the 20-mm, the 30 calibers, and two Tommy guns. The first shell in the 3 inch was a misfire; what an awful time for that to happen. The target was about 1000 yards away and we were heading straight for it.
While we moved toward the target the 20-mm gunner was firing at will. When our gun was clear and re-loaded, Mack and I trained on the target and the sight setter gave the word to fire. The first shell went through the wheelhouse; the second hit below the deck and ripped a big hole. The 20's were raking the vessel from bow to stern. The next 3-inch shell hit the engine and exploded as fire broke out amidships. Our soundman picked up the noise of a set of screws; we left the area in a hurry."

JCC

Beery

06-24-07 01:16 PM

Quote:

"The three-inch gun crew included the trainer, pointer, sight setter, first loader, hot shell man, second loader, and several ammunition passers...

As I've said before, the minutiae of the operation is unhelpful and potentially very misleading indeed. What we need is an average number of seconds it took from loading one shell to loading the next while a sub crew was loading a gun in actual combat, and we need data measured over a long enough period so that we can be sure that the ready-use ammo locker is not an issue. WE ALREADY HAVE SUCH DATA and that data is what RFB's ROF is based on. I don't know why it is so controversial or difficult to understand that RFB's deck gun ROF is based PURELY on real world gunnery engagements measured TO THE MINUTE (from opening fire to checking fire) by real world WW2 sub crews. A ROF measured in that way cannot be wrong - it's not open to false interpretation and is not called into question by details about the minutiae of loading a gun. It is a true combat ROF, period.

We know actual average reload speeds for some WW2 crews in combat (e.g. Nautilus - 28 seconds, Wahoo - 23 seconds, U-552 - 50 seconds). More data is always helpful but it must be data that gets us a range of accurate figures. Details of crew numbers, heights of breeches, distances from ammo stores to the breech, time required between placing shells into the breech and firing, what finger a man uses to scratch his nose between handing one shell off to the next man and collecting another from the previous man - all of these things are irrelevant because the information they impart cannot possibly be used to give us a reliable or accurate ROF.

Look, it's as simple as this. If I want to find out how long it takes for me to shower in the morning I don't need to know the volume of water that my shower head outputs, I don't need to know how long it takes for the water to get hot after turning on the tap. I don't need to know how long it takes me to pour out the shampoo onto my hand, how much shampoo I use or how long it takes to massage it into my hair. I don't need to know how far the soap is away from me or how far my right hand moves during the entire process of showering. All I need to do is take a watch and note the time I turn on the tap and note the time I finish towelling myself off. The difference in time is the time it takes to shower. It's a similar method when it comes to combat rates of fire - all we need to know is the start and end time and how many rounds were fired.

Stew U-582

06-24-07 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beery

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew U-582

I disagree with your opinion about TC not being unrealistic. for one you are completley removing the factor of fatigue on the player. Surley you cannot deny that these factors woulld affect the judgement of a captain that has been at sea for an extended period of time.

Time compression has no bearing on that because it can be simulated by playing when one is tired - as many of us do. Many of us play when we should be getting some much needed sleep - often that's the only time we CAN play, so fatigue is probably just as much a part of running an RFB simulation as it is of commanding a real WW2 sub. Besides, a real sub captain at sea has officers who are well-rested doing his job when he's getting his rest. We don't have that option, but we can simulate all those things whether TC is used or not.

Anyway, in reality a good captain would ensure that he was well rested even after long periods at sea - that is part of his job. It's not as if US sub crews had no bunks or showers. It's a poor navy indeed that doesn't ensure that its crew (including its commanders) are trained in ways that allow them to work at peak efficiency. But the reality of the issue is that some commanders were always well-rested while others rarely were - the reality is varied and so our ability to simulate it is not affected all that much. But for the times when a commander would be operating when tired we have the ability to simulate that - even when using time compression. One way to do it is to play while we're actually fatigued (I'm an insomniac and I often play until 4am and spend days or weeks getting 4 hours sleep per night, so to suggest my use of TC makes me unable to simulate fatigue is somewhat ironic - personally I probably have the opposite problem); another way to simulate excess fatigue or excess impetuosity is to play after consuming a beer or two, which cuts down reaction times and affects judgment. In my opinion it's a mistake to suggest we're incapable of doing these things due to using time compression. The average simulation enthusiast is intelligent enough to realise that his mental and physical state affects the validity of the simulation and a lot of discussions about simulation gaming revolve around the best ways to accurately simulate the situations the simulations portray.

Time compression, as I said before, has no bearing on realism because:

1. the crew always experiences time at 1:1.

2. How the player simulates the activities of a captain is up to the player - time compression has no influence at all on how realistically the player chooses to roleplay his character.

In short, your criticism has no validity because it's predicated on the notion that we don't know how to use our own situation to aid in enhancing a good simulation. Users of simulations aren't newbies at this simulation business - in 20+ years of simulation gaming many of us have turned simulation gaming into an art form - often we have a lot of experience in timing our simulation sessions to take advantage of our mental and physical state and thus creating a more realistic simulation. When we ought to be fresh and alert we play on weekend mornings (that's when I start a new career); when we need to be tired we play after the rest of the family has gone to bed and we push into the small hours.

Ok I submit. your logic is outstanding.

I bet youve never had any trouble with the police , I reckon you could talk your way out of a murder even if you got caught leaning over a body with a bloody knife in your hand.

Anyway I say again I wasnt trying say your times were wrong I was just trying to give crawlerz an option. as in his original post I allso didnt voice my opinion verry well.

Thanks Beery, for all your attention to detail , its good to know there is a mod that accuratly simulates historical accuracy. to tell the truth I have several installs of SH4 and RFB is one that gets played often , with your deck gun load times , unchanged ,as you have modified them.

Stewart

CaptainHaplo

06-24-07 10:35 PM

Ok I cant help but jump in here. First off - Beery - thank you for RFB and the HOURS of work that have gone into it - not only by you but by the others that allowed you to use their mods as well. They get my thanks as well.

My second point is this - RFB has a heck of a readme to it. If you are one of the "1%" crowd that like or dont like certain aspects of the mod - Beery took the time to let you know exactly what file changed what. This lets you get rid of any specific aspect of the mod you don't like - including going back to stock ROF and/or damage. I admit - I took RFB and made a my own change to it - I like the "stevens" stopwatch - so the one included with RFB went by the wayside. Twas easy as the change was documented.

Instead of anyone beating up on hard working modders - take the time to read a bit about what their mod does, and either apply it as is or make the necessary changes to it to suit you.

There are not many modders out there who will tell you that your not allowed to further change their stuff - especially if your not re-releasing the mod under your name. That is because we release stuff so that people can enjoy it! So take what you dl and appreciate it - modify it as you want - and enjoy - but dont get upset because some small portion isnt how you would have done it. Easier to just change it to fit your style and be glad someone else did alot of work so you could.

Von Tonner

06-25-07 05:37 AM

With all due respect Beery, I think Channing was simply giving evidence that your reply to a fellow poster that:

" Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine." Beery

is patently incorrect.

Oh, and the time you take in the shower - you can cut the time down by having someone hand you the soap when needed.:D

Pablo

06-25-07 06:10 AM

Hi!

I am SO glad you folks don't have anything pressing in the real world so you can spend all this time on "SH4 Trivial Pursuit"

:rotfl:

Pablo

Torpex752

06-25-07 06:18 AM

While I agree that it requires more intellect than a standard Bucket Brigade, I must assure you that there was designated and trained crewmen on the WQSB who's job it was to form a line to the gun. Its been noted in the books such as "Thunder Below", "War in the boats", and "Silent Running" to name a few.

Frank
:cool:

PepsiCan

06-25-07 06:41 AM

So, the conclusions are...

1) Beery has managed to come up with a fab, well researched mod

2) People who do not like aspects of that mod, can freely delete them

3) Whatever the true rate of fire for the deckgun is, the stock SH4 game does not model it well with its magic gyro stabilisation and a rate of fire that is clearly higher than what was achieved in real life.

4) Let's all have fun with this now :-)

Beery

06-25-07 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torpex752

While I agree that it requires more intellect than a standard Bucket Brigade, I must assure you that there was designated and trained crewmen on the WQSB who's job it was to form a line to the gun.

Did anyone here ever say there wasn't?

My point was that it doesn't matter if there are ten such men. Calculating ROF doesn't require us to figure out how many men were handing shells off to the gunners. All we need is to use the timed gunnery engagements. It's not as if the submarine crews would lie about how long they spent firing their guns or how many shells they shot. Why would the crew of the Wahoo lie - especially when their average ROF seems so slow?

The fact is, no one knows how many men passed ammo to the gunners, but however many it was doesn't matter when we have figures that allow us to very easily calculate the rate of fire without delving into the minutiae of the guns' operation. I mean the entire crew of 50+ men could be up there forming a human chain from the ammo store to the gun - it still wouldn't change the fact that Wahoo's gun's average rate of fire was 23 seconds per round. It still wouldn't change the fact that Nautilus's ROF was 28 seconds per round. These are hard and fast numbers that we have from the crews themselves, recorded on the day the action took place by someone who had a watch and who recorded precisely the duration and the number of shells expended.

I mean to me at least it seems so incredibly simple and clear, at least to anyone who can look at the evidence objectively.

Beery

06-25-07 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Taken out of context. My post stated that there was no UNTRAINED bucket brigade. The term 'bucket brigade' itself refers specifically to UNTRAINED men lined up to pass buckets. My post goes on to say:

Quote:

...Deck gun crews were limited by regulations that strictly denoted who was allowed to handle shells and by regulations limiting the number of people on deck so that a sub could prepare to dive as fast as possible. Sure, it seems quite reasonable to the average guy who doesn't think about such things very much that you could pass a 50lb weight around quite fast if you had 20 people on deck to do it, but you can't just go around crewing subs and assigning work with the mentality of a simple-minded horse. Even though they may weigh the same, a 4" shell is quite a bit more dangerous than a large sack of potatoes, and a surfaced submarine is always in mortal danger from air attack, so unless you have a death wish you don't let untrained men toss around ammunition willy-nilly...

Clearly my point is NOT that there were not trained crewmen handing off rounds. My point was that there wasn't a line of untrained men between the ammo and the gun.

But let's assume the worst of me for a second - let's assume that I'm lying about everything (after all I'm sure we could find a good few people on the forums willing to voice their opinion that I'm an accomplished liar, a blackguard and arrogant to boot). But even if I was lying and trying to cover up for making a false statement, it still wouldn't change the fact that the number of men passing ammo makes no difference to the times we already have for gunnery engagements. The timed engagements already take the number of ammo-passers into account. Plus, the rates of fire we have found are not made up by me, so assuming I'm a liar doesn't make them any less valid. The info is readily available in the book entitled 'USS Wahoo (SS-238)' in the series 'American Submarine War Patrol Reports' (readily available from Amazon.com)on pages 75 and 85. Anyone can look up this info, so it's not subject to my nefarious lies.

Your post is a great example of the main problem that the critics of RFB's deck gun have - they take things out of context and make assumptions about the info that doesn't bear scrutiny. This is the case with the '10 rounds per minute' info that's taken out of context from textbooks - the critics wed themselves to this number and they simply won't budge no matter how much contrary evidence is stacked up against it. I mean in this thread and others I've shown beyond any reasonable doubt that real subs in combat fired only between two and three rounds per minute, yet the critics are still saying "Oh, but they had lots of men passing the ammo" as if that proves that the folks on the Wahoo who reported firing at an average rate of one round per 23 seconds were somehow lying or mistaken. I mean it's REALLY simple - you just take the duration of the action from the order to open fire until the order to check fire and you divide the number of rounds into it. It's not a difficult calculation that's prone to error - even the average pre-teen can do it successfully.

Beery

06-25-07 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Instead of anyone beating up on hard working modders - take the time to read a bit about what their mod does, and either apply it as is or make the necessary changes to it to suit you...

The thing is, it seems that's not enough for some folks. The problem seems to be that they want me to sign off on their changes as if I'm some kind of final authority on realism, or they want to pull me down a peg or two because they've decided that they don't like the fact that they've set me up as an authority and they get annoyed that I choose to defend my calculations in a spirited manner (I guess the notion is that if I sincerely think my calculations are valid I should not defend them - pretty weird). As for me being an authority on anything, heck, my personal principles are based on the idea that authority is distasteful - I've never claimed any kind of authority - no one will ever see me state that I'm the 'leader' of the RFB mod team - I just assemble the mod and publish it. It's not even based purely on my version of what's realistic - many people have input and I rely on their judgment a lot (i.e. CCIP's torpedo mod - I don't know a thing about torpedoes but I know that CCIP is fully committed to realism so I know I can trust him to produce as realistic a mod as possible) and if an issue is unclear the whole subsim community can start discussing it at will. To assume that I exert some kind of authority is to assume that I'd accept a leadership role and I would not. Sure, I have the final say on what gets included in RFB, but that's the same with any mod's publisher, and everyone is free to publish mods.

I think that the false idea that I represent some kind of arbiter of what's realistic is where a lot of these arguments come from. I mean if it was as simple as just the need to change the gun ROF they would surely do it as you've suggested. But I think they feel a need to have their desires vindicated by demolishing the rate of fire that I've calculated and they just get more and more frustrated when they can't do it.

All I do is make calculations based on what I read and what other folks tell me, then I make a mod based on the best knowledge I have. Then I defend the changes I make using the best arguments I can muster. If I'm wrong the argument will fall apart, as it did when I was arguing the 30 seconds per round issue and Kikn79 came along proving that subs in combat could fire 180 rounds at 23 seconds per round. But even though I do change my opinion when it's shown to be wrong, the act of making a spirited defence often seems to make others feel that I'm arrogant - it also seems to make them think I'm exerting some sort of authority. But all I'm doing is what everyone should do when they believe something to be factual - defending it as strongly as possible. In my view anyone who doesn't do that doesn't deserve to have an opinion.

Sailor Steve

06-25-07 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

My second point is this - RFB has a heck of a readme to it. If you are one of the "1%" crowd that like or dont like certain aspects of the mod - Beery took the time to let you know exactly what file changed what. This lets you get rid of any specific aspect of the mod you don't like - including going back to stock ROF and/or damage. I admit - I took RFB and made a my own change to it - I like the "stevens" stopwatch - so the one included with RFB went by the wayside. Twas easy as the change was documented.

That is exactly why I have always praised the original RUB for SHIII so highly; I used select parts of it, which was easy to do as every single change was precisely documented, telling exactly which file was changed for each mod. I wish every large mod came with such exacting directions.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Page 5 of 17

Last »

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page