Oh good point.

My bad. Sorry.

:/\\k:

Thats correct, then the Reports used (Wahoo & Nautilus) maybe shouldnt be included either because they are transcribed, not actual scans.

Actually the 200+ vets I've taken notes on, I do plan on writing a collection someday, the main reason I did what I did was to gather information. Like I said its been the collective work of 20+ years as I lived in the submarine community.

I'm off on vacation, so take it easy all I'll be back on the 4th. :)

Frank
:cool:

Blimey! I'm amazed at the ways people choose to rationalize away the facts that don't fit their agenda. What next - will we be discounting evidence because it was written in blue ink and not black? I mean how far beyond ridiculous does this need to get?

I'm just gonna put a couple of these guys on my ignore list. That will save me some time and if they post anything substantial I'm sure one of the RFB users will let me know.

Nope.

Provide me with data to make a resonable analysis.

Bad math is not a solution and can not be equated as being better than no math.


PS.

Beery,

I will give you my opinion on a possible solution to the deck gun dilema(will take a bit of time).

What I am not going to do is provide you with a formula based on the data at hand. It is just not enough to do so in a way that would work.

However, if I was forced to do so, ;) then I would half your average reasoning that some shots would be fired longer and some shorter based on the situation at hand and that would not limit you to firing at a derived mandatory average. Not accurate. Sure. Any less accurate than your method. Nope. This way you have a reasonable chance of making the reported average ROF for a gun engagement.

Not my actual solution tho.:D

Thats it !

Im downloading the rapid fire mod tonight ! :p

It's important to recognize the goal of RFB wrt the deck gun. The goal is not that instantaneously it is spot on, but that the end result of the engagement is as close as SH4 will do. (assuming I read Beery right, my apologies if I'm wrong)

You must consider:

1. the ease of use of the deck gun.
2. the DM of the target ships (can be modded, but is extremely complicated compared to ROF)
3. the damage done by the gun (can also me modded)

The end result should be that if you wrote out a combat report, you could have an engagement that looked like it was real. If every log of a battle surface looks like:

8:45 battle surface. Engaged 1700 ton maru at 3400 yards.
8:50 Cease fire, maru burning and going down by the stern. 30 rounds expended, 27 rounds hit.

something is wrong with the simulation whenthe best RL reports take 6 times longer to sink a boat half the size with 3 times the rounds fired.

That said, I'd tend to go with ROF figures slightly higher than an average to allow for some slop.

YMMV.

tater

Based on what evidence? This is surely just a figure pulled out of your hat. Half the average I'm putting into effect for RFB 1.29 is 11.5 seconds per shell. What sub in combat can be shown to have ever shot at that ROF? I've spent two years looking at submarine data for SH3 and SH4 and I've never seen any evidence that any sub's deck gun could fire anywhere near that fast. I have a number of timed engagements and the fastest is Wahoo with a maximum (not average) ROF of 17 seconds per shell - that ROF could not be sustained beyond 90 rounds. What evidence makes you think a sub in combat could fire faster even for a short period beyond the effect of the ready-use ammo?

This discussion is not about what's possible. It's about what can be proven. A lot of things are possible, but in terms of RFB we need to know what can be shown to have actually happened. Taking a number and saying 'I prefer this' is fine for playing a game, but if we're looking for realism we need to know what actually happened and try to make the simulation model a whole lot of real life occurrences. That means that when we write a combat report it falls in line with what we'd see in a real combat report. 11.5 seconds per round has never (as far as I know) been seen in any combat report - it's outside the range of what's been recorded. If I make deck guns fire at 11.5 seconds per round I'll be making a deck gun that fires faster than any sub ever recorded - a simulation that doesn't fall within the range of what actually can be shown to have happened is no simulation.

With RFB's deck gun set at 23 seconds per round we have a simulated deck gun that falls squarely within reported ROFs for real deck guns. Variances in crew quality even makes it possible to fire slower to match other combat reports giving us a range of ROF based on crew quality. RFB gives a range that is 100% within what was possible. If a mod gives a ROF that is below 17 seconds per round it is likely to be a fantasy ROF because it does not fit within the evidence that we see in real combat reports. Sure, it may be possible that it's right, but it's only possible that it's right in certain very unusual circumstances and only for a very elite crew indeed - one that never recorded its ROF - as such it is not suitable to use in a mod for a simulation where EVERY SINGLE SUB ever played is going to have a ROF faster than any recorded instance. Even when poor crew quality is factored in the ROF is faster than any recorded instance. That's no basis on which to build an accurate deck gun mod.

BTW, I'm pretty confident the time it took to RELOAD the weapon was far shorter that RFB has. OTOH, I'm also pretty confident that the ROF was not reloading-speed limited.

ROF is limited by the totality of combat with the gun. Endurance of the crew, conditions on deck, visibility, stability of the gun platform, etc.

I'll be very interested to see if the destabilized gun mod WIP is successful. If it is, I'd be inclined to test it at a "spec" (or close) ROF and see what the ROF looks like with a rolling, pitching deck. If that's true the reload time can be short, and the ROF will not change all that much from RFB.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The reload times were probably pretty good based on all the evidence that we've seen (ammo store proximity, "bucket brigades,etc) but once the gun was loaded, I have to imagine it'd take some time to range and target the gun on a rolling and pitching deck. I seriously doubt they were ready to fire as soon as the breech was closed, and I would bet that's what plays into the ROF times being slower than a pure reload and instantly fire situation would have been.

The problem with gun specs is not only that they don't take into account the stability of the gun platform. Specifications for a gun don't take into account a whole bunch of issues (including the gun stability issue that the destabilized gun mod addresses), so if the destabilized gun mod is successful the only factor to be removed will be the pitching and rolling of the deck, which should allow an increase in ROF by a couple of seconds. However there will still be the issues of getting the shells from the store to the gun, the slipperiness of the deck, ranging, spotting where rounds hit, giving orders, adjusting fire and crew fatigue to take into account. ROF Spec on these guns is something between 6 and 10rpm and the difference between that and 3rpm is pretty big - there's seven seconds per round difference between the slowest spec ROF and the fastest recorded ROF for a sub in actual combat. Don't get me wrong, the destabilization mod would help, but it won't get us all the way to the gun specifications.

On a related subject I just happened to go into the standard game and look at the unmodded ROF for the game's deck guns. 4 seconds per round for the 3" and 4" guns and 2.5 seconds for the 5"? What were the developers smoking? Those figures aren't even close to the official gun specs.

No its not maximum. It is the rate of fire for the entire engagement.

If you want to come up with any semblance of maximun then locate a log that states this:

Commenced rapid fire on target at 0700.

Ceased rapid fire at 0705.

Expended 13 rounds.

Now that would be proof of maximum rate of fire .

You have not shown that at all. You have shown AVERAGE.

Go back and look at the picture I posted and tell me where it would take a large amount of men to feed that gun from the scuttle. The locker is there to provide ammo to the gun as soon as possible. There is enough ammo there to supply the gun untill the chain is formed.

It is the situation that determines the ROF over the entire egagement.

The maximum rate of fire for the guns are recorded.

3 inch Wahoo gun 20 rounds a minute.

4 inch gun 9 rounds a minute.

6 inch gun 7 rounds a minute.

Thats the recorded maximum ROF of the guns.

What you give as evidence shows nothing of maximum rate.

Beery it is still fuzzy and it aint maximum no way no shape no form.

You entirely missed his point regarding "maximum."

He said it was the maximum ROF he's seen actually quoted in a RL log file. He never said it was the max ROF possible with the gun in any condition, just that it was the max ROF he's seem in u-boat and fleet boat logs. The figure is of course an average. So would a rapid fire excercise, actually. the only "pure" number would be the time between the lanyard being pulled and the next round firing.

So it's both an average, and a maximum because it's the highest recorded ROF available (so far to us) in a RL combat log.

I'm not wed to any particular value, but that seems pretty obvious to me.

That "maximum speed" of 17 seconds per round average over an engagement, is almost certainly a few rounds closer together in time, then a time interval, then another cluster of rounds fired. So what.

The test is simple. Mod the ROF yourself (it's easy enough to do), and within RFB (for consistancy) get in surface engagements. Log things like a real log. Do it a bunch of times, and don't slack off shooting, shoot the best you possibly can given the ROF you set. If the in-game logs exceed Wahoos (since that has some of the shorter times between rounds on average) by some great margin, you've made the ROF too fast.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.

I modded plane bomb loads. I have started a rework of various air groups. It is possible to make them pretty historical, but that would NOT be accurate given the game engine. CV airgroups need to be dumped from semi-realistic numbers that they are in game to zero, or maybe 2-3 planes TOTAL. Why? Because while the CVs carried many more than 2-3 planes, very very few were airborne at any given moment except for strike missions---at which point ALL would be in the air, and heading for a real target, not the player's sub. So the "forest" is for it to be generally realistic for the sub. People might concentrate on the "trees" and say that "Zuikaku should really carry 24 A6M, 18 Vals, and 18 Kates during that time period." They'd be specifically right, but in game, they'd be wrong.

tater

I have seen no logs that show maximum rate of fire and if there is one that really lists max rate, I would like to see em. No log I have seen makes it clear they are firing rapid as fast as possible.

It is the situation that dictates the rate of fire in an entire gun engagement not the average rate of fire of that engagement. If, during the course of the engagement, you zero in on the target, then you would commence rapid fire because you are on target. If you lose the target then you have to adjust your fire and you are not firing at the maximum for the gun.

However, if you use that average as the maximum for EVERY SHELL you fire during the engagement then you will never make that average unless you just hold down the fire button. Therefore you almost never achieve what you set out to do in the first place!

I am not saying change the mod. It is your choice to use or not use it.

The Wahoo engagement sure is nice. but no where does it state a begining and an end to rapid fire and the number of shells consumed during that period of time.

BTW.

The entire 3 inch shell is but 24 lBS!!!!!

No, because they likely didn't fire that way from a rolling, pitching submarine deck.

"Rapid fire" is a relative thing. Since both the sub and target are potentially moving, the fire must be constantly corrected unless they are steaming parallel. That means waiting for the shell to splash (or hit). At some of the longer ranges, the flight time is comparable to the best ROF (spec) time to ready the gun for the next round. If a sub was firing at extreme range, observing the shot could dominate the ROF.

What the logs show is a start time, a stop time, number of rounds fired/hit. Again, do a few experiments. Heck, use the stock guns and time yourself to whatever you think a realistic ROF is.

If it doesn't take you 20-30 minutes to sink a small frieghter (maybe a tug or somethign similarly "coastal frieghter" in size --- ~1000 tons), then something is wrong.

They were probably thinking... Damn if we only had a little more time ;)