[Beery]

Citing a British post-war sub as evidence of what could be expected on a WW2 German U-boat is just not convincing at all. If we're going to find out about German U-boats we need to find evidence that relates to German U-boats. I've done that. So why is it so difficult for my detractors to do the same?

I mean I've read of field guns, destroyer guns, and now post-war British subs. What next? Shall we hear about Japanese sub deck guns? None of these have any bearing on WW2 German U-boat deck guns because no other guns had the same specific issues that a WW2 German deck gun had. That's why we need to get our info ONLY from WW2 German U-boat data. Anything else is completely irrelevant.

The speed at which a gun crew can fire 10 rounds is completely useless info. It means nothing unless it's a speed that's good for the entire ammo supply, and unless it relates directly to battle conditions. Most speed tests relating to reloads are tests done in better-than-perfect conditions. I simply don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Plus, the British sub crewman says that there was no de-waterproofing. That only proves my point that sub types were very different. A German U-boat crew certainly did have to de-waterproof the gun, and if they forgot (which occasionally happened in the heat of the moment) it could result in crew casualties. This shows that if we want a realistic simulation we can't just ignore such things.

The SH3 Mod Team is never NEVER going to change the deck gun reload time unless compelling evidence is brought to light that shows that DECK GUNS (not field guns) on GERMAN (not English) U-boats routinely reloaded their ENTIRE AMMO SUPPLY OR A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF IT (not just 10 - 20 rounds) in less time than what RUb models. If people don't like that, then they can go elsewhere to find ways to make the game suit their preference. No one ever forces anyone to use the RUb mod.

What some people don't seem to understand is that in order for RUb to retain its clarity of focus it has to have a single vision. So the RUb mod is, in the final analysis, meant to appeal to one person only - me. A lot of people have input into it, and a lot of people give me advice, and I gladly take a lot of it - I sometimes even use mods that I don't really agree with or enjoy if I'm convinced that they are more realistic than the alternative. But the advice has to make sense to me. If I start compromising my own vision for the mod I believe it will become less popular, because no one wants a mod (or anything else) designed by a committee. A big reason for RUb's success is that it is solidly focused on one uncompromising interpretation of realism. Many people like that - they want to be challenged by a game that is as real as it can get without going back in time and joining the Ubootwaffe. Players who don't appreciate that focus and that vision can go elsewhere. Players who don't agree with RUb's interpretation of what's realistic, and who can't present an argument that sways me can do the same.