[Beery]

How could I have missed this thread?

Regarding the German propaganda film, they show a deck gun firing two rounds in succession in about 5 seconds. Sorry to disappoint but this proves nothing other than that a boat with two rounds at the gun could fire those rounds in 5 seconds. We already know that, but that doesn't refute RFB's deck gun rate of fire.

Sure there was a ready-use ammo container and sure, rounds could be fired at a fast pace from this store. BUT it only contained 5-10% of the boat's deck gun ammo. The other thing is, this is a propaganda film - they're going to show a high rate of fire because that is effective cinema, but showing a gun firing at a fast rate does not prove anything more than that a gun COULD be fired at a fast rate. We already know that. The film doesn't show that the gun was being aimed at anything - it only shows it being fired fast and the film is cut together to give the impression that there's a target out there and to give the impression that that high rate of fire could be sustained.

What we need to know is how fast the deck gun could be fired under combat conditions where the crew has to supply the gun beyond the limits of the ready-use ammo store and where the gun has to be aimed at something, where rangefinding and adjustments in aim have to take place while the boat is pitching and rolling. This propaganda film does what propaganda films are meant to do - convince us by trickery that the fantasy they're showing us is factual.

The only evidence we can rely on is evidence from logbooks that were written at the time which timed engagements and listed the number of shells expended. If anyone who disputes RFB's rate of fire has such evidence they should present it and further the debate. If not they should shut up.

Anyone can say RFB's rate of fire is wrong. Hell, they can say the moon is made of pink blancmange. But we need proof, not opinion. We need a timed engagement where 40+ shells were fired from a WW2 sub's single deck gun with a start and end time for the engagement. We need at least 40 shells because we need to counteract the effect of the ready-use ammo container - because SH4 doesn't permit two separate reload rates for the two ammo stores. Anything less than a timed engagement in which 40+ shells were fired is a waste of everyone's time.

The best info I have right now from a US sub is an engagement from USS Nautilus's logbook. It doesn't quite meet the criteria I've set (it involves too great a proportion of ready-use ammo) but I think it is useful:

"0703 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on Ukiangong Point area on
Makin Island. Covered area by shifting sights in range and deflection.
0711 M Checked fire.
0716 M August 17, 1942, commenced firing on ship anchorage area of
Makin Island. Radio spotting circuit was jammed or ineffective. Covered
area as thoroughly as possible by shifting sights in range and deflection
as necessary.
0723 M Checked fire, a total of 65 rounds of ammunition
having been expended."

That's 65 rounds in 15 minutes from two guns. That's 28 seconds per round per gun where the gun was not being aimed properly and where rangefinding and proper adjustments in aim could not be done. Around 40 of those rounds (20 per gun and nearly 2/3rds of the ammo fired) would have come from the ready-use ammo stores by the guns, so a longer engagement would have resulted in a slower rate of fire. Also, the rate of fire stated here does not take into account preparing the gun to fire. Still, the rate of fire in this engagement confirms RFB's rate of fire. Nautilus' crewmen reload their guns three seconds slower than RFB crewmen reload their 5" gun. Far from showing that RFB's reload rate is too slow this indicates that RFB's reload rate is TOO FAST.

We need more info to get RFB even more accurate. I imagine that further data will result in reducing the RFB deck gun's rate of fire to about 40 seconds per round.