SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

tater · 07-01-07, 12:25 AM

Mea culpa on the time. I misread.

How many rounds were expended in 18 minutes?
That would be some useful data. Seems like the torpedo did her in. At 6-7 rpm, you'd expect they put all but the first shot (assuming I read that right) into her. so 18*6=108 rounds, 107 hits? The upper limit would be 125 hits. How many rounds did she carry? Was a torpedo reall required after over 100 hits with a 6 inch gun at point blank range?

Do you understand how 5" DP guns were used in the AA role? Barrage fire. They were only effective (really the 5"/38s) because of the VT fuse (radar fused shells).

Yes, on a surface combatant they might be capable of sustained high rates of fire. Submarines are not surface combatants. They are abysmal gun platforms, and the gun was not intended to be used in an AA role on a submarine.

For barrage fire, the gun needn't be aimed very carefully, they were to blanket an area with shells. This means shovelling rounds in. AIMED fire is a very very different thing and would substantially alter the ROF. Subs were awful gun platforms.

As Beery has pointed out, it's not like a sub would take its time in a surface engagement, they 'd fire as many rounds as quickly as possible under the circumstances. You'd think if they actually fired 15-20 rpm on a 5" gun there'd be SOME log showing shells used that is even in the ballpark of 10 instead of none that show anything more than maybe 3 rpm.

I fully expect that actual ROFs were on the order of 4-5 rpm for many of these guns. In combat, aside from such point-blank engagements there would be periods where the gun didn't fire at all, which results in an average of more like 2-3 rpm over a gunnery engagement in a log entry.

Not a single person has argued that the ROF of the guns was equal to the average in the logs. no one. The point is that the logs are, well, the logs. We know how many rounds were expending in some period of time. Sure, the gun may not have been firing for half, or even more than half of the minutes in the log. Who knows. It;s telling that none of the logs show a count of rounds fired that even approaches the spec ROF for the gun. Find one, I'm willing to be convinced, I have no idea what the actual combat ROF was. No idea.

We know the boundry values of this problem. The upper limit is the factory max ROF, the lower limit is the worst log entry we have. Reality is someplace in between.

Regardless, the OUTCOME in RL was X rounds fired over a period of time resulting in a sinking or not. The time periods are always longer than ANYTHING we'd see in SH4 for the same engagement. That's what matters here. How many times did a handful of HE rounds sink a jap DD, for excample? Why did they waste torpedos on DDs in RL when they are so ridiculously easy to kill with the deck gun?

So again, the forest here is the outcome of gunnery engagements in SH4. If the guns in your version of what ROF should be can take on DDs on the surface and win, your version is WRONG. Doesn't matter if the ROF is right or not, the result is 100% wrong. If guns are useful enough to be used routinely on more than sampans... then they don't match RL where the vast majority of encounters never involved the use of deck guns. The largest vessel attributed as sunk by deck gun fire was not the large transport in you example, it was only like 3000 tons (look how many patrol tonnages got gutted after the war checking jap records, credits for 10,000 ton tankers reduced to 1000 ton coasters, etc).

Anyway, it's all moot. The gun destabilization mod seems to work. That will add a whole new moddable factor into the gunnery issue since range/aim/sea conditions will actually have some bearing on the hits per unit time, which they didn't just a day ago. So point blank shots with slow or unmoving boats will be "rapid fire" excercises, and harder taregts will be FAR harder to even hit, and you'll be waiting a roll or two of the hull every shot if you try and aim well.

I tested with the 4"50 and even with the ROF (really reload timing) set to 15 rpm (4 secnd reload like stock SH4), I was lucky to shoot at 7 rpm with the deck and gun actually moving.

07-01-07, 12:25 AM	#171
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Mea culpa on the time. I misread. How many rounds were expended in 18 minutes? That would be some useful data. Seems like the torpedo did her in. At 6-7 rpm, you'd expect they put all but the first shot (assuming I read that right) into her. so 18*6=108 rounds, 107 hits? The upper limit would be 125 hits. How many rounds did she carry? Was a torpedo reall required after over 100 hits with a 6 inch gun at point blank range? Do you understand how 5" DP guns were used in the AA role? Barrage fire. They were only effective (really the 5"/38s) because of the VT fuse (radar fused shells). Yes, on a surface combatant they might be capable of sustained high rates of fire. Submarines are not surface combatants. They are abysmal gun platforms, and the gun was not intended to be used in an AA role on a submarine. For barrage fire, the gun needn't be aimed very carefully, they were to blanket an area with shells. This means shovelling rounds in. AIMED fire is a very very different thing and would substantially alter the ROF. Subs were awful gun platforms. As Beery has pointed out, it's not like a sub would take its time in a surface engagement, they 'd fire as many rounds as quickly as possible under the circumstances. You'd think if they actually fired 15-20 rpm on a 5" gun there'd be SOME log showing shells used that is even in the ballpark of 10 instead of none that show anything more than maybe 3 rpm. I fully expect that actual ROFs were on the order of 4-5 rpm for many of these guns. In combat, aside from such point-blank engagements there would be periods where the gun didn't fire at all, which results in an average of more like 2-3 rpm over a gunnery engagement in a log entry. Not a single person has argued that the ROF of the guns was equal to the average in the logs. no one. The point is that the logs are, well, the logs. We know how many rounds were expending in some period of time. Sure, the gun may not have been firing for half, or even more than half of the minutes in the log. Who knows. It;s telling that none of the logs show a count of rounds fired that even approaches the spec ROF for the gun. Find one, I'm willing to be convinced, I have no idea what the actual combat ROF was. No idea. We know the boundry values of this problem. The upper limit is the factory max ROF, the lower limit is the worst log entry we have. Reality is someplace in between. Regardless, the OUTCOME in RL was X rounds fired over a period of time resulting in a sinking or not. The time periods are always longer than ANYTHING we'd see in SH4 for the same engagement. That's what matters here. How many times did a handful of HE rounds sink a jap DD, for excample? Why did they waste torpedos on DDs in RL when they are so ridiculously easy to kill with the deck gun? So again, the forest here is the outcome of gunnery engagements in SH4. If the guns in your version of what ROF should be can take on DDs on the surface and win, your version is WRONG. Doesn't matter if the ROF is right or not, the result is 100% wrong. If guns are useful enough to be used routinely on more than sampans... then they don't match RL where the vast majority of encounters never involved the use of deck guns. The largest vessel attributed as sunk by deck gun fire was not the large transport in you example, it was only like 3000 tons (look how many patrol tonnages got gutted after the war checking jap records, credits for 10,000 ton tankers reduced to 1000 ton coasters, etc). Anyway, it's all moot. The gun destabilization mod seems to work. That will add a whole new moddable factor into the gunnery issue since range/aim/sea conditions will actually have some bearing on the hits per unit time, which they didn't just a day ago. So point blank shots with slow or unmoving boats will be "rapid fire" excercises, and harder taregts will be FAR harder to even hit, and you'll be waiting a roll or two of the hull every shot if you try and aim well. I tested with the 4"50 and even with the ROF (really reload timing) set to 15 rpm (4 secnd reload like stock SH4), I was lucky to shoot at 7 rpm with the deck and gun actually moving.