about the real fleet boat mod...

[PULSEOX]

I think everyone's tired of this "debate."
If you like the mod like I do-then use it-if you don't like it Don't use it!
Are we arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[tater]

In stock SH4, the max ROF will ALWAYS be the average. Set the gun to fire as an autocannon, and people will mash down the trigger til the taregt sinks.

If it's 8rpm, they will shoot (and likely hit) with 8 rounds per minute.

Your arguement works both ways. So yes, the average is an AVERAGE combat ROF. Not the max ROF bolted to concrete at the range next to the factory (which is what the spec value is).

Even if the gun could fire 6 rpm at sea on a sub if they were unconcerned with aiming, had no jams or misfires, etc, ad nasuem, we cannot set the value in game to 6 rpm because the guns are so easy to shoot (and hit with).

So again, take some engagement from RL that took 30 minutes. Make a mission that copies it as best you can. Get the tweaker out and mod the ROF to the right spec value (or whatever you like). Play the mission a few times.

Does yours take 30 minutes expending 90 rounds and hitting with 60 (or whatever it was in RL?). No, I'd wager you'd sink the target in 3 minutes, and be safe underwater before any help could arrive for the target.

No one is arguing that the actual ROF is equal to the average, people are arguing that such a figure results in realistic outcomes.

You are arguing about the exact color of the bark on a single tree without seeming to notice the discussion is about the forest.

BTW, it's moot since kv29's mod will mkae shooting so much harder ROFs will drop anyway.
tater

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Xelif

There you go.

And if you're looking for the phrase "rapid fire", you aren't going to find it in a patrol log, I'd wager. Much more likely to find something indicating the crew was taking SLOWER than normal to fire, as I'm sure a skipper wanted the gun crew to fire as fast as possible by default, without being instructed.

X,

Nautilus 6 inch gun fires semi fixed ammo. It comes in two pieces

105 lbs projectile and 44 lbs charge.

THe 5 inch mark 17 sub mounted weapon fires semi fixed ammo too. But it comes in much smaller pieces. Totalling the both pieces together would be only 80 lbs. The 5 inch has a semi auto breech and was an AA gun. Posted rate of fire from navweaps.

6 to 7 for the 6"

and

15 t0 20 for the 5"

The 6 inch should be slower. Alot slower.

So if that is the case then no such order of rapid fire would be needed.

Here ya go.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/nautilus3.htm

The nautilus' whacky encounter with a convoy and a 9,000 ton merchant.

"2352 K Ordered gun one to commence firing. Hit continuously after first shot and ordered rapid fire."

[tater]

So they fires with a 6 inch deck gun for an hour and 9 minutes to no effect?

Actually, that is a useful lesson in reality. The gun was capable for some rate of "rapid fire" in theory. In practice, the hoist breaks, and they have to bucket brigade the ammo up (and the 2d gun didn't even try to fire because of a broken hoist), dropping the ROF such that they fire for over an hour to get the target burning (1 hour, 18 minutes after they started according to the log).

As for the DP role of the gun, that's on a surface combatant. A single 5" gun, even with the very good VT fused shells would be utterly ineffective as an AA weapon.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by tater

So they fires with a 6 inch deck gun for an hour and 9 minutes to no effect?

Actually, that is a useful lesson in reality. The gun was capable for some rate of "rapid fire" in theory. In practice, the hoist breaks, and they have to bucket brigade the ammo up (and the 2d gun didn't even try to fire because of a broken hoist), dropping the ROF such that they fire for over an hour to get the target burning (1 hour, 18 minutes after they started according to the log).

What report did you read?

No effect?

The ship was set on fire forced to try and ram presenting a perfect shot under 500 yards and one added torpedo hit sent a 9,000 ton ship to the bottom.

That was 18 minutes Tater not 1 hour and 18 minutes.

"2352 K Ordered gun one to commence firing. Hit continuously after first
shot and ordered rapid fire. After ten shots forward ammunition hoist
became inoperative. Ordered ammunition up through gun access hatch and ordered tubes reloaded. By 0001 K had once again obtained good firing
position and tried to fire number 4 tube - misfire.

0003 K Fired number 2 tube - misfire.

0005 K Tried with no luck to fire number 4 tube. At this point target
speeded up, turned toward us and tried to ram, causing NAUTILUS to back
emergency, cleared by about two hundred yards. She then showed us a port angle on the bow and while firing and hitting with six inch gun at 0007
fired number two tube which torpedo hit.

0010 K Target was observed to be going down by the stern, streaming oil
and on fire amidships and aft. Also they had abandoned ship, two of
their life boats were within 50 yards of us."

Originally Posted by tater

As for the DP role of the gun, that's on a surface combatant. A single 5" gun, even with the very good VT fused shells would be utterly ineffective as an AA weapon.

Tater you missed the point. The point is the weapon was 5 inch DP and designed as an AA weapon too. AA weapons are designed for speed. Right???

[tater]

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.

[NEON DEON]

I do not disagree with your AA capability assessment of the 5 inch gun. Never did. Never once wanted it to fire it as an AA weapon. The speed is what I refer to on the 5 inch 25.

Earlier in the same patrol. The Nautilus engaged a 1,000 ton Patrol craft in high seas at 5,000 yards and sank her with gunfire in 13 minutes. Yet ----------
I hear it should take much longer to do that and no way can you fire from a sub and sink a ship from that distance in high seas.

The Nautilus attacks a 9,000 ton ship with gunfire and one torpedo and sinks her in 18 minutes. Yet ----------------------

I hear from the anti gun patrol that a sub would not attack a ship that big on the surface with gunfire.

Tater in almost every post I have made I have said the situation dictates the ROF.

A sub did not fire as fast it could all the time in a gun engagement, if that was the case otherwise, then there would be no reason for a RAPID FIRE order. I have shown you just a few posts ago the rapid fire order does indeed exsist.

You cant put aside a point blank engagement. That goes to combat situation.

Yes Tater people have argued the average issue. DId you not see the earlier posts?

The outcome of a gun engagement and its correspondance to RL is not clear for all situations. The guns are different the situations are different and the ship conditions are different.

I point once again to the Nautilus sinking the PC in 13 minutes in high seas from 5,000 yards.

I was very clear that it was a combined attack and yes the 9000 ton ship was credited to the Nautilus and so was the PC. In fact, the letter from sub Squadron leader to the Pacific sub commander he points out how pleased he was in reference to the use of the guns to sink enemy shipping.

Guess its time to give my opinion on changes in the deck gun.

Yes I believe a stability mod would make a much better choice Than a overinflated rate of fire because it gives you back choice to at least try.

Combine that with a smaller increase in ROF and subtract some damage from the projectiles in accordance with their size plus increase merchant and escort AI in gun battles and arm almost every thing with deck guns faster.

That should put a crimp on the number of close in engagements and make it real hard to beat a destroyer if not impossible. And, since the close in engagemnents would be much harder you have to fire at a longer distance which means you would need to get a little lucky to hit the ship at the waterline.

And with a lot more armed merchants running around with better AI ratting it would make people who play dead is dead think twice about engaging in a gun battle.

[Rockin Robbins]

Holy cow Neon, you're using a ship sunk by a torpedo as evidence for effectiveness of a gun. You've sunk your own boat there. Discussion over. It's Miller time!

[Palidian]

This is where training or experience comes in, the French old guard could fire their flint lock muskets at 6 rounds a minute, under fire. The great and powerful Beery, in his mod states the *best* anyone can do is one round every 30 seconds, for a gun that loads in 6 seconds.


Keep in mind he advertised a “real fleet boat”, and the best outcome, trained crew, moored up in dry dock would be 8 rounds a minute, this is not possible in Beery's mod, the best is two rounds. This makes his mod not quite as *real* as he lets on to believe. This is not an accurate simulation, and not actually *real*

Some would call it fraud.

Oh and by the way I have a Remingtion 1858 and a Colt Walker, you load kinda fast.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

In the movie Glory there is a wonderful scene in which several soldiers are praising one of their fellow on his ability to load and fire that very weapon quickly and accurately. His commander then has him do it again, except this time said Colonel pulls his revolver and starts firing it right by the poor guy's ear. With dropped bullets and constant fumbling, his firing time goes way down. I've shot a bolt-for-bolt replica of that .58 cap-and-ball weapon myself. I can do it in about 20 seconds. With people shooting back, and having to account for combat nervousness, I doubt it.

Absolute load-and-fire rates and real-world combat fire rates are two different things entirely. You're "I know better than you" put-downs and links to sites we all know are less than useful.

If you really want to contribute something worthwhile, I'm still waiting for your calculations on how far battleships move when they fire. If not, then try adhering to the old adage: "Lead, follow, or stay out of the way".

[Palidian]

If you would like I have a Brown Bess and an Enfield three band, if you want to come out to Arizona land, I can show you how to fire 6 rounds a minute.

You are correct however the rate of fire if 8 per minute, is perfect world, that number is not even possable is Beery's mod, its not even close.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not at all, but 20 seconds is about the fastest time recorded for anyone to load and fire one, and combat situations tend to change everything. The Civil War is full of stories of soldiers loading and firing for some time, only to find the first one misfired and they didn't even notice the lack of recoil, which lead to checking the gun later and finding five or six charges and balls in the barrel, all unfired. On a different note, combat firing times from units firing in ranks were also slower, because the commander didn't order "Fire!" until the slowest man had loaded and presented.

Me? I think Navweaps is a fantastically useful site. Some of the numbers even come from my favorite source, John Campbell's Naval Weapons Of World War Two. The problem is that absolute maximum reload times are derived in 'perfect world' situations, and as I said above, combat changes everything, and always for the worse.

And I'm still waiting for your calculations showing what combat reload times should be, since you seem to think Morton's actual combat report for Wahoo is unreliable.

[Palidian]

However Berry makes some assumptions... that both guns were firing, and both guns were able to fire at all times. This pesty conning tower gets in the way. He also makes the assumption that they were orderd to fire as fast as possable. Beery like making assumptions.

However the 6" gun is much different then the 4" and 5" guns. The 6" gun had a rate of fire of 6 RPM, this is would bring the 4" and 5" guns in that engagement to 21 seconds. This is still 2/3s of Beery's *real* boat mod.

Originally Posted by Xelif

There you go.

And if you're looking for the phrase "rapid fire", you aren't going to find it in a patrol log, I'd wager. Much more likely to find something indicating the crew was taking SLOWER than normal to fire, as I'm sure a skipper wanted the gun crew to fire as fast as possible by default, without being instructed.

[Palidian]

Funny that is not how I read his post.....

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Holy cow Neon, you're using a ship sunk by a torpedo as evidence for effectiveness of a gun. You've sunk your own boat there. Discussion over. It's Miller time!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

Earlier in the same patrol. The Nautilus engaged a 1,000 ton Patrol craft in high seas at 5,000 yards and sank her with gunfire in 13 minutes. Yet ----------
I hear it should take much longer to do that and no way can you fire from a sub and sink a ship from that distance in high seas.

Where does it say he sank it, and in 13 minutes?

Attack No. 1 40-41 N 146-36 E
Sighted 1000 ton vessel at 0753 K on September 24, 1942 and dived. Made
battle surface after closing range to 8000 yards. Enemy vessel immediately turned toward submarine upon sighting us. Appeared to be a
patrol vessel so fire was opened at 4700 yards. Target kept closing for
first eight salvos, and then turned away and zigged wildly. Several hits
definitely observed by flying debris. At 0848 K sighted enemy patrol
plane and made quick dive leaving guns partially secured.

All it says is that they attacked and had trouble hitting, and dived almost an hour later when attacked by a plane. How many shots did they fire? Also, the attack started at 5000 yards, and closed.

The Nautilus attacks a 9,000 ton ship with gunfire and one torpedo and sinks her in 18 minutes. Yet ----------------------

I hear from the anti gun patrol that a sub would not attack a ship that big on the surface with gunfire.

Who says that? All anyone has said is that it takes a lot of shells to sink a ship that size. Most subs didn't have 6" guns.

"Anti-gun patrol"? You do like using insulting terms.

I point once again to the Nautilus sinking the PC in 13 minutes in high seas from 5,000 yards.

Again, where is the 13 minutes and where is the sinking?

As to the 9000-tonner, "rapid fire" is an order to fire as fast as possible (obviously). He points out that the range was now 600 yards (point-blank in the summary report), so there was no need to aim the gun-they were'nt likely to miss. That kind of shooting is great, once in a while. The problem, again, is any kind of adverse condition.

The problem has been all along that the gun in the game fires at that rate no matter what the conditions.

@Palidian: disagreeing is nice. Calling people a "fraud", and saying they "like to make assumptions" is not. Please play nice.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where does it say he sank it, and in 13 minutes?

Attack No. 1 40-41 N 146-36 E
Sighted 1000 ton vessel at 0753 K on September 24, 1942 and dived. Made
battle surface after closing range to 8000 yards. Enemy vessel immediately turned toward submarine upon sighting us. Appeared to be a
patrol vessel so fire was opened at 4700 yards. Target kept closing for
first eight salvos, and then turned away and zigged wildly. Several hits
definitely observed by flying debris. At 0848 K sighted enemy patrol
plane and made quick dive leaving guns partially secured.

All it says is that they attacked and had trouble hitting, and dived almost an hour later when attacked by a plane. How many shots did they fire? Also, the attack started at 5000 yards, and closed..

You might want to read the whole patrol report Steve.

This is what the log says from it the day it happened:

"0835 K Ship turned and headed for us at a range of about 5000 yards.
Decided he was undoubtedly a patrol vessel and was probably armed.
Opened both hatches and commenced firing both six inch guns (attack #1).
He then turned away and started zigzagging. We had difficulty getting on
at first due to high seas. One man was almost washed overboard on gun 2.
However, by 0845 K we were close making straddles and many hits were
made. Splashes could be seen caused by flying debris.

0848 K Enemy plane sighted distant 4 miles heading for us as we noticed
patrol vessel seemed to be sinking by stern. (Plane contact #1). Radar
showed plane at 3 / miles. Guns were partially secured and at 0850 K
submerged to 100 feet."


13 minutes unless you believe they kept firing while it was sinking then you could say 15.

Yes 5000 yards was the start of the engagement and at 4700 yards the target turned away.

Thanks for pointing that out Steve. Looks like it took 3 minutes to sink it after they had zeroed in!

[Liveshot]

Umm so, for three days I've been trying to read this threat but frankly its just pissing me off.

Im a newb so here's what *I* know. Even if you're right about the ROF being too slow in RFB, you can't duplicate the other 9,000 variables that apply in the SH4 universe (boat rock, true damage effects of shells, simplified damage models).

Beery and tater have put a lot of time and energy in their mods....

So here is my suggestion:

Send me an email when YOU ARE DONE MAKING YOUR MODS.

We'll review them and argue till we're all blue in the face about how you F*&(ed up some value and you should be crucified for doing the best you could with what you had to work with.... Oh and then we'll post repeatedly on it trying to prove how you should be ashamed for being such an idiot to compromise and settle on a reasonable value to (as best you can) return a more realistic result.

When you're done whining about these guys hard work... why don't you call Ubi.. until then, cry elsewhere.

Thank you guys for your hard work...

LS