[WIP] Historical Guns Specs

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Here are a few suggestions. I will post more if I think of them:

...

Excellent
If I can make a criticims, I would just remove any mention to the fact that a gun is currently being tested, because our submarine could be exactly the one where the weapon is going to be tested, at the cost of a very high renown required, indeed

On a side note: should we add an equipment upgrdade option for removing the previosly fitted guns? The categories are: deckguns, light FlaKs (2cm C/30-C/38, single and twin) and heavy FlaKs (vierling and 3.7cm guns). No deckgun is the standard equipment for the VIIC/41, if I remember correctly, but there is currently no option for removing the deckgun from other U-boat types (unless, using Equipment Upgrades Fix, you replace it with a schnorkel). As for FlaKs, there is no way at all to remove them. Would adding this option be historically correct?

Originally Posted by keysersoze

The more I use the Goblin editor, the more impressed I am with the features that are implemented (or at least possible) in the game.

Yes, digging into SH5 files you will discover many bugged new features that devs probably gave up at the last moment, and some finished and working features that were poorly exploited, if used at all.

Originally Posted by keysersoze

It's too bad impact angle/armor penetration is not modeled, since I sometimes like to create ahistorical single missions to watch the fireworks between two battlefleets

I am not actually sure whether they are implemented or not. For sure, there is only one armor penetration setting for each shell in Shells.zon file, and no trace of an impact angle or range, to which the above AP setting would apply. The most complete description of how armor penetration and the damage model in general work in SHIV, is contained in this highly interesting thread:

http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic...eb8e981ed8c121

Unfortunately, it makes no mention of the factors we are discussing

Originally Posted by keysersoze

I have an interesting diagram of a US interwar armor penetration study if you want it.

yes please, share it
By the way, I while ago I have made my own diagram based on the AP figures I had available for the guns featured in game:



This graph is contained in an excel spreadsheet collecting all the information I have on SH5 guns. I had uploaded it here (BTW: Volodya, did you ever get it?),
but since then I have added some more information. If you like, I can send it your way

Originally Posted by keysersoze

One more question: Does the game include the MG151? It was not widely used, but, if I am understanding my sources correctly, it was used at least as often as the C/30 Flakzwilling.

No, unfortunately not. And since we are at it I will tell you that, though being among the other gun files, the twin M42 is broken.
In future we can try to add/fix these guns too, but at the moment I would stick to the ones currently featured in game.

[TheDarkWraith]

Originally Posted by gap

I am not actually sure whether they are implemented or not. For sure, there is only one armor penetration setting for each shell in Shells.zon file, and no trace of an impact angle or range, to which the above AP setting would apply. The most complete description of how armor penetration and the damage model in general work in SHIV, is contained in this highly interesting thread

yes and no. I received this from one of the devs long ago:

Instead of the currently four values governing damages (AmmoDamageInfo – Hitpoints, ArmorLevel, MinRadius, MaxRadius) we need a little more

• AP – Armor Penetration
• MinEF – Explosive Damage Factor – the HitPoints of old
• MaxEF -
• MinRange – as before, for calculating the damage done through explosion
• MaxRange – as before, for calculating the damage done through explosion

In the calculus below, we may also use the value “A”, being the armor value of the considered object.

A projectile will deal damage:

• Explosive damage (ED) – damage done by the explosion

ED = random (MinEF, MaxEF); will be modified for range as before.

Steps to check damage dealt by a projectile

• projectile hits object O in part P
• Penetration check
  • Penetration roll:

k = 0.2 – subject to change
x = random (-k;+k)
Pen = AP * [1 + x]
Pen > = A results in penetration

• If Penetration is successful: (else skip to 5)

4. Apply ED at point of impact, and skip to end; armor is ignored for penetrated object and all compartments inside it.
5. penetration was not successful:
6. apply explosion blast damage in impact point. Armor is considered as follows – for all objects in MaxRange, ED (corrected for range) is compared to 4 * A. If ED is greater, it is applied, to the object.

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

Excellent
If I can make a criticims, I would just remove any mention to the fact that a gun is currently being tested, because our submarine could be exactly the one where the weapon is going to be tested, at the cost of a very high renown required, indeed

You're right. I forgot about the possibility that we might be the ones aboard U758 who get to try out that beautiful new FlaK gun

Originally Posted by gap

On a side note: should we add an equipment upgrdade option for removing the previosly fitted guns? The categories are: deckguns, light FlaKs (2cm C/30-C/38, single and twin) and heavy FlaKs (vierling and 3.7cm guns). No deckgun is the standard equipment for the VIIC/41, if I remember correctly, but there is currently no option for removing the deckgun from other U-boat types (unless, using Equipment Upgrades Fix, you replace it with a schnorkel). As for FlaKs, there is no way at all to remove them. Would adding this option be historically correct?

Just to clarify: do you mean that it is currently not possible to remove a deck or FlaK gun and leave the equipment slot empty? I didn't realize this. If so, I think this would be absolutely essential for simulating the historical evolution of U-boat armaments. FlaKs would be less of a problem than deck guns, since BdU generally added more and more FlaK firepower, rather than reducing it. But after April 1943, no U-boat should have a deck gun unless it is operating in the Mediterranean or the polar regions and has obtained a "special" clearance from BdU.

Originally Posted by gap

I am not actually sure whether they are implemented or not. For sure, there is only one armor penetration setting for each shell in Shells.zon file, and no trace of an impact angle or range, to which the above AP setting would apply. The most complete description of how armor penetration and the damage model in general work in SHIV, is contained in this highly interesting thread:

http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic...eb8e981ed8c121

Unfortunately, it makes no mention of the factors we are discussing

The information in that thread and in TDW's post suggests the model is more complicated than I thought. Hmmm...this might be worth looking into once more pressing matters have been taken care of.

Originally Posted by gap

yes please, share it
By the way, I while ago I have made my own diagram based on the AP figures I had available for the guns featured in game:




This graph is contained in an excel spreadsheet collecting all the information I have on SH5 guns. I had uploaded it here (BTW: Volodya, did you ever get it?),
but since then I have added some more information. If you like, I can send it your way

Check your e-mail for the armor penetration information. That excel diagram looks great. I would like to have a copy if you don't mind

Originally Posted by gap

No, unfortunately not. And since we are at it I will tell you that, though being among the other gun files, the twin M42 is broken.
In future we can try to add/fix these guns too, but at the moment I would stick to the ones currently featured in game.

I feared as much. Anyway, the twin M42 and the MG151 are relatively unimportant in the bigger picture. Richard Stern says that only a few "very late VIICs received a twin M42, so we can deal with them when the time comes...first thing's first

[gap]

Originally Posted by TheDarkWraith

yes and no. I received this from one of the devs long ago:

...

Thank you for sharing TDW

two remarks:

1. from the pseudocode posted by you, it seems that SH5 AP calculations were greatly semplified. According to a post by Observer, in the aforementioned SubmarineSimCentral forum thread:
   
   

   How does the game engine know if the weapons AP is sufficient to penetrate the zone armor? It is based on several formulas below:
   Shells: Armor Penetration = (random number between 1-PT and 1+PT)*Shell AP + HP/ALF where
   PT = Penetration Threshold. This is defined in the zones.cfg in the [Global Params] section and is 20% for RFB
   Shell AP = the shell AP setting in the AmmoDamageInfo controller of the shells.ZON
   HP = a random number between the minimum and maximum HP setting in the AmmoDamageInfo controller of the shells.ZON
   ALF = Armor Leveling Factor. This is defined in the zones.cfg in the [Global Params] section and is 4 for RFB
   
   Example:
   PT = 20%
   ALF = 4
   Shell AP = 5
   MinEF = 1
   MaxEF = 3
   
   1. What is the maximum armor this shell will penetrate?
   Using the formula above: AP = (1+0.2)*5+3/4 = 6.75
   Therefore this shell will penetrate any armor less than 6.7 and cause damage at least part of the time. It won't penetrate this armor every time since the HP and PT are random numbers.
   
   2. What is the minimum armor this shell will always penetrate and cause damage?
   Using the formula above: AP = (1-0.2)*5+1/4 = 4.25
   Therefore this shell will always cause damage to anything with an armor setting of 4.2 or less every time a shell impacts the zone.

   This is relative to SH4 (involved parameters underlined). In SH5 only shell AP and a random x factor are apparently required. Talking about the latter, the dev that you had been in touch with, says that it is based over another k factor which is subject to change. I wonder if this is the same "Penetration Threshold" seen in the SH4 formula.
   
   
2. Neither in the SH4 formula nor in the SH5 one, range from target seems to be considered. MinRange and MaxRange are used for HP calculation (if the AP test is passed), and they are relative to distance from the hit point, sort of a balst effect radius, rather than range from the gun to the target

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

You're right. I forgot about the possibility that we might be the ones aboard U758 who get to try out that beautiful new FlaK gun

Can you please adjust the relevant note accordingly?

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Just to clarify: do you mean that it is currently not possible to remove a deck or FlaK gun and leave the equipment slot empty? I didn't realize this. If so, I think this would be absolutely essential for simulating the historical evolution of U-boat armaments. FlaKs would be less of a problem than deck guns, since BdU generally added more and more FlaK firepower, rather than reducing it. But after April 1943, no U-boat should have a deck gun unless it is operating in the Mediterranean or the polar regions and has obtained a "special" clearance from BdU.

I haven't ever gone that far in the campaign... for me, WWII ended on October or November '39, if I remember correctly . But for what I can see from the files, it seems to me that we have not such an option. Nonetheless, the C/41 has not deckgun set as standard equipment, so when we are assigned to command one of them, the deck is empty (dunno if it can accept a deckgun as upgrade though). Stick in mind that I am talking out of memory, so I can be in part wrong.

Honestly I can't remember if Equipment Upgrades Fix deals with this issue, but for sure I remember that it adds an option for no radar, so doing the same for the deckgun should be possible.

Now the point is that, according to the historical facts reported by you, the deckgun should be removed by default (i.e. by B.d.U. order) rather than being a decision by the Captain. I am not sure that the same can be done in game, but in UpgardePacks.upc there are some UnitUpgradePackIntervalOptionCurrent (similar to UnitUpgradePackIntervalOptions, used for setting upgrades availability dates and rreward cost) that I have always wondered what they are for. We can try messing with them, and see what happens

Originally Posted by keysersoze

The information in that thread and in TDW's post suggests the model is more complicated than I thought. Hmmm...this might be worth looking into once more pressing matters have been taken care of.

yes, that information will help us setting correctly weapon's zon files (it is: the damage they can do)

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Check your e-mail for the armor penetration information. That excel diagram looks great. I would like to have a copy if you don't mind

Got it, first rate stuff. I will have a close look to it. Thanks

I am now cleaning my spreadsheet, for increasing its legibility. I will send it to you in a few...

Originally Posted by keysersoze

I feared as much. Anyway, the twin M42 and the MG151 are relatively unimportant in the bigger picture. Richard Stern says that only a few "very late VIICs received a twin M42, so we can deal with them when the time comes...first thing's first

Yes, I agree. Talking about the twin M42 issue, it is weird: the gun model loads correctly in TDW's Editor, Granny Viewer and Goblin. I set it to be used as an upgrade in game, and after selecting it, the boat gets actually equipped with this huge FlaK. Everything seems as expected, but as soon as I walk close to the gun, I can't move anymore (same for the chracters around me), the screen gets full of waterdrops, and if I am in bunker, bunker sound switches to ocean ambient sound. Game seems freezed, but it isn't (time goes on)

Thinking that something was wrong in my settings, I kept them but I assigned another 3d gun. Result? Everything is normal, so the problem must be in gun's GR2 file or in one of its associated files, though lookig at them in Goblin Editor didn't show anything abnormal

P.S: please, don't forget this:

Originally Posted by keysersoze

I also noticed that you listed the 10.5 cm's rate of fire as 15 rpm. I can't reference Skwiot right now, but I seem to recall that he gives a small number, more like 8 rpm. I will double-check this.

[gap]

here's my gun data spreadheet:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?htnbngcyqwtu8ac

I post it here, in case someone wants to have a look at it

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

Can you please adjust the relevant note accordingly?

All I can think of right now is to remove the offending line. I will let you know if I think of any pithy historical comments for the descriptions. Here's the edited version:

The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, this is the most effective weapon of its caliber available in the Kriegsmarine arsenal. The increasing threat of airborne attack has forced BdU to order immediate installation of the 20mm Flakvierling C/38 on all U-boats. This weapon should prove a potent addition to the U-boat's FlaK suite, at least until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.

Originally Posted by gap

I haven't ever gone that far in the campaign... for me, WWII ended on October or November '39, if I remember correctly .

I know what you mean! My record is December 1941 in SH3 GWX, but I've never reached 1940 in SH5. Someday I will see all these upgrades on my own boat...

Originally Posted by gap

But for what I can see from the files, it seems to me that we have not such an option. Nonetheless, the C/41 has not deckgun set as standard equipment, so when we are assigned to command one of them, the deck is empty (dunno if it can accept a deckgun as upgrade though). Stick in mind that I am talking out of memory, so I can be in part wrong.

I will check when I get home, but I thought there was an option to remove the deck gun included with the equipment mod. I'm not certain, though.

Originally Posted by gap

Yes, I agree. Talking about the twin M42 issue, it is weird: the gun model loads correctly in TDW's Editor, Granny Viewer and Goblin. I set it to be used as an upgrade in game, and after selecting it, the boat gets actually equipped with this huge FlaK. Everything seems as expected, but as soon as I walk close to the gun, I can't move anymore (same for the chracters around me), the screen gets full of waterdrops, and if I am in bunker, bunker sound switches to ocean ambient sound. Game seems freezed, but it isn't (time goes on)

Thinking that something was wrong in my settings, I kept them but I assigned another 3d gun. Result? Everything is normal, so the problem must be in gun's GR2 file or in one of its associated files, though lookig at them in Goblin Editor didn't show anything abnormal

Very strange. I wish I could offer you cogent technical advice, but I'm at a loss with this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by gap

P.S: please, don't forget this:

[/QUOTE]

Don't worry; I haven't forgotten. Unfortunately, I can't access my sources right now, but I'll get you an answer as soon as possible.

Originally Posted by gap

here's my gun data spreadheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?htnbngcyqwtu8ac

I post it here, in case someone wants to have a look at it

Looks great gap thanks!

[keysersoze]

gap,

I started a new campaign today and can confirm that it is possible to remove the deck gun, but not the FlaK gun. I assume this was introduced with the equipment mod, but I haven't tested any other mod combinations. To be truly realistic, the game should automatically remove all deck guns in April 1943, but I'm not sure if this is possible.

Regarding the rate of fire of the 10.5 cm: Skwiot's book has vanished from the library so I can't check it (I'm hoping someone was just using it as a reference over the weekend and it will be back on the shelves this week). My other books all agree with the 15-18 figure, though, so I think we can keep it as you have it.

[gap]

Sorry for the delay of my answers

Originally Posted by keysersoze

All I can think of right now is to remove the offending line. I will let you know if I think of any pithy historical comments for the descriptions. Here's the edited version:

Okay, I have rearranged a bit the whole text, emphasizing the fact that the gun is planned to be fitted on as many boats as possible. This way, the phrase shouldn't contradict the fact that, at the very beginning the vierling will be available at an high reward cost:

In response to the increasing threat posed by Allied airplanes, BdU is now resorting to new anti-aircraft armaments. The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite its rather clumsy handling and the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, the "Vierling" is probably the most effective weapon of its caliber so far available in Kriegsmarine's arsenal. The plan is to equip as many U-boats as possible with it, until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.


What do you think? Any correction?

Originally Posted by keysersoze

gap,
I started a new campaign today and can confirm that it is possible to remove the deck gun, but not the FlaK gun. I assume this was introduced with the equipment mod, but I haven't tested any other mod combinations. To be truly realistic, the game should automatically remove all deck guns in April 1943, but I'm not sure if this is possible.

Good to know that EUF provides a way to remove the deckgun, thank you for checking it.
I agree with you that it would be more realistic if the gun was unistalled automatically after a certain date. As I anticipated a few days ago, there's an "UnitUpgradePackIntervalOptionCurrent" setting which can be set for each upgrade/equipment. I suspect that it controls the allowed timespan and required reward for keeping already installaded equipments. If my supposition is correct, outside this range the gun would be removed automatically (after a stop at base, I guess). Worth some tests, I think

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Regarding the rate of fire of the 10.5 cm: Skwiot's book has vanished from the library so I can't check it (I'm hoping someone was just using it as a reference over the weekend and it will be back on the shelves this week).

another silent hunter player conceal himself behind the shelves of your library?

Originally Posted by keysersoze

My other books all agree with the 15-18 figure, though, so I think we can keep it as you have it.

Okay, I am rechecking for good al the settings edited so far. I have found some controversial information that I wish to discuss with you, before I finally hand over to you and Volodya my work. I will post an update on the controversial specs tomorrow

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

Sorry for the delay of my answers
Okay, I have rearranged a bit the whole text, emphasizing the fact that the gun is planned to be fitted on as many boats as possible. This way, the phrase shouldn't contradict the fact that, at the very beginning the vierling will be available at an high reward cost:

In response to the increasing threat posed by Allied airplanes, BdU is now resorting to new anti-aircraft armaments. The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite its rather clumsy handling and the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, the "Vierling" is probably the most effective weapon of its caliber so far available in Kriegsmarine's arsenal. The plan is to equip as many U-boats as possible with it, until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.


What do you think? Any correction?

This looks great

Originally Posted by gap

another silent hunter player conceal himself behind the shelves of your library?

Possibly, as I don't think there are very many other people interested in the tracking rate of WWII German flak guns

Originally Posted by gap

Okay, I am rechecking for good al the settings edited so far. I have found some controversial information that I wish to discuss with you, before I finally hand over to you and Volodya my work. I will post an update on the controversial specs tomorrow

Ah good, I like controversial information! Looking forward to your update and the beginning of testing

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Ah good, I like controversial information! Looking forward to your update and the beginning of testing

Let's start with 20mm FlaK's rate of fire and clip's size:

according to navalweaps:
C/30 - cyclic RoF 280 rpm; practical Rof: 120 rpm; clip: 20 rounds; reload time (calculated): 5.7 sec
C/38 - cyclic RoF 480 rpm; practical Rof: 220 rpm; clip: 40 rounds; reload time (calculated): 5.9 sec

according to your "Historical Specifications" (Skwiot?):
C/30 - as per navweaps specs, but clip size not specified
C/38 - as per navweaps specs, but clip size not specified

according to wikipedia:
C/30 - as per navweaps specs
C/38 - cyclic RoF 450 rpm; practical Rof: 180 rpm; clip: 20 rounds; reload time (calculated): 4.0 sec

according to Chris Bishop's Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II (pp. 166-167):
C/30 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 280 rpm; clip: 20 rounds
C/38 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 420-480 rpm; clip: not openly specified, but in a comparison with the C/30 it is said:
"The ammunition, feed system and most of the carriage remained much the same as before." (p. 166)

according to Werner Müller's German 20mm FlaK in World War II: 1945-1945 (pp. 6-7):
C/30 - as per navweaps specs, but cyclic Rof: 280-300 rpm
C/38 - as per navweaps specs, but clip size not specified

according to Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #27: Kriegsmarine Type VII U-boats (pp. 53-54):
C/30* - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 280 rpm; clip: 20-40 rounds
C/38 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): up to 500 rpm; clip size not specified

* note that this gun is designated by Wiper as "20mm MG C30", which, according to Müller should be a different gun. But I suspect that in this case the above designation is used as a synonimous of "20mm FlaK C/30" (Flak = Machine Gun)

according to navypedia:
C/30 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 280-300 (same as Müller's spec); clip size not specified
C/30 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 450-500

according to British Admiralty's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors - Cumulative Edition, June 1944 (p. 16):
C/30 - only practical RoF specified*: 144-193; clip: 20 rounds
C/38 - only practical RoF specified: 180-240; clip: 20 rounds

* note that RoF for this gun is only specified as "about 20 per cent. lower" than the C/38 model.


SUMMING UP:

Clip size:
I made myself an idea that both the C/30 and the C/38 could have accepted indifferently 20 and 40-round magazines. The latter magazine was probably introduced in the same timeframe as the C/38, or after, therefore it is most commonly associated by various sources with the C/38 than with the C/30. Nonetheless, the big magazine had to be somehow a rare item, making its use not universal for C/38 guns, and ever lesser common for the C/30 which had yet started being replaced when the first 40-round magazines started circulating.

Currently I have 20-round magazines assigned to the C/30 guns, and 40-rounds magazines to C/38's (including the vierling). Should I retain these settings?

Cyclic RoF:
from the above sources we can desume the following min/max values:
C/30: 280-300 rpm (= 290 ± 3.45%)
C/38: 420-500 rpm (= 460 ± 8.70%)

The max figures are probably referred to new guns, wereas min values coulb be for weathered guns. If so, the calculated drop from the "ideal" RoF would be 6.67% for wetahered C/30's and 16% for weathered C/38's. Is this acceptable?

Should I use their averages, instead of the current settings which are 280 and 480 rpm respectively for the C/30 and the C/38?

Practical RoF:
C/30: 120 rpm
C/38: 180-240

I have discarded the information provided by Admiralty's interrogation report for the C/30, because too vague and too much in disaccordance with our other sources. As for the C/38, I think that the difference between the minimum and the maximum values could depend on many factors, including cyclic rate of fire drop (for old guns), crew experience, sea conditions, magazine used etc.
Our final setting will depend on theoretical RoF's and magazine sizes picked.

What do you think?

(to be continued...)

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

I made myself an idea that both the C/30 and the C/38 could have accepted indifferently 20 and 40-round magazines. The latter magazine was probably introduced in the same timeframe as the C/38, or after, therefore it is most commonly associated by various sources with the C/38 than with the C/30. Nonetheless, the big magazine had to be somehow a rare item, making its use not universal for C/38 guns, and ever lesser common for the C/30 which had yet started being replaced when the first 40-round magazines started circulating.

I think you are absolutely correct in this assumption. Regarding the C/38, Skwiot says that the 40-round magazine was used, but that the 20-round clip could also be used (p. 394). I interpret this to mean that, by the time the C/38 began appearing on U-boats, the 40-round clip was more common than its smaller cousin.

Originally Posted by gap

Currently I have 20-round magazines assigned to the C/30 guns, and 40-rounds magazines to C/38's (including the vierling). Should I retain these settings?

Yes, I think this is a fair representation of the sources.

Originally Posted by gap

Cyclic RoF:
from the above sources we can desume the following min/max values:
C/30: 280-300 rpm (= 290 ± 3.45%)
C/38: 420-500 rpm (= 460 ± 8.70%)

The max figures are probably referred to new guns, wereas min values coulb be for weathered guns. If so, the calculated drop from the "ideal" RoF would be 6.67% for wetahered C/30's and 16% for weathered C/38's. Is this acceptable?

This looks fine, but can the game model the difference between "weathered" and "new" guns?

Originally Posted by gap

Should I use their averages, instead of the current settings which are 280 and 480 rpm respectively for the C/30 and the C/38?

I think averaging the numbers would be a good compromise, assuming there is no weathering effect in-game (which I doubt anyway)

Originally Posted by gap

Practical RoF:
C/30: 120 rpm
C/38: 180-240

As for the C/38, I think that the difference between the minimum and the maximum values could depend on many factors, including cyclic rate of fire drop (for old guns), crew experience, sea conditions, magazine used etc.
Our final setting will depend on theoretical RoF's and magazine sizes picked.

What do you think?

Based on what I have seen, I would favor giving the C/38 a 40-round magazine and a practical rate of fire between 220 and 240 rpm. That would be in harmony with most of our sources and would make the assumption (a very fair assumption, I think) that the C/38 usually had 40-round magazines.

Originally Posted by gap

(to be continued...)

Looking forward to it

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

This looks fine, but can the game model the difference between "weathered" and "new" guns?

No, it cannot do it, average settings must be used. For instance:

		cyclic	pract.	firing	clip	reload
gun		RoF	RoF	muzzl.	size	time

C/30 single	290	120	1	20	5.86
C/30 twin	580	240	2	20	5.86
C/38 single	475	220	1	40	5.86
C/38 twin	950	440	2	40	5.86
C/28 quad	900	720	2	40	1.33
C/28 quad	1,800	800	4	40	6.67

I have made just small changes over previous settings. Practical rates of fire are mostly unchanged. Theoretical rates of fire were modified to obtain similar reload times for single and twin guns of both models. Vierling's reload time is a bit higher, taking into account the complexity of reloading the 4 guns at the same time; this is relative to combined firing mode. On the contrary, reload time for sustained firing mode has been sensibly reduced, assuming that the reloading of the two silent guns would have started while the two other guns were still firing. This sustained firing mode will be available as a separate patch.

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

No, it cannot do it, average settings must be used. For instance:

That makes sense. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about weathered and new guns.

Originally Posted by gap

		cyclic	pract.	firing	clip	reload
gun		RoF	RoF	muzzl.	size	time

C/30 single	290	120	1	20	5.86
C/30 twin	580	240	2	20	5.86
C/38 single	475	220	1	40	5.86
C/38 twin	950	440	2	40	5.86
C/28 quad	900	720	2	40	1.33
C/28 quad	1,800	800	4	40	6.67

I have made just small changes over previous settings. Practical rates of fire are mostly unchanged. Theoretical rates of fire were modified to obtain similar reload times for single and twin guns of both models. Vierling's reload time is a bit higher, taking into account the complexity of reloading the 4 guns at the same time; this is relative to combined firing mode. On the contrary, reload time for sustained firing mode has been sensibly reduced, assuming that the reloading of the two silent guns would have started while the two other guns were still firing. This sustained firing mode will be available as a separate patch.

Everything looks great (by C/28 Quad, I assume you mean the C/38 Quad). Two separate patches for the C/38 Vierling is the most logical way to go. That way, everyone can choose the rate of fire he/she wants.

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

That makes sense. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about weathered and new guns.

My bad: I didn't express myself clearly. I just wanted to understand if the discrpancies among various sources can be explained by "physiological" drops, rather than to human errors

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Everything looks great (by C/28 Quad, I assume you mean the C/38 Quad). Two separate patches for the C/38 Vierling is the most logical way to go. That way, everyone can choose the rate of fire he/she wants.

yep I meant C/38 Quad.

Next topic...

vierling's tracking speed.
No many sources on this topic. Nonetheless, the Admiralty report I mentioned yesterday states:

"This weapon has been found clumsy to handle since it is laid and trained by one man working two handwheels, as well as difficult to train during an aircraft's run-up, and especially during a breakaway." (p. 16)

Unfortunately, no numerical information is provided. So far, I had its traverse/elevation speeds set respectively to 25 and 30 deg/sec. Elevation rate is the same used arbitrarily for single and twin C/38's. Talking about the train rate, it was calculated as 10/12 of the elevation rate, based on Müller's statement on C/38 guns that:

"One turn of the elevation handwheel raised the barrel 4 degrees, 12 degrees in overdrive; the traverse handwheel turned the gun 10 degrees per turn and 30 degrees in overdrive" (p. 6)

and assuming that the use of the traverse overdrive gear wouldn't have been possible for the vierling, due to the considerable weight of its platform which rotated together with the barrels.
Now, based on Admiralty's information I start wondering if my settings are too high compared with the 37mm SK C/30's documented rates of 4 and 3 deg/s (respectively traverse and elevation), which were similarly considered too slow