[WIP] Historical Guns Specs

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

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

yep, I understand perfectly now. I should have read it more carefully too.

Originally Posted by gap

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

hmmm So we basically only have qualitative descriptions of the Vierling's tracking ability, but not much hard data. Based on these sources, I think 25 and 30 deg/sec is probably a little too fast, although your calculation of train rate being 10/12 of elevation rate (as per the C/38) seems correct. The question is, how much slower should the Vierling be? I tried searching for training speeds for the Allied 20mm Oerlikon in twin and quad mounts, hoping this might shed some light on our problem. Unfortunately, I can't find good comparative data between these models.

All I could do is guess at this point. Any ideas?

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

hmmm So we basically only have qualitative descriptions of the Vierling's tracking ability, but not much hard data. Based on these sources, I think 25 and 30 deg/sec is probably a little too fast, although your calculation of train rate being 10/12 of elevation rate (as per the C/38) seems correct. The question is, how much slower should the Vierling be? I tried searching for training speeds for the Allied 20mm Oerlikon in twin and quad mounts, hoping this might shed some light on our problem. Unfortunately, I can't find good comparative data between these models.

All I could do is guess at this point. Any ideas?

At this point, I think I will half its tracking rates to 12.5/15 deg/s, and we will decide wether to increase, decrease or keep them after testing...


yet another controversial topic: M42's rate of fire and feeding system:

according to navalweaps:
only cyclic RoF specified: 250 rpm; clip: 5-round ammunition strips

according to your "Historical Specifications" (Skwiot?):
cyclic RoF: 160-180 rpm; practical RoF: 60 rpm; clip: not specified

according to wikipedia:
cyclic RoF: 250 rpm; practical RoF: 120 rpm; clip: not specified*

* note that the above specs are relative to the 3.7 cm Flak 36 which, according to navweaps, was the army version of the gun that Kriegsmarine's M42 was based on. Wikipedia makes no mention of the naval mount, but it list a further development of the Flak 36, Flak 43, with the following specs: cyclic RoF: 250 rpm; practical RoF: 150 rpm; clip: 8-round clips. In the same article, it is also said that "The 3.7 cm Flak 43 M43U was the marine version of the 3.7 cm Flak 43 used by the Kriegsmarine on Type VII and Type IX U-boats. It was mounted on the LM42U mount"

according to Chris Bishop's Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II (p. 167):
only cyclic rate of fire specified: 160 rpm; clip: linked 6-round clips

according to Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #27: Kriegsmarine Type VII U-boats (p. 55)
only one rate of fire figure specified (cyclic?): 180 rpm; clip: 6-round clip

according to navypedia:
only one rate of fire figure specified (cyclic?): 180 rpm; clip size not specified

according to British Admiralty's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors - Cumulative Edition, June 1944 (p. 16, 18):
only practical RoF specified: 40-50 rpm; clip size: clip of 5 rounds


SUMMING UP:

Clip size:
2 sources out of 4 reporting information on the topic, refer a 5-round clip, whereas according to the remaining 2 sources, the clip contained 6 rounds. Moreover, Bishop reports that the clips could have been linked together, thus reducing the number of reloads (though this is just my deduction).

Cyclic RoF:
160-180 rpm according to 4 sources, 250 according to 2 other sources (navweaps and wikipedia) which are reporting information on it. I wonder if they confused RoF of this gun with the one of the latter M43

Prcatical RoF:
between 40 and 60 according to 2 out of 3 sources which are providing numbers for it (though one refers 40-50, and one 60), but wikipedia states a much higher RoF of 120 rpm. Again, this huge discrepancy induces me to think that they got this gun wrong.

combining different specifications I get the following reload times:

cyclic	pract.	clip	reload
RoF	RoF	size	time

160	60	5	3.125
170	60	5	3.235
160	60	6	3.750
180	60	5	3.333
170	60	6	3.882
180	60	6	4.000
170	50	5	4.235
170	50	6	5.082
160	40	5	5.625
170	40	5	5.735
180	40	5	5.833
160	40	6	6.750
170	40	6	6.882
180	40	6	7.000

Any suggestion?

[gap]

one last topic we have discussed a few days ago:
8.8 and 10.5cm deck gun rate of fire:

according to navalweaps:
15 rpm for both

according to Skwiot:
ask the mistery SH lover who stole the book

according to Wiper:
8.8cm: 16 rpm "with a well trained crew" (p. 50); 10.5 cm: not listed

according to navypedia:
15 rpm for both

according to Admiralty's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors (p. 16):
8.8cm: 15-18 rpm
10.5cm: 15 rpm (it is stated "maximum")


SUMMING UP

several sources suggest that the 15 rpm rate of fire we had initially assumed for 8.8cm deckgun, could have been its average performance, and that under favourable condition an higher RoF could have been obtained. Nonetheless, I am also aware that ideal conditions rarely occurred during U-boat war patrols, due to a bunch of reasons including undertrained crews, fatigue, harsh sea conditions. etc. I am therefore a bit reluctant to accept the maximum RoF suggested by Admiralty reports of 18 rpm. On the other hand, the same source seem to stress that the 15 rpm figure reported for the 10.5cm gun was its absolute maximum, though no average RoF is given. Keeping the same proportionality shown by 8.8cm's RoF's, we can nonetheless guestimate:

15*15/18 = 12.5 rpm

This lower rate of fire could account for the heavier shell fired. So, if you accept my rasoning RoF's for 8.8 and 10.5cm deckguns, could be respectively 15 and 12.5.
Indeed, in-game reload times are affected by crew veterancy levels. We should check our settings in game, but the figures I am suggesting seem to me a good starting base. Do you agree?

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

vierling's tracking speed...

The mysterious SH5 player has returned Skwiot's book, but unfortunately he has nothing to add about the Vierling's tracking speed. He describes the mount in great technical detail but doesn't mention how well it functioned.

Originally Posted by gap

yet another controversial topic: M42's rate of fire and feeding system
...
SUMMING UP:

Clip size:
2 sources out of 4 reporting information on the topic, refer a 5-round clip, whereas according to the remaining 2 sources, the clip contained 6 rounds. Moreover, Bishop reports that the clips could have been linked together, thus reducing the number of reloads (though this is just my deduction).

Cyclic RoF:
160-180 rpm according to 4 sources, 250 according to 2 other sources (navweaps and wikipedia) which are reporting information on it. I wonder if they confused RoF of this gun with the one of the latter M43

Prcatical RoF:
between 40 and 60 according to 2 out of 3 sources which are providing numbers for it (though one refers 40-50, and one 60), but wikipedia states a much higher RoF of 120 rpm. Again, this huge discrepancy induces me to think that they got this gun wrong.

Any suggestion?

Yes

After consulting Skwiot, I think I finally understand the M42 . He gives an extremely detailed discussion of the mechanics of the M42 (almost nine paragraphs, describing every lever, pin, bolt, and groove down to the millimeter). Skwiot says the practical rate of fire was 60 rpm (p. 341). He says this about the "magazine": "The cartridges were clipped in sets of five with metal strips. After loading the clip, the strips were removed and thrown away to the left" (p. 340).

If my understanding is correct, rounds were not loaded in a singular enclosed magazine. Rather, they came pre-packaged in five-round "stripper clips," which could be quickly loaded into a semi-internal box magazine, self-contained within the gun. German k98 Mauser rifles operate in exactly the same way. Here is a youtube video demonstrating the basic principle:

So how does this account for the reported differences between five and six round "magainzes"? One trick that can be used on certain models of rifles and, I would assume, even on Flak guns, is to load one round into the chamber and then insert the stripper clip. This means that it would be theoretically possible to have a six round "magazine" if the gun was loaded this way before an attack. During the heat of battle, it would not be practical to manually load a single round into the chamber before inserting the five-round clip.

That is the best explanation I can come up with for our divergent sources. Unfortunately, I'm sure it would not be possible to model a six round clip for the first barrage and five round clips thereafter. I think for game purposes, the five round clip would probably be a more accurate representation of standard practice.

I cannot explain the wildly higher rates of fire reported in some sources except to agree that these sources probably confused the M42 with the 3.7 cm Flak M43 Gerät 341. This is what Skwiot says about it: "One advantage of this design was a significant increase in the automation of the firing process, thus increasing the rate of fire. The ammunition was loaded in eight-round magazines" (p. 343). I think the larger magazine size and the unspecified increase in "automation" account for these differences in the reported rates of fire.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by gap

one last topic we have discussed a few days ago:
8.8 and 10.5cm deck gun rate of fire:


SUMMING UP

several sources suggest that the 15 rpm rate of fire we had initially assumed for 8.8cm deckgun, could have been its average performance, and that under favourable condition an higher RoF could have been obtained. Nonetheless, I am also aware that ideal conditions rarely occurred during U-boat war patrols, due to a bunch of reasons including undertrained crews, fatigue, harsh sea conditions. etc. I am therefore a bit reluctant to accept the maximum RoF suggested by Admiralty reports of 18 rpm. On the other hand, the same source seem to stress that the 15 rpm figure reported for the 10.5cm gun was its absolute maximum, though no average RoF is given. Keeping the same proportionality shown by 8.8cm's RoF's, we can nonetheless guestimate:

15*15/18 = 12.5 rpm

This lower rate of fire could account for the heavier shell fired. So, if you accept my rasoning RoF's for 8.8 and 10.5cm deckguns, could be respectively 15 and 12.5.
Indeed, in-game reload times are affected by crew veterancy levels. We should check our settings in game, but the figures I am suggesting seem to me a good starting base. Do you agree?

It turns out I was totally wrong! Skwiot gives an even higher rate of fire than I remembered for the 8.8 cm: 15-20 rpm (p. 253). For the 10.5 cm gun, he gives a maximum rate of fire of 15 rpm. Sorry for the confusion... I must have hallucinated those imaginary figures

I agree that these numbers should be the maximum rate of fire for the deck gun, based on crew experience and, if possible, weather conditions.

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

The mysterious SH5 player has returned Skwiot's book, but unfortunately he has nothing to add about the Vierling's tracking speed. He describes the mount in great technical detail but doesn't mention how well it functioned.

It turned out that, besides being untimely, our secret SH5 fan is also uninformed. I only hope that he made a better use of Skwiot's book than employing it as a paper older

Originally Posted by keysersoze

After consulting Skwiot, I think I finally understand the M42...

It makes sense. Thank you for the detailed explanation!

Originally Posted by keysersoze

That is the best explanation I can come up with for our divergent sources. Unfortunately, I'm sure it would not be possible to model a six round clip for the first barrage and five round clips thereafter. I think for game purposes, the five round clip would probably be a more accurate representation of standard practice.

You are right, the clip can be either of 5 or 6 rounds.

Originally Posted by keysersoze

I cannot explain the wildly higher rates of fire reported in some sources except to agree that these sources probably confused the M42 with the 3.7 cm Flak M43 Gerät 341. This is what Skwiot says about it: "One advantage of this design was a significant increase in the automation of the firing process, thus increasing the rate of fire. The ammunition was loaded in eight-round magazines" (p. 343). I think the larger magazine size and the unspecified increase in "automation" account for these differences in the reported rates of fire.

What do you think?

My opinion in numbers:

cyclic RoF: 170 rpm
practical RoF: 60 rpm
clip size: 5 rounds
reload time: 3.235 sec

do you like them?

Originally Posted by keysersoze

It turns out I was totally wrong! Skwiot gives an even higher rate of fire than I remembered for the 8.8 cm: 15-20 rpm (p. 253). For the 10.5 cm gun, he gives a maximum rate of fire of 15 rpm. Sorry for the confusion... I must have hallucinated those imaginary figures

I agree that these numbers should be the maximum rate of fire for the deck gun, based on crew experience and, if possible, weather conditions.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that sea conditions are not taken in other account than for making guns' use impossible on high waves. But crew experience (and possibly their morale) is considered.
Just yesterday I have had a discussion with Webster on this topic; from my tests, I am almost sure that FlaK gun reload times (as set in their sim files) are the base times relative to best trained crew memebers. For lesser experienced gunners a percent extra time is added to this base time. A few weeks ago I tried finding the extra reload coefficients within game files, but to not avail...

More specifically about deck guns, I am not sure that their reload times are applied the same way as with FlaKs: Webster was convinced that they work the other way around (i.e. sim file settings are decremented by a percent for experienced crew, rather than being incremented for unexperienced ones). Another obscure point is wether deck gun's recoil time is added to the reload time, or not considered (i.e. gunners start reloading the gun while it is still recoiling). From stock settings, I am sure that when they calculated their settings, devs didn't take recoil times into account, but I ignore if they made it by mistake or for a reason.

Hopefully, we can solve the above doubts in custom mission, stopwatch close by hand; however, for a start, I lean towards decreasing the maximum reload times reported by you by 20%, i.e: 12 rpm for the 10.5cm deck gun, and 16 for the 8.8cm gun. This is accounting for climatic factors which are not considered by the game. What do you think?

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by gap

It turned out that, besides being untimely, our secret SH5 fan is also uninformed. I only hope that he made a better use of Skwiot's book than employing it as a paper older

Originally Posted by gap

...
do you like them?

Originally Posted by gap

Don't quote me on this, but I think that sea conditions are not taken in other account than for making guns' use impossible on high waves. But crew experience (and possibly their morale) is considered.

Thanks for the information. Do you know, by any chance, whether planes have similar weather restrictions? Can they fly in bad weather?

Originally Posted by gap

More specifically about deck guns, I am not sure that their reload times are applied the same way as with FlaKs: Webster was convinced that they work the other way around (i.e. sim file settings are decremented by a percent for experienced crew, rather than being incremented for unexperienced ones). Another obscure point is wether deck gun's recoil time is added to the reload time, or not considered (i.e. gunners start reloading the gun while it is still recoiling). From stock settings, I am sure that when they calculated their settings, devs didn't take recoil times into account, but I ignore if they made it by mistake or for a reason.

Hopefully, we can solve the above doubts in custom mission, stopwatch close by hand; however, for a start, I lean towards decreasing the maximum reload times reported by you by 20%, i.e: 12 rpm for the 10.5cm deck gun, and 16 for the 8.8cm gun. This is accounting for climatic factors which are not considered by the game. What do you think?

It's strange that the deck gun experience controllers work in exactly the opposite manner as the flak guns. You're probably right about recoil ties not being taken into account, but, as you said, we can solve all these problems with a stopwatch

I think 12 rpm for the 10.5cm and 16 for the 8.8cm would be an acceptable maximum for a highly experienced crew. I have a hard time imagining a crew could fire much faster than that in average Atlantic weather conditions.

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Thanks for the information. Do you know, by any chance, whether planes have similar weather restrictions? Can they fly in bad weather?

They should not, but ask Trevally on it

Originally Posted by keysersoze

It's strange that the deck gun experience controllers work in exactly the opposite manner as the flak guns.

Yes, I would be also surprised of it. But Webster gave me some doubts yesterday...

Originally Posted by keysersoze

You're probably right about recoil ties not being taken into account, but, as you said, we can solve all these problems with a stopwatch

I am going to test it right away, by giving the deck gun an unusually long recoil time...

Originally Posted by keysersoze

I think 12 rpm for the 10.5cm and 16 for the 8.8cm would be an acceptable maximum for a highly experienced crew. I have a hard time imagining a crew could fire much faster than that in average Atlantic weather conditions.

[volodya61]

Seems like the part of Global Weapons mod, I mean Reworked Sub Guns, will never released..
First tests I have done more than two months ago..
Is it so important: reload time - 3.525 sec or reload time - 3.435 sec?

Community is still waiting..
me too.. I am also waiting for when I can finally begin my part of our work..

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

Seems like the part of Global Weapons mod, I mean Reworked Sub Guns, will never released..
First tests I have done more than two months ago..
Is it so important: reload time - 3.525 sec or reload time - 3.435 sec?

Community is still waiting..
me too.. I am also waiting for when I can finally begin my part of our work..

Ask Sailor Steve on it

I hope to send you my files today. And yes I am sort of perfectionism maniac
I only hope the results will be worth all the effort we have put in this mod.

[Targor Avelany]

Originally Posted by gap

Ask Sailor Steve on it

I hope to send you my files today. And yes I am sort of perfectionism maniac
I only hope the results will be worth all the effort we have put in this mod.

all the work you guys have done - is amazing. And, I believe I can say this for most of the subsimmers, you have our huge respect for it!

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

Ask Sailor Steve on it

on what?

Originally Posted by gap

I hope to send you my files today. And yes I am sort of perfectionism maniac

I don't need files.. just tell me the numbers

Originally Posted by gap

I only hope the results will be worth all the effort we have put in this mod.

I was plagued by vague doubts

[Targor Avelany]

Originally Posted by volodya61

on what?

cookies and milk

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

on what?

Originally Posted by Targor Avelany

cookies and milk

...which are the tacit subject of this thread, by the way. Thank you Targor for making it clear

Originally Posted by volodya61

I don't need files.. just tell me the numbers

okay

Originally Posted by volodya61

I was plagued by vague doubts

Dunno why, but I had started suspecting it

As I told you a few days ago, nothing matters and everything matters; it all depends on what everyone is considering important. Given the name of this thread, I thought that adjusting gun settings to reflect as close as possible their historical specs, wasn't a pointless exercise after all, lol.

I will admit that some of the changes we have discussed with keysersoze are quite subtle, but in general I am sure you will notice how much our researches will practically affect gun's effectiveness. Drastically in some cases. Trust me at least this time

[gap]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

You're probably right about recoil ties not being taken into account, but, as you said, we can solve all these problems with a stopwatch

Originally Posted by gap

I am going to test it right away, by giving the deck gun an unusually long recoil time...

Just tested: recoil time is applied in game as expected (i.e. it gets added to cannon's reload time), though stock settings seem to disregard its effect on practical rate of fire

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

I will admit that some of the changes we have discussed with keysersoze are quite subtle, but in general I am sure you will notice how much our researches will practically affect gun's effectiveness.

I will try to see this during my practical exercises.. I promise..

Originally Posted by gap

Drastically in some cases. Trust me at least this time

I always trust you, compare