about the real fleet boat mod...

[PepsiCan]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

If the gun is gyro stabilized in SH IV, then why is it when I open fire at 5,000 yards with my gun after ranging the target the shell goes flying over the target or splashes way short?

Uhm...because the deckgun measures everything in meters, even when you play with Imperial settings? So, if you are, convert your range from yards into meters. And also take into consideration that targets move so you need to lead or lag your shot depending on how your target moves. At 5000 yards, the shell will take time to travel.

[Xelif]

I think we're wasting Beery's time unless anyone has a better source for the actual numbers involved in gun RoF. Speculations on training aside (I would -hope- that the crew on the Wahoo was above average, at least... just as I'd hope that a really top notch crew could indeed cut down reload times) nobody has offered anything resembling hard numbers beyond the two patrol logs. We could talk and talk and talk but it won't get us anywhere without seeing real numbers.

NEON DEON, I've noticed slightly odd behavior with the gun on the S-Boat... aimed forward, the range seems accurate. However, when the gun is aimed anywhere near aft, the shells hit the water much closer to the sub than they should, based on the alleged firing range of the gun. Anyone else notice this?

Beery, in my mind I had granted you some power as an 'authority', realism wise, simply because you do discuss and defend your changes with facts. Please keep that up

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

If the gun is gyro stabilized in SH IV, then why is it when I open fire at 5,000 yards with my gun after ranging the target the shell goes flying over the target or splashes way short?

Because 5,000 yards is a long ways. I wouldent even consider opening fire till Im within 3,000 yards otherwise Im wasiting ammo.

Its simple.. the further away the target, the harder it is to hit (shrug).

But this adds nothing to the discussion at hand so .....

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Because 5,000 yards is a long ways. I wouldent even consider opening fire till Im within 3,000 yards otherwise Im wasiting ammo.

Its simple.. the further away the target, the harder it is to hit (shrug).

But this adds nothing to the discussion at hand so .....

Well now that you bring that up it does have bearing.

If I open up at 5,000 meters (I will now use meters) then there is a reason. The merchant is armed with a deck gun and I have no torps left. Different situation, different firing procedures. If the merchant has 20 mm AA guns, I close the range to 2,100 meters. If the the merchant has no guns at all, 500 meters or less. In all cases I am abreast of the target matching its speed and course.

After verifying range, I fire one shot. Observe it. I have to wait for the shell to travel to the target (not going to wait around for that inside 500 meters firing at an unarmed target) and adjust the gun elevation if I miss. If I manage to hit the target after bracketing it I will fire another to verify if it hits. If it does then I step up the firing pace. It is during this phase I get misses. That should not happen when firing at a slow merchant if the gun was gyro stabilized like people are claiming.

Back to ROF.

I control my ROF by the situation. I do not think I have ever fired the gun in an entire engagement at the stated ROF for the gun. However. I have fired four or five at close range. If you average the the ROF, it aint realistic.

It is like when I drive home from work in L A.

It takes me 20 minutes to get home. My home is 7 miles away. 21 MPH is my average speed. BUT I DO NOT GO 21 MPH THE ENTIRE WAY HOME!

So lets make a sim out of my drive home and mod it so I can only go 21 mph and see how realistic it is.

I get in my car which is in the office parking lot and start the engine. Here come my co-workers. I put my car into gear and poof! I am at 21 mph in the parking lot. oops! just ran over the guys from work oh well. Oh no here comes the side street I will have to make a 90 degree in less than 30 feet at 21 mph! Phew no cars parked on the street made the turn no problems. Now I am going to the side street at 21 mph. No problem the Speed limit is 25 not too bad. Oh Cra$! Here comes 5th street and a stop sign with another 90 degree turn. No problems with the turn but I ran the stop sign and brushed a pedestrian crossing the street.

Its passed four so thank god the parking lanes are open for rush hour traffic. I pass the first traffic light without a problem because it turned green just in time and the left lane was clear. Halfway up the next block everyone passes me by becuase the speed limit is 35 and I am still at 21 mph.

Omg here comes Broadway intersection and the light is red! The left left lane is clear so I manage to pass the cars that passed me earlier without out a problem.
I am now in the intersection running the red light at 21 MPH and here comes the MTA's Big Red Rapid double bus! This aint going to be purdy!
I get T-boned and it is game over.

21 mph all the time s#@k$.:rotfl:

[Torpex752]

Originally Posted by Xelif

I think we're wasting Beery's time unless anyone has a better source for the actual numbers involved in gun RoF. Speculations on training aside (I would -hope- that the crew on the Wahoo was above average, at least... just as I'd hope that a really top notch crew could indeed cut down reload times) nobody has offered anything resembling hard numbers beyond the two patrol logs. We could talk and talk and talk but it won't get us anywhere without seeing real numbers.

Where do we get "real" numbers? I cant offer anything but 200+ interviews with WWII sub vets that say anything different, I've been told that thats not good enough. Their memory isnt accurate.
When I spoke to Ned Beach in Groton before he passed away, he assured me that the minimum rate of fire in combat that any CO decided was acceptable was 4-5 rounds a minute, fully respecting that 1 out of 5 was a missed shot.

In Thunder Below Gene Fluckey mentioned one incident with his Gun crew, and from the time they hit the deck (gun secured) to recoil from the first shot was 20 seconds.

There are hundreds of patrol reports written and I understand that the national Archives havent turned all into electronic copies yet, in fact only two are actually copied/scanned. Neither is the Wahoo or Nautilus. So not being argumentative, just giving another thought here, the absence of evidence to disprove Ned Beach, and the other vet's I know doesnt exist either as far as I can see. So that puts us in betwen what someone wrote and put on the internet (not a scanned patrol report) and books written by WWII sub vets and the interviews I have conducted myself.

I personally trust what they wrote and what they said. (No different than JANAC) So dive into the books, and you will find things different. Talk to the men and you will hear something more along the lines of what I wrote. Understand something, I am not an expert, I have been involved in subsims for a long time, so gathering information to use was one reason I asked certain specific questions of the vets. I am nothing more than a collector and 'passer-on' of information. I will say that there was only one vet I ever spoke to that said something totally different then even his shipmates, and he was an engineman on the Crevalle (MO) who rarely left the enginerooms. (he loved his diesels) lol

Frank

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Torpex752

Where do we get "real" numbers? I cant offer anything but 200+ interviews with WWII sub vets that say anything different, I've been told that thats not good enough. Their memory isnt accurate.

Anyone who knows anything about memory knows that it is extremely unreliable. Notes taken at the time are very reliable. When you have either contemporary notes or memory it's best to go with the notes.

When I spoke to Ned Beach in Groton before he passed away, he assured me that the minimum rate of fire in combat that any CO decided was acceptable was 4-5 rounds a minute, fully respecting that 1 out of 5 was a missed shot.

Look, if every CO decided that 4 - 5 rounds per minute was acceptable the evidence indicates that no CO can ever have been satisfied with his guns' rate of fire. That may be the case. But it doesn't change the fact that Wahoo's 4th patrol featured a gun engagement that had an average rate of fire of one shell per 23 seconds. This is the fastest sustained rate of fire I've seen in a combat report. Wahoo was one of the US Navy's best subs and on its 4th patrol it was crewed by arguably the best crew in the navy and its 4th patrol was the most effective patrol of its career. To suggest that its deck gun performance was below what 'any CO decided was acceptable' is simply not believable. Like I said, memory is unreliable.

But either way, I will never change RFB's rate of fire based on memory, gut feeling or opinion. If you want me to change RFB's rate of fire based on any of those things I assure you Antarctica is more likely to become a rainforest and the blue sky is more likely to turn pink before it happens. I've stated quite clearly the criteria I will accept. To be honest I don't care if you choose to believe sailor's memories over notes made by sailors at the time. The important thing is that I don't and I will only resort to sailors' memories if no more reliable evidence exists.

How anyone can argue that 50 year old memories are more reliable than notes made on the day is incredible to me. I mean if I make a note of my actions on a particular day just two weeks ago I know for a fact that my memory will be less reliable than the notes. The same is true for events years ago, except that the memory will be far less reliable.

[Torpex752]

"How anyone can argue that 50 year old memories are more reliable than notes made on the day is incredible to me. I mean if I make a note of my actions on a particular day just two weeks ago I know for a fact that my memory will be less reliable than the notes. The same is true for events years ago, except that the memory will be far less reliable."

I cannot argue with that statement, I know myself that in order for me to remember certain details I have to take notes, or write it down somewhere. I can understand your logic, but for me, over the last 25 years there have been too many (I'll even qualify them as sober) discussions and note taking events with sub vets. I dont know why the author of a book is not a valid source. You didnt comment on Gene Fluckey's statement about how long it took. Why is that? Isnt it probable that he kept his own notes? Have you ever read The book Thunder Below? It is written like a patrol report in many places, or doesnt his word count?

I guess I dont care if you change your MOD or not, its a MOD to a game (arguably one of the finest IMHO). It just seems odd to me that the only valid source you claim is a transcripted patrol report from the internet and thats where the buck stops. For a game its ok I guess, but anything beyond that deserves a bit more IMHO. I know that no historian would ever consider the internet the bottom line in deciding facts. I actually met one of the guys from the history channel and he explained to me (with his degree in history in tow) what great pains he must take place in order to contradict an existing published "historical" fact. Quite impressive, yet he was upset because he stated how obviously "suspect'" the methods were someone used to establish certain facts and how much work he had to do to disprove it. So, for someone like me who has lived & been involved in WWII submarine history, people, technology and how it all works for 20+ years, I get into the details, because thats where the truth lies, in the details.

Frank

[Xelif]

Well, at this point I'd say the burden of proof is OFF of Beery. As a modmaker there's only so much we can ask him.

If anyone really cares, I think evidence surpassing Beery's in terms of data (shots fired, time elapsed during combat) would provide further discussion but nothing else barring that is worth talking about. Saying there might be another realistic number out there is far different from documenting it. One of us cannot say "Beery, I don't like your evidence, so it's YOUR JOB to find better."

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Xelif

Well, at this point I'd say the burden of proof is OFF of Beery. As a modmaker there's only so much we can ask him.

If anyone really cares, I think evidence surpassing Beery's in terms of data (shots fired, time elapsed during combat) would provide further discussion but nothing else barring that is worth talking about. Saying there might be another realistic number out there is far different from documenting it. One of us cannot say "Beery, I don't like your evidence, so it's YOUR JOB to find better."

What evidence can you provide for making the average rate of fire for an entire gun engagement the maximum ROF of a gun. Fuzzy math is not real.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Beery

Firstly, there is no 'bucket brigade' passing ammo on a WW2 submarine. Deck gun crews were limited by regulations that strictly denoted who was allowed to handle shells and by regulations limiting the number of people on deck so that a sub could prepare to dive as fast as possible. Sure, it seems quite reasonable to the average guy who doesn't think about such things very much that you could pass a 50lb weight around quite fast if you had 20 people on deck to do it, but you can't just go around crewing subs and assigning work with the mentality of a simple-minded horse. Even though they may weigh the same, a 4" shell is quite a bit more dangerous than a large sack of potatoes, and a surfaced submarine is always in mortal danger from air attack, so unless you have a death wish you don't let untrained men toss around ammunition willy-nilly and you don't risk 50 lives by placing so many men on the deck that it becomes impossible to submerge in time to evade an air attack - you just don't.

I am sorry but you must think the ammo supply is located across the Pacific.

It is not.



The circle to the left of the ladder on the conning tower is the ammo scuttle.

That looks to be about 12 feet from the gun.

So the idea of 10,20,30,40 or 50 men passing ammo on deck to the gun is pretty much not going to happen.

Even in rough weather when you supposedly could not use the scuttle the gun is is still not far from the conn.

According to the Pampinito web site the ammo locker is located under the mess.

The scuttle goes thru the pressure hull into the mess. No need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub either.

The ammo ready locker provides shells instantly. By the time the ready locker is emptied the supply chain is set and ready to go.

So adding to the rate of fire time by deducting the number of shells in the ready locker does not appear to make any sense.

What also is not true is some preceived notion that you have to take alot of prep time to make the gun ready. Heck the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun does not even need a plug in the barrell.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by perisher

In a nutshell ROF is very variable due to many factors, like sea state, weather, wind, tide, lighting, boat design, crew training, captain's philosophy, crew fatigue, mission, target, target's reaction, to name a few, but SH4 allows one rate and one only.

Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.

Good pic Neon Deon.

[Torpex752]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.

Good pic Neon Deon.

I agree, Beery's MOD is a suberb result of "eletronic craftsmanship" to create a "new phrase". I absolutely respect the work that a mod maker does, and tip my hat to acknowledge that kind of dedication.
I think this thread started out on a bad note, but has turned out to be very potentially productive. Its really been a life's labor of love to persue the details that a patrol report leaves out, or an author forgot to write down. Hell I was on 3 US subs and I can assure you that the guy who took the notes in the log book was human, and on a few ocassions made errors in what time certain events took place. So I look in that "grey area" because the past 20 years have taught me that 2 people saying one thing, and 198 saying another speaks for itself.

My only hope really is that I spark enough interest to make people want to read the books, or do their own investigations. I was fortunate enough to situate myself to do this type of varied research, so I was in a better place than most to ask questions and dig through old boxes. So I hope Beery doesnt get me wrong, or take this all in a bad way. I was hoping to see some mutual respect.

Frank

[tater]

In terms of simulating outcomes, you need to look at the number of HITS per unit time. I can dial in the deck gun in SH4 pretty quickly, then simply never miss, almost regardless of sea state. I'm not talking about close aboard a freighter, I'm talking about a sampan at over 1000 yards.

If a player hit % at a given range is 90% (seems about right to me from my shooting), and a real deck gun had a hit % at the same range of 45%, the ROF would need to be halved to have a realistic outcome (unless someone manages to fix the gyro-gun). That's 4-4.5 rpm for a 4" 50 according to the stats torpex posted.

Beery is looking at 2.6 rpm right now (23 seconds). With an ROF of 8-9, you'd need to only hit 26-29% of the shots to equal my 90% shooting at 2.6 rpm.

Does anyone here think they'd miss 75% of their shots at a sampan at 1000 yards in game?

What about RL, what % of shots would hit a sampan at 1000 yards in RL? I bet 25%-50% would be pretty good.

IMO, the only place that you'd suffer with the RFB ROF vs reality (assuming the factory ROF was actually maintained in combat---odd they have one figure, I'm used to seeing a max ROF, and a sustained ROF) would be at very short range where a large % of shots would hit in RL. Unfortunately the limiting factor on simulating realistic outcomes is the ease of use of the gun in game, IMO.

Any comparisons with RL guns should not be made at the muzzle, but at the target.

The outcome model works both ways, however. Beery, there is a big problem with that Wahoo log. It says they HOLED him 90 times at 3800 yards in 26 minutes. Do you really think they hit 100% of the time? At 3800 yards, I think even with the gyro guns I'd not hit 100% of the time. Easy enough to check, set up a sampan at 3800 yards and fire away. If you manage to hit 75% of the time, it goes from 90 rounds in 26 minutes to 120 rounds in 26 minutes---4.6 rpm, or 13 seconds per round.

<EDIT> in another Wahoo log posted, they hit 50/80 shots at a 1000 ton target (no range shown). That's 62.5% hits.

Looks like the real number is 90 shots, 60 hits. The hit % is pretty consistant, however.


tater

[PepsiCan]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Exactly! And this is where a lot of heat in this debate comes from. It is not with Beery's mod - he is to be gratefuly thanked for his time and effort - it is with his argument that he takes ONE recorded ROF by Whahoo, posted on the internet and then extrapolates this as been the alpha and beta for all 60 odd subs throughout the entire Pacific campaign ignoring or belittiling any other evidence that one puts forward - even the collective memory of over 200 war veterans. Yes memory can be suspect, but all 200, all saying much the same. Give me a break. I would not ask Berry to change his mod - that would be an insult to his opinion which he expressed in his mod, but having said that, in a debate on the ROF outside of his mod, one would expect him to extend the same respect and courtesy to those who question and bring forward other evidence. Even if he does not like it. He is the judge and jury on his own mod and rightly so, but not on the question of: "What was the average ROF of a submarines deck gun in combat during WWII?" In my opinion, as things stand right now, it is an OPEN question.

Good pic Neon Deon.

Ok, I need to be careful here as I am going to maybe put words in Beery's mouth he does not agree with. So forgive me, please.

Yes, the ROF is an open question, and Beery has always said he considers it that way.

BUT

the answer needs to be found in facts. And although Beery bases ROF calc on only a few cases, these cases are the best factual evidence that has been found so far on ROF under combat conditions. No-one has come up factual evidence that refutes Beery's ROF calculation. Any evidence I have seen posted so far refers to

1) training & exercises
2) propaganda material that has been edited
3) results recorded under totally artificial conditions
4) evidence without quoting the source (e.g. you mention that over 200 war vets say that the ROF was higher? Fine, where is it mentioned (so, a reference to a book/writer is required here) and what do these sources state as being the ROF under combat conditions?)

All Beery wants is to have an official reference & solid research, not just someone saying "The ROF was higher". It doesn't help.

And so far it seems that the logs of Wahoo offer us the most important source of information.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

What evidence can you provide for making the average rate of fire for an entire gun engagement the maximum ROF of a gun. Fuzzy math is not real.

The maximum ROF for that gun on that day averaged 1 round per 23 seconds. As I've said before, we have to go with a sustainable number and the maximum speed on that day was 17 seconds or higher, but this number can't be sustained throughout the day's engagements because it includes ready-use ammo and it doesn't factor in fatigue. RFB has to use an average because we don't have the option of simulating ready-use ammo or the effect of fatigue - SH4 doesn't allow us to do that.

If we went with the maximum, in this case 17 seconds, we'd be simulating a ROF that can only be sustained through 90 rounds. If players were restricted to firing only 90 shells per day that would work fine, but that would be extremely unrealistic and anyway it's not the case.

Sorry, but RFB will never use the maximum ROF when ready-use ammo is in the equation because such a ROF cannot possibly be sustained throughout a long engagement. This leads to unrealistic results as I explain in post #110 (below).