Do not report anything about ballistics. It’s a known issue and being on the list of planned fixes
2 Likes
Perfect thanks very much mate.
Okay my other worry is how high Rodney sits in the water. I know it’s a common issue with ships in general but it looks like it might be a real big problem on Rodney. Unless we get correctly modelled internal armour. Do we have any detailed documents for its armour scheme like proper documents?
This is the current list we have, anyone find anything else?
For the secondaries, i believe she should have the same shells as southhampton, which would include the better SAP shell, HE, and if southhamptons ingame loadout is anything to go by, HEVT and TF too.
2 Likes
Her draft is correct on dev server. As for documents we have the complete set of original blueprints of Nelson and Rodney collected from the Brass Foundry.
2 Likes
The magazine and shell room sits far below the waterline now. Armor is still incorrect but being worked on. Torpedoes and tubes are in the model but not on the stat card, but the model shows a speed of 121mph (which would be fun but incorrect). Crew still shows as 15. Aced reload is still 45ish seconds which is awful.
Added, you’ve also just reminded me that she lacks any sort of torpedo protection ingame, not on statcard either but will come with armour i assume.
Aced reload is 40s, same as US standards.
The ammo module is unfinished, what you see as shell room and magazine rn is magazine and the real location of shell room is one deck over.
1 Like
True but Rodney peak reload is apparently stated according to some book sources as 1.9rpm and Navyweps 35 seconds (I know not a source)
Primary issue in the firing mechanism is the time needed for the centre gun to fire as all guns must be reloaded simultaneously or on the next cycle, but to retain accuracy guns are fired in intervals. Apparently this is why we end up with such a long reload. Of course there is the understanding that the mechanism was also not particularly great due to weight savings.
Obviously we don’t have to fire guns in intervals in-game as dispersion is tied to calibre, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t get 32-35 second reload?
Other than balance, and Scharnhorst hasn’t had her reload nerfed, nor has Amagi
2 Likes
Well I feel they should choose a point to base all reloads of like at 0° or an a midpoint between the longest and shortest
@HK_Reporter quick question (sadly I’m currently in Sweden so I can’t give better pictures since the book is back home)
Since the R-Class and the QEs got big torpedo bulges in their major refits for WW2 and we now have Archangelesk with these bulges over the main armour belt, will they enhance the protection against shells too?
(Pic is from HMS warspite)
2 Likes
They do on Tennessee, at least between the superfiring turrets, but that’s because the structure of the bulge provides enough armor equivalent to fuse the shell, while the significant depth of fuel contained in it slows the shell before impacting the belt, at which point the shell must overcome an even thicker fuel tank to damage a magazine. However it still mostly helps against smaller caliber and older shells. I wouldn’t bet on the system in your pic being as effective as it appears significantly shallower, but if there is fuel over the main belt and the system is thick enough to fuse a shell it could provide at least a little extra protection, though probably nothing game changing.
3 Likes
Is the reload set in stone? I’d be happy to find sources, but I don’t want to go through all the work if it’s just going to be closed for “balance” reasons.
I’m going to try it anyway but I will be exceptionally irritated if the reload isn’t reduced. With the Soviets getting Arkhangelsk this patch for the average un-aced crew player this ship would be worse than Arkhangelsk for in-game purposes due to her lack of game prescence comparatively and that’s assuming the armour issues are fixed and we obviously haven’t got confirmation of a UK equivalent being added.
Something like Dunkerque did not routinely achieve 30 second reloads and yet its possible in-game.
1 Like
Well I know wow is not a realistic game but they have her reload down at 30 seconds but they do try and start from semi realistic points
Nelsons afaik never achieved 30 seconds though that was the design rate, this is due to the fact that the autoloader was constructed based on the already started loaders for the G3 which were built supposedly for 16.5" shells and sub 30 seconds which is already very hard to achieve as these series of ships had exceptionally well designed flash protection, any hit to the barbette could not possibly extend into a magazine or the other flashtight area, no matter the point in the reload cycle. But it was doable.
Having reworked that into 16" shells after the first WNT revision, they didn’t fit as well maybe just doable, then you get the lightening of this by many tonnes, this unfortunately leads to speed restrictions, components being redesigned and also secureness of the mechanism being lighter, all whilst retaining the same interlocking and flash protection requirements.
Something has to suffer somewhere and this accumulated in the shells not fitting properly and the power assistance suffering, as well as the interlocking mechanisms being slower and less reliable.
30-35 seconds aced is fine to me, probably about 35 if im being fair, but equally with other ships getting a theoretical peak <30 also im not sure, id want it but only if the British 15 inch got its buff to about 26-28 seconds.
Well I reckon it should work decently in ec if it has less gun dispersion than the 15 inch guns but I have no way to test ATM due to being away for the whole dev server
They share a dispersion value I believe, i’m pretty sure thats what HK said when I asked him with reference to the Amagi’s 16" anything 15 and above has a set dispersion stat higher than the others But i could be misremembering.
Also worth noting that the 16" was less accurate than the 15" but mostly that was because the 15" was insanely accurate and actually more accurate than the second most accurate the 13.5", it was considered a failure in accuracy (the 16") but still more accurate than a lot of other guns.
For those of you guys who would like to find some source regarding the RoF, I would recommend you to write to Royal Brass Foundry [email protected] to see if they would be happy to take a look at the Ship’s Cover for you to see if there’s any document covering the reloading rate. As the secondary sources are rather contradictory to each other, I strongly doubt giving secondary source would convince them.
I would have personally travel to there to check those documents myself but unfortunately I am too busy at this moment to do that
3 Likes
As an aside relating to underperforming reloads, I’ve been doing a little more archive digging and found a record of an earlier SRBP shoot where Tennessee accomplished a 2.46rpm, significantly closer to Jurens’ 2.5rpm quote for 1930s SRBP. Do you think it would be worth making an amended report on the subject?
2 Likes