So HMS Rodney got a rate of fire buff on the Dev server, from 1.5rpm to 1.7rpm. (40 second reload down to a 35 second reload). This is a welcome change as it makes her much more competitive with the 2.2rpm of the Japanese 16" guns. I believe the source for this was the chart in the image below.
Rodney clearly managed a 30 second reload on these trials. When using full salvos and spotting being done from the ship board fire control. So Rodney’s reload should be 30 seconds with an aced crew. Its right there in black and white, whether the Devs consider it necessary shouldn’t matter. If we are basing reload speed of historical accuracy. Which has been cited as the reason for Japanese 16" guns getting a 25 second reload and US 14" guns having a 40 second reload.
But if reload is a balancing factor then ive got a suggestion for a ship that needs its reload speed doubled to stop it from dominating.
Quite different on ground and naval. On ground it is balancing factor, but on naval, it is usually as fast as possible in record(with turret reload, not one gun reload)
I wish American BBs had the reload Rodney is getting…
Instead all bug reports keep being rejected. So we eat a 40 second aced reload (42 full + expert) on every capital ship, which spikes to a whole full minute whenever elevators are damaged, and even longer if there’s a repair going on…
No they aren’t. Except for something called 1927 firing result, other records(including official crew manual) fits current reload time. Actually, current reload time is shorter than those manuals
As stated upward, official realod time on crew manual is 45 seconds for 16’'/45 of Colorado
For most ships, it is indeed as fast as technically possible and recorded. That’s why we have Japanese 410s with 25 second reloads and Scharnhorsts with 20 second reloads.
But ah, for American Battleships, it’s the conservative, average standard official reload, even if they were proven to be able to reload 10-15 seconds faster in gunnery records.
So, as far as I know, they got a double standard for American BBs.
Have to question if those ‘2.2 RPM’ of 1927 test is measured with empty guns. There are certainly the cases that RPM is measured with firing already loaded guns. That’s why Izmail’s gun is officially stated as 3 RPM, but developers considered it is 30 seconds actually.
Especially with defect with standard battleship due to weight limitage and narrow barbette given by Parliament, I’m highly doubt that standard battleship would have technological advance
ok then. if we have to get 45 second reload time for “historical reasons” which puts US battleships at a major disadvantage, then surely we can also get mk23 Katie shells for “historical reasons”
No they aren’t. Just people saying is ‘it is 2.2 RPM!’ without seriously considering about condition which I said, then forwarded to developers.
Actually which clearly go behind in reload is case of Royal Navy, not only in the case of Rodney, but also 15’'s which clearly has evidence of 25 seconds reload per turret(actually, there are some claim that Repulse and Renown has record of even faster reload, but I’ll don’t consider it as no official document yet on this forum.)
Not the point - I was asking for evidence that Gaijin doesn’t use reload times as a balancing mechanism in naval.
normally asking for a negative is not reasonable, but in this case we have ample evidence that reload is used for balancing and AFAIK it has never been specified that it is only for some modes and not others.
So I think it is reasonable to ask for evideence that balancing is only for ground (say) and not naval.
See all the US destroyers and 6.0 light cruisers reload, along with Scharnhorst and Japanese 16’'. ‘Reload for balancing’ never does fit to those ships.
So US naval should be stuck with abysmal reload when it’s possible to be higher? I think they should then lower BR of US BB or increase BR of fast firing 16in to balance it out.
