Not for everyone though.
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”
Stop saying silly thing all over again in this forum. You know it won’t happen.
There was a report and thread which provided documentation according to which it was the case!
It was even accepted and forwarded and people were enthusiastically looking forward to a change based on it. But… here we are :/
It’s a real and historical armament.
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.)
okay typical US main thoughts.
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.
whataboutism isn’t evidence.
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.
You guys are all just getting stupid putting words into other people’s mouths - I can only see the conversation deteriorating even further from here, so see ya’s all some other time.
He is saying the US BB should have abysmal 45 second reload.
One thing thats also probably affecting the reload rates is Gaijin considering the ammunition stored in American turrets as “ready racks” when it’s just ammunition thats stored in the turrets. It’s also a standard part of turret operations (ie nothing that would impact the RoF)
Navweaps has the following to say about the 14”/50 on the page for the 14”/50 Mk.4 and Mk.6:
“In 1924 the typical firing cycle was 31 seconds for a 15 degree elevation. The firing cycle consisted of lowering the gun to the loading position in 5 seconds, loading in 12 seconds, elevating the gun back up in 5 seconds and then waiting 9 seconds for the director to align and fire the guns. Once the correct range and bearing was achieved, waiting time could be reduced by not spotting shell splashes.”
IIRC the 14”/50 is the gun that was hitting a 2.2rpm in the SRBP used as evidence in my reports. In the shoot for an adjacent year it managed a 2.46. This would align with the rest of the evidence I’ve presented. The 1935-36 CINCUS report shows the early 30s modernizations can’t have reduced fire rate significantly for a mid 30s practice to have outperformed previous firings, the previous developer justification for low reload. Also, the firing used as evidence is six salvos, a rate of fire meeting or exceeding 2rpm is impossible if all salvos after the first average a 40-45 second interval.
Originally it was navweap who stated 14’’ 50 and 14’'45 as 50 seconds reload. After the report was made in War Thunder Forum did they change what they state. This kind of things also happens in Project 26 class cruiser’s 180 mm gun.
And they still state Izmail’s 356 mm gun as 3 rpm in shipborne triple turret, which is 2 rpm in standard meaning of rpm as developers figured out.
Navweaps should be only treated like wikipedia, nothing more than that. It’s not a credible source, and not the most accurate source now. Quite common in other military communities, game forum’s document’s were more accurate than non-game forums.
They have consistently stated a 1.75rpm for the later American 14” mounts the entire time I’ve used the site. If their changelog is correct the firing cycle details predate the addition of a standard battleship to this game and any reload controversy stemming from it by about 2 years, being done in April 2020. The listed firing cycle being for a 15 degree elevation means it also has nothing to do with any report quoting a SRBP as those were shot at or very near to loading angle. Their information on Soviet/Russian guns is a bit sparse but so is English language scholarship generally. I believe their quoted information I used because it doesn’t disagree with the primary sources I’ve used in my reports.
I think they simply copied the navweaps data and refused to accept other sources.
I’m no longer willing to file the report. It’s hopeless. They arrogantly refuse to accept anything more than they know.
The bug report mods do not accept navweaps as a source from what i’ve seen with many Dunkerque reports.