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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
People immediately making this about the US Battleships. At least there the actual reload speed isnt clear historically. But here it is. Rodney should have a 30 second reload. So if it doesnt get it then there are two possible reasons why.
-
Reload is set as a balancing factor. If this is true then there are multiple ships, including the US Battleships that need reload rate changes. Historical or not.
-
The Devs arbitrarily nerfing Rodney.
Id really like an answer as to which one it is. One should open up discussion on other ships and the other shows biases weve thought existed are 100% real.
2 Likes
If they’ve decided it should have a below average reload, and it looks like they have, good luck getting them to change their mind on that. They will ultimately set it to whatever they’ve arbitrarily decided it should be regardless of what you can show it doing historically. In the case of the standards the claim was the SRBP didn’t count because it was from the 20s and they needed a primary source from the 30s saying it met or exceeded that performance to change the reload. I gave them that source coming up on half a year ago and now the reloads arbitrarily aren’t a bug despite their previous statements. This feels like it will be the same sort of situation, though at least you guys got it under 40 seconds.
They use navweapons themselves but do not accept the use of navweapons by others.
4 Likes
Honestly, at this point, I’ll take what we can get. I’d like to see the same changes for U.S. battleships as well.
However, since they are determined to ruin naval in this patch with braindead aiming and de facto adding of ship “hit points,” I don’t see myself being a naval main, or maybe even a War Thunder player much longer anyway.