Well you see the italian crews need to stop after each shot to consume a full 3 course meal and drink good wine, whereas the russian crews only have to do a shot of vodka in betwee each shot so thats the reason for the differnce in rof
7 Likes
I think Gaijin should move away from reported reload times for ships (like they already did for tanks).
It’s clear that some nation never tested their weapons for how fast they can shoot (which is reasonable since you need time for your fire director to give you indication and corrections) and other nations that did so without regarding sustained RoF. What I mean is not just the crew ability to sustain that RoF, but also the mechanical components not breaking down. For example, the Bismarck uses a reload time that it achieved irl in a test where multiple ammo elevator broke for the stress.
It also has to be taken into account that some nations were interested in prolonging equipment life more than others so this also has to be taken into account.
I’d say the RoF of naval weapons should not be higher than what the mechanical parts could achieve reliability, but also not necessarily equal to estimates made in tests where absolute max RoF wasn’t the goal.
For example, If any battleship made a realistic engagement training they’d be firing 1 salvo per minute, but obviously that figure is nowhere near as fast as they could fire.
This way Gaijin would be able to balance things a lot more effectively and avoid situations like this 100mm reaload time difference and absurd cases like the 1min reload time of the Littorios.
6 Likes
It’s laughable how Gaijin has given the Kronstadt’s main guns the reload rate of a single-barrelled land-based gun, even though the main turrets are triple-barrelled, whilst for the Roma they’ve given it the lowest rate of fire of all those ever reported by the various sources on the subject.
It really does seem that Gaijin is keen to make Russian vehicles slightly stronger than the others.
3 Likes
Tbf, increasing the number of guns in the turret shouldn’t change the reloading speed as long as the lifts are all the same and are adequately powered.
The real question here is: did they actually check for number of charge bags and everything they did to deny the other figures for Littorio?
2 Likes
As the one who made most of the reports on those guns the answer is no, they just stuck with their idea and closed all reports.
In one of them ( Community Bug Reporting System ) I extensively reported the entire reload mechanism, how it worked and why the reload rate for the 2nd and 3rd charge shots, made to preserve gun life as the powder used on those guns was extremely aggressive on the barrel’s steel, has to be considered as the same as fired with a 1st charge ( all propellants are explosive filled, no inert ones to fix the projectile in the chamber).
The answer is always the same : Not a bug, we need a 1st charge max reload rate.
Problem: The italians never tested any of their major guns for max reload with a chamber completely filled with explosive bags as they wanted to preserve their major battleships’s barrel’s life.
They’re litterally asking for something almost impossible to acquire while other ships use theoretical or hipotetical reloads.
4 Likes
I know the Roma reload bug report history as I worked on various Roma bug reports.
I was wondering if they respect the same super strict criterias for Soyouz since I do not know much about the context and the data on the test fire they did on theland based cannon.
All 8.7 battleships got ‘balanced’ reload speed rather than historcial, as they can reload faster on loading angle(either on real test or on design)
Soviet 406 mm gun on land based platform can’t be a document about Soyuz’s relod rate as it doesn’t have power assisted mecahnism which was to be installed on Soyuz
Are you saying 8.7 battleships are reloading faster than they should or slower?
I very well know that loading angle is very important for reload speed, but war thunder does not take that into account and I though they just used the “pure” reload time as a references (so without counting the time it takes to lower and raise the gun again).
In any case, if the reload rates are all fictional I don’t see why Littorio cannot get a faster RoF considering they are the worst performing amongst top battleships
Slower.
If count on loading angle, Iowa and Soyuz would be 23~24 seconds and Yamato would be 28 seconds
The Soyouz doesn’t respect the same criteria as we have no way to know how the elevators would have worked nor how they would have managed to translate both the 406 projectile and charges into the elevators.
The only test was made with the Ansaldo’s demostrator encased in a test turret completely above ground:
You can see in the second picture the slot for the shells with the hatch open is on the bottom back of the “turret” itself, meaning that the entire system, on top of being completely above ground, also had a full rack of shells and charges ready to use.
Soyouz and Bismarck are firing faster than they should.
Bismarck is a bit of a special case as it’s using an experimental mechanism that was actually tested but suffered heavily from mechanical stress ( wich is not present in game), Soyouz is pure guesstimation using the data they had from their own 305mm guns, meaning that we don’t even know if the mechanical elevators were able to sustain that reload cycle.
All other BBs are firing slower than they would have been able to due to different reasons, like using the supposed reload during combat ( Littorios), not being able to test fire their guns due to lack of ammo ( Richelieus ) or not using the data from the tests where the guns were fixed in their reload angle ( american standard BBs and others).
It’s a bit of a double standard at the moment and finding a common ground on this matter should be the top priority for top tier naval.
2 Likes
This is community bug reporter btw…
“Excuse me, why is it needed to fix reloading of Littorio class?
No need to attach a report with player’s assumptions about reloading changes”
He is probably talking about your report.
@Smin1080p_WT Hello! Maybe you could help with this issue regarding Italian and Soviet Minisini 100 mm turrets.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PHQrNoLFU9H2
We have a long story of the same turrets/cannons having better RoF in the Soviet tree, without any modifications made, only because two nations have different values in paper sources, but now it’s literally exact the same ship, which has exact same cannons in exact same turrets and yet they have different parameters.
1 Like
28 to 40 seconds based on gun elevation.
I feel 32 is a good compromise personally.
They could even give her theoretical RoF:
I mean why not, especially if we have stuff like Soyuz, which could only get theoretical values in the game. Actually it would be healthier to give every cannon its theoretical RoF, for exact same reason (with some balance approach).
1 Like
Hello guys.
After confirming with the developers, there were indeed technical differences in the mountings that affected aiming speeds and have their own shell per gun parameters.
The rammer was also modified by soviet engineers. The differences in weight between a USSR and Italian complete AA round is ~1.5kg (6%) could make differences in ROF of gun. So the figures of both are not identical.
So as such, the figures are currently correct per each ships respective sources.
1 Like
Is it possible if we could get some documentation of this or is that not possible at this time?
Hello, thank you for your response!
Is it possible to know what sources are used which tell about such modifications provided, especially for ships received as war prizes and not purchased turrets?
That’s funny because we don’t have such round for Novorossyisk in the game…
There is only a heavier HE round (actually heavier than Italian)
Spoiler
Other ships with Minisini turrets have both shells.
Russian AA round is lighter on propellant charge, so that’s maybe what developers saids about.
Was it lighter? From what I’ve read both used 4.7 kg propellant charge.
Anyway imo it just an excuse, we don’t have worse RoF for M109G compared to M109A1 for example, or different RoF for different rounds with weight difference of the same cannon.
If they were modified then ok, I’m fine with it, even though I doubt it was done to all ships carrying these turrets, especially war prizes. Also iirc @antonioll was searching a lot through photos of both Soviet and Italian turrets and there weren’t any rammer improvements, later Italian cannons actually had some.
Source: source
Not that it would be secret documents. 100 year old gun and mount, either a fish habitat or recycled 22 times and now waiting in the grocery store to keep your tomato paste safe
1 Like