+1
40 second reload (ace crew) is a bad way to nerf USA.
To be fair the standards are a ‘Pre-WNT’ design and Colorado doesn’t really change this it just swaps the triples for twins. Whereas NoCal is a post-WNT design and includes escalator clause measures and therefore could be expected to compete with WNT designs (though you can’t use that as a rule because the difference between the worst WNT design Lexington and the best G3 is absolutely massive).
But I agree that decompression and rebalance is needed, and also just some balanced additions like thats the hardest task xD…
apparently the hardest thing for naval is keeping it balanced and having parity
1 Like
I find it ironic, as ships are almost always designed to offer a domestic alternative to somebody elses class with minor improvements, of course there are some big outliers, like Yamato, or the German lines of commerce raiders, but even those have planned counters or rough equivalents.
All that and yet somehow it manages to have the worst balance possibly ever seen. `
2 Likes
That’s true. There were gun trials conducted after the refit however it doesn’t test the best possible reload rate but the rate of fire in a combat environment.
During the trials, they concluded that the rate of fire was much longer than expected.
Factors that effected it’s rate of fire was:
- crew training
- test condition
- observer presence
- officer training
- ammunition supply
- mechanical issues
- salvo composition
- range of shots(19km to 25km)
– some salvos were air spotted
But most of what affected it the most is the sustained rate of fire.
Majority of these factors don’t directly impact the reload rate itself but I’m curious what WT did to calculate the reload rate of the tennesse. What factors did the include/exclude. And do they apply the same rules to other BBs?
I’m still trying to find actual documentation of the gun trials however, I can’t seem to find any.
That’s actually fair for the Japanese 41cm guns, as the actual reload at low elevations for them was found to have been 21.5 seconds. Still, the rate of fire I usually see cited for American 14 inch 45 and 50 caliber guns on every class other than the New York class is 1.5-1.75 rounds per minute, so they are definitely on the slower end in game.
In terms of main armament it is definitely the best in the game. As far as everything else goes, not so much. It has mediocre armor, decent speed but a horrible turn radius, massive ammunition storage that will explode very often, and absolutely no anti-air armament since the 120mm guns don’t even have time fuse. Despite all that though, it can definitely be a fun vehicle to play, and I personally would recommend it to experienced naval players.
Sorry which ship are you referring to?
I meant Amagi
I was afraid you’d say that. Disappointing. I kinda don’t like playing fake “project” vehicles. Too illusion-breaking.
That’s fair, although the Amagi class battlecruisers and Tosa class battleships would probably be the two classes of “project” ships that were the most plausible to have been completed. After all, the finished the hulls and turrets enough to make good use both of them, and Japan kinda has a history of not following naval treaties and ignoring the League of Nations.
Actually those 21.5 seconds could be archived from ‘modernized’ turrets of 1930s on Nagato class. On pre-modernized turrets, 24.5 seconds is fastest speed they can get.
Also for standard battleships the reload speed is ‘fastest’ according to the manual Gaijin looked at. When USS Arizona first implemented it was 50 seconds at ace.
But again, the “modernized” turrets for the Nagato class were actually the ones that had been built for the canceled Amagi and Tosa classes, the only differences being an increase in elevation and an increase in armor. So with the turrets that Amagi has modeled in game, it would be possible to achieve the 21.5 second load time.
Definitely not. During the modernisation of the Nagatos, changes were made to the gun elevation and shell loading systems, which ultimately led to the faster reload rate.
1 Like
It seems you are correct. Do you have any details on what the specific changes to the loading system were? Just curious to see
I suppose you mean this:
Spoiler
Unfortunately, this would not help in suggesting an increase in RoF, in fact it is more like evidence suggesting that the RoF in the game is somehow correct, as the shortest interval achieved between salvos was 49 seconds, and the average firing cycle was even much worse.
1 Like
I didn’t suggest one way or the other; rather, just a piece of related information as to what the US Navy attempted in the early period of the US’ involvement in World War 2.
Does current War Thunder take the reload rate from here, meaning that it was zeroing the gun, then loading the shell, then reaiming the gun as a “full” firing cycle? Or does it just consider the time it takes to physically load the shell into the gun?
In other words, what “makes” the reload rate? Is it just loading the projectile into the gun? Because if this is going by time between salvoes then that seems somewhat unfair…? if everything else is going by pure shell-into-gun speed
1 Like
If they are using tests like this to determine fire rate, then why are they not using similar metrics to determine rate of fire for other capital ships? This test was conducted at 19,000-28,000 yards, which would mean the guns would need to be elevated significantly above their loading angle of 0 degrees, whereas for other capital ships it seems that they take the maximum possible rate of fire when the guns are at or near their loading angle. That’s the only possible way you have Japanese 41cm guns with a 24 second reload.
1 Like
That’s my biggest question too. There’s so many factors that play into the rate of fire and I’m wondering if how they determine the ROF is applied equally across all ships (which is most likely not the case).
@HK_Reporter , do you know any more details about this?
1 Like