The thing is, we have yet to find any post-1930 sources where the RoF can exceed 1.5rpm as in the game. You can’t assume the slow RoF in the sources is a “full firing cycle” including fire control procedures just because they appear to be slower than average. It doesn’t say one way or the other, but no change can be made without solid evidence, for example, a loading clock:
Spoiler
Besides, as 굴러온 mentioned those gun had 50 sec reload when they were first introduced in the game. Developers reduced it to 40 sec with consideration of the gun’s depression and elevation time and firing control procedures possibly involved in the sources suggesting 50s firing cycle
I think the issue most players have with this is that the historical rates of fire, as we’ve been told multiple times, are irrelevant as Gaijin can and will change them at any time for “balance reasons.” It’s a lot to ask of the player base to spend possibly months of their time tracking down sources (as some have), and submitting bug reports, only to be told it’s not going to change because of “balance.” Contrast this with ships that were never built being given a “historical” firing rate, and I think you will begin to see why this is so frustrating for so many people.
We’d like to have a either a standard that will apply to all ships, or a clear message that it’s a waste of time to submit bug reports, because fire rates are going to be arbitrarily determined to balance the gameplay.
As I explained many many times on the forum, this is a false information from misinterpretation of TrickZZter’s comment on one of the bug report. Bear in mind that TrickZZter is handling bug reports of all kind of vehicles and he was talking in a general sense rather than naval specifically. The standard of handling RoF in naval has been stated by a developer back to a Q&A thread 4 years ago and has never been changed so far: that is developers take the fastest theoretical loading rate from available historical sources.
In the case of US 14" guns, there have never been any “balancing” factors. All bug reports declined were due to insufficient/improper source material.
If it’s truly not taking balance into account then they should decrease the rate of fire on Texas even further because the New York class was not equipped with powered ramming and had an even slower fire rate.
Yes, but if I remember correctly the current reload time (US ships) is based on a firing table showing a firing cycle with a range of 20,000yd. So while some other ships have their reload based purely on the shell being rammed into the gun, the US ships are accounting for a full firing cycle of x degrees even if they may not be actually at that elevation.
On the navweaps page for the 14-inch Mk 6, it states that;
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.
I know this is from 1924, but it is important nonetheless. If the game is accounting for a full firing cycle, ie. lowering the gun, loading the gun, raising the gun, corrections; that would explain the slow reload for the US ships. However, other navies tested their reload rate based on firing as fast as possible at 0 elevation. So all that would apply to their reload rate would be the 12 second loading time, the gun elevating in 5 seconds, and the 9 seconds that the director aligns the guns: 26 seconds. The 5 seconds of elevation should be even less if the gun is just shooting at 0 degrees. Which would result in 21 seconds of just pure loading and corrections, add a few for variance in angle. This is how it is represented on other ships, for example the Japanese capital ships have reload rates based on rate of fire trials at minimum elevation.
Unless the elevation angles are taken into account on all battleships the reload rate seems like it should be lower.
How many times do HK-Reporter and I had to say ‘game is not accounting for full firing cycle’. Full firing cycle is 49~50 seconds. Gaijin takes out 10 seconds considering the fact you already saids, elevation of barrel, aligning the guns, etc.
Actually, the real ship that takes account for full firing cycle, including barrel elevation and aligning time, is Royal Navy ships. They all get records according to ‘which ships got which record in which year’, not according to manual.
They’ll just tell you they can’t find any sources and then ignore any sources in bug reports. However, if you find a Russian/Soviet ship that had a proposal written on a paper napkin and dug out of the trash, you should be able to get those changes pushed through. Good luck.
Because they aren’t valid. Why people continuously talking about 1920s stuff when turret structure is entirely different from what we have in game?
Well, we know. Gaijin just want ships to not have high survivability because they think ships survives too long.
Actually, in this game ships that have correct draft is much less than who doesn’t. This is not an issue talks about each single ships , but rather talks in independent thread about draft.
Well, I’m saying about fire rate for valid source. Anyway, yes I agree with USS Tennessee to have full dispalcement draft or highest water line, but it should not be only USS Tennessee but also all other warships in War Thunder(Alaska, Barham, Hood, Renown, Battle class destroyers, Des Moines, etc)
Specifically, it’s the only document that discusses Rates of Fire. It also shows that even in the 1920s, the ships were firing faster than what appears in the game. That said, I have been hunting for more info and have even contacted a couple of the US Museumships for more information on that documentation. So far, I’ve managed to find Gunnery logs from Texas and Nevada, which are pretty helpful, as well as some further anecdotal evidence that Texas was averaging 27 seconds per salvo during her D-Day bombardment.
It is faster in 1920s because in those times, US 14-inch battleships have ready rack inside turret, which is very dangerous for survivability. It removed during 1930s following lessons of Jutland.
I would like to see the US standards at the very least get some sort of reload buff and correct displacement. However the currently available documents don’t support a buffed reload.
I am interested in what you have on Texas though as that could be useful, provided the Texas was not sending up charges immediately following the first charge being “delivered” as ingame reload cycle begins when the gun is fired.
But the TL:DR is that the ready rack used to exist in the turret, this allowed for the charges and such to be closer to the gun breach, they didnt have to be brought up from the magazines (which also doesn’t reflect great on the loader because theyre so close to gun breach and yet still only manage a relatively average reload). This was corrected as a detonation risk, however that increased reload logically.
Imagine an MBT with 4 second autoloader gets a human loader, you would be using autoloader documents to prove the speed of a manual loader in this analogy.
I had discussed that with the Curator of Battleship Texas. However, he was somewhat confused as to what I meant by it. He stated that there were never “ready racks” in the turrets. He said what is usually seen on the turret blueprints is spare ammunition, which was a standard part of turret operations, nothing special like a ready rack, which is very interesting.
Aye, I’m currently still in discussion with him about all that; I’ll keep you all appraised as I find stuff on it. I might also be contacting a few other curators, so we’ll see what that brings
I recently found that the shell storage inside the turret, regardless they are ready racks or spare ammo, had never been removed, as the damage report of the USS Arizona stated as follows:
(b) It is believed from conversations with personnel that was attached to the ship at that time, that the contents of the forward magazines prior to the attack on 7 December, 1941, were about as follows: 308 - 14" shells in each turret, Nos. 1 and 2, on turret shell decks and in handling rooms, 1st platform.
That aligns with what the Curator of Battleship Texas was stating. If we consider the ammunition in the turret was just a normal part of turret operations, then It’s quite likely that the 1920s report is accurate in terms of RoF even for the later refit ships
