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
They reduce the time for gun elevation so reload time is decreased from 50 second to 40 second. Good bye.
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
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
If rate of fire can’t be changed, this ship should be helped by fixing its draft.
As of now, the magazines are overly exposed above the waterline because the hull is sitting 1.5m too high.
By giving it its actual combat load draft, the magazines and even A/D shell rooms would be protected under the waterline.
Besides, a general, mode-wide shell room fix would be the cherry on top to help American BBs.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Oh, they acknowledged that Tennessee’s draft is way too high; but said it was intentional.
XD.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eaNNa2wu1NYI
4 Likes
Even better!
1 Like
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.